PDA

View Full Version : Matthew Rees Line-out taken too quickly - revisited



L'irlandais
16-03-11, 11:03
Hello all,
Yes I know it's a third discussion on the subject, bear with me, I want to introduce a couple of new elements to the debate :
Item A
Here is an analysis on last Saturday’s “mess” by the South Africian Rubgy referees :

http://www.sareferees.co.za/news/ref_news/2704361.htm

Two things come out of this 1 - Concerns over the ball and the mark are not of interest since it is a normal line out.
2 - The ball went out of play. Given that a Quick throw is not possible from this position then play must be called back ; as the Welsh player infringed at the restart. Ignore the controversy about the try, for the purposes of this practical discussion . Having read both the SARR article (& crossref's so, a quickly taken line-out then (http://www.rugbyrefs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11979&page=2) thread, it is still unclear to me what choice the referee should make (in the unlikely chance we are ever again faced with such a rare infringement in the future. Perhaps that make this more of a theoretical discussion.) Which is considered the first infringement in this particular incident? (That's if Law 8.5 (a) can be applied in this case.)

Is it 19.2 (b) - no quick throw was possible from the mark. = come back to the mark, for a Welsh throw-in to a normal line-out.
or 19.8 (a) - not 2 welsh players in the lineout at the moment of the throw. = Free kick to green on the 15 metre line.

Item B
For those like myself outside the UK here is a Rugby Dump clip of the Line out (http://rugbydump.blogspot.com/2011/03/mike-phillips-controversial-try-sets-up.html).It was a right mess, not wishing to "right the wrong" rather to see what can be learned from the mistake. Being new to the Laws of the Game, from this side of the whistle, I want to know how can we (outside of TV-land) restart. For example, was the infringement before the throw-in ; Law 2.6 has Matthew Rees sought to gain an unfair (illegal) advantage by using the spare ball. Possible Yellow card + free kick to green on the 15 metre line in line with the original mark. (Or am I going too far here?) Perhaps the media's obsession about the ball is really a "red herring".


Any thoughts? (Please steer away from the controversy over the try, it's not meant to be a "Mike Phillips try revisited" discussion!)

andyscott
16-03-11, 11:03
For what its worth, I think the AR was correct.

The lineout was formed, it was taken quickly. Not a quick throw in!!

The question asked was, was it the correct ball. (not was it the same ball) AR said it was a quick lineout.

Here it the picture, lineout is formed, 2 from each side. :D

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/forums/imagehosting/thumb_17134d8095c184ad7.jpg (http://www.rugbyrefs.com/forums/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=338)

crossref
16-03-11, 11:03
these pics show conclusively no welsh players on LOT, and only one Irish player

corect restart: IMO a PK to Ireland for deliberate infringement, but no YC

http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o35/smartcooky99/LO1.jpg
http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o35/smartcooky99/lo2.jpg

L'irlandais
16-03-11, 11:03
Cheers crossref,
I have a feeling andy was being unhelpful.
In that he completely ignores Davet's valid point (http://www.rugbyrefs.com/forums/showpost.php?p=152398&postcount=8) : in the other thread.
19.8 (e) If the team throwing in the ball put fewer than the usual number of players in the lineout, their opponents must be given a reasonable time to move enough players out of the lineout to satisfy this Law.

Penalty: Free Kick on the 15-metre line

andyscott
16-03-11, 12:03
Cheers crossref,
I have a feeling andy was being unhelpful.
In that he completely ignores Davet's valid point (http://www.rugbyrefs.com/forums/showpost.php?p=152398&postcount=8) : in the other thread.

No allowing to reduce is only for my mind so they dont get pinged.

I reckon its still a lineout with a nice big gap ;)

It also cant be a quick throw, not matter about the ball as the AR has is right arm, therefore no quick throw.

TheBFG
16-03-11, 12:03
For what its worth, I think the AR was correct.

The lineout was formed, it was taken quickly. Not a quick throw in!!

The question asked was, was it the correct ball. (not was it the same ball) AR said it was a quick lineout.

Here it the picture, lineout is formed, 2 from each side. :D

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/forums/imagehosting/thumb_17134d8095c184ad7.jpg (http://www.rugbyrefs.com/forums/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=338)

NO WAY! of the two you've arrowed the one on the left is not in the lineout. If you look at the clip above from RugbyDump, at 2.25 into the clip while Jiffy is given his expert opinion you can see that the player you arrowed on the left is not in the LO, he's stood at least 5-7m from the LO. MP is in the LO and there are at least 4 Ire players, so sorry that one won't wash:wink:

crossref
16-03-11, 12:03
I don't think the issue here is reduced numbers...

I don't think for a moment the Welsh pair were thinking 'well, I know the QT isn't on, but I reckon this qualifies as a quickly taken lineout, just as long as #4 is arguably standing close enough to the LOT... etc etc'

I just think he picked a ball, saw a player running and chanced his arm, thinking (if he thought at all) that the worst that would happen was that the LO would be retaken.

PK for deliberate offending.

crossref
16-03-11, 12:03
to be more explicit - I reckon that if you had asked Rees immediately afterwards what he had done
- I bet HE would have said he that he had taken a QT
- (and he would have known it wasn't a proper one)

L'irlandais
16-03-11, 12:03
...I just think he picked a ball, saw a player running and chanced his arm, thinking (if he thought at all) that the worst that would happen was that the LO would be retaken.

PK for deliberate offending.I agree that it was a "spur of the moment" thing when the hooker threw-in the ball. So I guess the PK could be on.
You are right about not going for the card in that case.

OB..
16-03-11, 12:03
If you are looking for theory rather than discussion of the particular facts, then the problem is: How do I distinguish a Quick Throw-in from a quickly taken lineout?

1) Review the criteria for a QT. If the situation passes all of them, it is a QT.
The difficult one is often whether or not a lineout has formed - that is a judgement call. It formally requires a minimum of 2 players from each team on at the line of touch, but with players milling around precision is impossible.

2) Has the team throwing in quickly to the lineout complied with the requirements? If not apply the appropriate sanction. If they have ...

3) Have their opponents been given time to make any necessary adjustments (numbers)? My theory is that if the throwing team can form up, then so can the opposition, who should not be allowed to delay things.

Casey Bee
16-03-11, 12:03
Exception 3: When, at a quick throw-in, the ball that went into touch is replaced by another ball, or after it went into touch or it has been touched by anyone except the player who takes the throw-in, the touch judge or assistant referee keeps the flag up.

It was part of the touch judge's primary function to keep his flag up to indicate that the ball was not available to be thrown in quickly.

Above from SARR doesn't make sense. The second sentence implies he should have kept his flag up to indicate no Quick Throw available. BUT he has otherwise clearly indicated that he was not judging it to be QT (both his arm sign and verbal communication) , so why would he leave his flag up?

L'irlandais
16-03-11, 12:03
Hello OB,
I think I do mean a practical discussion. Imagine it's not an International match, but instead it's me at the whistle, at local level.
The line out has been taken too quickly. I turn around and see that the touch-judge's flag is still raised.

(Kevin, He is leaving the flag up to signal to the ref, that an error in judgement has occured. In TV-land, this was maybe not an option. ~shrug~ That's for one of the other threads.)

I now need to restart the game, but how? Any of us could mess up during a match, my question is how can I credibly restart after messing up.
(For the purposes of the discussion, all other events happen as per the video, kick straight to touch, ball touched by supporter, hooker using a spare ball & not waiting for the line-out to form.)

andyscott
16-03-11, 12:03
Flag up, incorrect throw (at line out)

Arm up, QT opportunity now gone ;)

ianh5979
16-03-11, 12:03
Flag up, incorrect throw (at line out)

Arm up, QT opportunity now gone ;)

Andy if it is a local ref, he wont have Ar's so would we let the TJ signal for incorrect throw(let alone know what the signal is?)

L'irlandais
16-03-11, 12:03
Cheers andy,
Given that TJs here might not be so clued up on the laws, I be happy with either siganl, to draw my attention to the cock-up.
(Let's imagine Ian, that it's a local coach, and I have confidence in his judgement, as seen in the video. Part of my error, would be not to listen to the TJ.
If I allow the subsequent try, I will have the rath of the visiting club on my back for a long time to come.)

Davet
16-03-11, 12:03
In theoretical terms then I would strongly advise that a lineout be managed, ensuring it is legally formed, with offside lines honoured and players in the correct places.

If they try to take a QT fair enough, but bring them back and get them to do it at a line out - which is waht the law says to do. I'd suggest that approach rather than try to actually ping things as if it were a uickly taken throw - simply say "Not available - <insert reason here>, lets do it properly, gents."

In the specific - if that was a Welsh lineout, then A0 they didn't allow the Irish time to adjust, and regardless of Andyscott's view the Law says they get that chance - and even if that was ignored, and the fact that no welsh players were on line of touch (Big gap!!!!! yeah right:wink: ), then how about the not straight throw, or even the fcat that about 6 welsh players were infiled of the 15 and not 10m back, how clear a case of offside do you want?

That was NOT a legal move, whichever way you cut it.

L'irlandais
16-03-11, 12:03
Thanks Davet,
Let's forget Jonathan Kaplan for a minute, I'm happy to hold my hand up for this mess. (Delighted in fact, as for once we have video footage available.)

The last time video footage was available the FFR wouldn't give it to me, because the (then) assesor made some disparaging remarks on it appearantly.
- Not seen it, so can't comment.

Casey Bee
16-03-11, 12:03
Hello OB,
I think I do mean a practical discussion. Imagine it's not an International match, but instead it's me at the whistle, at local level.
The line out has been taken too quickly. I turn around and see that the touch-judge's flag is still raised.

(Kevin, He is leaving the flag up to signal to the ref, that an error in judgement has occured. In TV-land, this was maybe not an option. ~shrug~ That's for one of the other threads.)

I now need to restart the game, but how? Any of us could mess up during a match, my question is how can I credibly restart after messing up.
(For the purposes of the discussion, all other events happen as per the video, kick straight to touch, ball touched by supporter, hooker using a spare ball & not waiting for the line-out to form.)

It was part of the touch judge's primary function to keep his flag up to indicate that the ball was not available to be thrown in quickly.
I think you are missing my point. They are implying he should have left his flag up. He didn't and should not have done, contrary to what they state.

andyscott
16-03-11, 12:03
For what its worth.

In the community game, I would keep an eye on the ball.

For a quick lineout. Just a quick peep. Come on lads thats a mess, do it properly, nice gaps, straighten at the back please. right lets go.

Or walking into to the line then going straight up. PEEP, right lads stop messing about, line has to be straight and formed, your not dancing on the way in, and you are likely to close the gap.

Should sort it out.

As for quick throws at the community level, if you think its ok, let them go, if doubtful, peep line marked lads or if you really are stuck, peep, sorry lads TJ had his arm up ;) pressure off you :D

L'irlandais
16-03-11, 12:03
...I think you are missing my point...Oops,
I was going along the lines that I'd mistakenly thought a QT was on. The Touch Judge calls my attention to it, by keeping his flag raised.
(Being thick, got me into this mess. So Kevin, perhaps I am missing the point, sorry if I am.)

Andy,
Seriously, my question is this, the Quick throw wasn't on, the Line out wasn't formed, etc... What do you think I should do now to restart?

Casey Bee
16-03-11, 12:03
Hello OB,
I think I do mean a practical discussion. Imagine it's not an International match, but instead it's me at the whistle, at local level.
The line out has been taken too quickly. I turn around and see that the touch-judge's flag is still raised.

(Kevin, He is leaving the flag up to signal to the ref, that an error in judgement has occured. In TV-land, this was maybe not an option. ~shrug~ That's for one of the other threads.)

I now need to restart the game, but how? Any of us could mess up during a match, my question is how can I credibly restart after messing up.(For the purposes of the discussion, all other events happen as per the video, kick straight to touch, ball touched by supporter, hooker using a spare ball & not waiting for the line-out to form.)

I'm not totally sure at what point you are saying you realise you messed up?? They scored the try but you are not happy with what happened at the LO and you know you are not happy with what happened? Personally I'd say 'let's do the line out properly' and that would be it.

Casey Bee
16-03-11, 12:03
Oops,
I was going along the lines that I'd mistakenly thought a QT was on. The Touch Judge calls my attention to it, by keeping his flag raised.
(Being thick, got me into this mess. So Kevin, perhaps I am missing the point, sorry if I am.)


L'i. Sorry I wasn't making the original remark based on your 'personalised' version but purely what SARR appeared to be stating. Sure, if you had assumed a QT AND TJ leaves his flag up, it is indication that there's a problem. [All this does assume you have A TJ/AR who knows the protocol, as others have pointed out]

L'irlandais
16-03-11, 12:03
Fine, thanks Kevin,
So for you it's. 19.2 (b) - no quick throw was possible from the mark. = come back to the mark, for a Red throw-in to a normal line-out.

My only problem is that, this is giving Red "two bites at the cherry", since it's their hooker who has taken advantage of my unsureness/miscommunication with touch judge.

The Fat
16-03-11, 13:03
I would blow and restart with the proper lineout to be taken and perhaps a quick word to the hooker not to be trying that one on again.

JK obviously let this go as a quick lineout so why did he ask the AR the question, "Was it the correct ball?"

L'irlandais
16-03-11, 13:03
Cheers The Fat,
It was in the confusion of the moment, ref thought a Quick throw was still on, while he was still "marking" the Line-out. :~ Confusion reigns some times.

Both you & Kevin Boothroyd suggest 19.2 (b) - no quick throw was possible from the mark. = come back to the mark, for a Red throw-in to a normal line-out.
I tend to go along with crossref it is 19.8 (e) Must allow green time to match reduced numbers = Free kick to green on the 15 metre line.

Casey Bee
16-03-11, 13:03
Cheers The Fat,
It was in the confusion of the moment, ref thought a Quick throw was still on, while he was still "marking" the Line-out. :~ Confusion reigns some times.

Both you & Kevin Boothroyd suggest 19.2 (b) - no quick throw was possible from the mark. = come back to the mark, for a Red throw-in to a normal line-out.
I tend to go along with crossref it is 19.8 (e) Must allow green time to match reduced numbers = Free kick to green on the 15 metre line.

I have to base decisions on the games I'm reffing... in which case, the vast majority are fairly naive/ highly amateur affairs. If the LO is a mess and someone tries to take it quickly (NOT a QT) and it's really not going to serve the game any great purpose then I'll just say something along the lines of 'let's do it properly' (can add in reason why). I don't ever recall having complaints about this.

L'irlandais
16-03-11, 13:03
Okay guys,
It is now abundantly clear. Thanks for the comments.

I will go along with 19.2 (b) - no quick throw was possible from the mark. = come back to the mark, for a Red throw-in to a normal line-out.
= Equitable call, given the circumstances & that much of the confusion was created by myself as referee.

End of discussion from my point of view. (Unless others see things differently)

crossref
16-03-11, 13:03
there's an essential judgement to make, IMO

1 was the player trying to take a QT, or a QTL ?
2 if he was taking a QT, did he know full well the QT wasn't on (he was cheating) or was he not thinking

in youth rugby I am normally going to give the benefit of the doubt on (2) and peep and 'no have that again'.

in test rugby, if the ball has been kicked into the stands, 20m down field, I had no doubt Rees knew what he was doing

paul mc
16-03-11, 13:03
For what its worth.

In the community game, I would keep an eye on the ball.

For a quick lineout. Just a quick peep. Come on lads thats a mess, do it properly, nice gaps, straighten at the back please. right lets go.

Or walking into to the line then going straight up. PEEP, right lads stop messing about, line has to be straight and formed, your not dancing on the way in, and you are likely to close the gap.

Should sort it out.

As for quick throws at the community level, if you think its ok, let them go, if doubtful, peep line marked lads or if you really are stuck, peep, sorry lads TJ had his arm up ;) pressure off you :D

I agree with Andy....at my level of reffing this would be how I would handle it

SimonSmith
16-03-11, 13:03
The easiest way to manage it is to NOT let yourself get into the position.

If the a QT looks like even a remote possibility, then be positive in your management of that by watching the ball and the players. Get upfield quickly.

If a legal QT is taken I call "play on" to let everyone know that I'm happy with it - otherwise most of the mouthbreathers stand there looking bemused.

The key is to be positive in your management and not reactive.

Ian_Cook
17-03-11, 05:03
andy scott, you are either being mischievous or playing the devils advocate. You cannot seriously believe that the Welsh had "formed" a line-out.


19.8 FORMING A LINEOUT
(a) Minimum. At least two players from each team must form a lineout.

(d) When the ball is in touch, every player who approaches the line of touch is presumed to do so to form a lineout. Players who approach the line of touch must do so without delay. Players of either team must not leave the lineout once they have taken up a position in the lineout until the lineout has ended.The player who caught the ball is the only Red player who approached the LoT. Red 4, who you consider to be the second player, is 8m from the LoT and walking AWAY not approaching it.

No other Red player are within 15m of the touchline, so even if they are in line with where the LoT is, they cannot be considered on or approaching line of touch. For a player to be "at the line of touch", I would need him to be at least within a metre of it somewhere along its length.

Also, the player throwing in is not on the LoT (which he must be if it is a line out.) he has a foot in the field of play, and the throw is not straight.



19.6 HOW THE THROW-IN IS TAKEN
The player taking the throw-in must stand at the correct place. The player must not step into the field of play when the ball is thrown. The ball must be thrown straight, so that it travels at least 5 metres along the line of touch before it first touches the ground or touches or is touched by a player.For me THESE are the first infringements. The throw is incorrect for these three reasons. That the Welsh have failed to form a line-out only becomes apparent once the ball is thrown in.

Therefore, IMCO, we come back to the line of touch, options to the Irish.


19.7 INCORRECT THROW-IN
(a) If the throw-in at a lineout is incorrect, the opposing team has the choice of throwing in at a lineout or a scrum on the 15-metre line. If they choose the throw-in to the lineout and it is again incorrect, a scrum is formed. The team that took the first throw-in throws in the ball.I cannot see how any other decision is possible.

Davet
17-03-11, 09:03
My view would be that the Welsh had tried to take a QT, but that option was dead because the ball went into the crowd, and had been touched by others, and that a different ball was used. Clearly it was not - for several reasons - a formed line out, so it could only be a QT attempt (and I suspect that was JK's mindset as well).

The Law provides an explicit and simple remedy for an attempted QT which is not viable - it simply says stop play and form a lineout, same side throwing, 19.2.d

crossref
17-03-11, 10:03
.

If a legal QT is taken I call "play on" to let everyone know that I'm happy with it - otherwise most of the mouthbreathers stand there looking bemused.



reffing junior rugby: I do that as well...

...but now it occurs to me that perhaps we are wrong to do so, as this shout clearly benefis just one team, the defenders.

QT are quite rare in U15, u14, u13 say - if the away team does a QT, the only QT of the game, and my call of 'play-on' alerts one of the bemused home (ie my club) team defenders, who then makes a try-saving tackle, perhaps my call of 'play-on' won't seem so clever.... might even seem partisan/biased :(

Davet
17-03-11, 10:03
The shout simply confirms to everyone that the ref is happy with the QT, it benefits all the players and the spectators.

We don't really want to collude with the attackers to keep the state of play a secret do we?:)

crossref
17-03-11, 10:03
maybe i worry too much

certainly the few QTs I have seen at young levels produce some bemusement and a shout of 'quick throw, play on' came very naturally ..

L'irlandais
17-03-11, 12:03
Hello Davet,
While I agree with 19.2 (d) ; however in light of the SA refs analysis ; Ian may have a valid point.

We have had several proposals so far :

The Fat #24 & Kevin Boothroyd #22 suggest 19.2 (b) - no QT was possible from the mark. = come back to the mark, for a Red throw-in to a normal line-out.
Which seems to me to be about right at community level. Since while arguably the hooker has sought to take advantage of the confusion, the ref could give the benefit of the doubt. Why, because the ref caused the confusion in the first place. (Once again please forget about the TV-land aspect to this, as I feel it generates unhelpful comments.) Put yourself in the ref's boots and think how can I restart from the mess I have created.
I hear what folks are saying, at the dismal level I'm at the chances of the TJ being that clued up are pretty slight. For the sake of arguement, let's accept that (as was the case in the video) the TJ is spot-on.

Other suggestions so far are
crossref #28 (& your good self #8 (http://www.rugbyrefs.com/forums/showpost.php?p=152398&postcount=8) in that other discussion, Davet) 19.8 (e) Must allow green time to match reduced numbers = Free kick to green on the 15m.
Ian cook's helpful post #31 19.7 INCORRECT THROW-IN - Option to green of throwing in at the lineout or a scrum on the 15 metre line.I would say to Ian, my only problem with that is that the ball was still dead when red infringed.
Maybe (just maybe) it's a bit like a scrum-half messing up a quick tap. Best to stop play and restart correctly, ignoring the mistake. (Go easy on me, I'm not great on restarts, since my mind is generally still racing to see if I saw what I thought I saw. Notice too that the referee is already policing the channel several metres forward of the mark, with only 1 green player paying attention to the AR.) Perhaps the quick tap senario is unhelpful since the referee has made the mark, before green were where the ref wanted them. Only the aspect of Ref creating confusion fits the bill of what we saw in this video clip.

ps. Thanks to those who had played along, I dislike the threads on here which lower themselves to slagging matches.
From my point of view I've had some decent feed back, & can perhaps learn something (albeit from some one else's mistake.)

Mickman
17-03-11, 12:03
reffing junior rugby: I do that as well...

...but now it occurs to me that perhaps we are wrong to do so, as this shout clearly benefis just one team, the defenders.

QT are quite rare in U15, u14, u13 say - if the away team does a QT, the only QT of the game, and my call of 'play-on' alerts one of the bemused home (ie my club) team defenders, who then makes a try-saving tackle, perhaps my call of 'play-on' won't seem so clever.... might even seem partisan/biased :(

I think calling play-on is letting BOTH sides (and spectators if need be) know that you are happy to continue.

I also call 'play-on' reffing ALL rugby, junior and senior. Why not? I manage the game to keep it flowing as much as possible - I'm not there to commentate and I don't talk unless I have to, but I'm there to get/ keep BOTH sides running, tackling, kicking and playing for as much of their game time as they are willing...

I will call 'play-on', any time in the game I am happy with a situation and that even one player may stop and question (e.g. knock sideways, where other refs would rather go with league convention any time the ball hits the ground and call knock on and take a breather with a scrum)... I just do it ASAP. PLAY-ON!!! that's what we are here to do!!!

L'irlandais
17-03-11, 12:03
Hi mhughe15,
The only problem is that in the context of this discussion, that's what the ref did, play on. This only served to compound the error, not least becuase it led to a match winning score. JK's efforts for flowing rugby and decisive calls is part of what created the "injustice". It can't be good for the game at any level, community or otherwise if on top of making a huge cock-up, I then go on to say "Play the whistle." Because green's entire pack were playing the whistle. In fact all I succeeded in doing is rewarding red for not playing my whistle, since the only possible restart here is a set piece, be it LO or perhaps a scrum option. Depending on one's point of view, on the hooker's intent.

PS. I go along with your motto *SAFETY, fun, law*
But to be fair, it's not much fun for green to lose a game (even if it's only an U11 local derby game) simply because the ref got his laws mixed up. It's the kind of thing that makes a kid go off to try another sport. It is why I left judo to come to rugby.

Mickman
17-03-11, 13:03
Sorry was quoting out of context of the whole thread... Every video I have found of this incident QT/ lineout not formed etc has not had any sound so not sure whether that enables me to make a judgement? Maybe it does cause I could make up my mind just from what I see?

Davet
17-03-11, 13:03
L'ir

My comment re not allowing the opposition time to reduce numbers was part of an arguement that was baiscally this was neither a QT not could it be (for several reasons) a QTL.

I think at community level we should not over analyse these issues (actually I would take that stance at International level as well, but that's above my pay grade).

I see the simplest and cleanest solution which works all round as simply saying <PEEEEEP!!!> (quite loud so as to stop play) "Quick Throw not available, Gents - Line out here"

The biggest problem refs have is when they are not sure - and the advice there is simple and obvious - be sure - you acheive that by making sure you watch the ball when it's in touch, (sometimes easier said than done, but practice of multi-tasking and switching and re-switching your focus will help).

If a QT is on get there fast, and get into the tramlines upstream of who ever has the ball. From there you can see clearly what happens.

If a legal QT is taken - then call loud and clear "Play on!"

L'irlandais
17-03-11, 13:03
Cheers Davet,
Sound advice.

mhughe15
I do like OB's post about "the 4 stages of competence."
I would guess with the "white noise" currently clouding my decisions, I'm at stage of being concious of my own incompetence.
Which is appearantly, about the stage where one is most likely to "throw in the towel".

In the context of this discussion, we expect Elite referees to be at some sort of "Fifth level of competence". ie. One where the Elite ref is very concious of his own "second nature" skills. Sadly it would seem (from the facts of the case which lie before us) that this level of competence doesn't really exist.

SimonSmith
17-03-11, 13:03
I think calling play-on is letting BOTH sides (and spectators if need be) know that you are happy to continue.

I also call 'play-on' reffing ALL rugby, junior and senior. Why not? I manage the game to keep it flowing as much as possible - I'm not there to commentate and I don't talk unless I have to, but I'm there to get/ keep BOTH sides running, tackling, kicking and playing for as much of their game time as they are willing...

I will call 'play-on', any time in the game I am happy with a situation and that even one player may stop and question (e.g. knock sideways, where other refs would rather go with league convention any time the ball hits the ground and call knock on and take a breather with a scrum)... I just do it ASAP. PLAY-ON!!! that's what we are here to do!!!

You can call play back after calling "play on" if you then realize that there is an issue.
You can't do that if you stop play.

L'irlandais
22-03-11, 15:03
You can call play back after calling "play on" if you then realize that there is an issue.
You can't do that if you stop play.Hi Simon,
I know this may be viewed as a "he wouldn't let it lie" sort of comment. Anyway, Part of the problem is that JK had stopped play. The illegal start cannot be viewed as a "play on"-type situation, since green's entire pack are playing the whistle. Why should they have responded to a farcical QT attempt from the opponent's hooker, when a QT clearly wasn't on.

crossref
22-03-11, 15:03
a good point

Phil E
22-03-11, 15:03
since green's entire pack are playing the whistle. Why should they have responded to a farcical QT attempt from the opponent's hooker, when a QT clearly wasn't on.

Not sure I understand this.

You blow your whistle when the ball goes into touch. That whistle does not prevent a Quick Throw.

For them not to react because they are "playing to the whistle" doesn't make sense, since a whistle is not going to be blown in that scenario?

L'irlandais
22-03-11, 15:03
Well Phil,
Perhaps "playing the whistle" is the wrong expression. Green's pack and 9 are reacting to the referee's body language. The ref blew the whistle & play was called back because the ball had gone straight into touch. The referee is in the process of marking the place where he wants the channel, (refer to crossref's post #3 (http://www.rugbyrefs.com/forums/showpost.php?p=152712&postcount=3)) 2 metres further back from where his AR has flagged, but who's counting.

You cannot have it both ways, the referee cannot start to marshall the defending pack into Line out positions & subsequent allow the attacking team to carry on as if he had not called for the line out.

Had red's scrum-half made immediate use of the ball back on his own 22 metre line, then I could see "play on" being called albeit wrongly (since that ball had been touched by the crowd).

Phil E
22-03-11, 15:03
You cannot have it both ways, the referee cannot start to marshall the defending pack into Line out positions & subsequent allow the attacking team to carry on as if he had not called for the line out.

Does the referee call for a lneout?

Ball goes into touch, ref blows whistle.

Ref walks to the line of touch in expectation of a lineout.

Attackers take a quick one (assuming same ball etc).

What's wrong with that? Play on.

The ref moving to or marking the line of touch does not prevent a QT. All other things being equal (ball etc) the only thing that stops a QT is a formed lineout.

19.2
(a) A player may take a quick throw-in without waiting for a lineout to form.
(c) A player must not take a quick throw-in after the lineout has formed. If the player does, the
quick throw-in is disallowed. The same team throws in at the lineout.

L'irlandais
22-03-11, 15:03
...What's wrong with that? Play on...In the context of this discussion, ie. Matthew Rees Line-out taken too quickly, everything is wrong with that. Wrong field position (for a QT to be on) for a start.
If there were nothing wrong with it I sincerely doubt the iRB would have apologised for the referee's mistake. "Play on" is this situation only served to compound his error, if we are hoping to learn from this mistake, then surely justifying "his compounding the error" is not really all that helpful.

Dixie
22-03-11, 16:03
At the time of the throw, there are two possibilities: QT and a lineout taken quickly. There are serious problems with both, as acres of discussion show; but at the time, the only thing that matters is that the referee has not blown to pull back play - so as a player, you have to play on. Quite simply, Ireland were not alert to the possibility that things might happen faster than normal. That's their error. OK, the officials made many more, but if Ireland had their wits as much about them as Rees and ?Phillips? did, the officials' accumulated errors would have resulted in Ireland's loss of 2m of ground and the gaining of the throw-in to the lineout.

Phil E
22-03-11, 16:03
In the context of this discussion, ie. Matthew Rees Line-out taken too quickly, everything is wrong with that. Wrong field position (for a QT to be on) for a start.
If there were nothing wrong with it I sincerely doubt the iRB would have apologised for the referee's mistake. "Play on" is this situation only served to compound his error, if we are hoping to learn from this mistake, then surely justifying "his compounding the error" is not really all that helpful.

In the context of your scenario "play on" is fine.
The ref marking the line of touch does not stop a QT.

I did clarify "all other things being equal, right ball etc".

Donal1988
22-03-11, 16:03
I'm amazed at amount of discussion this has generated in my mind:

- It can't be a quick throw as wrong ball was used
- It can't be quick lineout as lineout hasn't formed
- There was poor discussion from referee and touch judge

L'irlandais
22-03-11, 16:03
Hi Donal,
You are right, only I was trying to tease out which LoTG applied, away from the passionate discussion of "my side were hard done by".

Phil my senario is all elements identical to the video, only let's take out the National sides factor. (I only did that as I find Nation pride is unhelpful in getting to the heart of the Laws of the game discussion.) Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I come back to the mark, because the ball went directly into touch, then it already means I am coming back for a Line out, or even a quickly taken lineout.

Dixie,
So Green's pack being switched on enough to know that a QT was not possible went against them.
Note : It can't be a quickly taken lineout either, since no red players in the L-O at that point in time.

Only Red's #9 who had the same ball in hand was on for the QT. If he had passed it to himself, the referee (who would have been running forward toward the red's 10 metre line to better view the QT) might have been excused for calling "play on" over-looking the LoTG say the ball is unusable having been touch by the crowd.

Donal1988
22-03-11, 16:03
L'irlandais I saw your were reading my blog. I gave what I thought was a pretty comprehensive discussion about it. I don't know if you saw. P.S. I read your request and Club watch April will be Brive. I couldn't be bothered typing it all again but here's my take on Mike Phillips try.

http://redstagrugby.blogspot.com/2011/03/mike-phillips-try-wales-v-ireland.html

Dixie
22-03-11, 16:03
Dixie,
So Green's pack being switched on enough to know that a QT was not possible went against them.
Note : It can't be a quickly taken lineout either, since no red players in the L-O at that point in time. Not at all. Do you seriously argue that Green's players were actively thinking:
A) we know it can't be a QT, so any throw must be straight;
B) they can't take a lineout throw yet, because that guy is 2m back from the LOT and the #4 is 5m back from it
C) even if those players come up to the mark, we are OK because the ref has to give us time to adjust.

No. Quite simply, they were not alive to the possibility of a throw taken before they were ready. They werre diadvantaged by having switched off, not by having realised the QT was no longer on (I don't argue that any elite team would not have realised this point; but having realised it, they assumed nothing else could happen to inconvenience them - this is not correct).

Lee Lifeson-Peart
22-03-11, 16:03
Ahhhhh!

Red Stag Rugby not Reds Tag rugby.

dollarsexchange.com - bureau de change not cheap gender reassignment.

Donal1988
22-03-11, 16:03
Make of it what you will Lee. Red_Stag is my BBC 606 username so I decided to go with it again.

Pen Island - a helpful stationary supply.
Penis Land - judging by some of the avatars here a few other posters could give a better explanation than I :bday:

L'irlandais
22-03-11, 16:03
Lee think Munster rugby = Red Stag

Fair point Dixie. :)

Hi again Donal,
Yipe I thought your take on it was quite good :

JK allowed "play on", however was not switched on enough to realise that the QT was not on.

The AR misinterped (perhaps) the referee's interpretation of it as being "quickly taken line-out" ; so took his flag down.Comedy of errors.

Lee Lifeson-Peart
22-03-11, 16:03
Lee think Munster rugby = Red Stag



Erm he's blue!

Phil E
22-03-11, 17:03
Lee think Munster rugby = Red Stag


:rolleyes:

L'irlandais
22-03-11, 17:03
Change strip? (http://www.munsterrugby.ie/news/1419.php)
One of the great Munster families, the McCarthy s who trace their origins back to the the Carthach, the 11th century Prince of Munster, had as their logo a red stag "trippant" (stepping), on a shield of metal grey.

SimonSmith
22-03-11, 17:03
Hi Simon,
I know this may be viewed as a "he wouldn't let it lie" sort of comment. Anyway, Part of the problem is that JK had stopped play. The illegal start cannot be viewed as a "play on"-type situation, since green's entire pack are playing the whistle. Why should they have responded to a farcical QT attempt from the opponent's hooker, when a QT clearly wasn't on.

he clearly wasn't sure, at the time, that either a QT or QTL was NOT possible.

In which case playing on would be the right call. The fact that he arsed up the aftermath is the real issue

L'irlandais
22-03-11, 17:03
Okay Simon,
I see what you mean. I wonder if he would've had the courage to call play back afterwards ; if (having listened to his AR's explaination) it had suddenly dawned on him the "enormity" of his blunder.