PDA

View Full Version : Winger ahead of the kicker



Dixie
18-08-07, 22:08
France v Engand, Marseilles, 24 minutes in - Jonny kicking from midfield, Jason on the wing adjudged (incorrectly as it turned out) to have been ahead of the kicker. Alain Rolland gave the penalty in front of the posts, where Jonny had kicked it.

The offence is outlined in 11.1(c) - it was Robinson who was offside. So where was the offence committed? 11(4)f gives the general direction - kick at the place of infringement, or scrum where the offending team last played the ball.

So in that situation, assuming Jason was indeed offside, the place of infringement was where Jason first started to move forward following the kick - which would have been on the touchline slightly ahead of Jonny. The referee should have offered the option of penalty there, or scrum in the middle. He'll be annoyed with himself for offering the penalty in the middle, as he had a very sound game, it seems to me.

FlipFlop
18-08-07, 22:08
I agree - seemed very wrong to me.

Also disappointed with his failure to penalise french 7 on restarts, several times he moved directly infront of the catcher, and was tackled into the catcher twice.

But he was loads better than either side I though, certainly England.

Simon Thomas
19-08-07, 10:08
Roland had a generally sound match (Borthwich stamping should have been yellow not just warning imho !) but for an International Referee he made a suprising double error on this critical decision (and no doubt be pulled up on it by both his IRB Assessor and his coach).
Incorrect decision as Robinson was onside, and secondly incorrect option offered to France (very poor for an IRB referee). I would expect to be bolloxed by my Assessor and the team coach at level 7/8 for getting that option call wrong.

Dixie
19-08-07, 11:08
I would expect to be bolloxed by my Assessor and the team coach at level 7/8 for getting that option call wrong.

Quite right. I'd expect to be pulled up on it at Level 10. Interesting then that Mr Barnes, the ex-international and professional pundit, should have seen nothing wrong in the location of the penalty - though he did manage to express his outrage that Borthwick's stamping should have been penalised at all.:chin: :Looser:

FlipFlop
19-08-07, 15:08
Borthwick was stamping yes, but the french player had been told to move twice, and others had already put boots on him. I think that the whistle should already have gone by then, penalising the french player. And if you watch the incident the arm for the penalty starts to go towards England, and then he realises he has to do something about the stamping. Think the whistle was too slow, which resulted in the players using boots, which lead to the overturned penalty, but which also saved Borthwick from the yellow card.

Borthwick was stupid, but Rolland was too slow on the whistle .

Nick Ansell
19-08-07, 19:08
FlipFlop - I agree with you . It was about management. I hope Roland is thining about this before the RWC.

:cool:

Nick Ansell
19-08-07, 20:08
Dear all

1. My last post should read 'thinking' not thining (please put this down to my youth!)

2. IAnd I forgot to ask .....

Where do you judge the 'the place of infringment' in this situation?

Dickie E
19-08-07, 23:08
the place of infringement is the spot on which the offside player was standing when the ball was kicked.

Gareth-Lee Smith
20-08-07, 18:08
Further to all this place of infringement lark, did anybody else think that the whistle was too early? Robinson had only just set off, and there could've been an advantage. Turns out there wasn't, but the whistle could easily have put paid to that. Of course, it's all its and buts...

Davet
20-08-07, 21:08
I think the ref needs to look at the state of play, and read the game. If, in his experience, there is little lilihood of advantage then he should blow up rather than wait interminably to see if soemthing might just develop, and then end up blowing anyway - having caused loads of dead time which subtracts from the game.

It is possible that some freakish advantage may thereby go begging - life's a bitch.

FlipFlop
21-08-07, 08:08
I'd agree with Gareth on this one - the ball was being kicked to the French, who love broken field rugby. Rolland could also have called JR back (or used his TJ to do it), to prevent the penality being called, and to provide advantage to the French (receive kick, no chaser close....).

Bungle
21-08-07, 09:08
Further to all this place of infringement lark, did anybody else think that the whistle was too early? Robinson had only just set off, and there could've been an advantage.

Quite possibly, but what play on the French 22 is likely to outweigh the advantage of a juicy penalty kick at goal from infront of the posts? A scrum on the other hand...:) On such errors games can turn

madref
21-08-07, 09:08
Hi

Should the french not have had 3 options.

1. Scrum where ball was kicked
2. Penalty where Robinson was standing
3. Penalty where ball landed.

David

Dixie
21-08-07, 09:08
Madref - I don't think the last is a reasonable option. Are yuo thinking of late-charging the kicker?

The PK is at the place of infringement. The infringement by the offside player is moving towards the ball - 11.1. Of course, he does this at every step, including the final one. But if the PK is to be awarded, then it does not seem logical to offer every possible location - just the one most advantageous to the opposition. You could argue that he's only potentially interfering with play by moving forward - he must actually impede the oppo before being pinged. But 11.1a provides a liability to penalty not only for interfering with play per se, but also for moving forward towards the ball. You have to ignore this one if you offer the place where the ball landed. Once you've ignored it, it seems perverse to reinstate it to offer an alternative location.

Having said that, if two players are offside and moving forwards, you regard the place of infringement as being the place where the one nearest the oppo receiver is standing at the time of the kick. This suggests that you offer the oppo the worst option, not the best from their point of view

ex-lucy
24-08-07, 11:08
actually, i thought Rolland had a mediocre match.
apart from the above mistakes (offside JR, isnt that a TJ call? didnt he listen to his TJ? who would have said no offside?)
line out pen for bringing down blue when no white was near him. should have been a FK against blue if anything.
allowed too many flashpoints early on before getting serious.
Shaw's YC/high tackle. I think he reacted too quickly and should have taken time to ask TJ's opinion etc.
I think overall he was too anxious and either blew too quick in some cases and not quick enuf in others. so, players started getting frustrated and fractious.
i thought he allowed France alot more leeway in tackles/ rucks than England to slow ball down/ be on wrong side.
Blue flankers at scrums were allowed to drop bindings and walk round.

OB..
24-08-07, 11:08
offside JR, isnt that a TJ call? didnt he listen to his TJ? who would have said no offside?
Law 6.A.4 The referee is the sole judge of fact and of Law during a match.

The TJ is there to assist him, not to pre-empt or overrule him.

Are we sure the TJ would have seen it differently? It was a "damn close run thing".

SimonSmith
24-08-07, 12:08
Shaw's YC/high tackle. I think he reacted too quickly and should have taken time to ask TJ's opinion etc.

Didn't see the game, but: if the TJ didn't flag, why would AR ask for his opinion. In fact, absent a flag, can he ask the TJ for input?

ex-lucy
24-08-07, 13:08
precedence. AR and other Int refs like to involve their TJs in such decisions. I guess they may have been instructed nowadays to ref and let the TJs run touch... if so, good. So, why are players screaming at TJs to ask them to do something about various misedemeanours? Shouldnt the msg go to the workers/ players?

Dickie E
24-08-07, 13:08
(offside JR, isnt that a TJ call?

I was always taught as a TJ that if I'm in a position to see offside in GP or a forward pass then I'm not where I should be.

Account Deleted
04-09-07, 12:09
Should the laws be re-written to allow the TJ to call the ref's attention to Forward passes and Knock-ons etc.

6.A.7 REFEREE CONSULTING WITH OTHERS
(a) The referee may consult with touch judges in regard to matters relating to their duties, the Law relating to foul play, or timekeeping.

I full accept that it is commonsense to work as a "team of three" but it is not allowed by the laws. Surely if the IRB want the "team of three" a simple amendment is all that is needed.

OB..
04-09-07, 14:09
Here (http://www.sareferees.co.za/referees_news/story_3907160042.php) is an article by Andre Watson on the TJs job, from which I quote:-

ADVICE ON PERFORMING YOUR TERTIARY ROLE
It is expected that you be able to assist and support the referee (BUT ONLY IF HE SEEKS YOUR ASSISTANCE) on in-goal, off-side, set play and general play decisions.
[...]
2. Assist the referee by using discreet (very discreet) signals (e.g. knock on, thumbs up for a try, or held up signal). HOWEVER, only display these signals in a discreet, non-demonstrative, fashion if the referee is looking at you, seeking your assistance. It is NOT your role to make these calls on behalf of the referee. You, as a team of three match officials, can look extremely incompetent if the touch judge is signaling held up as the referee awards a try.

Simon Thomas
04-09-07, 15:09
Which is exactly how National Panel TJs in England operate also - assist, indicate discretely, and advise if asked

But don't 'hang out the ref to dry'

beckett50
04-09-07, 16:09
The referee may consult with touch judges in regard to matters relating to their duties


Every referee is slightly different in the number of duties they will give to their TJs. It also relies on teh TJ seeing the offence and bringing it to the attention of the referee.

At panel level it is easy since the team are all micked up, but often at lower levels this is not the case and so the TJ is reliant upon the referee looking at them to see the discrete signal relating to forward pass etc.

From experience it isn't always possible to have a clear line of sight to the leading TJ to pick up these signals, which is why wireless comms are so much better.

Also, bear in mind, that only those TJs appointed by the constituent body to the game are able to bring - in an official capacity - offences to the referees attention. The most Club TJs can expect is touch & 10m offside lines.

Account Deleted
05-09-07, 09:09
Here (http://www.sareferees.co.za/referees_news/story_3907160042.php) is an article by Andre Watson on the TJ's job, from which I quote:-

ADVICE ON PERFORMING YOUR TERTIARY ROLE
It is expected that you be able to assist and support the referee (BUT ONLY IF HE SEEKS YOUR ASSISTANCE) on in-goal, off-side, set play and general play decisions.
[...]
2. Assist the referee by using discreet (very discreet) signals (e.g. knock on, thumbs up for a try, or held up signal). HOWEVER, only display these signals in a discreet, non-demonstrative, fashion if the referee is looking at you, seeking your assistance. It is NOT your role to make these calls on behalf of the referee. You, as a team of three match officials, can look extremely incompetent if the touch judge is signaling held up as the referee awards a try.

I accept there is "guidance from above" but it is not in line with the Law book. Why do we give ourselves unnecessary baggage bu having this "secret" set of Laws. All it takes is a small amendment/ clarification saying that the touch judge (where he is a qualified referee) may assist the referee in respect of the laws of the game. The Referee will be the final judge of fact and will direct the TJ as to how he wishes the TJ to carry out his duties."

I've heard fairly senior refs (using qualified TJs) answer committee men when ask why you did not take note of a TJ's signal say. "He can't call offside". Now that is true in law, but not in guidance.

We don't want refs hung out to dry (any more than they are sometimes now!) but it would be much better if, rather than write new laws the IRB and its "Ref Supremo" spent a bit of time clarifying the law book to take account of rulings and directives that don't seem to get past the smoke filled corridors of power.

OB..
05-09-07, 11:09
I agree it would make sense to amend the law on TJs, but I would not want to wait until then to continue good practice.

Simon Thomas
05-09-07, 13:09
Why any need to change the TJ element of the iRB LoG ? Law 6B is very clear and is a good open framework that covers all levels of the Game and types of TJs.

Law 6A4 (a) is fundamental to the referee's match control, and it covers all eventualities.
Law 6A6 allows the referee to alter decisions based on a TJ raising a flag of touch or foul play. The referee makes all other decisions for technical offences (forward pass, offside etc) and their materiality.

Then the iRB themselves and each Union issue their own TJ duties and protocols, within a broader definition of match official duties, responsibilities and remit. The RFU's are in the Rules & Regulations and there is a highly detailed TJ training and development programme run by the Referee Department for Panel and Elite TJs with very clear and published 'team of three'protocols - hardly "secret" sets of laws. They also run a basic TJ course for both Society referees and club TJs, which is a good one but under-attended.

When using TJs I brief them to 'fulfil basic duties' (touch, 10m and foul play), advise me at breaks of play if I am missing any patterns or specific incidents, and don't make me look a fool. Small signals (or comments) for any major / critical decisions I miss are acceptable, but I do not want a running commentary over the earpiece from both TJs or windmills of arms coming from touch.

beckett50
05-09-07, 13:09
using qualified TJs


All Time Ref, please define what you mean by this.

Are you saying that the TJs have attended the relevant TJ course AND been appointed by the sanctioning body?

I would love to have Club TJs that have attended the basic RFU TJ course at all my L7 games, but it ain't gonna happen until the Clubs get their act together.

Don't get me wrong, I am grateful for the the Club TJ but he can only be responsible for marking and advising on touch, although I may ask him to mark the 10m off-side line too. I will also converse with him throughout the match, if I feel I can trust his impartiality. Trouble is what often happens at L6 and below is that the travelling team will have a sub running touch - which is fine till he comes on and they forget to replace him!

I'm told that cricket have tried this 'qualified' umpire thing for all matches above a certain level and are having awful problems finding Club members to fill the role.

Now I'm not suggesting that the WRU and RFU et al go down this route, but the Clubs have a responsibility here too.