I think therefore I am

[didds]

black attacking in green 22.

black forward held up by tackle, generally a bit messy. Green 2 grabs ball, snaffles it, sinks to ground and pushes it back, as black player also goes to ground in vicinity (not collapsed though) all on blindside of maul. Ref on openside of maul and undoubtedly unable to see this.

Ball played quickly by green who clear to touch.

Ref looks at clearance, looks at maulruck/flop/pileup and says (all but verbatim here)

"There is no way you could have got that ball back without cheating, PK".

i.e. he hadn.t SEEN what had happened, but made his call based on what he THOUGHT had happened.

Oh - level 7 match.

Thoughts (not so much on whether his decision was right or not, but on the grounds of the decision)

didds

[OB..]

You have described a legal scenario in which the ball was stolen, therefore the referee's logic was wrong.

In general a referee should only call what he actually sees, but you can't get too dogmatic about it. If a maul crashes over the goal-line with the attackers on top of the ball, it is reasonable to award a try, even though it is possible that the ball was dropped forward.

[Jacko]

I'll hold my hands up to having guessed in the past, but not in exactly the same circumstances. For me, a tackle became a ruck and the ball was neatly presented and I thought the contest was over. Glanced to check the backs, got the 13 onside and looked back to see the ball had been stolen and the side that had lost it were looking aggrieved at a chap who was off his feet on their side and looking sheepish. I pinged him to no complaint and verified that I'd got it right when I bought him a pint in the clubhouse after. Naughty, and I hated doing it, but body language spoke loud enough for me to be 90% sure.