Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: What was this decision for?

      
  1. #1

    Referees in Ireland


    Soc/Assoc
    ARLB
    Grade
    New/Ungraded
    Join Date
    11 Sep 06
    Posts
    284
    Thanks (Received)
    1
    Likes (Received)
    0

    Default What was this decision for?

    Was watching this earlier, can't understand what the first penalty is for. Ball looks out to me:

    Youtube clip is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_UkFTSkDQQ

    It can't be 16.4.e
    "A player must not fall on or over the ball as it is coming out of a ruck." as ball is clearly out

    Was the white player who fell on the ball coming from an offside position, possibly but the signal looks for going to ground.

    Any ideas?

  2. #2
    Rugby Club Member

    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Select Grade
    Join Date
    28 Feb 17
    Posts
    876
    Thanks (Received)
    3
    Likes (Received)
    89

    Default Re: What was this decision for?

    hands on the ground beyond the ball by 3. He is clearly not supporting his own body weight. NO is better sighted from his side.
    Last edited by ChuckieB; 17-10-17 at 01:10.

  3. #3

    Referees in Australia
    Dickie E's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    VRRA
    Grade
    Level 2
    Join Date
    19 Jan 07
    Posts
    11,293
    Thanks (Received)
    75
    Likes (Received)
    932

    Default Re: What was this decision for?

    Yes, I think it was for white #3 off feet. Noting that it's pretty hard to stay on your feet when you've got 2 or 3 opponents' weight on your back.
    I, for one, like Roman numerals

  4. #4
    Rugby Club Member

    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Select Grade
    Join Date
    28 Feb 17
    Posts
    876
    Thanks (Received)
    3
    Likes (Received)
    89

    Default Re: What was this decision for?

    You just have to see his body positioning to see he is not supporting his own body weight by his own action rather than that of the arriving player,

  5. #5
    Player or Coach

    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Select Grade
    Join Date
    07 Mar 17
    Posts
    339
    Thanks (Received)
    1
    Likes (Received)
    64

    Default Re: What was this decision for?

    Interestingly, the WHITE tackler here ... https://youtu.be/o_UkFTSkDQQ?t=23 gets to his feet but DOES NOT observe the new 'gate only' jackalling - yet NO seems happy to ignore his & award a PK to White

    thoughts?

  6. #6

    Referees in England
    chbg's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    HRURS & ARURS
    Grade
    Level 8
    Join Date
    15 May 09
    Posts
    761
    Thanks (Received)
    14
    Likes (Received)
    117

    Default Re: What was this decision for?

    Quote Originally Posted by VM75 View Post
    Interestingly, the WHITE tackler here ... https://youtu.be/o_UkFTSkDQQ?t=23 gets to his feet but DOES NOT observe the new 'gate only' jackalling - yet NO seems happy to ignore his & award a PK to White

    thoughts?
    It was a November 2015 match!! See the video description.
    Be reasonable - do it my way.

  7. #7

    Referees in Wales
    Taff's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Llanelli District
    Grade
    WRU Level 2
    Join Date
    23 Aug 09
    Posts
    6,427
    Thanks (Received)
    25
    Likes (Received)
    220

    Default Re: What was this decision for?

    Quote Originally Posted by chbg View Post
    It was a November 2015 match!! See the video description.
    Well spotted Poirot.

  8. #8

    Referees in Ireland


    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Level 1
    Join Date
    25 May 16
    Posts
    312
    Thanks (Received)
    3
    Likes (Received)
    28

    Default Re: What was this decision for?

    i think nigel jones could see more than clip shows .
    because from video it looks like a harsh penalty .

    also alan wyn jones obstucting in ruck .

  9. #9
    Player or Coach ChrisR's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Select Grade
    Join Date
    14 Jul 10
    Posts
    2,795
    Thanks (Received)
    19
    Likes (Received)
    224

    Default Re: What was this decision for?

    White player (6) who dives on the ball is not onside at the ruck but NO's signal confounds me except:

    Law 14.1(c) A player without the ball must not lie on, over, or near the ball to prevent opponents getting possession of it.Sanction: Penalty kick


    ​But the whistle came so quick he had no time to execute any option so diving on the ball must have been his offence.
    Last edited by ChrisR; 18-10-17 at 18:10.

  10. #10
    Player or Coach

    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Select Grade
    Join Date
    07 Mar 17
    Posts
    339
    Thanks (Received)
    1
    Likes (Received)
    64

    Default Re: What was this decision for?

    Quote Originally Posted by chbg View Post
    It was a November 2015 match!! See the video description.
    Oh that minor detail,

    note to self, read description 1st ! doh - thks

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •