Tigers Vs Chiefs

[fivepointer]

Reffing at this level is just bloody hard and there arent many people who can do it.
The law book is weighty and over complicated. The game moves at a 100 miles an hour, you have 30 fit and quick blokes moving around, some will cheat like mad, there are multiple moving parts in most scenarios in the game and its impossible for a ref and his officials to get everything right.
I'm not sure where we go. The game relies on refs to exercise some judgment but then we get demands for consistency (dream on). If we want refs to act like robots and play it by the letter of the law we wont have a game worth a damn.
I think we have to stop expecting perfection, or anything close to it. Accept by its very nature, the game is fiendishly difficult to ref, and that some reffing inconsistency is only to be expected. Some tweaks in the laws would help, some acceptance by coaches/players that they have to work more within the laws would too.

[Puja]

I have a lot more sympathy with Woodburn than I expected to, from what I'd read about this incident beforehand. I have a lot of sympathy for the refs too given how many idiotic and contradictory laws there seem to be, but it's hard to imagine this even getting picked up 99% of the time. The Hume on seems more obviously foul play to me, but maybe that's just the slow motion and the fact the initial tackler is out of the picture.

My main takeaway more and more often is that if the best refs we have (presumably) are constantly making these mistakes we need to change the laws. It can't be that there are a ton of great refs simply not getting a chance, while Adamson and Dickson just blunder on forever.

The problem is the same as with "cutting red tape" though. Most of the laws were brought in for a reason and removing or simplifying them will lead to howls of outrage from people who remember why they were brought in, and a dozen unexpected consequences as coaches work out ways to creatively bend the new laws backwards.

Puja

[Oakboy]

If it has reached the point where micro-interpretation of the laws leads to spoiling so many games, I think we should do as Baxter has suggested. I'd keep it simple. Forget red cards. Just apply a ten minute sanction as now for a yellow. Leave it to the TMO to decide whether the same player can come back. Alternatively, if a serious offence is declared just rule that a bench replacement has to be made. Deal with it after the game as normal.

[Mikey Brown]

I have a lot more sympathy with Woodburn than I expected to, from what I'd read about this incident beforehand. I have a lot of sympathy for the refs too given how many idiotic and contradictory laws there seem to be, but it's hard to imagine this even getting picked up 99% of the time. The Hume on seems more obviously foul play to me, but maybe that's just the slow motion and the fact the initial tackler is out of the picture.

My main takeaway more and more often is that if the best refs we have (presumably) are constantly making these mistakes we need to change the laws. It can't be that there are a ton of great refs simply not getting a chance, while Adamson and Dickson just blunder on forever.

The problem is the same as with "cutting red tape" though. Most of the laws were brought in for a reason and removing or simplifying them will lead to howls of outrage from people who remember why they were brought in, and a dozen unexpected consequences as coaches work out ways to creatively bend the new laws backwards.

Puja

Yeah fair enough. Fivepointer probably puts it much better - we should be accepting that perfection (or even objectively 'correct' decisions) from refs isn't realistic all of the time, but there are certain parts of the lawbook that do seem to put refs in incredibly difficult situations quite frequently. Often there is a very fine line between a penalty one way or the other, you'd almost rather split the difference and just play on (assuming no danger) in those situation than seeing endless mystifying scrum/breakdown penalties.

Oakboy I think I've come round to the idea of orange cards or TMO-assessed yellows, but neither would have made a difference in Woodburn's situation.

[p/d]

I think Dickson had made up his mind and ‘manipulated’ the tmo to agree with him.
Woodburn’s first move is to get his arm/hand under the ball with the momentum taking him into and onto Splash Pants Bob.

Nothing I have read or seen changes my opinion that it was a great try saving tackle

[Which Tyler]

It's one of those that's absolutely technically correct - you are not allowed to dive onto or into a player on the floor (anywhere on the pitch, not just when they've gone down for a kick or a try) and there's no doubt that Woodburn dived into Ashton to push him into touch, so it's foul play that stopped a probable try. But it felt wrong to be a yellow, let alone a red.

I never like the 2 yellows = a red rule anyway. It's a holdover from the days when yellows were a foul play warning, rather than a sin-bin and punishment in their own right, and I just don't think it's necessary. Getting a second yellow should be enough punishment on its own.

Puja

Yep, it feels like Dickson is right in law here; and it also feels incredibly soft; and that it's the law that's an ass.
However, which law?

Diving on a man who's already on the floor? That's a safety issue; and whilst this is a soft one, the law itself seems fair.
Penalty try with an identifiable offender resulting in yellow? That's an absolutely fair law.
2 yellows = red? That's an absolutely fair law - when yellows were reserved for dangerous or excessively cynical play, but I agree, that's the one that's out of date now.

I'd also suggest that it's such a rare set of circumstances it'll likely never be repeated that all aspects are so soft, but technically illegal.

[Puja]

I think Dickson had made up his mind and ‘manipulated’ the tmo to agree with him.
Woodburn’s first move is to get his arm/hand under the ball with the momentum taking him into and onto Splash Pants Bob.

Nothing I have read or seen changes my opinion that it was a great try saving tackle

The law says that he's not allowed to dive off his feet and into Ashton though. No matter his intent, no matter his first move, as soon as Ashton is on the ground, Woodburn can't join in the tackle. It's the softest red card you'll ever see, but it's absolutely a correct call by the laws.

Puja

[Mikey Brown]

I think Dickson had made up his mind and ‘manipulated’ the tmo to agree with him.
Woodburn’s first move is to get his arm/hand under the ball with the momentum taking him into and onto Splash Pants Bob.

Nothing I have read or seen changes my opinion that it was a great try saving tackle

The law says that he's not allowed to dive off his feet and into Ashton though. No matter his intent, no matter his first move, as soon as Ashton is on the ground, Woodburn can't join in the tackle. It's the softest red card you'll ever see, but it's absolutely a correct call by the laws.

Puja

Does that law change when you cross the try line? Should it? Distinguishing between diving on the player and trying to hold up the ball seems messy.

I guess I just don't know what Woodburn can do in that situation. He's in a position to stop the try but can't legally push him in to touch and risks a penalty trying to pilfer the ball without allowing Ashton time to place it.

[Puja]

I think Dickson had made up his mind and ‘manipulated’ the tmo to agree with him.
Woodburn’s first move is to get his arm/hand under the ball with the momentum taking him into and onto Splash Pants Bob.

Nothing I have read or seen changes my opinion that it was a great try saving tackle

The law says that he's not allowed to dive off his feet and into Ashton though. No matter his intent, no matter his first move, as soon as Ashton is on the ground, Woodburn can't join in the tackle. It's the softest red card you'll ever see, but it's absolutely a correct call by the laws.

Puja

Does that law change when you cross the try line? Should it?

I guess I just don't know what Woodburn can do in that situation. He's in a position to stop the try but can't legally push him in to touch and risks a penalty trying to pilfer the ball without allowing Ashton time to place it.

To quote Dickson when Yeandle asked, "What's he meant to do in that situation though? Nothing?" - "Yes, that's what he has to do."

In the same way that someone standing offside when a quick tap happens, or someone who gets stepped and can only stick out a leg, or someone who could only stop a rampaging winger with a high tackle or a shoulder barge. Sometimes, on a rugby pitch, you're not in the right position or at the right time and there is nothing you can legally do to stop a try. That's life, unfortunately.

Puja

[Mikey Brown]

I do see the logic, but it now feels like there are hundreds of held up tries that really should have been yellow cards in the past, as the person holding the ball up wasn't the initial tackler.

[Puja]

I do see the logic, but it now feels like there are hundreds of held up tries that really should have been yellow cards in the past, as the person holding the ball up wasn't the initial tackler.

I'd be surprised if there were many in this situation - most of the time it's players either getting under the ball or getting involved in a tackle for someone who's driving for the line, rather than sliding into someone already lying on the ground and driving them out/away from the tryline.

Puja

[Mikey Brown]

I do see the logic, but it now feels like there are hundreds of held up tries that really should have been yellow cards in the past, as the person holding the ball up wasn't the initial tackler.

I'd be surprised if there were many in this situation - most of the time it's players either getting under the ball or getting involved in a tackle for someone who's driving for the line, rather than sliding into someone already lying on the ground and driving them out/away from the tryline.

Puja

They’re generally over the line, but there are often players flying in off their feet to assist in holding the ball up. I’m not really seeing how it’s different.

Then again I still don’t even understand how a ref decides the amount of time a player gets to ‘place the ball’ while others are trying to prevent a grounding. Sometimes it seems to go on for ages.

[FKAS]

I do wonder why Smalles, Cox and Leal don't get more matches. All three are on the Prem officials list and seem to have a lot of potential.

[Banquo]

Ideally I'd ditch the TMO's full stop and save a fortune and get rid of replays for the crowd. Learn to accept the rough with the smooth as players and fans. Speeds the game up too.

Not happening as genie out of bottle, and as above, players and coaches will just bypass the laws even more.

[Spiffy]

If it has reached the point where micro-interpretation of the laws leads to spoiling so many games, I think we should do as Baxter has suggested. I'd keep it simple. Forget red cards. Just apply a ten minute sanction as now for a yellow. Leave it to the TMO to decide whether the same player can come back. [highlight=]Alternatively, if a serious offence is declared just rule that a bench replacement has to be made. [highlight=]Deal with it after the game as normal.

Don't see how that could work. A bench replacement rewards the penalized side with a fresh player.

[p/d]

Penalise by way of point deductions ( level of points depending on offence, with cynical inviting a hefty hit.)
Rather than handing 7 points to Leicester and binning off Woodburn. Exeter - had an offence actually happened - could have been deducted 5 and Woodburn kept on pitch with nothing more than an explanation and a gift voucher for a shaving kit

[Beasties]

I’ve read all of the discussion on here regarding this tackle, and I remain baffled as to why this is the first time I’ve ever seen this offence penalised in this situation in over 40 years of watching rugby.

[Oakboy]

I’ve read all of the discussion on here regarding this tackle, and I remain baffled as to why this is the first time I’ve ever seen this offence penalised in this situation in over 40 years of watching rugby.

Perhaps Dickson has special consideration for Ashton (tried to phrase that carefully) - 100 tries etc. The way that he ran off (chortling?) to signal the penalty try finished him as a referee in my eyes.

[Puja]

I’ve read all of the discussion on here regarding this tackle, and I remain baffled as to why this is the first time I’ve ever seen this offence penalised in this situation in over 40 years of watching rugby.

Perhaps Dickson has special consideration for Ashton (tried to phrase that carefully) - 100 tries etc. The way that he ran off (chortling?) to signal the penalty try finished him as a referee in my eyes.

...okay, I'll bite. What exactly did you see in his running style that offended you?

Puja

[Oakboy]

If it has reached the point where micro-interpretation of the laws leads to spoiling so many games, I think we should do as Baxter has suggested. I'd keep it simple. Forget red cards. Just apply a ten minute sanction as now for a yellow. Leave it to the TMO to decide whether the same player can come back. [highlight=]Alternatively, if a serious offence is declared just rule that a bench replacement has to be made. [highlight=]Deal with it after the game as normal.

Don't see how that could work. A bench replacement rewards the penalized side with a fresh player.

How many instances are there of sides getting any significant advantage from the offences which result in a red card? The paying audience is being cheated of competitive entertainment by technicalities and trivialities. Teaching players to tackle more safely can come by way of lessons learnt from post-match punishment. I'd argue that offences such as multiple offsides in the red zone are properly penalised by 10 minute yellows so whether a fresh player or a 10 minute rested player return in so-called 'more serious' offences is irrelevant. 15 v 14 for 10 minutes should be the only sanction that the referee can impose.

[Oakboy]

I’ve read all of the discussion on here regarding this tackle, and I remain baffled as to why this is the first time I’ve ever seen this offence penalised in this situation in over 40 years of watching rugby.

Perhaps Dickson has special consideration for Ashton (tried to phrase that carefully) - 100 tries etc. The way that he ran off (chortling?) to signal the penalty try finished him as a referee in my eyes.

...okay, I'll bite. What exactly did you see in his running style that offended you?

Puja

Just the apparent satisfaction implied!

[Epaminondas Pules]

I’ve read all of the discussion on here regarding this tackle, and I remain baffled as to why this is the first time I’ve ever seen this offence penalised in this situation in over 40 years of watching rugby.

I believe there was another example in the URC. Think it was a Glasgow game, though memory is a tad hazy.

[Mellsblue]

Perhaps Dickson has special consideration for Ashton (tried to phrase that carefully) - 100 tries etc. The way that he ran off (chortling?) to signal the penalty try finished him as a referee in my eyes.

...okay, I'll bite. What exactly did you see in his running style that offended you?

Puja

Just the apparent satisfaction implied!

Don’t the refs have to go under the posts to signal a pen try?

[Mellsblue]

If it has reached the point where micro-interpretation of the laws leads to spoiling so many games, I think we should do as Baxter has suggested. I'd keep it simple. Forget red cards. Just apply a ten minute sanction as now for a yellow. Leave it to the TMO to decide whether the same player can come back. [highlight=]Alternatively, if a serious offence is declared just rule that a bench replacement has to be made. [highlight=]Deal with it after the game as normal.

Don't see how that could work. A bench replacement rewards the penalized side with a fresh player.

How many instances are there of sides getting any significant advantage from the offences which result in a red card? The paying audience is being cheated of competitive entertainment by technicalities and trivialities. Teaching players to tackle more safely can come by way of lessons learnt from post-match punishment. I'd argue that offences such as multiple offsides in the red zone are properly penalised by 10 minute yellows so whether a fresh player or a 10 minute rested player return in so-called 'more serious' offences is irrelevant. 15 v 14 for 10 minutes should be the only sanction that the referee can impose.

Not exactly what you’re asking but I thought this thread was interesting.

[Mikey Brown]

...okay, I'll bite. What exactly did you see in his running style that offended you?

Puja

Just the apparent satisfaction implied!

Don’t the refs have to go under the posts to signal a pen try?

Yes, but you must do it with stoic ferocity like Owen Farrell rather than gay abandon like Marcus Smith.