June Clarifications
To bring some perspective to some of the rugby we’ve seen during the June international window, here is a collection of comments and clarifications arising from the first three rounds. This is a challenging time for clubs and referees, as World Rugby attempts to bring the world into sync ahead of next year’s world cup. Commentary and feedback like this are what referees in the high performance pool are receiving, to help them both perform at a higher level on the field and learn how to become more insightful critics of the game when they self-reflect on their own performances.
Round 1
Foul Play
Match | Clip | Comment
NZ v FRA (1st) | High Tackle
PK only but not a YC
NZ v FRA (1st) | High Tackle
YC for NZ 7 as strike to head but no force. Much has been discussed about NZ18 but for me I don’t rule his action as foul play
USA V RUS | High Tackle
Correct decision, initial contact below the shoulder line and then slips up
SA v ENG (1st) | Late charge
Correct decision in the context of the game as he didn’t have to follow through and had previously been involved
AUS v IRE (1st) | Tackle in the air
PK only as timing out and G15 didn’t pull player to ground
ARG v WAL (1st) | Tackle in the air
PK only as again timing out and W10 didn’t pull player to ground
General Play
CAN v SCO | Deliberate knock on
Correct decision as probable try would have been scored
JPN v ITA (1st) | Deliberate knock on
Correct decision, no opportunity for line break
NZ v FRA (1st) | Knock on Offside
Scrum call correct as F15 puts F14 onside before he catches the ball
WAL v SA | Knocked out of play
Q, was the ball deliberately knocked dead? Yes so YC. Would a probable try have been scored? No so no PT
Lineout
NZ v FRA (1st) | Gaps
While I understand the FK, it should be PK for jumping across as F4 clearly makes contact with opposition
NZ v FRA (1st) | Gaps
Correct decision because first time it was a FK
Offside
NZ v FRA (1st) | Offside – retreating player
NZ3 offside, should be PK
SA v ENG (1st) | Offside – retreating player
SA9 never gets to hindmost foot so clearly offside, AR input??
AUS v IRE (1st) | Offside – retreating player
Correct decision for lazy runner
TMO
JPN v ITA (1st) | Grounding
Correct decision
CAN v SCO | Grounding
Correct decision
AUS v IRE (1st) | Knock on
TMO has clear footage to show ball was lost forward so correct not to award try. If the screen had gone blank what would you as a ref awarded?
AUS v IRE (1st) | Playing opp w/out ball
This tackle should either have been dealt with immediately or not at all.
Round 2
Foul Play
NZ v FRA (2nd) | Foul play referral
Dominant tackle that becomes a tip tackle because of contact to players on the ground and therefore PK only
SA v ENG (2nd) | Foul play referral
In the context of this game a YC should have been awarded
AUS v IRE (2nd) | Chop Tackle
No attempt to make a tackle, PK and YC
ARG v WAL (2nd) | Red card
RC correct decision and Arg 10 should have also been given a YC for instigating it
NZ v FRA (2nd) | Red card
I have already emailed you all on this. Given the reverse angle shows a mitigating factor not seen by MO’s it’s a YC
JPN v ITA (2nd) | Swinging arm
Correct decision
TON v SAM | Swinging arm
No TMO did not help as direct contact with force to the head so RC
AUS v IRE (2nd) | Lifting Tackle
Correct decision
AUS v IRE (2nd) | Cynical Play
Correct outcome but this is not in protocol. There was luck involved with both this clip and the one below as you could argue a deliberate knock on
SA v ENG (2nd) | Cynical Play
As per my comments above
General Play
SA v ENG (2nd) | Blocking catcher
PK for obstruction
SA v ENG (2nd) | Blocking catcher
Good PK
TMO/Tries
AUS v IRE (2nd) | Grounding
Good process and correct decision
SA v ENG (2nd) | Grounding
Question is if SA5 made it to his feet before attempting tackle. Reverse angle at 0.49 probably shows he has done enough and correct to award try
NZ v FRA (2nd) | Double movement
Correct decision
ARG v WAL (2nd) | Obstruction
No obstruction
AUS v IRE (2nd) | Penalty Try
Correct decision as pull down initiated before going into in goal
USA v SCO | Penalty Try
YC for high tackle but not a PT
SA v ENG (2nd) | Penalty Try
Once the scums pops up like this advantage cannot be played if ball is kept in the scrum. PT is wrong decision
Round 3
Foul Play
AUS v IRE (3rd) | Collision in the air
Correct decision as A15 also has hands on the body
AUS v IRE (3rd) | Elbow
YC is correct decision as lacking in force for RC – but close!
JPN v GEO | High Tackle
Correct decision
TMO/Tries
AUS v IRE (3rd) | TMO Review 1
In the context of what was at stake I can understand the review but it was clear from early on that no contact was made by Ire11 and process took too long
NZ v FRA (3rd) | TMO Review 2
While the law book with support this decision, the common sense approach should have been to award a scrum for causing an obstruction
NZ v FRA (3rd) | TMO Review 3
Ref said he saw grounding (wrongly) and in this case footage for TMO was clear the ball was held up. Messy process but correct outcome
JPN v GEO | TMO Review 4
Correct outcome but process took far too long