Big Dai is a Level 10+1 Rugby Union referee for the London Society. After playing for many years in the Social side of a leading national club, he started refereeing a few seasons ago. He recounts his adventures trooping around South West London to give the ungrateful a game of weekend rugby.
Its a policy of this blog not to comment on the performance of top referees, no matter how bad they appear to be, they still know more about this game than me.
The big controversy in week one is the Hook penalty that TV cameras showed going between the posts. As a Welshman I would love it to have made it, but I doubt very much if it did. You can’t see it cross in front of the right post, it probably past outside and above the post. The two assistants referees were the best placed to judge and they seemed in no doubt as to if it made it. One dimensional TV pictures don’t tell the full story. I am sure it was Barnesy that referred to the TMO for a drop goal, a couple of years back. He knows it is available and he was happy to trust his view point and his ARs.
Courtney Laws was banned for two games for dropping a knee on an Argentine prop. Personally, I thought he deserved a card for the late tackle on the Argy no12 who left the field as a consequence. Rugby is a rough game but players have a duty of care to fellow players, Laws was at best reckless and that, in itself, deserves sanction. A two game ban is well below the threshold for kneeing an opponent.
After the slick central training night last week the cosy confines of the regional meeting. Three major topics, the maul, sealing off and foul play at the tackle/ruck engagement.
The new laws and directives have caused confusion as to when the maul ends. The Italian tactic of running away (6N 2-3 years ago), where by they disengage and run around the back to target the ball has been deemed bad form. If the oppo disengage, the maul is deemed to continue, but how do you defend this or referee it. What if the oppo re-engage?- If the ball is at the back, then it is obstruction, if the oppo target the ball, it is offside. If the ball is at the front, then no offside and maul reforms. It is probably best to pull it straight down. But what if only one or two men are pulled down and the ball carrier remains upright and bound to a team mate and continues without the oppo engaged? Then again, the maul continues until there is a material disadvantage?? It looks like best practice from the ref is to judge the maul over and encourage the team in possession to use it or call a penalty for obstruction if the oppo re-engage. It was much easier if we just penalised the pull down. There are two big initiatives from the IRB, one is sealing off at the tackle and the other is foul play whilst engaging at rucks. The first has always been an offence but has been over looked. Players have always arrived at the tackle and bridged the tackled player; wide stance, head and arms on the tackled player or driven over the player and crashed down on the oppo side. This unfairly prevents the oppo having a crack at rucking the ball and must be punished. At lot of players are actively coached to do this and may find this enforcement a surprise, but the key justifications are
i) stay on your feet at the tackle, no matter which side and
ii) enter the ruck/tackle with your shoulders above your waist. Looking like George Michael in a Hampstead toilet is no-longer acceptable.
Ben Kay is clearly over the top here, but Bakkies Botha's intervention as 'enforcer' is foul play and is to be discouraged.
Bakkies Botha seems to provide plenty of material to illustrate the next directive
The days of launching into a ruck, tackle or maul without attempting to bind and with the soul intention of 'being physical' are to be stamped out. Its foul play, plain and simple. Youtube Bakkies Botha for plenty of examples.
To cap it all some nice new kit; track suits to keep us warm this winter, lush!
