madflyhalf ha scritto:Nooo ma non si può fischiare una roba così!!! Andiamo!!
Capisco che devi riparare ai danni che hai lasciato fare praticamente a quei 3 giocatori durante il tour dei lions del 2009, ma questa è veramente ridicola:
http://www.superxv.com/video/crusaders- ... 3cae6.html
Nessuna prima linea si muove in avanti! Mtawarira è chiaramente fermo, guardate i piedi non si muovono di un millimetro; Bismarck Du Plessis si slega perché sta praticamente già toccando con la testa l'altro tallonatore! Si sente chiaramente
"He is touching yet!"
Andiamo, se sei un arbitro serio, quello è un tuo errore e lo riconosci: gli hai permesso di partire troppo vicino.
Chiedi scusa e resetti!
E questo arbitro è colui che arbitrerà la finale del Super XV.
Auguri.
Ecco cosa dicono gli arbitri sudafricani a proposito...
In sostanza che ha fatto una cazzata...
Dicono che si è inventato un fallo per gioco pericoloso quando non c'era gioco...
Alla fine c'è anche la risposta per mad...
Law Discussion: Dangerous play
Just when you think you have seen it all, you are reminded that you have not.
A couple of years ago a referee awarded a scrum for a knock-on when a player, well in touch, dropped a ball kicked in his direction. This time there was a penalty for dangerous play when there was no play. Things like this happen in a game as dynamic and complex as rugby football with so much pressure on No.31.
The Sharks play the Crusaders and prepare to put the ball into a scrum. It is the Sharks's scrum and Charl McLeod, the scrumhalf is to put the ball in.
The referee tells the players to crouch. They crouch.
The referee tells the players to touch. They touch and withdraw their hands.
Then the referee blows his whistle, steps into the front row and says: "Penalty. You've moved. Dangerous play. There's the mark. You're on that side."
It must be a rare form of dangerous play. There is no play. The ball is in the scrumhalf's hands. Play will not start till he puts it into the scrum. There is also no contact between the two teams - none. It makes dangerous play a strange reason for a penalty.
It's hard to see who moved. The Sharks' loosehead, Tendai Mtawarira, shuffled his left (outside) foot but that does not look dangerous. It may well not have been Mtawarira at all, as the 'You' in 'You've moved' is unclear and may not have been Mtawarita at all.
The referee may be dealing with play that could have been dangerous if the scrum, had taken place. A shift in position could produce a head-on-head situation instead of a gap or an angled engagement. But it had not yet happened.
The referee had time to manage the situation, i.e. tell the players what he wants and get their compliance.
If compliance was not forthcoming it would seem to be a technical offence by front-row player(s) prior to engagement, and the sanction for such infringements, which include foot positions, is a free kick.
Law 20.2 FRONT-ROW PLAYERS’ POSITIONS
(a) All players in a position to shove. When a scrum has formed, the body and feet of each front row player must be in a normal position to make a forward shove.
Sanction: Free Kick
(b) This means that the front row players must have both feet on the ground, with their weight firmly on at least one foot. Players must not cross their feet, although the foot of one player may cross a team-mate’s foot. Each player’s shoulders must be no lower than the hips.
Sanction: Free Kick
It seems a penalty which was completely avoidable. The problem with this sort of action by a referee is that it gives the impression that it was made in a fit of pique - and that is not a good frame of mind for refereeing.
It was not a decision that had an immediate effect on the game but it was disconcerting and adds fuel to the commonly held belief that referees know nothing about scrums - a belief usually derisively expressed.
Laws: Scrum Penalty, Part II
Yesterday's discussion was on the penalty the referee awarded against the Sharks for dangerous play while the ball was still in the scrumhalf's hands and there was no physical contact between the players. The referee described it as 'dangerous play'. It may well be worthwhile to look at some aspects of the decision again.
It was, we may mention, a decision that had no immediate of long-term effect on the game - Crusaders vs Sharks - certainly not as much of an effect as a pass that led to an intercept and a try.
Just to refresh memories this is what happened: The Sharks prepare to put the ball into a scrum and Charl McLeod, their scrumhalf is to put the ball in. The referee tells the players to crouch, which they do. The referee tells the players to touch. They touch and withdraw their hands. Then the referee blows his whistle, steps in between the front rows and says: "Penalty. You've moved. Dangerous play. There's the mark. You're on that side."
It seemed weird to have dangerous play when there was no play at all.
South Africa's refereeing boss, André Watson, described the decision as a 'brain explosion, and said that it could not be denied that Lawrence had made a mistake. But the mistake, it seemed to him, was in poor communication.
Lyndon Bray, SANZAR's man in charge of referees, described it as 'poor description', i.e. poor communication. The referee himself acknowledged that it 'needed to be explained/communicated better'.
All three agree that the problem was poor communication. Which brings us to the substance of the decision - the reason for the penalty.
In December 2010, i.e. before the Super 15, there was a meeting of coaches and referees in Sydney. There all agreed that the new manoeuvre of front-row players goimg head-to-head on engagement was dangerous. It is obviously dangerous when all that beef throws heads forward into each other. There is the danger of the clash, the danger of deflection and the danger of angled scrumming as possibilities. The Sydney meeting decided that this should be treated as dangerous play, which meant that it could be penalised, rather than as a technical infringement which would have evoked a free kick. The penalty was seen as the correct way to go to avoid further trouble.
And so the referees did was they were told and the problem soon disappeared. Now in the 19th week of Super 15 it recrudesced.
In this year's Six Nations, Scotland were penalised for something similar. It was on Italy's ball and when Steve Walsh, a SANZAR referee, penalised Scotland the hookers' heads were actually touching at the Pause instruction.
So the preventative penalty in this case could be understandable, and the problem may well have been one of communication. When Steve Walsh penalised Scotland, he said: "Head-to-head. Dangerous." There it was obvious as there was contact. In Saturday's case Bryce Lawrence says simply: "Dangerous play." And at that stage heads were not touching.
The communication problem was not entirely of the referee's making. There had been five scrums before the penalty. The Crusaders had put the ball into the first four, the Sharks into the fifth., The referee spoke to the front rows on four of those five occasions. On two of the four occasions he spoke precisely about the danger of going head to head. But what he said on those four occasions is not audible as the commentators carry on talking above him. But the penalty explanation is clearly audible and it just did not make sense.
In hindsight it would have been better if Lawrence had managed the situation, i.e. got the Sharks in this sixth scrum into the right position with a warning against non-compliance.
'Clear and obvious' is the vogue refereeing watchword for penalising. It is a good watchword. In this case it is not clear and obvious who moved, how the movement affected the scrum and where any possible danger was. That added to the mystery of the award of the penalty.
Communication was clearly bad, but it is not all.
Why was a meeting in Sydney making laws?
This head-to-head business is not explicit in the laws, good commonsense though it is. The international Rugby Board makes laws from time to time, and between one time and the next, it has a committee of designated members who give law clarifications which have the effect of laws. These rulings are published and are there for all to see.
One would have thought that the Sydney meeting could have referred the matter to the IRB and had the ruling made known to all, rather than something esoteric. Rulings by bodies other than the IRB, which is the game's lawmaking body, are always dangerous and should not exist. It's a different matter when laws are resurrected which have fallen into abeyance. This is a matter of the creation of new laws.
There is one more take on this. People have questioned whether Lawrence should still referee the Final.
Watson has no doubts about that. "Bryce is highly-rated by coaches in the Super Rugby tournament. This year we used their input with that of our own selectors to determine who the referees would be in the playoffs. He had a good year and we should not let one and a half poor decisions detract from that."
Recently Glen Jackson, a top player who has become a top referee, spoke about the difference between refereeing and playing. He said: "Players can make a mistake and people are quiet about it and then if they do something brilliant, they are applauded. If a referee makes a mistake he is no good and no number of fantastic calls can make up for it."
Players, of course, have lots of supporters, referees exceeding few. And so Lawrence is more vilified for one decision perceived to be wrong than Lambie was for a mistake that was certainly wrong.
![:-]](./images/smilies/icon_mrgreen.gif "Mr. Green"){kind=icon}
