Cards,TMO`s,Refs and law changes

On Saturday in the RC both Refs had indifferent games in poor conditions and made a couple of utter howlers.
Constant tinkering with the Scrum has led to it being a penalty trap,ditto the Breakdown laws the Card system
is never consistently applied.BUT the Refs are wired for sound and TMO should be able to inform him of any
problems seen.WITHOUT being over intrusive let the Ref view on the big screen the incident before deciding
for himself.
The Scrum should revert to the laws that worked for over a 100 years,set by rows,binding checked moved
into position then fed.The Wheel to be allowed and players to leave the scrum before ball is out PROVIDED
they observe the offside at scrum laws.
The card system is the main problem abandon it,IF in the REFs opinion a sending off is justified then apply
the rules concerned.
The tackle law is a joke about 75% are high League style but seldom policed correctly and every one
no`s better than the ref concerned.

In the Argentina v All blacks game, Argentina do a ( CHARGE Down ) and the referee says it was a knock on. With out checking with the TMO.

Wrong in my opinion. I do believe the TMO should beable to speak to the referee when something like a charge down is questiiond.

After all why have a TMO if you are not going to use him?

Change the rules to whatever but there'll still be instances of silly mistakes by refs and TMOs. And a lot more by players. Think one of the silliest things with rugby laws is the amount they change. Pick a set and stick to them!

There was some odd refeeing performances in the prem on Saturday aswell...

Quick question on the laws if you take a quick pen and the opposition get pinged for not being ten I thought you couldn't take a second quick pen or can you?

Personally i didnt think you could take a quick penalty for a second time.

2 situations on the weekend

Julian Savea put in a high tackle with no attempted wrap around and got a penalty only.... Habana got pinged for a very mild high tackle and got carded.

Cost the boks the game.

Of the 2 Savea's was far far worse. A yellow would have been enough, it wasn't a citing but there was no wrap around attempted and it was high. Habana's was at best a penalty yet even after review it went yellow. Linesman thought it was just a penalty and he was the closest.

The Tackle of Vermeulen on Slipper was even more of a joke.

Similar to the tackle Bismarck made on Dan Carter last year, brilliantly executed and penalised.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Personally i didnt think you could take a quick penalty for a second time.

I believe you can not take a 'quick tap' a second time, however when the defence has all retreated the ten, then you are able to take a tap pen again (as it is not a 'quick tap').

SS is correct, the second tap has to wait for permission, and refs have to let all defenders retreat 10 before allowing.

You'd be amazed how many games are won and lost at junior and senior level because of this rule, I've even seen a ref give 4 penalties in a row for not 10, and the fourth tap was the scoring one.

I have seen a pro ref once (can't remember who) allow the initial quick tap, arm up for the not 10, then when the whistle went gave the 9 a nod for another tap and whack! a lock from 5 metres back flattens him. Ref blew up after the scuffle, and was forced to penalise the first man into the scuffle for offside, the linesman explained if he gave the nod to the 9 it was because everyone was onside so couldn't penalise the lock!

With regards to the RC refs, I thought the only real case for a whinge would be Argentina, they were very unlucky to come up against a ref allowing NZ to continually go off their feet at the breakdown, and that 'knock on' wow!

Habanas card was harsh, but there is a strong case for it being intentional foul play, it was a little high and in any other part of the feild in any other situation penalty only, however he was 5 metres from his own line and it stopped AAC in his tracks. His arm goes over AAC's shoulder and makes first contact with his neck and face. Had Habana gone shoulder or below I don't think he stops AAC dead, and it goes to within a metre or 2.

Like I said harsh but you can see why.

nutralee wrote: Habanas card was harsh, but there is a strong case for it being intentional foul play, it was a little high and in any other part of the feild in any other situation penalty only, however he was 5 metres from his own line and it stopped AAC in his tracks. His arm goes over AAC's shoulder and makes first contact with his neck and face. Had Habana gone shoulder or below I don't think he stops AAC dead, and it goes to within a metre or 2.

Oh, rubbish, then the high tackle by Horne on Jean de Villiers 5 meters from the line 10 minutes earlier should be seen as exactly the same, or did you miss that tackle?

I think using a appeal or challenge system like in cricket might work in rugby. The ref makes all the calls, the captain has a maybe 2 challenges so can challenge any decision which the TMO then needs to find the evidence to overturn the ref. so marginal calls remain as the ref gave them, only really bad decisions are changed, very few tmo moments in each match.

thoughts?