Antidote NZ

law 6 as set out wont work . all I have to do is touch the ref and claim that I was impeded under that

Red Card. Player goes to the ˜bin' for the rest of the game and is automatically cited to appear before the judiciary. 10 minutes after the red card, one of the ˜subs' comes on. This is an effort to maintain an even sided game as far as player numbers are concerned.

Opps, they are going to score a try, I know...Ill run into the ref on purpose so we can regroup and better defend the try line.

Another rule change. Never have George Ayoub as a TMO...

A change to rule 6 as suggested is nonsense. What is to stop a player from deliberately contacting the ref and thereby resetting play? The current rule has worked well for years.The concept of red cards needs complete re-work so that it penalises the player and not the team (and the game).

So just one incident on Saturday, and you want a law change? You have not thought this through and just on the media bandwagon from the game. (Honestly, did you really think this was such a massive issue in rugby before the game?). The current law has worked perfectly - and one incident does mean we run to change the rule book. As a challenge, can you tell me any other game where a similar incident has happened before? I will wait...In the meantime, I am not saying this from ignorance. I am a referee of 25+ years and if we change the law that any player contacting a referee, then that will lead to complaints every minute. We will have a farce...every game, right down to school boys. Defenders will deliberately run the lines of referees trying to milk an obstruction, in the attempt to slow down the opposition attack. Referees try their best to have a good position in the game and get in the way of players, but in the fluidity of the game, it happens. Players need to be more aware of where the referee is rather than change the law.

Exactly. If halfback is under pressure with no options just pop it into the ref to reset the play.

The other point I missed with the In Goal grounding interpretation is that the current rule (player contacting ball to any degree as defined) is easy and obvious to referee or refer up stairs for clarification. If you bring back In Control as well again then good luck with dealing with every refs interpretation of that.....as in the past.

Mostly agree but NOT law 6. This will just cause no end of play acting and then interpretation of whether a player was making an honest attempt.I would much rather have an ice hockey approach. The ref and linesman are part of the game. If the ball or player hits them, too bad, so sad, play on.

Just revert to the 1980's laws and get on with game.

and the yellow carding for a deliberate knock on needs to stop. I mean, what is a player supposed to do, just let the ball go past him and let a try be scored? This would have to be the silliest rule in rugby.

Thanks for that knee jerk reaction.... what 5 laws do we change next week to deal with a one off situation?How many times in the last 10 years can you recall a referee obstructing a tackler? Your stupid suggestion simply guarantees every defender caught out of position will be lining up the ref to hide his mistake..... pretty much like ole Frenchmen did on Saturday

Re your LAW 6 (MATCH OFFICIALS), why change because of a one off & unusual occurrence - this knew jerk changing is why the rules are so messy now. If you do what you say, players without the ball are gonna start running into the ref / using him as an obstruction excuse regularly - leave it alone, it works 99%+ of the time ok.

There needs to be one other change to the high ball rule. At the moment the player on the ground has little to no rights if a player in the air come forward and contact occurs.The addendum should be if a player on the ground has occupied space and is not materially moving, the player on the ground cannot be subject to penalty unless he deliberately interferes with the player in the air. The result of this is like the charging foul in basketball. The person who claims the space first is not at fault especially when they are simply waiting for the ball to arrive.

difference between football and rugby is that in rugby if a ref accidentally impedes a player, it can cost points. in football it doesnt, as the ref in football is rarely in a position to accidentally interfere in an attacking play.

The McKenzie try occurred because Smith had the ball and held the French 1/2 until he passed it. Would Serin have got McKenzie... mnmm where was the french cover though. No problem with the ref here. Laurie Butland

....... or as thee man in the middle.

Interesting. In football, if the referee gets in the way, tough - they are regarded as being part of the field of play. If either team gets an advantage from the referee getting in the way, its just the luck of the game. No interpretation needed. It also stops the slight possibility of a player deliberately running into the referee to get some form of advantage. Why cant rugby have a similar rule?

Yeah, control is a dumb rule.

Ah, the second test in Wellington. We didn't get our monies worth. A red card is to get a xxxx player off the field, not wreck the rest of the game for everybody.