Rugby Referee Analysis: Did the Officials Get It Right in Springboks vs Australia?

In this detailed analysis of the Springboks vs Australia 2024 Rugby Championship match, we dive deep into the most controversial refereeing decisions that have left fans and experts alike questioning the outcome. From Malcolm Marx's yellow card to the debated actions of Andrew Kellaway, we break down the pivotal moments that could have changed the course of the game.

Timestamps:

00:00 - Malcolm Marx's Yellow Card
01:05 - Inconsistent Officiating
02:05 - Andrew Kellaway Yellow Card
02:54 - South Africa's Illegal Lineouts
04:43 - Sponsorship Video
05:21 - Bad Missed Calls

Join us as we analyze the calls made by Referee Luke Pearce and TMO Ben Whitehouse, and explore whether the officiating team got it right.

Lastly thanks to VHA Accounting Solutions who sponsored this video.

[monster_spencer]

I feel like the Kellaway on Reinach tackle is a yellow . . . regardless of Le Roux’s actions, that was a reckless move that deliberately put Reinach in harms way. You can’t lift a player like that . . . period.

[cj-cvzv]

Flying wedge point is just flat out wrong, read Law 18.37... a lineout only ends if someone leaves the lineout or if a ruck/maul forms. Since the receiver from the catcher was still within the lineout, the lineout hasn't ended yet... fair game
Please research the laws before complaining

[hannesbornman]

I don't think the boks would have done the two pod lineout withou clearing it with Peyps beforehand

[notenoughstones]

Unfortunately your interpretation of the laws is lacking in many areas yet again. Firstly for the head contacts, the only incorrect decision was Angus Gardner's decision. That should have been a yellow as low degree of danger only mitigates to a yellow, not a penalty. Marx's one was unfortunate but is in line with the protocol. Could have been mitigated to a penalty but we have seen yellows for plenty of tackles like that so it is consistent overall. Tip tackle on Reinach was a yellow. Regardless of what Willie does, the tackler takes all the responsibility when lifting a player and not getting him safely to the ground. Even if Willie was in the wrong, this doesn't take away from what Kellaway did. The fact that he stayed on a yellow means that they likely did take it into account otherwise that was a pretty straight forward red card. So yellow was the right call there too. So now you have criticised 3 decisions when in fact only one was incorrect. The other two were called perfectly fine.

On the so called flying wedge, you have completely misinterpreted what a flying wedge actually is. A flying wedge is when a ball carrier is charging forward, usually towards the goal line, with 2+ players latched to him. A ball carrier turning his back to set up for a maul in open play is not, in any way, a flying wedge. I'm sorry but you are just 100% wrong here. There have been several mauls attempted in open play and nobody would ever call those a flying wedge. All you have done is read the definition of a flying wedge and then applied it to a maul in open play. You have completely ignored the context in which that definition was developed and the relevant application guidelines for both the wedge and mauls. There are literal videos about open play mauls to watch and the Maul Working Group Outcomes clearly stated that open play mauls are to be refereed the same as mauls at the lineout. So far, you have got 4 out of 5 wrong in this video. Not a great start.

The Aus no 9 did knock that ball on and to his credit, Luke Pierce actually acknowledge this was a mistake and that he didn't see it. Fair play to him for owning up. However you then drum up a few 50/50 decisions and then criticise these as if they were 100% wrong. On the mark call, the player caught the ball, called the mark and was then clattered into by his own player. At the point of calling the mark and touching the ground, the game is stopped so anything after that is inconsequential. You then claimed Eben knocked on when it is not clear if it was ripped or knocked on or whether the ball was ripped when Eben was already on the ground on not. This is a classic 50/50 which can go either way and neither would be wrong yet you are so sure your version is correct and then use it to bash the referee again.

You have saved the worst for near the end. It is just laughable that you think Willie was offside. This alone tells me and others that you have no idea of how offsides work in open play and also just adds further to my point that you fundamentally do not understand the laws. The offside line from a kick in open play is the point where the ball is kicked, not the hind most leg of the kicker. According to your made up laws, Am was also offside for Mapimpi's try at the 2019 WC because he definitely wasn't behind Mapimpi's hind leg either. This was also reviewed and funny thing is they didn't apply your made up laws but applied the actual laws. I am just embarrassed for you at this point.

Overall this was a hopelessly poor video which shows a vast, gaping lack of knowledge of the laws of the game and how they are interpreted. You seem to think because you read the laws and definitions you are now an expert of sorts but it is rather obvious you have completely missed all the related guidelines, outcomes of working groups, explanatory videos etc. and yet you now think you are adept enough to criticise referees week in week out and stir up this "inconsistent refereeing" narrative when the only reason you see it that way, is because your lack of knowledge makes it that may way.

I suggest you take a referees course and read up ALOT more before making another video because this is just an absolute shambles now.

[kkgman]

Your offside line is drawn incorrectly. It is not at the back foot of the kicker. That attacking player was in line with the kicker, and behind the ball.

[johanwessels]

When you have 2 players bound and the defending team touches the player with the ball its not illegal, because the ball did not transfer. If he shits the ball before making contact with defenders then It would be a penalty to AUS,

[lamjac]

Just one question: Why didn't any of the officials call or pundits talk about the flying wedge? And why wasn't it called in the game? The line out wasn't over at all according to the current laws of the game. You're applying your opinion, that's all.

[joshuaaustin]

If anything this video shows reffing is really hard as both teams had wrong calls against them.

The “he caught it first” mark was hilarious though. 😂

[zeppirl]

To say he cant go any lower to tackle and has no other options is not correct. He can tackle the legs. 16 SA also pushs up into the tackle which is into the head contact obviously. There's nothing stopping him driving forward or downward.
AUS 14 can lift players that's not illegal you just can't then drop them on there head or turn them feet over head into the ground. If he was attempting a croc roll off the lift then that's obviously different and highly illegal.

[jonathanalty]

The ball being pass back in the line out. It is the same as a player making contact with his hand and the player behind him or several people on catching the ball. It is still inside the line out. hence all the liner rules still apply.

[francoissaits]

TAS - Can we get Gayton McKenzie to assist in you posting more recent updates. We hate having to wait weeks befor we see your excellent feedback. This channel is an excellent learning platform for all of us.

[plc]

What about the last try before half time? SA deserved a penalty from the scrum.
But instead the winger ran through the forward pack while using multiple blockers and scores untouched. What is the TMO looking at?

[ChapeauRouge]

Its been quite a few years since I've handeled a whistle and the rules might have changed since then. I understood the lineout ends when the ball leaves the box formed by the outer shoulders of the players in the line. That 2nd pod was still part if the line-out. So no flying wedge. I stand to be corrected though

[evansnyman]

I have asked about what constitutes "ahead of the kicker" previously on a ref's panel (I am an ex-referee) as there is no mm-precise definition, like there is in soccer. The consensus is unless the whole of the chaser is ahead of the kicker, play on. From the lines drawn in your video, at the time of the ball leaving the foot of the kicker, there is at least some part of the chaser behind the ball. It is not torsos like in Olympic sprinting - there is simply no clear definition in the law book.

[LuanDeJager]

1. Law 19 refers in detail to the Lineout and to quote the law: The lineout ends when the ball or a player carrying it leaves the lineout. This includes the following: a) When the ball is thrown, knocked or kicked out of the lineout, the lineout ends.

Would this not cover the line out, does not say once it leaves the receivers hands or you would have immediate accidental offside at any "maul" that isn't formed 🤔 (This is not a rule I am well versed in)

[clinthaskins]

Wrong on the wedge actually the ball has not travelled one metre from the line out hence the lineout is not over!

[neferpitou]

What about SA vs All Blacks last WE? Knock on, high tackle, off side, no repo

Will u say something about this? SA was clearly helped by ref

[martinbrice]

Law says the ball must leave the lineout. Has it left the lineout ? They are still in the lineout ?

[mikezog]

Law 37: The lineout ends when:
The ball or a player in possession of the ball:

leaves the lineout; or

enters the area between the touchline and the five-metre line; or

goes beyond the 15-metre line.

As far as I am aware when the ball was passed to Eben, it has still not left the lineout, nor the other two.

[mikezog]

Law 18: The ruck ends and play continues when the ball leaves the ruck or when the ball in the ruck is on or over the goal line. As soon as the scrumhalf picks it up out of the ruck, players can go for the ball (from an onside position). This why a scrumhalf needs a quick clearance.