Changing of the laws?

[BRSTLDRGN]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/08/23/2013010.htm?section=world

No-where in that article does he say what you say he says. PLus I would imaging that, coming from an Aussie website, that they would have tinkered with what was said to support their means.

 

[Bargoedboy]

I see, you're talking about replacing the Referee manager. I read your original post as wanting to replace the top referees.

Utter rubbish. Paddy O'Brien does not make the decisions about Law interpretations. You are trying to shoot the messenger.

O'Brien works as part of a team, and it is the Designated Members of the iRB Laws Committee who make these decisions, and O'Brien is just the public face of that committee. Try understanding how the system works before you make inane and ill-informed criticisms of the individuals within.

It wouldn't matter who the Referee manager is, whether its Paddy OBrien, Spreaders, Ed Morrison, Chris White or some other person.... the message will be the same!!!

Also, OBrien is not biased. If you recall, Paddy went into bat for Wayne Barnes when he copped a volley of criticism for is abysmal performance in the 2007 France v New Zealand quarter-final. Paddy copped a LOT of flak in New Zealand for his stance, but stood up for his ENGLISH referee!!

first off where`s this bias business coming from ? from what i see on this forum ,most people want to shoot down anyone with an opinion and yet not offer any alternative them selves.
what do you think should be done about current mess between refs and interpretations ? leave it as it is , how long should paddy go on for?
should he be allowed to stay after some of his gaffes between refs and coaches. he is clearly not a man who thinks before he speaks but often makes crass statements then forced to apologise. How about you making a suggestion who should replace him or indeed any of the questions.

 

[ORothlain]

i don`t think that laws should be changed, just enforced the same in SH ad NH.
Also enforce all the laws , not as what seems to happen at moment , concentrate on one aspect to detriment of all else.
Lets have ball in straight at scrum , lets make props bind on shirts by bringing back loose shirts for props to be able to grab onto.
lets have back row stay bound in scrum, and my favourite hands out of ruck , not wait for ref to say" hands out, Ruck" they are professional players they know what rules are , stick hands in ruck instant penalty.

You are right, there is a major binding problem with front rows at scrumtime. The scrum is an area that is going to shite. Albeit it's not as bad as what league did to their scrum, lol, but it's getting frustrating as a prop to watch the "professionals" have a go at scrummaging. Every ref judges the scrum differently, and some of their cadances are so off that you can't anticipate the engage call.

They need to stop f'n about with the laws, and the Southern Hemisphere needs to quit *****ing about the play of rugby as compared to league. I know the Aussies have major competition with league and want a faster brand of rugby in the south to compete for fanbase, but that shouldn't dictate the whole of Rugby.

 

[Bargoedboy]

well said. !!!

 

[smartcooky]

first off where`s this bias business coming from ?

From YOUR post

as for more experianced refs, how about tony spreadbury, or wayne barnes who does not seem to show bias.

You say that either of these could replace O'Brien, and comment that they would not be baised, ergo, you imply that O'Brien is.

In any case, Barnes has a lot if good years left. Its too early for him to be retiring

And make no mistake, IMO he is a very good referee now. He wasn't in 2007, but I have no issues with him now.

from what i see on this forum ,most people want to shoot down anyone with an opinion and yet not offer any alternative them selves.

No one has any problem with anyone else having an opinion, but pleeease base that opinion on facts, and some understanding of what it is you are having an opinion about.

what do you think should be done about current mess between refs and interpretations ? leave it as it is

No, there is definitely a problem but fortunately, other than scrummaging, it is not in the major areas of the game.

This problem is partially addressed with "Law Clarifications" (formerly called "Rulings"). Usually, Law Clarifications are issued by the IRB when a National Union asks the Law Committee to clarify some aspect of the Laws which they believe is either unclear or ambiguous. Rulings are usually incorporated into Law at the next major issue of the Laws of the Game

You can see all the Law Clarifications here http://www.irblaws.com/EN/clarifications/

Once a clarification is issued, ALL National Unions MUST have their referees interpret according to the clarification.

However, I would rather see the IRB become the controlling body of ALL International Elite Panel referees, i.e. have them employed by the iRB and directly responsible to the Laws Committee.

I would also have an IRB Regulation forbidding National Unions to issue any directives regarding application and interpretation of Rugby Laws that differs from the official IRB line. FFS, right there in your own country you have some different Laws for your Juniors to those which are played in England. e.g. Lifting/supporting in the line-out...permitted at U15 Level in Wales, but not in England. When a Welsh school plays an English school in Wales, lifting is allowed, but if they play in England, its not. Ridiculous!

how long should paddy go on for? should he be allowed to stay after some of his gaffes between refs and coaches.

Why not? He's doing a good job, so why change? And what do "gaffes between refs and coaches" have to do with Paddy?

he is clearly not a man who thinks before he speaks but often makes crass statements then forced to apologise

Clearly in your mind perhaps, but obviously not in the minds of those who make the decisions about his status.

Again, you have a bee in your bonnet about POB. He's just the messenger. No matter who the referee manager is, the message will not be changing. The only thing he did wrong was to talk publicly about Stuart Dickinson's poor performances in the Italy v New Zealand test last year, and it WAS a poor performance. Dickinson got his scrum rulings completely wrong in that match, and was accordingly sent for remedial scrum management training and demoted to minor matches for some time.

 

[smartcooky]

..the Southern Hemisphere needs to quit *****ing about the play of rugby as compared to league.

Be careful who you lump together with your gross generalisations!

► Rugby League does not even register on the radar in either South Africa or Argentina. Their main competition is with Wendyball, not Rugby League. Also, neither of these countries is likely to be wanting to see any diminishing of the importance of the scrum, far from it.

► New Zealand does not even have a professional Rugby league competition, and they have ONE professional team, the Warriors, playing in an Australian competition with a mostly Auckland fan base. I doubt that the All Blacks or anyone in NZ rugby want to see scrums de-powered either.



As for what Rules I would introduce/change. Only three

1. PROP'S JERSEYS AND BINDING
I would not allow props to wear skin tight jerseys. Props should be made to wear loose-fitting jerseys with easily visible or coloured panels sewn into the two places on the back and side, as specified in Law 20.3 (c) and (d), where the opposing props must bind. If they don't bind with their hand grasping some part of the coloured panel? PING! If they drop their bind altogether? PING!

Also at most levels I would insist on long binding over the back of the opposing prop. On the Rugbyrefs forum we have had some lengthy and robust debates with former England international hooker Brian Moore (who is a forum member) on what makes a good stable scrum. While opinions vary, everyone is in agreement that a long bind is the best "foundation stone" for a stable scrum. Not only that, but it makes it much more difficult for props to disrupt the scrum. If the prop is bound to his opponent's back, they cannot;

► Get their and head below their hips very easily
► Pull their opponent down,
► Push their opponent up,
► Twist their opponent left or right (boring in is difficult if not impossible)

Also, a long bind helps to lock the scrum together as the only direction you are easily able to pull your opponent in is towards you.

2. DROPPED GOALS
I would amend Law 22.8

22.8 BALL KICKED DEAD THROUGH IN-GOAL
If a team kicks the ball through their opponents’ in-goal into touch-in-goal or on or over the dead ball line, except by an unsuccessful kick at goal or attempted dropped goal, the defending team has two choices:

To have a drop-out,
or
To have a scrum at the place where the ball was kicked and they throw in.


I would remove the bit in red. This would add an element of risk to an otherwise risk-free method of attempting to score. The further out you attempt from, the greater the risk of missing, and the bigger the chunk of territory you will lose.

3. TACKLER and GATE
At the tackle (Law 15) I would remove the tackler's right to play the ball from any direction. I would make him go through the gate like all other players. The referee would then not have to decide whether a player is a tackler or not as everyone at, or arriving at the tackle must play the ball from their own side.

I would also have the "tackle gate" actually defined and illustrated in Law 15, with a diagram similar to the one in IRB Rugby Ready publication.

 

[Bargoedboy]

From YOUR post

You say that either of these could replace O'Brien, and comment that they would not be baised, ergo, you imply that O'Brien is.
No i said Wayne Barnes is not biased as i think he is a very good ref (despite wales losing almost every match he has reffed.

In any case, Barnes has a lot if good years left. Its too early for him to be retiring

And make no mistake, IMO he is a very good referee now. He wasn't in 2007, but I have no issues with him now.
so you can state barnes is not a very good ref , yet i can`t say paddy is doing badly ?

No one has any problem with anyone else having an opinion, but pleeease base that opinion on facts, and some understanding of what it is you are having an opinion about.
now hold on here who the bloody hell do you think you are, to say i know nothing about what i am talking about, disagree with me all you like but to start having a personal go at me because i don`t agree with you is a bit of a pompous attitude mate.

No, there is definitely a problem but fortunately, other than scrummaging, it is not in the major areas of the game.
Wrong there is a problem , which pretty much everyone agrees on is the tackle area, which you have alluded to as well !

This problem is partially addressed with "Law Clarifications" (formerly called "Rulings"). Usually, Law Clarifications are issued by the IRB when a National Union asks the Law Committee to clarify some aspect of the Laws which they believe is either unclear or ambiguous. Rulings are usually incorporated into Law at the next major issue of the Laws of the Game

You can see all the Law Clarifications here http://www.irblaws.com/EN/clarifications/

Once a clarification is issued, ALL National Unions MUST have their referees interpret according to the clarification.
agreed all members should vote on keeping laws as they are and stop issueing stupid clarifications of interpretations.

However, I would rather see the IRB become the controlling body of ALL International Elite Panel referees, i.e. have them employed by the iRB and directly responsible to the Laws Committee.

I would also have an IRB Regulation forbidding National Unions to issue any directives regarding application and interpretation of Rugby Laws that differs from the official IRB line. FFS, right there in your own country you have some different Laws for your Juniors to those which are played in England. e.g. Lifting/supporting in the line-out...permitted at U15 Level in Wales, but not in England. When a Welsh school plays an English school in Wales, lifting is allowed, but if they play in England, its not. Ridiculous!
agreed, found it strange when i took team on tour to south wales.
Why not? He's doing a good job, so why change? And what do "gaffes between refs and coaches" have to do with Paddy? read my post its him having gaffes with refs and coaches !

Clearly in your mind perhaps, but obviously not in the minds of those who make the decisions about his status.
actually i think a lot of people , both pro and amateur , players coaches and refs have an issue with him !
Again, you have a bee in your bonnet about POB. He's just the messenger. so No matter who the referee manager is, the message will not be changing. The only thing he did wrong was to talk publicly about Stuart Dickinson's poor performances in the Italy v New Zealand test last year, and it WAS a poor performance. Dickinson got his scrum rulings completely wrong in that match, and was accordingly sent for remedial scrum management training and demoted to minor matches for some time.

but the point about his gaffe with dickinson , was bad enough to publicly slate a ref , but whats even worse was that he apologised to HIS home union about dickinson, now that is bias !!!!!
what about having to issue a public apology to peter thorburn as well over yet more comments !
maybe if paddy wasn`t from NZ and from uk you would change your mind.


maybe if paddy wasn`t

 

[Bargoedboy]

for some reason , last part was missed off , should say"maybe if paddy wasnt from NZ and from uk instead you would change your mind. "

 

[smartcooky]

No one has any problem with anyone else having an opinion, but pleeease base that opinion on facts, and some understanding of what it is you are having an opinion about.
now hold on here who the bloody hell do you think you are, to say i know nothing about what i am talking about, disagree with me all you like but to start having a personal go at me because i don`t agree with you is a bit of a pompous attitude mate.

The fact that you want to blame POB for all the differing interpretations tells me that you don't know how the system works. How many ways and how many time would you like me to tell you that he is PART OF A TEAM and that HE DOES NOT MAKE THESE DECISIONS HIMSELF before you understand!!!

No, there is definitely a problem but fortunately, other than scrummaging, it is not in the major areas of the game.
Wrong there is a problem , which pretty much everyone agrees on is the tackle area, which you have alluded to as well !

Nobody I know thinks there are any really serious problems in the tackle area now that everyone is using the same applications that SANZAR Referees used in Super 14 this year, and from June 1st this year EVERYONE is using those same applications of Law 15.

The only ones I know who are complaining are the ones who cannot compete in the tackle area and don't want to see quick ball made available for running rugby.

The tackle area just needs a little tidying up, and my suggestion from my last post re: the tackler, would help in that regard.

but the point about his gaffe with dickinson , was bad enough to publicly slate a ref , but whats even worse was that he apologised to HIS home union about dickinson, now that is bias !!!!!

Thats utter rubbish. He apologised to Dickinson and the ARU

http://www.super14.com/news/rugbyweek.asp?id=23211

The other thing to keep in mind is that POB apologised for making the assessment PUBLIC, not for wrongly assessing Dickinson, who DID make a lot of cock-ups in that match, and WAS sent for remedial scrum management training because of his poor performance.

 

[smartcooky]

for some reason , last part was missed off , should say"maybe if paddy wasnt from NZ and from uk instead you would change your mind. "

Now you're accusing me of bias!!!

I never had a problem with Steve Griffiths (O'Brien's predecessor as IRB Referee manager) and he was a Welshman!!!!

 

[Bargoedboy]

seems like you can find no fault with paddy, so if its not bias maybe its love ! here`s what planet rugby had to say about dickinson affair. hardly puts paddy in a good light does it !
http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,16017_5708497,00.html

yet when the scottish coach (who just happens to be an australian at the time) criticised the ref in a game , he was not happy and defended ref, maybe he`s as confused as you regarding protocol. take a read from the Independant Sunday, 13 February 2005.
The world's top rugby referee believes the use of video replays to settle disputed decisions should be increased, or dispensed with altogether. Paddy O'Brien, the New Zealander who will preside over this afternoon's Twickenham set-to between England and France, also wants coaches held more accountable for their post-match comments. He was upset at the scathing criticism directed at officials by Scotland's coach, Matt Williams, after last weekend's Six Nations' Championship opener in Paris.
and also lets not forget 99 world cup and the storm over his reffing of a game .
either way Paddy should have been sacked for his handling of protocol regarding calling Peter thorburn a liar (which he had to apologise publicly for) and dickinson affair.
just for curiosity how many pages long is the law book , and how many pages long is the amendments and clarifications etc ?
and i wonder how many amendments has been made since O`brien took over !!!!
I know you have to back your own guy but have some common sense !

 

[smartcooky]

seems like you can find no fault with paddy, so if its not bias maybe its love !

A contemptuous comment to make. You can't debate sensibly so you resort to this kind of crap.

Of course I can find fault with O'Brien, but IMO you are giving him a bad rap here. Your stated objection is that different hemispheres have different interpretations of the Laws, and you blame O'Brien for this. What will it take for you to understand that OBrien is not responsible for this, and that National Unions are? Is this concept too difficult for you to grasp?

here`s what planet rugby had to say

You can quote the idiots at Planet Rugby all day long. I no longer take any notice of what they say, as they have zero credibility with me. They carry such a huge European bias to their reporting that most of what they publish isn't worth the time taken to read it. And as for their forum, we'll don't even go there!

lets not forget 99 world cup and the storm over his reffing of a game

Oh for God's sake man, you want to drag up 1999 refereeing errors and apply them to a different job 11 years later!!!

Any referee, no matter what level he referees at, who claims that he hasn't had train wreck or a 'mare or two with the whistle is a liar

just for curiosity how many pages long is the law book

From Law 1 to Law 22, not including referee signals, U19 and 7s variations...

2002 - 22 Laws, 140 pages
2003 - 22 Laws. 139 pages
2005 - 22 Laws, 138 pages
2007 - 22 Laws, 138 pages
2009 - 22 Laws, 138 pages
2010 - 22 Laws, 138 pages

O'Brien took up the Referee Manager appointment in August 2005 so that kind of shoots your argument down in flames now doesn't it?

and how many pages long is the amendments and clarifications etc ?
and i wonder how many amendments has been made since O`brien took over !!!!

This statement is the clearest indication yet that you don't understand the process and/or you haven't read my earlier posts.

So, let me explain it to you...... again!

Rulings and Clarifications are generated by requests from NATIONAL RUGBY UNIONS

Here is a typical header from a ruling so that you can see what I mean...

To: Secretaries / CEOs of Unions and Regional Associations in Membership
From: David Carrigy, Head of External & Member Relations
Subject: Law Ruling by Designated Members of Rugby Committee
Date: September 24, 2008
Ruling: 4: 2008
The RFU has requested a ruling relating to Law 17
A maul is formed with Team A pushing their opponents [Team B] back towards their
own goal line......etc etc

If there had been an increase in the number of Rulings and Clarifications, it would be because they have been requested.

The Referee's Manager DOES NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH REQUESTING RULINGS AND CLARIFICATIONS. All he does is disseminate them to referees world-wide.

And in any case...

2002 - 9 Rulings
2003 - 14 Rulings
2004 - 10 Rulings
2005 - 7 Rulings (4 before O'Brien began, 3 after)
2006 - 10 Rulings
2007 - 3 Rulings
2008 - 4 Rulings
2009 - 9 Rulings
2010 - 2 Rulings (so far, but none in the pipeline AFAIK)

So
Prior to O'Brien's appointment.. 37 rulings in 3½ years (average 10 per year)
After OBriens appointment....... 31 rulings in 5 years (average 6 per year

Oh dear, shot down in flames again. Are you sure you wish to continue debating this with me?

I know you have to back your own guy but have some common sense !

I don't feel any need to "back my own guy" . I don't much care who the Referee Manager is or where he comes from. It is irrelevant to me.

As for commonsense, well I deal in facts and only ever argue from a position of knowing the facts. To do otherwise is to show a lack of commonsense.

 

[bluggerme]

I think that the new breakdown laws have ruined the contest at the breakdown. I think that players like McCaw were so good at getting to their feet quickly and snatching the ball (and it's really not an easy thing to do!) and not allowing this puts the initiative in the hands of the team in possession. Ok you might think that that encourages them to attack but Rugby Union is a contest, if we didn't want to contest the ball we would play rugby league. And quick turnover ball makes for exciting running rugby! If you go back even further than 5 years a good openside would turn the opposition in the tackle and allow his teamates to ruck over and get turnover ball. Again wWhat was wrong with this?

Unfortunately you can generalise how referees apply the laws at the breakdown; in theory the laws are the same for both the attacking side and the defending side but referees tend to referee the defending side much more than they do the attacking side i.e. going off their feet, coming in the side etc. You may argue that referees cannot penalise every minor infringement but they can. If you ever watch a good team that's say 2 points ahead with 10 minutes to go. They will defend like mad in their own half and very rarely will they concede a penalty, this is because they usually know exactly what they are doing when they have been conceding penalities for the first 70 minutes of the game. It just goes to show that professional players know the laws to the letter when they have to.

Something else that has developed due to the IRB's multitude of changes in the last couple of years is aerial ping pong. This is horrendous to watch and surely something needs to be done about it. To be fair the best sides tend to engage in it e.g. NZ would prefer to run it back at you than play ping pong but far too many of the 6 Nations matches have now descended into these awful open play kicking duels. How this is dealt with is probably another debate all by itself.

 

[smartcooky]

bluggerme

The aerial ping pong that is so despised by most fans, came about precisely because the contest at the breakdown was too heavily weighted in favour of the team not carrying the ball. The tackler had all the rights, the ball carrier had none, and that led to a lot of turnovers at the tackle, either by the McCaws and Brussows plying their trade, or by the ball carrying team being penalised. The ball carrying team did not want to get caught in possession in their own half due to the high risk of losing the ball or conceding a penalty.

I don't think there is anything wrong with how the breakdown is being refereed now. It is certainly more fair to both sides than it was last year, where the non ball carrying side had so much advantage that it was better to not have the ball. South Africa won the Tri Nations last year by effectively trying their best not to have possession. Only five of the nine matches were won by the team with the most possession, and on one occasion South Africa had only 39% and still won. Also, the constant kicking away of the ball led to penalty goals being the determining factor in winning matches. A whopping 69 penalty goals were kicked during last year's tri-nations and average of nearly eight per match. That cannot be a good thing for the game.

 

[Bargoedboy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbOA8ff4FQ4 during his involvement with ELVs another joke from irb mainly from southern hemispehere coaches and with full backing from mr obrien himself.
paddy here talks about laws, and his arguement is at odds with what he tells refs via his directives.
first off he tells us the game is too difficult to referee and needs to be made easier, yet why not train refs better?
he also says touch judges should be more involved in game, yet during 07 RWC issued a directive to ignore slight offsides and forward passes, and when a noted coach brings this up he calls coach a liar publicly. then has to offer public apology.
he tells coaches off for slating refs , and hands out punishment to a ref because coaches complained about ref ?
He has shown a bias in his outbursts for which he has had to apologise, if it was not wrong he would not have to apologise would he.
The game is harder to ref last few years due to refs not heeding the laws, and being given directives by paddy to concentrate on certain areas rather than the whole laws. who is at top of refs for last 5 years ?
whatever you say regarding laws , these last 5 years has been a mess, with the tackle area and scrum area a major problem.
The scrum has never been such an issue to ref, only since NZ and Australia decided they didnt want scrums. things are changing back at last , but still scrum is not reffed correctly , why not who is in charge ? yep keeps coming back to him don`t it.

 

[BRSTLDRGN]

As far as I can tell the main reason why scrums have been inconsistently reffereed is because no top line ref has ever played in there and doesn't understand the "goings on" in there.

 

[TRF_Cymro]

As far as I can tell the main reason why scrums have been inconsistently reffereed is because no top line ref has ever played in there and doesn't understand the "goings on" in there.

Quite true but its not a viable excuse at top international level.

smartcooky gave a good alternative, the touch judges can do a little more to help also.

 

[lucky number 7]

i must say smartcooky you are a fantastic man to fight your corner ..very well thought out points..top quality poster..

but there are some incosistancies in the new relase the ball carrier laws that i would like explained ..as robbing ball is the main focus of my play It annoys me that nobody has given me a thouroughly conclusive answer..i dont know how to explain it via words so i might post up a video to youtube sometime soon so i can havethis clarified before the new season..

 

[Darwin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbOA8ff4FQ4 during his involvement with ELVs another joke from irb mainly from southern hemispehere coaches and with full backing from mr obrien himself.
paddy here talks about laws, and his arguement is at odds with what he tells refs via his directives.
first off he tells us the game is too difficult to referee and needs to be made easier, yet why not train refs better?
he also says touch judges should be more involved in game, yet during 07 RWC issued a directive to ignore slight offsides and forward passes, and when a noted coach brings this up he calls coach a liar publicly. then has to offer public apology.
he tells coaches off for slating refs , and hands out punishment to a ref because coaches complained about ref ?
He has shown a bias in his outbursts for which he has had to apologise, if it was not wrong he would not have to apologise would he.
The game is harder to ref last few years due to refs not heeding the laws, and being given directives by paddy to concentrate on certain areas rather than the whole laws. who is at top of refs for last 5 years ?
whatever you say regarding laws , these last 5 years has been a mess, with the tackle area and scrum area a major problem.
The scrum has never been such an issue to ref, only since NZ and Australia decided they didnt want scrums. things are changing back at last , but still scrum is not reffed correctly , why not who is in charge ? yep keeps coming back to him don`t it.

Just out of curiosity why would NZ not want scrums? Over the last 10 years NZ have had one of the best scrums in the world - if we could get rid of anything we would get rid of lineouts

 

[smartcooky]

Your post is more full of holes than a 10Kg block of Emmental. I hardly know where to start!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbOA8ff4FQ4 during his involvement with ELVs another joke from irb mainly from southern hemisphere coaches and with full backing from mr obrien himself.

FFS get your facts straight!!

Firstly, the Laws project Group, authors and conceivers of the ELVs, set up by the IRB’s Rugby Committee in 2005 were

Bill Beaumont (England, NH, Chairman) - also Vice Chairman of the iRB
Bill Nolan (Scotland, NH)
Rod Macqueen (Australia, SH)
Ian McIntosh (South Africa, SH)
Richie Dixon (Scotland, NH)
Pierre Villepreux (France, NH)
Graham Mourie (New Zealand, SH)
Paddy O'Brien (New Zealand, SH)

NOTE: Four NH and four SH representatives, with the NH both Chairing the Group and having the casting vote.

Secondly, the ELV's had the full backing of O'Brien because;

a. He was the SPOKESMAN for the Laws Project Group
b. The ELV's were iRB policy!

What the fvck would you expect an iRB spokesman to do, speak out against the policy of his employers? FFS man take some time to think about what it is you are posting before you make a complete dick of yourself on a public forum.

paddy here talks about laws, and his argument is at odds with what he tells refs via his directives. first off he tells us the game is too difficult to referee and needs to be made easier, yet why not train refs better? he also says touch judges should be more involved in game, yet during 07 RWC issued a directive to ignore slight offsides and forward passes, and when a noted coach brings this up he calls coach a liar publicly. then has to offer public apology.

The iRB meeting between referees and coaches and the subsequent memo was about Touch Judges becoming involved in the game with marginal calls that were beyond their mandate, and outside the touch judging protocols in place at the time!!!!

In the video he is talking about the ELV's. This was AFTER 2007. You are comparing apples with oranges.

he tells coaches off for slating refs , and hands out punishment to a ref because coaches complained about ref ?

He sidelined Dickinson because he had a terrible game. Lyndon Bray, the SANZAR Referees Manager did exactly the same to Paul Marks, Matt Goddard, James Leckie, Garrett Williamson and Pro Legoete in the Super 14..

And for the record, the All Black management did NOT make any formal complaint about Dickinson's performance at San Siro.

He has shown a bias in his outbursts for which he has had to apologise, if it was not wrong he would not have to apologise would he.

You are so naive! You must live in a world everything is in black and white, with no shades of grey.

Firstly, just because he had something to say, does not mean he is biased. In 2007, O'Brien was very critical of the All Blacks management over their criticism of Wayne Barnes. Where's the pro NZ bias there then? Also, he called Peter Thorburn a liar over the touch judge memo. While not exactly lying, Thorburn did grossly misrepresent what was in that memo. OBrien's stand was for the iRB, against a NZ coach. Where is the pro NZ bias there?

Secondly, an apology does not mean that what he said is incorrect, but he may have been wrong to say it. Elementary School English Compreshenson mate!! If a 5ft 2in person weighs 250lb and has a fat arse, I might call them a short fat-arsed person. I would be "wrong" to say that (and later apologise for it) but I would still be technically correct in what I said.

The game is harder to ref last few years due to refs not heeding the laws, and being given directives by paddy to concentrate on certain areas rather than the whole laws. who is at top of refs for last 5 years ? whatever you say regarding laws , these last 5 years has been a mess, with the tackle area and scrum area a major problem. The scrum has never been such an issue to ref, only since NZ and Australia decided they didnt want scrums. things are changing back at last , but still scrum is not reffed correctly , why not who is in charge ? yep keeps coming back to him don`t it.

And since NZ has probably had one of the best scrums in the world for the last five tp ten years, exactly why do you think they want scrums removed or de-powered.

The game became a mess between 2001 and 2005 when the Home Unions wanted to slow the game down, presumably because they couldn't cope with the speed it was played in the SH. You only have to look at footage from the first years of the Super 12 (1996 to 2000) to see what a fantastic and exhilarating game we had. Then the NH dominated iRB changed the tackle Law and the whole breakdown area became a mess.

The game is hard to referee because of the complexity of the Laws. Its the price we pay for having a contest for possession at the breakdown. If you want to watch simple game with simple Laws go watch Rugby Lite and Wendyball.