Hansen worried about future of rugby

[TRF_heineken]

You know what. Refs need to start been paid a lot more to create a more competitive workforce. What's the point of investing all your time and effort if you're just going to be criticised and marginalised for things out of your control. What is the difference between officiating the game to the law or letting a few things slide to create a more "attractive game"?
Nigel Owens is rated a very good referee. But if you actually look at his style he ignores a hell of a lot of infringements as too create a more "attractive" game. How the hell are you supposed to work in those kind of conditions?
These guys are mostly doing it for the love of the game and to give back. I feel for them at the pro level it's almost an impossible job.

There are always guidelines announced at the start of the season and tournaments, but what usually happens is that they will focus too much on these aspects because the ref management will monitor these and they will look at other aspects of the games less!

Refs are always under pressure to create a more attractive game, which then has the adverse affect at times of giving too much advantage to one side which then leads to more defensive mind set overall!!!

There is no real way to structure the laws in a way that can't provide manipulation because there are far too many for one man too look at!

We need to consider two refs on the field imo. Kaplan seems to agree with me...

Oh but there is. I just think that the Governing Body, World Rugby, are too lazy to do that. Their biggest focus is to get the money in. But like I mentioned before, If they can have a World Summit, where everybody gets together and use that as a pillar to work from, I think it could just be to the benefit of everyone.

Nigel Owens is not a technical referee, whereas Craig Joubert is over-technical in my opinion. Like I said, it's a matter of interpretation. And if the laws are interpreted differently, then amend the law so that Nigel Owens and Craig Joubert call it the same. Just like a knock-on call. The refs always seem to get the knock-ons right, yet they always seem to get it wrong.

As for Refereeing, I can only speak for South African referees, but most of the refs in SA do it as a career, the young ones coming through goes to university and studies it, and then goes through the ranks as a career referee. Most of them start off on the Seven's Circuit, which is basically a quarter of the year that you are travelling the globe.

I know Mark Lawrence is an optometrist, but he was basically his own boss, so he could lock-up and go. Marius Jonker was a detective in the police force before he became a proffesional referee.

Refs are always under pressure, because they put themselves in that position. They picked this job, and they went on to learn the ins and outs of the law book. If there is an issue they are uncomfortable with, then they should speak up. an Ex Parte -case on behalf of the referees might not be such a bad idea if the referees feel that there are changes to be made.

 

[welshglory]

The question is how do you structure the laws for the scrum and breakdown where interpretation doesn't come into play, attacking rugby is a result and there is still fair competition?

Lawmakers have been trying to work this out since the game professional and since 2008 they've been fiddling around with the game seemingly going one step forward and then quickly one step backwards.

I just feel that with the professional/entertainment aspect of the game now needs to be considered very highly. The game as we know it at the amateur levels apart from structural/tactical aspects are drastically different to the top end. It's not a case of oh we'll change this little bit and if the reffs focus on it we'll be A OK. The whole rule book needs to be looked at and what we really want from the game.

 

[Rugga-lad]

Award more points for a try, would that solve it?

No. Less Concentration on a defense minded game, and more on being attacking minded.

 

[TRF_heineken]

The question is how do you structure the laws for the scrum and breakdown where interpretation doesn't come into play, attacking rugby is a result and there is still fair competition?

Lawmakers have been trying to work this out since the game professional and since 2008 they've been fiddling around with the game seemingly going one step forward and then quickly one step backwards.

I just feel that with the professional/entertainment aspect of the game now needs to be considered very highly. The game as we know it at the amateur levels apart from structural/tactical aspects are drastically different to the top end. It's not a case of oh we'll change this little bit and if the reffs focus on it we'll be A OK. The whole rule book needs to be looked at and what we really want from the game.

Well, like I said before, a step in the right direction would be to get former players who has been playing in the proffessional era to consult.

A guy like Os Du Randt would be a great example. He played from 1994-2007, won 2 world cups and has been there when the laws have changed. He is now the Cheetahs Super Rugby forwards coach, and has been assisting the University of the Free State with their Varsity team.

The problem is that these Lawmakers don't always have the experience or the inside track regarding areas such as the scrums or the breakdown areas. Most of them weren't proffesional players/coaches so they have to make a law based on what they see, and not always understanding the purpose.

 

[Shaggy]

I never thought I'd agree with Campo, but, he's pretty spot on here ... particularly about the rucking

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/u...fears-to-help-all-blacks-20150311-141l02.html