Discussion in 'International Test Matches' started by TRF_heineken, Nov 13, 2017.
We were missing Billy V Manu brown
The difference, which is huge imo, is that when a coach/player is ignorant about the laws, he or his team is very likely to pay dearly for it. They will have to face the media and answer questions of the sort "how does one get to be a professional player/coach without knowing the rulebook?". Even his salary and career could be at risk.
Do you think Marius van der Westhuizen will face any consequence for his bad call in Eng vs Arg? I do not.
And don't get me wrong, i think those are fair questions and both players and coaches should face them. I don't wanna them to get away with it.
In a way, i actually think it can even help to improve. I am pretty damm sure that every single English player got explained, in detail, how rucks work after that game against Italy and i'm pretty sure they won't make that mistake again. Not sure it was needed, but media clearly exploited some of the English players' ignorance. Never happened again.
By the same token, I just think refs should also face questions.
You can even make a simpler argument for it. Think about it this way: part of the press conference purpose is to explain to media/fans what went on and why. If ref's have an impact on the game, then they should also answer for it.
And kindly note that i am not just throwing refs to the lions. First thing i said was i'd also give them more salary, more/better training, etc. I know it's a hard job but that shouldn't mean they shouldn't be accountable. You could argue "why accountable to the fans"? I'm open to suggestions, but i'm guessing nothing is as transparent as being open to the guys who ultimately pay your paycheck, be it through tickets, cable or the beer you buy at the pub.
I know it'll never happen tho. Kinda venting.
I'm not sure I completely agree. First if all Beale didn't just stick a hand out instinctively, he flew at it. For me he took a gamble, if he was able to knock it up and catch it he runs in and scores. However if he doesn't he has chosen to deliberately knock it forward hoping he can catch it. That is completely different from an intercept where the player reads the play and catches the ball cleanly without it being knocked into the air. If the rules were changed then it would allow players to charge at the ball, knock it on and claim they were attempting to catch it knowing they could get away with it. England were behind the Aussie defence if Beale hadn't knocked it on.
Beale knew what he was doing and it was a risk he took, however he did intentionally knock it on. Personally those deserve a yellow card, because it's cynical and while he 'hoped' to catch it, he never really had much of a chance. Instead he definitely stopped the England attack illegally and he knew that he would. It was cynical.
I agree they should face questions, but it needs to be private, as in someone senior going through the 'questionable decisions' or those they clearly got wrong to help them improve. Maybe some questions could come from coaches after. However if you openly question in public, then it damages the respect people have for the refs. I don't envy their job and they will get things wrong because it's human error or they don't have all the angles at the time. Let me give you an example.
Now while I think Craig Joubert was never the best ref by a long way, he was treated very badly over his decision at the World Cup. From his perspective he made the right call. He could not go to the TMO, because the law said it can only be used for foul play or checking the grounding of a try. Therefore he would not have been right to check his decision with the TMO. (I'm not sure about the TMO intervening himself, but that would be the TMO's fault not Joubert's). He made an honest mistake based on his viewpoint at the time. Yes it was controversial and as it turns out the wrong decision, but he had a split second to make it and he did. For me what he did get wrong was basically running off the pitch. That was shameful and embarrassing. However he was then absued by fans, ex-players, pundits even players after all claiming what he should have done and ignorant of how the law of the game worked. Yes they should feel aggrieved, but that was no excuse for how they acted either. Honestly I can't see any benefit for publically criticising a referee after a game.
Then i take it you are against open questions to players and coaches? Why should players and coaches have their respect people have for them damaged (your words, not mine) and let get refs get away with murder.
I just want them to face the same press players/coaches. I fail to see why players and coaches can admit a mistake and refs cannot.
A players commits an accident, assume genuine accident: he gets sent sent off, then he has to face the team, the coaches, the fans, the press. Then he gets cited. Everything there gets notarized and pdfs go around saying what he said, pics of the event, the lot (think foul play in a WC). And we cannot ask refs a question? They can't admit they were wrong?
If i recall correctly, the citing commission during WC looked with kinder eyes the people who admitted they had made a mistake.
How about a bit of their own medicine then?
It's a tough job, and it's fine if they get it wrong. I just want them to admit it. WR screams transparency this, transparency that. Well, how about more transparency when things go wrong from their end?
Do you honestly think that fans will be more angry if the ref admits it was a mistake? I think the fans of the affected party will probably be just as ****** off and the rest will be better off. Lets call it pareto superior.
I see a big difference between publicly criticizing and questioning. I also see a big benefit of giving the time and place to explain his ruling.
I do agree it won't make a difference to an angry scot after the loss, but it could very well educate all the neutrals who weren't even aware of the rules in question.
In this particular instance, i think it would have made things a lot more clear to the rest of the planet instead of everyone speculating and WR having to issue a statement. a 5 min press conference would have yielded the same or better result, would have added a lot of transparency to the equation AND, quite importantly, wouldn't have looked as if WR threw Joubert to the wolves (why issue a statement when Joubert made a mistake but not on others?).
Again, the logic is pretty straightforward. Players and coaches were the ones who started giving press conferences because the rationale was it was them who defined the outcome of the game. Couple of years later we find out that is not always the case. Well, i say we bring whoever is responsible to elaborate and explain.
Additionally, and this is my speculation and not a fact, i suspect that putting them on the spotlight would kinda force them to be more consistent among themselves about things like, say, how to handle the rucks.
You probably know this already, but just in case... this is exactly what happens after every single top-tier match (club or international).
The ref goes through the match again with the referee's assessor (who, I understand, usually watches the match live, as well as any TV recording).
Coaches fill in a report on the ref after every match; which is then gone through with the assessor.
From what I've found (and posted elsewhere on here [thread on Cockerill's most recent ref-bitch]) about 30% of the ref's (pitiful) salary is on a per-match basis; with the rest being performance related.
Ref.s can, and have been demoted; whether they simply fail to get as many high-profile matches, or actively removed from the register, or demoted a league.
What were your thoughts on the Itoje knock down?
I am against ref's having to come out and explain themselves, because it then leads to more criticism personally and they would then also start to hesitate on big calls knowing they would have to answer for it, which would make things even worse. In the Joubert case, it could have been made clearer, but I stand by the fact that all those calling for the TMO use, especially ex-players/pundits were more at fault for making the situation more confusing and worse.
Yes I was aware, though not to the extent of how thorough it was or that their fee was related to performance. For me this is enough as long as those assessing keep them to a high standard.
Meh, during the game they should be beyond reproach.
After the game should be broken down and analyzed just as the players games are. They, more than most on the field, have the biggest influence on the game. If they haven't been consistent then they warrant criticism.
Be pretty fucken swell if i didn't have to answer for my job performance.
Well tbh since the ref had warned England and gave a penalty for it, it should have been a yellow then for toomany penalties. That was something he got wrong.
As for the actual act, having watched it again, it depends on when you can knock it out of the scrum halfs hands at the back of a maul. Is it the same as a ruck, I personally dont know the law well enough. However for me the ball goes backwards and hits an Australian players foot then goes forward. Simply put if it was illegal, then it was cynical and so I would say a yellow card is possible. One difference with Beale though is that Australia were not through the defensive line, where as Beale clearly stopped and England break, that for me makes Beale's worse.
That's kinda missing the point as it has been established they do answer for their job, but in private. The question is whether they should publically have to come out and explain their decisions. I personally don't see how going through each decision in a press conference helps them. Especially when it's 50-50 ones where both sides disagree.
Well, I don't think it's an obligation now is it? But equally, you wouldn't expect journalists to 'respect the ref' and not ask a question that will help them spin a story about the match. Just as they needle Jones and Cheika constantly.
Mate with all due disrespect you spout some bullshit
I'm an England fan. I had the misfortune to see the result prior to watching the match. 30 odd points for England, and I'd be forgiven for expecting a little more spectacle than what was actually served up. Tactics? Is that what it was about? Wait till they tire in the 75th minute, then blow them away. Hmm. It was over a week ago, now. Some of the posts I bothered to read have reminded me of the salient incidents that were factors in the match.
My everlasting impression is that England were hardly worth a 4-5 point victory in the end. That the eventual score line flattered them. That, if I am the All Blacks, and oz and England are the number 2 and 3 in the world, then I have little to keep me up at night.
Perhaps harsh considering the conditions, and Australia's recent return to something approaching form, but I personally thought this a terrible game. Having to wait 75 minutes for the bulk of England's points to be scored reminds me just how poor this game was. As well as being yet another international littered with officiating question marks.
Perhaps people liked it for the grunt. I was not impressed by the rugby. Thought McMann (sp?) good for Oz. having trouble thinking of an England player who stood out.
Great argument there you completely blew my post apart I retract everything I said.
One of the funny things about ruling Moore has committed an offence for obstruction is he didn't rule on grounding. Most of the time I've seen it ruled no grounding if they can't prove it hit ground even if it probably did. A recent Bath game they did go the other way. But that would of been a legit 50/50 call, however the try was by no means assured if Moore hadn't correctly been penalised for obstruction.
Is it really not obvious why it would be a terrible, terrible idea to force referees to stand in front of both teams’ coaching staff and the global media and cop a bollockload of criticism after every game?
Because it’s blindingly obvious that it would compromise their impartiality on the pitch. Every journalist, coach and player in the world would pile into them hoping to influence them (and other refs) in future, and the loudest most threatening voices would start getting more and more of the 50-50 decisions.
I’m staggered this idea is even being discussed, frankly
Funny old world isn't it?
The coaches are totally set up - cameras trained on them throughout during the game monitoring their instinctive reaction to everything, then doing interviews in the immediate aftermath when the adrenaline is still flying. And then when they do say something a bit lively, the press and twittersphere get all offended and puritanical about it..........except that's exactly the kind of reaction they wanted in the first place.
As for putting refs up in front of the cameras? Never.
Separate names with a comma.