[November Tests 2017 EOYT] England vs. Australia (18/11/2017)

[The Jones Boy]

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?

Was that proposed by anyone on here or are you making things up again?

 

[curtbob7]

We were missing Billy V Manu brown

And Sinckler, Teo and Nowell.

 

[Hound]

Nowell's no loss. I'd argue Woodburn is the better of the two Exeter wingers and deserves to be there more.

 

[curtbob7]

On form id agree with you but coaches and people on here seem to love Nowells work-rate, breakdown skill and ability in tight spaces.

 

[Every Time Ref]

Was that proposed by anyone on here or are you making things up again?

Yes, posters have proposed that referees are public ally held accountable for their mistakes in the aftermath of games.

 

[The Jones Boy]

Can we start with Derek Bevan, Wayne Barnes and Craig Joubert?

 

[Derpus]

Yes, posters have proposed that referees are public ally held accountable for their mistakes in the aftermath of games.

They should be publicly held accountable. Obviously. How the **** could they not be, that would be ridiculous particularly if a serious mistake has been made that alters the course of a match.

That is in no way the same as saying that they, personally, have to stand in front of all the players, coaches and media and answer any question they might have about their performance. Completely different things.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

They should be publicly held accountable. Obviously. How the **** could they not be, that would be ridiculous particularly if a serious mistake has been made that alters the course of a match.

That is in no way the same as saying that they, personally, have to stand in front of all the players, coaches and media and answer any question they might have about their performance. Completely different things.

How can people with clearly limited knowledge of the laws hold refs accountable? If this game is anything to go by, it shows very well refs should NOT be put on trial by the public but by a proper refereeing body made up of people who actually understand the laws. Yeah they make mistakes on the day but I'm pretty sure that they would do better analysing the situations after than your average rugby fan. See how many didn't know that Hooper could not be brought onside if he continued forward or even that Moore was obstruction. Such people would always allow their emotions to determine how they feel about the decisions, even when they are correct. Said referee body can then say what they thought and deal with it without naming and shaming refs. All refs will have bad days and if we get into a habit of trying to poke holes in their credibility whenever it happens then it will just lead to refs being afraid to make any decisions for fear that they missed something. Welcome to TMO fest and the micro-analysis of every sodding thing, only now it's live rather than afterwards by some whinging fans.

 

[Derpus]

I think you are really missing the broader point here and that the sport is played for entertainment. Analyzing and discussing the referees performance clearly plays into our enjoyment of the spectacle, hence the ridiculously drawn out TMO sagas every bloody match. I don't think just anyone could do a better job but at the same time, where a ref runs a pretty **** match (and yeah he got a lot of those 50/50 calls right but he missed plenty too) you can hardly expect anything other than a lot of public discussion about that.

What do you propose, the state legislate to make it illegal to publicly discuss a refs performance? These people choose a profession that puts them in the public eye. Its a very hard gig and their word is law whilst on the field but, seriously, to expect us not to criticize or discuss post match? get real.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

I think you are really missing the broader point here and that the sport is played for entertainment. Analyzing and discussing the referees performance clearly plays into our enjoyment of the spectacle, hence the ridiculously drawn out TMO sagas every bloody match. I don't think just anyone could do a better job but at the same time, where a ref runs a pretty **** match (and yeah he got a lot of those 50/50 calls right but he missed plenty too) you can hardly expect anything other than a lot of public discussion about that.

What do you propose, the state legislate to make it illegal to publicly discuss a refs performance? These people choose a profession that puts them in the public eye. Its a very hard gig and their word is law whilst on the field but, seriously, to expect us not to criticize or discuss post match? get real.

Public discussion yes, sanctioned public lynching? No. When you talk about being held accountable that implies an official process of publicly sifting through the refs performance, all disagreements made public etc etc. If people want to ***** in their own time that's their choice but actual official analysis of their ability as a ref should not be put out for all to see unless a significant issue arises (ie suspected corruption or significant bias or poor conduct). The last ref I can think of who was publicly shamed was Steve Walsh for his actions against England, yet he was still allowed to come back into reffing and got a last kick in in 2013.

 

[Derpus]

Public discussion yes, sanctioned public lynching? No. When you talk about being held accountable that implies an official process of publicly sifting through the refs performance, all disagreements made public etc etc. If people want to ***** in their own time that's their choice but actual official analysis of their ability as a ref should not be put out for all to see unless a significant issue arises (ie suspected corruption or significant bias or poor conduct). The last ref I can think of who was publicly shamed was Steve Walsh for his actions against England, yet he was still allowed to come back into reffing and got a last kick in in 2013.

I guess the dispute really boils down to your definition of 'accountable'. I don't suppose refs are publicly and officially dressed down by any official body and i'm not sure that's what people are suggesting happen.

I think at the end of the day, if people perceive you to have done a very poor job you will probably cop it from the media regardless of whether you deserved it or not.

 

[Pom in Exile]

On form id agree with you but coaches and people on here seem to love Nowells work-rate, breakdown skill and ability in tight spaces.

Bit hard to talk about form, when Nowell is injured.
I've always liked Woodburn though.

 

[Nubiwan]

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.

Well, the coaches are being paid millions, I suspect, and many of the refs probably still have day jobs. You get what you pay for. Based on that alone, I don't think it is fair to ask them to defend themselves publicly. Not like coaches are asked to defend their decisions either. Easy just to blame a ref.

 

[Nubiwan]

Wanted to make a comment on the TMO process we always witness. Every time a try touchdown is reviewed, or a high / late tackle, the replays are always done in slow-mo, or super slow-mo, to get the actual time of the "contact'. Very rarely - if ever - are replays done at normal speed. Occurs to me that reviewing in real time sometimes gives a better reference point to an incident than slowing it down frame by frame. That slowing down a late hit, or dangerous tackle rather over emphasises the gravity of the contact in many situations. Unfairly so. Just wondered why we never see it done in real time. Not right in my opinion. That's all. Nothing more to see here.

 

[Derpus]

Wanted to make a comment on the TMO process we always witness. Every time a try touchdown is reviewed, or a high / late tackle, the replays are always done in slow-mo, or super slow-mo, to get the actual time of the "contact'. Very rarely - if ever - are replays done at normal speed. Occurs to me that reviewing in real time sometimes gives a better reference point to an incident than slowing it down frame by frame. That slowing down a late hit, or dangerous tackle rather over emphasises the gravity of the contact in many situations. Unfairly so. Just wondered why we never see it done in real time. Not right in my opinion. That's all. Nothing more to see here.

They do occasionally, at least i noticed it a bit in Super Rugby.

Well, the coaches are being paid millions, I suspect, and many of the refs probably still have day jobs. You get what you pay for. Based on that alone, I don't think it is fair to ask them to defend themselves publicly. Not like coaches are asked to defend their decisions either. Easy just to blame a ref.

The highest paid player is on roughly a million pounds a year as of next year. Doubt the coaches are on millions. Highly paid none-the-less.

 

[Goodey]

It's hilarious how Cheika uselessly throwing a strop at a correct refereeing decision has led to a discussion on 'holding refs accountable'.

Much easier than coaching the side not to infringe I suppose

If there's one demonstrably wrong decision made it was pinging Launchbury for a knock on in the tackle when he actually offloaded it.

We're not talking about that because England have a coach who acts like an actual coach and not a casual fan.

 

[duncanb]

NO at press conference.
If you want to change laws ask World Rugby not me.
I called it as a saw it.
If you want to referee take up the whistle.
Next Question.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Can we start with Derek Bevan, Wayne Barnes and Craig Joubert?

Only if I can add Steve Walsh.

The refs have a horrifically hard job. The rules are complex and continually changing, the game's hugely faster, and there are big, fit players being coached to push the laws to the absolute limit. Just how hard is proven by the number of cases like the Daly try where the TMO can't say definitively what's happened after endless replays. Where decisions have to be made in general play without recourse to the TMO eg the Launchbury "knock on", those decisions will still be pored over by pundits at length. Add in more back chat and pressure from coaching teams and the wonder is that there are any refs at all.

Unless we want 4 hour matches with every decision referred to the TMO, we'll just have to accept that the ref and touch judges will call it as they see it and do the job to the best of their ability. That will involve mistakes, but I'll bet they make fewer in the course of a game than the average player.

 

[Which Tyler]

I guess the dispute really boils down to your definition of 'accountable'. I don't suppose refs are publicly and officially dressed down by any official body and i'm not sure that's what people are suggesting happen.

I think at the end of the day, if people perceive you to have done a very poor job you will probably cop it from the media regardless of whether you deserved it or not.

Given post 447, made all of 48 hours ago... What do you actually want that isn't already happening?
Because if you don't want the public accountability to be public... then the behind-closed-doors accountability is already happening.

Well, the coaches are being paid millions, I suspect, and many of the refs probably still have day jobs. You get what you pay for. Based on that alone, I don't think it is fair to ask them to defend themselves publicly. Not like coaches are asked to defend their decisions either. Easy just to blame a ref.

Post on Ref's salaries here:

Out of interest, I tracked down an article from this year, talking about ref salaries - significantly higher than the last one I'd read (which I also tracked down, and was 13 years old!). Ignore their maths though, it's utterly horrible, but they seem to know the pre-match salaries.
http://tsmsportz.com/money/rugby-referees-salaries/

So a RWC ref gets £1500 per (RWC) match; TJs get (£750)
An international ref gets £1000 per (international) match; TJs get (£375)
Premiership/ SRugby refs get £350-375 per match; (TJs unknown, but the same ratio gives £130-180).

So a top, top ref could earn (10x£1000)+(30x£360)=£21,000 in match fees, realistically a little more if they head south for SuperRugby and Quad-Nations.
Meanwhile, a club-grade ref would earn (40x£360)=£14,400 p.a.

Same article suggests that top-level refs can earn a (presumably performance related) "extra" of 2.5X their match fee per match, but only seem to suggest that at RWC level, but if we assume the same across the board, then that salary raises up to £70,000; (£50,000 for club-grade - who will also spend plenty of time running the line instead, so significantly less) realistically I think that assumption holds for international rugby, but probably a lesser bonus at club level.

Bear in mind that even most of the elite refs hold down day-jobs as well, and all of the club-level ref.s do. Owens on the after-dinner speaking circuit, Barnes still works as a solicitor etc.

The article also demonstrates horrendous maths, by suggesting that top-level refs can earn £320,000; which would require the match-fee + full "extras" for refereeing 46 RWC matches per year.... which seems unrealistic somehow.
They also think that $250 per match gives an annual salary of $60,000; requiring 240 matches per year...

 

[Nudger]

I think you are really missing the broader point here and that the sport is played for entertainment. Analyzing and discussing the referees performance clearly plays into our enjoyment of the spectacle, hence the ridiculously drawn out TMO sagas every bloody match. I don't think just anyone could do a better job but at the same time, where a ref runs a pretty **** match (and yeah he got a lot of those 50/50 calls right but he missed plenty too) you can hardly expect anything other than a lot of public discussion about that.

What do you propose, the state legislate to make it illegal to publicly discuss a refs performance? These people choose a profession that puts them in the public eye. Its a very hard gig and their word is law whilst on the field but, seriously, to expect us not to criticize or discuss post match? get real.

As a player I can safely say that I didn't play to entertain anyone I played to win stuff everything else