One sided refereeing

[Derpus]

That doesn't work either though, because there are cynical pens that prevent certain try's that deserve a yellow straight away, and then ones for marginal offsides that more add to a cumalative.

On the whole I've been happy with this aspect over the last few years, but today was a real step back no doubt.

It works fine. If its so cynical it needs a straight yellow its still a straight yellow.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

The repeat offences yellow is the least consistent aspect of rugby.

It should just be a straight count in the 22 and an automatic yellow. Three or four, whatever amount is deemed appropriate.

Assistant keeps track of the number and it accumulates over the whole game.

Or to keep it really simple an overall straight team foul approach sounds good - forget the circumstances.

Something like yellow for the perp of the 6th team pen and every 3rd thereafter. A 3rd pen for an individual player would be a yellow regardless of the overall count.

Set the number at whatever you want, but no discretion. Still be arguments over individual decisions, but players would know exactly where they stand. And that's kind of all we want. Collective responsibility kicks in, plus might reduce pen count and increase flow.

 

[ncurd]

I'm still a firm believer in yellows for any penalty committed within 5 meters. **** repeated offences.

 

[Which Tyler]

I'm still a firm believer in yellows for any penalty committed within 5 meters. **** repeated offences.

Can't disagree - I'm sure they happen, but I can't think of a penalty close to the line that wasn't a cynical calculus of 3 is less than 7 and the chance of being worse is low.
At the professional level at least

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

I'm still a firm believer in yellows for any penalty committed within 5 meters. **** repeated offences.

I'm not such a fan of instant yellow (excluding try saving) but I do think it should be warning on 1st offense and then yellow.

 

[AlRums]

That doesn't work either though, because there are cynical pens that prevent certain try's that deserve a yellow straight away, and then ones for marginal offsides that more add to a cumalative.

On the whole I've been happy with this aspect over the last few years, but today was a real step back no doubt.

I think they tried that in some of the warm ups, warnings were given in the red zone and then suddenly a relatively innocuous penalty given halfway led to a YC

Ben White certainly got caught with this as did another, I forget who, I think it was the Georgian ref who gave it

 

[Half Pint]

I'm very worried about the advent of "simulation" to try to gain a penalty or a card for the other team. We saw it in the Wales/Fiji game.
If it becomes prevalent then we're going the way of F**tball, (where the main object of the game is now to fall over in the penalty area) and I would be sad about having to stop watching rugby.
With all of the attention of head contacts, then it's an easy way for a cynical player to get the TMO to review, and the combination of :
(1) a freeze-frame showing a head contact, and
(2) a player on the floor appearing injured,
has a good chance of leading to a yellow/red card, no matter how inconsequential or glancing the contact is, or the (lack of) intent or foul play from the opponent. (I mean, a situation where a tackler has made all the right shapes, and the ball-carrier dips or is pushed down or folds on landing from a jump, without any time for tackler to react, and it leads to a small bump of heads or a glancing blow from which both players could continue.)

I hope that the referees & TMO have been briefed by World Rugby to stomp down hard on this, but it seems from the inconsistency of reffing in games so far that they're not very well prepared.

 

[ShropshireAllBlack]

As an amateur ref, I inevitably get asked to explain "eccentric decisions" by officials. I don't have the benefit of TMO or even impartial ARs (Nat 2 & Regional 1 level). I have 2 eyes, 1 perspective, 30 players chancing their luck, touchline referees in the crowd, and if I'm lucky, an assessor keeping an eye on proceedings. It's a piece of p1ss really.
Loughborough University did a study a few years ago. An elite level referee makes 800+ decisions per game. Go down to your local club next Saturday and Ref the 3rds. Then criticise the officials.

 

[Derpus]

As an amateur ref, I inevitably get asked to explain "eccentric decisions" by officials. I don't have the benefit of TMO or even impartial ARs (Nat 2 & Regional 1 level). I have 2 eyes, 1 perspective, 30 players chancing their luck, touchline referees in the crowd, and if I'm lucky, an assessor keeping an eye on proceedings. It's a piece of p1ss really.
Loughborough University did a study a few years ago. An elite level referee makes 800+ decisions per game. Go down to your local club next Saturday and Ref the 3rds. Then criticise the officials.

This is certainly to be kept in mind when considering the merit of a single decision in isolation and I think that is why consistency is such an important metric for a referee. They are never going to get every decision 'right' but hopefully they are consistent and fair in how they interpret and apply the laws to both teams.

You can't be too hard on a ref for making errors in isolation - its when you see a trend that notably benefits one side more than the other that people get really frustrated. And I think that's fair enough.

As an aside - I reckon ref bashing has gotten significantly worse the further down the video review path we've gone. People have come to expect a level of accuracy that isn't humanly possible and that actually detracts from the game as a spectacle when pursued.

 

[Umaga's Witness]

I'm very worried about the advent of "simulation" to try to gain a penalty or a card for the other team. We saw it in the Wales/Fiji game.
If it becomes prevalent then we're going the way of F**tball, (where the main object of the game is now to fall over in the penalty area) and I would be sad about having to stop watching rugby.
With all of the attention of head contacts, then it's an easy way for a cynical player to get the TMO to review, and the combination of :
(1) a freeze-frame showing a head contact, and
(2) a player on the floor appearing injured,
has a good chance of leading to a yellow/red card, no matter how inconsequential or glancing the contact is, or the (lack of) intent or foul play from the opponent. (I mean, a situation where a tackler has made all the right shapes, and the ball-carrier dips or is pushed down or folds on landing from a jump, without any time for tackler to react, and it leads to a small bump of heads or a glancing blow from which both players could continue.)

I hope that the referees & TMO have been briefed by World Rugby to stomp down hard on this, but it seems from the inconsistency of reffing in games so far that they're not very well prepared.

It has seemed in some cases refa and tmos refusing to look further when someone is Hollywooding. Which I have enjoyed.

 

[Umaga's Witness]

This is certainly to be kept in mind when considering the merit of a single decision in isolation and I think that is why consistency is such an important metric for a referee. They are never going to get every decision 'right' but hopefully they are consistent and fair in how they interpret and apply the laws to both teams.

You can't be too hard on a ref for making errors in isolation - its when you see a trend that notably benefits one side more than the other that people get really frustrated. And I think that's fair enough.

As an aside - I reckon ref bashing has gotten significantly worse the further down the video review path we've gone. People have come to expect a level of accuracy that isn't humanly possible and that actually detracts from the game as a spectacle when pursued.

People don't seem to get how (unconsciously) biased they are when viewing a refs performance either. So even most who agree with your point about consistency are unlikely to be able to judge whether a ref performance was consistent.

Plus refs will make mistakes, and one team will be more lucky than the other when it comes to the balance of those mistakes.

 

[Half Pint]

People don't seem to get how (unconsciously) biased they are when viewing a refs performance either. So even most who agree with your point about consistency are unlikely to be able to judge whether a ref performance was consistent.

Plus refs will make mistakes, and one team will be more lucky than the other when it comes to the balance of those mistakes.

That's a really good point, you could have two armchair fans watch the same game, both agreeing that the ref was biased, but each seeing the bias as towards the *other* team.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

I think there should be a league table of referees whose performances are assessed each game by a panel. The winner gets a medal and the honour of refereeing all Dan Biggars games (wait isn't he retiring?)

Those finishing bottom can be related to Officiating in the Steve Walsh Championship. If you get relegated from the Steve Walsh Championship you reach the Bruce Lawrence Conference League.

 

[OwenPB]

Maybe one of you can help with this, because the resolution of advantage is something I never understood and I never know if it's my own bias or just not understanding the game.

This all happens in a 10-ish second period in the England v Argentina game. Ref called knock on against England just inside the Argentinian half, playing advantage because Argentina got the ball and were moving forward. He then called another advantage for Argentina in the very next ruck, again playing on, his arm out all the time. The ball comes out, is passed to an Argentinian team mate, the English players run up, tackle and the Argentinian holds on.

The ref immediately gives England the penalty the moment Argentina foul the ball and doesn't go back for either the knock-on or whatever he signalled in the previous ruck. England score from the penalty.

Why did he not go back for either advantage? England had just fouled the ball twice in succession and Argentina got nothing, no put in at the scrum, no kick to touch. He's still holding his arm out for Argentina when he blew and gave England the penalty.

At what point does your advantage just get cancelled without the ref announcing "Advantage over" and how is it an advantage if you get nothing and the opponent immediately gets a shot at points?

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

I'd have to go back and watch the examples.
The obvious point (which you probably are well aware of) is that knock-on advantages are far shorter than penalty advantages, and not considered a '"foul" as such. In fact it's really unhelpful that referees often indicate advantage but it's not always immediately apparent which type.

Knock-on advantages often don't get long at all because they are not penalising foul play but error, and if it passes it's usually because the team with the ball and the advantage have made some territorial advances up the pitch, or they've kicked the ball away upfield in which case it's often gone instantly. If the side with the possession simply holds onto the ball and isn't gaining any advantage, they should as you say go back for the knock-on advantage.
I don't recall the example you are referring to, but is it possible Argentina had made some, albeit maybe minor, gains upfield?

Edit: From what you've said that he's still holding out his arm when he gives England the penalty, if that's true, he communicated poorly but was probably just about to end the advantage when he awarded a penalty to England. Still, that would be pretty weak practice to not communicate the advantage has ended first.

 

[Half Pint]

..also I *think* (but I'm not that familiar with, y'know, the laws of the game an' all that rules-y stuff) that a penalty for foul play trumps a knock-on advantage - that is to say that even if a team has 'advantage' it will still get pinged for foul play.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

World rugby couldn't wait to jump in and intervene in the Farrell case yet will happily sit back as all these other cases are coming in. Farrell, Billy v, curry, all England reds being upheld whilst every other nation is escaping sanction, often for things as bad or worse. I'm not saying the decisions against England were wrong but the fact it's only us having the book thrown at us is getting ridiculous to the point I think the RFU need to highlight this to WR.

We cannot have a situation where we alone appear to be getting reffed to the letter of the law and not others.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

..also I *think* (but I'm not that familiar with, y'know, the laws of the game an' all that rules-y stuff) that a penalty for foul play trumps a knock-on advantage - that is to say that even if a team has 'advantage' it will still get pinged for foul play.

No unless I'm wildly mistaken they would still come back for the free kick.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

No unless I'm wildly mistaken they would still come back for the free kick.

I think a foul play penalty trumps it, a technical penalty doesn't.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

I think a foul play penalty trumps it, a technical penalty doesn't.

yes exactly, if it's for holding on, not rolling away etc, not trumped; high tackle, late tackle, etc yes - trumped