Referee decisions during World Cup

[donmcdazzle]

I get the new framework etc, I just hate that it has turned into making traffic cops out of all of us, freeze framing footage of every collision etc. There has to be a balance of protecting players, and also not turning every collision into a red card. I don't know why anyone would want to be a ref honestly, after every game they just get slandered pretty much without fail.

I've slagged off refs before, but more related to blatant errors that ruin a game (Barnes in '07, Poite in 2017).

I also genuinely believe if the refs doled out as many red cards as people here seem to want, they would get just as much, if not more criticism for ruining games.

 

[Zapphod]

To be fair the whinging and over analysis that takes place on these boards is more about the inability of supporters to accept their team lost to a better team on the day than anything factual.

If neither of the two teams playing the game, their coaches nor the citing commissioner think there was anything to be looked at then really who cares what the rest of the world has to say and oddly enough even if the players, coaches and officials were wrong it still won't change the result.

 

[Umaga's Witness]

Read's the biggest one for me, by a mile.

Most of the ones mentioned here are about tackles, high tackles. Granted, some of them were wrong, should have been spotted and should have been carded on the spot.
But again, they are about, excuse the euphemism, poorly executed tackles. Extremely poorly executed, granted.

Read's is a completely different animal. He grabbed a player from behind, from the players head, while the other player was running, and pulled him with force to the ground. They guy didn't have the ball. They wasnt even about to get the ball. His team wasnt even contesting the ball. The ball was in Read's team possession (this is relevant because it disqualifies Read's actions as a tackle).

In this day and age, i refuse to believe no one related to whoever is in charge of citings was made aware of the incident. I dont buy it.
I am not stating any conspiracy theory and i couldnt give a flying turd about what jersey he is wearing. I am just saying that what he did was not just wrong, but tremendously so, and it is just inexplicable given the technology and media available today that he got away with it.

It's simply a matter of danger. Yes reads was worse in terms of intent but it was very unlikely that he would have paralysed or caused serious brain damage to psdt, whereas some of those others were incredibly dangerous. If there wasn't such a focus on player safety at the moment then read might have been cited. They're wanting to send a clear message about safety.

 

[Reiser99]

To be fair the whinging and over analysis that takes place on these boards is more about the inability of supporters to accept their team lost to a better team on the day than anything factual.

If neither of the two teams playing the game, their coaches nor the citing commissioner think there was anything to be looked at then really who cares what the rest of the world has to say and oddly enough even if the players, coaches and officials were wrong it still won't change the result.

I disagree, it's because WR have made it such a big issue that fans on here are discussing it. Yes there are a couple of people who may go beyond that, but you can't make a public show of changing the laws to protect players and then have the officials completely mess it up. The fact that WR have publicly criticised the standard of refereeing shows the discussions here are valid.

 

[Which Tyler]

I disagree, it's because WR have made it such a big issue that fans on here are discussing it. Yes there are a couple of people who may go beyond that, but you can't make a public show of changing the laws to protect players and then have the officials completely mess it up. The fact that WR have publicly criticised the standard of refereeing shows the discussions here are valid.

Yeah, the argument that the there's nothing wrong because the WR and citing commissioners don't have a problem with it, is rather invalidated by the observation that the citing commissioners have had a problem with it - and WR have issued a statement saying the ref s have got too much wrong and are being too lenient.

 

[Zapphod]

Yeah, the argument that the there's nothing wrong because the WR and citing commissioners don't have a problem with it, is rather invalidated by the observation that the citing commissioners have had a problem with it - and WR have issued a statement saying the ref s have got too much wrong and are being too lenient.

At which point do the opinions of "fans" become more important than the players themselves?

If the players who are at risk don't speak up, coaches who are charged with looking after their players don't see a problem and citing commissioners who responsibility it is to look after game as a whole can't find issue or at least enough of an issue to act then I hate to break it to the fans opinion is worthless.

If for example Savea or Hansen (just using examples I can spell) complained about a specific incident and nothing was done to investigate it then I could understand a fan argument over rules, refs and administration but in this case none of them have said a word yet here we are buried in multiple page arguments over something that not even the participants thought was worth mentioning.

So here is a contentious comment for you, perhaps the game officials were right and are giving the players the chance to play the game they want.

 

[TRF_heineken]

At which point do the opinions of "fans" become more important than the players themselves?

If the players who are at risk don't speak up, coaches who are charged with looking after their players don't see a problem and citing commissioners who responsibility it is to look after game as a whole can't find issue or at least enough of an issue to act then I hate to break it to the fans opinion is worthless.

If for example Savea or Hansen (just using examples I can spell) complained about a specific incident and nothing was done to investigate it then I could understand a fan argument over rules, refs and administration but in this case none of them have said a word yet here we are buried in multiple page arguments over something that not even the participants thought was worth mentioning.

So here is a contentious comment for you, perhaps the game officials were right and are giving the players the chance to play the game they want.

You are making a valid point yes. But do we ever hear what the process is after a game, and what is reported? I mean do the captain and coach fill out a complaint form? Do they have a meeting with senior players and have a discussion on every incident? Do they have time to review the match footage prior to the discussion with the citing commissioner or disciplinary committee??

My guess is that the discussion post-game isn't a very long one, as the players are tired, and fatigue has an influence on your cognitive state, so the possibility is there that the players might not remember everything that happened.

The other part is, some players might feel that it's not their place to voice their frustrations, as it might be seen against the spirit of the game.

I think when SA play NZ, because of the tremendous respect the teams have for each other, they don't bother having the discussions after the game, as they feel they left everything on the field, and should something happen like a citing, it's because the disciplinary committee found the incident worthy of investigation and not because it was reported to them...

 

[RedruthRFC]

Cant believe there has been 3 red cards not given and the team that should have got the reds were down or least within touching distance at this point....both teams that should have got reds went on to win the game by quite big margains. Feel sorry for both Fiji and Russia.

Have either Samoans been citied? If not, how long do the authorities have?

 

[big ginger 8]

Have either Samoans been citied? If not, how long do the authorities have?

Lee-Lo got 3 weeks.

 

[RedruthRFC]

I suspect that we're headed for a circular argument, but here goes.....

At which point do the opinions of "fans" become more important than the players themselves?

If the players who are at risk don't speak up, coaches who are charged with looking after their players don't see a problem and citing commissioners who responsibility it is to look after game as a whole can't find issue or at least enough of an issue to act then I hate to break it to the fans opinion is worthless.

As Which Tyler has pointed out, that's not the case. We have one case already where the referee didn't have a problem and the citing commissioner did. Given Michael Cheika's whinging about the Fijians telling tales, we can assume that the Fijian players and / or the coaches did have a problem too. Edit: and now a second.

If for example Savea or Hansen (just using examples I can spell) complained about a specific incident and nothing was done to investigate it then I could understand a fan argument over rules, refs and administration but in this case none of them have said a word yet here we are buried in multiple page arguments over something that not even the participants thought was worth mentioning.

So here is a contentious comment for you, perhaps the game officials were right and are giving the players the chance to play the game they want.

If the officials have got everything right, why would the governing body of the game have openly criticised them? It is not up to the referees to do what the players want, their remit is to enforce the laws as directed by the relevant departments within World Rugby. The fact that referees are at odds with World Rugby is the whole problem that leads to all the bickering about decisions. A situation where we are told that one approach will be taken, only to see another does nobody any favours (appart from the players if your contention is correct). Like it or not, if you want a professional game, you need fans, therefore making the game more difficult to understand and the refereeing of games less credible is doing the sport a disservice.

 

[rugga658]

I dislike Talking about Refs at all It's used by losing teams as an excuse or by talking heads to manufacture narrative/court controversy

However Refs in the RWC have erred by NOT sending off players

The two Samoans clowns "tackles" were diabolical That should have been 2 red cards Likewise with Reece Hodge

Fans considerations are irrelevant They'll continue to attend game regardless Player safety comes 1st

Late in the USA vs ENG match today US player get badly hurt whilst ENG have ball Game is stopped Immediately ENG on attack & likely to score Good work by Ref

There should be a bunch of players getting sent off for foul play
Long may it continue Players adapt their techniques Coaches adapt as well Or else players get dropped & coaches get sacked

No one solution is acceptable

 

[Zapphod]

The other part is, some players might feel that it's not their place to voice their frustrations, as it might be seen against the spirit of the game.

I think when SA play NZ, because of the tremendous respect the teams have for each other, they don't bother having the discussions after the game, as they feel they left everything on the field, and should something happen like a citing, it's because the disciplinary committee found the incident worthy of investigation and not because it was reported to them...

I won't respond to the bulk of your post as I don't want to end up going around in circles over minor points on how things work but the last part interests me because isn't that how the game should be played?
Two teams playing each other where what happens on the field stays on the field unless one of the players believed it was bad enough to be taken further instead of a million and one health and safety experts droning on about technicalities for weeks after.

 

[Umaga's Witness]

Lee-Lo got 3 weeks.

Interesting. Everyone, including myself, has said the matuu one was worse. Anything for him?
Edit: I googled it. They've reviewed it but have yet to decide what to do about it

 

[Scotty]

Read's the biggest one for me, by a mile.

Most of the ones mentioned here are about tackles, high tackles. Granted, some of them were wrong, should have been spotted and should have been carded on the spot.
But again, they are about, excuse the euphemism, poorly executed tackles. Extremely poorly executed, granted.

Read's is a completely different animal. He grabbed a player from behind, from the players head, while the other player was running, and pulled him with force to the ground. They guy didn't have the ball. They wasnt even about to get the ball. His team wasnt even contesting the ball. The ball was in Read's team possession (this is relevant because it disqualifies Read's actions as a tackle).

In this day and age, i refuse to believe no one related to whoever is in charge of citings was made aware of the incident. I dont buy it.
I am not stating any conspiracy theory and i couldnt give a flying turd about what jersey he is wearing. I am just saying that what he did was not just wrong, but tremendously so, and it is just inexplicable given the technology and media available today that he got away with it.

It would be a quite high level citing wouldnt it? high with intent off the ball with force. No mitigation. And completly reckless.

Has their seriously been no mention of this incident?

 

[Scotty]

Random question but if a player gets a say 3 game ban can they just send him home and replace him?

 

[Leinster Fan]

So here is a contentious comment for you, perhaps the game officials were right and are giving the players the chance to play the game they want.

Given that World Rugby has publicly rebuked the refs (with the refs support) and there have been multiple bans for offences that weren't properly punished during the game, I think it's fairly sake to say that the match officials haven't been making the correct decisions (as the match officials themselves said).

 

[petite]

Any player that did what Read did should be reprimanded. Heck, I remember in a match I played, must have been under 15s I took a player out off the ball. Was really just grabbing and holding him back. I was binned for that incident and I have no problem with that. Pretty cynical from me.

The thing that disappoints me most about the Read incident is that he's the captain. How can a captain expect to be respected by the ref if he's behaving like that. Especially if said captain wants to call the ref gutless.

man when I said this in the ab south Africa thread you started calling me biased one eyed and salty looser..and started *****ing about psdt off side. so I go again reads action was red card or at least yellow. and cited post match. Moody shoulder charges where red both or at least yellows first on Eben then on Marx ( two times is red?) and cited for sure: nothing happened. .

 

[petite]

oops sorry it wasn't you!!! my bad. mistake your nick

 

[petite]

to the neck no ball cynical...that's obstruction and penalty by moody?

 

[Five Meters Out]

I see that Hodge incident as a "Head high Tackle" as opposed to a "shoulder charge". Especially given the opposition player goes off injured - it's red card all day.