Refereeing, officiating, and the way the game is controlled!

[barthelemy]

The TMO is not really the issue, the rugby philosophy and game is the issue.

I was watching SA/Japan today and the french referee gave a lot of penalties for SA offsides. Offsides are not fair, half of them are not sanctioned, it is just a matter of referee mood..I love this game but 1 individual has too much control on it (or cannot see everything) and It is not very fair.

I'm for the video but lets do it fully, not on selected sequences. Every action with something noticed by videos or by referees (all the referees) should be reviewed. I prefer longer if it is fairer.

 

[ABs2015]

The TMO is not really the issue, the rugby philosophy and game is the issue.

I was watching SA/Japan today and the french referee gave a lot of penalties for SA offsides. Offsides are not fair, half of them are not sanctioned, it is just a matter of referee mood..I love this game but 1 individual has too much control on it (or cannot see everything) and It is not very fair.

I'm for the video but lets do it fully, not on selected sequences. Every action with something noticed by videos or by referees (all the referees) should be reviewed. I prefer longer if it is fairer.

I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion. It is certainly an issue, hence why so many are talking about it. I think what you have done is highlight a separate issue, that of the inconsistency of rule interpretation across referees. That's a complicated one, but if you heard Steve Hansen talk this week he was basically saying that is something that can't be avoided. What he was asking for was consistency within matches. He accepted there will not be consistency across matches.

In terms of using the TMO "fully" I think that is a recipe for disaster. 80 minutes of rugby will take an eternity. And then how much of that 80 minutes will be meaningless because we have to keep going back to incidents minutes earlier and subsequently penalties awarded? So what will then start happening is play clocks will have to be reset to when the original penalty occurred and the game will take even longer. I'm sorry but I just can not see how that will work. It will either have to go to a challenge system(like NFL) or we just need to accept that there will be human error and stuff that goes unnoticed in live action. The latter is my preference with TMO involvement for serious foul play and overlooked errors in the direct lead to tries scored. Anything more an IMO we are seriously changing the way the game is both played and viewed.

 

[Tony Manx]

I was watching SA/Japan today and the french referee gave a lot of penalties for SA offsides. Offsides are not fair, half of them are not sanctioned, it is just a matter of referee mood..I love this game but 1 individual has too much control on it (or cannot see everything) and It is not .

I read that as criticism of "the French referee"?

You must remember that the linesmen have a mike link to the ref. I would guess that the vast majority of the offside calls in any one match come that route as they have the better view from the offside line!!!

I prefer that to be heavily policed as it leaves more space and cannot but say that it is the players' fault and they can avoid it!! It is a fact not a matter of interpretation!!

 

[ncurd]

Yup absolutely no reason for a player to be in an offside position. Should be policed way more than it currently is. It's not like supporting your weight in a ruck where sometimes you can't help your balance being offside is usually not anyone fault but your own and your probably more than aware your pushing it.

 

[optimuswolf]

Agree on the offsides. Most teams take the proverbial and the touch judges should be calling it routinely. Ive noticed a bit of inconsistency here with officials hot on it some games but not others.

 

[barthelemy]

I read that as criticism of "the French referee"?

You must remember that the linesmen have a mike link to the ref. I would guess that the vast majority of the offside calls in any one match come that route as they have the better view from the offside line!!!

I prefer that to be heavily policed as it leaves more space and cannot but say that it is the players' fault and they can avoid it!! It is a fact not a matter of interpretation!!

No, not especially, it was just to express that I'm not biased on this subject and I think rugby has always had this issue of referee being too much in control of the game.

The referee is a human guy who is reacting humanly and in that respect, we should go towards more videos, more weight for line out referees and TMO for a fairer game.

How many matches always end up in a criticism of the referee ? Loads sadly. Even more since the videos is used much more heavily. Rugby rules are facts, true. However, in reality, it is also a lot of interpretation due to the fact that there are a lot of situation where the ball is hidden from the referee, or it is going to quickly for the referee, or the referee is badly located to see something

I would not assumed that much offsides are called by linesmen, would be interesting to have this information. If I'm correct, the rule is that until the balls is not out of the maul, you have to be behind the last foot of your own teammate part of this same maul This rule is never applied seriously because very difficult to apply seriously as the main referee does not have eyes in his back. So they apply it with their impression created from a fraction of the whole pitch perspective.

One of the solution for the offside would be to have an electronic system on the pitch with sensor that are following the game on each side of the pitch that would bip instantly the referee if somebody is crossing an imaginary line created by the sensors...

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion. It is certainly an issue, hence why so many are talking about it. I think what you have done is highlight a separate issue, that of the inconsistency of rule interpretation across referees. That's a complicated one, but if you heard Steve Hansen talk this week he was basically saying that is something that can't be avoided. What he was asking for was consistency within matches. He accepted there will not be consistency across matches.

In terms of using the TMO "fully" I think that is a recipe for disaster. 80 minutes of rugby will take an eternity. And then how much of that 80 minutes will be meaningless because we have to keep going back to incidents minutes earlier and subsequently penalties awarded? So what will then start happening is play clocks will have to be reset to when the original penalty occurred and the game will take even longer. I'm sorry but I just can not see how that will work. It will either have to go to a challenge system(like NFL) or we just need to accept that there will be human error and stuff that goes unnoticed in live action. The latter is my preference with TMO involvement for serious foul play and overlooked errors in the direct lead to tries scored. Anything more an IMO we are seriously changing the way the game is both played and viewed.

It is not really what I'm underlying. I understand that the consistency accross referees and across matches can be different as some referees will let play more than others for example (though it is an issue as in some case a referee can apply his biased perspective without people being able to point out he is biased as he could have an excuse of "it is my style of refering..."). But still, fine, I can accept inconsistency between referees as long as teams are aware how each referees are taking care of the game.

In my answer to Tony Manx, you have a better explanation. The offside is effectively a matter of fact but quite often, in reality it is not as most of the offsides are not called by the referee.

Again, if it is longer but fairer, I would prefer, hoping there is away of doing it without adding 40 minutes of replays to a game.

 

[optimuswolf]

Thought Barnes and team stepped up with an excellent performance there to be fair. Lets see what wednesday brings.

 

[Shaggy]

Thought Barnes and team stepped up with an excellent performance there to be fair. Lets see what wednesday brings.

Let me preface my main comment by saying that they were consistent, and that it was the same for both sides, but, they did not police the offsides very well ... good teams should adjust their tactics to how the refs are adjudicating the game though.

 

[ABs2011]

They seemed to have backed off quite a bit on contact around the neck in the rucks. I was nervously watching for it when NZ was in possession and saw several times when they could have reviewed things IF they wanted to police it as much as they did in earlier games.

On the other hand, the use of Hawkeye TMO was outstanding in the McCaw trip incident. I have no idea that had occurred in real time. Picked up another legit foul play when the Argy blindside (I think it was) flew into the ruck with no arms. I also liked how they stopped the play to view that incident rather than letting play role on and view it after a stoppage.

SO, looks like they are getting the balance a lot better and it is starting to work pretty well.

 

[Kiwi_]

Yep, I must admit I've taken to the idea. Originally watching the first game I thought it was interfering far too much, but getting the right decisions and preventing foul play is crucial.

 

[smartcooky]

This whole business from the media over the TMO issue is just a beat up. They just want to sensationalise it to fill column-inches and sell papers, and most importantly, of course, they conveniently don't report the really good things the TMO protocols do (which I will give an example of later) for the simple reason that it will get in the way of the story they are trying to make up.

While I agree that Jaco Peyper didn't use the TMO very efficiently, I don't think it is really his fault. Its probably the one of the first times he's used it, while the NH referees have used it the Pro 12 and the RWC warm-up games (did Peyper referee any of those?).

As I said earlier, there was a really a good example of one of the ways the Hawkeye system is supposed to work yesterday in the South Africa v Japan match. There had been a potential neck grab by a Japanese cleaner outer. Jerome Garces, without stopping, asked TMO Graeme Hughes to have a look at it. A few seconds later, Hughes calls back "Jerome, it was around the shoulder nothing in it, you should play on". When used this way, it works really well. Anyone at the ground will be none the wiser that a piece of play has been checked, those of us watching on TV (and listening) will know, but because the TMO checked it off screen, there was no interruption to the flow of the game.

You won't find that reported in any newspapers, for the obvious reason that it won't help the sports jocks cast the protocols in a bad light.

 

[ABs2011]

This whole business from the media over the TMO issue is just a beat up. They just want to sensationalise it to fill column-inches and sell papers, and most importantly, of course, they conveniently don't report the really good things the TMO protocols do (which I will give an example of later) for the simple reason that it will get in the way of the story they are trying to make up.

While I agree that Jaco Peyper didn't use the TMO very efficiently, I don't think it is really his fault. Its probably the one of the first times he's used it, while the NH referees have used it the Pro 12 and the RWC warm-up games (did Peyper referee any of those?).

As I said earlier, there was a really a good example of one of the ways the Hawkeye system is supposed to work yesterday in the South Africa v Japan match. There had been a potential neck grab by a Japanese cleaner outer. Jerome Garces, without stopping, asked TMO Graeme Hughes to have a look at it. A few seconds later, Hughes calls back "Jerome, it was around the shoulder nothing in it, you should play on". When used this way, it works really well. Anyone at the ground will be none the wiser that a piece of play has been checked, those of us watching on TV (and listening) will know, but because the TMO checked it off screen, there was no interruption to the flow of the game.

You won't find that reported in any newspapers, for the obvious reason that it won't help the sports jocks cast the protocols in a bad light.

Yup I think you are spot on with all that. Unfortunately my experiences with the new system started off poorly but the last few games I've seen its worked really well. The example you gave was basically the same as another I watched last night (can't recall the details now), but something was spotted, they checked it as play continued, it turned out nothing significant had occurred and everything just continued on. If they can manage things like, and in addition pick up on other foul play, then I am all for it.

By the way, what are the rules for foot trips? Does Richie not have anything to worry about moving forward?

 

[ncurd]

I think the biggest issue in the first game was going over and over replays. For example the disallowed Fiji try we knew from the first replay we saw that caused the investigation he dropped it, it was clear as day. But we spent ages looking at every angle. That's extremely poor use when you've seen the Ince dent and it was like that for every event. Got a lot better the rough the tournament the Wales game was exceptional and the incident smartcookie mentioned in the Japan game.

Suggest Peyper doesn't get many more high profile games this tournament people in England probably didn't watch games it worked and it will turn people off if it continues.

 

[ncurd]

By the way, what are the rules for foot trips? Does Richie not have anything to worry about moving forward?

Personally I think it's been dealt with adequately whilst McCaw tows the line very closely he isn't a dirty or malicious player and I don't think there was any attempt to hurt the guy just stop the quick tap.

However he may still be in trouble rewind to just before the incident and the penalty, McCaw on the floor has his "what me sir I can't possibly of done something wrong" face which we have regular from forwards. If he's done what he's done out of frustration he might be in for a ban the next game.

Personally it's been dealt with but they are having a focus on player safety so who knows.

 

[Shaggy]

Personally I think it's been dealt with adequately whilst McCaw tows the line very closely he isn't a dirty or malicious player and I don't think there was any attempt to hurt the guy just stop the quick tap.

However he may still be in trouble rewind to just before the incident and the penalty, McCaw on the floor has his "what me sir I can't possibly of done something wrong" face which we have regular from forwards. If he's done what he's done out of frustration he might be in for a ban the next game.

Personally it's been dealt with but they are having a focus on player safety so who knows.

I think he could still be cited; I thing the focus on player safety is great, but a foot trip when the tripped player is just starting a run (i'm not condoning foot tripping), is got to be less likely to cause serious injury than one at full speed, and the punishments should reflect that.

 

[YoungScud]

Personally I think it's been dealt with adequately whilst McCaw tows the line very closely he isn't a dirty or malicious player and I don't think there was any attempt to hurt the guy just stop the quick tap.

However he may still be in trouble rewind to just before the incident and the penalty, McCaw on the floor has his "what me sir I can't possibly of done something wrong" face which we have regular from forwards. If he's done what he's done out of frustration he might be in for a ban the next game.

Personally it's been dealt with but they are having a focus on player safety so who knows.

I can't go along with that. It was a professional foul of the tye we're always saying we don't want to see in rugby. For me, that was red card offence. I was blatant and deliberate.

 

[Car]

I can't go along with that. It was a professional foul of the tye we're always saying we don't want to see in rugby. For me, that was red card offence. I was blatant and deliberate.

I agree with that, I thought he was lucky to get away with a yellow card.

 

[barthelemy]

This whole business from the media over the TMO issue is just a beat up. They just want to sensationalise it to fill column-inches and sell papers, and most importantly, of course, they conveniently don't report the really good things the TMO protocols do (which I will give an example of later) for the simple reason that it will get in the way of the story they are trying to make up.

While I agree that Jaco Peyper didn't use the TMO very efficiently, I don't think it is really his fault. Its probably the one of the first times he's used it, while the NH referees have used it the Pro 12 and the RWC warm-up games (did Peyper referee any of those?).

As I said earlier, there was a really a good example of one of the ways the Hawkeye system is supposed to work yesterday in the South Africa v Japan match. There had been a potential neck grab by a Japanese cleaner outer. Jerome Garces, without stopping, asked TMO Graeme Hughes to have a look at it. A few seconds later, Hughes calls back "Jerome, it was around the shoulder nothing in it, you should play on". When used this way, it works really well. Anyone at the ground will be none the wiser that a piece of play has been checked, those of us watching on TV (and listening) will know, but because the TMO checked it off screen, there was no interruption to the flow of the game.

You won't find that reported in any newspapers, for the obvious reason that it won't help the sports jocks cast the protocols in a bad light.

I do agree wit this post, TMO could be used more, in a smarter and non intrusive way. I think the linesmen and the TMO should have also the right on their own initiative to ask the TMO to review something without stopping the game.

I think that each actions leading to a try should be also reviewed, what ever time it will add to the game.

For example, The second english try (Mike brown) on Friday should have been thoroughly reviewed, like other tries in the same match. I'm pretty sure that the last pass to Brown is forward, not a lot , a tiny bit but forward as the center received it already quite flat from the fly-half and he prolong the pass to Brown surely without sending it backward. It could be flat but it could also be forward. I think it was worth an investigation as much as other tries got investigated in the same match.

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

This seems to be the most generic refereeing thread. On the eve of some big games today I'd throw in my tuppence for the refs.

- they don't have your HDTV camera angles and slow mos
- they have 101 things to be thinking about in live time
- for the good of the spectacle they are officiating the grey area between minor breaches of rules and flagrant, extended or repeated breaches. A degree of inconsistency is inevitable.
- they can be instructed to officiate in their second language
- their lives would be easier if the coaches that criticise the refs weren't encouraging their players to gain advantage by seeing what they can get away with
- they aren't getting paid megabucks
- they seemed to get criticised far more for their errors than the errors made by players and coaches

With all that said, let the baying commence.

 

[ncurd]

This seems to be the most generic refereeing thread. On the eve of some big games today I'd throw in my tuppence for the refs.

- they don't have your HDTV camera angles and slow mos
- they have 101 things to be thinking about in live time
- for the good of the spectacle they are officiating the grey area between minor breaches of rules and flagrant, extended or repeated breaches. A degree of inconsistency is inevitable.
- they can be instructed to officiate in their second language
- their lives would be easier if the coaches that criticise the refs weren't encouraging their players to gain advantage by seeing what they can get away with
- they aren't getting paid megabucks
- they seemed to get criticised far more for their errors than the errors made by players and coaches

With all that said, let the baying commence.

Have Ireland been given a red card yet?