Referees in-game coaching i.e. their constant commands

[Brandon2k]

Most team contact sports rely on team mates providing cover and advice as well as direction especially from their captains. Rugby isnt played at lightning speeds half the time the ball is resting on the ground so even a couple of seconds is plenty time to make a decision.

The term 'use it' shouldn't have to be used by refs. The reason they do is because an attacking team is taking their time while players regain positions and options become available. If players didn't 'play' to the ref I.e. wait for the 'use it' the game would be much improved.

 

[BPM]

I agree on 'use it' but I still think you're massively over-estimating the amount of time you have to make a decision in a lot of ruck or maul situations.

 

[Brandon2k]

I agree on 'use it' but I still think you're massively over-estimating the amount of time you have to make a decision in a lot of ruck or maul situations.

Yes but if a referee has time to make a decision for you then you have time to make a decision yourself. International players know by now how much lee way a ref is going to give and they play to that. Take the refs interference out of the equation and players will know for sure if they dont 'use it' they will lose it. The game can only be better as a result.

 

[Brandon2k]

I agree on 'use it' but I still think you're massively over-estimating the amount of time you have to make a decision in a lot of ruck or maul situations.

Would you also care to agree on 'hands away' ?

 

[Which Tyler]

Bear on mind that the "coaching" stuff isn't because players don't know the law.
Everyone knows the law on offside for a kick ahead.
The issue is that the player thinks they're inside, and the ref disagrees.
I see no problem whatsoever with the ref I forming the player to stop his run and stop him getting involved in the play and creating a stoppage.
It seems utterly bizarre to me that anyone could object to this.

Same at maul, same at ruck, same with tackle release... Or quite honestly, any area where the player and ref can hold honestly different opinions as to whether they're allowed to do what they're doing.

And that's not coaching, by any definition - it's warning players about something they have no way of otherwise knowing.

 

[BPM]

Would you also care to agree on 'hands away' ?

I thought that was clear from my first post in this thread.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

wow, this thread kicked off over night

thought there have been several posts that would have put it to bed but it keep persevering

Yes but if a referee has time to make a decision for you then you have time to make a decision yourself. International players know by now how much lee way a ref is going to give and they play to that. Take the refs interference out of the equation and players will know for sure if they dont 'use it' they will lose it. The game can only be better as a result.

this one is a real stretch though, the players and the ref have very different roles in a game so you cant say they should be able to come to the same conclusions in the same time. One is almost single mindedly looking for the ball with secondary concerns for their own safety plus what their going to do when they get it and the others sole role is to watch the game as a whole and apply the laws

add to this jst the positions on the field, the ref often standing on the advantage line so can see quite clearly where the player comes in from behind and potentially had their view obscured by other players and thats all without considering how many calls actually come from the touch judge who has an even wider view of the game

 

[TRF_heineken]

The term "use it" was introduced as there was a time-factor introduced to speed up the game, and prevent teams from deliberately slowing down the game. Since players don't have watches on the field, and don't want to get confused with counting "one-mississipi", "two-mississipi", the referee informs them by using the term "use it", before they lose possession of the ball. Otherwise we go back to the situation where the ball is kept in the ruck, while teams have more than enough time to get their defensive stuctures ready.

Perhaps there is a lack of knowledge/understanding by the OP of the history of the game, and how laws were developed to what they are now, and how referees are being given directives on certain issues of play?

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

The term 'use it' shouldn't have to be used by refs. The reason they do is because an attacking team is taking their time while players regain positions and options become available. If players didn't 'play' to the ref I.e. wait for the 'use it' the game would be much improved.

This comes back to my point. The refs have a law about 5 seconds (or whatever it is) for the team to use it. But they never apply it. Even after they say use it they often still wait and don't award a penalty or free kick (can't remember what the sanction is).

So refs charting it needed as long as they continue to be so inconsistent.

 

[Brandon2k]

I thought that was clear from my first post in this thread.

The term "use it" was introduced as there was a time-factor introduced to speed up the game, and prevent teams from deliberately slowing down the game. Since players don't have watches on the field, and don't want to get confused with counting "one-mississipi", "two-mississipi", the referee informs them by using the term "use it", before they lose possession of the ball. Otherwise we go back to the situation where the ball is kept in the ruck, while teams have more than enough time to get their defensive stuctures ready.

Perhaps there is a lack of knowledge/understanding by the OP of the history of the game, and how laws were developed to what they are now, and how referees are being given directives on certain issues of play?

I think the answer is quite simple re 'use it'. It will only take a few games of the ref penalising players for spending more time than necessary delaying the play. They will quickly learn what they must do. Rules are introduced usually to deal with problems that develop in any sport. But this problem is as a result of the actions of the players
themselves. And can easily be put right with some short sharp shock treatment. It's not rocket science knowing you only have a few seconds to deal with the ball at s breakdown.

 

[Brandon2k]

This comes back to my point. The refs have a law about 5 seconds (or whatever it is) for the team to use it. But they never apply it. Even after they say use it they often still wait and don't award a penalty or free kick (can't remember what the sanction is).

So refs charting it needed as long as they continue to be so inconsistent.

If rules were enforced and enforced consistently ( and we are only talking about a handful of games per year per international team) then there would be no need for the refs to be constantly giving these commands. The rules were never written for the officials to have such a big influence on the play.

 

[TRF_heineken]

If rules were enforced and enforced consistently ( and we are only talking about a handful of games per year per international team) then there would be no need for the refs to be constantly giving these commands. The rules were never written for the officials to have such a big influence on the play.

They were actually. The referees play an integral part in the making and writing of the laws and World Rugby has it's own referee panel where elite referees discuss the current laws, look at which laws needs to be tweaked/changed/amended. And also this panel is in charge of the training of non-elite referees and having workshops in various countries educating officials.

 

[Brandon2k]

They were actually. The referees play an integral part in the making and writing of the laws and World Rugby has it's own referee panel where elite referees discuss the current laws, look at which laws needs to be tweaked/changed/amended. And also this panel is in charge of the training of non-elite referees and having workshops in various countries educating officials.

My apologies if that wasnt clear. What I meant was referees influencing the play within a game by virtue of their insistence that certain actions are taken (by players); not their involvement in the making of overarching laws of the game.

 

[TRF_heineken]

My apologies if that wasnt clear. What I meant was referees influencing the play within a game by virtue of their insistence that certain actions are taken (by players); not their involvement in the making of overarching laws of the game.

So if you walk down the street, and a policeman is next to you. You see the lady in front of you has a $100 bill sticking out of her back pants pocket, and it's so tempting to take it without her even knowing.

The policeman sees this, and warns you before you go and grab it, that you must "leave it". And then the onus falls back on to you on whether or not you take it or not, which will influence what steps, if any the policeman will take.

The ref and the policeman serve the same purpose here. The policeman had no influence in your temptation prior to you wanting to take the money, or if you had gestures showing that you are about to take it. Until you take the money, the policeman can't do anything else except to warn you....

 

[Brandon2k]

So if you walk down the street, and a policeman is next to you. You see the lady in front of you has a $100 bill sticking out of her back pants pocket, and it's so tempting to take it without her even knowing.

The policeman sees this, and warns you before you go and grab it, that you must "leave it". And then the onus falls back on to you on whether or not you take it or not, which will influence what steps, if any the policeman will take.

The ref and the policeman serve the same purpose here. The policeman had no influence in your temptation prior to you wanting to take the money, or if you had gestures showing that you are about to take it. Until you take the money, the policeman can't do anything else except

So if you walk down the street, and a policeman is next to you. You see the lady in front of you has a $100 bill sticking out of her back pants pocket, and it's so tempting to take it without her even knowing.

The policeman sees this, and warns you before you go and grab it, that you must "leave it". And then the onus falls back on to you on whether or not you take it or not, which will influence what steps, if any the policeman will take.

The ref and the policeman serve the same purpose here. The policeman had no influence in your temptation prior to you wanting to take the money, or if you had gestures showing that you are about to take it. Until you take the money, the policeman can't do anything else except to warn you....

I wondered whether this had been posted in the wrong thread. Am now wondering whether it's been posted in the wrong forum

 

[Brandon2k]

I wondered whether this had been posted in the wrong thread. Am now wondering whether it's been posted in the wrong forum

If every sport adopted this approach there would be no sports as there would be no one paying to watch.

 

[BPM]

Brandon2k - don't take this the wrong way, but have you played much rugby?

I do understand where you're coming from for the most part and I don't necessarily disagree in principle. However, I think you are being very idealistic re. the practicalities. Nothing wrong with the ideas, but at match speed ... I'm not so sure ...

 

[ncurd]

So if you walk down the street, and a policeman is next to you. You see the lady in front of you has a $100 bill sticking out of her back pants pocket, and it's so tempting to take it without her even knowing.

The policeman sees this, and warns you before you go and grab it, that you must "leave it". And then the onus falls back on to you on whether or not you take it or not, which will influence what steps, if any the policeman will take.

The ref and the policeman serve the same purpose here. The policeman had no influence in your temptation prior to you wanting to take the money, or if you had gestures showing that you are about to take it. Until you take the money, the policeman can't do anything else except to warn you....

I think the best example of this is when a ref tells a player to leave a ball they don't consider out of a ruck. The player in some cases has every right to belive the ball is out and they can take it bit if they do the ref will ping them. It's far better for the game for ref to give a warning than the player have misjudgement.

Similar with an earlier point a player might have thought they were onside when they were not. Better for the ref to say than the player cause a penalty.

I mean it's been said if the refs didn't use judgement and let things slide they felt were inconsequential and the game was played to the exact letter of the laws the entire game would a phase followed by a penalty kick. Sometimes we'd get lucky and they'd be two phases!

 

[Kiwiwomble]

Brandon2k - don't take this the wrong way, but have you played much rugby?

I do understand where you're coming from for the most part and I don't necessarily disagree in principle. However, I think you are being very idealistic re. the practicalities. Nothing wrong with the ideas, but at match speed ... I'm not so sure ...

i wanted to ask this but couldn't think if a polite way to word it, well done

 

[Brandon2k]

Brandon2k - don't take this the wrong way, but have you played much rugby?

I do understand where you're coming from for the most part and I don't necessarily disagree in principle. However, I think you are being very idealistic re. the practicalities. Nothing wrong with the ideas, but at match speed ... I'm not so sure ...

Not for 40 years. And I do appreciate the game has changed a great deal since then especially the big bang in 1995 of professionalism. I also appreciate that players, refs and spectators (and of course pundits) will all see the game from different perspectives and have different agendas.
There are many conflicting ideals that come to the fore on this site and the overriding one with respect to Rugby Union in general is that it must be both watchable and entertaining; hence the seemingly overwhelming attitude to see as many tries scored in a game as possible; supported by the inducements firstly of more points per try and bonus points for 4 or more tries. And with the requirement to be entertaining then this element can only be judged by those watching the game itself. So where it is welcomed to hear from a players perspective it is the spectators who need to be satisfied (for want of a better phrase). Its ok for the ref to give a running commentary but his commands/warnings/directions coupled with the need to see more tries run in are eating further into the natural game and the worry is it will lose a lot of its appeal due to the artificial elements that are being imposed. Please dont get me wrong. We all love to see a try scored. But as a result well worked and well taken drop goals (which have won world cups in the past) are going out of fashion in that quest for that 4th try and elusive bonus point. It's just my opinion but the game is changing (not for the better) and this is not being helped by the referees commentary.