Standard of Refereeing in Super Rugby 2013

[Umaga's Witness]

This particular issue is one of player responsibility.

The official thinking here is that if the player realises that he is going to be penalised for not rolling away even if he is trapped, then he must learn not to fall on the wrong side of the tackle, i.e. he has to be aware of where he is falling and do everything he can to NOT fall in the opposing team's "space" at the tackle.

Too many times, I see players making the tackle, and ensuring that they get on the opponent's side of the ball carrier before going to ground there, where they become trapped.

Yes defending players try and get their bodies on the wrong side, which can hinder the attacking team's ability to get the ball back, and that's bad, but what about the tackled player, who always lies on the defending team's side of the ball and never attempts to roll away? These guys never get penalised! So the referees certainly aren't consistent in this sense, instead being very biased against the defending team. If they did officiate properly rucks would likely be a lot cleaner, without players falling over each other thus creating a big pile of bodies on the ground and therefore uncontestable rucks.

 

[Radian]

Then you have "expert" commentators blabbering their interpretation of the latest decision whilst the referee is clearly giving another reason on field microphone. Does this not show you how much we are missing simple applied rules.

Then you have Bobby Skinstadt commenting on the latest evil: The 2 phase TV referee playback, that "oh that pass was forward since it was passed before the line and caught after the line". Is there then anybody left who understand basics of the ball moving forward in any event at the speed of the player who has passed it even if it was not a forward pass?

I have watched every Currie Cup and every Superrugby game ever presented on Supersport since forever but really lately the mess in the rules is so frustrating.

I am not blaming the referees. I am stating that they do not actually know what is the correct ruling because the rules are a mess.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Then you have "expert" commentators blabbering their interpretation of the latest decision whilst the referee is clearly giving another reason on field microphone. Does this not show you how much we are missing simple applied rules.

Then you have Bobby Skinstadt commenting on the latest evil: The 2 phase TV referee playback, that "oh that pass was forward since it was passed before the line and caught after the line". Is there then anybody left who understand basics of the ball moving forward in any event at the speed of the player who has passed it even if it was not a forward pass?

I have watched every Currie Cup and every Superrugby game ever presented on Supersport since forever but really lately the mess in the rules is so frustrating.

I am not blaming the referees. I am stating that they do not actually know what is the correct ruling because the rules are a mess.

dude, we have many threads and there are many youtube videos that explains this exact problem. Try not to get too overly upset by what SKinstad says, he's a muppet anyways.

 

[Umaga's Witness]

Guys

Now here is my frustration, it seems to me that when the new laws were applied, some of the older laws which are still applicable, becomes sort of non-applicable. For instance, the new breakdown laws are there to speed up the game, but the refs have completely forgotten to blow up the players for diving into the ruck. Nearly every team is guilty of this.

What bugs me is that the new 5 second rule is unnecessary; it was only introduced because the refs failed to officiate properly with the old rules. What was happening is that teams would sometimes take time to get the ball out of the "ruck" which they could only do because they were infringing. Usually this was because there players were illegally lying on top of their tackled player (who actually is supposed to roll away, according to the laws of the game), thereby making it difficult for the opposition to push them away, or they'd be illegally kneeling at the ruck, or there'd just generally be a bifg pile of bodies on the ground (one or all of tackled player and tacklers, "ruckers", players who have gone over the top) making the ball uncontestable - in response to which the ref is supposed to call a scrum if there hasn't been any infringements.

So if the ref made the tackler AND the tackled player roll away, penalised players who didn't make an attempt to keep their feet, penalised players who didn't roll away immediately after accidentally losing their feet (just assuming this is a law), and blew it up for a scrum whenever the ball is uncontestable, we wouldn't have needed the new law, and we'd have a great game of rugby with contested rucks (a big part of teh game as its supposed to be played).

 

[smartcooky]

Yes defending players try and get their bodies on the wrong side, which can hinder the attacking team's ability to get the ball back, and that's bad, but what about the tackled player, who always lies on the defending team's side of the ball and never attempts to roll away? These guys never get penalised! So the referees certainly aren't consistent in this sense, instead being very biased against the defending team. If they did officiate properly rucks would likely be a lot cleaner, without players falling over each other thus creating a big pile of bodies on the ground and therefore uncontestable rucks.

The tackled player has a lot less choice about where he is brought down, especially when he his brought to ground by more than one tackler.

Also, my first priority for the tackled player is RELEASE. Once he has done that, then I expect him to roll away of he can, or at the very least not interfere with the opposition.

However, there is another issue that people need to keep in mind when criticising this aspect of the way the breakdown is refereed, and that is "who do we what to win the ball at rucks?"

If you wish for the breakdown to be a 50/50 contest with both the attacking side and the defending side having an equal chance of winning the ball at every tackle/ruck, then be VERY, VERY careful what you wish for, because the sequence of events following the implementation of your wished for policy will be as follows

1. 50% of tackles would result in a turnover.

2. Coaches will tell their players not to take the ball into contact because they only have 50% chance of retaining it. Instead, they will tell their players to kick the ball away, because they want the 50/50 contact lottery to be in the opponent's half of the field.

3. The team catching the ball will do the same.

Does any of this sound familiar?

Do we really want to return to the days of aerial ping-pong, when teams kicked the ball to each other, hoping that the opponents would make a mistake?

Do we really want another RWC final like 2007, where 80 minutes of rugby had 94 kicks in play (one every 51 seconds, or if you counted only the minutes when the ball was in play, one every 23 seconds)

This is why the breakdown will always be ruled in favour of the team tacking the ball into the tackle/ruck, because nobody wants to go back to the awful rugby we had in 2009.

What bugs me is that the new 5 second rule is unnecessary; it was only introduced because the refs failed to officiate properly with the old rules.

No, the 5 second Law was introduced for only one reason; to stop the team leading in the match (often by a small margin) doing nothing with the ball they win at the ruck, as a means to count down the clock near the end of the game.

 

[Umaga's Witness]

I'll deal with the easy part first:

No, the 5 second Law was introduced for only one reason; to stop the team leading in the match (often by a small margin) doing nothing with the ball they win at the ruck, as a means to count down the clock near the end of the game.

Yes, but my point is the attacking team couldn't do this if the officiating was done properly, because in that case rucks would be contestable. The only reason they could run the clock down was because they were doing illegal things (mainly the tackled player not rolling away and the ruckers going into the ruck with their heads below their hips binding to the tackled player and/or kneeling in the ruck) to make for uncontestable rucks.

As for the main point you made... I will think about it further but I will just say this for now: It wouldn't be 50/50 because the attacking team is usually going forward and players have to enter a ruck from behind.

 

[Umaga's Witness]

I will also say that the following - "because the sequence of events following the implementation of your wished for policy will be as follows" - is kinda funny because all I wish for is that the rules are officiated. I don't think the solution to making the game different is to give the referees rights to officiate which rules they want to when and where they want to. If you want to change the way a game of rugby, properly officiated, pans out then change the rules. Otherwise it becomes (or perhaps has become) a farce.

 

[Radian]

I will also say that the following - "because the sequence of events following the implementation of your wished for policy will be as follows" - is kinda funny because all I wish for is that the rules are officiated. I don't think the solution to making the game different is to give the referees rights to officiate which rules they want to when and where they want to. If you want to change the way a game of rugby, properly officiated, pans out then change the rules. Otherwise it becomes (or perhaps has become) a farce.

Have to agree with Umaga. Actually I think the game has become now a farce with referee no longer officiating the rules of the game but actually influencing the game big time.

I think these rule changes at ruck and maul has been brought about to "make the game more spectacular and attract a bigger tv audience". Now do not get me wrong I would love for our game to become the biggest game in the world. But really we are not going to get more fans to our game if we, the old hard and fast supporters of this game who has played it and watched it and had our kids play it and watch it since ever no longer can understand or agree with referee's decisions. If we can like the commentators explain each decision in three different ways. It is not clear, it is not simple, and hence our possible new fan shakes his head in confusion and switches over to the soccer channel.

I think the single biggest evil was the attempt to speed up the game as such. The result is now that rucks and mauls has become events where the referee is protecting the ball for the attacking side. Thus you can commit two players to the ruck (a fetcher and one support for him) and then you can just put the rest of your forwards out in a line to defend in case you do not win the ball with your fetcher. This now has the result that there is just no space anymore outside and hence the no 10 or 9 kicks the ball and then it all starts again.

I would love to see the rules simplified to "if you are on your feet you can stick your hands into the ruck at any time"
"The offside gate is determined by TWO or more players bound in protecting their ruck" (and not by some figment of imagination of the referee)
"At the moment two players of the same side on their feet has bound over the ball then you are offside if you are past the ball"

I want to give attacking teams more to do to protect their ball in the tackle but also the opportunity to easily gather and drive through the center if the defending team do not defend the ruck. Also the defending team should have the opportunity to really compete for the ball when on their feet. This I believe will reduce the clutter on the outside leaving more space for backline to attack.

But as long as the referee effectively decides the possession at the tackle and ruck teams will not really compete there but rather just spread in defense

 

[Radian]

Then there is the held not held ruling.
Player is tackled knees touch the ground then if tackler holds on to him penalty against the tackler: Not releasing tackled player.
If released player jumps up (without ever releasing the ball) then referee rules: Not held. So now what? Should you hold on to player you tackled or should you release him immediately again.
Flowing from this mess the 2nd scenario: Player gets tackled then rolls forward another two or three meters clutching the ball firmly. Nobody allowed to tackle him because "he is on the ground and you cannot tackle a player on the ground".

Pathetic confusion and the referee ultimately decides which decision he is going to apply pending how he feels at the moment.

 

[sifplay]

guess what happened to Bryce

http://referees.allblacks.com/index.cfm?layout=askExpertsQuestion&id=184

 

[Dizzy]

When I am active on the forum I have rants and raves about the refereeing nearly after every game and it doesn't just stop there, it happens in my own club games and it's so frustrating..

We don't even see crooked lineout throws being called anymore, there are numerous forward passes that get missed, there is the inconsistency of calls when a defending player lodges the ball free from the offending players hands, sometimes this is called a knock on sometimes not, it is infuriating and the worst part is that I feel the officials are untouchable because no matter how many bad calls they make, the referees get to just acknowledge a bad call was made and we leave it at that which is **** poor if you ask me because many many many calls are game deciding calls.

In my opinion, all the referee's need a good tuning up. The ruck area is soooo messed up. the ruling is that the tackler must release the player before going for the ball. Sometimes you see guys tackle around the waist, go down and in the transition of getting to their feet and challenging for the ball, it's obvious they've released the player in order to get their hands over the tackled player and onto the ball. Their hands may not come right out to make a wingspan but they definitely let the player go and then go for the ball, if they didn't let go, they'd still be holding around the waist..
There are sooo many inconsistencies with our officials it's to the point where I want to go back to refereeing just to get the job done right.

 

[OneBlackEye]

Rucks and mauls are pretty frustrating to watch at the moment.

Originally I felt like the referees decided each ruck like a round of boxing. He has a general feeling about who won the ruck and if they don't end up with the ball its a penalty.

But now we are a few weeks in I see its actually pretty simple algebra. If forward momentum is f (m/s) and number of players committed to the ruck is p, j is the amount of product in Justin Marshalls hair in milliliters, distance to the try line is d, time remaining is t and Sharks fans fighting is x.

(f+p) + (x/j) - (dxt) = winner of ruck

I really like the new TMO powers but one thing that has been bothering me is yellow cards for dangerous play. I feel like lots of incidents look much, much worse in slow motion and players are getting punished pretty severely for unintentional dangerous play.

Its a touchy subject and I guess its up the attacking player to avoid the situation but Id like to see cards handed out based on whether the TMO thinks the action was malicious or not (more grey area, I know). A tackler hitting high on the arm coupled with the attacking player slipping or side stepping can make for a pretty nasty looking head high tackle in slow motion. Just like going in really low on a tackle and the attacking player flying over your back looks like a tip tackle. Obviously the number one concern is player safety but this isn't soccer.

And on the flip side I'd like to see penalties handed out for kick chasers running into opposition players and diving on the ground, its totally ridiculous and embarrassing and it really really ****** me off. If an assistant ref sees a player chasing a kick bounce off a defending player and fall on the ground and it goes to the TMO and the TMO sees the player intentionally fell then he should absolutely be penalised and punched in the dick.

 

[Radian]

Well at least I note OneBlackEye and Dizzy also totally frustrated with ruck and maul rules. It really has become a total lottery watching rugby and actually waiting to see what the referee will decide at the moment. And really I cannot even find one referee which will repeat his interpretation of the same transgression through one game. You just do not know what is going to happen and this is what makes me make statements like "I would walk away and go watch soccer".

But truth is there is not a game I love more than rugby so I cannot walk away. I have to watch and now I have to complain and it is painfull.

I believe this all came about because of the "effort to make the game faster and more attractive". Not for me. It always was a beautiful game. Now it is a mess.

So I suggest simplify the whole thing:

If you do not have your weight on your feet your are off your feet. If you are off your feet you are not allowed to touch the ball. This applies for everybody. If you are tackled you have to release the ball immediately (you are not on-feet). If you are on the wrong side of the ball whether at the tackle or the ruck or the mall you are offside (even if you are on-feet or off-feet). (If you are the tackler you shall release the player immediately and you are offside at that moment but will get one chance to remove yourself from there and not partake in play like blocking the ball from fast recovery or you will be penalized). Thus it is the attacking teams responsibility to protect their ball. NOT THE REFEREE.

With that basics in place let us have a free for all where the skills of recovering a ball from the ruck (hands in ruck allowed if you are on-side and are on-feet) will determine possession.

Oh yes and if the ball does not come out the team who has taken the ball into the situation loose the scrum put-in.

Thus clearly if you are tackled you shall not roll along the ground with the ball. You shall not crawl over the goal-line with the ball. You shall be penalized.

Is that not just clear short simple rules to regulate the ruck and the tackle?

 

[Dizzy]

Rucks and mauls are pretty frustrating to watch at the moment.

Originally I felt like the referees decided each ruck like a round of boxing. He has a general feeling about who won the ruck and if they don't end up with the ball its a penalty.

But now we are a few weeks in I see its actually pretty simple algebra. If forward momentum is f (m/s) and number of players committed to the ruck is p, j is the amount of product in Justin Marshalls hair in milliliters, distance to the try line is d, time remaining is t and Sharks fans fighting is x.

(f+p) + (x/j) - (dxt) = winner of ruck

I really like the new TMO powers but one thing that has been bothering me is yellow cards for dangerous play. I feel like lots of incidents look much, much worse in slow motion and players are getting punished pretty severely for unintentional dangerous play.

Its a touchy subject and I guess its up the attacking player to avoid the situation but Id like to see cards handed out based on whether the TMO thinks the action was malicious or not (more grey area, I know). A tackler hitting high on the arm coupled with the attacking player slipping or side stepping can make for a pretty nasty looking head high tackle in slow motion. Just like going in really low on a tackle and the attacking player flying over your back looks like a tip tackle. Obviously the number one concern is player safety but this isn't soccer.

And on the flip side I'd like to see penalties handed out for kick chasers running into opposition players and diving on the ground, its totally ridiculous and embarrassing and it really really ****** me off. If an assistant ref sees a player chasing a kick bounce off a defending player and fall on the ground and it goes to the TMO and the TMO sees the player intentionally fell then he should absolutely be penalised and punched in the dick.

Bro I absolutely agree... I absolutely can't see how Moala (One) got yellow carded for his tackle on Popoali'i and then (Two) suspended for a week.
It sucks how he was clearly going in for a hard tackle as you are taught and practice throughout your career and unfortunately, Popoali'i (who is already short enough) ducks as Moala is launching at him and get's hit in the face by his BICEP(not forearm as the commentators alluded to).
There was no intention what so ever to go for a head high.
Then you get Mr. Nonu who blatantly shoulder charges Weepu and IMHFO it was high as well, get's a yellow card.

The officiating of our game has become atrocious.

I also have a gripe about Chris Pollock who was a guest on Reunion Tuesday night. They showed him some footage of some dodgy calls and in each one he defended apart from the Hurricanes maul penalty against the 'Tahs.
There was the one where the Brumbies were offside at the ruck against the Bulls and he says "No I agree with the ref here, I've actually seen another camera angle that clearly shows the ball was clearly out"... Bullshit, I rewind that **** and pause, the ball is still kept in the ruck by a full leg length.

I think the Unions need to step up and demand some sort of action because in that Brumbies/Bulls game, it was absolutely crucial in the end of the game and it could have easily swayed the Bulls way.

 

[Larksea]

the scrums are a hell of a lot better and generally with the TMO referrals the correct decisions are being made more often on the field. and I personally think it's with the extra few minutes a game to get the call right

 

[TRF_heineken]

the scrums are a hell of a lot better and generally with the TMO referrals the correct decisions are being made more often on the field. and I personally think it's with the extra few minutes a game to get the call right

Don't know about that! It's still a shambles! the refs play a guessing game most of the times, they go with the *** for tat rule. And the replays more often than not show that the ref made the wrong decision. and nearly every replay shows the ball being thrown in from an angle towards the attacking team's side. It's no longer a contest, it's a lottery.

 

[Radian]

Don't know about that! It's still a shambles! the refs play a guessing game most of the times, they go with the *** for tat rule. And the replays more often than not show that the ref made the wrong decision. and nearly every replay shows the ball being thrown in from an angle towards the attacking team's side. It's no longer a contest, it's a lottery.

Have to agree with Heineken. Scrums still a shambles. Props deliberately block away opposing prop's arm to prevent a bind and then get their team a penalty that way.
Solutions:
Allow props to regain their balance by allowing them to have hand touching the ground and try to regain bind after that. (Momentary touch to ground not support while pushing)
Get strong tags sown to front row jerseys just below the arm on the sides which gives each prop something to hold onto for binding
Check for the infringement (if at all it is a law) of preventing the opposing prop to get a bind during that vital moment when the scrum sets.