Refereeing decisions
- Thread starter boyo
- Start date
Given the mouthguard data for Tizzano registered the impact at double what is considered high level, maybe some of the ex-Lion players accusing Tizzano of diving might pull their heads in. Although I would not hold my breath. Pompous twats seldom apologise.
molman
John Thornett (49)
So, is the only mechanism to protect referees to never admit they are human and could make mistakes? I appreciate the challenge and some of the public and the online community are just vile, because at the end of the day it's just a game, it's sport, not the religion that some make it, but still.
There is a bit of a fine line they are walking when they are fighting a perception and very real legal challenges around the sports safety when you have incidents like this with a lot of notable pundits saying this happens lots of times in a game and mums are sitting there watching another player be whacked in the back of the neck/head and hearing that it's fine, happens all the time every game.
Is there some means of issuing clarifications without signalling out specific incidents at the very least. Maybe a end of year review so it's not just one incident. Don't say things like that specific tackle on Lynagh by Finau was late and dangerous for example, but rather here is exactly what we feel should be called late or not, here is some more detailed, guidance. Or do you feel this already happens well enough?
Tomthumb
Peter Johnson (47)
The biggest problem with this is the fans end up with the short end of the stick, which is maddening considering the only reason anyone involved in Rugby earns a dime off it is due to the fans that watch and attend the games
Prioritising paid professionals reputations over the fans that invest in the sport is at a base level pretty piss poor customer service
Prioritising paid professionals reputations over the fans that invest in the sport is at a base level pretty piss poor customer service
JRugby2
Nev Cottrell (35)
Why do they need to publicly admit something that is widely known.
I actually strongly agree with the statement they made yesterday. There is absolutely no benefit in clarifying this, or if any specific decisions were right or wrong if all you're going to do is fuel the fire and vitriol - which will happen. A statement on the matter won't be the final thing we hear.
They say it was a mistake? Lions fans blow up.
Actually it was correct? Wallabies fans blow up.
Maybe giving the game some space as you say would be better and then coming out at the end of the year as you suggest - but taking my gold tinted glasses off and looking at this as pragmatically as I can, I just don't see what the benefit is when that 'clarification' won't be accepted by everyone.
In reality it's only Wallabies fans (outside that traitor Strewth...) who feel they need clarity because we are invested in the team. If broadly accept that this debate isn't happening the the parallel Red And White (and Navy and Green) Rugby forum it probably adds context on the long standing policy to just say nothing and move on.
Last edited:
Strewthcobber
Nick Farr-Jones (63)
I just think our game is very grey most of the time, and the law makers give black and white requirements, and then we expect refs to manage games, and criticise them if they eg "make it about themselves" and "blow the whistle too much".
The diving for a try thing is a great example. There have been two clarifications in the last couple of years on that. I think the try on Saturday is exactly how the lawmakers intend it to work, but there are a few stray clauses in committee's poorly written guidance that suggests it shouldn't be OK, but all of the ref group had absolutely no issue with it.
Were they wrong? I don't think so, but there are words there that suggest they could be.
So do we need more guidance? A third in the last 3 years? Will that make it clearer or just keep introducing more grey?
Dan54
David Wilson (68)
I think WR (World Rugby) has to take it pretty careful how they come down, or what they say. They can't just comment on one decision in a game, especially at end , or we will get more non decisions etc. I quite like @molman suggestion that something at end of year, Otherwise they are going to have to go over every decision. I suspect there will be something after next board meeting, as in general that's how they handle these things. And it will be released to RA?
Strewthcobber
Nick Farr-Jones (63)
I'd just rather argue the miniature of a stupid children's sport that adults get paid to play for some reason, than do any work
JRugby2
Nev Cottrell (35)
Probably the one thing that unites us all.
Upthemaroon!
Chris McKivat (8)
Yeah I think a good way forward is for WR (World Rugby) to take some reffing out of the hands of the ref. Just let the TMO make a call, no on the field interpretation of videos.
Looking at the AFL for inspiration, wouldn't mind head contacts being dealt with after the game. However, every player that has to leave the field will result in the player causing the head injury to also leave the field for a set number of minutes. The ref always keeps the power to call it 'a rugby collision" like with Lukhan and Luke Cowan Dickie at the FNP match. Dumb it down a bit without taking away player safety.
AFL has plenty of grey in its rules particularly around tackling and they come out and clarify rulings every week. It has its positives and negatives.
JRugby2
Nev Cottrell (35)
I'm not 100% across this but AFL fans are fucken rabid - some of the worst on earth - so if the AFL can do it not completely destroy the mental health of their umpires in the process, I could come around to rugby finding a way.
Paisami was cleared on field by all refs when he caught the Pacifika player high in super rugby this year. Then the governing body came over the top and suspended him. Now that was SANZAR and not WR (World Rugby) but I’m pretty sure it was called a rugby accident/incident initially. My understanding is the refs were pretty confused when they didn’t see it from their POV. And I can’t help but feel if Tizzano was knocked out or taken off in a neck brace it would have impacted what they called. Which I think is fundamentally wrong.
Rebel man
John Thornett (49)
Fans aren’t the issue the administration is. They have changed the rules so much now that the rules of the game contradict themselves so you can’t watch it and not be frustrated
JRugby2
Nev Cottrell (35)
Where was this reported?
This should shut up anyone saying it was shoulder on shoulder. But then again they could have just opened their eyes to get to that conclusion.
Dctarget
David Wilson (68)
Jo said it in a conference yesterday. Note that he didn't say it triggered an HIA assessment so it wasn't that bad.
Dan54
David Wilson (68)
That is disappointing if it recorded double what is considered high level,if it didn't trigger a HIA assessment.
Wilson
Tim Horan (67)
Did he say that it didn't trigger an HIA or did he just not say whether or not it triggered an HIA?
JRugby2
Nev Cottrell (35)
I think there is more than just the reading that goes into triggering these.
I don't know for sure - but I imagine a monster hit around the upper chest thats legal would also show a reading - especially considering Tizzano wasn't hit in the head, rather the neck.
I'm guessing they probably have a threshold of it's over this much we'll definitely take them off, but if it's only this much but still a high reading we'll just use it as a trigger to review the incident and see if it's necessary to remove them from play.