Refereeing decisions

[Strewthcobber]

This may also change the way entry point is calculated going forward - if the committees were (incorrectly) assuming intent and nature of offense were to be applied both as part of entry point and in determining mitigation they may have come to lower entry point conclusions then they otherwise would have.

Section 17.19 of the World Rugby regulations pretty clearly calls them

relevant off-field mitigating factors

Mitigating factors include the following:

(a) the presence and timing of an acknowledgement of the commission of foul play by the offending Player;

(b) the Player’s disciplinary record;

(c) the youth and/or inexperience of the Player;

(d) the Player’s conduct prior to and at the hearing

(e) the Player having demonstrated remorse for his/her conduct to the victim Player including the timing of such remorse; and

(f) any other off-field mitigating factor(s) that the Disciplinary Committee or Judicial Officer considers relevant and appropriate.

Hopefully the FPRC gets properly trained and don't make that error in judgement again

The FPRC, chaired by Brenda Heather-Latu (Samoa), joined by Ofisa Tonu’u (New Zealand) and Valeriu Toma (Romania), reviewed the cases and proposed a 12-match sanction for Berthoumieu

 

[liquor box]

Axelle Berthoumieu (French backrower) has her biting ban reduced from 12 weeks to 9 on appeal. The reasoning behind this change seems to set a pretty problematic precedent that can be applied elsewhere:

Independent disciplinary process update: Axelle Berthoumieu and Manae Feleu (France) | World Rugby

France’s Axelle Berthoumieu and Manae Feleu have been suspended for nine and three (reduced to two on completion of the coaching intervention programme) matches respectively, after an independent Disciplinary Committee heard their appeals against sanctions for offences under Law 9.12 (biting)...

www.world.rugby

Reading regulation 17 the appeals committee appear to be correct in ignoring intent and the nature of the offense when determining mitigation, but it's really difficult to see how a 50% reduction for such a serious offense can be justified, particularly for a 25 year old player with years of test match experience (youth and inexperience are mitigating factors).

The flow on effect from this decision seems to be that players with an otherwise clean record can expect full 50% mitigation on any offense by admission of guilt and an apology alone. This is perhaps not anything too new with 50% discounts being more or less the norm for tackle offenses, but they are almost always seen as unintentional or reckless accidents. This may also change the way entry point is calculated going forward - if the committees were (incorrectly) assuming intent and nature of offense were to be applied both as part of entry point and in determining mitigation they may have come to lower entry point conclusions then they otherwise would have.

I haven't been a fan of the sanctioning process and the way mitigation is applied for some time, but this clarification makes it look much worse than I thought it was, particularly for the more serious offenses.

I have always opposed mitigation, instead of reducing a penalty, maybe a circumstance of aggravation should be applied.

Eg, biting gets 12 weeks, if you draw blood, is on the genitals or other factors that add to the severity then you add 3 extra weeks per factor.

It seems like World Rugby are intent on reducing the penalties by any way they can.

 

[Wilson]

I have always opposed mitigation, instead of reducing a penalty, maybe a circumstance of aggravation should be applied.

Eg, biting gets 12 weeks, if you draw blood, is on the genitals or other factors that add to the severity then you add 3 extra weeks per factor.

It seems like World Rugby are intent on reducing the penalties by any way they can.

Circumstances related to the act apply to the entry point, off field aggravating factors (lack of remorse, previous record, deterrence, etc.) can already be applied after mitigation under the current regulations.

In a general sense I don't think applying aggravating factors afterwards is any better than applying mitigation. I do generally believe in mitigation being applied, but the scale and nature of it has felt out step with reality for a while now. Potentially the specific issue here is the 3 step model of low/medium/high entry points with a 50% reduction always available. I'd argue that some offences probably shouldn't ever be eligible for a full 50% reduction, but realistically I believe the whole system needs to be redesigned, not just tinkered with around the edges.

 

[Dan54]

Meant to comment on how good it was seeing Gus Gardiner reffing NPC game last Thursday. He did a few last year ,and probably worked well being here to run sideline of test last Sat. He said last year he really enjoyed coming over and doing them etc. Funnily enough, he one of my favourite refs, but really looked not much better etc of any refs that do these games.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Gus may as well emigrate the amount of time he spends over these ways. Hypothetically if he did would there be any impediment to him refing a Wallabies game?

 

[Strewthcobber]

What's a ref get for NPC? Must be a relatively worthwhile amount

 

[Wilson]

Gus may as well emigrate the amount of time he spends over these ways. Hypothetically if he did would there be any impediment to him refing a Wallabies game?

Whether or not the laws allow it is probably irrelevant, I don't think world rugby would ever make that appointment. More than anything it would be hanging Angus out to dry. That alone probably blocks any move to shift his registration to NZ - it'd be very hard to carve out a test career based in Australia and NZ if you can't ref either of those sides.

I imagine reffing NPC games is as much about keeping fit and busy as anything else right now, though the money probably helps a bit given referees aren't paid that well, even at an international level and most others seem to maintain a secondary career. That might get eaten up pretty quickly if he's covering his own flights and accom though.

What's a ref get for NPC? Must be a relatively worthwhile amount

Hard to find much detail, but this article had it as NZD$500 per match in 2017. Not sure how it works for someone like Gardner who would otherwise have a full-time salary from RA though.

 

[Dctarget]

Whether or not the laws allow it is probably irrelevant, I don't think world rugby would ever make that appointment. More than anything it would be hanging Angus out to dry. That alone probably blocks any move to shift his registration to NZ - it'd be very hard to carve out a test career based in Australia and NZ if you can't ref either of those sides.

I imagine reffing NPC games is as much about keeping fit and busy as anything else right now, though the money probably helps a bit given referees aren't paid that well, even at an international level and most others seem to maintain a secondary career. That might get eaten up pretty quickly if he's covering his own flights and accom though.


Hard to find much detail, but this article had it as NZD$500 per match in 2017. Not sure how it works for someone like Gardner who would otherwise have a full-time salary from RA though.

What would the top 10 refs make? Did Barnes actually practice as a lawyer throughout his reffing?

 

[Wilson]

What would the top 10 refs make? Did Barnes actually practice as a lawyer throughout his reffing?

I think the top flight UK refs make around £150k per year, but it's all pretty variable based on the games you get and the union you're based in. I've heard AUD$150k for the top Australian refs (as the salary, not total compensation) but I don't know how accurate that is.

I think it probably varied a bit throughout his career, but Barnes was definitely actively practising law while also working as a ref:

Elite referee Wayne Barnes on life as a barrister - Rugby World

Away from the rugby pitch, we have a chat with elite referee Wayne Barnes on life as a barrister, at his office in The Shard

www.rugbyworld.com

 

[Strewthcobber]

What would the top 10 refs make? Did Barnes actually practice as a lawyer throughout his reffing?

English Prem and French Top 14 refs are paid relatively well I think, but not criminal barrister level, which is what Barnes would have given up if he stopped practicing

 

[Dan54]

I don't have any idea what the refs make at NPC, but know that a young local ref who just did the subs etc for a game got $150 for game a couple of weeks back.
But what they actually get, I not sure, but sure Gus wouldn't have to pay airfare? Unless he uses air points , but he was doing quite a few it seemed last year.

 

[Merrow]

So this happened at our local junior 7s tournament. First incident in over 40 years. Hard enough to get referees to give up a weekend out of season without this sort of sh!t happening

 

[Sully]

Love that we have adopted the "coward punch" line completely. It's a much more accurate descriptor.

 

[Merrow]

Referee knocked out, father and son charged with assault at junior grand final

An investigation has been launched following the confrontation.

www.canberratimes.com.au

 

[Major Tom]

What’s the ruling with latched attacking players and the try line? Happened with the last try in the bled last night. I’m not sure how you your supposed to be able to defend it when half the ball carrier body is obstructed.

 

[Strewthcobber]

What’s the ruling with latched attacking players and the try line? Happened with the last try in the bled last night. I’m not sure how you your supposed to be able to defend it when half the ball carrier body is obstructed.

Law 9.22 is what you are talking about - the Flying wedge law.

I don't particularly like it, but the guidance on this is one additional player can bind or pre-latch.

Flying wedge
An illegal type of attack, which usually happens near the try line, either from a penalty or free-kick or in open play. Team-mates pre-bind onto the ball-carrier in a wedge formation before engaging the opposition. Often one or more of these team-mates is in front of the ball-carrier.

 

[Major Tom]

Law 9.22 is what you are talking about - the Flying wedge law.

I don't particularly like it, but the guidance on this is one additional player can bind or pre-latch.

Surely just fix it by stating you can latch after the player is being tackled. From memory that didn’t happen. Defending the goal line is getting pretty ridiculously hard imo.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Surely just fix it by stating you can latch after the player is being tackled. From memory that didn’t happen. Defending the goal line is getting pretty ridiculously hard imo.

I don't think there's any desire to "fix it".

The new guidance and law only came in 2022

 

[Major Tom]

I don't think there's any desire to "fix it".

The new guidance and law only came in 2022

I mean I’ve hated it since 2022. I’ll keep shouting at clouds.

 

[Strewthcobber]

I actually think the most problematic try was Ikitau's one awarded (correctly, under current interpretations) at 65 mins.

The ball is clearly still in the ruck, but for some reason we allow the attacking team to reach into the ruck, and advance the ball by handling in the ruck to score. We don't let the defending team ignore any laws to stop it.

15.11Once a ruck has formed, no player may handle the ball unless they were able to get their hands on the ball before the ruck formed and stay on their feet.

Nowhere in the laws does it say you are allowed to handle if you aren't bound