Analyzing the way the game is refereed

[Set piece magic]

Evening lads,

I haven't made this thread to have a good old ref bash and whine about the way the game is policed in relation to saturday night, rather analyze one particular key aspect of the way several referee's ref. And this is giving the attacking team the favour in terms of the laws.

I, like you, all watch a lot of rugby and thus know all the different referee's. Let's analyze how each of them referee, beginning with saturday's scape goat, Bryce Lawrence.

Lawrence loves the idea of flow in a game. He is pretty lenient on the rucks and what goes on, basically letting most teams get away with all but the most blatant offences. He's also pretty lenient on offside. This results in long spaces between "breaks in play" as such. However, Is Bryce really letting the game flow? The lack of policing in regards to offside means that teams regularly struggle to get over the advantage line, meaning their attack becomes stationary and doesn't go anywhere. I've got no statistics to back it up, but I swear 90% of the time that happens the team either shovels it wide and thus into touch (see: Auckland Blues), box kicks, kicks, or concedes a turnover. The other team gets the ball and again nothing much happens.

The other 10% of the time the team makes it over the gain line, but can't get quick ball as a result of the ruck turning into paris hilton's diarrhoea, meaning that that ten percent actually joins the 90% a phase or so later.

Now, Craig Joubert is a highly regarded referee, but I'm not afraid to question his ruck policy. In the past few matches he seems to have completely disregarded the key to attacking rugby refereeing, that is the "tackler release before going for the ball rule." This rule makes sure that teams running it out of their 22 have time and space to use the ball and gives them that extra 3 seconds for support to arrive - a key amount of time. When Joubert stops enforcing the rule, teams effectively CANNOT attack from inside their 22. It becomes very difficult to do so without conceding a penalty or turn over. Now when taken to the literal end of things, this rule costs tries. Everyone knows about a big dickhead called chris ashton who scored a 100m try last year. If you check out the phase before, will genia runs, is tackled by two, and NEVER released by them. He has no chance of playing the ball. Eventually Genia being the gentlemen he is, realizes he will get penalized if he doesn't and thus releases, knowing they will probably get the ball back. In the end Ashton scored. If It was me reffing, penalty to Aus plus team warning (5m out.)

Now I'm not trying to pick on these refs but they're ignoring these rules. Perhaps there worried the game won't flow at all if they do enforce penalties strictly. wrong.

Look at South Africa V Australia at Loftus Versfeld 2010. Nigel Owens the referee comes out with a very strong stance. That is a ZERO tolerance on people going off they're feet at the breakdown. Some people would call it extreme, I call It letting the game flow. There are four, five, maybe six extra penalties in the game as a result. However, after about 15 minutes, the teams realise they will get pinged to shit the instant they go off they're feet. So they let the team get quick ball altogethor, and when combined with the correct enforcement of offside, other ruck rules etc, we say a ridiculous game of 9 tries and endless attack.

The same happened the very next week when Englands Wayne Barnes made sure he enforced releasing the tackler- open running game.

To let the game flow, you've got to enforce every rule. Teams these days are cheats, and the only way to stop them is to let them know you've caught them. Then they will know next time.

Thoughts?

N.B.

What the All Blacks are good at doing is knowing each referee. They will play to the strengths he gives to whichever teams.

My response: Bring on Wayne Barnes or Nigel Owens for a Bledisloe Cup game.

 

[chasmac]

Interesting ideas that i tend to agree with.
The team that best exploits or responds to the refs interpretations has the advantage.
The half time penalty count v's the springboks was 7 - 2. This kept the Boks ahead on the scoreboard. When the penalty flow dried up a bit, the scores levelled.

 

[MajorlyRagerly]

My response: Bring on Wayne Barnes or Nigel Owens for a Bledisloe Cup game.

I don't get this - why, exactly? So the gentlemanly Australian players can have it all fair against all other dickheads?

If, as you state, the All Blacks are good at knowing each referee, why do you think a "response" of bringing in different referee's which the AB's obviously know about is what is required.

There are some good points in your post. However, your whole post seems to make no point at all.

And FWIW, I don't think 9 try test matches are good matches.

 

[dudebudstud]

I took up referring this year because I wanted to understand the game better, and I quickly learned that being a ref is not easy.

In response to the idea of enforcing every law and infringement I offer this:

One thing that many fans may not be aware of is that as refs we are taught the concept of materiality. Basically, materiality means this: At the very core of the game is the idea of letting the teams play, and not have a stoppage for every infraction. So if there is a law infringement but it has no effect on the game, or the consequences are so minor, is it really worth stopping play to enforce that law.
For example: the winger on the very far side of the field is a step or two offside when the ball is being played near the breakdown on the opposite side of the field. Is it worth blowing the whistle for that? Or if a ruck is definitely won by a team, the other team isn't counter rucking, and a player on the winning side of the ruck plays the ball back a bit with his hands. Is this worth blowing the whistle for?

The other thing I have quickly realized as a ref is that there are a dozen or more things I have to look for at each breakdown, and all this happens in a matter of a few seconds.
- Is it a legal tackle?
- Is the tackler releasing? Is the tackled player releasing the ball, are they both making an attempt to roll away?
- Are arriving players arriving in the gate, are they on their feet, are their shoulders above their hips, are the binding on the players on the ground?
- If they do fall off their feet, is it because of weak opposition?
- Are players binding properly as the join the ruck?
- Are other players offside?

ALL THIS IN THE COURSE OF 3- 5 seconds!!!

So I have found that I have used the concept of materiality quite a bit. So what if the tackler didn't release right away, the tackled player was still able to play the ball back quickly and his team won the breakdown in a timely fashion. As long as the tackler didn't slow down the ball carriers chance to present the ball, play should continue.

The trade off is play the game to the strictest interpretations of the law and having the whistle blown at every breakdown, or letting the players play, and allowing the ref to manage the game and rule out the inconsequential things.

Remember that word - Materiality.

Overall I think a few laws can be simplified. I think the options given to captains should be eliminated such as "Would you like the lineout or a scrum 15 meters in for a not straight throw in?" 90% of the time the captains make the same decision so why not just make that the result of these sort of infringements?

And finally as a ref there is some inconsistency as to when an infringement warrants a short arm free kick vs a long arm penalty. For example:
Law 19.7
(b) The throw-in at the lineout must be taken without delay and without pretending to throw.
Sanction: Free Kick on the 15-metre line
(c) A player must not intentionally or repeatedly throw the ball in not straight.
Sanction: Penalty kick on the 15-metre line

Why is taking too long to throw in a lineout a free kick, but throwing in the ball not straight a bunch of times a penalty?! In the case of not straight the ball is turned over anyway, and how can you judge if it is being "intentionally" not thrown in straight?

That said, I love reffing.

Rant over.

 

[Set piece magic]

I don't get this - why, exactly? So the gentlemanly Australian players can have it all fair against all other dickheads?

If, as you state, the All Blacks are good at knowing each referee, why do you think a "response" of bringing in different referee's which the AB's obviously know about is what is required.

There are some good points in your post. However, your whole post seems to make no point at all.

And FWIW, I don't think 9 try test matches are good matches.

Sorry you must have misinterpreted what I was saying. I was not saying we should deliberately put one of them in, or sack one of these refs. I'm just saying I would like to see how It played out with a stricter interpretation, something we haven't seen in recent times.

 

[Lee Grant]

To let the game flow, you've got to enforce every rule. Teams these days are cheats, and the only way to stop them is to let them know you've caught them.

There's a lot of truth in this within reason. You can't enforce the hands in the ruck law because the attacking scrummie always has his hands in fishing the ball out. They used to ping this in the old days and the scrummie had to scrape the ball out with his foot first. But it is better now - one of those few referee conventions contrary to the laws that are good for the game. There's a few others too.

Lawrence was poor refereeing the ruck in Durban and Pollock was also in the first Oz v Bok game in Sydney - not that I think NZ refs are bad as a group, far from it. Such "Rafferty's Rules" at the ruck weaken the fabric of the game. Somebody should stick a rocket up them for being too liberal - and their assessors also.

The opposite is bad also, but more noticeable to us rolling our eyes watching the TV. Sticklers are bad for the game but the Cowboys are just as blameworthy.

The crackdown on the ruck laws were good for rugby union but now I fear the cynical, pleasing the coach stuff, is making a comeback and is being encouraged by non-action.

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

At half time weren't people saying the ref was penalizing us too much? Personally i thought he let both teams get away with a bit, obviously SA got away with a little more only having the one penalty against them. If he had picked up on a few more things the penalty count would have been up around 10-5 (maybe 10-6) and people would still be angry. Not sure what the answer is, I think there has been an improvement in the last 4 years when it comes to reffing the breakdown, it is more consistent around the world.

In 4 years time hopefully the difference between NH and SH reffing will be almost unnoticeable, and we will have found the right balance when it comes to the "affect" part of penalizing players at the breakdown. It is the most subjective thing about refereeing and in the future we definitely need to put some systems in place to remove a bit of that.

 

[Crow]

I don't get this - why, exactly? So the gentlemanly Australian players can have it all fair against all other dickheads?

If, as you state, the All Blacks are good at knowing each referee, why do you think a "response" of bringing in different referee's which the AB's obviously know about is what is required.

I think that the obvious conclusion is that the Darkness are better at playing within the referee's limits where the referee has high limits, so the wallabies may have an easier time with a harsher referee. The wallabies obviously need to improve in this area. IMO in some ways they failed to take advantage of some of Lawrence's attributes. Although they seem to have gotten away with a couple of tackles that could have been penalised. That seemed more accident than intention though.

That a particular referee has a style that suits one team or other slightly more isn't an earth shattering revelation.

 

[Bullrush]

I took up referring this year because I wanted to understand the game better, and I quickly learned that being a ref is not easy.

In response to the idea of enforcing every law and infringement I offer this:

One thing that many fans may not be aware of is that as refs we are taught the concept of materiality. Basically, materiality means this: At the very core of the game is the idea of letting the teams play, and not have a stoppage for every infraction. So if there is a law infringement but it has no effect on the game, or the consequences are so minor, is it really worth stopping play to enforce that law.
For example: the winger on the very far side of the field is a step or two offside when the ball is being played near the breakdown on the opposite side of the field. Is it worth blowing the whistle for that? Or if a ruck is definitely won by a team, the other team isn't counter rucking, and a player on the winning side of the ruck plays the ball back a bit with his hands. Is this worth blowing the whistle for?

The other thing I have quickly realized as a ref is that there are a dozen or more things I have to look for at each breakdown, and all this happens in a matter of a few seconds.
- Is it a legal tackle?
- Is the tackler releasing? Is the tackled player releasing the ball, are they both making an attempt to roll away?
- Are arriving players arriving in the gate, are they on their feet, are their shoulders above their hips, are the binding on the players on the ground?
- If they do fall off their feet, is it because of weak opposition?
- Are players binding properly as the join the ruck?
- Are other players offside?

ALL THIS IN THE COURSE OF 3- 5 seconds!!!

So I have found that I have used the concept of materiality quite a bit. So what if the tackler didn't release right away, the tackled player was still able to play the ball back quickly and his team won the breakdown in a timely fashion. As long as the tackler didn't slow down the ball carriers chance to present the ball, play should continue.

The trade off is play the game to the strictest interpretations of the law and having the whistle blown at every breakdown, or letting the players play, and allowing the ref to manage the game and rule out the inconsequential things.

Remember that word - Materiality.

Overall I think a few laws can be simplified. I think the options given to captains should be eliminated such as "Would you like the lineout or a scrum 15 meters in for a not straight throw in?" 90% of the time the captains make the same decision so why not just make that the result of these sort of infringements?

And finally as a ref there is some inconsistency as to when an infringement warrants a short arm free kick vs a long arm penalty. For example:
Law 19.7
(b) The throw-in at the lineout must be taken without delay and without pretending to throw.
Sanction: Free Kick on the 15-metre line
(c) A player must not intentionally or repeatedly throw the ball in not straight.
Sanction: Penalty kick on the 15-metre line

Why is taking too long to throw in a lineout a free kick, but throwing in the ball not straight a bunch of times a penalty?! In the case of not straight the ball is turned over anyway, and how can you judge if it is being "intentionally" not thrown in straight?

That said, I love reffing.

Rant over.

Awesome post dude.

With the vidoes that come out from here highlighting McCaw or the Boks or the breakdown in general, I always find it amusing that so many people, all watching excatly the same thing - in some cases over and over again, all seem to find different infringements or can explain away other infringements and be totally different to each other. If we can't decide exactly who is wrong or who isn't wrong with video replays, slow motion action, a range of camera angles and hours to deliberate.....how the hell do we expect refs to get it right every time in about 3 sec, on one viewing and one vantage point?

That's not to excuse poor reffing but geez......we're a bit tough sometimes.

However, forward passes and knock-ons piss me off. There isn't a lot to get wrong there......I know it can be a bit contentious sometimes but generally, if you can't pick up some of the blatant shit that happens - forget about the breakdown and get that right. Assisstant ref too......

 

[Hawko]

I don't get this - why, exactly? So the gentlemanly Australian players can have it all fair against all other dickheads?

If, as you state, the All Blacks are good at knowing each referee, why do you think a "response" of bringing in different referee's which the AB's obviously know about is what is required.

There are some good points in your post. However, your whole post seems to make no point at all.

And FWIW, I don't think 9 try test matches are good matches.

The greatest game ever played, Sydney 2000, had a scoreline of 39-35. Australia v New Zealand. But then it had ten tries, not nine.

 

[MajorlyRagerly]

The greatest game ever played, Sydney 2000, had a scoreline of 39-35. Australia v New Zealand. But then it had ten tries, not nine.

Very true. But the defence was woeful. It wasn't a game for purists.

I do agree it was the best game I've ever seen & that is due to the swining nature of it, so i'm kind of contradicting myself here.

But I'd hate rugby if there were on average 10 tries per match.

 

[Ruggo]

I have concearns in the diversity in interperetation of the laws. The management of referees needs to be questioned. It's not their job to make the game flow but to officiate in accordance with the laws. If a ref needs to blow the pea out of the whistle because players are constantly pushing their luck, so be it. The precident has been set that teams can play the ref like a fiddle, now it needs to be set that the referees will not tolerate illegal play. The players and coaches will learn.

 

[antipodean]

The greatest game ever played, Sydney 2000, had a scoreline of 39-35. Australia v New Zealand. But then it had ten tries, not nine.

The actual greatest game ever played, also staring the Wallabies was 6th July, 1996. No team has come as close to perfection.

 

[MajorlyRagerly]

I think that the obvious conclusion is that the Darkness are better at playing within the referee's limits where the referee has high limits, so the wallabies may have an easier time with a harsher referee. The wallabies obviously need to improve in this area. IMO in some ways they failed to take advantage of some of Lawrence's attributes. Although they seem to have gotten away with a couple of tackles that could have been penalised. That seemed more accident than intention though.

Yeah, but this is what I disagree with. It's just inline with the myth that the Wallabies "bend the rules" alot less than other countries & thus are better off with a tougher ref.

Reality is that 99 times out of 100, games results would go the same way with a different ref. It's also reality that if referee's reffed strictly to the exact laws of every single ref, one of two things would happen. Either the game would turn into gridiron, or it would turn into rugby league. Competing for the ball is the whole essence of the game & dudebudstud's post is something I couldn't agree with more.

 

[Gnostic]

The greatest game ever played, Sydney 2000, had a scoreline of 39-35. Australia v New Zealand. But then it had ten tries, not nine.

The first two tries by the ABs were woeful by the Wallabies. Latham failing to take the ball on the full for the ABs second try was a disgrace and precisely the resaon why I always rated and still rate M. Burke a better 15 (regardless of his jounalistic skill nowdays). Only journo's in need of attention grabbing headlines rate this game the best ever. Some great flowing attack was seen but the defence as Major Reg. states was pitiful. I can think of numerous games off the top of my head better than this.

 

[Gagger]

Truth is, it's a balance thing. Selectively ignore too many laws (call it 'materiality' if you will) and you end up with dog's breakfasts - see the S15 final. I know for a fact the Reds had expected Bryce to ref it that way, and the Saders to play it that way, and we get a shit fight at the breakdown, resulting in slow, scrappy ball for everyone and a stop start affair.

If he had picked up on a few more things the penalty count would have been up around 10-5 (maybe 10-6) and people would still be angry.

This is argument doesn't tally with the other, which is that the best "rule benders" tailor themselves to the Refs. Ping em, they stop. Let em go, they'll do it more.

Reality is that 99 times out of 100, games results would go the same way with a different ref.

Loving the confidence

 

[naza]

Refs, especially the Craig Joubert types, defer to the team that is physically dominant. If in doubt, reward the team that is man shaming their opponents. The Wallabies are pussycats and only ever put in a hard days' work on the Wall at Oxford Street so mostly get what they deserve.

The part I don't understand is how its legal for Richie McCaw to do his in from the side-off my feet- hands in the ruck trifecta for 10 FUCKING YEARS !!!, NZ to be offside for EVERY SINGLE FUCKING MATCH THEY FUCKING PLAY and for AB forwards to tackle blokes 5 metres away from the ruck who aren't even close enough to contemplate being bound. Que ? Apart from that, the refereeing is only mildly diabolical/ratshit.

 

[Moses]

Good thread Spikhaza,
Reckon we could come up with a table showing the RWC refs and the way they interpret different areas of the game? Perhaps a score out of 5 for several different areas and we could put together a colour map or somesuch

 

[yourmatesam]

man shaming their opponents

Deadset Gold.

 

[Gagger]

Naza - where have you been? I don't even think you were banned?