Refereeing decisions

[mst]

Food for thought - With all the current debate and ideas been thrown about for the NRC:

http://www.rugby15.co.za/2013/11/varsity-cup-to-launch-two-refs-experiment-in-2014/

http://www.sarugbymag.co.za/blog/details/two-refs-seem-better-than-one

http://www.sport24.co.za/Rugby/Two-refs-for-Varsity-Cup-games-20131114

How it works: http://www.sarugbymag.co.za/blog/details/dual-ref-systems-been-successful

Would it be possible to adapt a similar set up to help with the training and development of new referees at the lower levels by having they work in tandem with a mentor referee? Its potentially provides a method to give them experience and develop confidence but with a bit of a safety net.

Maybe lessen the roll to start with to offsides etc?

Would this potentially bring in some constancy and align interpretations with two referee's working in close proximity?

 

[Hawko]

Interesting to see that Stuart Berry, the worst performer over the last couple of weeks, has not been cut. All he got was a two week stand down. Someone on the referees selection panel is clearly protecting him - for what reason is just not clear. Maybe as he is more experienced than those cut they feel they want to give him a chance to improve, but I really don't see the justification myself.

 

[Braveheart81]

Lyndon Bray foreshadowed that this was happening before the most recent round so I'd guess that the decisions had largely been made already.

Given that Berry's worst game was the most recent one, I think that's the main reason why he's still there.

It will be interesting to see what happens as the season progresses. Do the referees that have been cut have any chance of being reinstated? Is there room for more referees to be cut (such as Berry)?

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

Who should replace him? Any GAGR volunteers? Or should we just keep cutting anyone who has a bad week regardless of how good any potential replacement might be. We wouldn't let a coach get away with that, not sure why Lyndon Bray should be pressured into doing it.

This has nothing to do with Berry, the fact is the number of refs being called to be "cut" outweighs the replacements being suggested by about 18-0. (there are only 18 on the panel).

 

[Braveheart81]

The panel at the start of the season was:

The full Super Rugby Referee Squad for 2014 is:

• Stuart Berry (RSA)
• Nick Briant (NZL)
• Mike Fraser (NZL)
• Angus Gardner (AUS)
• Rohan Hoffmann (AUS)
• Glen Jackson (NZL)
• Jason Jaftha (RSA)
• Craig Joubert (RSA)
• James Leckie (AUS)
• Andrew Lees (AUS)
• Matt O’Brien (AUS)
• Francisco Pastrana (ARG)
• Jaco Peyper (RSA)
• Chris Pollock (NZL)
• Lourens van der Merwe (RSA)
• Marius van der Westhuizen (RSA)
• Steve Walsh (AUS)
• Garratt Williamson (NZ)

Jaftha is out for the season after doing his knee.

Leckie, Pastrana, and van der Merwe have been cut completely leaving 14 referees.

They have a bunch of guys who do assistant refereeing but generally, every game will have at least one of the assistant referees being part of the main panel.

I think fan expectations are possibly out of line with reality.

If you looked through that list, there's probably only about four referees the majority of fans would classify as being really good referees.

Overall they are on a hiding to nothing. Expectations are a long way out of step with reality.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Who should replace him? Any GAGR volunteers? Or should we just keep cutting anyone who has a bad week regardless of how good any potential replacement might be. We wouldn't let a coach get away with that, not sure why Lyndon Bray should be pressured into doing it.

This has nothing to do with Berry, the fact is the number of refs being called to be "cut" outweighs the replacements being suggested by about 18-0. (there are only 18 on the panel).

Could have our mate Marto as first reserve. That would stop all the demands for changes.

 

[elementfreak]

The "tackler" must go to ground or there is no tackle.

Not true. We have a tackle situation without a 'tackler'. The guy on the floor still needs to release.

 

[Bardon]

Wasn't sure exactly where to put this one, but this thread seems as good a place as any.

A club has chastised it's fans for hurling soccer style abuse at a referee and told them to either behave or go find another club to support.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/rugby-union/26767000

It's good to see someone standing up for referees within the game. The creep of the bad behaviour generally associated with soccer is something I hoped I'd never see in Rugby. Hopefully it can be stamped out.

Honestly though I think it's a losing battle. Even things like booing the kicker was far more prevalent in this year's 6 nations.

On the referee specifically I think it's fine to question some of their calls as no one is perfect and they perform better than top officials at equivalent levels in other sports. But abusing the ref is just not on imho. They do a very tough job, that I certainly wouldn't be able to do, and they deserve our protection and respect.

 

[terry j]

I have recently noticed that the touchie seems to be fair game for a spray, AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) last week and maybe conrad smith last night was it??

How come it is not OK to question a ref's decision (let alone abuse them) but the touchie is fair game?

Perhaps the refs don't hear it during the game, but at the least march them ten meters I reckon. Perhpas the touchie should notify the ref of abuse so he can sanction the player/team.

 

[ChargerWA]

Interesting one for Joubert to sort out at the start of the Bulls/Chiefs game. The Bulls under pressure to clear on their own goal line carried the ball back into goal and one of the chiefs locks charged it down as they attempted to kick it clear. Joubert went to the TMO who struggled to explain that the ball had been carried back but the ball had travelled out past the goal line before being charged. Joubert thinking it had been charged down in goal awarded the scrum to the Chiefs.

So for the learned on here, because the ball had passed the goal line should it have been a Bulls 22 drop out?

 

[boyo]

Determining whether it's a scrum or a 22 usually relies on which team took the ball over the goal line.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Interesting one for Joubert to sort out at the start of the Bulls/Chiefs game. The Bulls under pressure to clear on their own goal line carried the ball back into goal and one of the chiefs locks charged it down as they attempted to kick it clear. Joubert went to the TMO who struggled to explain that the ball had been carried back but the ball had travelled out past the goal line before being charged. Joubert thinking it had been charged down in goal awarded the scrum to the Chiefs.

So for the learned on here, because the ball had passed the goal line should it have been a Bulls 22 drop out?

You'd hope that CJ was trying to ascertain who touched it last before it went in goal the first time (Chiefs = 22, Bulls = scrum, Chiefs ball) which I don't think he's allowed to ask directly. Once it's carried back in goal & the clearance is charged it doesn't matter where the charge occurs, if it ends up back in goal then technically it never left, even if it crossed the line. 5m scrum, attacking ball.

Edit: should read "lands back in goal" so I guess that had it landed in the field of play then gone in goal it could possibly be a 22, I think most refs would probably still award the scrum, though.

 

[ChargerWA]

Definitely carried back by the Bulls, but then kicked clear of the in-goal by the bulls, charged down by the Chiefs back into the in-goal.

 

[Muttonbird]

The directive allowing the referee to rule off the big screen is perfect for this sort of thing yet it's not being used. Can anyone say why? Is it because the directives are not clear enough? I feared the worst when this on-field/off-field dance was brought in.

Solution: ref can't make a decision? Send it to the TMO, then the TMO's decision is final.

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

So for the learned on here, because the ball had passed the goal line should it have been a Bulls 22 drop out?

Yeah.

Shame the screen wasn't working CJ would have been much more decisive in that call on his own.

 

[ChargerWA]

The bad part was that I don't actually think the TMO knew the answer. CJ couldn't understand what he was saying and put the pressure on the TMO to make the call, the TMO panicked and just said, go with your decision.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Yeah.

Shame the screen wasn't working CJ would have been much more decisive in that call on his own.

Yeah nah. Had the ball not gone dead from the charge down its play on & a potential try therefore when it goes dead the relevant infringement is the ball being carried back & going dead, regardless of who made it so. Scrum, attacking ball. It's not about who made the ball dead, it's about who took it into the in goal.

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

The bad part was that I don't actually think the TMO knew the answer. CJ couldn't understand what he was saying and put the pressure on the TMO to make the call, the TMO panicked and just said, go with your decision.

I think the TMO knew it should have been a drop out, but he was too nervous to over-rule. Stu Berry had a better angle than the camera so he seemed hesitant to go with the balance of probabilities (from the TV screen which suggested a drop out was the correct call).

CJ asked for the TMO to make a judgement call though, so I don't know why he hesitated to just call a drop out...

Yeah nah. Had the ball not gone dead from the charge down its play on & a potential try therefore when it goes dead the relevant infringement is the ball being carried back & going dead, regardless of who made it so. Scrum, attacking ball. It's not about who made the ball dead, it's about who took it into the in goal.

We are suggesting the ball was kicked half a metre clear of the in goal, only for the chiefs to charge it down. So chiefs technically took the ball into in-goal, hence a Bulls drop out would have been the correct call.

 

[Muttonbird]

I think the TMO knew it should have been a drop out, but he was too nervous to over-rule. Stu Berry had a better angle than the camera so he seemed hesitant to go with the balance of probabilities (from the TV screen which suggested a drop out was the correct call).

CJ asked for the TMO to make a judgement call though, so I don't know why he hesitated to just call a drop out.


We are suggesting the ball was kicked half a metre clear of the in goal, only for the chiefs to charge it down. So chiefs technically took the ball into in-goal, hence a Bulls drop out would have been the correct call.

WTF? This is the problem with the daft directive at the moment. The TMO is rendered without the power the ref has for some reason. The IRB seriously needs to look at this because it is rendering the TV technology irrelevant.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

We are suggesting the ball was kicked half a metre clear of the in goal, only for the chiefs to charge it down. So chiefs technically took the ball into in-goal, hence a Bulls drop out would have been the correct call.

I get that. I'm suggesting that the Bulls having taken it in goal initially must then clear it or it's a scrum, attacking ball. The ball may well have crossed the goal line but it didn't touch the ground in the field of play so strictly speaking never left the in goal. Had it landed in the field of play I can see where a ref might call it a 22 but that didn't happen so for mine it's a scrum.

GAGR Rule 10 is hereby in effect.