Refereeing decisions

[Bruwheresmycar]

If you want to "enact" rule 10, you just don't post a reply. Telling everyone else that it's time to stop posting is self-defeating.

The laws specifically address this scenario, it's not a matter of interpretation or understanding.

22.7
If a defending team has put the ball into their own in-goal and a defending player kicks the ball so that is charged down in in-goal and then made dead, the attacking side is awarded a 5-metre scrum in line with where the ball is made dead and they throw in the ball.

If an attacking scrum was meant to be awarded in the Bulls/Chiefs scenario, the IRB would make the following change:

If a defending team has put the ball into their own in-goal and a defending player kicks the ball so that is charged down in in-goal and then made dead, the attacking side is awarded a 5-metre scrum in line with where the ball is made dead and they throw in the ball.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Not telling anyone to stop posting, just saying that I'm not going to keep arguing the point. You have your thoughts, I have mine. I'll agree to disagree & whoever wants to keep the discussion is free to do so, I have nothing more to contribute.

 

[Dan54]

Don't know why there any controversy over Jouberts decision, he asked the TMO if the ball had been kicked from behind the line because he was to far from the big screen to see!! And noone who watched the same pictures as me on the TV can tell me the ball had definitely cleared the line, looked like it was right over top to me, and the camera wasn't in line with goaline anyway. As soon as it happened I thought it was a 5m scrum and noone here will ever convince me differently!

 

[Bullrush]

I don't think it matters at all if the ball clears the line. If the kicker is in-goal it's a scrum. It's almost as if the kicker himself put the ball out - a charge-down doesn't really count as the opposition 'touching' the ball. just like you can charge a kick-down, have it go forward, regather and score a try or maintain possession at the very least. It's not considered a knock-on even though the ball goes forward of your hands/arms whatever.
It's up to the kicker to ensure they don't get charged - all the consequences of what happens if they do are on them.

 

[suckerforred]

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.

I have heard a few of the ref's say something along the lines of 'there is not enough resolution' on the screen to allow them to make some of the decisions. I agree with you though with the final sentence. Laws specifically state though that the Referee has the final say so not sure what would have to change to make this happen.

 

[Bullrush]

I have heard a few of the ref's say something along the lines of 'there is not enough resolution' on the screen to allow them to make some of the decisions. I agree with you though with the final sentence. Laws specifically state though that the Referee has the final say so not sure what would have to change to make this happen.

I really don't see what the issue is. The only strange one I have seen is the Moala try last week where the TMO pretty much said 'No Try' and the Argie guy gave it anyway. Which cost him afterwards.

I like the on-field ref having the final say - they have the TMO there for assistance and direction when necessary but I don't see what the big issue you and Muttonbird seem to have.

 

[Braveheart81]

I agree. I like the referee being in control of more things and generally having the final say.

They're the one controlling the game and have a better understanding of the ebb and flow happening on the field and how they are refereeing the game.

I think you end up with less outlandish decisions if the referee makes it than a TMO ruling on an isolated incident.

I think Muttonbird is pretty much alone in hating the increased control by the referee because apparently when it started no one told him which made him upset.

 

[suckerforred]

I don't have a large issue with it. I actually agree with letting the Ref have the final say but....... We have had situations where the TMO has got it right but the Ref has disagreed/over ruled or the TMO has got it wrong and the Ref has over ruled and we have all been bitching again.

Biggest problem(s) I have seen this season is related to communication. Language differences aside sometimes I feel that the TMO's have been given the instruction of 'tell the ref what has happened without telling him a decision or refering to the laws of the game'. Having said that there are a few that a worse than others so I don't know on which side the fault lies.

A couple of the referees have been known to have a discussion with the TMO along the lines of 'This is what I have seen. This is what I think should happen. Do you agree?' This I like. I then become important that the TMO is a) experienced enough and b) confident enough to speak up if he disagrees.

Let's consider assistant ref's as a whole. We all know that there are some refs who listen to their assistants more often then others. Should there be more clarification around specific responsibilities? i.e. the assistants (touch judges) are responsible for enforcing/calling off-side infringments and Referee MUST listen with either calling the advantage or the penalty.

The Officals of a game are never going to get absolutely everthing 100% correct. IMO I think that all we as punters want is consistancy above all. Will taking some of the responsibility away from the Referee make this easier?

Just please do not add more..............

 

[Muttonbird]

Lol. Bullrush must have missed the one in SA when Berry and Greeff gave the try to van Wyk despite Greeff wanting to tell Berry he was making the wrong decision. The botched live conversation contributed to the screw-up.

Braveheart, I don't like watching officials bumbling over decisions. Give it to one, or give it to the other. To have a discussion on the interpretation of the Laws of the game on live TV is daft.

Suckerforred raises the crucial points. It's all been brought in without total clarification as if the complicated Laws of Rugby require an equally complicated ruling of those Laws. The very biggest problem I have with it is that a TMO under the current directive has to muster not only the courage to make a decision but he must also muster the courage to over-rule the ref if the ref has screwed-up, which happens a lot in case Braveheart hasn't noticed.

But no, it's all about muttonbird not being told they were going to change the directive via Twitter a day before the Bledisloe Cup started.

 

[Bullrush]

Lol. Bullrush must have missed the one in SA when Berry and Greeff gave the try to van Wyk despite Greeff wanting to tell Berry he was making the wrong decision. The botched live conversation contributed to the screw-up.

Braveheart, I don't like watching officials bumbling over decisions. Give it to one, or give it to the other. To have a discussion on the interpretation of the Laws of the game on live TV is daft.

Suckerforred raises the crucial points. It's all been brought in without total clarification as if the complicated Laws of Rugby require an equally complicated ruling of those Laws. The very biggest problem I have with it is that a TMO under the current directive has to muster not only the courage to make a decision but he must also muster the courage to over-rule the ref if the ref has screwed-up, which happens a lot in case Braveheart hasn't noticed.

But no, it's all about muttonbird not being told they were going to change the directive via Twitter a day before the Bledisloe Cup started.

Why? I don't mind it at all.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

The very biggest problem I have with it is that a TMO under the current directive has to muster not only the courage to make a decision but he must also muster the courage to over-rule the ref if the ref has screwed-up, which happens a lot in case Braveheart hasn't noticed.

Isn't the ref on the field still the sole judge of fact and law?
I don't think the TMO has a role other than to provide information: he can't overcall the on field ref.
http://www.irblaws.com/index.php?law=6

 

[suckerforred]

That is true IS. The TMO, like the two Assistants, can tell the Ref his opinion and the Ref, needing to make the decision, doesn't necessarily have to listen.

It just pisses off us punters when it all gets stuffed up.......... Is there anything we can do about it other than accept that the Ref will get it wrong occasionaly and move on?

Personally I think that it is the apparent lack of transparency in the review process that causes the most problems. This seems to be changing under Mr Bray though.

 

[Eyes and Ears]

That is true IS. The TMO, like the two Assistants, can tell the Ref his opinion and the Ref, needing to make the decision, doesn't necessarily have to listen.

It just pisses off us punters when it all gets stuffed up.... Is there anything we can do about it other than accept that the Ref will get it wrong occasionaly and move on?

Personally I think that it is the apparent lack of transparency in the review process that causes the most problems. This seems to be changing under Mr Bray though.

Out of interest, is there transparency in the review process of elite players? What transparency would you expect for referee performances? Should Lyndon Bray provide an assessment report each week? I am really interested to understand how the lack of transparency causes problems. Does rugby have a responsibility to provide this information to the fans?

I suspect that a lot of this will come back to the view that referees are not accountable for their performances. I don't agree with this view. Each year I would estimate that about 20% of referees are not retained from the previous SANZAR panel. This year, the demotion has been more public which makes it seem more accountable than in the past but I am not sure that this public sacking is the best approach.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I think there's a fair argument it does have responsibility to let its fans know what the rulings are: there are enough people who shun rugby because of the perceived complications of its laws.
I think SFR's transparency point is that we have gibberish from the Argentinian ref about double movements (a thing unknown to the laws of rugby) a pretty strong indication from the TMO that he has failed to play the ball immediately and yet the try is awarded. I'm using that as an example.
SFR says well how is the average punter to know WTF has gone on in that process when the ref is talking about stuff from a different game and ignores the clear intimation from the TMO that it cannot be a try.
Getting all that straight is not really asking all of that much of major sport - surely?

 

[Muttonbird]

I think there's a fair argument it does have responsibility to let its fans know what the rulings are: there are enough people who shun rugby because of the perceived complications of its laws.
I think SFR's transparency point is that we have gibberish from the Argentinian ref about double movements (a thing unknown to the laws of rugby) a pretty strong indication from the TMO that he has failed to play the ball immediately and yet the try is awarded. I'm using that as an example.
SFR says well how is the average punter to know WTF has gone on in that process when the ref is talking about stuff from a different game and ignores the clear intimation from the TMO that it cannot be a try.
Getting all that straight is not really asking all of that much of major sport - surely?

I don't think SANZAR nor the IRB know what the laws around use of the TMO are because they haven't written any. They've tinkered, seemingly over lunch one day, without really thinking it through. The result is loads of muddled situations like you just highlighted above.

It's comical listening to TMO's indicate and intimate without being allowed to actually say anything.

Experienced rugby writer, Mark Keohane after the Reds/Lions game:

Watching Super Rugby at the moment is infuriating because the referees and TMOs are getting so much wrong. Some referees ask for TMO assistance and then disregard the recommendation of the TMO. Others ask for a review, see what all of us can see and then still agree with a TMO's recommended wrong decision.

I'd disagree with him on one point which is TMOs recommending anything. Intimation is about as far as they seem to be allowed to go.

 

[Bullrush]

The double-movement try from the Blues is the first time I've ever heard a ref completely disregard the TMO and I wouldn't be at all surprised if there was some kind of mis-understanding due to the language.

Mistakes happen and will continue to.....welcome to life.

 

[Braveheart81]

Pastrana has been sacked so I don't think the example of him overruling the TMO is a good one to suggest that the referee/TMO interaction isn't working.

Clearly SANZAR thought he got that completely wrong as well.

Sent from my HTC One XL using Tapatalk

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Pastrana has been sacked so I don't think the example of him overruling the TMO is a good one to suggest that the referee/TMO interaction isn't working.

Clearly SANZAR thought he got that completely wrong as well.

Sent from my HTC One XL using Tapatalk

It was an example of the problem and it really doesnt matter for that purpose whether that particular ref has survived or not.
There was a situation in the Tahs game where the ref and Glenn Jackson were watching a replay of Horne trying to take someone's head off while Bismarck is in there ear yapping about what should happen. It was like my place on a bledisloe night.
Half the time the ref cuts off the TMO mid sentence so he doesn't hear a countervailing opinion and half of that time the TMO doesn't hear that the ref has his mind up and continues with his recommendation - which is usually the same buT it's a crap look.
In the olden days all went silent, players knew they could not get to the TMO and they waked away and waited.
Presumably this is why the umps in NFL don't watch the big screens to make their calls on reviews.

 

[Muttonbird]

Exactly, it's a crap look. The first time I noticed the ref cutting off the TMO mid sentence was the Ellis Park test last year. Owens was delighted with his new power.

 

[suckerforred]

Out of interest, is there transparency in the review process of elite players? What transparency would you expect for referee performances? Should Lyndon Bray provide an assessment report each week? I am really interested to understand how the lack of transparency causes problems. Does rugby have a responsibility to provide this information to the fans?

I suspect that a lot of this will come back to the view that referees are not accountable for their performances. I don't agree with this view. Each year I would estimate that about 20% of referees are not retained from the previous SANZAR panel. This year, the demotion has been more public which makes it seem more accountable than in the past but I am not sure that this public sacking is the best approach.

Re my comment about transparency -

Does anyone here know the full and proper process for the review of a referee's performance? Is every game watched? Super RUgby & Internationals? Is it reviewed on the night or view recorded broadcast?

No, we (as average punters) don't need to know what the outcome of each and every review is but it would be nice to know what the process is. There is apparently a process because this year we have seen the consequences of what we can all generally agree were poor performances. In the past, pre Mr Bray, any consequences of poor performances either did not happen or when they occured the referees 'apparently' just 'retired'.

As much as the 'public hanging' is not desirable I believe that it needed to happen in these cases to restore some faith in the system. The fact that in the past these changes have not been made until the end of the season has also added to the apparent opaqueness of the process

I take on board your point about the review of the elite players. But I would also like to point out the number of discussions there have been on this site, let alone others, as to the performance of said players. Tom Carter, Pat McCabe, Will Genia, Quade Cooper anyone? With the players however it is (should be) pretty clear. You don't perform, in the eyes of the coach, you get dropped.

Does My Bray need to do a weekly report? Possibly not. But I did like the fact that he addressed some of the more controversial calls that have happened this season. IF this was to happen more frequently then I think that we would all learn a thing or two.

As I said in a previous post I spent a lot of time last club season talking to our local ref's. Generally asking them about rulings that they had made that I either did not agree with or did not understand, or in some cases, that I knew the answer to just wanted clarification. I learnt a lot and occasionally I think they did too because they got a different perspective. Some of them are happy to have the discussion once they realised that I wasn't just wanting to tell them they were wrong but wanted to learn.

Finally. I actually agree that the Ref needs to remain the 'sole judge of fact and of law' in a game. You need someone in charge. I also don't agree with people slaging off the ref because their side is losing or a decision goes the wrong way. It is a hard job. That is why we all don't do it.

I just think that education is the key. Of the referees, assistants, TMOs, players and above all US. If you see something that you don't agree with or don't understand, ask a question. Don't insist that the decision is wrong because as a spectator you can not see everything that is happening from the ideal angle. Neither can the ref.