mst
Peter Johnson (47)
Spot on BH. IIRC rule change about 2 years ago, can't kick a ball out of ruck but you can play backwards with your boot.
Refereeing decisions
- Thread starter boyo
- Start date
Spot on BH. IIRC rule change about 2 years ago, can't kick a ball out of ruck but you can play backwards with your boot.
mst
Peter Johnson (47)
Law 15 (Ruck) section 14: Players may play the ball with their feet, provided they do so in a safe manner.
John S
Chilla Wilson (44)
Not sure if this is the right place for this question but seems right. Now that Koroibete's red card has been overturned, does someone talk to the refs involved? Is there a system to assist them not make those type of errors? Because it seems that the refs running the show for the series had no idea......
Brumby Runner
Jason Little (69)
I reckon there has to be a big push to ban any NZ refs being associated with any tests involving the Wallabies. This is not an isolated incident.
Derpus
Nathan Sharpe (72)
I'm sure they have KPI's and performance reviews.
Kenny Powers
Ron Walden (29)
I really think that not broadcasting the Ref & TMO’s conversation would help.
I want the Ref and the TMO to have a robust conversation and feel comfortable they can disagree with each other in private. Without everyone listening in.
You have disagreements with you work colleagues but you do it in private, you don’t publically throw them under the bus.
Turn the mics off, TMO and Ref discussions are private and robust conversations. Not an exercise in group think because the discussion is being publically broadcast.
I want the Ref and the TMO to have a robust conversation and feel comfortable they can disagree with each other in private. Without everyone listening in.
You have disagreements with you work colleagues but you do it in private, you don’t publically throw them under the bus.
Turn the mics off, TMO and Ref discussions are private and robust conversations. Not an exercise in group think because the discussion is being publically broadcast.
Dan54
David Wilson (68)
Interesting one isn't it, Koroibete in his defence said technically he commited a red card,(“The player Marika Koroibete admitted to technically committing an act of foul play worthy of a red card,” SANZAAR said in a statement.) so I can't understand what goes on. It is either a red card or not (I believe not). And I thought it was always only a penalty but.....
And does anyone talk to refs, I not sure, we had same thing happen to Lachie Swinton in Super rugby, he was red carded by Jordan Way, Gardiner etc, but seems if they get spoken to, it's done behind closed doors.
The Nomad
Bob Davidson (42)
All professionals should have some sort of performance review. Players certainly get them in spades with match reviews and work ons from coaches as a result.
It would be unprofessional not have some sort of performance review, especially when your performance has been questionable.
Eyes and Ears
Bob Davidson (42)
Gardner is injured and was not involved in the match where Swinton was red carded.
Eyes and Ears
Bob Davidson (42)
Referees don't make it to the elite level without developing the skills to perform a very thorough assessment of their own performance. They are also subject to a performance review from the relevant referee managers ie SANZAR, World Rugby etc.
Referees face intense scrutiny from referee management, players, coaches, media and public opinion.
While they face criticism for errors or perceived errors, it is unfair to suggest that they aren't professional in their approach, that there aren't thorough review processes and that they aren't held accountable for their performances.
In the same way as players, one bad decision or even one bad game doesn't necessarily mean that you will be dropped. However if there are a collection of poor performances, then you don't see those referees retained.
Referees face intense scrutiny from referee management, players, coaches, media and public opinion.
While they face criticism for errors or perceived errors, it is unfair to suggest that they aren't professional in their approach, that there aren't thorough review processes and that they aren't held accountable for their performances.
In the same way as players, one bad decision or even one bad game doesn't necessarily mean that you will be dropped. However if there are a collection of poor performances, then you don't see those referees retained.
Rob42
Nicholas Shehadie (39)
The "head contact process" from World Rugby seems like a good framework for refs to use, and it's also simple enough for commentators to follow. In the MK situation, it seems like there needs to be an additional mitigating factor added, though - how clear is the evidence of head contact? The video evidence for the MK tackle was high quality - at least three separate angles, super slow mo, no bodies in the way - and yet, after watching multiple, multiple replays, it's still not clear where the initial contact point was. One angle definitely looks like jaw contact, others look just as clear for shoulder-shoulder contact first.
But it doesn't seem like the ref has clearance to say "the evidence isn't clear, it might be head contact but we can't be sure, we'll step down from a red card to yellow".
But it doesn't seem like the ref has clearance to say "the evidence isn't clear, it might be head contact but we can't be sure, we'll step down from a red card to yellow".
This is the key for mine, there needs to be an acknowledgement of doubt and a reduction in sanction because of it.
Pfitzy
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Camera technology also letting us down here - if everyone could use HDR with high frame rates the super-slowmo could have helped the decision.
There's also some confusion over whether "initial" contact plays a part. A lot of times you see play-on called where a tackler has made contact with their arm on the ball or shoulder but it slides up. This should IMHO be the same for shoulder contact.
There's also some confusion over whether "initial" contact plays a part. A lot of times you see play-on called where a tackler has made contact with their arm on the ball or shoulder but it slides up. This should IMHO be the same for shoulder contact.
Rob42
Nicholas Shehadie (39)
But there's inevitably a limit to how a 2D camera shot can represent the 3D reality, and I think this situation highlights that. Higher resolution, higher frame rates are good, but I don't think they'd have answered the question.
Same reason that VAR sends soccer fans crazy - it's often impossible to determine whether a defender has hit an attacker's leg, and how much force has been applied. It was crazy for them to think it would work, just adds to frustration.
The Nomad
Bob Davidson (42)
There's also some basic physics you can bring into point of contact in a tackle that could at least be used in the discussion rather than just still frames.
If you get hit directly in the head, your head is pushed back by the direct force.
If you get below the jaw line your head whips forward as you body stops but your head doesn't and your face does then often make contact with the back of the shoulder of the tackler, particularly as the tackler is often driving up.
I know the grey area is still the neck , but if the refs can see a whiplash effect , it should at least bring in some doubt.
The key word should be "direct " force for a Red Card. For me evidence of whiplash means the force is not likely to be direct.
If you get hit directly in the head, your head is pushed back by the direct force.
If you get below the jaw line your head whips forward as you body stops but your head doesn't and your face does then often make contact with the back of the shoulder of the tackler, particularly as the tackler is often driving up.
I know the grey area is still the neck , but if the refs can see a whiplash effect , it should at least bring in some doubt.
The key word should be "direct " force for a Red Card. For me evidence of whiplash means the force is not likely to be direct.
