Refereeing decisions

[Dan54]

If a player puts in poor performances they get dropped. Why should a ref be any different? The Koroibete red, the AAA yellow now all the terrible calls in the Welsh game. It’s a big issues and action has to be taken

And how do you know when someone is dropped to being a TMO etc as a ref? Same as you don't usually know why a player is dropped.
Have you heard a coach say after a game that a player was crap and name him? I not suggesting they not sanctioned because refs are, but no rugby board should allow a public attack on a ref from one of their reps whether it player, coach, manager etc etc!

 

[Rebel man]

And how do you know when someone is dropped to being a TMO etc as a ref? Same as you don't usually know why a player is dropped.
Have you heard a coach say after a game that a player was crap and name him? I not suggesting they not sanctioned because refs are, but no rugby board should allow a public attack on a ref from one of their reps whether it player, coach, manager etc etc!

A ref should be judged upon their performance just like anyone else. It has cost us two games on this tour. World rugby has to sort it out or they will start losing fans

 

[barbarian]

I will be honest, I am a little disappointes with a; Rennie's rant at ref (I just don't like coaches doing it) a bit Cheika like for me too
b; RA not saying that Rennie shouldn't do it, didn't they come out after Rassie's shithouse performance
c; After a couple of pages in here I would hope the ones who went crook about Rassie would at least say they very uncomfortable with Rennie publicly attacking ref.

What Rennie did isn't the same as what Rassie did though. It's one thing to have a crack at the ref in the post game presser, it's another to go nuclear as Rassie did, making and leaking videos, creating burner twitter accounts, and so on.

I'm a little uncomfortable with Rennie attacking the refs, but I'm not going to lie, there was a part of me that read his comments and went 'hell yeah'. So I'm torn.

 

[Derpus]

A ref should be judged upon their performance just like anyone else. It has cost us two games on this tour. World rugby has to sort it out or they will start losing fans

Start?

 

[Eyes and Ears]

The intentional knock down rule is such weird thing to still be in the game, particularly to be treated the way it is. For a rule that is not about player safety and so open to referee interpretation to basically start at the yellow card threshold is just heaping unnecessary pressure on the refs without actually adding much to the spectacle.

Personally I'd love to see it removed, but failing that reduce the sanction to a free-kick on the first occasion and let repeated infringements push it into penalty territory, in the same way some scrum infringements are treated.

I would say that you should be careful what you wish for. I think the unintended consequence of this change would be so many deliberate knock-ons, followed by more scrums and scrum penalties; particularly if you had a team with a strong scrum. Our attacking and defensive lines in rugby are very close together. At least in league, there is a disincentive that it restarts the tackle count.

 

[Derpus]

The broader issue isn't with any one game or referee, but with rugby's laws generally. The major problem is that the law book is incredibly complex compared to most other sports, and seems to get altered by World Rugby every 2-3 years.

Adding to that, existing rules are reffed extremely inconsistently. If you really wanted to, you could do a Rassie on any game you choose and find roughly 1 billion missed penalties. And honestly, it's fine that refs miss stuff - they're only human.

But at the same time, it's pretty understandable that casual fans get confused and frustrated when even dedicated rugby tragics are only barely keeping up.

It is fine that they miss stuff, which makes the TMO incongruous. Seeking perfected decision making in only select moments.

One standard for the majority of the game then another when a try is scored.

Think how many more tries and how much more exciting it would be if they didn't scrutinise every moment leading up to the most exciting part of a match. You also wouldn't have to hold in your trygasm to see if it gets overruled on review.

 

[Dctarget]

James Lowe did a similar knock down to Beale in the 79th minute of Ireland v Argentina. Was ruled accidental and just a knock on.

could’ve done the same for Beale. It feels like SH teams just don’t get the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Wilson]

I would say that you should be careful what you wish for. I think the unintended consequence of this change would be so many deliberate knock-ons, followed by more scrums and scrum penalties; particularly if you had a team with a strong scrum. Our attacking and defensive lines in rugby are very close together. At least in league, there is a disincentive that it restarts the tackle count.

If you use the escalating free-kick sanction teams aren't going to be able to just knock it down whenever they can get a hand to it as they'll get into penalty territory pretty quickly that way. It just allows for the fact that mistakes are made, both in the tackle and in trying for an intercept.

 

[barbarian]

Think how many more tries and how much more exciting it would be if they didn't scrutinise every moment leading up to the most exciting part of a match. You also wouldn't have to hold in your trygasm to see if it gets overruled on review.

We say this, but then the referee blows a try with a clear knock-on in the lead up and we all go nuclear. It's a no win situation.

 

[Derpus]

We say this, but then the referee blows a try with a clear knock-on in the lead up and we all go nuclear. It's a no win situation.

I agree. We should learn to accept a margin of error. Not sure that's possible, though.

 

[hifflepiff]

We say this, but then the referee blows a try with a clear knock-on in the lead up and we all go nuclear. It's a no win situation.

I don't think the presence of the TMO has really prevented fans from going nuclear, or dumb calls from being made.

This hyper focus on getting every ruling 'right' - for the very reason you describe -has done nothing of the sort. All it has done is made games far more frustrating to watch.

 

[Rob42]

We say this, but then the referee blows a try with a clear knock-on in the lead up and we all go nuclear. It's a no win situation.

It is difficult, but the current situation is bad. If three pairs of referee's eyes miss a clear knock-on in the lead-up to a try, then I think we're going to have to accept it.

The inconsistency of which decisions use the TMO is the biggest frustration. When the video of Beale's knock-on is reviewed like the Zapruder film, but there's no review of the half-dozen infringements in your average ruck, it gets frustrating. We end up wanting a review of every single situation, and it motivates the players to challenge the ref, in the hope a couple of replays get thrown up on the big screen.

I used to love super slow-mo replays.

 

[barbarian]

This hyper focus on getting every ruling 'right' - for the very reason you describe -has done nothing of the sort. All it has done is made games far more frustrating to watch.

I agree. There's a middle ground somewhere, though. There was a try scored by the French earlier in the year against us where the ball came forward off a French hand, before falling to the winger who ran away and scored. If that try stood I would have been livid, and if the French won by less than 7 then you'd call the whole game into question.

Pulling that up via the TMO works for everyone, especially the ref who just didn't see the knock-on. Imagine if that stands, the crowd see it and boo the living daylights out of the ref for the rest of the game? That's not fair to him/her if they were simply unsighted and missed a knock-on. It happens.

I can't stand extended stoppages in general play though. I'd be happy to go back to TMOs being used only for acts that result in a try being scored.

 

[John S]

I agree. There's a middle ground somewhere, though. There was a try scored by the French earlier in the year against us where the ball came forward off a French hand, before falling to the winger who ran away and scored. If that try stood I would have been livid, and if the French won by less than 7 then you'd call the whole game into question.

Pulling that up via the TMO works for everyone, especially the ref who just didn't see the knock-on. Imagine if that stands, the crowd see it and boo the living daylights out of the ref for the rest of the game? That's not fair to him/her if they were simply unsighted and missed a knock-on. It happens.

I can't stand extended stoppages in general play though. I'd be happy to go back to TMOs being used only for acts that result in a try being scored.

This. I would change it to be TMO used in checking a Try Scoring action, and if the on-field referees see potential foul play and they want to check it.

 

[Braveheart81]

The biggest things that need fixing in my view are:

1. The impact that home field video production can have on the officiating with replays being one-sided. Need a way that this can be levelled out somewhat. It's not beneficial to the contest that only one side's play is getting pored over in an attempt to have it influence the officiating.
2. TMO breaks in play being too long. Decisions don't get better after a dozen replays. There's almost no examples where the opinion changes that late in the piece. An initial decision is made and that influences the final outcome heavily. There needs to be significant proof to overturn it. That either happens quickly after a couple of replays or won't happen. Limit how many times replays are watched.
3. 20 minute red cards everywhere. This helps ensure the contest doesn't get too greatly impacted by cards. I disagree with the concept that a lot of games are being ruined by cards. Wales vs Wallabies was a one point game which went down to the wire. They most certainly influenced the result though but essentially they should. That's why we have them. Foul and dangerous play should have an influence on the result. We just need to control that level of impact. A red card in the 1st minute shouldn't have 4x the impact of one with 20 minutes to go.

 

[PhilClinton]

The biggest things that need fixing in my view are:

1. The impact that home field video production can have on the officiating with replays being one-sided. Need a way that this can be levelled out somewhat. It's not beneficial to the contest that only one side's play is getting pored over in an attempt to have it influence the officiating.

I liken this to the DRS system which was introduced in cricket over the last few years,

Several countries didn't have the technology available on grounds to be able to use this referral system, so those games simply weren't played with the use of those referrals.

The World Cricket board eventually said, if you want to host international tests, you need to get on board and invest in better media/technology so that every game uses the same parameters.

A similar thing could be done by World Rugby, if you want to host home test matches, you need to work with a World Rugby appointed, independent media director who will provide all the directing of camera angles etc behind the scenes. Local workers can still be used, but the man with the power in the box is independent and can stop the 50th replay of slight shoulder to shoulder contact on the home team flyhalf making its way around the grounds.

 

[Derpus]

I liken this to the DRS system which was introduced in cricket over the last few years,

Several countries didn't have the technology available on grounds to be able to use this referral system, so those games simply weren't played with the use of those referrals.

The World Cricket board eventually said, if you want to host international tests, you need to get on board and invest in better media/technology so that every game uses the same parameters.

A similar thing could be done by World Rugby, if you want to host home test matches, you need to work with a World Rugby appointed, independent media director who will provide all the directing of camera angles etc behind the scenes. Local workers can still be used, but the man with the power in the box is independent and can stop the 50th replay of slight shoulder to shoulder contact on the home team flyhalf making its way around the grounds.

Presumably any move like this would just be scuppered by the north?

 

[barbarian]

The biggest things that need fixing in my view are:

1. The impact that home field video production can have on the officiating with replays being one-sided. Need a way that this can be levelled out somewhat. It's not beneficial to the contest that only one side's play is getting pored over in an attempt to have it influence the officiating.

There's no easy answer to this. An independent director seems pretty cumbersome, or you could go full FIFA and refuse to show any replays to the crowd at all.

Or we could just see it as a part of home ground advantage. We do it too - I recall the second Ikitau try against South Africa in our first game against them contained a dubious pass from Marika, and yet our director decided to show the try from a very wide angle before the conversion was taken.

It's the third of the three issues you raised IMO. If you don't like a home TV director, just score more points than the opposition and don't break the laws.

 

[Wilson]

I think if you improve the TMO process and how it integrates into the rest of the referring team you naturally reduce the impact of a home town director. As long as there are standards in place with respect to camera feeds which must be made available to the TMO (I think this is already the case) and the TMO has a specific direction on what they should be looking at (along with capacity to look at it in a timely manner) then it shouldn't matter too much who the director is.

Possibly an assistant TMO or 2 with a focus on quickly identifying the problems in the background without interrupting the on field play could help, but I'm not sure adding more refs is necessarily the answer.

 

[Braveheart81]

There's no easy answer to this. An independent director seems pretty cumbersome, or you could go full FIFA and refuse to show any replays to the crowd at all.

Or we could just see it as a part of home ground advantage. We do it too - I recall the second Ikitau try against South Africa in our first game against them contained a dubious pass from Marika, and yet our director decided to show the try from a very wide angle before the conversion was taken.

It's the third of the three issues you raised IMO. If you don't like a home TV director, just score more points than the opposition and don't break the laws.

I agree.

I certainly don't think you can remove replays at the ground. It was ridiculous when this was the case. You want people to pay money and attend live games so you can't lessen their experience.

I don't disagree that it is part of home ground advantage. It just seems very inconsistent. Sometimes it is far worse than others. Potentially it could be resolved by guidelines for the referee/ARs and TMO of what they can rule on.

Does the TMO have any power themselves to review footage while play is going on? Are they being fed replays that aren't on the big screen? Sometimes you hear the TMO say to the referee that their is potential foul play while play is still continuing. Does that mean they saw it live or they watched a replay already?

It seems like it might be a good option that if none of the four match officials saw the incident live then it is missed and it comes back for the citing commissioner to take any potential action.

Of course all tries are reviewable.