Refereeing decisions

[JRugby2]

Not in the official channel. Accepting I'm wrong with your point 2015 - we still likely need to see something like this, as there have been countless moments like that since that haven't been clarified publicly. Safe to say the fact they lost one of their most experienced referees shortly after doing so may have influenced their future actions.

From big Al Gilp this afternoon:

“We’ll share and we do share with Joe and the coaching team why the match officials made that decision. Joe’s got a view about what was wrong with that decision making and there’ll be a debate between them about that, so that Joe and his players can go into the next Test understanding how that game’s going to be officiated.

“I think what we’ve seen in the past is it [making public comment] does explode because there’s always going to be, you know, regardless of what we say about the rights or wrongs of a particular decision, there will be one group who disagree and that’s what in the past has led to match officials being retargeted.”

 

[Major Tom]

I just don't agree on that. And it's kind of the crux of the issue.

When the ref talks about arriving simultaneously, this is what he is talking about - the changing dynamic of where Tizzano's head is through the entry to the contest. This change of height happens literally in the blink of eye

Again still shots just show some of the story. But this still shows tizzano is technically first to arrive at the breakdown and therefore their reasoning is flawed. I do agree that this happens often at rucks in every game. But the onus not matter how little time you have is still not to make contact to the head or neck of a player. It’s tough on Morgan but his intention is to seal that ruck because he is desperate to recycle the ball. I’ve watched it so many times now and I still think it’s a penalty with mitigation (Tizzano being so low and it happening very quickly).
If we wind back to the first game when Lennie was cleaned out, why was that a penalty? Contact to the head. I understand different situation but I actually thought that one was harsher.

 

[Major Tom]

Also the main thing that annoys me is the number of reffing decisions that seem to come up when the wallabies play. This one joins the ones I can remember off the top of my head.
- bledisloe time wasting
- bledisloe time wasting at lineout (Dunedin)
- Kerevi penalised for illegal fend at the RWC
- Farrell shoulder charge on Rodda (not the only nation to feel aggrieved

 

[Strewthcobber]

Also the main thing that annoys me is the number of reffing decisions that seem to come up when the wallabies play. This one joins the ones I can remember off the top of my head.
- bledisloe time wasting
- bledisloe time wasting at lineout (Dunedin)
- Kerevi penalised for illegal fend at the RWC
- Farrell shoulder charge on Rodda (not the only nation to feel aggrieved

Saffas would add Korobiete in there.
Koro red card v France
Kerevi red card after head-on-head last year

Edit, forgot one of the better ones...James Horwill stamping Lions in 2013

 

[molman]

From big Al Gilp this afternoon:

How does clarity of decision making filter to the wider and much larger body of referees and players at other levels of the game if clarifications are never issued beyond the closed door discussions that are occuring with this refereeing group? I get their concerns about the targeting of referees and I don't think most fans or lovers of the game want that, but it does strike me that with a game built around a framework of laws as opposed to clear rules, that some need for communication around interpretations is necessary if standards or consistency is to be achieved (as much as it can be).

I find the regardless of what we say language just really odd.

 

[Rob42]

How does clarity of decision making filter to the wider and much larger body of referees and players at other levels of the game if clarifications are never issued beyond the closed door discussions that are occuring with this refereeing group? I get their concerns about the targeting of referees and I don't think most fans or lovers of the game want that, but it does strike me that with a game built around a framework of laws as opposed to clear rules, that some need for communication around interpretations is necessary if standards or consistency is to be achieved (as much as it can be).

I find the regardless of what we say language just really odd.

I think it's unwise to only share with teams and not publicly. It allows the teams to publicly spin whatever feedback they've received to their benefit, whilst World Rugby remains mute. It's similar to Rassie saying that he'd cleared their kick-off tactics with the ref beforehand - no-one knows exactly what he'd discussed, so he can spin it the way he likes.

 

[Tomthumb]

So basically the fans get the middle finger. World Rugby loves treating fans as if they are a nuisance rather than the lifeblood of the
game

 

[molman]

I think it's unwise to only share with teams and not publicly. It allows the teams to publicly spin whatever feedback they've received to their benefit, whilst World Rugby remains mute. It's similar to Rassie saying that he'd cleared their kick-off tactics with the ref beforehand - no-one knows exactly what he'd discussed, so he can spin it the way he likes.

Knowing Rassie he probably did clear it, much like the Italians I believe did back when they did their not contesting tackles tactic back in 2017. Pretty sure Jaco Peyper is helping him pull the laws apart these days?

 

[Rob42]

Knowing Rassie he probably did clear it, much like the Italians I believe did back when they did their not contesting tackles tactic back in 2017. Pretty sure Jaco Peyper is helping him pull the laws apart these days?

I'm sure he did discuss it with the refs, but what exactly? There's a big difference between asking "What's the sanction if the kick-off doesn't go 10 metres and is caught by one of our players?" [scrum to receiving team] versus asking "can I place a player in front of the kick-off to receive the ball and force a scrum?" [that's deliberate infringement, penalty].

Similarly, regardless of what World Rugby tells the Wallabies this week, the coach or senior players could just leak to the media, or go to a press conference saying "yes, a very constructive discussion, I won't go into details but I'm sure our players will be well protected at the jackal this week", or something similarly vague that just feeds people's prior beliefs...

 

[Major Tom]

From big Al Gilp this afternoon:

So no clarification on the jumping try either?
I think that needs attention.
Asking defenders to do awful lot on the tryline.

 

[JRugby2]

How does clarity of decision making filter to the wider and much larger body of referees and players at other levels of the game if clarifications are never issued beyond the closed door discussions that are occuring with this refereeing group? I get their concerns about the targeting of referees and I don't think most fans or lovers of the game want that, but it does strike me that with a game built around a framework of laws as opposed to clear rules, that some need for communication around interpretations is necessary if standards or consistency is to be achieved (as much as it can be).

I find the regardless of what we say language just really odd.

I don’t really have a strong opinion either way on this - but regardless of what a number of fans “dont want”, the problem is what a large number of fans did - which the last time they issued a clarification basically drove the guy who outside of a single decision was one of the best we’ve ever had - out of the game completely.

I sense despite the supposed benefits to fans and other stakeholders understanding, they don’t see that as so beneficial that it outweighs the very predictable downsides that clarify decisions publicly will have.

 

[JRugby2]

So no clarification on the jumping try either?
I think that needs attention.
Asking defenders to do awful lot on the tryline.

Nup - we won’t see it unless its to clear up confusion in the law or its language is my guess from a technical perspective rather than putting specific decisions under the microscope.

 

[KOB1987]

I do understand it from that perspective. However, in the absence of further information we can only assume that it’s all good to clean out like Morgan did. I’ve prepared the slide shows and come up with some drills to put the u16s through this Thursday arvo for our new ruck strategy in readiness for this weekends game. Might be a few sore necks and shoulders Friday morning but that’s nothing compared to what our opponents are copping on Saturday! I’m getting goose bumps just thinking about it!

 

[JRugby2]

I do understand it from that perspective. However, in the absence of further information we can only assume that it’s all good to clean out like Morgan did. I’ve prepared the slide shows and come up with some drills to put the u16s through this Thursday arvo for our new ruck strategy in readiness for this weekends game. Might be a few sore necks and shoulders Friday morning but that’s nothing compared to what our opponents are copping on Saturday! I’m getting goose bumps just thinking about it!

Only if you firmly believe, that referees think they are 100% correct, the first time, every time - and that in fact they don’t privately go away and review the game or decision and ever - upon reflection - determine that if they had another go they’d make another decision without needing to announce this publicly.

but I fkn hammered this point home ad nauseam before so just scroll up I guess?

 

[Major Tom]

Nup - we won’t see it unless its to clear up confusion in the law or its language is my guess from a technical perspective rather than putting specific decisions under the microscope.

I think it’s fair to say, it’s pretty confusing!

 

[KOB1987]

Also the main thing that annoys me is the number of reffing decisions that seem to come up when the wallabies play. This one joins the ones I can remember off the top of my head.
- bledisloe time wasting
- bledisloe time wasting at lineout (Dunedin)
- Kerevi penalised for illegal fend at the RWC
- Farrell shoulder charge on Rodda (not the only nation to feel aggrieved

Saffas would add Korobiete in there.
Koro red card v France
Kerevi red card after head-on-head last year

Edit, forgot one of the better ones...James Horwill stamping Lions in 2013

There is all of that. But you really only need to look at the half dozen or so blatant infringements that have been let ride in this series so far. And that’s before considering things like Tom Curry being given clearance to hang out in our backline, 8 consecutive penalties etc.

 

[KOB1987]

O

Only if you firmly believe, that referees think they are 100% correct, the first time, every time - and that in fact they don’t privately go away and review the game or decision and ever - upon reflection - determine that if they had another go they’d make another decision without needing to announce this publicly.

but I fkn hammered this point home ad nauseam before so just scroll up I guess?

Obviously I’m taking the piss a bit, but anyone that has anything to do with rugby in this country have seen these visuals from all angles multiple times and are led to believe it’s a legal clean out. The muppets in the NH have also seen in multiple times but only focus on Tizzano’s reaction (who’s now ruled for this week incidentally) so also clearly think it’s ok. Some clarification would be justified, even if they cover their arses either way.

Anyways, enough….the more I think about it all the more wound up I get, so I’m going to take a bit of a break from here. See you Saturday

 

[Rebel man]

World Rugby as good as admitting that the ref got it wrong

If the findings of their review supported the decision Schmidt wouldn’t have escaped punishment and they would have come out and said that the ref got it right

 

[Rebel man]

He's on his feet at the collision point - that's the only requirement for arriving players (excuse the shit photo but it still shows in the moment before contact Jac's on his feet).

He hits Tizz in the neck - the only points of conjecture are the timing, and by extension does Jac need to do more to avoid the neck (yes, IMO).

We have to accept that hitting rucks this way is legal if the contact point is different.

View attachment 22868

Look at the video knees where already down he was never legal

 

[Backintheolddays]

So no clarification on the jumping try either?
I think that needs attention.
Asking defenders to do awful lot on the tryline.

I still think this was the bigger issue and has had very little coverage. Jumping/diving whatever you want to call it MUST be banned in the scenario that happened on the weekend, language semantics be damned.