Strewthcobber
Simon Poidevin (60)
Our sport has the advantage law which surely makes any discussion or comparison of penalty counts almost impossible?
Refereeing decisions
- Thread starter boyo
- Start date
yourmatesam
Desmond Connor (43)
There's no such thing, there are plenty of one-eyed supporters however!
As an active referee, this is as frustration that every referee faces, supporters get a bent against a referee and then point the finger and claim that the ref "has it in for them" because they played for a certain club, grew up in a certain region or that they dislike the fans, the mascot, the flavour of the beer that's served at the game.
All players, coaches and referees have a background, however it's bloody impossible to be biased towards a team when you are refereeing, there are simply too many decisions to be made in quick succession for a referee to consider one team over another.
Having said that, there are many factors that influence a game - the crowd, the atmosphere, the weather, the teams, injuries and referee interpretations are all part of that. With good management and strong communication, the aim of the referee should be to let the players play the game - they can f#*k it up without us!
I know a regional rugby competition that bowed to club pressure for volunteer referees to not be appointed to matches in their hometown! What a gee up that is, what happens if the referee moves town? Does his allegiance to the previous town carry over to the new town or is it wiped? What happens when the GF is played in the hometown of your No1 referee? What this means in practical terms is that the referee HAS to travel every week, I'm sure the zone enjoys the travel bill for that one!
Dan54
David Wilson (68)
yourmate, I like and agree your comment so much, I get driven up the wall at club rugby with mates trying to tell me that this or that ref really has got it for our club, then you talk to opposition supporters that will say that same ref has got it in for their club, I keep saying for a bunch of fellas I have generally found to be pretty good, they certainly don't seem to like anyone!! I can honestly say I have never watched a game of rugby and thought a ref had it for my team, I have watched plenty of games where the players have really pissed the ref off with their attitude etc where maybe the ref like any human may look at them a little harder, but that's about all!
Brumby Runner
Jason Little (69)
To be clear, I'm not suggesting bias on behalf of the SA refs, but the stats do seem to show that visiting teams have problems with the interpretations of the SA refs. It seems entirely feasible to me that the refs in one country might have a leaning against certain types of play and ref accordingly.
I would like to see SANZAAR at least acknowledge there might be a discrepancy in penalty stats and take some initiatives to try to even out the incidence of penalties by supporting more consistency in decision making across the various conferences.
I have posted on a number of occasions that I consider the best ref going around in Super Rugby is Marius van der Westhuisen (just to reinforce my lack of home-town bias), and I also think there is a propensity atm for NZ refs to turn a blind eye to knock ons. Surely, not too much to ask the administrators to keep an eye on such disparities in penalty counts and look into what the reasons might be?
I would like to see SANZAAR at least acknowledge there might be a discrepancy in penalty stats and take some initiatives to try to even out the incidence of penalties by supporting more consistency in decision making across the various conferences.
I have posted on a number of occasions that I consider the best ref going around in Super Rugby is Marius van der Westhuisen (just to reinforce my lack of home-town bias), and I also think there is a propensity atm for NZ refs to turn a blind eye to knock ons. Surely, not too much to ask the administrators to keep an eye on such disparities in penalty counts and look into what the reasons might be?
brokendown
Bill McLean (32)
to me the problem lies not with perceived bias by a ref,but by the laws themselves.There are too many of them,and many are open to interpretation--make the Laws simpler
Groucho
Greg Davis (50)
I'm going to go out on a limb here, but the laws are simple once you understand them.
The perceptual problem is that some people think they're more complex than they are because they've never tried, and in the spirit of empty vessels everywhere, it's them that make the most noise.
I don't mean you, brokendown!
Strewthcobber
Simon Poidevin (60)
Laws are simple. It's knowing when to blow the whistle that's the complicated bit
MonkeyBoy
Bill Watson (15)
THIS^^^
As a referee and a Coach of Referees the hardest lesson is knowing when to pocket a decision and have a quick chat. There are so many "offences" in a game of rugby you could blow the whistle every couple of seconds. It is an unfortunate fact that as a fan you tend to notice the other teams "offences" more and so it appears your team is getting the shitty end of the stick.
Different referee bodies have different focuses, in my opinion SA Refs tend to be more "law" focused and Aus/NZ referees tend to be more "game" focussed which may explain the penalty count differences. Then there are different reactions under pressure eg Jaco Peyper under pressure tends to back away from decisions where as Romain Poite (as a policeman) tends to make more decisions than he normally would when under pressure.
To top it off referees love the game, so there will be a particular style of play that gels with their version of the game...
yourmatesam
Desmond Connor (43)
Is this like a Referee Coach?
MonkeyBoy
Bill Watson (15)
elementfreak
Trevor Allan (34)
. only better looking
Matter of opinion really...
Hugh Jarse
Rocky Elsom (76)
Law 1. The Referee is the sole judge of time and fact.
No opinions needed.
No opinions needed.
brokendown
Bill McLean (32)
not when he goes upstairs!
elementfreak
Trevor Allan (34)
Law 1. The Referee is the sole judge of time and fact.
No opinions needed.
It's actually law 6, but I get your point.
Law 1 is about the ground.
Highlanders v Sharks.
Red card for interfering with a player in the air.
Question: does intent and result come into it?
Because I heard "I don't think he did it on purpose" from the TMO and "It's dangerous because he landed on his head" from the ref. Surely both of these points are mute as it doesn't matter what was intended or how the player landed?
If the sharks player had spun 360deg instead of 180 would it have been okay?
Red card for interfering with a player in the air.
Question: does intent and result come into it?
Because I heard "I don't think he did it on purpose" from the TMO and "It's dangerous because he landed on his head" from the ref. Surely both of these points are mute as it doesn't matter what was intended or how the player landed?
If the sharks player had spun 360deg instead of 180 would it have been okay?
Strewthcobber
Simon Poidevin (60)
That cleared it up. Thanks mate.
Red card every day of the week. I'm surprised the TMO angled for a yellow.
That has to be a red card. It's very dangerous and malicious intent is irrelevant.
Sent from my HTC_PN071 using Tapatalk
That has to be a red card. It's very dangerous and malicious intent is irrelevant.
Sent from my HTC_PN071 using Tapatalk