Refereeing decisions

[barbarian]

The referee followed a convention that's existed in rugby for decades - he let play continue around the injured player, and watched carefully that it didn't get too close to him.

If you're suggesting mst that the ref must stop play whenever a player is injured then the game would take 3-4 hours.

 

[mst]

No. I am suggesting that the referee have regard for the Law and stop the game when there is a probability of a serious injury rather then get it wrong and be found liable ( has occurred) or be the one to get it wrong and regret it forever.

With the increase in player welfare and safety protocols the conventions. have evolved to more of a cautious footng. The key reason this incident attracted attention was it was outside of the usual conventions and expectations.

In general when followed the conventions, protocols, laws and guidance materials work thus why we don't have this situation occur very often thankfully. This appears to be an exception - human error possibly.

The cause needs to be identified so we don't have reoccourances and have referees making errors due to training or skill deficiencies that may compromise a players welfare.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Aru game management guidelines

Referees should manage unnecessary injury stoppages and be pro-active in playing on, e.g. front row players going down with injury at line outs. If the injured player is not in the way of the game and the players is being attended to, play on.

• If medical staff attending to a player indicate that an injury is serious, the referee should stop the game.
• If play approaches an injured player on the ground, the referee should stop the game immediately.

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

 

[Strewthcobber]

While we are getting into the laws, were all of the yellow vested water carriers running onto the field, trained medical staff?

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

 

[yourmatesam]

I'm surprised to see GAGR let MST post that rubbish on the front page to be honest, seems a very one eyed view of the incident, particularly referencing referee bias. Fuck me, seriously? While the referee's attitude when time was off could have been wound back a notch, I reckon he managed the game around the injured player as it should be managed. The medics got onto the field to deal with the injury and play continued without incident, time was off at the next stoppage.

 

[Sully]

I'm surprised to see GAGR let MST post that rubbish on the front page to be honest, seems a very one eyed view of the incident, particularly referencing referee bias. Fuck me, seriously? While the referee's attitude when time was off could have been wound back a notch, I reckon he managed the game around the injured player as it should be managed. The medics got onto the field to deal with the injury and play continued without incident, time was off at the next stoppage.

MST has a right to his opinion just like you do. I have no problem with the post* and the MST's are trusted contributors. *That doesn't mean I agree.

 

[yourmatesam]

MST has a right to his opinion just like you do. I have no problem with the post* and the MST's are trusted contributors. *That doesn't mean I agree.

I've got no problems with opinions Sully, just seems like a one sided take on a situation that was managed accordingly from what I saw and an individual using the GAGR page to push their view. Maybe someone is a little too close to the story? I can't recall seeing GAGR support such postings on the front page in the past and have had the perception that GAGR generally presents a fair position on controversial scenarios. The Tuesday Top 5 didn't come across as such for me in this instance. Just my two bobs worth.

 

[mst]

I'm surprised to see GAGR let MST post that rubbish on the front page to be honest, seems a very one eyed view of the incident, particularly referencing referee bias. Fuck me, seriously? While the referee's attitude when time was off could have been wound back a notch, I reckon he managed the game around the injured player as it should be managed. The medics got onto the field to deal with the injury and play continued without incident, time was off at the next stoppage.

Thanks yourmatesam and your comment is fair and we are happy to be criticised for our views and take any criticisms if people think the articles are bias or wrong. More-so, we will happily corrected on facts and if we offend unintentionally.

We are very privileged that GAGR does allow us to put forward our views in a reasonable manner and not prevent us from putting unpopular or controversial views forward at times. That happens because of a bunch of fantastic people behind the scenes who may not agree on everything we (or others) write or our views but are united in their love of the game and work hard together to keep this the best rugby site in Australia and in a small way the game.

Our main goal with the Top 5 is to try and provide content that people like to read (and thought provoking if possible) and cover all parts of the game the best we can in a balanced way. This means looking at it from both sides. or even alternate views. We are happy to take feed back and suggestions to help improve it.

In relation to this weeks top 5 You will notice when you read the article we focused on the handling of the injury. Knowing that we risked the perception of bias we deliberately stayed away from direct comments relating to the decision but we could not just ignore the statements and outcries of from people like the Canberra Viking coach around the decisions even though we risked criticism which we accept as part of writing on this site. We did pose the question if there was any, potential, real or perceived bias which is for each person can judge for themselves; but the true answer is only known by one person.

We stand by what we said and believe that the referee may need some more training or guidance as the incident and situation could have been handled better, as you said, even if its simply winding it back a notch. which would have presented a very different scenario. We are unapologetic that we strongly believe that player welfare is paramount and not as important as the game being uninterrupted.

One thing I will draw your attention to is we did not actually state which bit we were "appalled" by. That was done intentionally as we were interested to see what people would focus on. Being honest, the main issue we have is around the communication of the referee, the rest of the handling of the incident is hard to pass judgement on unless your in the referees boots.

Were we bias? Well if that is the way it came across to you I cant help but note the irony. We will also plead guilty to be human if we have.

 

[yourmatesam]

Thanks yourmatesam and your comment is fair and we are happy to be criticised for our views and take any criticisms if people think the articles are bias or wrong.

One thing I will draw your attention to is we did not actually state which bit we were "appalled" by. That was done intentionally as we were interested to see what people would focus on. Being honest, the main issue we have is around the communication of the referee, the rest of the handling of the incident is hard to pass judgement on unless your in the referees boots.

Thanks for the considered response MST, much appreciated.

Player welfare is important and safety should be at the forefront of all stakeholders minds when they take the field. Safety, fun, fairness are the three pillars of the game for referees at all levels or more importantly, safety, safety, safety as a wise referee once told me.

In fairness to the referee, we don't get to hear the spray that the Vikes Captain gives him which may also be a factor in how the referee approached the situation and affected his communication. I agree that it doesn't come across well for the ref though does it?

Happy to chat about this, thanks again for the considered reply, much more in the vein that I have come to expect of GAGR in my 7 (or so) years as a member of the forum. I even bought the tshirts.

Keep up the good work team.

 

[Brumby Runner]

So the viewpoint of some is that play should only stop if the injured player is close to the play? Why then would the laws allow, even demand, the situation that the referee must stop play in case of a serious injury regardless of where the play is in relation to the injured player. Or do some people not understand the meaning of the word "or" in he context of Law 6.A.8 (f)? And I also question why a referee would think himself to be adequately medically trained (if he isn't) to make a call on the seriousness of an injury, especially if the medicos on the field are expressing an opinion to that effect.

 

[Braveheart81]

The laws don't define what a serious injury is. It's up to the referee to make a determination there.

Clearly they aren't medically trained nor are they able to assess the injured player. Sometimes certainly it is obvious that an injury is very serious. Other times it isn't.

The referee needs to make sure play doesn't go too close to where the injured player is both to protect that injured player and the medical staff coming onto the field to treat them. The referee also knows that medical staff will come onto the field so continuing play doesn't deny that player treatment.

It isn't a simple issue but the directive is to let play continue.

 

[Jagman]

The last thing we want is players feigning injury to stop or slow down play. I think referees generally have the balance right.

Sent from my FP2 using Tapatalk

 

[mst]

The last thing we want is players feigning injury to stop or slow down play. I think referees generally have the balance right.

Sent from my FP2 using Tapatalk

World Rugby implemented Law variations last year that included better response, management / handling and general protocols around managing injuries. To balance out the new variation they also amended the Laws to ban simulation or diving and making it an offence so referees can punish player.

The Laws around injuries and game manager are pretty good, but reliant on the correct application by referees.

 

[MonkeyBoy]

World Rugby implemented Law variations last year that included better response, management / handling and general protocols around managing injuries. To balance out the new variation they also amended the Laws to ban simulation or diving and making it an offence so referees can punish player.

The Laws around injuries and game manager are pretty good, but reliant on the correct application by referees.

The difficulty with punishing simulation is tied with your posts about medical training; the referees at present stop the game when there is danger to the player. I they see the mechanism of injury and it appears not to be head/neck and play is away leave it until a stoppage if it could be head/neck or play is a chance of further injuring the player the stop play then and there.

 

[mst]

Noting the difficulty for a referee to make a judgement on the run I believe that the way World Rugby had written the Laws actually very clever and simplifies the decision and reinforces it's intent on player welfare being of primary importance.

The 6.A.8(f) law use the words - " a referee must blow the whistle when it is PROBABLE that a player has been seriously injured". This compels a referee to blow the whistle rather than wait and means no expertise is required to make this judgement other than it looked or sounded bad.

It's a more cautious welfare first approach and for a referee the law compels the to blow the whistle if it looks bad or likely to be bad rather then play on to the next stoppage and check. From a legal point of view it helps mitigate any liability or negligence arguments and also benefits the perception of an extremely physical game in that player safety is paramount.

 

[barbarian]

So what constitutes a 'serious injury' then?

Because while some are easy (knocked out, badly broken leg), others are less so.

Bringing it back to the Vikings example, does a knee injury fall into that category? I'm not sure it does. So while the guidelines are great, in this instance I don't think they compel the referee to stop play.

The knee injury may be serious to the player in terms of their longer-term career, but it certainly doesn't place them in any immediate danger if they are away from the play.
.

 

[mst]

I think you identified the key reason behind the use of the word probable because you cant define what is serious or not. Only the circumstances around the injury so more of a if it looks or sounds bad assessment.

It's interesting you keep leaning on the proximity argument where the rule specifically contains an "or" ; proximity or probable serious injury.

As I mentioned in the article, he screamed in pain and them was motionless on the ground. At that point no one knew what the injury was or the extent.

If you applied the pub test. would a scream of pain followed by the person lying motionless indicate a probable serious injury?

 

[Braveheart81]

Playing on didn't delay attention from medical staff or treatment though.

Hyne was motionless from the perspective of the camera but the referee was on the other side. Perhaps he could see that Hyne was conscious and the issue was a lower limb injury?

I still don't think the referee continuing play was necessarily the wrong decision nor do I think we're going to see any substantial changes at the professional level.

 

[barbarian]

I don't want to keep this going too long, because I think we've all made our points.

I'll finish with this: rugby refereeing is all about navigating grey areas, and this is no different. Under the law interpretations, you could make a solid case for both courses of action - stopping play, or allowing it to continue.

The referee made a call in the moment to continue play. Was it the correct call? Maybe.

I certainly think some of the opposition to his course of action is a little bit over the top. Refereeing is a tough job, and this is a classic example of that. He made a call in a grey area, and ultimately we should respect him for it, even if you believe it was the wrong one.
.

 

[Brumby Runner]

The last thing we want is players feigning injury to stop or slow down play. I think referees generally have the balance right.

Sent from my FP2 using Tapatalk

Happens now doesn't it? Or have you not been watching certain Puma/Jaguares players in action? My point about the severity of an injury is that the attending medical staff need to assess and inform the referee. If the referee is so informed that it is a serious injury, he should have no discretion but should act according to the Law quoted above.