Refereeing decisions
- Thread starter boyo
- Start date
Jimmy_Crouch
Peter Johnson (47)
Plenty of ideas in this space. A presser each week after the games with the referee's boss from WR (World Rugby) explaining any contentious decision? Make sure all questions are on notice so they can review the clips and explain why. Drop TMOs if they get things wrong. What about looking at an NFL model whereby you have a refereeing/umpiring squad/team so all four of them always work together?
Dan54
David Wilson (68)
Of course it not the same, but you can't criticise Rassie without your own house being sqeaky clean, It hard to have percentages of being right, you either believe refs have to be supported or you don't. We all fely for Berry because he said it was mentally hard for him , and family, with it playing out in public. If Rennies roasted the players he thought did dumb things it would be a but fairer, but he didn't and I know I old bugger but always have and always will believe coaches wherever they from.
I have met an awful lot of people at all levels of rugby who think ref(refs) don't like their team so they never get a fair go, I say I have yet to meet a ref who goes out disliking a ream and being hard on them! And never met a rugby supporter that says "this ref loves us so we will be right".
Dan54
David Wilson (68)
Funnily enough I pretty comfortable with that, or leave him to just decide if try is good or not over line like they were first used.
Dan54
David Wilson (68)
No it has cost Wallabies no games on tour. In your mind it has, but it has not coast any team a game.
Rebel man
John Thornett (49)
Every time they get involved they look at shit in super slow mo and fuck the game up.
Beale’s knock on the ref got the call right the TMO held up the game showed a million slow mo replays and took us to the wrong decision
Stopping the game all the time just slows it down and hurts the overall product as the game takes longer
When we all played club rugby the ref had the final say there was no TMO, yes they get some calls wrong but with the TMO they are still getting it wrong anyway
Rebel man
John Thornett (49)
It has, world rugby apologised for the AAA yellow and not allowing the try. We score that we win
PhilClinton
Mark Loane (55)
Yes but unless my cheque is still in the mail, when I was running around for 7th grade the ref making a wrong call wasn't at the detriment of a professional team, with sponsors, corporate dollars etc. It would be inexcusable for a team to lose a game because the opposition knocked the ball and went on to score a try, when we know the technology to look at those things exists.
The TMO isn't going anywhere, so there isn't any real point in making an argument for it to be gone.
Rebel man
John Thornett (49)
Would it be anymore farcical than when it happens with a TMO? I get as a fan it’s a lot easier to get caught up in this but as a player a big part of the game is respect and respecting the on field call.
Look no further than the Koroibete red card we were a man down for 70 minutes due to the TMO making the wrong call that’s farcical
It wasn't really though. Koroibete did hit his head.
The judiciary overturned the red card but it was hardly clear cut that it was going to be.
I certainly don't think this was a terrible decision. Both the referee and the judiciary could have gone in opposite directions (a yellow card in the game and a suspension from the judicial hearing).
Plenty of these calls between yellow and red are going to be very close and different decisions will be made by different people. This is the biggest reason for the 20 minute red card in my view so that the punishment isn't manifestly different.
Rebel man
John Thornett (49)
It was a disgrace that call. The French coward took a dive like it was soccer
Derpus
Nathan Sharpe (72)
I thought WR (World Rugby)'s slap on the wrist for Rassie probably opened the door for Rennie.
The cynic in me thinks that if you can get away with influencing the referee via media you'd be a fool not to.
Brumby Runner
Jason Little (69)
Accidents happen in all walks of life. It is an accident because there was no intention and circumstances conspired to bring a particular matter about. If there is no negligence involved, or negligence isn't a prescribed reason for finding fault, then fault probably shouldn't be ascribed to a party involved.
I believe the incident between Valetini and the Welsh Lock was accidental, and I'm not sure that negligence is really a matter to be taken into consideration. If it is, then the actions of both parties need to be examined. Valetini's tackle was not high as both arms wrapped around the chest area. Some say that Valetini was too upright in making the tackle. He was upright, but he was tackling a Lock who was somewhat taller than him. The reason their heads were on the same level to allow for their collision was that the Lock was running in a slightly crouched fashion. Arguably, there was error on both parts and they should have been treated in similar fashion.
How many posts on these threads in recent times have foreshadowed exactly this scenario? Taken to extreme, if players adopt crouching running styles, at some time it will be almost impossible for a legal tackle to be made.
Treating accidental collision as a sanctionable offence is sheer madness in a game like rugby.
It probably won't happen, but I think the card needs to be withdrawn on Valetini's record.
I believe the incident between Valetini and the Welsh Lock was accidental, and I'm not sure that negligence is really a matter to be taken into consideration. If it is, then the actions of both parties need to be examined. Valetini's tackle was not high as both arms wrapped around the chest area. Some say that Valetini was too upright in making the tackle. He was upright, but he was tackling a Lock who was somewhat taller than him. The reason their heads were on the same level to allow for their collision was that the Lock was running in a slightly crouched fashion. Arguably, there was error on both parts and they should have been treated in similar fashion.
How many posts on these threads in recent times have foreshadowed exactly this scenario? Taken to extreme, if players adopt crouching running styles, at some time it will be almost impossible for a legal tackle to be made.
Treating accidental collision as a sanctionable offence is sheer madness in a game like rugby.
It probably won't happen, but I think the card needs to be withdrawn on Valetini's record.
Pfitzy
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Watch Scotland v Japan if you're able. Fast forward to match time 44:20 to see the incident I'm referencing:
Japan get advantage at a ruck where Scotland 4 has not retreated to last feet.
Japan play on and kick through. Matsushima gathers under pressure, and is tackled just short of the line.
He pops the ball for a following runner who just has to catch it and dive over.
The tackler (Scotland 11) is on his knees, grabs the pill.
Clear cut penalty try EDIT: and yellow card while I'm here. Plain as day. Pickerill bottled it.
Japan get advantage at a ruck where Scotland 4 has not retreated to last feet.
Japan play on and kick through. Matsushima gathers under pressure, and is tackled just short of the line.
He pops the ball for a following runner who just has to catch it and dive over.
The tackler (Scotland 11) is on his knees, grabs the pill.
Clear cut penalty try EDIT: and yellow card while I'm here. Plain as day. Pickerill bottled it.
Last edited:
Derpus
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Hometown reffing all over the bloody place.
Pfitzy
Nathan Sharpe (72)
tragic
John Solomon (38)
The problem I have with the laws at the moment is that it’s not the action itself but the random consequence of that action that determines if it’s a card or play on.
Valentinis tackle is legal if the heads don’t clash. Ball and all tackles occur all the time. But if there a random clash then it’s a card. The same tackle height, if the heads miss is legal.
Same issue with the knock down. It’s not the action but the random consequence - whether it travels an inch forward or backward is the difference between a try or a yellow card.
Makes no sense.
The action itself should be legal or illegal.
Its no wonder rugby is struggling. The laws are a complete shitshow
Valentinis tackle is legal if the heads don’t clash. Ball and all tackles occur all the time. But if there a random clash then it’s a card. The same tackle height, if the heads miss is legal.
Same issue with the knock down. It’s not the action but the random consequence - whether it travels an inch forward or backward is the difference between a try or a yellow card.
Makes no sense.
The action itself should be legal or illegal.
Its no wonder rugby is struggling. The laws are a complete shitshow
Eyes and Ears
Bob Davidson (42)
If the Laws are the issue, why is rugby only struggling in 1 country?
Up the Guts
Steve Williams (59)
To be fair, the league officiating was just as bad this year. If anything, it was even more of a circus because there was a massive crackdown on high contact for a couple of rounds that was completely abandoned by the back end of the season. At least Union has been consistent in that regard.
That said, while the slow-mo and bunker interjections create issues in League, the relative complexity of the Union laws, particularly around the ruck, make the role of replays and the TMO more of a nightmare. I genuinely think you could find a technical ruck infringement at every second breakdown. Add in the fact that penalties have a relatively larger impact on the game and tests can turn farcical quickly.