RWC 2011 - Bitch, moan and discuss - Referees and Law Discussions

[Bruwheresmycar]

I decided to start coding the side of the field in the RWC that the ref award penalties that end up being a shot at the posts. Seems so far that some refs favour one side of the field more than another. Some of them are on the right and some on the left, so its not a "easier to pass to the left effect". Any ideas on why this is so? It should be a bit more random than it is...

Different positioning comes to mind. They have a better view on some parts of the field than others. Can you see a trend between refs from different countries? Because traditionally refs from Oz/Nz/SA stand in different positions.

 

[Scotty]

I watched the game again and have to say... Lawrence was not that bad. Most calls he made were correct. Most of the scrum collapses were clearly our fault. Obviously he got a few wrong but that is rugby. I tip my hat to you Bryce. I suppose even a broken watch is right twice a day...

It was the calls he didn't make that I was annoyed at. I don't recall one call penalty for not rolling away and maybe only one for clean out player going off their feet. This is very unlikely in a game of rugby and it essentially allowed Ireland to slow the game down to the pace they wanted. I also noted that neither team were warned for repeated infringements. There was a time in the first half that lawerence game a penalty advantage to aus, they played on then Ireland infringed one or two more times. This happened twice in a 10 minute period, yet no warning from lawerence. I have no doubt the rucks would have been a lot cleaner and faster under the likes of barnes.

Of course this went for both sides but when only one team is looking to use their back line it affects one more than another. His decisions may not have affected the result but his style certainly impacted on it.

 

[Jnor]

I haven't rewatched the game, don't think I will really but one of the biggest problems with Lawrence is he seems to be extremely slow compared to other refs. I think this and the fact he seems to get flustered once the game moves past a couple of quick phases (possibly because he can't keep up) mean that he blows up seemingly at random and very early on in the piece. The number of times he called a scrum from a ruck/maul (both ways) only seconds after the contest began show that for mine.

 

[Top Bloke]

I haven't rewatched the game, don't think I will really but one of the biggest problems with Lawrence is he seems to be extremely slow compared to other refs. I think this and the fact he seems to get flustered once the game moves past a couple of quick phases (possibly because he can't keep up) mean that he blows up seemingly at random and very early on in the piece. The number of times he called a scrum from a ruck/maul (both ways) only seconds after the contest began show that for mine.

Sorry Jnor - but quite frankly you are just making stuff up. All the refs have fitness tests and standards they have to reach. BL is as quick as he needs to be. How can you claim as a "Fact" that he get flustered ??, that is just your opinon. Sure he blew several mauls quite quickly but only when it was apparent the team taking the ball in was going to lose it. When the mauling team was going forward he let it go with more than 2 x 5secs adequate "use it or lose it" calls. Compare his handling of the Maul with Nigel Owens - who often only gives a maul one call at 5 seconds before blowing it up. I suggest you watch a replay and try and be objective about his performance.
BL's positioning at ruck & maul time is a weakness and possibly 3 times he was caught wrong footed.
He missed a glaring Irish knock-on and the high shot on KB (Kurtley Beale). The "non decision" re Horwill offisde at the ruck was debatable.
In the first half he PK's both sides 4 times, it was in the 2nd half he pk'd the Aus front row - Imho 1 of 4 was incorrect.
In reality if the wobs had taken the half time advice and played territory and kicked more then they could have removed the front row PK from the equation.

 

[antipodean]

Just for something different; I'd like to discuss one aspect of the current law interpretation that is clearly contrary to the ethos of rugby (competition for possession of the ball) and that being the maul. Now I'm going to pretend I'm the first to raise this, but while rough editing some highlights from the AB v Cherry Blossoms match I noticed a clear transgression. Namely a specific maul where the All Blacks were carrying the ball. In this instance the camera work couldn't have pointed this out any more obviously - the habit of players to bind and then move forward of the ball carrier or have the ball carrier move to the rear of the maul. This effectively makes it impossible for the defending team to compete for the ball.

Now I'm not calling for the maul to disappear from rugby; on the contrary it's a legitimate and necessary tactic. The problem is how the referee treats it. I'd like to see every time a ball carrier makes their way to the rear of the maul, effectively unbinding and then reattaching penalised (as it should be). Anyone who attaches next to or in front; penalised. In it's current form it is a blight on the game and effectively means the real skill of mauling will become a lost art.

 

[Lee Grant]

Good point. I guess you are saying that you have no problem if the ball is smuggled backwards just if the ball carrier moves himself backwards. This means means that he must have lost his bind with his free arm and hand because he was carrying the ball with the other.

I like it.

When I was a lad the maul as we know it now was illegal because when you were stopped in those days you were deemed to be tackled even if you weren't on the deck; so you had to release the pill before the maul even started. The modern maul is a comparatively new thing in the scale of rugby history; so I am not sure why it is regarded as something sacrosanct and can't be fiddled with.

The best argument against defusing the maul is that the modern game, even at the amateur level, has speeded up so much that the sport should retain those elements which the fatties can participate in, thus fulfilling the "all shapes and sizes" charter.
.

 

[Top Bloke]

Just for something different; I'd like to discuss one aspect of the current law interpretation that is clearly contrary to the ethos of rugby (competition for possession of the ball) and that being the maul....

Antipodean - I think you'll find that some refs recognise this and that at the very first sign of a halt in progress - immediately call "use it" - as I mentioned above Nigel Owen is one.
As for the player travelling backwards through the maul little distinction appears to be made whether the player is "binding" or being bound onto. Seems to me that as long as the player maintains forearm contact the refs deem this ok, I have yet to see a player going forward through the maul, I'm sure this would be pinged.

 

[RuckinGoodStats]

Different positioning comes to mind. They have a better view on some parts of the field than others. Can you see a trend between refs from different countries? Because traditionally refs from Oz/Nz/SA stand in different positions.

Subseting it by country, hemisphere and pool as well to see any difference. Wish I had done it for the Super15, more games to get a trend.

 

[Mica]

Just for something different; I'd like to discuss one aspect of the current law interpretation that is clearly contrary to the ethos of rugby (competition for possession of the ball) and that being the maul. Now I'm going to pretend I'm the first to raise this, but while rough editing some highlights from the AB v Cherry Blossoms match I noticed a clear transgression. Namely a specific maul where the All Blacks were carrying the ball. In this instance the camera work couldn't have pointed this out any more obviously - the habit of players to bind and then move forward of the ball carrier or have the ball carrier move to the rear of the maul. This effectively makes it impossible for the defending team to compete for the ball.

Now I'm not calling for the maul to disappear from rugby; on the contrary it's a legitimate and necessary tactic. The problem is how the referee treats it. I'd like to see every time a ball carrier makes their way to the rear of the maul, effectively unbinding and then reattaching penalised (as it should be). Anyone who attaches next to or in front; penalised. In it's current form it is a blight on the game and effectively means the real skill of mauling will become a lost art.

This is a great comment and one of the reasons why I come to Green and Gold rugby (for insightful perspective).
I couldn't agree more with you Antipodean.
The maul is a great attacking weapon that needs to be reffed correctly to allow for a proper contest.

Cheers Mica

 

[Aussie D]

Seems to me that as long as the player maintains forearm contact the refs deem this ok, I have yet to see a player going forward through the maul, I'm sure this would be pinged.

The forearm contact annoys me when it is the last man with his arm resting on his mates back and head up looking around. For mine he is not bound and fair game for the opposition - that should be a penalty for obstruction unless they have changed the definition of binding from head and shoulders in contact....

 

[Jay]

One question I've got - the law against collapsing a maul is generally considered to be there for safety purposes, right? So how come the attacking team is never penalised for collapsing (which they do all the time to prevent the ball being turned over, when the defence is trying to wrap & hold them up the way Ireland attempted many times).

 

[Toby Lerone]

Anyone know why Steve Walsh wasnt running touch in the Italy v Russia game today?

He was listed as in the official match preview (published yesterday) but Garratt Williamson replaced him. I really hope his calf hasn't gone again, he's been really unlucky this year with that injury.

 

[Scotty]

I am starting to think a two referee option should be considered. One for the breakdown and the other for everything else. It would likely lead to more penalties at first but eventually hopefully a clean up of the contest.

 

[Scotty]

The other think that annoys me is that teams continually have to adjust to different referees. We have an international body that looks after the refereeing standard, why can't we get these guys on the same board? Why can't they all concentrate on the same areas? It is a hard game to ref, probably the hardest, but there shouldn't be such diversity in performances.

 

[the plastic paddy]

Amazed you have a thread about refs. The worst ref decision in 2011 was Wales v Ireland in the 6 nations and ostensibly it cost Ireland the game. Bollocks of course as Ireland had ample opportunity to win the game regardless. The same would apply to the Taffs against the Saffers and the kick, load of bollocks, the welsh should have won the game anyway. Play the Ref, play the ref.

 

[Scarfman]

For better or worse, refereeing is a bit part if rugby. The referee can really determine the shape of the game. This thread is here so that we can try to have an intelligent conversation about referee performance without ruining every single game thread.

 

[the plastic paddy]

For better or worse, refereeing is a bit part if rugby. The referee can really determine the shape of the game. This thread is here so that we can try to have an intelligent conversation about referee performance without ruining every single game thread.

Fair enough, agree to disagree and all that. Thanks for the welcome to green and gold, good luck to you boys and hoping there are no more injuries to anyone from any team.

 

[Swat]

Fair enough, agree to disagree and all that. Thanks for the welcome to green and gold, good luck to you boys and hoping there are no more injuries to anyone from any team.

Sh*t Paddy, glad to have you.

 

[Jay]

I am starting to think a two referee option should be considered. One for the breakdown and the other for everything else. It would likely lead to more penalties at first but eventually hopefully a clean up of the contest.

I reckon more assistant ref involvement - they should have whistles and police the short side & breakdown (when play is in the near third of the width of the pitch) and the offside line (when play is on the other side of the pitch).

 

[teach]

Anyone know why Steve Walsh wasnt running touch in the Italy v Russia game today?

He was listed as in the official match preview (published yesterday) but Garratt Williamson replaced him. I really hope his calf hasn't gone again, he's been really unlucky this year with that injury.

Funny you should say that. We were watching the teams warm up before the England - Georgia game. My wife wanted to know why the player on the sideline was spending so much time doing calf stretches and why did he have different coloured socks. It was Walsh.