the way forward for refereeing?

[Gnostic]

No I didn't. You don't seem to understand that the protocol puts in place an interpretation of the law. It supports the law in application. Arguing that refs should be able to pick and choose which protocols to follow in pursuit of a correct or just decision completely and utterly ignores that fact that in many case the correctness and justice of the decision is going to be a matter of judgement in any case and not a matter of obvious fact. Your approach will not eliminate poor decisions, it will introduce more subjectivity.

Not my approach, where have I advocated anything? I suggested a reason why the ref acted in such manner and suggested that his ethics required him to enforce the LAW regardless of a PROTOCOL, which is in fact only a guideline on application of an information tool, not the Law itself. Ask yourself a question, was the itself decision wrong? Like I said only a warped set of ethics will support making poor decisions at Law for the sake of protocol.

 

[sjg]

the defending team stops chasing thinking the ref should blow his whistle, the ref doesn't,

learn to play the whistle?? players shouldnt anticipate the refs calls nor should they rely on them.

 

[ACT Crusader]

But " playing the whistle" shouldn't matter if a forward pass has been thrown because the ref should consult the TMO and the TMO should offer the advice that a pass was forward in the play directly before the try was scored. Isn't that what should happen to get the "right" outcome and decision?

 

[sjg]

haha, i think i may have open pandoras box by starting this thread....

at the end of the day refs decisions are a uncontrollable element of the game really, as it stands at least. playing the whistle after a dubious forward pass definitely does matter, as it should be up to the players to decide the game and not the ref. dont leave anything to chance. right outcomes and fairness whilst are ideal, practically will never happen.

 

[Blob]

Not my approach, where have I advocated anything? I suggested a reason why the ref acted in such manner and suggested that his ethics required him to enforce the LAW regardless of a PROTOCOL, which is in fact only a guideline on application of an information tool, not the Law itself. Ask yourself a question, was the itself decision wrong? Like I said only a warped set of ethics will support making poor decisions at Law for the sake of protocol.

You mean the law that he didn't know had been broken? If he had known it had been broken he would have ruled on it. But he didn't so, he contravened that protocls and the law which states

A match organiser may appoint an official who uses technological devices. If the referee is
unsure when making a decision in in-goal involving a try being scored or a touch down, that
official may be consulted.

Note the 'in-goal' bit? So the ref's ethics drove him to knowingly break a law in order to find out if another law had been broken which he then determined, all by himself, was a more important law than the law he had just broken. Go ethical reffing. No minefield there.

 

[antipodean]

You missed the whole point.

Whilst the ref breached PROTOCOL, he enforced the LAWS correctly on the information available

One can't help but notice your vain attempt to give your argument weight by reliance on definitions of certain terms. Weak. The stipulations exist to instruct the match officials what and how they may adjudicate. Both the TMO and the referee failed to adhere to what are clear instructions. That is the point.

 

[Lee Grant]

Wow, thanks for the interview link. Paddy is pissed!

Talking of pissed, I nearly pissed myself laughing listening to Paddy in that radio interview. He did something worse than Clancy when he was refereeing an NPC game.

He asked the TMO to adjudicate on whether a player had knocked on prior to passing the ball to a team mate who scored. The incident happened about 15 metres out if memory serves. The protocols have changed since the TMO was first introduced but what POB did was against the protocol at the time he did what he did.

I have never heard mention of that POB incident since.

 

[ACT Crusader]

haha, i think i may have open pandoras box by starting this thread....

at the end of the day refs decisions are a uncontrollable element of the game really, as it stands at least. playing the whistle after a dubious forward pass definitely does matter, as it should be up to the players to decide the game and not the ref. dont leave anything to chance. right outcomes and fairness whilst are ideal, practically will never happen.

And I agree entirely that playing the whistle is important, but isn't playing the whistle sort of redundant in such a situation because the TMO should be offering advice that a forward pass has been made, so the laws can be enforced correctly.

Let's say the defending team keeps playing, but the same result i.e ball is grounded etc. The ref has an obligation to get it right and now that a TMO can "look back" at the previous play prior to the grounding then the TMO will make sure the right decision is made.

LG - I seem to recall the POB incident if its the same one (fiji 99 world cup) and wasn't that used as an example when the IRB laws review committee examined the protocols?

 

[Blob]

The TMO should ideally monitor the entire game and let the ref know when he has missed infringements. In the interests of justice and ethics of course.

 

[Lindommer]

A few points:

1. An earlier poster referred to the TMO as South African, he isn't. Johann Meuwesen is from Namibia.
2. Graham Henry isn't the slightest bit upset about the TMO's "improper" involvement in the try not being awarded to the ABs, he'd much prefer the correct decision be made.
3. Paddy O'Brien has needlessly involved himself in another furore involving a referee adjudicating against New Zealand. Not a good look, Paddy.

In 2009 Genia went over the goal line in Brisbane against the Boks. The ref (can't remember who) asked the TMO, George Ayoub, to rule on a grounding as Will had a few Boks holding him as he went over the line. But Genia's run to the chalk started with a tap from a penalty within 10m of the goal line; he shouldn't've been tackled before the goal line as the Bok tacklers hadn't retired the requisite 10m. The TMO ruled the ball wasn't grounded and the ref asked him what should happen next. George remarked "well, there was a penalty" trying to jog the ref's memory he should've been playing advantage and award another one, or a penalty try. I spoke to George about this incident last year and asked him did he receive any retribution. He did, as he put it the iRB gave him a "kick in the bum and told me not to do it again".

There's a lot to be said for LG's suggestion the iRB try the French approach.

 

[Beefcake]

Like I said only a warped set of ethics will support making poor decisions at Law for the sake of protocol.

So the ref's ethics drove him to knowingly break a law in order to find out if another law had been broken which he then determined, all by himself, was a more important law than the law he had just broken. Go ethical reffing. No minefield there.

Hit the nail on the head. Clancys warped set of ethics indeed led him to act above and beyond the Laws of the game. Rucks are dubious enough for refs to officiate, let alone giving them more scope in play to subjectively bungle.

Clancy asked TMO if the TRY could be awarded? Try was scored as clearly grounded shown in replays, try should have been awarded. That was the answer to his question regardless of the additional info...

 

[ACT Crusader]

A few points:

1. An earlier poster referred to the TMO as South African, he isn't. Johann Meuwesen is from Namibia.
2. Graham Henry isn't the slightest bit upset about the TMO's "improper" involvement in the try not being awarded to the ABs, he'd much prefer the correct decision be made.
3. Paddy O'Brien has needlessly involved himself in another furore involving a referee adjudicating against New Zealand. Not a good look, Paddy.

In 2009 Genia went over the goal line in Brisbane against the Boks. The ref (can't remember who) asked the TMO, George Ayoub, to rule on a grounding as Will had a few Boks holding him as he went over the line. But Genia's run to the chalk started with a tap from a penalty within 10m of the goal line; he shouldn't've been tackled before the goal line as the Bok tacklers hadn't retired the requisite 10m. The TMO ruled the ball wasn't grounded and the ref asked him what should happen next. George remarked "well, there was a penalty" trying to jog the ref's memory he should've been playing advantage and award another one, or a penalty try. I spoke to George about this incident last year and asked him did he receive any retribution. He did, as he put it the iRB gave him a "kick in the bum and told me not to do it again".

There's a lot to be said for LG's suggestion the iRB try the French approach.

Lindo - he might have been born in Namibia but he is officially a Sth African representative referee to the best of my knowledge and has been refereeing CC/super games as a Sth African rep for some time.

My take on the Henry public comments is that for PR purposes he doesn't want a public "fight" with refs in the lead up to the WC. Why bring further media attention on to the ABs and himself by engaging in a public battle when there is going to be enough of a spotlight on the host nation come a couple of weeks. Say the "right things" and journos won't be able to make any mileage out of you and will be forced to make the story themselves (sounds like a novel concept I know ).

If you get to speak to George again in the near future, it would be interesting to hear what he would have done in the situation given his 2009 experience. Also see if he knows what the fallout from this incident was....

 

[Lee Grant]

LG - I seem to recall the POB incident if its the same one (fiji 99 world cup) and wasn't that used as an example when the IRB laws review committee examined the protocols?

No - that was before the TMO was introduced - in the Fiji v France pool match in the 1999 RWC. That match wasn't Paddy's finest performance and by his own admission he stuffed up during that game. IIRR his words were: "I lost the plot."

One journo wrote: "In a frantic closing period, the referee lost patience with the Fiji pack, he gave yellow cards to two Fiji forwards, before awarding France a penalty try."

Earlier in the game, just before oranges Lamaison caught the Fijians napping and dished out to the winger who scored, but the pass was palpably forward. Then he harshly disallowed a try to Fiji.

Fiji hooker and captain George Smith said about one penalty that France slotted: "I don't know why we were penalised; as a forward I know more than the referee does, and feel that we were robbed."

At least POB owned up to a bad performance but Fiji needed everything to go their way in that game. Though they lost by 9 points you have to think of sliding doors.

Fiji ended 2nd in their pool and instead of going directly into the quarter-finals, as France did, they had play a quarter final qualifying match against England. France beat Argentina in the QF and then, famously, the All Blacks in the semi, before losing the final to Oz.

Sliding doors.



But I've lost the plot too and have digressed.

No, it wasn't that match when POB transgressed the TMO protocol: it was in NZ - in an NPC match.
.

 

[MajorlyRagerly]

You guys ever watched NFL?

I honestly think it would appeal to a lot of you. There are a lot of rules, ruled by about 15 referee's & when the coaches don't like it they can throw in flags to protest plays. It's a great sport, referee'd perfectly to the law.

It also takes over 3 hours to play a game which only lasts an hour (from memory), and the ball is in play about 10 seconds then out of it for about 60 seconds. Almost all the ideas I am looking at here seem to relate to NFL style football. Lots of peope looking out for everything, ability to challenge & have guys upstairs looking at TV's who can rule on anything etc etc.

If rugby goes like that, then I'm out, as a fan.

I know that doesn't bother you lot, but whatever.

 

[barbarian]

Jesus, calm down MR.

I think what most of us would like to see is a balance between rules/consistency and common sense. How to achieve that? I don't quite know. But I would like to see some loophole/contingency in the Laws to allow the TMO to offer advice on obvious incidents that happen in the scoring play.

I would hate to see a game decided by a TMO clearly identifying an offence (eg a forward pass) but having his hands tied by the IRB not to say anything. It seems silly to me.

 

[MajorlyRagerly]

Jesus, calm down MR.

I think what most of us would like to see is a balance between rules/consistency and common sense. How to achieve that? I don't quite know. But I would like to see some loophole/contingency in the Laws to allow the TMO to offer advice on obvious incidents that happen in the scoring play.

I would hate to see a game decided by a TMO clearly identifying an offence (eg a forward pass) but having his hands tied by the IRB not to say anything. It seems silly to me.

Calm down? I'm actually offering advice on the back of reading this thread that I think people should try. You want structed, rule abiding, everybody can have their say sport, then NFL is honestly where you should be at.

I'm firmly in the TMO only allowed to rule on in goal and last phase of play. I do not want to see TMO's going back and looking up the last 45 seconds of play to sport an infringement. That is just a waste of everybodies time.

 

[barbarian]

Just thought you sounded a little stressed in your original post. Maybe it was just me reading it in an angry voice, so I apologise. The voice in my head was awfully threatening. Sometimes it tells me to burn things...

 

[Baldric]

I do not want to see TMO's going back and looking up the last 45 seconds of play to sport an infringement.

I agree, that is why we have ARs who have comms with the ref, but they seem to be absent these days or the ref is ignoring them.
The dissalowed try should never have gone to the TMO, it should have been settled between the ref and the AR. The AR should have been in a position to call the forward pass. The TMO is the person who should be used when the ref and the AR are not able to see something and feel that benefit can be obtained by someone watching 32 slow motion replays from 31 different camera angles.

 

[Lee Grant]

Try the French system world wide and the sky won't fall down. I'm sure there are many people who watch the Top14 on a regular basis and have no idea that the TMO protocol is different from the rest of the world because it is used so infrequently.

I can't recall an instance that a forward pass inquiry was invoked but I have seen it for knock-ons; so it probably is, and obstructions also back as far as the 22. All in the lead up to a try, of course.

The point is the refs will use it because it is there, and sanctioned.

It has two important things in it's favour: it isn't used much and it works.

 

[antipodean]

Hearing voices telling you to burn things isn't much to worry about. In ascending order, the worrying signs are:

1. Voices telling you to burn things,
2. Voices telling you to hurt puppies and kittens, and the greatest crime is
3. Voices telling you to give it away but stay involved by becoming a ref.