Which Referee Is Awarding Most Penalties In Super Rugby?

[Sully]

I agree the Reffing has been good. Has anyone noticed a little more leniency on crooked lineout throws?

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk HD

 

[ChargerWA]

I agree the Reffing has been good. Has anyone noticed a little more leniency on crooked lineout throws?

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk HD

Completely. They called one against Hika Elliott today and I was shocked.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

^^^ Hardly surprising. Elliot does have a case of chronic TPNitis at lineout time. This is one of the serious weaknesses of his game which is frowned upon by the Lords of Darkness.

 

[Rassie]

I agree the Reffing has been good. Has anyone noticed a little more leniency on crooked lineout throws?

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk HD

Agree it would have been good in the amateur era and when there was no TMO etc etc. But in todays high stakes professional game the standard have been poor.

 

[Sully]

Agree it would have been good in the amateur era and when there was no TMO etc etc. But in todays high stakes professional game the standard have been poor.

I could not agree less. The standard of refereeing has been fine.

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk HD

 

[Dan54]

I actually wonder if the Refs are getting a little bit slacker with calls when teams are attacking as if a team scores a try they can go back a couple of phases to pick up anything they missed. I noticed in Force/Saders game the try that was disallowed for a forward pass, thought both the Assistant and ref were in pretty good positions to call it, but seemed to leave it,perhaps thinking they could come back to it?? I seemed to notice it happening quite a bit where there doesn't seem to be very many tries scored that refs are not going back to check things, not pointing fingers at refs, but have a feeling we all going to get a bit annoyed with the continual hold ups eventually, and perhaps they should just call what they see.

 

[terry j]

gnostic, you raised some interesting thoughts (which seemed to have been covered in other threads?) but would you mind repeating yourself a bit? What are some of these 'common law' interpretations-which I get you hint are actually against the written law-of which you speak?

I'd imagine the thrust of your point is that these interpretations vary with time??

 

[Gnostic]

Terry J - my "common Law" reference or precedent rulings refers to the subtle changes in the interpretation and application of the Laws of the game by the referees and their directors over time. The game has not been static. The best example is the Scrum. The Law regarding the scrum as discussed here and by Brian Moore as I referenced earlier is perhaps the best example (given how much it has been discussed). The "Hit" crept into the game over a number of years and it was adopted by all sides to compete. The IRB through the Referees legitimised the tactic by regulating through proceedures of the tactic. The Laws as they were and still are call for the the scrum to be square and steady and not pushing to take place before the ball is fed (straight). The hit goes against all these requirements but it has developed an entire series of interpretations and rulings regarding binding, early packing etc etc etc. You can see this effect in other areas of the game as well as interpretations are made and adopted generally without direct changes to the actual written laws.

 

[terry j]

thanks gnostic, I do recall mention of that particular example in other threads.

History is interesting eh. 'Let it go' the first time, and it is successful, and so it grows. And if you do not take care you start modifying other rules (crouch touch pause engage etc etc) to cope with perceived problems when all along it is some other fundamental underlying problem.

I wonder if there is another game that is as 'complex' as rugby?

 

[boyo]

I'm for the use of technology in the match, but I feel that some referees are abrogating their responsibility by their use of the TMO to make their decision for them instead of making their own decision.

 

[elementfreak]

Terry J - my "common Law" reference or precedent rulings refers to the subtle changes in the interpretation and application of the Laws of the game by the referees and their directors over time. The game has not been static. The best example is the Scrum. The Law regarding the scrum as discussed here and by Brian Moore as I referenced earlier is perhaps the best example (given how much it has been discussed). The "Hit" crept into the game over a number of years and it was adopted by all sides to compete. The IRB through the Referees legitimised the tactic by regulating through proceedures of the tactic. The Laws as they were and still are call for the the scrum to be square and steady and not pushing to take place before the ball is fed (straight). The hit goes against all these requirements but it has developed an entire series of interpretations and rulings regarding binding, early packing etc etc etc. You can see this effect in other areas of the game as well as interpretations are made and adopted generally without direct changes to the actual written laws.

The law also states that the ball should be fed on engagement "with no delay", that isn't seen very often either.

 

[D-Box]

I actually wonder if the Refs are getting a little bit slacker with calls when teams are attacking as if a team scores a try they can go back a couple of phases to pick up anything they missed. I noticed in Force/Saders game the try that was disallowed for a forward pass, thought both the Assistant and ref were in pretty good positions to call it, but seemed to leave it,perhaps thinking they could come back to it?? I seemed to notice it happening quite a bit where there doesn't seem to be very many tries scored that refs are not going back to check things, not pointing fingers at refs, but have a feeling we all going to get a bit annoyed with the continual hold ups eventually, and perhaps they should just call what they see.

It's funny you say that. I was at the game and the forward pass happened right in front of us. Now while that ensured that the ref was being told by about 5000 people what was more important is that the touchy went to his mike straight away (you can see it on the replays if you can find one). If the touchy said forward and Kaplin thought I will wait and check the TMO then that, in my mind, is using the TMO wrong. Just make a call!

 

[Forcefield]

It's funny you say that. I was at the game and the forward pass happened right in front of us. Now while that ensured that the ref was being told by about 5000 people what was more important is that the touchy went to his mike straight away (you can see it on the replays if you can find one). If the touchy said forward and Kaplin thought I will wait and check the TMO then that, in my mind, is using the TMO wrong. Just make a call!

Or what if no call had been made and 4 phases later it lead to a try? They can only go back two phases with the TMO.

 

[D-Box]

Does anyone know where you can get the stats for how often the refs are referring to the TMO? If could be interesting to see. I would also love to subjectively analyses if the ref went cause he or AR were in a bad position and couldn't see or just too scared to actually make a game changing call.

Group project for the weekend?

 

[ChargerWA]

Good god we are a bunch of whingers. We whinge until they bring in the TMO for in field decisions and then we whinge they are taking too long.

The fact that refs are using the TMO is a no brainer. They have a split second to make a decision, if they aren't 100% certain they will come back and check it. Admittedly it is currently taking too long and not perfect, but these are just stepping stones in the right direction.

 

[Rassie]

That is just it Rassie, I don't think the quality has been bad. I think it has markedly improved this year on the last couple. If the players look at a referee and the precedent that those individuals have barring a shocker they are all fairly consistant game to game within their particular style.

The whinging comes because the application of the Law "interpretations" which mostly have very little to do with how the Law itself is written can and does vary widely between referees, simply because it is just that an interpretation. Do I think people have a right to whine about it? Yes I do. I also believe that people who want to whinge and whine about it need to understand how the Law in application became so distorted from what is written and how that impacts upon what the refs do on the field. They need to campaign more on enforcing the written Laws and less upon the individual differences between Refs doing their best with these precedent based interpretations. I appreciate in the majority the efforts of the referees in the game, and am sure that on occasion they would shake their heads and say well I had a shocker in that one.

Finally one more the personality of the Referee has always been a factor in Rugby and always will be in my view. I am sure the old heads here like Bruce Ross could tell some great stories of the personalities from yesteryear. Just remember how different the games were under these contemporary Refs, Bill Bevan, Ed Morrsion, Paddy Obrien and your very own Andre Watson. Compare them with the current crop of top refs and you will see the same diaspora in application and personality. Any well coached team should be able to take into account these variables as they would any other aspect of the game. As I said there have been no shocking howlers of games this year, and no real instances where I could say the referee inordinately effected the outcome of the match. I know you will dispute that, you have made that point.

Fair enough. But you either see something or you don't. In between is guessing and that is what referees do a lot these days. Bad referees guess. Just to show you to what it has come to. Wales monstered England on the scoreboard by making a prop the captain. You know what happened in that game.

 

[Rassie]

I could not agree less. The standard of refereeing has been fine.

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk HD

From a fans perspective probably true. But lets say I let you lose $20 000 week in week out due to me either guessing or making plain and simple mistakes due to being out of my league or not competent enough to be officiating at that level you would sing a very different tune. It took people almost 60 years to start paying attention in the finances of football and what is at stake in games from coaches and players points of view. I bet there must be worth something in the cash when teams break the rules of competitions to win it or fill a team with professionals when a tournament was created for amateurs. So the rewards outweigh the risk and only one such a thing are able to do it and that is money. For me as a fan I couldn't bother if the officials were bad or not. But as soon when the stakes are high like its with teams, players and coaches where incomes are in the balance one pays more attention to the standards of officials.

There is no excuse for a TMO who has only one simple thing to do and that is watch a incident in slow motion and make a clear and obvious call and still get it wrong.

 

[Sully]

Again we all know the standard of refereeing, which is fine by the way, if you want to bet twenty thoudand dollars a week on the vagaries of rugby ruck and scrum penalties I'd suggest the ref isn't the one with the problem.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

There is no excuse for a TMO who has only one simple thing to do and that is watch a incident in slow motion and make a clear and obvious call and still get it wrong.

They should be getting the large majority of decisions right - obviously. But there clearly is a limit to their ability (albeit an "excuse"). Limited time and massive pressure are just two. Next time you see a TMO making a call, try and put yourself in their shoes. You are locked away in a room watching the same pictures as all your superiors, all the coaches, players, onfield refs, not to mention hundreds of thousands of viewers. And you have between 1-3 minutes to watch some impromptu vision of a decision to make a definitive ruling.

499,999 people have made their mind up, and for all you know they probably agree on a decision. Then it's up to you to make your decision and hope to god it's the right one.

Obviously we need TMO's who can handle this pressure. But I still think the best decisions will be made if we try and take as much pressure off them as possible, (ie: not going on a witch hunt on the odd occasions they make a mistake). Anyone legitimately concerned with TMO consistency will deal in aggregates anyway.

 

[Gnostic]

Fair enough. But you either see something or you don't. In between is guessing and that is what referees do a lot these days. Bad referees guess. Just to show you to what it has come to. Wales monstered England on the scoreboard by making a prop the captain. You know what happened in that game.

Yes they won because they totally outplayed their opponents. I don't buy the rubbish that the Englsh were robbed. That is very much like the rubbish that went on after the Italy V ABs game a few years ago. The Italians whinged that Dickenson didn't award a penalty try when they were no-where near scoring the push over, and the ABs whinged with Paddy's help that they were hard done by in the scrum which was rubbish (incidently notice the Crusaders still whinging for exactly the same cause and with the same player against the Force with Kaplan the ref and what is it four years later?)

I do not believe there is a bad test referee. There are some that I do not prefer, such as Kaplan and B. Lawrence, but in saying that it is a long way to accusing them of corruption as seen in Soccer. I do not believe there is any evidence to support that. Our refs do their best IMO with a game that has complex laws as written even without taking into account the variations and interpretations also added on.