Which Referee Is Awarding Most Penalties In Super Rugby?

[Scott Allen]

It's not Steve Walsh and it's not Jonathan Kaplan. It's James Leckie!

I've published the full list here http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/how-many-penalties-can-steve-walsh-find-in-a-match/

The referee awarding the least number of penalties is Glen Jackson. Craig Joubert and Chris Pollock are also well below the average.

Who have been the best referees so far this year in Super Rugby?

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Another interesting analysis.
My concern about Walsh is that he arguably loses his bottle - I thought that's what happened to him on the Nonu shoulder charge on Saturday(?). I think he is a good ref apart form this possible issue.
Leckie seems to me to struggle to command respect and so maybe he has to resort to whistle more - I wonder if Jackson, having played at this level, commands instant respect and so needs to use the whistle less.
I like Jackson but I sometimes wonder if I only do so because he seems to love the job.

 

[Bowside]

I think Jackson lets too much go at times. Breakdown can turn into a shitfight.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I think Jackson lets too much go at times. Breakdown can turn into a shitfight.

that's the reason I was wondering why I liked him - sometimes its like he thinks he's still playing and someone else has the whistle

 

[yourmatesam]

Who have been the best referees so far this year in Super Rugby?

Not Jonathon White, that's for sure.

 

[Eyes and Ears]

Scott, out of interest, what conculsion are you trying to draw from this stat?
I think it would be interesting to overlay it against the number of tries in these games. I think it's possible that high penalties can lead to faster breakdowns and more tries. And low penalties can lead to more of a trench warfare style of game with slow breakdowns and impenetrable defences where there are few tries scored.
I have seen many entertaining games with 25+ penalties and 8+ tries.
Also I believe James Leckie has only had 2 games and so there is a greater chance for 1 game to affect his average.

 

[Scott Allen]

I wasn't actually trying to draw any wider conclusion apart from finding out who was awarding / conceding the most penalties.

However the question of tries scored relative to penalties in matches is interesting. I'll see what I can extract from the data.

 

[Eyes and Ears]

Thanks - I wanted to bring a different perspective to the thread as I feel with no conclusion, it can easily be read as low penalties means good referee and vice versa.

 

[yourmatesam]

Great point Eyes and Ears Less penalties does not neccessarily mean a better game does it. Another possible angle on this is the number of accrued advantages that occur during a match.

 

[elementfreak]

In my opinion the best referee this year has been Pollock. He has started off well again, he was the form referee in the first half of the year last year as well, and I hope he continues his good work.

 

[Scott Allen]

Scott, out of interest, what conculsion are you trying to draw from this stat?
I think it would be interesting to overlay it against the number of tries in these games. I think it's possible that high penalties can lead to faster breakdowns and more tries. And low penalties can lead to more of a trench warfare style of game with slow breakdowns and impenetrable defences where there are few tries scored.
I have seen many entertaining games with 25+ penalties and 8+ tries.
Also I believe James Leckie has only had 2 games and so there is a greater chance for 1 game to affect his average.

James Leckie may have only had two matches but so have others on the list so his numbers are relevant.

In terms of the number of penalties related to the number of tries scored in a match the data is as follows (I've only considered instances where the number of penalties has occurred in at least 4 matches of the 96 played):

15 penalties in a match (occurred 6 times in first 8 rounds) - average number of tries = 6;
17 penalties in a match (occurred 8 times in first 8 rounds) - average number of tries = 4;
18 penalties in a match (occurred 4 times in first 8 rounds) - average number of tries = 5;
19 penalties in a match (occurred 6 times in first 8 rounds) - average number of tries = 6;
21 penalties in a match (occurred 4 times in first 8 rounds) - average number of tries = 5;
23 penalties in a match (occurred 4 times in first 8 rounds) - average number of tries = 3.

After 8 rounds of data there only seems to be a drop off in the number of tries scored where more than 21 penalties are awarded in the match.

The average number of penalties awarded for the competition is 20 per match. In only 13 of 96 matches have there been more than 21 penalties awarded.

I'll have a look at this data again later in the year to see what changes.

 

[ChargerWA]

I don't expect you to do the stats Scott, because it would be a mammoth effort, but I would love to see the "cadence" of the penalties awarded.

It seems some refs give a heap of penalties at the start of the game to set the tone then back off as the game finds a natural rhythm and results in a better free flowing game.

I am one of the critical ones of Steve Walsh. His cadence appears to be if he hasn't given a penalty for 5 minutes he starts looking for the obscure ones instead of letting the game flow. I actually think he may be the best ref in the comp, but is too influenced by the knowledge that the IRB ref panel is reviewing his performance and doesn't want to be seen to miss penalties.

In part, that's also why I think Jackson will never go higher than S15.

 

[Rassie]

I have seen two games being decided by a referee making a decision over something that was not clear and obvious. Seen a referee totally making teams defenses seem extremely well drilled cause they have no control at the breakdown. I have seen two tries that were given American football style offside with kicks. I have props getting nailed for trying to stabilize a scrum and keep it from going down by using a last resort that is their hand on the ground. I have seen referees penalize scrums when the ball is still in the scrum halves hands... (scrum have not started yet according to the laws).

So we have a game where you can not use your feet in a ruck nor your hands and where guessing what the referee thinks is a situations is the norm. Add the slow ball and the cloggin up of the midfield plus the obstruction going on off the ball creating holes which is not picked up by ball watching officials and we have ourselves almost a game of rugby league.

 

[Gnostic]

This is becoming too much of a whinge fest against refs. some individuals in particular.

I for one have been much happier with the officiating this year than for many. erhaps because the directions given to the refs have been clearer and also because some the pressure on them has been alleviated by the fact they can refer to the big screen and TMOs.

The biggest problem with Rugby isn't the laws as they are written it is to borrow a term the "common Law" interpretations that have been allowed to creep into the game. The precedent based officiating such as that we have discussed in the Scrum thread and vociferously attacked by Brian Moore really has skewed greatly how the game is played and leads to these massive debates on the wrongs and rights of various decisions of the Referees. How much easier would it be to actually look at what 'common' Law interpretations are good and enshrine them in the actual laws and then enforce the letter of the law. I think the game would open up a lot and we wouldn't have this unwholesome debate and attacks on Referees who love the game as much as the rest of us.

 

[Rassie]

This is becoming too much of a whinge fest against refs. some individuals in particular.

I for one have been much happier with the officiating this year than for many. erhaps because the directions given to the refs have been clearer and also because some the pressure on them has been alleviated by the fact they can refer to the big screen and TMOs.

The biggest problem with Rugby isn't the laws as they are written it is to borrow a term the "common Law" interpretations that have been allowed to creep into the game. The precedent based officiating such as that we have discussed in the Scrum thread and vociferously attacked by Brian Moore really has skewed greatly how the game is played and leads to these massive debates on the wrongs and rights of various decisions of the Referees. How much easier would it be to actually look at what 'common' Law interpretations are good and enshrine them in the actual laws and then enforce the letter of the law. I think the game would open up a lot and we wouldn't have this unwholesome debate and attacks on Referees who love the game as much as the rest of us.

Don't you think people have reason to whinge? Its the quality of refereeing that is bad. Its clearly visible. IRB aiming for more ball in play add more rucks and more opportunity for a referee to be the deciding factor in a game. Rugby has come to the point where the one who adapts to the referee the best will be the winner which is wrong! He should not have so much influence in a game. It should be decided by the better team not the better one understanding the referee!

 

[TOCC]

When the NRL introduced the second referee there were some fearing that it would increase the penalty rate, which it hasn't...


Given rugby union now has the TMO's and assistant referrers so heavily involved in the game, I wonder if it would benefit include a second ref on the field, having an extra set of eyes but more importantly hacking a second ref there to talk to the players and warn them off potential impending fouls rather then the assistant ref calling it out afterwards.

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

o heavily involved in the game, I wonder if it would benefit include a second ref on the field, having an extra set of eyes but more importantly hacking a second ref there to talk to the players and warn them off potential impending fouls rather then the assistant ref calling it out afterwards.

I don't think it would work well in rugby union. The only reason you can do that in rugby league is because the offside lines are so far apart.

At the end of the day one ref would probably look better than the other, and everyone would say "Craig Jobert is fit enough, why doesn't he just do the whole game himself, the other guy was a level below".

 

[Gnostic]

Don't you think people have reason to whinge? Its the quality of refereeing that is bad. Its clearly visible. IRB aiming for more ball in play add more rucks and more opportunity for a referee to be the deciding factor in a game. Rugby has come to the point where the one who adapts to the referee the best will be the winner which is wrong! He should not have so much influence in a game. It should be decided by the better team not the better one understanding the referee!

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.

 

[Scott Allen]

I think the refereeing quality in 2013 Super Rugby has been good - the referees are never going to get it 100% right - that is not a realistic expectation.

Steve Walsh's performance this afternoon in the Chiefs v Reds game was very good.

 

[TOCC]

I think the refereeing quality in 2013 Super Rugby has been good - the referees are never going to get it 100% right - that is not a realistic expectation.

Steve Walsh's performance this afternoon in the Chiefs v Reds game was very good.

Yeah agreed, I thought his performance was very good as well