Refereeing decisions

[Rob42]

That's a great post SFR. Agree. A better understanding of the system would lead to less bitching amongst fans, and some comments in the following week would assist in educating us.

 

[yourmatesam]

Re my comment about transparency -

Does anyone here know the full and proper process for the review of a referee's performance? Is every game watched? Super RUgby & Internationals? Is it reviewed on the night or view recorded broadcast?

No, we (as average punters) don't need to know what the outcome of each and every review is but it would be nice to know what the process is.

Does My Bray need to do a weekly report? Possibly not. But I did like the fact that he addressed some of the more controversial calls that have happened this season. IF this was to happen more frequently then I think that we would all learn a thing or two.

As I said in a previous post I spent a lot of time last club season talking to our local ref's. Generally asking them about rulings that they had made that I either did not agree with or did not understand, or in some cases, that I knew the answer to just wanted clarification. I learnt a lot and occasionally I think they did too because they got a different perspective. Some of them are happy to have the discussion once they realised that I wasn't just wanting to tell them they were wrong but wanted to learn.

Finally. I actually agree that the Ref needs to remain the 'sole judge of fact and of law' in a game. You need someone in charge. I also don't agree with people slaging off the ref because their side is losing or a decision goes the wrong way. It is a hard job. That is why we all don't do it.

I just think that education is the key. Of the referees, assistants, TMOs, players and above all US. If you see something that you don't agree with or don't understand, ask a question. Don't insist that the decision is wrong because as a spectator you can not see everything that is happening from the ideal angle. Neither can the ref.

Great post SFR, we need more people like you involved in our game. Every referee will make mistakes, we are only human. The more people that are open to talking to the referee in a constructive manner about the game in general, the better.

 

[suckerforred]

Thanks Rob42 & yourmatesam.

Another thing I possibly need to point out is that some times I make statements / ask questions on these forums to stimulate debate rather than anything else. This may have been one of those times.

I will defend the referee's right to blow the whistle to the death. I will also defend their right not to be abused or threatened by anyone associated with the game. But I also defend OUR right to question things that are not right with our code and that includes the referee.

 

[swingpass]

without wishing to blame the officials for the loss on friday, the rebels were once again their own downfall, the quality of the AR's input does have to be questioned in the light of the Kurt Baker citing.

the standard of the sideline officiating was poor. i felt the touch judges missed a number of more blatant offsides (highlanders and rebels) in the second half but penalised the rebels on two occasions which were really touch and go. the relevant touch judge referred the Leafa incident but missed the Stirzaker one, and anyway where was the penalty against the Highlander for loitering on the rebels side of the maul.

in reality the missed red/ yellow on Baker, probably did alter the outcome, and its not the first time this year Super teams have been let down by substandard officiating. i agree its a really hard job to referee, but the assistants are often just not up to the standard required. in effect they only have to watch out for straight throws at the lineout, offside, foul play and scrum infringements on the far side to the ref. not too much to ask is it ?

 

[Ruggo]

Re my comment about transparency -

Does anyone here know the full and proper process for the review of a referee's performance? Is every game watched? Super RUgby & Internationals? Is it reviewed on the night or view recorded broadcast?

No, we (as average punters) don't need to know what the outcome of each and every review is but it would be nice to know what the process is. There is apparently a process because this year we have seen the consequences of what we can all generally agree were poor performances. In the past, pre Mr Bray, any consequences of poor performances either did not happen or when they occured the referees 'apparently' just 'retired'.

As much as the 'public hanging' is not desirable I believe that it needed to happen in these cases to restore some faith in the system. The fact that in the past these changes have not been made until the end of the season has also added to the apparent opaqueness of the process

I take on board your point about the review of the elite players. But I would also like to point out the number of discussions there have been on this site, let alone others, as to the performance of said players. Tom Carter, Pat McCabe, Will Genia, Quade Cooper anyone? With the players however it is (should be) pretty clear. You don't perform, in the eyes of the coach, you get dropped.

Does My Bray need to do a weekly report? Possibly not. But I did like the fact that he addressed some of the more controversial calls that have happened this season. IF this was to happen more frequently then I think that we would all learn a thing or two.

As I said in a previous post I spent a lot of time last club season talking to our local ref's. Generally asking them about rulings that they had made that I either did not agree with or did not understand, or in some cases, that I knew the answer to just wanted clarification. I learnt a lot and occasionally I think they did too because they got a different perspective. Some of them are happy to have the discussion once they realised that I wasn't just wanting to tell them they were wrong but wanted to learn.

Finally. I actually agree that the Ref needs to remain the 'sole judge of fact and of law' in a game. You need someone in charge. I also don't agree with people slaging off the ref because their side is losing or a decision goes the wrong way. It is a hard job. That is why we all don't do it.

I just think that education is the key. Of the referees, assistants, TMOs, players and above all US. If you see something that you don't agree with or don't understand, ask a question. Don't insist that the decision is wrong because as a spectator you can not see everything that is happening from the ideal angle. Neither can the ref.

This is a great post. I don't know about higher levels but in the club rugby environment the refs are always happy to share and explain. Like yourself I have found this method to work. Sometimes you get fobbed off during the game not being the captain but if you knock on the door of the refs room after the game, they have always been willing to have a chat. Sometimes I find they feel the need to be authoritive in the public eye but if you take the effort to have a discreet chat they are very open.

 

[KevinO]

So both of these happened with in the first 5 minutes of the game, one receives a red card and one is completely fine.

 

[KevinO]

The worst one of the weekend

 

[Inside Shoulder]

The worst one of the weekend

what happened?

 

[KevinO]

what happened?

Was not even seen, player has been cited now, to think the Rebels should have had a man advantage for 70 minutes and only lost by 3 points.

The Ulster red card seems very harsh, I think the rules about 50/50 balls in the air needs to be changed. The player coming forward (defender) should have the right to play the ball first to avoid these mid air collisions where a player is soon going to get seriously hurt.

 

[Sully]

I thought the penalty in the Reds v Force game was harsh. My be my Reds bias though.

 

[GaffaCHinO]

Yeah I agree Cotrells yellow was very harsh


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[KevinO]

I thought the penalty in the Reds v Force game was harsh. My be my Reds bias though.

We are all a bit bias, I think the consistency of reffing is just all over the place in both NH and SH at the moment.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Was not even seen, player has been cited now, to think the Rebels should have had a man advantage for 70 minutes and only lost by 3 points.

The Ulster red card seems very harsh, I think the rules about 50/50 balls in the air needs to be changed. The player coming forward (defender) should have the right to play the ball first to avoid these mid air collisions where a player is soon going to get seriously hurt.

Well the tackler should have a chance to get over any niggling injuries on his upcoming holiday.
That is the worst I have seen for a long time - a lot worse than the McKinnon tackle from that other code.

 

[Sully]

Yeah I agree Cotrells yellow was very harsh


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I was surprised with that one. We couldn't believe they were wasting so much time over it and then they sent him too the bin.

But I was actually talking about the Placid - Morahan collision.

 

[ChargerWA]

It comes down to the probability of getting the ball. The one in the highlanders/rebels game, Buckman actually had hands on the ball. It was a genuine contest and no penalty is the correct call.

In the Reds/Force game, Placid misjudged the ball and was never likely to collect it. He had barely left the ground when he hit Hayward. There needs to be penalties in place to stop players just running back with the flight of the ball, not making a real contest for it and just clattering into the man in the air coming forward. It's not enough to say he had his eyes on the ball. If he's isn't up in the air contesting then he has a responsibility to stop, wait for the player to land and tackle him.

 

[Braveheart81]

@ChargerWA - I completely agree with your assessment of that issue. Placid had to be penalised as he was entirely at fault.

Marto was incorrect in commentary to say that it was fine because he only had eyes for the ball. All that means is that him taking Haywood out in the air wasn't intentional. It was still careless and dangerous.

There are laws specifically in the game for intentionally breaking the laws.

The other laws all apply regardless of whether you break them intentionally or accidentally though. Placid didn't make it to the contest in time and all he achieved was to take a player out who was in the air and had already taken the ball.

I thought the incident between Richard Buckman and Hegarty was correctly ruled albeit sad that Hegarty ended up injured. Buckman did compete effectively for the ball and had his hands on the ball in the aerial challenge. That interruption of grabbing the ball threw Hegarty off axis and resulted in him crashing to the ground awkwardly. Buckman was lucky though. If he hadn't been able to make a decent play on the ball then I'd put him in the previous category where all he achieved was arriving late to the contest and taking the player out in the air.

 

[Lindommer]

After watching the incident in the Payne/Goode incident in the Ulster/Sarries match at Ravenhill it soon becomes obvious Payne was bloody careless. To presume no one other than him would be trying to take that ball is nonsensical, someone should ALWAYS be competing for a hoisted ball as it comes down. IF Payne jumped for the ball as it came down and he had hands on it (or very bloody close) he could be adjudged to trying to catch it. But, he barely left the ground. For me his carelessness is summed up by the fact he was running forward towards the ball's landing spot and should've seen Goode somewhere in his peripheral vision.

Careless in the extreme. Tossup between a penalty and a yellow. Probably YC for mine.

 

[suckerforred]

I missed the first 15mins of the Rebels game so this is the first time I have seen the tackle on Stirzacker. But that footage has made me curious. Can the TMO, if they see significantly dangerous play, i.e. a tip tackle off the ball, notify the ref or do they have to be specifically asked? Having said that, in this particular case even the TMO may not have seen it.

With regards to players being 'attacked' in the air. I feel sorry for some of the players who get penalised as many times the contact is accidental and purely part of the contest for the ball.

In Placid/Haywood case - I thought the penalty was tough because I think that Placid was making a genuine attempt to compete for the ball ....... but, yes he could have been classed as careless in his attempt. Although not really agreeing with it I can accept a penalty in this case. (Have I got the same red glasses on that Sully has?)

In the Payne/Goode case - Since I am neutral, the red might have been a bit harsh as, if you watch carefully, Payne (the player in white) has his head turned away from where Goode is coming from. My point is that it is difficult for us to tell off footage, or for the ref to tell at full speed, if he saw the other player or not. I have no issue with a YC here because he quite clearly does not appear to be trying to hard to compete for the ball.

But now I raise another question - How do you, the ref and/or the spectator, tell when player is making a genuine attempt to compete for the ball and colides with the legs of another player who is better in the air, or the player is basicly being a bastard and making things difficult for their oposition by taking out their legs in the guise of competing for the ball?

As a hypothetical - If I was competing against Izzy..... at full streatch as far off the ground as I could manage I am likely to be just able to tip his ankles as he flies over my head to get the ball. Is it my fault and therefore should I be sanctioned just because I am not as good as getting off the ground?

I also did not see the Buckman/Hegarty incident but from all reports they both got hold of the ball so although the outcome was not ideal from Hegtary's point of view I could understand why there was no sanction.

Another question - If we are going to make all of these incidences yellow cards are we going to have yellow cards at every line out that a player is played in the air?

One thing that I do not want to see, which I think is creeping in with some acting by the agrieved player, is that the sanction changes depending on the outcome of an action. An action is dangerous not matter if the players escape with injury or not, e.g. tip tackles & high tackles. There are also times when a serious injury can occur purely as a result of an accident, e.g. comeone charging down a kick and copping the ball square in the face.

(As an aside - If I was anywhere around Izzy when there were bombs raining down I would not be competing for the ball I would be keeping the hell out of the way so he didn't land on me.)

 

[Braveheart81]

But now I raise another question - How do you, the ref and/or the spectator, tell when player is making a genuine attempt to compete for the ball and colides with the legs of another player who is better in the air, or the player is basicly being a bastard and making things difficult for their oposition by taking out their legs in the guise of competing for the ball?

As a hypothetical - If I was competing against Izzy... at full streatch as far off the ground as I could manage I am likely to be just able to tip his ankles as he flies over my head to get the ball. Is it my fault and therefore should I be sanctioned just because I am not as good as getting off the ground?

Another question - If we are going to make all of these incidences yellow cards are we going to have yellow cards at every line out that a player is played in the air?

I think it comes down to a judgement decision by the referee (upon looking at the replay) of how bad the contact was.

A player could conceivably hide their malice in taking a player out in the air intentionally if they keep their eyes on the ball the whole time but I think that would be difficult.

A genuine attempt also has to be realistic. I don't think you get immunity from the laws just because you were hoping to get to the ball. If someone else gets there a long time before you, you have an obligation not to break the laws of the game.

I think the penalty and nothing more was the correct decision against Placid but it had to be a penalty. He alone put Hayward in a dangerous position because he was careless. He has an obligation not to take a player out in the air and that is exactly what he did and he was nowhere near competing for the ball.

 

[gel]

must.

not.

bite.