Refereeing decisions

[Th0mo]

I was likewise curious. Someone else mentioned that there had been a law change, but I never got a chance to check. From what you have posted (I'm assuming direct for the horses mouth), the law is still in place? Pretty big screw up if Wales played a whole 10mins with an extra player on the field.

This was crazy. Given the level of interjections from TMO offering the ref to check the number on Wales for the YC by way of a reminder would have been appropriate. The rule is black and white and requires no real time judgement so all 4 officials could be stood down, ref and TMO at a minimum.

 

[Eyes and Ears]

That would be completely over the top to dismiss all 4 officials. The referee made the call to not YC Wales as he decided that he didn't want to punish Wales by having 13 men for near on 10 minutes. No one other than the referee should be accountable for this decision.
The review question is whether the referee has this type of discretion in his game management powers. I suspect most of you will say the answer is No.

 

[Spruce Moose]

This was crazy. Given the level of interjections from TMO offering the ref to check the number on Wales for the YC by way of a reminder would have been appropriate. The rule is black and white and requires no real time judgement so all 4 officials could be stood down, ref and TMO at a minimum.

It will be because he just gave Wales a YC a few minutes before for cynical play and didn't want the NH media to chase after him by reducing Wales to 13 and costing them the game. The law book still says a ''A player guilty of this must be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off.''

I have brought it up before but its the same as refs not giving YCs for repeat infringements on the try line if the attacking team scores a try, its like all is forgiven and lets just move on.

 

[molman]

I have brought it up before but its the same as refs not giving YCs for repeat infringements on the try line if the attacking team scores a try, its like all is forgiven and lets just move on.

Not exactly the same, but yes it would be nice to see some of the cynical play near the line be punished. Some teams will cop the 3 points over the try as they often get away with it.

Having said that I also think the refs have gotten a little lazy in just saying any number of penalties in a period of time will led to the next infringement recieving a yellow, when I actually thought it had to be repeating the 'same' infringement. That's why I thought it was pretty poor form of Garces to warn the Fiji captain about the scrum infringements, saying said player would be off if it happened again and then give the offside player for Fiji a yellow.

 

[cyclopath]

I see your point, but how do you define a 'dangerous position'? How do you determine the level of control a player has in any collision?

I don't think there's a perfect way to do it, and accept the current situation has its flaws.

Lifted / flipped past horizontal - not too complex.
Why measure control? Too vague. Measure what they can see.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Classic jumping into contact in tonight's Southland v Bay game: Southlander jumps to take a pass (didn't really need to imo) & goes over the shoulder of a Bay player who would otherwise have tackled him around waist-high. Bay player gets penalised & pretty much told to be thankful it's only a penalty. Surely the penalty goes the other way?

 

[yourmatesam]

Having said that I also think the refs have gotten a little lazy in just saying any number of penalties in a period of time will led to the next infringement recieving a yellow, when I actually thought it had to be repeating the 'same' infringement. That's why I thought it was pretty poor form of Garces to warn the Fiji captain about the scrum infringements, saying said player would be off if it happened again and then give the offside player for Fiji a yellow.

I disagree here, if you look at a team like the AB's, there are trends to how they play in certain areas of the field and the infringments are different depending on a whole range of factors.

If the aim of the infringements is to slow the game down or provide an advantage to the defensive team (deny attacking opportunity), I reckon it doesn't matter if the infringement is the same or even if there hasn't been an infringement in that area of the field for a period of time.

The aim has to be to let the attacking team use the ball while the defensive team try and stop them - within the laws of the game.

 

[cyclopath]

I disagree here, if you look at a team like the AB's, there are trends to how they play in certain areas of the field and the infringments are different depending on a whole range of factors.

If the aim of the infringements is to slow the game down or provide an advantage to the defensive team (deny attacking opportunity), I reckon it doesn't matter if the infringement is the same or even if there hasn't been an infringement in that area of the field for a period of time.

The aim has to be to let the attacking team use the ball while the defensive team try and stop them - within the laws of the game.

Good teams, and the All Blacks are the archetype at this, know where to "risk" infringements better than most, based on field positions and what the likely / possible points concession might be. There was a great graphic a few years back about this. And this is a compliment. All teams will cynically infringe at some points, rugby is such a technical game that it almost invites it - some are just more scientific about it.

 

[Braveheart81]

The law around repeated infringements is 9.8, 9.9, 9.10:

9.8 - A team must not repeatedly commit the same offence.
9.9 - A player must not repeatedly infringe the laws.
9.10 - When different players of the same team repeatedly commit the same offence, the referee gives a general caution to the team and if they then repeat the offence, the referee temporarily suspends the guilty player(s).

So certainly there has to be some repetition either by the team committing the same offence or the same player committing different offences.

There is certainly a fair bit of scope for a referee to decide what constitutes repeated infringements before they issue a warning and then a card. I think it is perfectly reasonable that after a warning, the next penalty in the red zone results in a card regardless of what the penalty is for. A referee being limited to only handing out a yellow card if the same offence or same player commits an offence again seems like a recipe for cynical play by the defensive team to commit different penalties to frustrate the opposition.

 

[Derpus]

Good teams, and the All Blacks are the archetype at this, know where to "risk" infringements better than most, based on field positions and what the likely / possible points concession might be. There was a great graphic a few years back about this. And this is a compliment. All teams will cynically infringe at some points, rugby is such a technical game that it almost invites it - some are just more scientific about it.

Clever play but infuriating to watch as a supporter of the attacking team.

The Welsh seem to have developed a real knack for this, as well.

 

[molman]

I disagree here, if you look at a team like the AB's, there are trends to how they play in certain areas of the field and the infringments are different depending on a whole range of factors.

If the aim of the infringements is to slow the game down or provide an advantage to the defensive team (deny attacking opportunity), I reckon it doesn't matter if the infringement is the same or even if there hasn't been an infringement in that area of the field for a period of time.

The aim has to be to let the attacking team use the ball while the defensive team try and stop them - within the laws of the game.

You disagree because you like it refereed the way it is or because it's the actual laws of the game? I don't wholly disagree with you on the former except for my contention around consistency, but the later, it being the actual laws is where I have some issues and think this leads to questions over consistency, hence my comment about the referees.

The law around repeated infringements is 9.8, 9.9, 9.10:

9.8 - A team must not repeatedly commit the same offence.
9.9 - A player must not repeatedly infringe the laws.
9.10 - When different players of the same team repeatedly commit the same offence, the referee gives a general caution to the team and if they then repeat the offence, the referee temporarily suspends the guilty player(s).

So certainly there has to be some repetition either by the team committing the same offence or the same player committing different offences.

There is certainly a fair bit of scope for a referee to decide what constitutes repeated infringements before they issue a warning and then a card. I think it is perfectly reasonable that after a warning, the next penalty in the red zone results in a card regardless of what the penalty is for. A referee being limited to only handing out a yellow card if the same offence or same player commits an offence again seems like a recipe for cynical play by the defensive team to commit different penalties to frustrate the opposition.

Yes, but often it is 'different' players (the team) committing different offences, not the same player infringing the laws, so really how it is often refereed is an aberration from the law and an area of some inconsistency in how it is imposed.

I used the Fiji example of same player infringing in the scrum, warning that he'd get a yellow if he infringed again, other player infringes with offside and receives a yellow card. That outcome is not technically covered by the laws as I read them and it is not an uncommon scenario.

Don't get me wrong, I like the focus of reducing the cynical play and letting the game flow - maybe the laws should be tweaked to add clarity in this area, or to add scope for the team repeatedly infringing the laws in a short/certain timeframe, because really that seems to be how to refs want to use it.

As people have said, the AB's are masters of this in a defensive situation, but they often don't commit the same offence and/or have the same player infringing the laws. It's like they almost all take a turn to push the boundaries and at the end of the day you have to give them credit, they know the laws, they know the refs and they push as hard as they can like any champion (as much as I scream at my TV when it's against the Wallabies).

 

[molman]

Classic jumping into contact in tonight's Southland v Bay game: Southlander jumps to take a pass (didn't really need to imo) & goes over the shoulder of a Bay player who would otherwise have tackled him around waist-high. Bay player gets penalised & pretty much told to be thankful it's only a penalty. Surely the penalty goes the other way?

It's a tricky one that I'd have to see. As I understand it, If a player is jumping to take a pass (because it’s necessary) then that is normally allowed, if they are jumping into the tackle then that is dangerous play and not allowed. We can't have players bunny hopping around to collect every pass, but in some scenarios, it does happen and the onus falls on the tackling player to ensure a safe situation in contact.

 

[yourmatesam]

You disagree because you like it refereed the way it is or because it's the actual laws of the game? I don't wholly disagree with you on the former except for my contention around consistency, but the later, it being the actual laws is where I have some issues and think this leads to questions over consistency, hence my comment about the referees.

There's enough laws already, we don't need anymore.

What we need is referees who understand intent and allow the ball to be used as the attacking team wishes. We want attacking rugby, we want strong defensive structures to be tested and we want to reward positive play.

The only reason teams infringe is to gain an advantage. We're talking about elite level sportsmen and women here who train for this.

If a coach isn't coaching their team to exploit weakness in their opposition and take advantage of a referee, they're not doing their jobs. If players aren't playing to the conditions (weather, opposition, referee), they're not doing their jobs either.

The referee needs to do the same thing, be aware of what's happening on the field and make decisions accordingly. You can't write a law for that, it's about game awareness.

 

[yourmatesam]

Good teams, and the All Blacks are the archetype at this, know where to "risk" infringements better than most, based on field positions and what the likely / possible points concession might be. There was a great graphic a few years back about this. And this is a compliment. All teams will cynically infringe at some points, rugby is such a technical game that it almost invites it - some are just more scientific about it.

They deserve the wraps they get, they're a smart team and they know when to push the boundaries and when to play it safe. More power to them.

 

[molman]

There's enough laws already, we don't need anymore.

What we need is referees who understand intent and allow the ball to be used as the attacking team wishes. We want attacking rugby, we want strong defensive structures to be tested and we want to reward positive play.

The only reason teams infringe is to gain an advantage. We're talking about elite level sportsmen and women here who train for this.

If a coach isn't coaching their team to exploit weakness in their opposition and take advantage of a referee, they're not doing their jobs. If players aren't playing to the conditions (weather, opposition, referee), they're not doing their jobs either.

The referee needs to do the same thing, be aware of what's happening on the field and make decisions accordingly. You can't write a law for that, it's about game awareness.

I don't disagree with your overall philosophy, in fact have much the same thoughts (rewarding positive rugby), I'm unsure however where you have addressed my questions around how referees are managing infringements, specifically repeated ones.

You say teams must play within the laws (earlier post), then you say we don't need more laws (fair enough, are the current ones applied correctly?) and then outline why teams/players do this (which I totally concur with), but I'm unsure where you actually say what it is you disagree with specifically? or where you actually say anything about how you feel referees are going in this area of the game? If you feel there is no issue in this area, then great. Appreciate your point of view.

At the end of the day this thread is about refereeing decision and if within a game that has some scope for interpretation we feel that the decisions were correct within the scope and context of a given game (which as you say is the game awareness element), and if there are certain trends for an area of the game and what we think of those. I was merely highlighting what I felt to be some inconsistency in this area and illuminating what I thought didn't marry up with the laws as I understood them (which I was happy to be corrected on). Maybe calling the refs lazy, muddled what I was inferring around refereeing within the scope of what the laws really allowed (again, as I understood them).

All this talk of why teams and players do it, and what we should hope for as a general philosophy for this game I couldn't agree more on. Overall I tend to agree with Braveheart81 that I don't mind if they are going to ref this way, just that maybe things need to be tidied up (not sure laws as written clearly cover as applied) and that there seems to be some issues around consistency and communication in this area from say a Garces to an O'Keefe.

 

[Brumby Runner]

The law around repeated infringements is 9.8, 9.9, 9.10:

9.8 - A team must not repeatedly commit the same offence.
9.9 - A player must not repeatedly infringe the laws.
9.10 - When different players of the same team repeatedly commit the same offence, the referee gives a general caution to the team and if they then repeat the offence, the referee temporarily suspends the guilty player(s).

So certainly there has to be some repetition either by the team committing the same offence or the same player committing different offences.

There is certainly a fair bit of scope for a referee to decide what constitutes repeated infringements before they issue a warning and then a card. I think it is perfectly reasonable that after a warning, the next penalty in the red zone results in a card regardless of what the penalty is for. A referee being limited to only handing out a yellow card if the same offence or same player commits an offence again seems like a recipe for cynical play by the defensive team to commit different penalties to frustrate the opposition.

Sounds just like you're describing the ABs there BH.

If it is intended for repeated infringements to mean a succession of any type of infringement by any number of players, then the Laws need to be rewritten to reflect that.

 

[yourmatesam]

I don't disagree with your overall philosophy, in fact have much the same thoughts (rewarding positive rugby), I'm unsure however where you have addressed my questions

I thought it was fairly clear what I disagreed with. I don't think the referees are lazy (or muddled) in implying that any type of infringement that has a repeat element to it (time, location on field or type) can all feed into a YC or PK for infringing. The thought that a specific type of infringement needs to happen for one particular law to be classed as "repeat infringements" has not been the case for many years.

around how referees are managing infringements, specifically repeated ones.

I was merely highlighting what I felt to be some inconsistency in this area and illuminating what I thought didn't marry up with the laws as I understood them

there seems to be some issues around consistency and communication in this area from say a Garces to an O'Keefe.

Open the lawbook mate, there are genuinely multiple laws that are being broken at any one point in a game and the referee is going to call it as they see it. This "interpretation" can change from game to game, referee to referee and will even can change within the game. It's game awareness and I think the ARU and World Rugby are terming it as "contextual refereeing" or something similar this season.

The aim is to consider the infringement, think about the consequences of action vs inaction, proactive management vs reactionary measures and determine the best outcome.

Angus Gardner presented a really good video for the ARU this year, speaking about 4x examples of a potential forward pass in a game and what actions or inactions a referee might take depending on the 4x different situations.

There will never be consistency in refereeing, just as there is never consistency in playing. The best we can aim for is to minimise the difference between the best performance and the worst performance.

 

[molman]

I thought it was fairly clear what I disagreed with. I don't think the referees are lazy (or muddled) in implying that any type of infringement that has a repeat element to it (time, location on field or type) can all feed into a YC or PK for infringing.

Fair enough. I conceded my use of the word lazy was probably poor for what I was trying to express. I said as much in my last post. It probably steams more from frustration in how some refs communicate in this area and the inconsistencies I'm noticing.

The thought that a specific type of infringement needs to happen for one particular law to be classed as "repeat infringements" has not been the case for many years.

Then, this being the case would not some clarity be achieved by having the laws say such so that all those refs in different countries, competitions and levels are on the same page and thus minimising the differences. The game evolves, update the book to reflect that. Not to mention to assist the fans watching the game.

Open the lawbook mate, there are genuinely multiple laws that are being broken at any one point in a game and the referee is going to call it as they see it. This "interpretation" can change from game to game, referee to referee and will even can change within the game. It's game awareness and I think the ARU and World Rugby are terming it as "contextual refereeing" or something similar this season.

The aim is to consider the infringement, think about the consequences of action vs inaction, proactive management vs reactionary measures and determine the best outcome.

Angus Gardner presented a really good video for the ARU this year, speaking about 4x examples of a potential forward pass in a game and what actions or inactions a referee might take depending on the 4x different situations.

Don't disagree, appreciate the approach and role referees are trying to play and it was interesting to hear Angus discuss his concepts of dominance and how the micro decisions can affect a game with undue impact. No one is doubting it's an easy job and less so on an international stage and it is a balancing act at times.

There will never be consistency in refereeing, just as there is never consistency in playing. The best we can aim for is to minimise the difference between the best performance and the worst performance.

Totally agree. As Angus also said the best referees are those that make decisions that seem obvious, clear and logical which really is the crux of much of the discussion here.

As an aside, what is your view on how the breakdown is currently being managed by the referees?

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

It's a tricky one that I'd have to see. As I understand it, If a player is jumping to take a pass (because it’s necessary) then that is normally allowed, if they are jumping into the tackle then that is dangerous play and not allowed. We can't have players bunny hopping around to collect every pass, but in some scenarios, it does happen and the onus falls on the tackling player to ensure a safe situation in contact.

So if I'm a 9 throwing a flat pass to a unit running one-off I should aim at his head so he has to jump to take it just as he hits the defensive line. Got it.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Thought Berry was pretty good last night with some pretty tough decisions on his plate.

But this video will sum up refereeing in World Cup 2019 (shamelessly pinched off Reddit)
https://v.redd.it/0rpfjlzht6s31