Refereeing decisions

[Derpus]

It might have affected the result but the Wallabies lost by a point due to a penalty goal at the death. It hardly ruined the game.

In fact the two matches where the Wallabies received a red card in 2021 were two of the best tests all year.

Contentious decisions that affect the result unquestionably damage the quality of a match, even if the players go on to play really well.

We aren't switching on to see what the ref does.

 

[Braveheart81]

Strange comment. Are you suggesting team numbers should be reduced to provide a better spectacle?

No, I'm just suggesting that this notion that red cards ruin matches is more often than not a furphy.

Neither of these matches became one-sided affairs due to one team playing with a player less.

Now people might be annoyed that there was a card and feel like it affected the result but this notion that the game was ruined doesn't hold true to me.

 

[Braveheart81]

Contentious decisions that affect the result unquestionably damage the quality of a match, even if the players go on to play really well.

We aren't switching on to see what the ref does.

We get contentious decisions in a lot of matches. In close matches they often have an impact on the result.

I'd argue that the Wales knock down that resulted in the try was a more contentious decision which had a clearer impact on the result.

So again, back to my point that the match wasn't ruined because one side had to play with 14. It absolutely made it harder for the Wallabies to win but it didn't destroy the contest which seems to be the central point people arguing against the use of red cards are making.

If we move to 20 minute red cards everywhere, the impact of that card will be reduced further.

 

[Derpus]

We get contentious decisions in a lot of matches. In close matches they often have an impact on the result.

I'd argue that the Wales knock down that resulted in the try was a more contentious decision which had a clearer impact on the result.

So again, back to my point that the match wasn't ruined because one side had to play with 14. It absolutely made it harder for the Wallabies to win but it didn't destroy the contest which seems to be the central point people arguing against the use of red cards are making.

If we move to 20 minute red cards everywhere, the impact of that card will be reduced further.

You are being too binary. It didn't destroy the contest but it certainly negatively influenced it.

But I agree with your proposed solution of 20 minute red cards - which we should already have.

 

[Braveheart81]

You are being too binary. It didn't destroy the contest but it certainly negatively influenced it.

A hundred different things negatively or positively impact matches. Some of these are things relating to referee decisions, a lot relate to player performance and some relate to more tertiary things such as crowd size and atmosphere etc.

The assertion being made is binary that red cards ruin matches. My argument is that more often than not they don't.

 

[Pfitzy]

Someone said this elsewhere, but I think we need to look at a middle ground, where red cards are used for the most heinous and deliberate crimes e.g. striking, knees, headbutts etc. Straight to the judiciary, no mitigation. You lose a player for the rest of the game.

In the middle we have tackles-gone-wrong and other scenarios. Player themselves sent off, replace after 20 minutes. Perhaps a judiciary visit as a lesson to others, mitigation pending.

Yellow cards as normal.

 

[Braveheart81]

Someone said this elsewhere, but I think we need to look at a middle ground, where red cards are used for the most heinous and deliberate crimes e.g. striking, knees, headbutts etc. Straight to the judiciary, no mitigation. You lose a player for the rest of the game.

Is creating this extra layer necessary though? These things happen so infrequently.

 

[Pfitzy]

Is creating this extra layer necessary though? These things happen so infrequently.

How often did red cards/send offs happen before the new framework? Or before the tip tackle framework?

The ABs can count theirs on one hand. England similar. Through their entire history.

The game has changed, and I'm not saying the framework is wrong in and of itself, but if we're going to judge intent: I think a bloke throwing a punch is different to someone slipping up in a tackle.

The Referees are already having board meetings on the field about "point of impact" and "mitigation" (which basically amounts to the ref telling the ARs and TMO what to think), and I just think we need a circuit breaker on what constitutes particular degrees of foul play.

 

[Braveheart81]

The game has changed, and I'm not saying the framework is wrong in and of itself, but if we're going to judge intent: I think a bloke throwing a punch is different to someone slipping up in a tackle.

That is an obvious one though. What happens when the ball carrier raises a forearm? Is that striking and warrants a full red card (it shouldn't).

My point here is are you just creating a new grey area of where the boundary is that is going to result in a bad decision? Is the downside of a team being able to return to 15 players after 20 minutes from a heinous act that bad?

 

[kiap]

Someone said this elsewhere, but I think we need to look at a middle ground, where red cards are used for the most heinous and deliberate crimes e.g. striking, knees, headbutts etc. Straight to the judiciary, no mitigation. You lose a player for the rest of the game.

In the middle we have tackles-gone-wrong and other scenarios. Player themselves sent off, replace after 20 minutes. Perhaps a judiciary visit as a lesson to others, mitigation pending.

Yellow cards as normal.

Straight to the judiciary, you say. No mitigation... Well, as soon as it goes to the judiciary there's always mitigation and the potential for the decision to be overturned.

Otherwise, there's no point in having a "judiciary".

Adding extra branches to the onfield decision tree doesn't make the onfield sentencing decisions better.

Only way this could make an improvement is if it's put forward (and accepted) as a sop to the home unions. -- i.e. instead of their complete veto of the 20 minute red.

 

[Derpus]

How often did red cards/send offs happen before the new framework? Or before the tip tackle framework?

The ABs can count theirs on one hand. England similar. Through their entire history.

The game has changed, and I'm not saying the framework is wrong in and of itself, but if we're going to judge intent: I think a bloke throwing a punch is different to someone slipping up in a tackle.

The Referees are already having board meetings on the field about "point of impact" and "mitigation" (which basically amounts to the ref telling the ARs and TMO what to think), and I just think we need a circuit breaker on what constitutes particular degrees of foul play.

I'm with BH - this just creates even more uncertainty.

Better to reduce the consequences of a red card and let the severity of a players punishment be decided by the judiciary.

 

[Pfitzy]

Better to reduce the consequences of a red card

Less likely to happen than my idea

I'm sure we'll have no issues as long as the red cards are applied consistentl-

 

[Pfitzy]

Let's face it: based on recent experience, the Wallabies need to do something about their lazy technique. That is a given. So many times this year I've seen these guys fly in for a monster hit and fuck it up. Yes you could argue in some cases that it was fine margins, but that's the standard so let's just get on with it.

However, if we keep the red card as it is - whole game, not just 20 minutes - I will eagerly await the moment of controversy that affects one of the Home Unions.

Especially Ireland. By fuck that will be satisfying.

 

[tragic]

Retired refereeing icon Nigel Owens has said he would not have awarded Nick Tompkins’ crucial and controversial try against the Wallabies – a decision Australia boss Dave Rennie was irate about in the aftermath of the game.
Owens has said he believes the ball went forward by Tompkins and believes it’s how most refs would have seen it.
“When you look at Tompkins’ face afterwards, I think he is quite surprised the try has been given. There are 28 other players on the field who have all pretty much stopped, expecting that to be a knock on.
“If I was reffing that game, I would have blown up. If you put that up in a room of 20 referees, most of them would probably call it a knock-on.”

 

[cyclopath]

Retired refereeing icon Nigel Owens has said he would not have awarded Nick Tompkins’ crucial and controversial try against the Wallabies – a decision Australia boss Dave Rennie was irate about in the aftermath of the game.
Owens has said he believes the ball went forward by Tompkins and believes it’s how most refs would have seen it.
“When you look at Tompkins’ face afterwards, I think he is quite surprised the try has been given. There are 28 other players on the field who have all pretty much stopped, expecting that to be a knock on.
“If I was reffing that game, I would have blown up. If you put that up in a room of 20 referees, most of them would probably call it a knock-on.”

That's the thing that is so strange about that call. Yes, with multi-angle slo-mo replays it can be argued that the ball went back on at least one view, but I doubt it would have garnered any controversy had it been called a knock-on straight away. Maybe only whether Tompkins copped a YC or not.

 

[wamberal]

That's the thing that is so strange about that call. Yes, with multi-angle slo-mo replays it can be argued that the ball went back on at least one view, but I doubt it would have garnered any controversy had it been called a knock-on straight away. Maybe only whether Tompkins copped a YC or not.

The player himself was certainly not convinced that there was no infringement, he slowed down and looked at the referee. Dead giveaway.

 

[Dan54]

The player himself was certainly not convinced that there was no infringement, he slowed down and looked at the referee. Dead giveaway.

Actually if you listen, the player actually looks at players and ref and says it went back before he runs on. I still don't know if it was backwards etc, I still disappointed that the players thought so and stopped instead of just tackling him!

 

[Lindommer]

Tompkins' try, I'm with Nigel on that one. Some of you may recall a flippant piece I put up on the referees' thread some years ago re balls going down from the hands in front of a player. I suggested refs carry a bricky's plumb weight (that solid bronze piece used to ensure courses of bricks are straight and vertical) and a length of string to ascertain if a ball travelled forward or backward from a players' hands when dropped. It is absolutely crucial to determine the point of dropping when said ball was dropped, NOT where the hands were when the ball hit the ground, that's where the ref had to hold the piece of string after unfurling it and attaching the plumb weight. Impossible. Same with slo-mos, by the time the ball hits the ground the recalcitrant player's hands are some distance forward of the position where they were when the ball was dropped, suggesting the balls travelled backwards when most times it didn't.

The solution is to presume ALL balls dropped in front of a player are a knock-on. In fact I'd suggest this be incorporated in a revision to the laws. Use a bit of common sense, iRB/WR (World Rugby).

 

[Brumby Runner]

I agree with the position of the hands etc Lindo. In the present case, even though Tompkins continued to move forward in the few seconds after dropping the ball, he still had to lean forward to secure it after it bounced. Sure, it could have bounced forward after dropping backwards, but highly unlikely at the speed he was traveling. Not only would it have to have bounced forward but also have gained a significant increase in horizontal speed to have overtaken Tompkins so that it finished in front of him.

Anyway. that's my take on it. Just a terrible error by the ref.

 

[KOB1987]

Adamson/Jonker clearly had a brief to get the home nation home. Ignoring the string of sealing off infringements by Wales after we hit the lead as the home team advanced downfield until finally he found a reason to penalise us basically 10m in front of the sticks for I’m not sure what is testament to that.