• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

Refereeing decisions

Up the Guts

Steve Williams (59)
Finding the officiating of “a player not supporting their own bodyweight” frustratingly inconsistent. Can’t remember who the Highlanders’ player was but they secured a penalty for not releasing when their first action was to place their hands on the ground beyond the ball. Highlanders then roll up the field and FF (Folau Fainga'a) gets done for not supporting his own weight. I recall Tizzano getting done against the Reds, when there was no one even attempting to clean him out, and a few minutes later McReight is awarded a penalty when he did the same thing.

Players also seem to get away with pilfers where they are pretty blatantly using other bodies in the ruck to support themselves.

In my opinion, given the frequency with which players’ fail to support their own weight to the letter of the law, they’d be better easing off on the crackdown so as to avoid the inconsistencies.
 

LeCheese

Billy Sheehan (19)
Really disappointing outcome. I think most of the reds this season have been justified with the no-tolerance attitude towards head contact, but much of the palatability for how that's been implemented has been thanks to it no longer being a complete game ruiner. This is a massive step backwards imo. I'm becoming more and more in favour of a yellow, orange, red card system.
 

Jimmy_Crouch

Bob Davidson (42)
Really disappointing outcome. I think most of the reds this season have been justified with the no-tolerance attitude towards head contact, but much of the palatability for how that's been implemented has been thanks to it no longer being a complete game ruiner. This is a massive step backwards imo. I'm becoming more and more in favour of a yellow, orange, red card system.
Don't agree. I was a huge advocate for the 20min red card (and even suggested a yellow/orange/red system on these forums) initially but as the trial has continued it is clear it isn't a deterrent for players (or coaches to change technique). Referees are also more likely to dish them out and rule against mitigation as they don't have the same consequence.
 

LeCheese

Billy Sheehan (19)
it is clear it isn't a deterrent for players (or coaches to change technique)
I'm not so sure about this, the consequences of the red card are still pretty big for both the player and team - and if the refs are more willing to hand them out, then it's an even larger deterrent. I'd be interested to see the numbers of cards broken down by round - I definitely feel as though the number of reds decreased across the competition as the season went on and players adapted to the rules.
 

Braveheart81

James Horwill (77)
Staff member
I think Super Rugby Pasifika has detrimentally impacted the 20 minute red card trial for everyone wanting it to become the norm.

We've seen a lot of red cards and then bafflingly low suspensions (and sometimes a lack of red cards) for some pretty egregious dangerous tackles this season.

The Northern Hemisphere has definitely looked on what has been happening here and are taking the position that the 20 minute red card is making players behave more recklessly because it isn't enough of a deterrent.

Without looking at it in detail it does seem like we are having more red card level incidents in Super Rugby than they are having in Europe. That's certainly the perception anyway.
 

Derpus

Tim Horan (67)
I think Super Rugby Pasifika has detrimentally impacted the 20 minute red card trial for everyone wanting it to become the norm.

We've seen a lot of red cards and then bafflingly low suspensions (and sometimes a lack of red cards) for some pretty egregious dangerous tackles this season.

The Northern Hemisphere has definitely looked on what has been happening here and are taking the position that the 20 minute red card is making players behave more recklessly because it isn't enough of a deterrent.

Without looking at it in detail it does seem like we are having more red card level incidents in Super Rugby than they are having in Europe. That's certainly the perception anyway.
The main deterrent has to be suspensions and fines.

Refs aren't going to be able to consistently apply a complex framework under pressure consistently - ever. It's just no feasible.

The main deterrent needs to come after the game. Whether they keep the red or not.
 

dru

Rod McCall (65)
I think Super Rugby Pasifika has detrimentally impacted the 20 minute red card trial for everyone wanting it to become the norm.

We've seen a lot of red cards and then bafflingly low suspensions (and sometimes a lack of red cards) for some pretty egregious dangerous tackles this season.

The Northern Hemisphere has definitely looked on what has been happening here and are taking the position that the 20 minute red card is making players behave more recklessly because it isn't enough of a deterrent.

Without looking at it in detail it does seem like we are having more red card level incidents in Super Rugby than they are having in Europe. That's certainly the perception anyway.

I don't think its the players though, I think its the refs.
 

Braveheart81

James Horwill (77)
Staff member
I don't think its the players though, I think its the refs.

Isn't it? I think we've seen both a greater frequency of red and yellow cards and more incidents that were punished more lightly than they should have.

That would indicate that its players not changing behaviour more than the referees being the main issue.
 

qwerty51

George Gregan (70)
The dumbasses up north equate the increase in red cards with players being more reckless rather than referees being more willing to give red because there's less chance the game is ruined.

What do you mean punished more lightly than they should have? We just had 3 red cards that were deemed unworthy of red cards.
 

Braveheart81

James Horwill (77)
Staff member
The dumbasses up north equate the increase in red cards with players being more reckless rather than referees being more willing to give red because there's less chance the game is ruined.

I think it's two fold. They're seeing a bunch of incidents not getting carded that they think deserve red cards and still seeing a whole lot more red cards than there used to be.

There have been a number of incidents from Super Rugby this season that have ended up doing the rounds of Northern Hemisphere rugby twitter where people have been flabbergasted that a red card wasn't given.

I definitely think these things impact it.

They generally seem to have a very different feeling towards red cards than we do. The perception that red cards ruin games seem far more focused here (Australia and New Zealand) than anywhere else.
 

qwerty51

George Gregan (70)
That's hilarious (from them). They recently just had referees get talked down from red to not even penalties saying the high contact wasn't the players fault (common sense).
 

LeCheese

Billy Sheehan (19)
tip.png

Difference in angle is clear, and unquestionably more danger in Hooper's, but outcome should be the same in my eyes.
 

Serge

Ward Prentice (10)
Part of the frustrations for many viewers is the variation in decisions on nearly identical situations by different referees and their different game management styles - leading to different outcomes (many have already noted the variations in the refereeing of the attempted pilfer). For example, two Australian referees last weekend managed the rolling away from a breakdown on the attacking team's side quite differently, when the potential perpetrator in both cases was clearly doing his best to get out of the way but was being impeded by the attacking team. One referee's default was to immediately resort to the penalty advantage while the other referee managed the situation saying the player was making the effort to get clear, and later in similar situations telling attacking players they were holding players in. I submit that the latter referee's game management skills are far superior to the first and the consequent flow of the game reflected this style of management.
 

Eyes and Ears

Nicholas Shehadie (39)
Part of the frustrations for many viewers is the variation in decisions on nearly identical situations by different referees and their different game management styles - leading to different outcomes (many have already noted the variations in the refereeing of the attempted pilfer). For example, two Australian referees last weekend managed the rolling away from a breakdown on the attacking team's side quite differently, when the potential perpetrator in both cases was clearly doing his best to get out of the way but was being impeded by the attacking team. One referee's default was to immediately resort to the penalty advantage while the other referee managed the situation saying the player was making the effort to get clear, and later in similar situations telling attacking players they were holding players in. I submit that the latter referee's game management skills are far superior to the first and the consequent flow of the game reflected this style of management.
I guess it depends on how identical these situations really were as context is also important:
* What time of the game?
* Had this been a trend in one match but not the other?
* Could the tackler avoid falling in that area?
* Would it result in a shot at goal?
It is also possible that the referee who decides to penalise gets a better long term outcome as players know what to expect.
I prefer to embrace the different management styles to see what works rather than pick apart their inconsistencies. For me, this adds to my rugby experience not detracts from it.
 

Serge

Ward Prentice (10)
I guess it depends on how identical these situations really were as context is also important:
* What time of the game?
* Had this been a trend in one match but not the other?
* Could the tackler avoid falling in that area?
* Would it result in a shot at goal?
It is also possible that the referee who decides to penalise gets a better long term outcome as players know what to expect.
I prefer to embrace the different management styles to see what works rather than pick apart their inconsistencies. For me, this adds to my rugby experience not detracts from it.
Both first instances were nearly identical - within the first 10-15 mins of the game, no trend established, tackler made the tackle and in both instances immediately commenced to move out of the way, both were between the attacking 22m and half way but opposite sides if the field. Players know what to expect from listening to a referee's game management skills - players who choose to ignore referees game management direction then get sanctioned.
 

Braveheart81

James Horwill (77)
Staff member
It's a fine line in my view.

If the tackler gets themselves in a position that they're slowing the ball down and the attacking team then doesn't let them roll away easily, I am fine for there to be a penalty.

The onus is on the tackler to roll away. Ending up on the attacking team's side of the breakdown is often intentional and even if you then roll away, you've already slowed the ball down.

If they're there for long enough that they then get held in there by the arriving players then I think it is fair game to penalise them.

There's definitely times when the player isn't really in the way and the attacking team will try and ensure they are in the way and can't move then I think it is correct for the referee not to penalise and say that they're being held in.
 
Top