Top Bloke
Ward Prentice (10)
From the ABs perspective - the opposite is true - the 5 tests SD has done since 2008 have all been won by the All Blacks, I suspect they would have welcomed him in the RWC
RWC 2011 - Bitch, moan and discuss - Referees and Law Discussions
- Thread starter Lee Grant
- Start date
- Status
Yeah but how many tests have the ABs lost since 2008? 6?
I would suggest Stu is not the only ref to have a 100% record when reffing the Kiwis.
J
Jay
Guest
A
antipodean
Guest
Thanks for asking. I bother because I love the game, live in Australia, support the Waratahs, have played for clubs in three different states/ territories and enjoy discussing it when I can't watch it.
That's demonstrably false.
Top Bloke
Ward Prentice (10)
See below - this is one of the key focus areas, will be interesting to see if the refs do take it seriously.
The IRB has issued an amended memorandum regarding high tackles
"High Tackles:
At an IRB Medical Seminar held in November 2010 at Lensbury the results of studies by the Rugby Football Union and New Zealand Rugby Football Union concluded that most injuries in Rugby in the elite Game are now occurring as a result of high tackles. The participants generally recognised that tackles above the line of the shoulders have the potential to cause serious injury and noted that a
trend had emerged whereby players responsible for such tackles were not being
adequately sanctioned.
Dangerous Grasping:
A further trend has recently emerged in the Game whereby players not in possession of the ball are being grasped and/or grabbed by an opponent in and
around the neck and/or head area, principally in an effort to clear out players from the breakdown. While such behaviour does not come under the definition of a tackle, as no ball carrier is involved nevertheless, it is dangerous play under Law 10.4(e) and/or Law 10.4(f) (playing an opponent without the ball).
The purpose of this revised Memorandum is to emphasise that as with tip tackles, (see Memorandum of 8 June 2009) this type of dangerous play must be dealt with severely by Referees and all those involved in the off-field disciplinary process. As with other types of Illegal and/or Foul Play, depending on the circumstances of the high tackle or the illegal and dangerous taking out of players not in possession of the ball, the range of sanctions can extend from a penalty kick to the player receiving a red card.
An illegal high tackle to the head and/or neck area of the opponent (in particular involving a ‘stiff arm’ or swinging arm), bears all the hallmarks of an action which should result in a yellow card or a red card being seriously considered.
The grasping and twisting of the neck and/or head area of a player to effect either a tackle or to clear out a player not in possession of the ball should also be regarded as constituting serious Illegal and/or Foul Play and Match Officials and Judicial Personnel have a responsibility to ensure that the appropriate action is taken by them.
Referees and Citing Commissioners should not make their decisions based on what they consider was the intention of the offending player. Their decision should be based on an objective assessment (as per Law 10.4(e) and Law 10.4(f)) of the overall circumstances of the tackle or the clear out.
Paddy O’Brien
Tim Gresson"
The IRB has issued an amended memorandum regarding high tackles
"High Tackles:
At an IRB Medical Seminar held in November 2010 at Lensbury the results of studies by the Rugby Football Union and New Zealand Rugby Football Union concluded that most injuries in Rugby in the elite Game are now occurring as a result of high tackles. The participants generally recognised that tackles above the line of the shoulders have the potential to cause serious injury and noted that a
trend had emerged whereby players responsible for such tackles were not being
adequately sanctioned.
Dangerous Grasping:
A further trend has recently emerged in the Game whereby players not in possession of the ball are being grasped and/or grabbed by an opponent in and
around the neck and/or head area, principally in an effort to clear out players from the breakdown. While such behaviour does not come under the definition of a tackle, as no ball carrier is involved nevertheless, it is dangerous play under Law 10.4(e) and/or Law 10.4(f) (playing an opponent without the ball).
The purpose of this revised Memorandum is to emphasise that as with tip tackles, (see Memorandum of 8 June 2009) this type of dangerous play must be dealt with severely by Referees and all those involved in the off-field disciplinary process. As with other types of Illegal and/or Foul Play, depending on the circumstances of the high tackle or the illegal and dangerous taking out of players not in possession of the ball, the range of sanctions can extend from a penalty kick to the player receiving a red card.
An illegal high tackle to the head and/or neck area of the opponent (in particular involving a ‘stiff arm’ or swinging arm), bears all the hallmarks of an action which should result in a yellow card or a red card being seriously considered.
The grasping and twisting of the neck and/or head area of a player to effect either a tackle or to clear out a player not in possession of the ball should also be regarded as constituting serious Illegal and/or Foul Play and Match Officials and Judicial Personnel have a responsibility to ensure that the appropriate action is taken by them.
Referees and Citing Commissioners should not make their decisions based on what they consider was the intention of the offending player. Their decision should be based on an objective assessment (as per Law 10.4(e) and Law 10.4(f)) of the overall circumstances of the tackle or the clear out.
Paddy O’Brien
Tim Gresson"
Roundawhile
Billy Sheehan (19)
When was this issued?
yourmatesam
Desmond Connor (43)
I'm not sure, but I've seen this on the forums somewhere before.
Blue
Andrew Slack (58)
May I suggest you lock yourself up in a dark room for the next 2 months. You are clearly not going to be enjoying this as all.
Take a glass half full of water with you to see you through.
Bruwheresmycar
Nicholas Shehadie (39)
Most of your criticism is pretty sound. But the expectations seem a little high considering rugby is just a game that can only be reffed subjectively.
The refs are fairly consistent at the top level. (as much as they can be in such a subjective game)
Consistency is making the same ruling 100% of the time. In a game the ref will pick up most knock ons and they will call up almost any blatant offence. Whenever the refs miss one knock on, or one blatant offence, suddenly everyone cries "INCONSISTENT". Despite the fact that when you look at the big picture, they are making these calls most of the time.
Then comes the "effect" part of the reffing. Sometimes a player off their feet wont cause any harm and they will let it go. Sometimes players going off their feet will be majorly slowing the ball down, and the ref will be calling it for 80 minutes. Consistency and subjectivity just don't mix.
The guys at the top are consistent in the basics, and they perform to the best of their ability when it comes to judging the effect of an offence. I don't like the whole "inconsistent" argument, I don't think it holds much weight. Rugby was created to play for fun, it was never meant to be played professionally. If you want a game that is perfectly officiated, look at Chess. The rules can be objectively measured and it was intended that way.
It's fine to criticize refs. But there will always be stuff to criticize them for, offences occur all the time. Whenever a try is scored, anyone can look back to the last offence the ref didn't pull-up and claim "he caused the try to be scored"...At the end of the day, any of us that have played know that refs don't win or lose games. And these guys at test level get the best refs around. If people still aren't happy, what massive changes to this list of refs would they make? Complaining is pointless if there is no definitive solution.
The refs are fairly consistent at the top level. (as much as they can be in such a subjective game)
Consistency is making the same ruling 100% of the time. In a game the ref will pick up most knock ons and they will call up almost any blatant offence. Whenever the refs miss one knock on, or one blatant offence, suddenly everyone cries "INCONSISTENT". Despite the fact that when you look at the big picture, they are making these calls most of the time.
Then comes the "effect" part of the reffing. Sometimes a player off their feet wont cause any harm and they will let it go. Sometimes players going off their feet will be majorly slowing the ball down, and the ref will be calling it for 80 minutes. Consistency and subjectivity just don't mix.
The guys at the top are consistent in the basics, and they perform to the best of their ability when it comes to judging the effect of an offence. I don't like the whole "inconsistent" argument, I don't think it holds much weight. Rugby was created to play for fun, it was never meant to be played professionally. If you want a game that is perfectly officiated, look at Chess. The rules can be objectively measured and it was intended that way.
It's fine to criticize refs. But there will always be stuff to criticize them for, offences occur all the time. Whenever a try is scored, anyone can look back to the last offence the ref didn't pull-up and claim "he caused the try to be scored"...At the end of the day, any of us that have played know that refs don't win or lose games. And these guys at test level get the best refs around. If people still aren't happy, what massive changes to this list of refs would they make? Complaining is pointless if there is no definitive solution.
Top Bloke
Ward Prentice (10)
4th August - It replaces one issued Jan 2011
elementfreak
Trevor Allan (34)
Great post.
At the Level 1 referees course (1 day) you learn the laws and where to stand and then get sent out to referee a game.
At the level 2 course (2 days) it's all about learning how "not to play a penalty" through management and looking at the bigger picture.
The level 3 course is a full year and is by invitation only. I am unsure what happens there though, I know you need to complete 11 small projects and 1 big project about any subject you want.
Lee Grant
John Eales (66)
The refereeing was top drawer on Friday and Saturday. Like the players they looked in top form for the tournament.
Of all people (since I usually don't rate him) Bryce Lawrence had a superb game. He gave the attacking team every chance to get clean ball at the breakdown and consistently pinged transgressors right until the end of the game.
Steve Walsh was very sharp in the France game and didn't talk too much, and Nigel Owens communicated with the players a lot better instead of lecturing them in the Fiji match.
Well done those men.
Of all people (since I usually don't rate him) Bryce Lawrence had a superb game. He gave the attacking team every chance to get clean ball at the breakdown and consistently pinged transgressors right until the end of the game.
Steve Walsh was very sharp in the France game and didn't talk too much, and Nigel Owens communicated with the players a lot better instead of lecturing them in the Fiji match.
Well done those men.
Thomond78
Colin Windon (37)
August the 4th. I put it up about three weeks ago, under a thread title along the lines of "Orders from
Paddy O'Brian".
Keep up at the back, FFS!
I especially liked Walsh's showing. He seemed to have genuine interest in making the game flow. Also his shutdown of the Japanese prop trying to waste time was gold
Hawko
Tony Shaw (54)
Whether a dummy runner in front of the carrying player has impeded the defence rather than just confused it is a very subjective question. One man's impeded is another man's confused. Personally I am quite happy they seem to have tightened up on the practice, defences should have a clear view and clear run towards the attacking ball carrier. The dummy runner has been getting the best of the deal for some time, I'm happy that the pendulum is moving back towards the centre and just hope it doesn't overshoot.
Lee Grant
John Eales (66)
It's a chicken and the egg thing isn't it?
The law indicates that a player shouldn't run in front of the ball - then we punters judge whether or not a defender was impeded. We analyse if further as to whether there was a physical impedance or a visual impedance. If it was a visual impedance attackers would argue that it should be allowed, but defenders would argue that the visual impedance was created by an illegality: running in front of the ball carrier, often blocking the view of the defender, thus it should be pinged ipso facto.
How the world has turned. Everybody was pointing their fingers at the Brumbies about 10 years ago, then all teams started doing illegal dummy runs in front of the line of the ball carrier and therefore against the letter of the law. It became one of those things allowed by referees and became quasi-legal.
Now the crackdown on it has changed matters. Why this wasn't done years ago, instead of at a RWC, deserves censure, but the idea of crackdowns in general has my vote these days.
Lets have more of them after the RWC.
The law indicates that a player shouldn't run in front of the ball - then we punters judge whether or not a defender was impeded. We analyse if further as to whether there was a physical impedance or a visual impedance. If it was a visual impedance attackers would argue that it should be allowed, but defenders would argue that the visual impedance was created by an illegality: running in front of the ball carrier, often blocking the view of the defender, thus it should be pinged ipso facto.
How the world has turned. Everybody was pointing their fingers at the Brumbies about 10 years ago, then all teams started doing illegal dummy runs in front of the line of the ball carrier and therefore against the letter of the law. It became one of those things allowed by referees and became quasi-legal.
Now the crackdown on it has changed matters. Why this wasn't done years ago, instead of at a RWC, deserves censure, but the idea of crackdowns in general has my vote these days.
Lets have more of them after the RWC.
C
chief
Guest
The Wallabies are going to have to learn to keep their feet. I look forward to the Wales v South Africa game this evening to see how Barnes policies it.
Rolland was strict, very strict. He relaxed a bit in the 2nd half.
Good accuracy from all refs, but I'd like to see more cards come out. It's been frustrating to see so many penealties come yet no cards and all penalty kicks. Walsh did it yesterday, Lawrence did it yesterday, and Rolland did it today.
- Status