I have written some rubbish in my time - on this message board to name but one place - but the utter, utter drivel arising from the keyboards of the ill-informed masses who comment on YouTube clips makes me cringe.
G.K wrote:They are laws and not guidelines! Unfortunately far too many refs consider them to be the latter!
Like it or not, referees are game managers / facilitators.
Were every law to be rigidly adhered to, which by the way is impossible, then the game would be close to unwatchable.
I disagree - players would soon get the message if the laws were applied correctly and consistently, the end result would be better rugby as the continual cheating and slowing the ball down would not continue.
Nowadays referees decide matches, players by how much.
G.K wrote:
I disagree - players would soon get the message if the laws were applied correctly and consistently, the end result would be better rugby as the continual cheating and slowing the ball down would not continue.
There is no point in disagreeing about the referees being game managers statement - that is what they are told to do. You may not like it, but that is the way referees are expected to behave.
Were the basis of referee development to change to remove 'common sense' and 'feel' for the game (both of which I agree are subjective) then you would see an awful lot more of the man with the whistle. At all levels of the game. I'm not sure that players and spectators really want that.
G.K wrote:
I disagree - players would soon get the message if the laws were applied correctly and consistently, the end result would be better rugby as the continual cheating and slowing the ball down would not continue.
There is no point in disagreeing about the referees being game managers statement - that is what they are told to do. You may not like it, but that is the way referees are expected to behave.
Were the basis of referee development to change to remove 'common sense' and 'feel' for the game (both of which I agree are subjective) then you would see an awful lot more of the man with the whistle. At all levels of the game. I'm not sure that players and spectators really want that.
I am delighted that you have seen fit to return to the forum now that I (and others) have essentially left.
I am disappointed that in doing so you continue to push this referees as game managers rather than arbiters of the laws line.
The advantage law allows referees ample scope to signal an infringement but not blow the whistle and allow the game to flow (IMHO). There are subjective elements to the laws (how many millisconds must elapse before a tackled player must release the ball, or a tackler release the tackled player and roll away? etc) But "offside" and "not straight" are hardly so subjective and referees (again IMHO) do the game a disservice in ignoring them and, with respect, you do the game a disservice in defending them with the excuse that they are "managing the game".
I can accept a referee (and his assistants) being incompetent and "missing" an obvious offside or a not straight throw into a line out, or ........ I can accept a referee (and his assistants), through bias, allowing one side more leeway than another. To pretend that either (incompetence or bias) are "game management" to my mind pushes the bounds of credibility.
Bill W (2) wrote:I am disappointed that in doing so you continue to push this referees as game managers rather than arbiters of the laws line.
I am not so much 'pushing' the referees as game managers line ... I am highlighting the fact that referees have been given this role. One can debate whether or not this is a desirable outcome, but I see little point in denying the current reality.
I know refereeing is an extremely difficult job but it has become the most annoying part of the game IMO. Whatever their orders are from their superiors regarding guidlines to how they manage or enforce the laws, they are still incapable of any consistency or fairness. I don't know what others think but as a spectator I often think I know exactly what style of match I am going to see when I see who the referee is so what the players think I don't know. I suspect many look forward to a good old scrap on a Saturday and then see who the ref is and look to the heavens. I personally would like to see refs enforce the law when it is broken and other than that keep their mouths shut.
Bill W (2) wrote:I am disappointed that in doing so you continue to push this referees as game managers rather than arbiters of the laws line.
I am not so much 'pushing' the referees as game managers line ... I am highlighting the fact that referees have been given this role. One can debate whether or not this is a desirable outcome, but I see little point in denying the current reality.
Can you please provide the evidence/links that referees have been given the role of 'game managers', I for one have so far seen no statement to that effect from either the IRB or RFU.
Nowadays referees decide matches, players by how much.
G.K wrote:Can you please provide the evidence/links that referees have been given the role of 'game managers', I for one have so far seen no statement to that effect from either the IRB or RFU.
Referee development courses.
Conversations with referee development officers.
Conversations with others that have had the same conversations.
One observation about Owens & Manu tackle, Barnes etc that are claiming it a dangerous tackle and causing the injury to Wallace. Given as mentioned Owens ease at penalising England on saturday, after Manu had tackled Wallace he never indicated it to be a penalty or spoke to Manu about the tackle. The penalty that followed for Ireland was, i think, for offside in midfield by England.
Barnes, sky et al need to provide some more commentary on the match and less opinion.
The East Yorkshire Branch
Coalville RFC - "It's in the blood"
Hull Fan wrote:Barnes, sky et al need to provide some more commentary on the match and less opinion.
Indeed. As previously mentioned, they (Barnes & Pretty Boy Lazenby in particular) have had it in for Manu ever since he punched their beloved Chris Ashton and they cannot resist any opportunity, however slight, to have a go at him. Personally I think if Manu played for any other club than Leicester they, like Ashton, would have let the matter go.
Chris Ashton is grown up enough to move on - it's a shame those at Sky are not.
Whatever you do, don't argue. We might never hear from you again.
Ireland Vs England in Dublin? No such thing. 
