Reboot topic:referees now decide games #2

[jgriffin]

I'm going to revive the topic I started a while ago - this is the season I predicted referees would be the main instrument of outcome (as opposed to the two teams).
I will play Owens, Rolland and Wigglesworth as my opening, with Walsh and Garner as my hole cards.

QED?

[Bill W (2)]

I'm going to revive the topic I started a while ago - this is the season I predicted referees would be the main instrument of outcome (as opposed to the two teams).
I will play Owens, Rolland and Wigglesworth as my opening, with Walsh and Garner as my hole cards.

QED?

w^5 Not!

[TigerinLowton]

The referees decide who wins the games, the players by how much!

[Billb]

I could add Barnes, Clancy and many more to this list.

You can also add the retired refs they drag back to act as TV refs. They stopped refereeing because they were going blind, and senile, so they give them the TV to act as a crutch, and they still get it horribly wrong. ( Clancy & the 4th official could not see the ball touched the hand before the try.)

Sadly, the standard of refereeing has been appalling for some time, and as with football, the referees hide behind the threat of disciplinary action if anyone dares to point out blatant incompetence. They cannot be challenged by clubs, and the TV commentators are told to keep silent as well.

[Bristol Tiger]

Playing the ref is as important now as it has always been. That has always been the case for as long as I can remember and pretty well at every level of the game too. Under Woodward, England had a video analyst for the ref as well as the opposition team.

All the refs mentioned are hardly "new" people that we don't know how they play, what they pick-up on, how influenced they are by the home crowd, etc. No excuse for not playing the ref correctly in the professional era.

Also, as Cockerill commented last week, you just have to play well enough to take the ref out of the equation. Don't do that and you'll be leaving the result in the hands of someone who will make mistakes.

So do referees decide games? Only if you let them ...

[jgriffin]

I would contend that in this day and age, consistency and adherence to the laws should not be impossible - playing the ref wil still occur but should be playing TO the ref, who should be not just arbiter but enforcer of the laws, not some :censored: 'interpretation' to let 'the game flow'.

[Bill W (2)]

I would contend that in this day and age, consistency and adherence to the laws should not be impossible - playing the ref wil still occur but should be playing TO the ref, who should be not just arbiter but enforcer of the laws, not some :censored: 'interpretation' to let 'the game flow'.

Agree totally JG. The problem IMHO with Owens and others "interpretations" is that they are different for either side.

[Bristol Tiger]

I would contend that in this day and age, consistency and adherence to the laws should not be impossible - playing the ref wil still occur but should be playing TO the ref, who should be not just arbiter but enforcer of the laws, not some :censored: 'interpretation' to let 'the game flow'.

Actually I'd contend that in this day and age it is harder than ever. Not only do the laws seem to change every season (or even during the season in some cases), there is some governing body telling referees what they need to focus on and how to "interpret" the laws (e.g. hands move backwards in a pass means not a forward pass??). These "interpretations" also seem to change every season.

Is it just referees causing the problems here or an over-zealous governing body (or three) that want a game that panders to the wims of the latest sports style gurus? So I would still argue that we typically know what the top referees are going to do so you need to play to it.

I do agree that it would not be beyond the wit of rugby kind to stick with a set of rules and make sure there is absolute clarity on what they mean ... which referees (like teams) could then practice getting right.

[Bill W (2)]

Is it just referees causing the problems here or an over-zealous governing body (or three) that want a game that panders to the wims of the latest sports style gurus? So I would still argue that we typically know what the top referees are going to do so you need to play to it.

I do agree that it would not be beyond the wit of rugby kind to stick with a set of rules and make sure there is absolute clarity on what they mean ... which referees (like teams) could then practice getting right.

The IRB change the Laws of the Game rarely. They do sometimes introduce "protocols" like scrum engamement - but even there it remains a penalty offence to push before the ball is in. The referees change their "interpretations" frquently and usually with no reference to the IRB.

A forward pass is still what it always was; a crooked feed has not changed in 50 years; offside is still off side (if you are in front of the ball carrier thou shalt not interfere with play and must retire immediately); and as the great C. Norling put it "if you are on the floor you are out of the game"!

Owens et al may have de facto "reinterpreted" the Laws - but the Laws remain the Laws.

[Bristol Tiger]

The IRB change the Laws of the Game rarely. They do sometimes introduce "protocols" like scrum engamement - but even there it remains a penalty offence to push before the ball is in. The referees change their "interpretations" frquently and usually with no reference to the IRB.

The IRB updated their "Laws of the Game" and republished them in 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2103. Since 2003 there have also been an additional 68 "clarifications". That is "rarely" in my book.

I was also deliberate in not stating the IRB though as I do agree, the referees are being given guidance to reinterpret the rules or to focus on certain areas (usually at the detriment of other rules). However, I don't think is individual referees but their collective body (or at least the head of their collective body ...).

And as for the forward pass rule, well we've debated that on another thread so I won't start here

[G.K]

It's a fair shambles across the board. The IRB should be ensuring the laws are applied fairly and consistently across all unions, they have failed to do this for many years now.

There should be sanctions against refs such as Owens, Rolland, Walsh et al that fail to apply the laws, or selectively ignore/interpret them, in the interests of 'making the game flow'.

This weekend we've seen another batch of bizarre decisions from Owens, players flying into rucks from all angles with leading shoulders going unpunished and player swearing at refs, just to give a few examples. It's ruining the game.

[Tigerref]

Do you really want the game reffed as per the laws? Really?

It would be a scrum and PK fest - you would go potty. I honestly don't think I've seen a breakdown that doesn't have at least 2 PK offences in it.

Refs make far fewer (or is it less?) mistakes than the players and get right criticised when they do. They also have a style. It is lazy and a cop out to look at others before you look at yourself.

[TigerAlex]

Do you really want the game reffed as per the laws? Really?

It would be a scrum and PK fest - you would go potty. I honestly don't think I've seen a breakdown that doesn't have at least 2 PK offences in it.

Refs make far fewer (or is it less?) mistakes than the players and get right criticised when they do. They also have a style. It is lazy and a cop out to look at others before you look at yourself.

What I would like to see is the IRB clarifying various laws to remove 'interpretation' from the equation. Players should not have to spend the first 10-15 minutes working out what the referee will and won't allow. It is ridiculous that coaches employ video analysts for referees. And then, yes, I would like to see the game reffed as per the laws. Sure, initially it would be a penalty and scrum fest, but eventually players would be forced to adapt, especially if it were they, rather than the ref, who were vilified for a game being a penalty bore fest.

[h's dad]

Do you really want the game reffed as per the laws? Really?

It would be a scrum and PK fest - you would go potty. I honestly don't think I've seen a breakdown that doesn't have at least 2 PK offences in it.

Refs make far fewer (or is it less?) mistakes than the players and get right criticised when they do. They also have a style. It is lazy and a cop out to look at others before you look at yourself.

What I would like to see is the IRB clarifying various laws to remove 'interpretation' from the equation. Players should not have to spend the first 10-15 minutes working out what the referee will and won't allow. It is ridiculous that coaches employ video analysts for referees. And then, yes, I would like to see the game reffed as per the laws. Sure, initially it would be a penalty and scrum fest, but eventually players would be forced to adapt, especially if it were they, rather than the ref, who were vilified for a game being a penalty bore fest.

A fine principle but haven't you noticed the amount of stick a referee gets when he does apply the laws in full (as far as he is able)?

[Noddy555]

But surely has'nt that always been the case, whilst people are questioning it now owes more to the improvement in technology than anything else. Replay, Ref
cam and audible microphones fitted to ref's are surely a good thing and explain's the refs actions to the players as well as to listening fans.
In any true sport the quality of the game is better understood by the participantsd and fans if reasons for the Arbiter's action are instantly fully explained. Although players & fans may disagree with the rule interpretation and the consistency of decision making by referees, they cannot complain about proper explanation.