How times have changed..

Forum to discuss everything that is Tigers related

Moderators: Tigerbeat, Rizzo, Tigers Press Office, Tigers Webmaster

kk20gb30
Super User
Super User
Posts: 2887
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2017 1:01 pm
Location: Over The Hills & Far Away

Re: How times have changed..

Post by kk20gb30 »

Tigerbeat wrote: Thu Jul 23, 2020 7:15 am
kk20gb30 wrote: Thu Jul 23, 2020 7:12 am Player Welfare obviously important and correct that dangerous play has been outlawed , but without question our game has been 'sanitized' and not always for the better....
You say not always for the better......what in your opinion do you think should be put back in the game?
...pace , tempo and flow to the game .I certainly do not advocate mindless 'headless chicken' or 'Roid-rage' type aggression but our game has become almost staccato in nature.Looking back , the traditional strengths of the Northern Hemisphere game were still there for all to see but it is undeniable that the game was so much quicker.Difficult , I know with rules (with regard to safety) and directives to referees but the game should not just be for the purist or for those with the greatest understanding of its laws It has to be watchable to gain a greater and wider following.
Seemingly heading rapidly toward senility .....Not long or far to go now , in fact, getting worse daily.....
Mark62
Super User
Super User
Posts: 4168
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2017 4:16 pm

Re: How times have changed..

Post by Mark62 »

Longshanks wrote: Thu Jul 23, 2020 9:54 am
Mark62 wrote: Thu Jul 23, 2020 9:45 am What do forum users think of the trial in New Zealand with 20 minutes for a red card. I’m in favour for certain transgressions, such as 2 technical offences, or a miss timed tackle , or miss timed challenge for a ball in the air.
Serious foul play should still mean off for the rest of the match.
There is some merit in another level of sanction but I wouldn't call it a Red Card - those should be clear-cut decisions, off for the rest of the match, automatic disciplinary panel, etc,

Whatever measures are trialled, priority needs to be given to speed of decision making. More downtime while officials debate and replay alleged offences ad nauseam has to be avoided.
Totally agree with both your points.
I just think back to the Spencer red v Wasps, no intent ruined the game as a spectacle, 20 minutes on the naughty seat and then back you go.
mol2
Super User
Super User
Posts: 4581
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 5:48 pm
Location: Cosby

Re: How times have changed..

Post by mol2 »

Mark62 wrote: Thu Jul 23, 2020 9:45 am What do forum users think of the trial in New Zealand with 20 minutes for a red card. I’m in favour for certain transgressions, such as 2 technical offences, or a miss timed tackle , or miss timed challenge for a ball in the air.
Serious foul play should still mean off for the rest of the match.
I don't think a red card is a good punishment for an error. It should be for serious foul play and not for mis-timed tackles.
A second yellow would be a good option.
Red card sanctions perhaps should be carefully reviewd by the TMO and downgraded if other angles suggest not a red card offense or accidental foul) They are going to get 10 mins for a yellow anyway and that is ample time to review ith thoroughly without stopping the game too long. TMO can then contact ref to discus and anul the red or downgrade to yellow. I don't like the current situation when TMOs start trying to get the ref to upgrade from penalty to yellow or yellow to red. That has to be the ref's call alone and I'd like to keep it that way with the TMO having the option (a bit like a 3rd umpire referral in cricket) to find an angle that demonstrates a reason for the ref to reverse their sanction if clear evidence is present.

Loose fitting shirts to enable binding and tackling. A fat prop in a cat suit really isn't a pleasant site but on a more serious note the difficulty grasping a shirt does put an emphasis on collision rather than tackling. The time wasted in scrums is too much and accidental collapses because there is just a bit of slippery licra to bind to is clearly an issue. It would become obvious that a player had released - penalty rather than being sanctioned for simply failing to get a good grip on tight cloth designed to prevent gripping.

Yellow for any player who yaps at the ref. (further 10m for any dissent and if 10m crosses the tryline ->penalty try)Only players allowed to initiate conversation with ref should be the captains. The ref may then choose to converse with player if they want. Only exeption might be to highlight a serious injury. I recall YBY getting yellow carded for throwing the ball away in an England game yet not even a penalty for Biggar's antics.

I don't like the running jumps used by some backs (Like George North) who tend to leap up and forwards to prevent anyone competing for the ball, often with a raised knee. I would change it so that if the player was going to land more than 2m from the take off point the opponent can't be penalised for being in the space the jumper is landing in.
Last edited by mol2 on Thu Jul 23, 2020 10:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
TigerFeetSteve
Super User
Super User
Posts: 7413
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2020 6:23 am

Re: How times have changed..

Post by TigerFeetSteve »

What I'd like to see is TMO and match officials, judge an offense yellow or above, give a yellow, then a second TMO reviews the offense having 10 minutes to review all angles slowly without pressure, at the end of 10, the player is either allowed back on the pitch or the card is upgraded. Main TMO and match officials are then free quite quickly to restart the game
Used to run around with an 11, 14 or 15 on my back.
Cagey Tiger
Super User
Super User
Posts: 2304
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 2:27 pm
Location: South Lincolnshire

Re: How times have changed..

Post by Cagey Tiger »

Yet again, there are people wanting intent to be considered when looking at dangerous tackles etc. Sometimes the intent us obvious and sometimes it is obvious there was no intent. However there are many times you cannot be sure if there was intent if not, so how are you going to decide if there was intent or not? The refs immediate feeling? Over to the TMO? Something else? Whichever way is a recipe for complaints, appeals to disciplinary committees and manipulation by players. You have to penalise everyone, regardless of intent, or no-one.

Yes, there will be some who obviously had no intention of committing the offence, but if penalising them (along with the rest) leads to a reduction in very dangerous play, you either accept that or leave the Wild West to continue.
Mark62
Super User
Super User
Posts: 4168
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2017 4:16 pm

Re: How times have changed..

Post by Mark62 »

mol2 wrote: Thu Jul 23, 2020 10:35 am
Mark62 wrote: Thu Jul 23, 2020 9:45 am What do forum users think of the trial in New Zealand with 20 minutes for a red card. I’m in favour for certain transgressions, such as 2 technical offences, or a miss timed tackle , or miss timed challenge for a ball in the air.
Serious foul play should still mean off for the rest of the match.
I don't think a red card is a good punishment for an error. It should be for serious foul play and not for mis-timed tackles.
A second yellow would be a good option.
Red card sanctions perhaps should be carefully reviewd by the TMO and downgraded if other angles suggest not a red card offense or accidental foul) They are going to get 10 mins for a yellow anyway and that is ample time to review ith thoroughly without stopping the game too long. TMO can then contact ref to discus and anul the red or downgrade to yellow. I don't like the current situation when TMOs start trying to get the ref to upgrade from penalty to yellow or yellow to red. That has to be the ref's call alone and I'd like to keep it that way with the TMO having the option (a bit like a 3rd umpire referral in cricket) to find an angle that demonstrates a reason for the ref to reverse their sanction if clear evidence is present.

Loose fitting shirts to enable binding and tackling. A fat prop in a cat suit really isn't a pleasant site but on a more serious note the difficulty grasping a shirt does put an emphasis on collision rather than tackling. The time wasted in scrums is too much and accidental collapses because there is just a bit of slippery licra to bind to is clearly an issue. It would become obvious that a player had released - penalty rather than being sanctioned for simply failing to get a good grip on tight cloth designed to prevent gripping.

Yellow for any player who yaps at the ref. (further 10m for any dissent and if 10m crosses the tryline ->penalty try)Only players allowed to initiate conversation with ref should be the captains. The ref may then choose to converse with player if they want. Only exeption might be to highlight a serious injury. I recall YBY getting yellow carded for throwing the ball away in an England game yet not even a penalty for Biggar's antics.

I don't like the running jumps used by some backs (Like George North) who tend to leap up and forwards to prevent anyone competing for the ball, often with a raised knee. I would change it so that if the player was going to land more than 2m from the take off point the opponent can't be penalised for being in the space the jumper is landing in.
I take your point about the running jump, but who’s going to adjudicate on that. Oh come on ref I only jumped 1.85 meters and he was in my landing zone, potentially makes life more difficult for the officials.
If people see a problem with the jump with 1 knee out, personally I don’t, the you either ban jumping for a kicked ball all together or it has to be a 2 footed vertical jump.
What I would like to see policed better is players jumping into tackles, which seems to be creeping back into the game.
Longshanks
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 771
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 7:52 pm
Location: Newcastle

Re: How times have changed..

Post by Longshanks »

Unfortunately some referees are guilty of encouraging, inadvertently perhaps, this chat with players which too often crosses the line into argument or dissent. Referees calling players by their first names or "mate" erodes what should be an arms length relationship where discipline can readily be discharged. I'm not saying everyone must call the Referee "Sir" but there should be a respectful distance between players and those officiating.
HandOfBack
Tiger Cub
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2020 1:30 am

Re: How times have changed..

Post by HandOfBack »

TigerFeetSteve wrote: Thu Jul 23, 2020 10:46 am What I'd like to see is TMO and match officials, judge an offense yellow or above, give a yellow, then a second TMO reviews the offense having 10 minutes to review all angles slowly without pressure, at the end of 10, the player is either allowed back on the pitch or the card is upgraded. Main TMO and match officials are then free quite quickly to restart the game
This! If a ref is considering a red, then it is clearly at least a yellow. Sin Bin them for 10 and Give TMO time to review footage and relay decision to ref if it is a red and the player is not to come back on.

As it tends to be the refs decision - or in the questioning - there would maybe need to be a set question guideline.
i.e. "I have given a yellow for now, but could you please look into whether this is a red card offence? I believe there is contact with the head, could you check First Point of contact, Swinging Arm or if there are any mitigating factors such as the player falling into the tackle"

Shows ref has acknowledged it, explained it clear and decision is now in the TMOs hands, and stops there being a 5 min TMO review.
Mark62
Super User
Super User
Posts: 4168
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2017 4:16 pm

Re: How times have changed..

Post by Mark62 »

Longshanks wrote: Thu Jul 23, 2020 11:18 am Unfortunately some referees are guilty of encouraging, inadvertently perhaps, this chat with players which too often crosses the line into argument or dissent. Referees calling players by their first names or "mate" erodes what should be an arms length relationship where discipline can readily be discharged. I'm not saying everyone must call the Referee "Sir" but there should be a respectful distance between players and those officiating.
Again imo I like the use of first names, it makes players more identifiable, and Dan you’re off your feet has more impact than number 3 you’re off your feet.
Just because you’re called by your first name, doesn’t mean you shouldn’t show the referee respect, and still call them Sir, or possibly Maam :smt023
Longshanks
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 771
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 7:52 pm
Location: Newcastle

Re: How times have changed..

Post by Longshanks »

Mark62 wrote: Thu Jul 23, 2020 11:25 am
Longshanks wrote: Thu Jul 23, 2020 11:18 am Unfortunately some referees are guilty of encouraging, inadvertently perhaps, this chat with players which too often crosses the line into argument or dissent. Referees calling players by their first names or "mate" erodes what should be an arms length relationship where discipline can readily be discharged. I'm not saying everyone must call the Referee "Sir" but there should be a respectful distance between players and those officiating.
Again imo I like the use of first names, it makes players more identifiable, and Dan you’re off your feet has more impact than number 3 you’re off your feet.
Just because you’re called by your first name, doesn’t mean you shouldn’t show the referee respect, and still call them Sir, or possibly Maam :smt023
I am not convinced that human nature allows the relationship to work properly that way. For me, the first names thing is symbolic of a hierarchy gone wrong and some players are confused by it, misinterpreting the modern refereeing style as an invitation to challenge. I don't know of a way to combat this confusion other than by trying to re-establish some boundaries.
Mark62
Super User
Super User
Posts: 4168
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2017 4:16 pm

Re: How times have changed..

Post by Mark62 »

Longshanks wrote: Thu Jul 23, 2020 11:46 am
Mark62 wrote: Thu Jul 23, 2020 11:25 am
Longshanks wrote: Thu Jul 23, 2020 11:18 am Unfortunately some referees are guilty of encouraging, inadvertently perhaps, this chat with players which too often crosses the line into argument or dissent. Referees calling players by their first names or "mate" erodes what should be an arms length relationship where discipline can readily be discharged. I'm not saying everyone must call the Referee "Sir" but there should be a respectful distance between players and those officiating.
Again imo I like the use of first names, it makes players more identifiable, and Dan you’re off your feet has more impact than number 3 you’re off your feet.
Just because you’re called by your first name, doesn’t mean you shouldn’t show the referee respect, and still call them Sir, or possibly Maam :smt023
I am not convinced that human nature allows the relationship to work properly that way. For me, the first names thing is symbolic of a hierarchy gone wrong and some players are confused by it, misinterpreting the modern refereeing style as an invitation to challenge. I don't know of a way to combat this confusion other than by trying to re-establish some boundaries.
Obviously you have your point of view which I respect. For me that is quite a Dickensian way of looking at things. We are trying to modernise the game, but professional players should know who’s in charge, before they take to the field, and act accordingly
It shouldn’t matter whether the ref calls your name, number, or shouts Oi You.
If you notice when dealing with disciplinary issues via the captain, the Ref will always say I want to speak to number 1 not I want to speak to Ellis.
Longshanks
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 771
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 7:52 pm
Location: Newcastle

Re: How times have changed..

Post by Longshanks »

Mark62 wrote: Thu Jul 23, 2020 12:01 pm
Longshanks wrote: Thu Jul 23, 2020 11:46 am
Mark62 wrote: Thu Jul 23, 2020 11:25 am

Again imo I like the use of first names, it makes players more identifiable, and Dan you’re off your feet has more impact than number 3 you’re off your feet.
Just because you’re called by your first name, doesn’t mean you shouldn’t show the referee respect, and still call them Sir, or possibly Maam :smt023
I am not convinced that human nature allows the relationship to work properly that way. For me, the first names thing is symbolic of a hierarchy gone wrong and some players are confused by it, misinterpreting the modern refereeing style as an invitation to challenge. I don't know of a way to combat this confusion other than by trying to re-establish some boundaries.
Obviously you have your point of view which I respect. For me that is quite a Dickensian way of looking at things. We are trying to modernise the game, but professional players should know who’s in charge, before they take to the field, and act accordingly
It shouldn’t matter whether the ref calls your name, number, or shouts Oi You.
If you notice when dealing with disciplinary issues via the captain, the Ref will always say I want to speak to number 1 not I want to speak to Ellis.
Likewise, I completely understand and respect your point. I too would prefer the modern approach but there is something about the current Referee - Player dynamic that isn't working for whichever reason.

All I'm suggesting as a counter-point is that repeatedly disciplining players who in the heat of battle speak out of turn may not be the approach that works on it's own.
mol2
Super User
Super User
Posts: 4581
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 5:48 pm
Location: Cosby

Re: How times have changed..

Post by mol2 »

It should be a matter of absolute certainty that you do not address the ref other than through the captain.

I hate to hear players going "Sir, Sir he's offside" but questioning the authority of the ref is unnaceptable and becoming far too much of a norm in the professional game which sets a bad example at junior level. In days gone by juniors soon learned that questioning the ref resulted in pain. The current generation of players have grown up in an environment where yapping at the ref isn't punished in the same way. Rugby cannot let their heros set a bad example.
Mark62
Super User
Super User
Posts: 4168
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2017 4:16 pm

Re: How times have changed..

Post by Mark62 »

mol2 wrote: Thu Jul 23, 2020 1:01 pm It should be a matter of absolute certainty that you do not address the ref other than through the captain.

I hate to hear players going "Sir, Sir he's offside" but questioning the authority of the ref is unnaceptable and becoming far too much of a norm in the professional game which sets a bad example at junior level. In days gone by juniors soon learned that questioning the ref resulted in pain. The current generation of players have grown up in an environment where yapping at the ref isn't punished in the same way. Rugby cannot let their heros set a bad example.
I take your point, but I also feel that officials should become more accountable for their performances, and maybe if this was the case players would feel less likely to question all the time, just a thought.
If a cricket test umpire has a shocker, then they are sometimes stood down from the next Test.
Longshanks
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 771
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 7:52 pm
Location: Newcastle

Re: How times have changed..

Post by Longshanks »

Mark62 wrote: Thu Jul 23, 2020 1:09 pm
mol2 wrote: Thu Jul 23, 2020 1:01 pm It should be a matter of absolute certainty that you do not address the ref other than through the captain.

I hate to hear players going "Sir, Sir he's offside" but questioning the authority of the ref is unnaceptable and becoming far too much of a norm in the professional game which sets a bad example at junior level. In days gone by juniors soon learned that questioning the ref resulted in pain. The current generation of players have grown up in an environment where yapping at the ref isn't punished in the same way. Rugby cannot let their heros set a bad example.
I take your point, but I also feel that officials should become more accountable for their performances, and maybe if this was the case players would feel less likely to question all the time, just a thought.
If a cricket test umpire has a shocker, then they are sometimes stood down from the next Test.
There's definitely something in that. There is a performance review system for officials but it's all conducted behind closed doors and their findings concluded in secrecy. A degree of transparency in the process might help but you'd want to protect officials from being earmarked as vulnerable and potentially targeted by players and coaches after a poor review.
Post Reply