Refereeing Consistency

[TigerFeetSteve]

Forgot to add. Don’t agree with the ref being the highest paid on the park either. Like other areas of life I struggle to understand how a better paid ref equals better refs. You just end up with highly paid refs making mistakes.

There needs to be more incentives and better accountability.

That means lower a base salary, but pay a significant sum for actually officiating a game, with bonuses for good performances. Then if the pay is better for officiating games it will attract more ref's it will mean there's more choice who can officiate, this means greater choice in who can ref a game, have a shocker, be replaced by the next highest ref.

Even a system of marking the ref's could work. Lowest rated ref drops into the championship for the next week, highest rated ref in the championship gets a Premiership game, will cull out the weaker ones as once relegated they won't get back up, will also mean most ref's at some point will get to ref at lower standards without a TMO to rely on.

[JP14]

The ref being the highest paid is correct as he has the responsibility for the match, final say, and is more active than those on the sidelines.

Not if you’re Karl Dickson it seems.

[Scott1]

Still laughing about last nights clown show! 2 firsts me me: first time I’ve ever seen a player penalised for pulling players out the maul (who should’ve had to leave it anyway to rejoin) which was called by the TMO,and first time I’ve ever seen a TMO call a scrum reset. Some of the decisions were baffling too,it was like it was Dicksons first game officiating and the TMO had to nurse him through. Funny though,just glad it wasn’t Leicester playing,you’d be livid!

[BengalTiger]

I’ve come to the conclusion on this and other forums, refereeing performance is as follows:-

1. Your team wins. Ref was excellent.

2. Your team loses. Ref was rubbish.

NOTES:-

1. For Ref, you can also insert “Ref” “TMO”, occasionally “Linesman” and “citing officer”

2. This does not apply to Karl Dickson. In this case insert TMO as the Ref.

I strongly dispute this, I watch a lot of games where I am neutral as to who wins but the game is ruined by refs deciding to not apply the Laws either at all or just to one team, at the moment Barnes is one of the worst, he used to be first class but has decided that some laws should be ignored and for me it ruins the game, I get that all refs are individuals and miss or see things differently but the inconsistency should not be accepted as just one of those things, as it could be improved and the variations reduced.
Personally I think the ref should be the highest paid person on the pitch as their job is the hardest, but wilfully ignoring the laws should be a no-no.

I see my humour fell like a lead ballon….

That is your opinion. It’s good to agree to disagree. My point was more that fans tend to focus their frustrations of a bad result on the ref or TMO rather the simple fact they where beaten by a better team. And the ignorance that the referee is actually officiating BOTH teams. The world of social media is full of one sided blinkered views at the moment - rugby is no different.

As to wilful ignorance of the rules I think that’s a bit unfair. Refs do not wilfully ignore the rules. They have to interpret them dynamically and often subjectively at pace. They often have to make a balanced decision of multiple infractions (scrum). Especially when many situations are marginal (flat pass or forward pass / offside or quick off the line / stretch or double movement / intentional v accidental). If refs policed every minor infraction at the breakdown or scrum the game would be killed by stoppage. It certainly wouldn’t be entertaining. That said, I agree there are a few blatant areas that could be quickly resolved. The SH spending half an hour building a caterpillar being one of them.

And people forget the ref and TMO are human. There is no human alive that would get every decision right. Neither is their a human that’s completely impartial. There is certainly no human that can see and process every single little infraction. And that’s before providing an interpretation.

So though I am guilty as the next man of blaming the ref in the heat of a game or it’s aftermath, I accept the ref as being just as human (=imperfect) as the rest of us. I.e its just another part of the texture of the game.

I’d recommend following a game through the chat forums off both sets of supporters some time. It’s quite enlightening!

Of course the all refs wilfully ignore the rules (Laws) at times and it can spoil the game as it is unfair, how many time recently have we seen players at the line out jump into the opposition jumper, it is just a nudge but is illegal unless it happens during fair contest for the ball, it is very rarely called but is cheating.
Sorry I am a bit of a pedant for these sort of things as I think the laws are framed for a reason and if the referees applied the laws as written we would have a better game to watch, it is all the small cheats that allow the game to get bogged down, apply the ruck laws as written the ruck is immediately a quicker more dynamic part of the game.
Also when did binding on the arm become legal at the scrum, it is simple to police and obvious to see but most refs choose to ignore it.

[Qbec]

Also what happened to the tackler must show clear release of the tackled player, before going in to attempt to take the ball.
Remember: Manu great tackle released the player before going in to take the ball was blown up for not making it "Clear" he had released the player.
When was the last time that Law applied ?

[Tigerbeat]

Who remembers many years ago when there was a members event organised, Ask the Ref..........Brian Campsall and Dean Richards if i remember rightly. Wouldn't it be good if there was a similar event to review things that are happening in todays game, ask questions and try to understand how the refs are coming to their decisions...........Nigel Owens or Wayne Barnes would be good to hear.

[DingDong]

Refs do not wilfully ignore the rules.

Simply not the case, refs wilfully and admit to ignoring laws. I remember a couple of years ago Barnes explaining why he is not bothered about a crooked feed as his priorities are elsewhere in the scrum. If you really think refs don't ignore the laws the why is it that at a line out the gap is always closed? Binds are acceptable as holding with hands only and not bound to the top of the arm. At a breakdown players still lay there, ruckers clear out players who are off their feet. The material infringements are there virtually every line out and breakdown in every game.

Refs will always decide what is material and in what context, but all those infringements I mention are usually always material and are being deliberately ignored. World Rugby every blue moon decide to reinforce a law that has been neglected such as the tackler releasing immediately which has been a success. This is after years of the breakdown getting more and more choked up, so for example when players are off their feet why not apply Law 5.b - "Immediately move away from the tackled player and from the ball or get up"? so it becomes a fair contest and defenders can counter more effectively, that would immediately speed the game up from both sides rather than listening to the likes of Luke Pearce constantly shouting white noise at players to get on with it (...to zero effect!!).

[Dokie]

Who remembers many years ago when there was a members event organised, Ask the Ref..........Brian Campsall and Dean Richards if i remember rightly. Wouldn't it be good if there was a similar event to review things that are happening in todays game, ask questions and try to understand how the refs are coming to their decisions...........Nigel Owens or Wayne Barnes would be good to hear.

I’d love that

[Noggs]

Back in the day we had a 'view from the ref' page (or something similar) in the match programme which at times was very interesting. It was written by Mike ?, a local league ref and I would be happy if it was reintroduced.

[fentiger]

I've just copied this from the Telegraph, written by Charles Richardson:

Fifteen minutes and 38 seconds into Newcastle's match against Northampton at Kingston Park on Monday night, the Saints attempted an audacious counter-attack from behind their own line.

Beneath the Northampton posts, fly-half James Grayson flung a pass off his right hand to his centre, Matt Proctor. The ball skidded off the slippery Toon turf before Proctor scooped it up and accelerated, leaving wing Adam Radwan and fly-half Brett Connon grasping in his slipstream. The Saints' New Zealand centre carried the ball almost up to the 22-metre line before it was kicked downfield.

The kick, fielded by Falcons full-back Tom Penny on halfway, did not find touch and the hosts piled back, recycling the ball through seven phases inside the Northampton 22. At the culmination of the septet, over a minute after Northampton's initial counter-attempt, referee Matthew Carley awarded a penalty to Newcastle as Northampton lock David Ribbans found himself clumsily on the wrong side of a Falcons ruck.

Enter Marty McFly and his flux capacitor. After a nod and a wink from assistant referee Karl Dickson, Carley called "time off" - fittingly - and turned back the clocks an entire minute and seven phases to investigate what had happened in the lead-up to Northampton's in-goal, counter-offensive. As clarified by Carley's Television Match Official, the bouncing ball that Proctor coolly collected had made in-flight contact with the arm of Newcastle's No 8 Callum Chick. Chick was duly sent to the sin-bin for a subtle deliberate knock-on which, when viewed in isolation, was the correct decision.

But was the "correct decision" needed? The reason why Chick's intervention was missed by all three on-field officials is because it was inconsequential; Proctor still collected the ball, still made the break. There might be many who would prefer to arrive at the correct decision at all costs - but where does that end? Even with three officials on the paddock and an eye in the sky, incidents will always be missed on a rugby field, and dubious decisions will always be made.

Rewinding the tape by over a minute to shine a light on Chick - whose offence was hardly the most egregious - was an embodiment of rugby's TMO zeitgeist, where the Holy Grail of officialdom is seemingly to achieve a match where every decision is correct, 100 per cent clear-cut, with nothing missed. Someone should tell the literal whistle-blowers that in a sport as unrefined and chaotic as rugby, their quest is futile.

There is a philosophical take, too. Rugby is on the verge of a chronological - almost existential - tangle. Soon, the works of Sartre and Descartes will be considered just as essential reading for any budding referee as World Rugby's Laws of the Game.

The events of Monday night were no one-off. On Saturday, as Leicester impressively beat an in-form Harlequins at Welford Road, wing Nathan Earle was yellow-carded for deliberately slapping down a potentially try-scoring pass from Leicester centre Matt Scott to wing Nemani Nadolo. It was a borderline penalty try and - although a different argument - it would have been awarded as such if a dash of common sense had been applied.

The true farce, however, came as the TMO spotted a rogue clear-out from Ellis Genge a few phases before Earle's antics. Referee Luke Pearce eventually deemed the Leicester prop's ruck behaviour as worthy of a yellow card, and he was sent to the sin-bin. But because Genge's clear-out occurred before Earle's cynical slap - even though it was spotted later - the Harlequins wing was allowed to return to the field of play immediately because his intervention, technically, should never have been allowed to happen.

This means, just as with Newcastle's attack after Chick's missed infringement on Monday, that passages of play that take place after a retrospective card no longer "exist". Earle's yellow was rescinded as it took place in an artificial, vacuum period. It poses an interesting question, too: if the citing commissioner had spotted an eye-gouge during this period, for example, should it have been cited? Following the logic of the Earle rescission, the answer would have to be 'no'. If you are struggling to follow then do not feel ashamed. You are not alone.

The TMO plight reared its head at Kingston Park for Radwan's second-half try, too, but in a different guise. The Falcons' wing scored in the corner, directly in front of Dickson and with Carley not far away. From the media gantry in the West Stand, the try looked as kosher as any this season. There was no suspicion of a fumbled grounding and Radwan, while near the touchline, was a foot from danger. Yet Carley and Dickson went upstairs and every single Geordie among the 1,750 in attendance groaned.

Not to excoriate Dickson or Carley; it is likely they were pretty sure a try had been scored. Except, "pretty sure" is no longer enough. Everything has to be certain. "The technology is there, so why not check?"

Newcastle wing Adam Radwan scores in the corner
Newcastle wing Adam Radwan scores in the corner CREDIT: BT SPORT
The reverse angle shows a clear gap between try-scorer and touchline
The reverse angle shows a clear gap between try-scorer and touchline CREDIT: BT SPORT
These moments were endemic of the modern game's over-reliance on the TMO, which is having a nefarious effect on the sport as a spectacle; matches now regularly take over two hours to complete - absurd in itself - and feature complex chronological conundrums. The TMO's powers must be stripped back in a bid to avoid the disillusionment of current fans - which is already in motion - and the alienation of prospective ones. Officials must feel comfortable to make basic decisions without the crutch of the TMO, who should only speak when spoken to.

And if an illegal tackle is missed, then it will give the citing commissioner something to do. And if a few knock-ons - deliberate or otherwise - are missed, then so be it.

[Noggs]

[northerntiger]

Has there been a shift in how the TMO operates. It seems that every try is checked, whether the ref has given it or not. Slows the game down a lot

[OakhamTiger32]

This is brilliant. Spot on imho and well worth a read. Thanks fentiger for sharing

[Crofty]

Well, nothing to add to this topic this afternoon, is there?

There needs to be an investigation, this isn't a case of one eyed fans, Tempest and Dickson very very obviously crooked today whether through intention or incompetence and it's cost us 1) a famous victory and 2) could well cost us a season in the Heineken Cup.

Absolutely disgraceful, they, and Pat Lam need lengthy bans for bringing the game into disrepute.

[JP14]

You’re forgetting this is PRL we’re talking about, I doubt there will be any repercussion for this unfortunately.