Refereeing Consistency

Forum to discuss everything that is Tigers related

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

Tigers86asw
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 871
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2020 6:46 pm

Refereeing Consistency

Post by Tigers86asw »

Just watched some incidents from this weekend in NZ Super Rugby.
Article in the telegraph comparing the interpretations of the law. Note that if it was in the Prem then Crusaders would likely have had two red cards. One for a tackle in the air, the other for direct contact to the head.

With us seeing inconsistency starkly when comparing the GP to Europe I wonder what will happen with games this summer. I find it mystifying that the lack of consistency can be so stark.

Thoughts?
wellstiger
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 896
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2013 10:56 am

Re: Refereeing Consistency

Post by wellstiger »

Its not just in Southern hemisphere. French refs are missing high tackles and neck rolls.
I find it difficult to equate, the need to reduce head injury is more than likely to be penalised in GP.
Neck rolls are being somewhat overlooked, sometimes penalised in GP, very rarely in Southern hemisphere and hardly ever in the French league.
This has the potential to break a neck and leave a player paralysed. Especially with the bulked up arms and pressure exerted.
And don't get me started on the offside rule.

Major disengage, in consistency, from League to league and country to country.
Pellsey
Super User
Super User
Posts: 2163
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2005 3:41 pm
Location: Luxembourg

Re: Refereeing Consistency

Post by Pellsey »

I don't believe that French referees "miss" things, they just choose not to penalise the impossible. Sometimes you have to look at the state of the game, if somebody is running at you with their head, or ducks to get out of the tackle for example. This is, IMHO, a far better approach that that of ultra-sensitive GP refs, who give out cards at any whiff of head contact. Sometimes to me it looks like the GP will become touch rugby in 10 years.

I considerably prefer watching French referees because the game flows better and there is more chance of the traditional 15vs15 game of rugby after 80 mins. If you are scared of getting hurt, play Wendyball.
johnthegriff
Super User
Super User
Posts: 2013
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 12:37 am

Re: Refereeing Consistency

Post by johnthegriff »

Referees are human beings (or so I believe) and therefore may see things differently to each other. One only has to read posts on this forum to note how many versions of the same incident there can be, all opinions are valid but many are not in accord with our own. Refereeing authorities may give differing guidance to those they govern but basically it comes down to the man on the pitch (or the TMO) and their view.
Sometimes they just do not see things, against Sale Ben Youngs took a quick tap and was tackled by players in an offside position, no action was taken, I am certain that no referee in the world would differ from that opinion so the conclusion is that the offence was just not seen. Shortly after we were awarded a penalty try and a yellow card was given for a deliberate knock on, I don't think all refs would have taken the same action, they are human and make mistakes and sometimes just see things differently to others.
ourla
Super User
Super User
Posts: 4019
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2013 3:03 pm

Re: Refereeing Consistency

Post by ourla »

Pellsey wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 11:16 am This is, IMHO, a far better approach that that of ultra-sensitive GP refs, who give out cards at any whiff of head contact.
Depends whether it's your brain he's trying to protect or not.
Pellsey wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 11:16 amIf you are scared of getting brain damage, play Wendyball.
I've amended your sentence to make it clearer.
Tiglon
Super User
Super User
Posts: 3887
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 8:54 pm

Re: Refereeing Consistency

Post by Tiglon »

johnthegriff wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 12:12 pm Referees are human beings (or so I believe) and therefore may see things differently to each other. One only has to read posts on this forum to note how many versions of the same incident there can be, all opinions are valid but many are not in accord with our own. Refereeing authorities may give differing guidance to those they govern but basically it comes down to the man on the pitch (or the TMO) and their view.
Sometimes they just do not see things, against Sale Ben Youngs took a quick tap and was tackled by players in an offside position, no action was taken, I am certain that no referee in the world would differ from that opinion so the conclusion is that the offence was just not seen. Shortly after we were awarded a penalty try and a yellow card was given for a deliberate knock on, I don't think all refs would have taken the same action, they are human and make mistakes and sometimes just see things differently to others.
B***** human beings ruining rugby for the rest of us :smt003

You are right, we have to accept human error - or accept greater input from video ref or technology.
Pellsey
Super User
Super User
Posts: 2163
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2005 3:41 pm
Location: Luxembourg

Re: Refereeing Consistency

Post by Pellsey »

ourla wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 2:36 pm
Pellsey wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 11:16 am This is, IMHO, a far better approach that that of ultra-sensitive GP refs, who give out cards at any whiff of head contact.
Depends whether it's your brain he's trying to protect or not.
Pellsey wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 11:16 amIf you are scared of getting brain damage, play Wendyball.
I've amended your sentence to make it clearer.
How many players can you name who have had brain damage, compared to those who havent? I think this is oversansationalism at its finest.

You can hurt your brain tripping in the street and falling on a rock, it doesnt mean you will not walk down the street. I enjoyed rugby when it wasn't so sensitive, and therefore prefer the game as refereed in France. In 30 odd years of playing rugby, I never received a card of either colour, but i did go to hospital a number of times, but I would not have the game any other way. I think people are entertained by who gets the card in this 10 minute period and who is banned for which games. It becomes like a soap opera .

Would you ban punching to the head in boxing or MMA at all? Everybody has the choice to play the game fully knowing the risks. If you don't want to risk it, dont play. But hey, there are those who would like to wrap everybody in cotton wool and watch and play touch rugby, and ruin the game for everybody else.
Pellsey
Super User
Super User
Posts: 2163
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2005 3:41 pm
Location: Luxembourg

Re: Refereeing Consistency

Post by Pellsey »

Tiglon wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 2:38 pm
johnthegriff wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 12:12 pm Referees are human beings (or so I believe) and therefore may see things differently to each other. One only has to read posts on this forum to note how many versions of the same incident there can be, all opinions are valid but many are not in accord with our own. Refereeing authorities may give differing guidance to those they govern but basically it comes down to the man on the pitch (or the TMO) and their view.
Sometimes they just do not see things, against Sale Ben Youngs took a quick tap and was tackled by players in an offside position, no action was taken, I am certain that no referee in the world would differ from that opinion so the conclusion is that the offence was just not seen. Shortly after we were awarded a penalty try and a yellow card was given for a deliberate knock on, I don't think all refs would have taken the same action, they are human and make mistakes and sometimes just see things differently to others.
B***** human beings ruining rugby for the rest of us :smt003

You are right, we have to accept human error - or accept greater input from video ref or technology.
Well said, John. As the OP said, there are different interpretations of the game, but personally attacking even an incompetent ref is not acceptable.
Pellsey
Super User
Super User
Posts: 2163
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2005 3:41 pm
Location: Luxembourg

Re: Refereeing Consistency

Post by Pellsey »

Pellsey wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 3:21 pm
ourla wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 2:36 pm
Pellsey wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 11:16 am This is, IMHO, a far better approach that that of ultra-sensitive GP refs, who give out cards at any whiff of head contact.
Depends whether it's your brain he's trying to protect or not.
Pellsey wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 11:16 amIf you are scared of getting brain damage, play Wendyball.
I've amended your sentence to make it clearer.
How many players can you name who have had brain damage, compared to those who havent? I think this is oversansationalism at its finest.

You can hurt your brain tripping in the street and falling on a rock, it doesnt mean you will not walk down the street. I enjoyed rugby when it wasn't so sensitive, and therefore prefer the game as refereed in France. In 30 odd years of playing rugby, I never received a card of either colour, but i did go to hospital a number of times, but I would not have the game any other way. I think people are entertained by who gets the card in this 10 minute period and who is banned for which games. It becomes like a soap opera .

Would you ban punching to the head in boxing or MMA at all? Everybody has the choice to play the game fully knowing the risks. If you don't want to risk it, dont play. But hey, there are those who would like to wrap everybody in cotton wool and watch and play touch rugby, and ruin the game for everybody else.

I think actually, if you are scared of getting brain damage, playing wendyball is not a good idea, with all the head contact they have with the ball. Or are some advocates of banning heading in wendyball too?
Pellsey
Super User
Super User
Posts: 2163
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2005 3:41 pm
Location: Luxembourg

Re: Refereeing Consistency

Post by Pellsey »

Pellsey wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 3:25 pm
Pellsey wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 3:21 pm
ourla wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 2:36 pm
Depends whether it's your brain he's trying to protect or not.


I've amended your sentence to make it clearer.
How many players can you name who have had brain damage, compared to those who havent? I think this is oversensationalism at its finest.

You can hurt your brain tripping in the street and falling on a rock, it doesnt mean you will not walk down the street. I enjoyed rugby when it wasn't so sensitive, and therefore prefer the game as refereed in France. In 30 odd years of playing rugby, I never received a card of either colour, but i did go to hospital a number of times, but I would not have the game any other way. I think people are entertained by who gets the card in this 10 minute period and who is banned for which games. It becomes like a soap opera .

Would you ban punching to the head in boxing or MMA at all? Everybody has the choice to play the game fully knowing the risks. If you don't want to risk it, dont play. But hey, there are those who would like to wrap everybody in cotton wool and watch and play touch rugby, and ruin the game for everybody else.

I think actually, if you are scared of getting brain damage, playing wendyball is not a good idea, with all the head contact they have with the ball. Or are some advocates of banning heading in wendyball too?
Scott1
Super User
Super User
Posts: 16783
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2016 5:03 pm

Re: Refereeing Consistency

Post by Scott1 »

As I’ve always said,it’s just common sense. Some of the reds that have been given have been ridiculous and it seems that it’s the GP that is over sensitive and the European games are better reffed when it comes to the big decisions
"Rugby isn't a contact sport,ballroom dancing is a contact sport. Rugby is a collision sport" Heyneke Meyer
Pellsey
Super User
Super User
Posts: 2163
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2005 3:41 pm
Location: Luxembourg

Re: Refereeing Consistency

Post by Pellsey »

Scott1 wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 3:34 pm As I’ve always said,it’s just common sense. Some of the reds that have been given have been ridiculous and it seems that it’s the GP that is over sensitive and the European games are better reffed when it comes to the big decisions
Agree
fentiger
Super User
Super User
Posts: 3193
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 6:32 pm
Location: Down Under

Re: Refereeing Consistency

Post by fentiger »

Scott1 wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 3:34 pm As I’ve always said,it’s just common sense. Some of the reds that have been given have been ridiculous and it seems that it’s the GP that is over sensitive and the European games are better reffed when it comes to the big decisions
In many cases where there is no apparent injury I think it would be prudent for the player on the receiving end to go for HIA. If failed the tackler gets carded at the end of the HIA protocol, if the player returns to the field the original penalty stands.
Tigers86asw
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 871
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2020 6:46 pm

Re: Refereeing Consistency

Post by Tigers86asw »

Pellsey wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 3:36 pm
Scott1 wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 3:34 pm As I’ve always said,it’s just common sense. Some of the reds that have been given have been ridiculous and it seems that it’s the GP that is over sensitive and the European games are better reffed when it comes to the big decisions
Agree
I do think the game has a duty to its player but of course no one would ever play rugby if it was safe. There is an inherent risk which players accept. I think the issues come when we see repeated head knocks leading to long term brain damage. I think to diminish that is quite callous. Hopefully the HiA protocols will help in the long term.

One area which I think causes most controversy is whether a tackler is able to avoid head contact or not. I am not saying whether it was intentional more could they do anything differently. Some head contacts are avoidable and therefore warrant punishment to lower tackle height and protect players, others are caused by factors outside of the tacklers control. I don’t think the GP had got all of these correct but inconsistency between leagues is not going to help.

I like the decisive nature of French refs but when playing in France cards appear to be decided by the television producer not the TMO.
Pellsey
Super User
Super User
Posts: 2163
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2005 3:41 pm
Location: Luxembourg

Re: Refereeing Consistency

Post by Pellsey »

fentiger wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 3:48 pm
Scott1 wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 3:34 pm As I’ve always said,it’s just common sense. Some of the reds that have been given have been ridiculous and it seems that it’s the GP that is over sensitive and the European games are better reffed when it comes to the big decisions
In many cases where there is no apparent injury I think it would be prudent for the player on the receiving end to go for HIA. If failed the tackler gets carded at the end of the HIA protocol, if the player returns to the field the original penalty stands.
Although this makes some sense, a lot of the current cards are a result of rugby accidents, where ball carriers duck, or players are unsighted due to blocking currently taking place (which used to be called obstruction, and was an offence).

I would also like to see a return to actual laws being upheld, such as feeding in the scrum, and crooked lineouts, not to mention offside.
Post Reply