Refereeing Consistency

[Pellsey]

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.

I agree. The HIA is critical against this. This is definitely an improvement which has helped against brain damage. I do not wish to undermine the risk, there is obviously a risk, but players should know the risk.

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.

Again, I agree. If an incident is intentional, then a card should definitely be given IMHO. However, if it is not intentional, IMHO the player shouldn't be carded.

[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

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.

Yes,I wouldn’t like to see things decided on the severity of the injury. If it’s a rugby incident it’s a rugby incident regardless of the damage caused. And that’s the crux of it for me,way too many reds given for rugby incidents. It’s not hard to tell the difference between a rugby incident and deliberate foul play,ones a red one isn’t. It’s as simple as that imo.

[ourla]

How many players can you name who have had brain damage, compared to those who havent? I think this is oversansationalism at its finest.

Well first off the issue has been ignored or mismanaged or brushed under the carpet for many years. As an example https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-unio ... 2pqhg.html. So when you ask the question how many... it's a difficult question to answer. We do know that another 80 former players between the ages of 25 and 55 are showing symptoms and have serious concerns.

You can hurt your brain tripping in the street and falling on a rock, it doesnt mean you will not walk down the street.

That is a poor analogy. I think is the old "nothing is risk free" argument. I don't anyone expects rugby to be risk free.

I enjoyed rugby when it wasn't so sensitive

Clearly no one can deny what you enjoy more or less. But with all due respect that is not the point. If you enjoy it a little less and far less players have brain damage is the point.

and therefore prefer the game as refereed in France.

I've no idea if French refs differ. I pretty much only see them when they are doing European or international matches. I can't say as I've noticed that much difference. But if they are then that should be addressed because as far as I know the laws and protocols should be the same in all top level games.

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 .

Well at least it is increasing some fans enjoyment But seriously, most of what I've heard is that people want the players to change their behaviour. And indeed, as been said many times, the players were consulted on the new protocols and agreed with them.

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.

As I said at the top of the thread the risks were either not known or downplayed or ignored. Now, thankfully, that is changing, people have a choice and belatedly the authorities have tried to mitigate the risk.

There is a balancing act with anything. Boxing, the Grand National, motor racing, the TT. If you go to far you start to question is it worth doing. And I understand people feeling that it loses something. But we need to at least start with an honest position and try to do what we can. If it was so different nobody would watch it and I think at the moment rugby is doing alright. You still see plenty of physicality, bodies on the floor and players getting injured.

[Pellsey]

How many players can you name who have had brain damage, compared to those who havent? I think this is oversansationalism at its finest.

Well first off the issue has been ignored or mismanaged or brushed under the carpet for many years. As an example https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-unio ... 2pqhg.html. So when you ask the question how many... it's a difficult question to answer. We do know that another 80 former players between the ages of 25 and 55 are showing symptoms and have serious concerns.

You can hurt your brain tripping in the street and falling on a rock, it doesnt mean you will not walk down the street.

That is a poor analogy. I think is the old "nothing is risk free" argument. I don't anyone expects rugby to be risk free.

Sorry I could not find a better one! Maybe another one would be beer causes brain damage (which it does). Which rugby player will give up beer?

I enjoyed rugby when it wasn't so sensitive

Clearly no one can deny what you enjoy more or less. But with all due respect that is not the point. If you enjoy it a little less and far less players have brain damage is the point.

For me though, it is at the point now it if gets any more cotton wool-like, where I stop enjoying watching the game. I actually gave it up a couple of years ago, but i am obviously a glutton for punishment.

and therefore prefer the game as refereed in France.

I've no idea if French refs differ. I pretty much only see them when they are doing European or international matches. I can't say as I've noticed that much difference. But if they are then that should be addressed because as far as I know the laws and protocols should be the same in all top level games.

I have definitely noticed quite a bit of difference, especially in our euro games with a French ref. I personally enjoy those games more for watching rugby. Each to their own.

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 .

Well at least it is increasing some fans enjoyment But seriously, most of what I've heard is that people want the players to change their behaviour. And indeed, as been said many times, the players were consulted on the new protocols and agreed with them.

If it really is what the players want, then.. They shold dictate the game

I am personnally happy I played when I did, because I would hate to play the game now for fear of cards and other annoying decisions.

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.

As I said at the top of the thread the risks were either not known or downplayed or ignored. Now, thankfully, that is changing, people have a choice and belatedly the authorities have tried to mitigate the risk.

There is a balancing act with anything. Boxing, the Grand National, motor racing, the TT. If you go to far you start to question is it worth doing. And I understand people feeling that it loses something. But we need to at least start with an honest position and try to do what we can. If it was so different nobody would watch it and I think at the moment rugby is doing alright. You still see plenty of physicality, bodies on the floor and players getting injured.

I do agree with this. It most definitely is a balancing act. Everybody is different and everybody enjoys different things. Each to their own.!

I enjoyed rugby for the 30 odd years I played and the rules then. I enjoy it quite a lot less now, especially with GP refs.

TBH, I think I enjoy watching the games with French commentary more too. I personally cannot hear Lolly, Austin or Ben without turning the sound off. That said, I will be watching the final with very biased French commentary, which also wont be fun!

[Pellsey]

It could be said that the actual rules have not theoretically changed. A high tackle is still a high tackle. My issue is with the card lottery really now from what I consider rugby accidents. If you hit somebody in a tackle legally, say around their chest, and they duck, thereby your arm hits their head, you get a yellow card at least, even when it is not your fault. I actually think there are players who try to get yellow / red cards for their opponents now, and this cannot be seen as a positive. The game is unfortunately, in this regard, becoming a little wendyballish, and I find such things unbearable to watch.

The processes now being made for people with head injuries such as HIAs and extra resting periods have really brought positive changes, and I obviously absolutely welcome that.

Rugby is a game of 15vs15, is it not? When was the last time this actually happened for the whole game?

[LE18]

It could be said that the actual rules have not theoretically changed. A high tackle is still a high tackle. My issue is with the card lottery really now from what I consider rugby accidents. If you hit somebody in a tackle legally, say around their chest, and they duck, thereby your arm hits their head, you get a yellow card at least, even when it is not your fault. I actually think there are players who try to get yellow / red cards for their opponents now, and this cannot be seen as a positive. The game is unfortunately, in this regard, becoming a little wendyballish, and I find such things unbearable to watch.

The processes now being made for people with head injuries such as HIAs and extra resting periods have really brought positive changes, and I obviously absolutely welcome that.

Rugby is a game of 15vs15, is it not? When was the last time this actually happened for the whole game?

Sorry Pellsey, personal question, were you a rugby coach/ teacher in Wigston?

[Tigers86asw]

It seems that this issue has also raised the inevitable question about how the game as a whole has evolved. As with such changes some are good- the quality of players, the skill level, the pitches, HIA protocols, TV coverage, the level of violent conduct (I know some would argue against the last one- I mean punching not accidental high tackles!).
However some are less welcome- the endless stoppages, a lack of contextual understanding from refs, spoon fed answers from players (long live Ellis), shorter careers for the players and less one club men, more commercial interests in the game etc.

I guess this issue is about the game evolving and that may mean that we lose some of the things that we love in order to preserve the game, ie can the game be faster, more physical and more professional BUT retain the same laissez fairer attitude to injury that it once did? I am not sure that it can. There was once a time when a player would tackle a player high, an apology given abs that was the end of it but those days appear to be long gone. I think it may be the price we have to pay, tough though that may be to bear.

[LittleBigG]

Yes,I wouldn’t like to see things decided on the severity of the injury. If it’s a rugby incident it’s a rugby incident regardless of the damage caused. And that’s the crux of it for me,way too many reds given for rugby incidents. It’s not hard to tell the difference between a rugby incident and deliberate foul play,ones a red one isn’t. It’s as simple as that imo.

I agree - this is where I think that the current laws are in the wrong

If you go flying into a ruck at speed, straight off your feet, it is just dumb luck that you don't cause an injury. No doubt there are assholes who deliberately target prone people, but I would very much like to think that they are in the significant minority. Yet if by dumb luck you smash someone's head as opposed to "just" their spine/ankle/wrist/finger/etc... then you get a red card

Likewise, the number of perfectly reasonable tackles that have seen red because the player has been falling/ducked is ridiculous. All replays should be judged at speed as well as the ultra-slow motion... I about throw something at the TV every time I hear "they could have done something about it" What? In the 0.2 seconds between it being a perfect tackle and a red card? The signal wouldn't even have reached their :censored: muscles to move out the way in that time!

If they want to properly modify player's behaviour they should "cite" offences retrospectively (not just dangerous play) and after a certain tally has been achieved you get a ban (similar to multiple yellow cards in football over the course of a season)

Offences should be judged on action, not outcome

[ourla]

Offences should be judged on action, not outcome

I'm confused. As far as I know that is the case. Where in the laws does it say it's dependent on outcome?

[Pellsey]

It could be said that the actual rules have not theoretically changed. A high tackle is still a high tackle. My issue is with the card lottery really now from what I consider rugby accidents. If you hit somebody in a tackle legally, say around their chest, and they duck, thereby your arm hits their head, you get a yellow card at least, even when it is not your fault. I actually think there are players who try to get yellow / red cards for their opponents now, and this cannot be seen as a positive. The game is unfortunately, in this regard, becoming a little wendyballish, and I find such things unbearable to watch.

The processes now being made for people with head injuries such as HIAs and extra resting periods have really brought positive changes, and I obviously absolutely welcome that.

Rugby is a game of 15vs15, is it not? When was the last time this actually happened for the whole game?

Sorry Pellsey, personal question, were you a rugby coach/ teacher in Wigston?

Sorry, no. I've lived away from the UK since I was a teenager.

[Dokie]

Offences should be judged on action, not outcome

I'm confused. As far as I know that is the case. Where in the laws does it say it's dependent on outcome?

Somebody suggested it on an earlier post.

[kk20gb30]

whilst subjectivity exists there will never be consistency.The rule book is the same where ever , interpretation alas is not.

[Noggs]

Please remember the current approach to high tackles and sanctions was agree with the players as a way (hopefully) of reducing incidents of forceful head contact. I agree that different refs (and TMO's) are not consistent but hopefully this will get better as time goes on.

As a contact spot there will be such incidents from time to time but the object of the exercise is to reduce the tackle height as a way of reducing the problem of long term brain damage.

[LE18]

It could be said that the actual rules have not theoretically changed. A high tackle is still a high tackle. My issue is with the card lottery really now from what I consider rugby accidents. If you hit somebody in a tackle legally, say around their chest, and they duck, thereby your arm hits their head, you get a yellow card at least, even when it is not your fault. I actually think there are players who try to get yellow / red cards for their opponents now, and this cannot be seen as a positive. The game is unfortunately, in this regard, becoming a little wendyballish, and I find such things unbearable to watch.

The processes now being made for people with head injuries such as HIAs and extra resting periods have really brought positive changes, and I obviously absolutely welcome that.

Rugby is a game of 15vs15, is it not? When was the last time this actually happened for the whole game?

Sorry Pellsey, personal question, were you a rugby coach/ teacher in Wigston?

Sorry, no. I've lived away from the UK since I was a teenager.

Thanks Pellsey, you ar'n't the guy i thought you might be.

[GETHIN EXILE]

Ducking into a tackle should be treated the same as jumping into a tackle ie a penalty against the offender.
Any time "contact with the head" is penalised it should be an automatic HIA for the player whose head is contacted.
"clear outs" at the ruck should be banned as the laws clearly state that a ruck is formed by players on their feet binding to each other over the ball.
Any player arriving at a tackle who does not stay on their feet should be penalised especially those from the tackled players team who have a knee or their hands on the ground in front of the ball as this is clearly designed to seal off the ball. This would also ensure that tacklers would be able to roll away as they could not be pinned in by a player dropping on top of them.
We also need rucks to be refereed properly ie it is not a ruck until the ball is on the ground and if the tackled player is laying on the ground holding the ball up for the scrum half to collect once a ruck forms then there should be no offside line.
The ball should have to come out of the ruck and be behind the back foot before it is picked up.