Refereeing Consistency

[BengalTiger]

Disciplinary panels and citing commissioners should be taken out of the jurisdiction of the local Union, but should be run by world rugby, this would go some way to remove the differing interpretations we can all see.
The laws are the same so why should something cost a Premiership player several week ban but the same circumstances will result in nothing for a player in NZ, it would also help the consistency of our own refs if an outside body were to review the red and yellow cards handed out.
I am all in favour of strictly enforcing player safety but we cannot have one set of outcomes for our players and a different set for the ROW.

[TigerFeetSteve]

I'd suggest a trial is run. Too many things missed by either ref or TMO seem to go uncited.

I'd like a number of games to be done as a trial where a team go though each and every collision and ruck on a rugby field in slow motion from all angles (basically do a TMO foul play review for everthing) look at each incident and actually rule how many under the current rules "could" in any interpretation be considered foul play or requiring a card, look at every player with each ruck that could be considered offside. I think it would be a LOT more than are currently reviewed by the TMO mid game (which shows lack of consistency)

That if done would show is it consistent how the rules and TMO are being applied. ie if the TMO and ref are reviewing all incidents then it's pretty consistent. If a lot of decisions aren't being looked at it shows that only ones that catch the eye of the ref & TMO are being reviewed which means it's a lot more of a lottery.

Interestingly in cricket, all wicket decisions by umpire's are looked at (regardless if it's reviewed by the teams playing or not) and the umpire basically has rating of how many decisions they have that were right or wrong. We as fans think, oh they missed that and that and that, but do we know how many we miss too? How many are just that the live camera angle doesn't give perspective. Do a in depth look at everything, see what percentage of incidents get caught and what get missed.

[LittleBigG]

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?

Whether or not it is in the laws doesn't mean that that is not how it is being refereed - this is one of the main gripes in the thread

Example of being taken out in the air - in both instances the player is completely flipped upside down

• Player 1 lands on his neck/head - red card

• Player 2 has the audacity to stick his arm out to protect himself and lands on his back - yellow card

The actions of the perpetrator were identical, but the outcome was different

[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?

Whether or not it is in the laws doesn't mean that that is not how it is being refereed - this is one of the main gripes in the thread

Example of being taken out in the air - in both instances the player is completely flipped upside down

• Player 1 lands on his neck/head - red card

• Player 2 has the audacity to stick his arm out to protect himself and lands on his back - yellow card

The actions of the perpetrator were identical, but the outcome was different

Unless it's changed (operational since 2016) the guidelines are

• If a player is not in a realistic position to gather the ball, there is contact and their opponent lands on their back or side – Yellow card

• If a player is not in a realistic position to gather the ball, there is reckless or deliberate foul play and the player lands in a dangerous position – Red card

To be a red it needs to be reckless or deliberate and it doesn't state it needs to be neck/head landing. However, I suspect in order to have someone land on their neck/head it's virtually always reckless.

Have you seen someone land on their hand where the tackle wasn't a reckless or deliberate foul. Not saying it hasn't happened. I don't know.

Hands/arms not mentioned.

[Wayne Richardson Fan Club]

The current manic enforcement of 10m back at Lineouts whilst ignoring the hooker standing on the field if play to throw it, is a simple example of dumb officiating, whilst you don't expect 100% accuracy there are some things that should be easy to get correct everytime.

As for foul play the slowing right down of replays & repeated watching of them, stops the game & still doesn't always get the right decision, if it isn't obvious after a couple of views it should be left to a citing, the more the game stops, the worse the game for me.

[jgriffin]

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.

With you there, matey. Good summary of issues.
Anyone playing the don't blame the ref card, I play you "Steve Walsh"
https://www.sportsjoe.ie/rugby/goodbye- ... arts-18207

[chewbacca]

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.

With you there, matey. Good summary of issues.
Anyone playing the don't blame the ref card, I play you "Steve Walsh"
https://www.sportsjoe.ie/rugby/goodbye- ... arts-18207

Amen to this.

[aslongaswebeatsaints]

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.

[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.

[ourla]

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.

Out of interest, which laws was Barnes ignoring? Which game(s) were ruined for you because of this?

I think there are two levels of consistency:

1) Purposefully not applying laws or applying them in a certain way

2) Inconsistency because of incompetency - not knowing the laws, how to interpret them or likely simply not seeing it

The second one I see as human nature - like anyone else officials can get a little flustered, make quick (wrong) decisions, be swayed by others/bias, etc. As they get more experienced this should lessen. Hence big matches are officiated by the most experienced.

The first one, which is what BengalTiger seems to be accusing Barnes of I feel is a stronger and less often made accusation certainly on an individual basis. All refs ignoring a straight put in to the scrum is a broader example I can think of. But individual officials deliberately applying laws differently I am less convinced of.

[GETHIN EXILE]

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.

Out of interest, which laws was Barnes ignoring? Which game(s) were ruined for you because of this?

I think there are two levels of consistency:

1) Purposefully not applying laws or applying them in a certain way

2) Inconsistency because of incompetency - not knowing the laws, how to interpret them or likely simply not seeing it

The second one I see as human nature - like anyone else officials can get a little flustered, make quick (wrong) decisions, be swayed by others/bias, etc. As they get more experienced this should lessen. Hence big matches are officiated by the most experienced.

The first one, which is what BengalTiger seems to be accusing Barnes of I feel is a stronger and less often made accusation certainly on an individual basis. All refs ignoring a straight put in to the scrum is a broader example I can think of. But individual officials deliberately applying laws differently I am less convinced of.

The problem is that some referees listen to the latest directives from world rugby and concentrate on them so much that their view of other offences is distorted. The best thing that could be done is for World rugby to look again at the laws and simplify them.
some suggestions:

If the ball doesn't travel clearly backwards then it's a forward pass.
Dummy runners must not be in front of the ball, ie no passing the ball behind other players.
The so called "choke tackle" be removed from the game .
Learn from rugby league and only allow the ball to be stripped in a single person tackle.

All officials to have to watch a standard video and communicate to the assessor what offences have been committed - the assessor then corrects any decisions that are not in keeping with the standard required and the official concerned is subjected to increased scrutiny over the following 3 months. Any official failing to follow the standard is removed from the panel

[Noggs]

I thought Barnes had a great game last week (Quins/Wasps). He talked to players well resulting in a fast flowing game (12 tries) and the red card for Brown was spot on. I'd be a happy man if every game was reffed to the same standard.

[aslongaswebeatsaints]

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!

[aslongaswebeatsaints]

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.

[Tigerbeat]

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.