A week in the life of a Premiership Refereee

[Tigerbeat]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/65494430

[Not a jock]

To those who constantly moan abouts the refs, what more would YOU do to make things better?!

[Hot_Charlie]

To those who constantly moan abouts the refs, what more would YOU do to make things better?!

Cite them and give them disciplinary hearings when they make decisions I/we don't like.

[ay2oh]

Explain their obviously wrong decisions

[Not a jock]

For the avoidance of doubt, I meant what more would YOU do, if YOU were a ref?

In my view, making them explain decisions and/or be subject to some sort of sanction for "wrong" (perhaps decisions you don't like) will only serve to deter people from becoming refs. In the heat of the moment, or the warmth of TMO-time, do you really think they'd be saying to themselves, "hold on, I'm going to change my mind because I'll have to explain it on TV after the match has finished."?

I wonder how many of the armchair critics on here actually have any experience of refereeing, let alone formal qualifications? I don't but I did umpire a game of hockey many years ago that I'll never forget. One of my "team" was so critical I threatened to walk off and abandon the game.

[Pellsey]

For the avoidance of doubt, I meant what more would YOU do, if YOU were a ref?

If I were a Premiership Ref? I'd have my eyesight checked more often and read the rule book. Probably also look at bettering my positioning, so less is missed.

To be fair though, as has been said many times, a lot of the problems are with the laws, as well as the possibility to interpret them as you wish. All sirs should be consistant, and rules should certainly not be open to interpretation.

[Not a jock]

For the avoidance of doubt, I meant what more would YOU do, if YOU were a ref?

If I were a Premiership Ref? I'd have my eyesight checked more often and read the rule book. Probably also look at bettering my positioning, so less is missed.

To be fair though, as has been said many times, a lot of the problems are with the laws, as well as the possibility to interpret them as you wish. All sirs should be consistant, and rules should certainly not be open to interpretation.

Please give us a couple of examples of the laws that are open to interpretation AND how you change them to make them "water tight."

In a quiz on the laws of rugby, I suspect a team of prem refs would trounce a team of fans. The Chief's winger's red card being a good example of th average fan's ignorance of the laws. Lots of them said KD should have shown discretion. Can't have discretion without interpretation.

[ads]

When players are getting sent off and games are being ruined, Freddie Steward (Eng), Chris Ashton then cards getting downgraded it's hard to have much faith in refs.

Yeah some people probably moan a bit too much, but to make out we should just shut up and accept every decision as gospel is just plain wrong.

[Wayne Richardson Fan Club]

When players are getting sent off and games are being ruined, Freddie Steward (Eng), Chris Ashton then cards getting downgraded it's hard to have much faith in refs.

Yeah some people probably moan a bit too much, but to make out we should just shut up and accept every decision as gospel is just plain wrong.

The argument for the 20min Red & the assessed Yellow is fully made now, just implement it & be done.

[ads]

When players are getting sent off and games are being ruined, Freddie Steward (Eng), Chris Ashton then cards getting downgraded it's hard to have much faith in refs.

Yeah some people probably moan a bit too much, but to make out we should just shut up and accept every decision as gospel is just plain wrong.

The argument for the 20min Red & the assessed Yellow is fully made now, just implement it & be done.

Agreed.

[Pellsey]

For the avoidance of doubt, I meant what more would YOU do, if YOU were a ref?

If I were a Premiership Ref? I'd have my eyesight checked more often and read the rule book. Probably also look at bettering my positioning, so less is missed.

To be fair though, as has been said many times, a lot of the problems are with the laws, as well as the possibility to interpret them as you wish. All sirs should be consistant, and rules should certainly not be open to interpretation.

Please give us a couple of examples of the laws that are open to interpretation AND how you change them to make them "water tight."

In a quiz on the laws of rugby, I suspect a team of prem refs would trounce a team of fans. The Chief's winger's red card being a good example of th average fan's ignorance of the laws. Lots of them said KD should have shown discretion. Can't have discretion without interpretation.

Although my first paragraph is tongue-in-cheek (although if I made the mistakes, that some referees get away with, in my job, I would surely be fired - there are huge financial repercussions for the clubs, eg the Tigers - Ospreys game), I stand by the second. Some referees "interpret" things far differently to others, so every game is random, depending on who referees it, which should certainly not be the case. A referee in a game ideally should not be noticed, they are merely the person applying the laws (which need to be written better). I agree, sensible, common sense decisions should be allowed to be made. This should, however, happen in a consistant way, so that all referees make the same decision in the same circumstances. At the moment, games are decided in a because a certain sir prefers to show common sense or to follow the letter of the law, depending on their particular inclination.

[Lutontiger]

Don’t forget the sometimes unhelpful intervention of certain TMOs and of course, less than neutral commentators!

[westwinds31]

For the avoidance of doubt, I meant what more would YOU do, if YOU were a ref?

In my view, making them explain decisions and/or be subject to some sort of sanction for "wrong" (perhaps decisions you don't like) will only serve to deter people from becoming refs. In the heat of the moment, or the warmth of TMO-time, do you really think they'd be saying to themselves, "hold on, I'm going to change my mind because I'll have to explain it on TV after the match has finished."?

I wonder how many of the armchair critics on here actually have any experience of refereeing, let alone formal qualifications? I don't but I did umpire a game of hockey many years ago that I'll never forget. One of my "team" was so critical I threatened to walk off and abandon the game.

Players and coaches have to answer the tough questions, literally straight after the game, so why not the officials ? I suspect if this did become a "thing", that referees would more often than not respond with "I stand by that decision now, but as with anything, when we review it over the weekend and on monday, there could have been a different outcome" - that would cover them and frustrate the fans, who want to hear them admit to a mistake.

[ourla]

I think referees doing interviews, podcasts, etc. helps.

But then some accuse refs of taking the limelight and that the should be anonymous.