How times have changed..

[Mark62]

It should be a matter of absolute certainty that you do not address the ref other than through the captain.

I hate to hear players going "Sir, Sir he's offside" but questioning the authority of the ref is unnaceptable and becoming far too much of a norm in the professional game which sets a bad example at junior level. In days gone by juniors soon learned that questioning the ref resulted in pain. The current generation of players have grown up in an environment where yapping at the ref isn't punished in the same way. Rugby cannot let their heros set a bad example.

I take your point, but I also feel that officials should become more accountable for their performances, and maybe if this was the case players would feel less likely to question all the time, just a thought.
If a cricket test umpire has a shocker, then they are sometimes stood down from the next Test.

There's definitely something in that. There is a performance review system for officials but it's all conducted behind closed doors and their findings concluded in secrecy. A degree of transparency in the process might help but you'd want to protect officials from being earmarked as vulnerable and potentially targeted by players and coaches after a poor review.

Of course, but as far as I’m aware, when everything was normal, there was never an occasion where it was suggested to an official, that they may benefit from whistling a couple of championship games to get things back to the required level, or vice versa if a championship level ref has a few top level performances, he could be given some premiership games to see how he fairs.
I know they use championship refs in the premiership cup.

[JP14]

What do forum users think of the trial in New Zealand with 20 minutes for a red card. I’m in favour for certain transgressions, such as 2 technical offences, or a miss timed tackle , or miss timed challenge for a ball in the air.
Serious foul play should still mean off for the rest of the match.

There is some merit in another level of sanction but I wouldn't call it a Red Card - those should be clear-cut decisions, off for the rest of the match, automatic disciplinary panel, etc,

Whatever measures are trialled, priority needs to be given to speed of decision making. More downtime while officials debate and replay alleged offences ad nauseam has to be avoided.

Totally agree with both your points.
I just think back to the Spencer red v Wasps, no intent ruined the game as a spectacle, 20 minutes on the naughty seat and then back you go.

Don’t even remind me of that decision!

[JP14]

It should be a matter of absolute certainty that you do not address the ref other than through the captain.

I hate to hear players going "Sir, Sir he's offside" but questioning the authority of the ref is unnaceptable and becoming far too much of a norm in the professional game which sets a bad example at junior level. In days gone by juniors soon learned that questioning the ref resulted in pain. The current generation of players have grown up in an environment where yapping at the ref isn't punished in the same way. Rugby cannot let their heros set a bad example.

Believe me it’s still policed at the lower levels!

[JP14]

I personally believe it should be easier for clubs, coaches and captains to address their concerns about the officiating in a proper channel, to prevent events like Murphy getting in trouble for saying it how is. There should in no way whatsoever be abuse of officials but they still need to be effectively scrutinised. I find that the RFU hide behind the curtain, shouting “abuse” when anyone dears criticises officials, which is breeding complacency in my view.

[Mark62]

I personally believe it should be easier for clubs, coaches and captains to address their concerns about the officiating in a proper channel, to prevent events like Murphy getting in trouble for saying it how is. There should in no way whatsoever be abuse of officials but they still need to be effectively scrutinised. I find that the RFU hide behind the curtain, shouting “abuse” when anyone dears criticises officials, which is breeding complacency in my view.

Which also happens down the levels, Referees are almost coached that they are untouchable on the pitch, I don’t mean literally.
It’s a long while since I’ve blown the whistle, but I was always more interested in what the players had to say about my performance after the game, rather than some assessor.

[Tigerbeat]

I personally believe it should be easier for clubs, coaches and captains to address their concerns about the officiating in a proper channel, to prevent events like Murphy getting in trouble for saying it how is. There should in no way whatsoever be abuse of officials but they still need to be effectively scrutinised. I find that the RFU hide behind the curtain, shouting “abuse” when anyone dears criticises officials, which is breeding complacency in my view.

There is a proper channel for Clubs to feedback on the performances of the officials. Every monday, after a round of matches, the officials performances are reviewed with the individual to iron out any errors and make recommendations for improvements. The Clubs also have the ability to use some of the Premiership Referees in training sessions to help them to understand the application of how any rules / changes are going to be applied.
Unfortunately, some coaches have vented their frustrations directly at the officials during and after the game which has landed them in trouble. The Refs are human and will inevitably miss some parts or make the wrong decision........in watching games back it has been found that 95% plus of the decisions have been correct.

[Longshanks]

I personally believe it should be easier for clubs, coaches and captains to address their concerns about the officiating in a proper channel, to prevent events like Murphy getting in trouble for saying it how is. There should in no way whatsoever be abuse of officials but they still need to be effectively scrutinised. I find that the RFU hide behind the curtain, shouting “abuse” when anyone dears criticises officials, which is breeding complacency in my view.

There is a proper channel for Clubs to feedback on the performances of the officials. Every monday, after a round of matches, the officials performances are reviewed with the individual to iron out any errors and make recommendations for improvements. The Clubs also have the ability to use some of the Premiership Referees in training sessions to help them to understand the application of how any rules / changes are going to be applied.
Unfortunately, some coaches have vented their frustrations directly at the officials during and after the game which has landed them in trouble. The Refs are human and will inevitably miss some parts or make the wrong decision........in watching games back it has been found that 95% plus of the decisions have been correct.

Of course it doesn't help when the coaches are provoked into saying something inappropriate in the immediate aftermath by pitchside reporters. The reporter courts candour and ideally controversy, generally at the coaches expense.

[Mark62]

I personally believe it should be easier for clubs, coaches and captains to address their concerns about the officiating in a proper channel, to prevent events like Murphy getting in trouble for saying it how is. There should in no way whatsoever be abuse of officials but they still need to be effectively scrutinised. I find that the RFU hide behind the curtain, shouting “abuse” when anyone dears criticises officials, which is breeding complacency in my view.

There is a proper channel for Clubs to feedback on the performances of the officials. Every monday, after a round of matches, the officials performances are reviewed with the individual to iron out any errors and make recommendations for improvements. The Clubs also have the ability to use some of the Premiership Referees in training sessions to help them to understand the application of how any rules / changes are going to be applied.
Unfortunately, some coaches have vented their frustrations directly at the officials during and after the game which has landed them in trouble. The Refs are human and will inevitably miss some parts or make the wrong decision........in watching games back it has been found that 95% plus of the decisions have been correct.

I think everyone is aware of this Tigerbeat, but the whole process takes place behind closed doors, to use one of Tigers current buzz words where is the clarity.
Of course everyone makes mistakes, and if the quoted figure of 95% is correct, then that is acceptable.
However top officials are now professional athletes like the players, and imo should be more accountable, too often there have been instance of refs having poor games, possibly even affecting the final result, and yet the following week they are out there again peeping away.
2 views on this, best way to learn is to listen to feedback and get back out there, or take your feedback and take a step back into a slightly less pressured environment and build back up again.

[JP14]

I personally believe it should be easier for clubs, coaches and captains to address their concerns about the officiating in a proper channel, to prevent events like Murphy getting in trouble for saying it how is. There should in no way whatsoever be abuse of officials but they still need to be effectively scrutinised. I find that the RFU hide behind the curtain, shouting “abuse” when anyone dears criticises officials, which is breeding complacency in my view.

There is a proper channel for Clubs to feedback on the performances of the officials. Every monday, after a round of matches, the officials performances are reviewed with the individual to iron out any errors and make recommendations for improvements. The Clubs also have the ability to use some of the Premiership Referees in training sessions to help them to understand the application of how any rules / changes are going to be applied.
Unfortunately, some coaches have vented their frustrations directly at the officials during and after the game which has landed them in trouble. The Refs are human and will inevitably miss some parts or make the wrong decision........in watching games back it has been found that 95% plus of the decisions have been correct.

I think everyone is aware of this Tigerbeat, but the whole process takes place behind closed doors, to use one of Tigers current buzz words where is the clarity.
Of course everyone makes mistakes, and if the quoted figure of 95% is correct, then that is acceptable.
However top officials are now professional athletes like the players, and imo should be more accountable, too often there have been instance of refs having poor games, possibly even affecting the final result, and yet the following week they are out there again peeping away.
2 views on this, best way to learn is to listen to feedback and get back out there, or take your feedback and take a step back into a slightly less pressured environment and build back up again.

Exactly I’m totally aware that there is a channel available, I would just like more transparency and effective scrutiny especially of the use and interchange between the Ref and the TMO.

It is also true that journalists love to stoke the fire, but hey that’s the name of the game.

[Cardiff Tig]

The NZ super rugby games are showing that refs being strict at the breakdown is positive for the game - and that's just enforcing the rules as is.

[Mark62]

The NZ super rugby games are showing that refs being strict at the breakdown is positive for the game - and that's just enforcing the rules as is.

Very true, as you say all they are doing is enforcing the offside line, and being stricter at rucks, not allowing side entry etc. Makes for a better game and unless I’m mistaken much fewer scrums.

[Old Hob]

Back on track:
1. No substitutes unless neutral doctor says player unfit to continue. Players would be slimmer and fitter having to compete for full 80 minutes. Game would slow in 2nd half allowing more breaks and opportunities.
2. Return of the ruck. Players must be on their feet and compete for the ball on the floor with their feet. Anyone on the floor is out of the game and must get out of the way. The law circa 1970 would apply.
3. Proper scrums. Hookers must compete for the ball. Crooked feed penalised hard.

I played my rugby from the 60s to the 80s.

[mol2]

Back on track:
1. No substitutes unless neutral doctor says player unfit to continue. Players would be slimmer and fitter having to compete for full 80 minutes. Game would slow in 2nd half allowing more breaks and opportunities.
2. Return of the ruck. Players must be on their feet and compete for the ball on the floor with their feet. Anyone on the floor is out of the game and must get out of the way. The law circa 1970 would apply.
3. Proper scrums. Hookers must compete for the ball. Crooked feed penalised hard.

I played my rugby from the 60s to the 80s.

On point 2 if you are on the ground, on the wrong side, rucking is permitted everywhere but the head.

[jgriffin]

With modern understanding of preparation, playing under some laws, especially the ruck, would make the game much faster. GM was always for bringing back the foot ruck, but the crucial bit is engaging while on your feet and having no side entry or killing the ball, hence reduced time to set defences.

[mol2]

If you are tackled and brought down (knee on the ground) you must release the ball exaclty as is required of the tackler.

Too often a player makes a good tackle and releases only for the tackled player to get up and carry on.
Tackler holds and gets penalised for holding on.

Even with a tap tackle the player must release the ball, get back to his feet and then pick the ball up.