Is the job of top flight ref becoming impossible?

In the amateur days, Rugby was basically about getting one over the neighbouring bunch of lads and pretty much anything went on. The ref was there to keep a lid on it, basically. Bragging rights were at stake, but that's it. Being a good ref mostly involved no serious violence and roughly even decisions.

Now, there's money involved. Big money, careers, lifestyles. But a large amount of the old amateur ethos is still there. Not all of it is appropriate, the old attitude that "anything you can get away with is ok" being an example because it's now putting impossible pressure on the ref, who cannot possibly keep track of everything. I appreciate that at present the pressure on players to push to and over the limit is extreme.

Until we decide that the attitude in Rugby must be to play to the Laws (change the name to Rules?) and say infringements are now simply cheating and cardable offences, and all four officials can call offences, I can't see how we can avoid games like today's. This would change the game a lot.

I feel a lot of sympathy for Joubert. I don't think he had a shocker on purpose. I do fear the job of ref is actually getting beyond human ability.

"I do fear the job of ref is actually getting beyond human ability." -- If you can see what one side is doing wrong, you can see what the other side is doing too.

As for scrums, maybe a change can be made there -- and bring on some former props at the highest level to ref just that set piece and take them off the field immediately after the scrum restarts ...

scrums definitely need looking at. The breakdown also although this will remain down to interpretation.

Standulstermen, How many times do you notice NZ forwards on the wrong side of the ruck, in numbers, to make it v diff for opposiing fowards to get at the ball? It appears as if they've trained to do it.

Osprey

I completely agree and i was baffled by Joubert today in fairness. Again it is all interpretation sadly as what is a reasonable effort to roll away? Now i didnt see it today but then Joubert did.

Like i say i think it was a thankless task. What i would like to see is some accountability for referees. We have seen Walsh criticised and didnt Paddy O'Brien apologise to NZ for Dickinsons (i think) reffing of the scrum against Italy.

That said i do beleive the refs job is becoming more and more difficult and the IRB need to look into better facilitating their ability to control the game.

Osprey

Thay certainly do train to do it, they do a lot of work with biomechanics, and being in a strong position to either get dragged to the wrong side or get thrown into the wrong side! If you notice Mccaw isn't interested in turnover ball when he knows he is n't the tackler or 2nd man in yet he manages to end up on his back by the ball. The dragons have employed a similar tactic recently, the tackle and jackle is non existent in the proffesional game any more, it's about making the tackle, driving through and either booting the ball out or forcing yourself onto the wrong side.

Mccaw today just blatantly threw himself onto the wrong side and shouldve been killed by Joubert

there are much harder jobs than reffing a rugby match. many, many, much more difficult jobs.

refs need to get their acts together. joubert was spineless today and wouldnt ref the game fairly

Ospreydragon wrote:"I do fear the job of ref is actually getting beyond human ability." -- If you can see what one side is doing wrong, you can see what the other side is doing too.

As for scrums, maybe a change can be made there -- and bring on some former props at the highest level to ref just that set piece and take them off the field immediately after the scrum restarts ...

Pressure does funny things to people. It's quite possible in that pressure cooker Joubert was quicker to see what the crowd "oohed" for.

props for scrums might work at the highest level, but would it at Club? Do we want that many officials as a regular feature of the game? Or should we look at the attitude of American football and ref more in their style?

yes

Part of Mccaws trick is that he is constantly at the back of the tackle, not the ruck.most of the kiwi forwards do it, at every tackle the first tackler slips around and drops, leaving the ball to the 2nd man in.

there are much harder jobs than reffing a rugby match. many, many, much more difficult jobs.

Oh granted. In general terms. But I think we might be loading too much on the ref now, what with analysts specifically there to look for foibles in a refs game which then become major issues when successfully exploited being an example. I think we need to take the ref's interpretation out of it as far as possible. Or we're going to see more games like today's, I think.

Like most, I thought the ABs got away with loads. I can't believe Joubert, knowing it was being aired worldwide to millions, trashed his reputation on purpose.

Mind you, I assume when the kiwis are back on here we'll hear all about how evenhanded he was.

I can't see the problem with touchline appeals against refs' decisions or oversights.

One unsuccessful appeal per half.

Wales (for glaring examples) might have been correctly denied two tries in high-profile matches against Ireland (6Ns) and Oz yesterday. And if you like, Wales probably would have appealed the Warburton RC last week.

dogtooth wrote:there are much harder jobs than reffing a rugby match. many, many, much more difficult jobs.

refs need to get their acts together. joubert was spineless today and wouldnt ref the game fairly

hey it certainly doesnt make it easier though does it- its still an impossible job to do when the millions of viewers watching the game have a better view!!

tiime to help them out- not blame them- you got the wendy ball attitude.

Portnoy: You are thinking of cricket and referrals? I'm not sure it would work in the faster paced game that is Rugby. Would there be time for more than a kneejerk reaction?

I am beginning to suspect we need a change in the ethics of the game to a much harsher view of "pushing the envelope" and simply call it cheating. If you are attacking and commit any offence you lose possession, if defending you lose extra territory if the play breaks down and cancel out any attacker's penalty if play carries on. It's not ideal imo to have extra officials but I think we need attack refs and defence refs and scrum refs.

This all assumes the present situation is not one that we wish to see continue...

I think you are right, Cowshot. Referees need eyes in the backs of their heads to catch everything. The game is so much faster meaning incidents and potential penalties happen at light speed. For these issues, the game simply ain't what it used to be.

The only place where I have no sympathy with the referees is the scrum. This had got to be sorted. There are poor or non-existant binds, driving down, pushing up and boring in. Here is where I would start.

As I said, though, things happen so much faster now. Being a referee is a tough, tough job. To put it in perspective, the NFL has more than 10 officials on the field. And they still miss calls.

doctor_grey wrote:I think you are right, Cowshot. Referees need eyes in the backs of their heads to catch everything. The game is so much faster meaning incidents and potential penalties happen at light speed. For these issues, the game simply ain't what it used to be.

The only place where I have no sympathy with the referees is the scrum. This had got to be sorted. There are poor or non-existant binds, driving down, pushing up and boring in. Here is where I would start.

As I said, though, things happen so much faster now. Being a referee is a tough, tough job. To put it in perspective, the NFL has more than 10 officials on the field. And they still miss calls.

I'm doing my absolute best to see how Joubert's reffing in today's game can be called evenhanded. And I simply can't. Nor can I just accept one of the world's best refs just had an off day. And I don't believe he was deliberately biased. Hence my conclusion that we are asking too much of top flight refs.

Absolutely agree about the scrum. But if the ref is watching the scrum, who's watching the offside and the binding on the ref's unsighted side? The touch judges? Officially?

More than 10 officials in NFL, eh? Oh Lord. But I think that's the way we have to go at the highest level. I think we need a change in attitude so a player who commits an offence is regarded as a cheat and the price of being caught simply isn't worth it.

mystiroakey wrote:

dogtooth wrote:there are much harder jobs than reffing a rugby match. many, many, much more difficult jobs.

refs need to get their acts together. joubert was spineless today and wouldnt ref the game fairly

hey it certainly doesnt make it easier though does it- its still an impossible job to do when the millions of viewers watching the game have a better view!!

tiime to help them out- not blame them- you got the wendy ball attitude.

there were a fair few occations where joubert had a veiw of a newzealand offence. im not blaming him for the stuff he didnt see. he actually bent down to tell mccaw to stop spoiling the ball when he was off side at a ruck. that is poor reffing when the correct response would have been a penalty, and a possible card for it being a repeat offence.

i'm all for taking as much grey as possible out of the game and usinmg technology to help the officials. pity the irb isnt.

I still cant believe that Joubert waved away Nigel Owens flagging for a high tackle. Thats something saw and was guilty of a very bad decision.

Reffing a Rugby game IS complex and its not incompetance that is at question, just even handedness, that i think we used to call Fairness. Very little fairness was on display today from Mr Joubert and i think he brought the game in to disrepute as a result.

I think we need the job of ref broken down much more, as in NFL. Make decisions easier and more clear cut: Offside, or not offside? and that's all that official has to concentrate on. I'm not at all sure HOW it should be broken down, but the number of neutrals who started supporting NZ and ended supporting France in large part because of the reffing says there is a problem.

I feel a lot of sympathy for Joubert. I don't think he had a shocker on purpose. I do fear the job of ref is actually getting beyond human ability.

I don't feel any sympathy for Joubert. But, I do fear the job of ref is actually getting beyond human ability.

Cowshot wrote:Absolutely agree about the scrum. But if the ref is watching the scrum, who's watching the offside and the binding on the ref's unsighted side? The touch judges? Officially?

I'm not 100% sure exactly what the touch judges are allowed to call now that they are technically Assistant Referees. But to me the Assistant Referee on the off side of the scrum should be allowed on the pitch to cover the side of scrum opposite the referee. Then they retreat to the touch line when play gets going.

A few people have mentioned 'interpretation' when talking about the ruck. Maybe it's time to stop interpretation and make the rules black and white so that we can have more consistent referees. One referee's interpretation of a ruck will be different to another's of the same ruck. That's where inconsistency comes in, and teams need to spend time working out the referee each game, which is a farce. Let's revisit the ruck laws, decide what we will penalise and what will be allowed and then tell the refs to ref it to the letter of the law, no interpretation, just black and white, yes or no, penalty offence or fair ruck.

Would this work? It would lead to very stop start rugby for a while, but teams would soon get used to it once they were fed up of being penalised/carded.

the only way to get consistant reffing

is to stop all interpretation and all intent and as you say make everything blacvk and white- but the reffs dont have 10 eyes- they also need help

You can do that if you simplify the laws as well Oaky.

Agree with Glas. A black and white style reffing needs a complete revamp in refereeing and the laws

red_stag wrote:Agree with Glas. A black and white style reffing needs a complete revamp in refereeing and the laws

But then you need a black and white set of Laws. For instance in the tackle, the tackler needs to release the tacklee. But the tacklee should equally release the ball.

Or am I wrong?

No that's the point we were both making. You can't have one without the other.

I think there also should be an official amount of time that the player has to release the ball to avoid inconsistencies such as todays where one team seems to have less of a chance to release than the other. Something like 1, 2, 3 and then you are pinged if you have not released. I'm sure this would make it much easier for the referee also.

That is complicating things.

What you need is:
1 offside line at ruck and maul - the ball
2 you can hold on and handle whilst on the deck

I don't think it is very complicated having a 3 second + release time.. the player must release the ball and it is up to the referee how long they have to release. Today inconsistencies were shown in this area.

Handling on the deck? Now that is what I think would complicate things..

There needs to be less laws, currently the laws are open to interpretation and abuse by players, coaches and referees.

With less left to interpretation and more left to the players to dominate there will be much less controversy.

The most common problems are the rucks, scrums, mauls and offside.

Offside is pretty easy to sort out.

Rucks have far too many laws,

1. Did the player come through the gate.
2. did the tackler release the tackled player.
3. Was there daylight
4. Did the tackled player release the ball.
5. when is the ruck officialy formed.
6. is the ball in the air and still in play or not.
7, was there hands in the ruck.
8. Did the attacking team close off the ruck illegally.
9. did the attacking team stay on their feet.
10. Was the scrum half pulled into the ruck, who was te=he scrum half in the ruck.
11. who entered throug the gate.
12. are there any players blocking defenders who are standing in an offside position

etc, etc.

Scrum

1.Who's head was below his bum
2. Was there a hand on the ground.
3. is the srumhalf of the defending team behind the ball.
4. did the flanjer break his bind early.
5. did the prop scrum in.
6. was it a deliberate wheel
7. was the ball fed straight
8. did the prop scrum up.
9. did the front row move before the engage
10. did the front row slip or was it brought down on purpose

etc. etc.

Maul.

1. did the defender come from the side.
2. did the defender pull the maul down.
3. did the defender come through the middle
4. did the defender lift a players legs.
5. was there obstruction by the attacking team
6. was there a break in the bind by the ball carrier.

etc. etc.

It can be so much simpler.

ruck.

free for all, let anyone put his hands in, let anyone fight for the ball, let anyone go off their feet.

Just check the gate and offside line.

Scrum.

Let the team feeding the ball dictate the engage.
If the ball is out, it doesn't matter if the scrum collapses.

Maul

Allowmauls to be stop any way possible, just stick to offside lines.

This way every team will know they don[t have to worry whether the referee will or will not penalise them or the opponent, it is up to them to retain possession and avoid contestable rucks. The scrums will be once again won by the dominant forward pack, as it ince was. The mauls will become a useless weapon.

Or you could return to good old rucking...

No, it becomes a free for all. Therefore your forwards have to become forwards again, battling to win the ball, and the other team have always got a chance of pinching it, and your backs have a lot more space.

We would get players just lying on the ball then at ruck time.. I think that could just make things more chaotic.

So were these the old rules?

Rory_Gallagher wrote:We would get players just lying on the ball then at ruck time.. I think that could just make things more chaotic.

True, but only for a short period of time. Teams and coaches will learn how to adapt as they havealways done everytime a rule changes.
Teams will improve in the offload and try to avoid rucks. In the old days you would lose the ball if you took it in. Teams will not want that to happen so it will also imporve the game as teams (SA) will have to improve other skill sets.

Portnoy wrote:Or you could return to good old rucking...

Absolutely!

I didn't watch rugby in the old days, so if these were the old rules and it was a better spectacle, I guess my opinion is invalid! When you say you lose the ball taking it in, does that mean the likes of having a crash ball centre at 12 a la Roberts is useless?

Only the foolhardy and the certifiably stupid would not get out of a ruck. I'm not talking about studs trampling and scraping on bodies here - just getting them out of the way by shoving them out of the way.

The reason Roberts has to go on the crash is to tie up defenders - in his case the back row. You wouldn't need to do that if they were battling to get/keep the ball at every ruck and maul.