How will different refereeing interpretations affect HC and Amlin?

There was a lot of angst, wailing and all round whining about the standard of refereeing during the World Cup - probably best not to rehash that.

What concerns me though is that the laws are so complicated that we get very different interpretations of what is allowed. this is most noticable when comparing refs from different leagues. During the World Cup it was obvious that SH and NH refs had different things they were looking for, and at times different views on what was and wasn't illegal. Viewing last nights Amlin match between Warriors and Stade made me wonder if the same will happen during the European competitions.

Four times in the first half the ref pinged Worcester players for "sealing off". I am not disputing the decisions as such, but the same events would not be penalised in the AP. Last season we saw Celtic Refs perfectly happy for lineout jumpers to go up with their arms between the opposition jumper (effectively pulling an arm away) which would be penalised by an English/French ref.

This means that teams are having to work out what will (and won't) be deemed illegal by each ref. This has to be wrong - the laws should be applied the same by all refs. It is also possible that Rabo teams have a very slight advantage as they can have games reffed by people they see week in week out.

I am worried that we will have competitions that are affected far too much by refereeing interpretation - and not by player skill.

I pretty much agree with you LT, and I know exactly the game you are referring too with the illegal shanannigans in the line out.... cough... cough... Leinster which were completely ignored by Nigel Owens (I think).

But your arguement is a rehash of the same arguements that has been going on since the last HEC & RWC and before. Unfortunately refs are human, humans are fallable and prone to making emotional decisions.

It's down to the IRB to make sure that consistent interpretation is filtered down from the top to the other Unions and theirs from the premier leagues to the grass roots.

This is where it fails because each union then has it's own 'buttons' on what they think is important i.e. sealing off is looked for, climbing all over someone in the line out isn't.

If there are 4-5 infringements at every scrum and breakdown it is just pot luck as to what the referee blows the whistle for.

There are areas like forward passes, offside, entering from the side, lazy runners, etc. that refs should (and commonly do) catch.

But last weekend we did see the referees switched around to give the teams a bit of pre-exposure which I think can only be a good thing.

Oh coaches and players are just as much to blame. Every time there is a law change coaches work out ways to stretch them to their advantage.

Infringements at the scrum would be reduced if

a) the ball was put in immediately and straight into the middle of the front rows. This would mean hookers have to hook, thus changing their body position and mean props behave differently

b) the "hit" was not permitted and the shove only starts when the ball is in.

Neither of these are law changes, just enforcing what is currently there.

LT agree fully on both those points. The other thing that really annoys me is when refs (to be fair normally SH ones) allow the scrum to collapse as long as the ball is at the 8s feet and it is used fairly quickly after the scrum collapses. It allows weak teams to feed the ball straight to the back of the scrum and then slump straight down negating their weakness. It is dangerous and should really be pulled up more.