Simplify rugby laws.

After watching the Wales vs Scotland match it was once again clear what an impossible task the referee has. The match itself was in my view the most entertaining match of the Six Nations thus far inspite of the glaring mistakes the referee made.

In this case I don't think the referee's errors cost Scotland the match as they took care of the loss themselves by going back onto the pitch in the second half half asleep. From the kick off Scotland didn't nominate who will recieve the kick off and immediately they put themsleves under pressure due to a schoolboy error. Only a minute later Laidlaw missed a one on one tackle on Cuthbert who needed no invitation to the try line. Within a few minutes they tackled a player chasing after a kick and recieved a yellow card and conceded a penalty.

This is the brain farts that cost them the game.

The problem is though that when a referee has a performance where he has made questionable decisions and in some areas there was a lack of officiating, there will always be contentious issues after the fact.

Firstly in the first ten minutes he penalised both teams at scrum time for reasons I can only assume he guessed. At the scrum where he penalised the Scottish tight head, it was a scrum that collapsed. Usually a scrum collapses because the loose head prop isn't holding up his end. that is effectively the logic of it. Most of the time when a loose head will go down legally is if the tight head didn't bind correctly. In this case there was nothing wrong with the bind.

During the first half Poite allowed numerous forward passes to be overlooked (wouldn't have minded him during our QF against Australia ) and he also appeared to have decided that he wasn't going to get involved in the rucks.

But then he did, and then again he didn't.

So he was not only inconsistent in the way he refereed the ruck, but also when he did and didn't.

In my opinion the simple fact is that rugby is too fast and the laws too complicated. The offside lines, the entry into the ruck, the scrums, whether a tackler has released the tackled player etc. are all up for interpretation. The first problem with these interpretations is it depends what colour your shirt you wearing, but even unbiased spectators can have differing views on interpretations.

Then you also have the TMO, when does he come in and when is play too far back.

It is time that the performance of the teams on the field get the attention post match and not the referees.

They have a difficult task where the speed of the game, the complications of the laws, the interpretation of these laws and the consistency of the referees are creating more post match debate than the actual performance of the teams. And then of course they influence the results of matches far too often these days.

And in my view that is wrong.

Hi ya Biltong....havn't re-added the sky sport back on yet (got sick of the endless football et alll so knocked it on the head for a month or so) so missed the game. Will do for the sxv and upcoming SA Kiwis cricket! so I'll see you on the cricket boards as well (unless we get the pounding we've been giving your neighbours here)...

Time is nigh for changes. Too many big matches are being impacted and the overall impact on the game will be hurt further down when it becomes too apparent that sucking up to refs is an important part of the strategy.

In amongst the rules and the interpretation of them there is also the things they 'see' or more importantly 'don't see' that is hurting as well.

Things like forward passes are easy from the armchair with a camera high up in line with the advantage line but with running around with whistle in hand, looking here there and everywhere for infringements makes it impossible to be accurate with the rules these days.

And accuracy is all we are asking for.

It will come sooner than later...through a combination of the rules, interpretation of them, better assistance for refs on the field and hopefully via the players themselves.

Problem with the rules is they change them too much they'll end up on Alan's list of history shaping events- 2-3-2 scrum, 5 point try's, tackle ball rule...

Problem with the rules is they change them too much they'll end up on Alan's list of history shaping events- 2-3-2 scrum, 5 point try's, tackle ball rule... So true.

The cricket starts the week doesn't it?

On a side note, the 5 Franchises from SA has notified SARU that they will not budge on amalgamating with the Kings and that SARU must find a way for an extra franchise in the Super XV

The scrums are the biggest area of concern. These players train hard everyday, analysing opposition and this is their lively hoods as well. So to have some incompetent ref taking a guess must really pee off these guys.

To be far the guy is a clueless numpty and should be nowhere near an International match.

viewtothegym wrote:To be far the guy is a clueless numpty and should be nowhere near an International match.

Yes but the same has been said about Clancy, Barnes, Lawrence, Joubert, Walsh, Rolland etc depending on which side of the stand you're on and its now too common to ignore.

They're important to the game and we risk losing the very best one's due to the job description becoming impossible to fulfil.

What budding youngster would aspire to be an international referee these days- honestly...?

biltongbek wrote:

The cricket starts the week doesn't it?

Yep...entrees (20/20) 17/2 then the real stuff from 25/2...all up...3 X 20/20, ODI and tests...

Our guys should be ready for it as theyve been at it pretty full on against Zimbabwe...bit of a step up so should be great...

Yeah I thought Poite was poor today for both sides escpesically at the breakdown.

Somthing clearly has to be done about the scrum. I think we have to look at taking away the hit and setting the scrum differently, this crouch touch pause engage is a wind up for me. I certainly dont want to see the scrum devalued or go rugby league style but its clearly a shambles.

As for the rest well I think the IRB has to be clearer about interpretation of the law in their directives to refs and refs need to be consistent in that approach. Too much tinkering with teh laws will just add to confusion so I think other than the scrum we should be careful.

Where does it say anywhere that sport has to be fair? So what if the referee makes a wrong decision that costs a team the game (like Waynes Barnes repeatedly does!).

Football has the simplest rules of any team sport on the planet but that doesn't stop controvesy or the refs being targeted. The rugby laws need some refinement but not wholesale changes.

while perhaps a little simplify the rules could be done for major games use 5 officials. that would make it much easier to police offside and both sides of the scrum

either 4 touch judges and one ref or 2 TJs, one ref and two end judges

Hang on - the IRB are struggling to recruit enough officials with three on the pitch and we should add two more!

That may be an issue but IMO 5 officials is the way to stop most mistakes

TJ wrote:while perhaps a little simplify the rules could be done for major games use 5 officials. that would make it much easier to police offside and both sides of the scrum

either 4 touch judges and one ref or 2 TJs, one ref and two end judges

Yeah and we can have two TMOs, one for the players and one to judge whether the 5 on pitch officials were looking the right way during any altercation to provide a percentage accuracy rating for the time of said altercation which the main ref uses to determine whether the threshold has been reached (say 77.6%) in order to convert a yellow card to a red in occasions when the grey area of the laws leads to subsequent fan bickering.

I said to my brother this morning that rugby must have the worst quality referees in any sport, and his reply was simply "you mustn't watch much football then." Admittedly I don't, so it seems like this isn't just restricted to rugby.

rugby refs are good - there is simply too much going on to catch everything

I disagree- the referee just has to make it clear before and early on in the match what he will allow in the breakdown etc abd it is up to the players to conform to that once thy realise what he is and isn't penalising. Touchjudges should be encouraged to make more calls if it clear they have a better view than the referee for knockons etc and there should be a separate scrum referee as nobody knows how to referee it

I think what we are looking at is one of the awkwardnesses of the shift from amateur to professional sport. In the old days it was fine to push the limits a bit, whether by a sneaky punch (or whatever;)) or conning the ref because all that was at stake was bragging rights.

Now with professionalism there is big money involved. Players are much bigger and fitter and the impacts inherent to the game are also bigger. Bringing down the scrum illegally is dangerous and things like gouging and fish hooking just nasty and big money rides on the results. I think we have retained too much of the old amateur lads having a laugh ethos for the pro era.

I think we should look to the NFL for a guide to the future of officiating at the highest levels and see if that can't solve the issue. But I don't think anything will help the ref much until the players decide to play a clean version of the game.

Moi,with a list of history making rules?seriously the Scrum for one,setting up first
then pushing WAS better.Crooked feeds were policed better than in they are now in amateur days.
The breakdown/pileup is a total mess and EVERY move by either side can be penalised at every one.
There was talk of cutting out one step in the scrum call,not sure which one,tightening up on offsides at the breakdown.
Also reverting to the rule at the maul team going forward gets the scrum feed,not as now.
Maybe the All Blacks would revive the Driving /Rolling Mauls they used so successfully under those laws.

One ref has a poor game and you want to change the rules? The problem as I see it is that the same refs get away with under-performing time and time again without sanction. If the refs were held more accountable, they would do a better job, the same holds for all lines of work.

I don't care how much is going on, there is no excuse for ignoring crooked scrum feeds, ignoring the off-side line or making arbitrary rulings at the scrum/breakdown or otherwise getting basic laws completely wrong.

It seems to me that various refs have various predictable weaknesses, I don't know what they are not simply retrained and rewarded/penalised in tandem. A bit of carrot and stick.

There are some very fine referees around. It looks like a lack of leadership and coaching from the IRB.

Perhaps referees need to be incentivised more to bring them in line with the professional standards required.

At the end of the day, there is no excuse for the mess that Poite made today, no excuse for the way South Africa were bundled out of the world cup, or for the quick-throw try that Wales got away with last year or for most of the myriad of legitimate complaints from fans of most teams over the last decade.

miteyironpaw wrote:

There are some very fine referees around.

Name one Mitey...

A referee's performance is usually directly correlated to my teams performance. If we're getting flogged the ref's having a stinker, if we're the one's doing the flogging he's having a terrific game, and anywhere in between he's obviously made numerous mistakes and could be doing a lot better.

They should trial the 2 ref system we have in the NRL as there's just too much going on for 1 mere mortal to officiate correctly. That way, when we get flogged, there's two blokes for me to yell at.

Having more officials is not going to solve the problem. It only means more people interpreting things in different ways.

Simple rules allow for less interpretations to be contentious.

Take the ruck as an example.

This is what the referee watches for at the moment.

Did the tackler release the tackled player
Did the tackled player hold on
Who is first to arrive to have rights on the ball
Is he on his feet at all times, and when does he go off his feet
When does he call ruck so hands must come out
Who closes the ball off
Who commits obstruction
Did the players come through the gate
Who is legally being cleared from the ruck

All that in a split second will always lead to contentious interpretation and if you have more officials it will now become a contradiction of interpretations.

Simplify the laws.

The most important aspect of a breakdwon is the off side line, then closing off of the ball that stops both teams to compete and finally obstruction of the team with the ball on the opposition. Owen Francks is a master at this, it buys his team time to clear the ball.

Allow hands in, let the teams fight for the ball, it is happening at the moment allready anyway, but the referee interprets it in such a manner that it becomes match winning decisions.

If you may have hands in the ruck and compete for the ball on equal terms, teams will avoid the contact area and rather keep the ball alive, we will have a faster game, less incorrect and contentious interpretations.

In most cases both teams can be guilty of indiscretions, it depends which the referee chooses to blow.

I really do wish that the powers that be would take another look at the scrum laws. Its an absolute shambles and to be fair to the ref's they are making judgment calls and guess most of the time. Its nearly every ref that has this problem so its not a reffing issue i feel.

Yes, I have a serious beef with the scrum.

There are simple indicicators at a scrum when deciding who is at fault.

when a scrum drops it is usually the loosehead going down, unless the tight head binds illegally and that means his outside arm is not outside of the loose heads outside arm.

A scrum stands up in most cases because the loosehead pushes up, as he is the prop binding under the tight head. When a prop pushes in it is usually because the loose head goes in, unless the tight head and hooker pulls in.

Most of these things are down to physical strength and technique. Technique can overcome physical strength if the loose head gets his target right by aiming his arm to shoot like a jab from underneath and grabbing hold of the tight head's jumper (problem is these tight jumpers) and losk his shoulder parallel to the ground in one fluid movement.

I see these days many loose heads will keep their shoulders parallel to the ground before the engage, from there the angle to get your arm underneath is much harder and allows the tigh head to gain downward momentum on the loose head.

I used to have a very simple routine when playing loose head.

1. check the bind of my right arm on the hooker's hip, it has to be tigh with no play.
2. get my left arm in the jab position and look at my target, not the tight head's eyes (I am not going to date him, so no need to know the colour of his eyes).
3. shoot my left arm out at the intended target, use that momentum to bring my elbow out and lock my shoulder.
4. get my left leg and back all the way to my shoulder in a straight position pushing upwards at an angle of about 30%, this will keep the tigh head up and pure physics won't allow him to push me anywhere, even if he outweighs me by a number of kilo's.

Like biltong said, I seem to have witnessed more than the fair share of forward passes in that game.

Are refs beginning to go soft on that one? It's still illegal and should be judged on those terms. But it seems the wonder of fast rugby demands it therefore the refs ignore a few in the interests of 'wonder'.

There is no wonder in continuous forward passing - it's an illegal advantage and should get a warning from the ref that someone will walk if it becomes continuous and blatant. No, they are not errors, they are plotted, planned and trained for. And as Biltong says, as long as it happens at speed the ref is either bamboozled or he just feels unsure about stopping the attacking side.

i agree that laws should be simplified, when i watch league or even american football i feel abit jealous of the simplicity of the game. there isnt as much that can go wrong!

get a gps tagged ball as well, or allow forward passing as long as it thrown in the correct way- i think we have had that discussion plenty of times!

hopefully the IRB will listen to these guys:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/rugby-world-cup/8834455/Fran-Cotton-Mike-Burton-and-Ray-McLoughlin-submit-paper-to-IRB-calling-for-scrummaging-law-changes.html

mawhis wrote:hopefully the IRB will listen to these guys:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/rugby-world-cup/8834455/Fran-Cotton-Mike-Burton-and-Ray-McLoughlin-submit-paper-to-IRB-calling-for-scrummaging-law-changes.html

From that list, this is the one I always laugh at - and I truly felt until now that I was the only one who saw the lack of logic in it:

Article quote: ' - Too often referees are required to "assume" a crime that is unjust and contrary to logic "at least 80 per cent of the time." Sometimes the tighthead will be penalised because he has got himself into a bad position or because he wasn't strong enough or technically good enough to hold the scrum up. It can cost his side three points. The men argue that this is akin to penalising a centre for being "too slow." - '

It's comical to me that a player is penalised for just struggling to cope. "Sorry, gov - I'll try and be a stronger rugby player in the next shove. I was cheating there when I had a scary heartmurmer and had to give in under the pressure." The opposing team should reap the benefits of being stronger - sure; but not in the guise of a 'penalty'.

good point secretfly.

shouldnt penalise someone for just being a weakling

mystiroakey wrote:good point secretfly.

shouldnt penalise someone for just being a weakling

you shouldn't select him either.

yeah lol

sometimes *gulp* you don't have too many choices. The weakling just has to go on; PenaltyMagnate written all over his forlorn face.

SecretFly wrote:sometimes *gulp* you don't have too many choices. The weakling just has to go on; PenaltyMagnate written all over his forlorn face.

Yeah we have had a few of those over the past decade, none more so than Eddie Andrews, he was a penalty a scrum for the opposition.

Like biltong said, I seem to have witnessed more than the fair share of forward passes in that game.

Are refs beginning to go soft on that one? It's still illegal and should be judged on those terms.

I think the linesmen simply cannot keep up with professional rugby players when say a line break occurs and the speed of play picks up, therefore they are rarely "in-line" with the ball when often important calls need to be made.

I think they have a tough job and require more help, what form that help should take is a tougher question.

Taylorman wrote:

miteyironpaw wrote:

There are some very fine referees around.

Name one Mitey...

I'll name four.

Joubert - had a great world cup, despite what some with one French eye would say about perceived injustice in the final
Barnes - surely the most consistent referee in the NH, even if he is not viewed kindly by some in the south
Walsh - suffers from hemispherian polarisation, but he's consistent and generally accurate since he gave up the bottle
Owens - if for nothing else then his "oh, Jesus, no." comment into the reflink when the pace got too much for him as NZ and Australia refused to stop running up and down the pitch after 85 minutes. He's a good communicator and consistently polices both sides with an impartial eye.

referees get way to much stick.

its not there fault, its an impossible job , and due to HD and replays and rewinding sat boxes and the internet and the amount of camereas- they are getting shown up.

simplify rules, use more tech, STOP BLAMInG REFS

mystiroakey wrote:referees get way to much stick.

its not there fault, its an impossible job , and due to HD and replays and rewinding sat boxes and the internet and the amount of camereas- they are getting shown up.
simplify rules, use more tech, STOP BLAMInG REFS

It also doesn't help to see them so clearly on these HD screens. you can see who doesn't sweat and who doesn't really care

How does HD impact that mysti?

clearer better quality pictures aids us to see what is going on, live and on replays. Infact we are at a stage were we have a much better view than the ref. that is surely a serious problem!!

mystiroakey wrote:referees get way to much stick.

its not there fault, its an impossible job , and due to HD and replays and rewinding sat boxes and the internet and the amount of camereas- they are getting shown up.

simplify rules, use more tech, STOP BLAMInG REFS

Correct. They don't have the armchair technology, the bag of crisps, the bottle or glass of beer or the remote control............. they only have eyes to watch a game happening at speeds only HD slowmotion can examine in real detail. And when we all see it in glorious wideangle HD slowmotion, we all go "What???!!! Just look at that!!! The ref is effing blind!!!! Any fool would have picked that up and I'm glad they caught it on slowmotion to prove the point".

An example of us, the watching critics, is the TMO. The TMO is the official who represents us more closely than a ref. This individual has the technology...maybe even the bottle of beer for all I know...but he has the technology and even he has to go over the glorious slow motion footage, over and over again before he makes a call. Even slow motion is sometimes too fast for the eyes of officials...so what can a ref do? Say it as he sees it.

Sports like tennis and cricket have proved the ref/ umpire eye alone is not good enough to be sole judge of the sport where in todays game, so much, more specifically money, is on the line.

The lines of battle make it easier for those sports to bring in the required technology but the concept is the same. All decisions must be correct. With rugby the tmo is the beginning of the inevitable. No doubt someone somewhere is working on some hi tech graphics for most sports- including rugby.

The complexity of the game makes increasing technology inevitable. Just a matter of time.

The annoying thing for me is whenever the breakdown or reset occurs I'll bet more than 50% of the eyes are on the ref. With the number of restarts- breakdowns scrums and lineouts in the match thats a lot of time we are all looking at the ref. Love to see the stats on that.

But thats the reality. In close games we are all willing the ref to blow it up one way or the other.

Some sport...ref watching...

?? I seldom look at the ref...and only when he's doing or saying something funny or humourous. Indeed, sometimes I find myself screaming at him to get out of the way of my view.

I think he should be hoisted into the air on wires like in one of those highly advanced circuses.... there he'd have his roving birdseye view and he wouldn't be getting in the damn way.

SecretFly wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:referees get way to much stick.

its not there fault, its an impossible job , and due to HD and replays and rewinding sat boxes and the internet and the amount of camereas- they are getting shown up.

simplify rules, use more tech, STOP BLAMInG REFS

Correct. They don't have the armchair technology, the bag of crisps, the bottle or glass of beer or the remote control............. they only have eyes to watch a game happening

And they have the disadvantage of two eyes, which seems to cloud things. The majority of us see things very clearly with one.

true...true....

SecretFly wrote:?? I seldom look at the ref..

I wonder how true that is for most as 50,000 screams seem to go up instantly whenever he raises his arm...

Fact is ALL fans blame the Ref at some time[including me!!!] but they know the laws better than you do.All of them are competent,but human they make mistakes.
Scrums are mostly pure guesswork the Front Row Mafia have it of pat,really ALL
the Refs on the panel.Should get Coaching from members of the Front Row Mafia what to look for.
The Breakdown is a complete mess,and it isn`t JUST Owen Franks who blocks around the fringes,EVERY side does it.A Forward goes steaming past the breakdown,THEN retreats like a tortoise with athritis.
Home town Refs don`t really exist now even if you think they do,though they do tend to favour home sides in 50-50 decisions.

id love to see a few scums, breakdowns etc which has obvious and not so obvious infringements viewed on telly by all our refs.

the refs decide on what to do without the others knowing.

i bet the inconsitancy would show the whole system up big time!

its not just tech that is needed- but laws either need simpilfing big time, that or seriousness tougness is needed- the beneift of the doubt is applied so many times at the breakdown- ref reffs it as he sees it, not on really- need specific guidlines that should be followed robotically

mystiroakey, I beleive simplification of laws is the only answer. There must be less areas to be interpreted. As you say, if 10 referees have to be tested on ten scrums, you would most likley get 50+ different interpretations on those 10 scrums. The breakdwon as well.

The IRB lawmakers have been tampering with the laws too much. Instead of looking at a way where the ruck for example can be simplified, they look at adding something else to it to counter a previous addition. That will never work, no matter how many referees has eyes on the game, or how much technology is being used.

The basic reason a breakdown exists is because a player has been tackled with the ball. The aim of a breakdwon in it's simplest form is to continue play when one team has won the ball.

That is the bare essentials of the ruck.

So what is the simplest method of getting a ball out of a ruck?

By playing the thing with your hands. Thus allow players to play and contest for the ball with their hands. This way there is no contentious issue.

What is the next important law of rugby?

Stay onside, thus there must be an offside line and with it comes where you are allowed to enter a ruck from, well it is from behind hence called the gate.

So now we have 2 main laws for a ruck.

What has to happen to prevent a ruck becoming a free for all?

Well those who wants to play the ball must stay on their feet. Thus if you go off your feet you may no longer play the ball.

Lastly, add counter rucking where you must remian on your feet and viola we have simple yet effective way to officiate a ruck.

The current problems with a ruck are.

When you must release.

How does a referee determine whether the tackler released and the tackled player were allowed to place?

You can't ever say for certain so it is up for interpretation.

Who is first to arrive? Who knows who has rights to the ball?

I say my way is more effective and less contentious.

I would not like to see that more TV replays are brought it to help the refs at scrums. They take an eternity now and if that was to be done we may start seeing matches run as long as American Football.

biltongs idea of simplifying the rules at the scrum is the better option in my view.

"The basic reason a breakdown exists is because a player has been tackled
with the ball. The aim of a breakdwon in it's simplest form is to
continue play when one team has won the ball."

what do suggest - basically stop play and use league rules