Criticism of the referee.

First topic message reminder :

I just want to point out that I think some of the comments made about referees (from all NH sides on here) have been shocking to say the least. The claims that referees are "spoiling" or "killing" the game, the claims that they show bias towards one team over the other, or that they have a vendetta against a certain team, are absolutely ludicrous. I am getting pretty sick and tired of it too.

Yes, referees do make mistakes, some more than others, but they are human and they are there to do a job. They will not be perfect in their job. They will make plenty of mistakes, and plenty of the mistakes they make, you will not like. That is fine, and sometimes it is okay to question a refereeing decision. Referees will obviously evaluate their own performances, and try to have a better understanding of the laws and try to show more consistency. However, the claims that they have "won the game" or "lost the game" for a team, is simply ridiculous. As are claims that they show any sort of bias.

I hope that some people might read this and realise that refereeing isn't such an easy job. If you expect perfection, go watch a different sport. The laws themselves are not perfect. There are a few things I would like to change, particularly at the breakdown, and some players are VERY good at pushing the laws to the limit and getting away with it. However, the referee does not intentionally let them away with it. So please, stop accusing referees of bias, or winning/losing games for teams. They too are professionals just like the players. They want to do the best they can at their job. Give them a chance.

John Cregan wrote:Thomond,

The fact that the Ukraine gioal wasn't awarded the other night was their own fault so, not the officials????

Referees make serious mistakes, and in some cases those mistakes can decide the outcome of a game. What is your issue with debating those decisions as well as the pros and cons of your own teams play.

Why have a forum like this at all??

As those below have eluded to, it was offside so it has no relevance. We're also talking about two different saports so the comparison doesn't really apply.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

slartibartfast wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:You claimed the entire tour has been a show of bias towards the SH. That involves all of the home nations. How come Scotland were able to deal with the interpretations but not Wales against Australia? How were Ireland able to dominate the breakdown in their first two games (obviously not today though)? There is no advantage given to the SH teams by the referee.

If Wales and England suffer at the breakdown, that is their fault and nobody else. You cannot blame the referee.

Yes you can.

Then rugby isn't the sport for you. Do you honestly believe the referee is to blame for the welsh performance on this tour?

Rugby is the sort for me and You're putting words in my mouth.

Where did I say the ref was to blame for wales England performance ? I genuinely believe the SH sides get away with more - I saw it with my own eyes - I've watched and played rugby before see?

Do I think Wales lost the series because of it? No, it was their poor decisions and general lack of invention behind the scrum.

Here's a prime example: world cup 2003 final - how badly was the scrum reffed with an obvious slant towards Australia?

All this refs are innocent and don't have an effect on games is tosh. Perhaps theyre swayed by home teams.

Thomond wrote:

John Cregan wrote:Thomond,

The fact that the Ukraine gioal wasn't awarded the other night was their own fault so, not the officials????

Referees make serious mistakes, and in some cases those mistakes can decide the outcome of a game. What is your issue with debating those decisions as well as the pros and cons of your own teams play.

Why have a forum like this at all??

As those below have eluded to, it was offside so it has no relevance. We're also talking about two different saports so the comparison doesn't really apply.

We're not talking about mistakes - were talking about favouring a team and quickly blowing for pens against another.

Thomond/Mysti,

You are both being really pedantic now. So there was 2 serious mistakes for the Ukraine goal - and both decisions cancelled each other out so the Officials did really well???

That's nonsence.

Mysti, less of the "stupid", that's over the line.......................

nathan wrote:Rory, the following post kind of contradicts what your saying in this one.

"I thought the referee today was absolutely abysmal. There, I said it. I think people are afraid to criticise the referee these days incase they seem to be using that as an excuse. Though there is a difference between blaming the ref and just admitting he was completely rubbish. Today was an example of a rubbish ref."

https://www.606v2.com/t23336-why-as-their-been-no-complaints-about-the-referee#929486

So are we allowed to criticise the ref, or are we only allowed to when it suits you?

How long did it take for you to find something I posted back in February? Did you seriously go out of your way to find something?

The funny thing is that it contradicts nothing. Read the original post again. And read what I just bolded. Like I just said, "there is a difference between blaming the ref and just admitting he was completely rubbish".

Someone asked about a SH point of view about this debate.

I think that arguing about certain calls or even saying a ref's overall performance was poor etc is fair game. BUT guys going on about biased and/or corrupt refs all the time is a game for saddos.

However moan on if it makes you feel better

Risca Rev wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:BTW, you do realise there is an ignore list? Stick AWOP on there, and you will solve everything.

Some people don't get that luxury, if their Internet is poor. Hence why we rely on a wum to be spotted by somebody who is meant to do so.

And before you ask why I read this thread, I love the irony of an Irish poster moaning about criticising a referee. See your press hounding Nigel Owens? Especially "respected" (but not known by anybody outside of Ireland) (Ex) Leinster Captain Toland. Did you criticise that also?

Seems to me all the self righteous attitude on here about criticising refs is about the same as the good old days of don't boo kickers. Funny how that turned out too.

See where in my original post it says "from all the home nations"? That includes Ireland. So why are you turning this into an Ireland vs Wales thing? Also, "hounding" Owens? Did you actually read what Toland was said?

Did you actually read the original post of this thread? Seems you are just here to moan (again).

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

nathan wrote:Rory, the following post kind of contradicts what your saying in this one.

"I thought the referee today was absolutely abysmal. There, I said it. I think people are afraid to criticise the referee these days incase they seem to be using that as an excuse. Though there is a difference between blaming the ref and just admitting he was completely rubbish. Today was an example of a rubbish ref."

https://www.606v2.com/t23336-why-as-their-been-no-complaints-about-the-referee#929486

So are we allowed to criticise the ref, or are we only allowed to when it suits you?

How long did it take for you to find something I posted back in February? Did you seriously go out of your way to find something?

The funny thing is that it contradicts nothing. Read the original post again. And read what I just bolded. Like I just said, "there is a difference between blaming the ref and just admitting he was completely rubbish".

No offence Rory, but you set yourself up with this post. And if your original point was people shouldn't complain about the ref spoiling a game, what should we infer from your post above. 'The ref was abysmal, but that didn't have any effect on the game whatsoever'. If it's unimportant that the ref is rubbish, why did you raise it?

I'm sick of holier than thou comments from people saying 'Rugby's different' and 'We shouldn't criticise the ref'. Jesus it's sport, a bit of moaning and angst is part of it. As long as people are decent enough to recognise when their team's been bettered I don't see why it matters if people have a little dig at the ref. And ref's DO decide some matches, and people are entitled to scrutinise them.

If we accept that refs are an essential human element in sports, why can't we accept that people will have entirely human responses to them. A load of us whinged about the SH refs, but plenty also were quick to make it very clear that we knew our teams had been well beaten. Yes, it was implicit that why might have done better with NH refs, but it was generally accepted we would still have lost.

If when the SH teams come here we miraculously all turn them over, there will be just as much criticism of NH refs. There's no monopoly on this sort of thing.

Sigh. I cannot make this any clearer that my original point isn't saying that you cannot criticise the referee (see the points bolded) but that claiming the referee is spoiling or killing the game for one team over the other, or favouring a team over another, or showing any form of bias, is ridiculous for the most part. Nearly every game this tour someone has made a comment like this. Or the typical "16th man" stuff. Please read the original post again..

Also, that comment was made in February, you do realise that. I find it rather sad that the best thing someone could find to catch me out was from 4 months ago. I wonder how long it took to dig around for something like that. I don't even know what context I used said in, but it doesn't actually contradict anything. If I can recall, I think the referee was taking ages at the breakdown and the game was very slow/boring. I didn't think he made the game worse for one side over the other.

Also, we will not miraculously turn over the SH teams anyway. They know how to win, regardless of the ref. That is the difference.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:Sigh. I cannot make this any clearer that my original point isn't saying that you cannot criticise the referee (see the points bolded) but that claiming the referee is spoiling or killing the game for one team over the other, or favouring a team over another, or showing any form of bias, is ridiculous for the most part. Nearly every game this tour someone has made a comment like this. Or the typical "16th man" stuff. Please read the original post again..

Also, that comment was made in February, you do realise that. I find it rather sad that the best thing someone could find to catch me out was from 4 months ago. I wonder how long it took to dig around for something like that. I don't even know what context I used said in, but it doesn't actually contradict anything. If I can recall, I think the referee was taking ages at the breakdown and the game was very slow/boring. I didn't think he made the game worse for one side over the other.

Also, we will not miraculously turn over the SH teams anyway. They know how to win, regardless of the ref. That is the difference.

I read your original post as saying people shouldn't say the ref is spoiling a game in general, rather than specifically spoiling it for their team.

Either way, I can't make my point any clearer - i disagree with you. I think it's human nature, if it reflects badly on those saying it, fine, so be it. Otherwise it just becomes whining and people whining. Let them get on with it and you can be the guy rising above it all. And presumably from your focus on the NH you think the SH fans are better on this, again, i disagree, i think we're all pretty much on a par.

I agree, we will not beat the SH teams. They may normally know how to win regardless of the ref, but tell that to NZ in 2007 and SA in 2011.

I think the difference Hood is that between the NH and SH teams the SH usually wins so there is less incentive to moan about the ref.

NZ used to go on about the cheating SA refs in the old days. Load of bxxls or course. Mind you we have won a few more there since we have had neutral refs there.

In NZ now I think its pretty clear that only the lowest form of fan blames the ref.

I agree with nganboy. But i would add it also depends on which site you are on. There are sites where we whinge with the best of them. I'm not immune to it. I'm probably always going to carry a cross for a certain game in 2007.

I watch NH teams and NH refs all the time and as with NH posters see infringements and things I think should have been penalised. That's probably due to bias towards my own team and/or the techniques of the teams and style of refereeing I'm used to. there's always two sides to a story.

nganboy wrote:I think its pretty clear that only the lowest form of fan blames the ref.

Come on now, lay off poor Biltong...he will forgive Bruce one day

I repeat so many time. The style of some referee suit some team. For example all blacks prefer keep the pace to the game because they back their fitness and they are best from broken play. When a referee all the time slowing the game and making the set piece then not so good for them. A team like England or Scotland or Italy or Argentina prefer the game to be the series of short set piece plays because they not so good from broken phase.

The collision is manage different from the NH and SH. NH tend to play short at the ruck and make a tight and static formation over the ball. The SH teams different because they like to keep the ruck dynamic and players running right through the ball area to some meters past.

Now if you are used to watch the NH all the time you see the SH players do that and think is off-side and obstruction. But when the SH watch the NH they see the tight static ruck and think is bridging and sealing off and not roll away.

nganboy wrote:I think the difference Hood is that between the NH and SH teams the SH usually wins so there is less incentive to moan about the ref.

NZ used to go on about the cheating SA refs in the old days. Load of bxxls or course. Mind you we have won a few more there since we have had neutral refs there.

In NZ now I think its pretty clear that only the lowest form of fan blames the ref.

Mate you have won more for reasons other than neutral referees. We were poor and I worked out the other day the number of coaches we had that were useless.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

nganboy wrote:I think its pretty clear that only the lowest form of fan blames the ref.

Come on now, lay off poor Biltong...he will forgive Bruce one day

I am pretty sure nganboy, excludes Bruce.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

nganboy wrote:I think its pretty clear that only the lowest form of fan blames the ref.

Come on now, lay off poor Biltong...he will forgive Bruce one day

Nope, not a single solitary chance that will ever happen, it would cause a catastrophic tear in the space-time continuum and the entire universe would disappear into a sparrows bottom. FACT.

nganboy wrote:
I think its pretty clear that only the lowest form of fan blames the ref.

Not always, sometimes the referees make errors or have bad games purely because they are human and just as if a player has a bad day and makes an error a proportion of the blame must be taken.

PJHolybloke wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

nganboy wrote:I think its pretty clear that only the lowest form of fan blames the ref.

Come on now, lay off poor Biltong...he will forgive Bruce one day

Nope, not a single solitary chance that will ever happen, it would cause a catastrophic tear in the space-time continuum and the entire universe would disappear into a sparrows bottom. FACT.

So now the future existence of planet earth lays firmly on my shoulders.

I accept the responsibility.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

nganboy wrote:
I think its pretty clear that only the lowest form of fan blames the ref.

Not always, sometimes the referees make errors or have bad games purely because they are human and just as if a player has a bad day and makes an error a proportion of the blame must be taken.

True, but how does the average punter like us know whether they are having a bad day or not. There's no where we can go to be sure a refs had a bad game or not and find out the reasons why. Rugby has laws, many laws are open to interpretation, every major phase of play is governed by multiple laws. As a result each team infringes laws all the time. Referees don't rule on every infringement.

When most of us talk about referees having bad games, we mean in our subjective judgement they gave the opposition an unfair advantage, made or missed calls we wouldn't have, etc. We talk about them missing this act or that act in what are objectively flawed assessments (that's not to say the referee might have had a mare, just that the method used to provide evidence is dodgy).

Unfortunately no one ever does a decent assessment of referees. We don't know what is acceptable, what isn't. Bryce Lawrence is one of the few referees who has admitted he hasn't refereed well. What was the result. He wont referee at the top level again. Is he any worse than anyone else, it's debatable. So why would anyone admit weakness.

Lets take Pocock for example. Almost anyone from outside of Australia feels he oversteps the laws in the ruck (myself included). Most referees let him get away with it. Very few penalise him to any great extent. Most of us let it go until we feel it affects the outcome of a game involving our team. To neutralise Pocock some teams use tactics that could charitably called borderline (e.g. Wales last weekend) and their fans have no great wish for them to be penalised. Now you can substitute Pocock for any one of a number of forwards. In Pococks case I'm inclined to say he's fine. So many refs let him do it, teams just have to work out how to work around him and the ref. Given that it's pretty predictable there's no excuse in blaming the ref.