Can we please ... Part 2

Stop blaming the ref every time our team loses.

Especially can we please stop accusing the refs of favouring one team over another. They will referee what the see - and yes sometimes they make mistakes - but other times even if they see an incident they have one look at it to make their mind up, and "experts" in the studio with multiple views will argue about what the correct decision should be.

In the last 8 days we have had coaches and/or fans from the following teams blaming the ref for defeats (it will be more but I do not read every thread)/news story:

Bath
Leicester
Newcastle
Northampton
Worcester

Cardiff Blues
Scarlets

Leinster
Munster



So come on guys, lets all grow up, just a little bit?

Oh come on now. I was going to give you the Europe one but this is reaching for the sun.

HammerofThunor wrote:Oh come on now. I was going to give you the Europe one but this is reaching for the sun.

Just wait for Part 3

Brian Moore agrees with you, LT: 

The blame game must not be all about the referee
Mistakes by the officials are inevitable but it is the players’ performances that decide who wins and loses.

By Brian Moore
6:50AM BST 23 Sep 2013

An away win at Saracens is now one of the most difficult tasks in any Aviva Premiership campaign, but many fancied Bath might fashion a victory that would indubitably establish their top-four credentials.

It did not turn out that way because they did not compete for nearly the whole of the first half in any facet of play. With a resurgent Chris Ashton and David Strettle looking sharp, Saracens racked up four tries and a bonus point, looking clinical in all they did. Had this been a boxing match the referee would have stopped the contest. You could not fault the response from Bath in the second half but having ceded so much it was only pride they were playing for.

With routine wins for Leicester and Harlequins and more notable ones for Sale and Exeter the table, even at this early stage, is taking familiar shape. The usual suspects are likely to be in play-off and relegation battles but which of the intermediate group go towards glory or battle for survival is going to be more difficult to predict.

That Gloucester snatched victory with a dramatic last-gasp penalty from Twelvetrees was arguably not unfair given their greater creativity, but it was not without controversy. The officials undoubtedly erred in missing players being over the halfway line at the kick-off and the ball being brought back into the scrum by the Gloucester number eight Ben Morgan. The award of a penalty against Northampton was debatable and had I been a Saints fan I would not have been happy.

All this said there is a trend occurring that is not good for rugby. The reaction of the media and coaches towards officials in this and other games recently has been less than useful. Comments of James Mallinder and Dorian West post the final whistle will be looked at by the Rugby Football Union to see if there is a case to answer, but Mallinder was nearer the mark when he said “We’ve got to make sure that parts of our game we are more accurate with. You have got to try to put the referee out of the equation.”

The fact that broadcasters push for more revelatory coverage of changing rooms, in-game comments and walk-off or immediate post-match interviews is understandable. Their desire to break ground and offer something commercially different will always mean seeking access to hitherto unopened areas of the game. However, just because you can do something does not mean you should. I am not against these developments for any other reason than I cannot see that they will lead anywhere other than in a negative direction.

If the musings of a player or coach are anodyne they are of no interest beyond note; seeing inside a dressing room is not special beyond the first few times. The trite is of no use to broadcasters or viewers. They want the sensational, but what delights them is not always good for rugby.

Players and coaches need to be protected from themselves when things go wrong. You could say they should hold their tongue but they are in a difficult position once interviewers begin asking questions to which they feel obliged to give candid answers.

We have begun the inexorable slide towards focusing on officials as the only decisive factor in a team’s fortunes. We know where this goes, it goes to everyone blaming the referee and we have to resist this.

Commentators, and I include myself in this, have to ensure that officials’ mistakes are only described in context and that a losing team’s faults are given the greater prominence they almost always deserve. Referees need to be accountable but so do coaches and players who make far more mistakes then any official.

I agree. I hate to see folk blaming refs. there are many many points in a match that could have gone the other way and equally could have cost a score. the knock ons, the forward passes etc etc.
Rugby is a complex game and refs will make mistakes. the use of replays actually shows how few mistakes they make. If you lose to a harsh last minute penalty you did not lose because of a refs mistake, you lost because you did not score enough points to make the game safe

I think the refs are doing well considering the lack of clear interpretation in the public domain on the new scrum laws which makes what is a tough job harder.

I disagree with LT in his OP. Commentators to my mind have a duty to highlight faults in referees mistakes and misinterpretations of the law. Now that Sky have been successfully dumped completely from the Jeff scene the ex-ESPN/BTS have commentators and pundits who have a much more competent team who can explain and describe the laws and interpretations.

Papering over structural cracks will not improve the building. On remedial action will.

I hope that Moore will continue to myther away over the new scrum where refs are still not managing the players (witness JP Doyle yesterday).

Austin Healey immediately called foul when the Saints were denied their rightful victory on Saturday when the ref succumbed to home fans' pressure.

They are the cases which should imo leave a sour taste in the mouth.

Portnoy - blaming the ref is actually papering over the cracks of a team's failings.

Take Northampton - the actual penalty given was not incorrect. A penalty could have gone the other way, but that is interpretation. The refs mistake was to not pick up the Gloucester chasers in front of the kick off. Saints could have made this mistake irrelevant by acttually catching the ball and not knocking it on. Their own basic skills let them down.

Healey was right to highlight the mistake by the ref, but completely wrong to state that this is why Saints lost. Saints lost because they made too many mistakes of their own. Far more than the ref did.

J

Not sure how you ever going to get supporters not to blame a referee.

It is human nature, the trick is to sort the legitimate gripes from the nonsense ones.

formerly known as Sam wrote:I think the refs are doing well considering the lack of clear interpretation in the public domain on the new scrum laws which makes what is a tough job harder.

The new engagement rules are dead simple, Sam. the scrum forms - wait - settle straight (what's wrong with the old ref instruction lett/right shoulder to orientate it?*) - feed straight down the middle.

I'd like failed scrums to be clock off until the scrums comply and until the reset/s are successfully completed.
JP Doyle abandoned his post yesterday and should be charged with dereliction of duty.

*Before your time, Sam

LondonTiger wrote:Portnoy - blaming the ref is actually papering over the cracks of a team's failings.

Take Northampton - the actual penalty given was not incorrect. A penalty could have gone the other way, but that is interpretation. The refs mistake was to not pick up the Gloucester chasers in front of the kick off. Saints could have made this mistake irrelevant by acttually catching the ball and not knocking it on. Their own basic skills let them down.

Healey was right to highlight the mistake by the ref, but completely wrong to state that this is why Saints lost. Saints lost because they made too many mistakes of their own. Far more than the ref did.

J

The 'actual' penalty was wrong - the ball was out thereby doubling the clear offside preceding it.

The scoreline should reflect the laws and not artistic impression.

And I had no preference whatsoever for a winner. But to suggest that one side made many or any mistakes is irrelevant as the ref should be measured by his control of the game within the laws.

That's why I support calls for touchline appeals.

I think the Scarlets are harshly included there. All I've read from them is that the dragons were the better team and deserved to win. What they have done is query a referee's decision which had a potential impact on the outcome of the game, which is fine on a rugby discussion forum. They were 7 points down and camped on our line with a minute left. They had 3 scrums which demolished our scrum (Dragons) each time but they got nothing from it. We cleared our lines on the 3rd scrum. I think it's worthy of discussion, especially given that we're playing new scrum rules.

Ref's are inconsistant, that's why fans moan from time to time no one expects Refs to get it right 100%, all we ask is that they are consistant from game to game.

Refs sometimes have too much say in a game (eg Wales vs England last season!)


Can we please.....Part 3

stop singling out fans when we didn't get any over the weekend!  

Sorry I don't buy the argument that it's a team's fault for not scoring enough points to make up for refereeing errors - to win a match they should only have to score one more point than the opposition. If you say they should score more points to not make it their fault when a ref makes a mistake where do you draw the line? 8 more points in case the ref's mistake costs them a try, 15 in case they make two try scoring mistakes? And if a ref gives a team an incorrect red card for example, how is that the team's fault for not playing better?

I know refs are human and make mistakes but the errors at the end of the Glaws/Saints match one after the other and so obvious for all to see (except apparently by the ref) were so bad I don't think it's unreasonable when people complain.

I'm not a Saints fan by the way ...

Heaf - but what about all the other errors earlier in the game - made by all the officials and the players? Thats my point. You could equally say they lost the game because they didn't score on an earlier opportunity or if they had caught the kick not knock it on?

I agree with Heaf, mistakes are part and parcel of the game, players commit mistakes due to pressure and whilst all teams to endeavour to play the perfect game it doesn't happen, otherwise teams will have taken any and every opportunity they got.

That is why it is called a contest, which team executes better.

By having a referee committing game changing errors in a match adds to an uneven contest.

That is where the difference comes in.

I am sure both sides in a game can point to officials mistakes that cost them scoring opportunities. Its when its in the final minutes it appears to have changed the game. Yes point out the refs errors but don't claim " we wuz robbed by a biased ref"

Depends what type of mistake the referee makes.

Carding a player should always be checked by the TMO, having a player off costs points.

they should start with that.

When has there been anything from Falcons fans about poor Refs?

Teams are always going to make mistakes that either cost them scores or present the opposition with opportunities - that's the nature of the game -  and I accept that the officials may have made other errors earlier in the game that could have affected things, but the multiple errors by Mr Fox at the end in my view were so bad I don't think they should be ignored.  Any earlier errors in the game may or may not have made a difference (I can't recall any specifics) but the multiple ones at the end certainly made a huge difference.  True if Saints had caught the final kick they would probably have been able to clear to touch - but the fact remains they shouldn't have had to as Glaws were massively offside at the restart and that should have been the end of it.

I have to admit I do also have a bit of a bee in my bonnet about poor officiating, as my own team suffered an incorrect red card early in a match last year which they then narrowly lost and I can't accept they should be blamed for not scoring more points to win when playing with a man down for 70 minutes and only this weekend had a clear forearm to the face which warranted at least a yellow card given only as a penalty.

Biltong wrote:Depends what type of mistake the referee makes.

Carding a player should always be checked by the TMO, having a player off costs points.

they should start with that.

I agree and conversely not having a player carded saves points - my team were on the wrong side of a forearm to the face much worse that the Du Plessis one this weekend, but inexplicably the player stayed on the pitch - and the ref had a TMO and big screen at his disposal which he didn't bother to use ...

Heaf wrote:

Biltong wrote:Depends what type of mistake the referee makes.

Carding a player should always be checked by the TMO, having a player off costs points.

they should start with that.

I agree and conversely not having a player carded saves points - my team were on the wrong side of a forearm to the face much worse that the Du Plessis one this weekend, but inexplicably the player stayed on the pitch - and the ref had a TMO and big screen at his disposal which he didn't bother to use ...

Again, confirms inconsistencies. That is the biggest issue most supporters have.

GeordieFalcon wrote:When has there been anything from Falcons fans about poor Refs?

GF - it was raised in the Week 3 thread, and apparently was the view of multiple fans (but just one poster).


Portnoy the offence in the scrum that the ref penalised came before the ball was out. That the ball came out and was taken back in becomes irrelevant.

And the offside from the restart means there shouldn't even have been a scrum ...

Given the situation it was completely obvious that Glaws had to reclaim the kick-off so they were going to push forwards quickly so the officials should have been looking for the offside - plus the fact it was one of the most blatant ones you're likely to see

Its a mistake - no doubt. However other mistakes compounded it especially not feilding the kick. You could equally say not catching the ball cost 'em. Or missing a scoring oportunity earlier or an earlier refs mistake cost 'em. I am sure glaws fans will know of a refs mistake that cost them an opportunity earlier in the game. its just because it happened at theend its so obvious but its only one of a series of turning points in the game

Game-changing wrong decisions : France v New Zealand (1999(?), The ball boy Wales v Ireland, SA v NZ (possibly - but certainly a wrong decision).

American football (not that Iv'e seen a game for at least ten years) has the flag being flung from the touchline, Cricket has the DRS, Tennis has it.

What the hell is wrong with righting wrongs?
I'd go with Biltong's suggestion of TMO decisions of events that caused a YC though as a starter.
Although that wouldn't eradicate try-scoring gaffes.

to me the only way would be to have more officials to enable them to spot more infringements. the ref cannot see everything. I think the TMO system still needs to be refined. appeals from the coaches might be useful tho as in the american football system

Biltong wrote:

Heaf wrote:

Biltong wrote:Depends what type of mistake the referee makes.

Carding a player should always be checked by the TMO, having a player off costs points.

they should start with that.

I agree and conversely not having a player carded saves points - my team were on the wrong side of a forearm to the face much worse that the Du Plessis one this weekend, but inexplicably the player stayed on the pitch - and the ref had a TMO and big screen at his disposal which he didn't bother to use ...

Again, confirms inconsistencies. That is the biggest issue most supporters have.

To continue the inconsistency it appears the forearm to the face hasn't even attracted a citing - even though the commentators were saying it was a definitely a carding offence and debatable whether it was 10 minutes or the rest of the match the player should have been off the pitch ...

Brian Moore: stop blaming the referee every time you suffer defeat

sorry I can't post links



Leaving aside Northampton’s thumping of Newcastle, the other three games had a total winning margin of only nine points and the tension-laden excitement created by the close finishes made compelling viewing. While they would undoubtedly disagree about the results, supporters who paid to see the games got value for money and witnessed intense physical commitment.

It is arguable that in the London Irish v Bath, Harlequins v Exeter and Gloucester v Saracens games the better team on the day lost. While you must give credit to the winners for taking their chances, none of them should have been given the opportunity to snatch victory.

In all instances the common denominator was a failure of clarity of thought and deed at a seminal moment. Professionalism has brought new standards of fitness and physique; it has brought new trendy vernacular terms but it has not improved the tactical appreciation of players and their ability to think under pressure, define the right option and take responsibility for executing it.

In the Gloucester game it was a simple dropped ball, which would have meant a scrum, being worsened by a stupid offside penalty from which Saracens ultimately scored their winning try. In the Harlequins game, it was the failure of Exeter’s muscular forwards to discern a tactic other than trying to smash their way over the line.

With this has come an unwelcome and worrying trend for managers and directors of rugby to blame referees for losses. This has to be addressed because this path leads ineluctably to the convenient 'blame-the-referee’ scenarios seen in other sports.
Related Articles



London Irish coach Toby Booth castigated referee David Rose for his final penalty award to Bath in the last three minutes. He conveniently ignored the more costly indiscipline from his full-back, Delon Armitage, whose high tackle reduced the Irish to 14 men and from which a try resulted.

Rob Baxter, the Exeter coach, and Conor O’Shea, the Harlequins rugby director, had words to say about referee Sean Davey, the former all but attributing his team’s loss to Davey by saying, “If you look at possession, territory and pressure, the things that normally earn you merit, we didn’t get what we deserved”.

Davey struggled with two sets of players who did not want to stay on their feet at crucial times and the increasing impossibility of refereeing the breakdown under current laws. Instead of blaming the referee, Baxter might reflect that each of the things listed are not meritorious at all unless a side can convert them into points. Exeter had a glut of possession but could come up with nothing more subtle than an assault similar to that tried by South Africa against Australia recently. The result was the same and the fault lies in the same place – not with the referee who had no input into this unimaginative tactic.

Referees of professional rugby must now cope with the fact that the time between the tackler releasing both man and ball, regaining his feet and playing the ball is almost instantaneous. If referees are not to be criticised every single game, the law has to be changed to prevent tacklers on the ground from contesting the ball at all other than to join in a drive for the ball from their own side of the ball. Furthermore, referees must be able to limit the time a ball is left unplayed at the rear of rucks by calling for it to be played within five seconds, similar to mauls.

More legitimate are the protests around the scrum. In the three tight games it was possible to claim that the decision-making of referees Davey, Tim Wigglesworth and Rose was arbitrary and inconsistent. The officials will claim that they did not shove early, collapse or refuse to bind, but they allowed all of this to happen and are thus the authors of their own misfortune. If coaches wish to end this lottery they should be advocating that the laws are applied, yet they too say nothing and until they do should not complain.

Finally, there is an equally unwelcome increase in player talk to referees. We do not yet have open abuse but comments are made at every phase of play and on every decision. A few seasons back the elite referees identified this point and rightly came to the decision that only captains should be given the right to interrogate officials over issues occurring during the game and even then not on every occasion. Premiership referees have to take the same stance.

Sorry TJ - are you saying that inconsistencies in dealing with foul play are down to the players for managing to get themselves hit in the face in the first place and not the refs and the citing commissioner?

I didn't see either Simon Easterby or Phil Davies blame the ref for their losses.

Easterby was interviewed straight after the final whistle and when asked why we lost he said "we gave them too much ball and too many points in the first fifteen mins". And when asked about the final scrum said "we thought we were in and bound and they had disintergrated". That is not quite the same as blaming the ref. It is answering a question that was asked.

Phil Davies did his normal talk about how his side needed to show a bit more composure, and how the opposition are a good side, and how it was not a disaster.

There's nothing wrong with pointing out the mistakes of refs but it's the manner in which they do it. If you listen to the Australian commentary team, for example, they have their agenda and watch specific parts of a game to make their comments. It's fine for games when they're playing certain teams but when the Wallabies do the same they complain about from other teams (for example the last five minutes against Argentina two weeks ago and hands in ruck) their silence is damning. I'm not specifically targeting Australia - every nation has their biased pundit or commentator - but just showing how commentators can inflame opinion and bring about this we were robbed by the ref. Similarly, videos that analyse one side's indiscretions but reveal none of the indiscretions of the other team give rise to this antagonism towards the ref.

The ref doesn't have the luxury of slow motion replays nor the chance to track a certain player. He must follow the play of the ball. Of course we want consistency and transparency from refs but I have no doubt that a commentator switched roles with the ref, the former would be clueless and the latter would be defending the 'ref' whilst at the same time wearing the largest, smug grin imaginable.

The next time you walk down a street look at somebody for a brief moment and then try to remember what the person is wearing or looks like. Then try it with 8 people and then put yourself in the shoes of a ref at the breakdown. Of course we should expect high standards from the refs who officiate these matches and they should be held accountable for their mistakes. But we must acknowledge that the game is extremely complex to officiate and they simply cannot see everything. Furthermore, refs are still familiarising themselves with the role of the video ref and when best to use them and for what purpose.

The ref is an automatic fallback for explaining away a defeat. That's not to say they can make calls that have a deciding impact on a game like we had at Eden Park the other week or yes a forward pass in 2007. But much like a goalkicker gets the blame if a kick doesn't go over in the dying minutes of a game (what about a fluffed try in the first ten minutes or a knock on that concedes an attacking scrum etc) so too does a ref invariuably get the blame for the failings of the team. We can all feel aggrieved at times for decisions that go against us but even if your complaints are legitimate, you get no sympathy from the rest for the very reason that they have already experienced similar gripes. What we don't do all too often in the aftermath of a defeat is step away from the match and own up to all the reasons why we didn't win that have nothing to do with the ref. Understandable but just like a victory sees many reflect on what their team did well a defeat sees them reflect on how the ref contributed to our downfall. Not what their team failed to do in order to win. Human weakness but that is sadly what we have with referees. Nobody expects perfection but what we do want is consistency with adjudication and sanctions. We demand the same thing in our work, government and everyday life as well. That doesn't mean we get it. That doesn't mean we should resign ourselves to injustice or inequality but we should also be realistic in our expectations. A perfect world or a perfect game we're not going to get. There's nothing wrong with believing or striving for that ideal but when it doesn't happen we should be measured in our response. Which of course we won't be and therein lies the irony of calling out somebody's weakness. Politicians, lawyers, refs are good honest people. It's we who have corrupted them. But let's hang them all anyway.