SANZAR comes clean over refereeing blunders

http://www.sanzarrugby.com/superrugby/news/referee-update-lyndon-bray/

The excellent Lyndon Bray, chief referee of the super rugby tournament provides public feedback over refereeing performances. Clarifying mistakes with video evidence.

This is the kind of transparency we need and should be adopted by the IRB generally.

The next step would be to award the victim team some form of compensation - points, preferably in the case of super rugby. I'm not saying we should go as far as retrospectively overturning an historical result - such as the 2007 quarter final debacle.

This will just get people up in arms against cheating NZ teams being supported by cheating refs because the whole world is pandering to cheating NZ because of our control over the IRB. Give it up Glorious.

GloriousEmpire wrote:http://www.sanzarrugby.com/superrugby/news/referee-update-lyndon-bray/

The excellent Lyndon Bray, chief referee of the super rugby tournament provides public feedback over refereeing performances. Clarifying mistakes with video evidence.

This is the kind of transparency we need and should be adopted by the IRB generally.

The next step would be to award the victim team some form of compensation - points, preferably in the case of super rugby. I'm not saying we should go as far as retrospectively overturning an historical result - such as the 200711 quarter final debacle.

Fixed that for u

:-)

An idea for the next GE thread.

You take up refereeing, periodically update the thread with your progress. You could invite players you ref on to the forum to give us their appraisal of how you're getting on as well as coaches, parents, fans or anyone else who has seen your games.

It would be good to see your expertise on what refs should do in tight spots put into practice- I'm sure you could contribute quite a lot to the sport in your area. How about it?   

I'm sensing a certain antagonistic aggression in your post Notch, and I'm not sure I like it.

Notch wrote:An idea for the next GE thread.

You take up refereeing, periodically update the thread with your progress. You could invite players you ref on to the forum to give us their appraisal of how you're getting on as well as coaches, parents, fans or anyone else who has seen your games.

It would be good to see your expertise on what refs should do in tight spots put into practice- I'm sure you could contribute quite a lot to the sport in your area. How about it?   

This is a great idea. And I think everyone on the site will whole heartedly back it.

In true 606 style should we start a poll?

Oh and GE here you go... http://www.rfu.com/takingpart/referee/becomingaref and incase you're struggling here's the other info... http://www.rfu.com/coaches-and-referees

No need to thank me   

I actually sponsor an RFU referee, and critique this persons performances, which they agree has aided their greatly improved performances and recent promotion.

Just doing my bit! No need to thank me!

You da man GE, hope you didn't have to clip Barnes around his ears too much. That TMO decision on the non-knock-on was a disgrace. No wonder JK was fuming. It's almost got to the stage where we need 3 TMOs locked in separate rooms.

It's transparency that i like. The cover up after the Barnes fiasco was more infuriating than his performance.
It's nice to an 'authority' publicly correct a poor official just like a coach holds his players to scrutiny.

That's why I'm blunt with my sponsored when he or she makes a mockery. I'm particularly harsh on rulings around entry to the breakdown. I will bring the SH clarity to the north one random pointless inconsequential club game at a time.

Lyndon's had enough

"Super Rugby governing body SANZAR will conduct a purge of the competition's referees in the wake of a series of controversial blunders by match officials in the opening rounds of the season".

http://i.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/9854549/Super-Rugby-referees-panel-set-for-change

Andre Watson on the Lions try vs the Blues.

"André Watson: I believe it was not a contentious issue from a refereeing point of view but rather from a law perspective. The knock-on law is very clear: a player needs to lose possession, with the ball then travelling in a forward direction. However, the debate with regard to this specific incident revolves around whether the ball-carrier lost the ball or whether the ball was dislodged from his grasp as a result of the action of the tackler. While SANZAR have issued a statement saying the try should not have stood, we at SARU have referred the matter to the IRB and are awaiting a ruling. The debate is currently hanging in the air as two contrasting opinions currently exist."

Andre Watson is rather famous for his "other interpretations" though to be fair.

I agree with him though.

If you tackle a player front on, and your dislodge the ball as the tackler and it goes towards the opposition goal line it is seen as a knockon by the tacklers, why should it be different if the tackler knocks the ball towards his own line?

So is this just another - NH rugby, there refs, their games and their style are rubbish and SH is perfect, even in its imperfection it is perfect

It was obviously a shocking call at home and not the first example. Little wonder Bray has publicly denounced the perpetrator and will now carry out a purge.

I also have little sympathy for Watson who has a history of his own.

Bray is making the distinction between a defender knocking the ball loose and the attacking player losing it in the tackle. Watson, and yourself BT are trying to muddy that water by ignoring the facts.

No mate, you can call this what you will, you are ignoring the facts.

If you can't see that then you are as biased as Bray.

But biltong, the example you mention of a front on tackle never happens like it did in the recent blues game though, does it? The front on tackler knock on is usually when the wrapping arm of the defender swings around and hits the ball as it's being passed.

I could be wrong, but I thought if a ball is jolted forwards in a tackle (relative to defender) that is never called a knock on. That is lose hands by the ball handler as was what happened in the blues game. Just the ball went forwards.

Could be wrong, but when I saw it, it looked like a clear cut knock on and I try not to be one-eyed all the time.

Biltong I can't believe you're calling the SANZAR ref head "biased". Surely we left the global conspiracies behind when p divvy moved on?

I am calling him biased.

Ebop, just think about this logically.

When the tackler knocks the ball forward from a tackle it is called a scrum, if he knocks it back, it should therefor have the same ruling, excep it didn't go forward.

The only ruling currently clarified by the IRB, is when the ball is ripped in the tackle, and Bray says it was not an attempt at a rip.

So that is why Andre Watson and SARU wants the IRB to give a ruling on when the tackler knocks the ball.

But biltong old mate. Take off the green spectacles. The tackler didn't knock it backward. The carrier lost it forward in this case

Biltong, you say...

"When the tackler knocks the ball forward from a tackle it is called a scrum"

But I'm not sure they do call it a knock on do they? Unless it's a simultaneous tackler swinging arm / pass type situation. I've seen those called knock on against the tackler. But I can't recall seeing a jolt of the ball from the attackers hands forwards called a knock on.

Maybe I'm wrong, you know your stuff a lot more than me. Whatever happens, at least there will be clarity around it in future.

Yes. Straw man being constructed by SARU to defend the indefensible. Why? Logic points to politics.

To discredit bray would see the opportunity to install a more "friendly" head who might not call out these injustices.

GE, instead of trying to be controversial why don't you actually try to have a constructive debate about an aspect of rugby.

Your sly little comments are pathetic and you achieve nothing by them.

There is no conspiracy.

Just listen to the facts and then answer the question without trying to run around in circles.

Question.

When a ball carrier runs onto you and you tackle him, in the process of making the tackle you dislodge the ball and you as the tackler knock the ball forward, the referee awards a scrum to the attacking team as you knocked the ball as the tackler.

Now simple answer , yes or no, do you agree with that?

Now if the tackler is chasing the ball carrier and when he tackles him he dislodges the ball by knocking it out of the grip of the ball carrier, essentially you are knocking the ball towards your own try line which means you have kncked it backwards and therefor it is not a knock kn by you as the defender.

Do you agree with that.

Just yes or no.

Biltong wrote:GE, instead of trying to be controversial why don't you actually try to have a constructive debate about an aspect of rugby.

Your sly little comments are pathetic and you achieve nothing by them.

There is no conspiracy.

Just listen to the facts and then answer the question without trying to run around in circles.

Question.

When a ball carrier runs onto you and you tackle him, in the process of making the tackle you dislodge the ball and you as the tackler knock the ball forward, the referee awards a scrum to the attacking team as you knocked the ball as the tackler.

Now simple answer , yes or no, do you agree with that?

Now if the tackler is chasing the ball carrier and when he tackles him he dislodges the ball by knocking it out of the grip of the ball carrier, essentially you are knocking the ball towards your own try line which means you have kncked it backwards and therefor it is not a knock kn by you as the defender.

Do you agree with that.

Just yes or no.

Biltong, We were always taught that as the ball carrier it was our responsibility to secure (protect possession of the ball), if you dont you leave yourself open to any random call being made against you by an official....It comes down to your basic "Rugby education" as a youngster.

Biltong. Rather than calling me "pathetic" and insisting im being provocative for disagreeing with your mighty opinion why don't you stop and read what I'm saying?

Nobody disagrees that if a tackler knocks the ball on, it's a knock on. If he knocks it back then it isn't.  But if a player is tackled and loses the ball then that's something different. It's a knock on.

SA are constructing a straw man argument to defend the indefensible. Bray is spot on that in this instance the tackled player was responsible for knocking the ball on. He had possession. The ball went forward according to the laws which are laid our clear plain and simple.

I grow tired of your ad Hominem responses and condescending tone.

Andre Watsons reference to this:

"whether the ball-carrier lost the ball or whether the ball was dislodged from his grasp as a result of the action of the tackler" is just not clear enough. Unless the tackler actually makes contact with the ball AND is responsible for it going forward then it is a knock on.

"...as a result of the action of the tackler" can easily be ineterpreted as ' I was going along fine until Gregan smashed me over the line and I spilled the ball forward"
Now Gregans tackle...and nothing else...did cause the ball to be dislodged as a result of the tackle. But at no time did Gregan touch the ball. So theres only one player that can either lose it forward, or back, or anywhere- our man Jeff.

With Piataus tackle, what has to have happened is Piatau, as well as dragging the Lions player around by the shoulder, turning him, but he must also have physically dislodged the ball with his own hands. I don't think that happened. I think the force in turning the players shoulder away from the goal line caused the player to let it go.

The video does not clearly show Piataus hand hitting the ball out of the Lions players hands.

This is a waste of my time.

Watson wants clarity on a ruling that isn't in the rule book, and now it is a straw man argument.

What nonsense.

And T'man, if you cannot see that Piatau knocked that ball, then one of the two of us are as blind as bats.

well thats caused me top look at it again because I must admit I havnt gone over the replays a lot....  

looking at this one:

http://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/saru-want-irb-to-make-ruling-on-controversial-try-awarded-to-lions-against-blues/story-e6frf4pu-1226861155695

the first front on view I agree is clear...Piatau knocks it straight down out of the guys hands so play continues to the try so I agree Biltong, fair try.   

Thank you t'man.

OK, now the only ruling that is in the law book, and that is due to the ARU wanting clarification on the ball being dislodged during a tackle is when the ball is ripped.

There is no current clarification for when the tackler knocks the ball forwards or backwards.

It has been officiated by referees in the same manner thiugh for years.

The Lions' try that was awarded "incorrectly" according to MR Bray, has brought the case being sent to the IRB by mr Andre Watson.

I have no problem if the IRB comes back and says that such a scenario should be seen as a knock by the ball carrier, BUT if they make that ruling and put the onus on the ball carrier then the ruling must also include when the tackler comes from front on and knocks the ball towards the attacking teams' tryline.

As I see it, the direction of the ball whther forward or back should not change the effect of the law.

Either it says the tackler knocks a ball foward or backwards or the ball carrier loses the ball forwards or backwards.

You can't have two different rulings for the same action.

Yes, agree there, the forward or back is only relative to the player doing it.

You're still deliberately and stubbornly ignoring the point biltong. And you know it.

Think you need to relook at it GE. Piataus hand comes in and knocks it straight down with no contribution to the drop from the Lions player. If he'd baned his arm or anywhere else I'd agree with you but hand goes straight onto the ball and down, Anything else is moot.

At -1.15 Piatau has clearly knocked it down:

http://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/saru-want-irb-to-make-ruling-on-controversial-try-awarded-to-lions-against-blues/story-e6frf4pu-1226861155695

GloriousEmpire wrote:You're still deliberately and stubbornly ignoring the point biltong. And you know it.

No GE, you are ignoring the facts.

No biltong, you are still pursuing the straw man argument instead of addressing the real issue.

Blah, blah, blah, your ability to reason is stuck in your own misconceptions.

Notch wrote:An idea for the next GE thread.

You take up refereeing, periodically update the thread with your progress. You could invite players you ref on to the forum to give us their appraisal of how you're getting on as well as coaches, parents, fans or anyone else who has seen your games.

It would be good to see your expertise on what refs should do in tight spots put into practice- I'm sure you could contribute quite a lot to the sport in your area. How about it?   

An excellent idea. Come on GE, we must be able to goad/cajole you into this somehow   

Biltong wrote:Blah, blah, blah, your ability to reason is stuck in your own misconceptions.

Mine and the head referee of the whole tournament. My opinion can't be so risible surely BT?

GloriousEmpire wrote:

Biltong wrote:Blah, blah, blah, your ability to reason is stuck in your own misconceptions.

Mine and the head referee of the whole tournament. My opinion can't be so risible surely BT?

You're quite right, I shouldn't pay attention to your opinion.

Great attitude for a moderator. To disrespect the posters - and call into question the ethics of a senior management official.

If you had an ounce of respect it would be possible to debate with you. But you don't.i guess I'll just wait for you to ban me again for disagreeing too much.

Vis a vis the knocking the ball out of a players hand:
Hypothetically, if I was holding the ball in one hand, palm-up and an opposition player came and punched the ball out of my hand such that it travelled forward relative to me, am I liable for a knock-on? It would seem to be counter-intuitive to suggest that I am, but perhaps this is the clarification that the IRB needs to give.
Something along the lines of: if one player attempts to dislodge the ball from the hands of another, it is the sole responsibility of the initial ball carrier to ensure that they keep control of the ball. Any loss of control of the ball, in a forward direction, is deemed a knock-on, regardless of whether the impetus for the loss of control came from the action, deliberate or otherwise, of an opposition player.
The Laws are currently not this specific....hence the consternation

GloriousEmpire wrote:

Biltong wrote:Blah, blah, blah, your ability to reason is stuck in your own misconceptions.

Mine and the head referee of the whole tournament. My opinion can't be so risible surely BT?

Isn't that why Watson is asking for clarification? Piutau makes clear contact with the ball, is definitely responsible for it coming loose - but it's handled differently from arip or from the ball being knocked loose in the pass. That seems like an inconsistency to me.

GloriousEmpire wrote:Great attitude for a moderator. To disrespect the posters - and call into question the ethics of a senior management official.

If you had an ounce of respect it would be possible to debate with you. But you don't.i guess  I'll just wait for you to ban me again for disagreeing too much.

How about I resign as a mod, then you have no more excuses?

Well that's a question you need to ask yourself perhaps.

No need to ask myself that question, been looking a reason to resign, you have just helped me with that, next time we talk, we can have a full go at each other as I am tired of having to hold back.

For what it's worth, I'd happily assimilate Mod superpowers... On the basketball forum, or somewhere equally quiet... This place is like the wild wild west.

You don't want to be a mod boet, you are fighting Poopie with a flyswat, if you want to fight fire with fire you need to be on equal footing.

I think I'd make a great moderator. I have empathy for others opinions and a keen sense of humour and perspective.