The pronouncements of Nigels Wray & Craig

The latest brainwave from one of the Nigels. Saracens fans don't get the laws of rugby and Nigel thinks the RFU refs are not up to the job.


Premiership clubs should employ referees - Saracens chairman

Saracens chairman Nigel Wray believes Premiership referees should be employed by the competition's clubs, rather than the Rugby Football Union.

Officials for top-flight matches are appointed from the RFU's pool of 15 professional referees.

"The club game needs to employ its own referees," Wray told BBC Sport.

"Their decisions influence the game enormously. We need to tell them the sort of game we want played - which has to be attractive to the customer."

Wray says he is not questioning the quality of the RFU's referees but believes the same officials, employed by the Premiership's 12 clubs, would be able to help deliver a more appealing product.
Premiership referees

The RFU appoints referees to Premiership matches


They are selected from the 15 referees of the Professional Referees Unit (PRU)

The PRU also includes 13 assistant referees


One referee, two assistant referees and a reserve official are appointed for each Premiership game

He added spectators can be put off by complicated rules, particularly around the scrum.

"Rugby will only get bigger and grow if people understand what's happening," he said.

"If we confuse them, don't expect them to turn up.

"At the end of the day, we're in the entertainment business. We're trying to get the audience who have not yet come - if they don't have a clue about any of the decisions, how are we going to persuade them to watch?"

Premiership officials are appointed from the RFU's Professional Referee Unit, which is the highest level referees can reach after coming through the regional game.

"They can be the same referees, but we need to employ them," Wray said.

"During the week the referees could go into schools, teach, encourage other referees and become full pros."

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/rugby-union/30196682

Training referee's to allow more entertaining rugby is a good idea. Some are really good at it. Some are awful. Simplifying the rules might be a good idea, depending on how it's done. One league doing these things unilaterally is a terrible idea. In the case of refs, it would cause huge problems for the English national team playing under refs interpreting things in a way they're not used to. If Nigel doesn't care about that, it would cause the same problems for his club in the ERCC.

In the case of simplifying the rules, I don't know if he was actually suggesting this is something the Premiership should do on it's own, but if he was that would lead to a bizarre situation where the Premiership is playing a game with different rules to rugby! I think he's guilty of narrowly focusing on what he wants for his club; more fans and more money; without taking into account anybody or anything that's not his club.

Both these idea's particularly the first one are actually things almost everyone would agree with. So wouldn't it be better for the IRB (sorry World Rugby) to oversee it across the game? It might be an opportunity for Nigel to actually build/repair working relationships with his rugby brethren by working towards something everyone wants if he'd like to be involved in driving the change along with others in the game, without another huge fight dragging the game through the mud. I strongly believe all wingers should wear traffic cones on their heads to make me laugh when they run, but I don't think I can make Irish teams do that alone or force anyone else to buy into it. I'd have to gain majority support from the rest of world rugby and bring this improvement to the game together.

By the way I would dearly love for scrum penalties to be vastly reduced and for the ref to just play on.

Which bit was Craig?

More I want to own the game ranting from Wray then. Nothing to see here.

HammerofThunor wrote:Which bit was Craig?

None of it.

I do agree that the rules around the ruck and scrum could do with streamlining mind you, I mean at every tackle there could be; not releasing the player, not releasing the ball, not rolling away, going off the feet, coming in from the side, hands in ruck etc. In reality a number of these happen at every breakdown, but referees tend to let some of it go unless blatent. When a referee actually enforces the laws, he is 'whistle happy'. If the players didn't take every opportunity to cheat then he wouldn't have to blow the whistle!

HammerofThunor wrote:Which bit was Craig?

Just setting up a thread for easy reference when we want to figure out in a few years time where it all went wrong

Bathman_in_London wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Which bit was Craig?

None of it.

I do agree that the rules around the ruck and scrum could do with streamlining mind you, I mean at every tackle there could be; not releasing the player, not releasing the ball, not rolling away, going off the feet, coming in from the side, hands in ruck etc. In reality a number of these happen at every breakdown, but referees tend to let some of it go unless blatent. When a referee actually enforces the laws, he is 'whistle happy'. If the players didn't take every opportunity to cheat then he wouldn't have to blow the whistle!

It might be just easier for the Saracens fans if they just start watching rugby league.

Words fail me.

I just think Wray reads this forum and has decided to take Wumming to new heights by making comments in public rather than on the boards

I can see where he is coming from.

How many of you check to see who the Ref is before you go to the game or once you have bought a programme, as it does have a bearing on the game you are about to see and it really shouldn't!

I agree and I don't agree. I agree with most of the problems he raises but not his solution.

Reffing and consistency is a hugely important issue.

As for scrums - not sure how he expects to make it less complicated unless he makes them uncontested like rugby league. A solution for less time spent in the scrum/less colapsed scrums would be welcomed though.

Speeding up the game is a worthy goal in my opinion as this would lead to a more exciting prospect.

The purists might like scrums for 80 minutes but for many they are tedious borefests.

I am not convinced that club control of refs would necessary be a viable solution to issues that Wray rightly points out.

Why don't Saracens become a Football club?  

More money, free to use the unlimited money to buy the-sky-is-the-limit players, bigger sponsorship money and simple, simple rules for the die hard Saracen rugby fans who don't know anything about rugby and can't understand what's going on.

Football is your game, Nige.  Take Saracens to the Premiership with a round ball and nil-all draws.  The fans should understand all that stuff.

beshocked wrote:
Speeding up the game is a worthy goal in my opinion as this would lead to a more exciting prospect.

The purists might like scrums for 80 minutes but for many they are tedious borefests.

I am not convinced that club control of refs would necessary be a viable solution to issues that Wray rightly points out.

If you get bored with rugby Union, there's always rugby League. Wray doesn't seem to be aware that such a game exists - no big Union overlords, nice easy 6 by 6 rules, lots of running and panche.

After he tries out Football, maybe he should think of simply turning Saracens into a League side.

I have never heard of rugby league..... Could you explain the rules please?

Don't give Nigel ideas - him and Edward G probably have plans for a football and rugby league side.

It's no secret that Edward G is a big football fan.

Well then, beshocked - it's up to you and other Saracens fans to make Wray realise that you want Union to stay Union; and that if he likes League or Football, then by all means start up a Saracens League side and a Saracens football side....and leave Union alone.

I love Union - not the slick drop'n'pop, 6 goes apiece, clinical purity and hygenic tidyness of League.  I like my rugby as war - battles in the middle of the field breakdowns, skirmishes in the lineouts, tank warfare in the scrums, blizkrieg attacks from backs.  I like it all - None of it bores me.  
The only thing that bores me is a bad game.  Bad games have nothing to do with the rules and a lot to do with players playing badly.

SecretFly wrote:Well then, beshocked - it's up to you and other Saracens fans to make Wray realise that you want Union to stay Union; and that if he likes League or Football, then by all means start up a Saracens League side and a Saracens football side....and leave Union alone.

I love Union - not the slick drop'n'pop, 6 goes apiece, clinical purity and hygenic tidyness of League. I like my rugby as war - battles in the middle of the field breakdowns, skirmishes in the lineouts, tank warfare in the scrums, blizkrieg attacks from backs. I like it all - None of it bores me.
The only thing that bores me is a bad game. Bad games have nothing to do with the rules and a lot to do with players playing badly.

+1

I think what the Nigel's are getting at is that the clubs want to introduce their club owned referee's, ones that have been brought in, trained and developed by the club. Imagine 18 officials in the league all from Bath RFC...I could only see one winner in the Premiership that year...

Let's say the Clubs have their own referees (because once more, they don't want to be using refs that belong to people they don't trust - Unions).  Okay...so those refs go through club seasons and learn their trade.

Who refs the Internationals?  Club refs from AP?  (Refs that belong to people Unions don't trust?)


So we have club refs not being able to coach Internationals and International refs not being able to coach club?

We could have a few end of year Ref games to pick a winner of a BT Ref Cup - International v Club.  Yet more income and sponsorship.  And even more fans tuning in to enjoy a game they don't understand.

It's a bad idea.

But please - leave off the Sarries fans, just because the owner is a bit out of the box doesn't mean to say that the fans don't like a muddy forwards slug fest.

The very fact that they turn up to watch a rugby union club might be a good indicator of which sport they prefer.

Just saying like...

SecretFly wrote:Well then, beshocked - it's up to you and other Saracens fans to make Wray realise that you want Union to stay Union; and that if he likes League or Football, then by all means start up a Saracens League side and a Saracens football side....and leave Union alone.

I love Union - not the slick drop'n'pop, 6 goes apiece, clinical purity and hygenic tidyness of League.  I like my rugby as war - battles in the middle of the field breakdowns, skirmishes in the lineouts, tank warfare in the scrums, blizkrieg attacks from backs.  I like it all - None of it bores me.  
The only thing that bores me is a bad game.  Bad games have nothing to do with the rules and a lot to do with players playing badly.

Up to me? I've lost my faith in Saracens.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

I prefer a game with more pace,dynamism and intelligence.

Scrums are part of the game but I don't want them being the star of the show just as I don't want a ref doing the same.

I thought the Saracens vs Clermont game was far superior to the turgid Munster vs Saracens game in the European Champions cup for example.

As an Irishman I am sure you'll be pleased with the turgid mess that was the latter game because the Irish side won but it didn't make it a good game.

It made a good game for Munster.

Plus as an Irishman, I like both.  Turgid if it gets results - Munster are smart, not turgid.  When they want to hit you with a surprise of fire, they'll hit you.  Smart is what Munster are.

But...as an Irishman, I also loved Leinster in their prime.  Now turgid that wasn't

BTW......  "up to you" is more a rhetorical device than actually telling you to request a meeting with Wray.  

Why do so many people here Do literal interpretations of everything???

"Go to Hell!"
"How can I go to Hell?  It's a myth, it doesn't exist.  Stop talking nonsense."  

It's Language people!

TrailApe wrote:It's a bad idea.

But please - leave off the Sarries fans, just because the owner is a bit out of the box doesn't mean to say that the fans don't like a muddy forwards slug fest.

The very fact that they turn up to watch a rugby union club might be a good indicator of which sport they prefer.

Just saying like...

It's irony I was using when I keep saying Sarries fans haven't got a clue and don't know what they're watching.  Irony based on the strange idea put forward by Wray himself that somehow rugby fans- who like Union - can't really get it and probably want something else, something better.

Like you, I think that if fans turn up for Rugby Union - it's what they want to watch.  Football and League are there for people who don't.

Secretfly I guess if winning is all that matters then yes I guess it was good for Munster.

I thought Munster were boringly predictable, just more effective on the day than the just as boringly predictable Saracens. It was a poor game of rugby in my opinion.

It's not all about the winning - I thought Saracens-Leicester - AP final 2009/10 was an excellent game despite Saracens losing. A better match than the one the season after.

I do admire intelligent play - I don't think Munster were that intelligent to be honest - just playing a side making key foolish decisions like dropping man of the match from the previous game - replacing him with a player completely off form and with barely any match fitness, also taking off a frontrower playing well and replacing him with a penalty machine who gave away a key YC.

Of course, this is not a good idea.  I think those two guys like to send up trial balloons and watch for reaction.  And this won't really fly, so not worth a lot of breath.  

The point I find ironic is that we need more consistent referees globally, not less, which I think is a probable unintended the direction of their proposal.  Premiership, Pro12, and Super Rugby referees should exchange for a few weeks every season.  

beshocked wrote:Secretfly I guess if winning is all that matters then yes I guess it was good for Munster.

I thought Munster were boringly predictable, just more effective on the day than the just as boringly predictable Saracens. It was a poor game of rugby in my opinion.

It's not all about the winning - I thought Saracens-Leicester - AP final 2009/10 was an excellent game despite Saracens losing. A better match than the one the season after.

I do admire intelligent play - I don't think Munster were that intelligent to be honest - just playing a side making key foolish decisions like dropping man of the match from the previous game - replacing him with a player completely off form and with barely any match fitness, also taking off a frontrower playing well and replacing him with a penalty machine who gave away a key YC.

Yeah...I've heard it a lot from you. Saracens were the better side had they played better. Munster got a Get out of Jail Free card and should count themselves lucky. Yep, I've heard that. And you're right. Munster are a lucky side. No talent just predictable sludge. Their record in Europe exposes them for what they are. No Brains, no class, no intelligence, no guile.

How right you are.

Didn't say Munster had no talent. They have a good record in Europe. I personally feel they were a bit fortunate with things I already mentioned but Munster are a good side.

I don't think either team played particularly well - I thought it was poor and turgid game - reminded me of Scotland-England in 2008. Another incredibly dull match.

Both sides could have been less limited if they wanted to but they decided to slug it out in a borefest and in those circumstances only one team will win again and again at Thomond Park.

Anyway...you're talking about one game from both sides.  The arument with Wray is that he's talking about an overall season, and overall quality.  

If he can't see it, either in AP, in Top14, in Pro12 or in Europe..... If he can't see quality rugby played in all those Leagues or Championships over the course of a season, then I'd tell him straight to his face that he hasn't a clue about rugby.  
There is plenty of quality rugby in Europe.  Wray just wants it to be a show designed for 'showboating'.  That game already exists as I keep saying both humourously and very seriously.  The game he wants already exists - it's League.

beshocked wrote:Didn't say Munster had no talent. They have a good record in Europe. I personally feel they were a bit fortunate with things I already mentioned but Munster are a good side.

I don't think either team played particularly well - I thought it was poor and turgid game - reminded me of Scotland-England in 2008. Another incredibly dull match.

Both sides could have been less limited if they wanted to but they decided to slug it out in a borefest and in those circumstances only one team will win again and again at Thomond Park.

I think you are mistaken Beshocked (but not for the first time). What Munster did was very intelligent. They stopped Saracens at source and won.

Regardless if you dont care about winning fair enough. Maybe its the reason Saracens dont really win much...

Secretfly I agree overall quality is important.

Me-109 call it very intelligent if you want. I thought it was predictable. Both teams were mind numbingly predictable. It's hardly stopping someone they don't bother to offer anything bar an ineffectual plan A.

Is it really tactical genius when every man and their dog knew exactly how Munster were going to play?

I said before the game what Saracens needed to do to combat this - they failed to do this.

Winning is good sure but so are performances and the quality of a match. This match was low on quality.

Of course if the referees are employed by the clubs then that is more control for the clubs. Try playing that extra international outside of the IRB window when we don't allow the referees be released.

I'd agree that rules need to be simplified, the scrum takes too long (though as a former prop I do like to watch a proper tussle there), breakdown is pot luck depending on the referee. But how does any of that change on the basis of who pays the referee?

And lets just throw out a curveball, last game of the season, 3 teams are fighting for the final playoff spot... 2 teams are playing each other and the referee is 'paid' by the third team! The fallout would be monumental.

Next he will be on for the PRL to run the disciplinary panel.

doctor_grey wrote: Premiership, Pro12, and Super Rugby referees should exchange for a few weeks every season.  

Pro 12 did with the French this year.  AP won't play ball

The French have reffed AP games too. If the English refs won't go to pro12 it's the RFU not the AP (which is the whole basis of this thread so far).

Good point well presented

Nigel Wray - almost the 'Boudjellal' of English club rugby. Issuing poorly thought out stuff like this after a home loss to a bitter rival is just like some of Boudjellal's comments this season.

Referees need to be independent from the teams they are reffing.

If Wray has an issue then Sarries can ask the RFU to send a ref along to give advice on why refs give penalties, and what teams need to do to avoid being penalised. The RFU are usually happy to accomodate such requests, as would most other unions.

TJ wrote:

doctor_grey wrote: Premiership, Pro12, and Super Rugby referees should exchange for a few weeks every season.  

Pro 12 did with the French this year.  AP won't play ball

I am talking north and south exchanging referees. That is where it seems there is the biggest disconnect between the types of officiating. The net benefit of a referees exchange already occurs in the north in the Euro Cup, so not sure the benefit of more exchange or rotation.