Referees - criticism and praise

I believe reffing pro rugby is incredibly difficult due to the huge amounts of possible infringements many of which are very subjective, the vast areas of the pitch they should be looking at and the continual "pushing of the boundaries" ie cheating by players especially around the breakdown and in the scrums.

Given this I find some of the criticism rather unfair.  I think Refs are dammed by the fans no matter what they do and if you can say they upset both sides equally then probably they did a decent job.

I actually think much of the standard of reffing in the pro 12 I watch mainly is pretty damn good.  One example I thought was really good in the blues / Dragons game.  Leighton Hodges was the ref and as a neutral I thought he did a fine job.  He came in for a huge amount of flack latter in the thread but it wa all very subjective.  From what I saw he was fair and consistent.  One thing I thought was particularly good was Twice there was a flag for fould play, twice he and the TJ made the decision without going to replay and twice the decision was right.   the stuff he copped so much flack for was all in the areas of subjective decisions and he was consistent in his approach all game and as a neutral looking for a good game to watch I could see why he made the decision he did

Take another example - Mitrea I think it is.  he did struggle when he first  started but he has grown into a decent ref.  refs with sympathy and humour.  Doesn't make many mistakes.  Cops huge flack from fans.  Why?

for sure when I watch Edinburgh I shout at the ref for every decision that we don't get - but you know - when I see the replay its very rare a real mistake is actually made even one that goes against my team.  So - two points really -

Hodges and making the decision on the foul play without going to replay - good decision or  what?  


Why do refs cop so much flack even after the game?

Definitely a worthwhile thread, TJ.

For discussion purposes, here are the current crop of Pro 12 refs:

Claudio Blessano	Leo Colgan	Gary Conway	Ian Davies
George Clancy	Neil Hennessey	Leighton Hodges	John Lacey
Lloyd Linton	Matteo Liperini	Andrew McMenemy	Marius Mitrea
Nigel Owens	Neil Paterson	Peter Fitzgibbon	Dudley Phillips
Giuseppe Vivarini	Ben Whitehouse	David Wilkinson

Looking at them, how many people actually think that nominated individuals are poor match officials?

It's quite difficult now to separate the lore from the reality. People have been repeating that the usual suspects of the Gibbon, Clownshoes and Paterson are awful for so long now, that I don't really trust my own objectivity any more.

What I come back to is the question about whether the standard of refereeing should be any better than it is given how fecking difficult it is to stay on top of all aspects of any game involving 30 players on a 100m pitch. Nigel Owens has said many times in interviews that it is literally impossible to referee a match without making a mistake and that in the earlier part of his career he felt he wasn't in control at some points in the match, which jeopordised the players' safety, something he considers all referees are responsible for, first and foremost.

So I think that we are hard on refs. However, some mistakes should not be made and criticism of them is valid. What would help the process would be a little bit more transparency as to how refs are trained and sanctioned for mistakes. It's a black box at the moment, which does not engender confidence.

On that list, the worst refs, by a country mile are, Neil Paterson, David Wilkinson and George Clancy, the most improved refs on there John Lacey and Matteo Liperini. The referee's in our game are integral, without them we would not have a game to watch, but we need to review how the TMO is used first and foremost, the amount of times I have seen a referee ask the TMO "Is there any reason why I cannot award the try ?" is shambolic, that should not even be allowed to be asked, if the ref thinks it a try, then award it. Also, I would like to see stronger refs, too many times I see refs in the Pro12 being swayed by the crowd, we do have a problem with the standard of refereeing in our league, and it needs to be looked at, and the way the Ospreys V Ulster game before Christmas was reffed is a good example of a ref who is out of his depth. But for me, when a ref starts using the TMO to make decisions for him, thats when it starts to become a farce, if you think it's a try award it, do not kop out by asking, "Is there any reason why I cannot award the try"

http://www.rugby365.com/article/63747-history-from-no-one-to-sole-judge

In the beginning there were no referees. The need for referees is ongoing proof of the existence of original sin and human fallibility. Man could not honestly or objectively run a game. He needed somebody impartial to do the judging for him.
Of course, to start with it was a simple game. You met the people from the other village and you took the object used in the game (a bundle of rags of hides, later to become a ball) back to your village. You used whatever means you had at your disposal. So, some men were armed with swords, clubs or staves, and some road on horseback. It was a great opportunity to even old scores. It caused great consternation and in Britain the game was banned 31 times by monarchs in just over 300 years and was subject to the Riot Act.
When you got the object, which would symbolise an animal in a hunt or, more dramatically, the opposition leader, back to your village you "killed" it by drowning it or rubbing it in the ground. We still get home for a try, we then ground the ball, ancient concepts and then the ball is dead.
Then they started playing the game within villages. The aim of the game (goal = purpose) was to take the object, which in Chester on one grizzly occasion was a Dane's head, to your leader's home, and his doorway gave the goal its shape.
Games of this sort, known in Britain by the generic term football which included many species of game, were played all over the world and even in ancient times. The oldest recorded international match was, according to Li Ju, between China and Japan in the 1st Century BC, and there is no record of a referee.
The big development in the game came in the 19th Century in Britain when schools started taking to the game. Ironically, what had been subject to the Riot Act previously was now used to curb the riotous behaviour of schoolboys.
That century saw the rise of the public (= private) school in Britain. The more ancient ones grew in numbers and many new ones were founded. They were essentially single-gender schools. A conglomeration of young men has always been fertile ground for football to grow - whether at schools or universities, in the army or in the mines.
In the 19th Century there were many scholar uprisings. The boys tended to be of the upper class and looked down on the schoolmasters as socially inferior. Furthermore their board and lodging were enough to drive a boy to rise up. At Winchester the boys fought the army. At Rugby they blew up a classroom. Games proved the answer.
Schools started playing and adapted the game to the land they had available. Each school thus developed its own game.
The games were run by boys, which was later seen as an opportunity for them to exercise leadership. They would make up the "rules" as they saw fit. The result was a simple game, certainly not a spectacular one. But the big change was that the goal was changed. Now instead of getting it home, you took it forward to your opponents' goal, and naturally the game ended once the goal was reached.
From the various schools boys would go to the great universities, and they would want to keep on playing. But they had problems with the various ways of playing. This led to the search for common sets of "rules". The first were the Cambridge Rules if 1842. Then came the formation of the Football Association in 1863, the birth of a game which would eventually be called soccer. Then in 1871 a group of 21 clubs and schools broke away and formed a Football Union. The founding spirits, mainly driven by Blackheath FC, were largely old boys of Rugby School where the headmaster Thomas Arnold had done so much to encourage manly pursuits such as football as a way of developing muscular Christians who could govern an empire. So the Football Union adopted the rules as played at Rugby School and as a result called itself the Rugby Football Union, as it still is today.
At Rugby School, founded in 1567, the piece of ground for football was the Close, and many great things happened there. Because it was the custom to pack the goal with a multitude of boys from lower down the school the posts were extended to their present H-shape to make a goal possible. It also became a custom that if you grounded the ball beyond your opponents' posts you were allowed to take it back and try to convert (= improve) it into a goal.
The game was developing and gradually the various lines were introduced. Also the rules became increasingly complex, caused, as is still the case, to prevent people from spoiling the rest's fun. But it was a boys' game and they decided how they wanted to play and the leader of each side would decide whether what happened was right or wrong.
Rugby Schools rules, as written in 1840 state: "Heads of sides, or two deputies appointed by them, are the sole arbiters of all disputes."
It all sounds delightfully innocent, but the truth is that it did not work. A rudimentary knowledge of human nature would tell you that it would not work.
Then they decided that the matter would be made more formal and that each team would have a designated player to make help to make decisions should the captains disagree. These men were called, optimistically, umpires. The word comes from the French non pere, meaning not partial. Non pere became numpire and a numpire became an umpire. But umpires, being human, tended to side with their side. And so they needed a third party. If a decision was disputed, they would go off to some respected gentleman and refer the matter to him - the referee.
In 1885, they hauled the referee out of his easy chair and thrust him onto the field, giving him a whistle and his umpires a stick each. The umpires were the first line of action, raising or lowering the stick depending upon whether they agreed or disagreed with a captain's appeal. If one stick was up and the other down, then the referee had to act. If the referee allowed the appeal he then blew his whistle.
New Zealand is sheep country. Dogs are used to control the sheep and the dogs are in turn controlled by the shepherd's whistle. It is not surprising, therefore, that the referee's whistle was developed in New Zealand. The man who developed it was William Atack of Canterbury.
William Harrington Atack, born in England in 1857, went out to New Zealand when he was only two. He was a good scholar at school, played rugby for Canterbury, became a journalist and died on 16 September 1945. In 1884 he used his dog whistle to referee a match. In 1892 the IRB made the use of a whistle compulsory.
Disputes raged on. They could last for ages on the field and go on for weeks afterwards, until the union under whose jurisdiction the match was played gave its verdict. And then there was a dispute which lasted for years.
England played Scotland at Blackheath in 1884, and the Irish referee, George Scriven, awarded a try to England which the Scots disputed for some ten minutes. The try, scored by Richard Kindersley and eventually converted by Baby Bolton, won the match for England. But the Scots were unhappy and broke off international contact with England.
The Irish eventually got the parties together and three high court judges tried the try and found in favour of England. Complain about the time taken by the TMO; that try took years before it was awarded.
The problem was that for an international match there was no union under whose aegis the match was played. This led to the foundation of the International Rugby Board in 1889. This is when the touch judges were relegated to the touch lines and the referee was hauled out of his easy chair to do some work and then a massive responsibility was placed on his shoulders. He was made the sole judge of fact and law.
This was not to signify that whatever the referee decided was in fact infallibly right - that a forward pass became a backward pass at his word. It simply meant that there would no disputing his decision. If he said it was a try, it counted as a try, however doubtful the circumstances.
The next step was the relegation of the umpires to the touch lines with little flags on their sticks by way of compensation, leaving the referee to decide on his own about a captain's appeal. And then in 1892 they got rid of disputes by making the referee the sole judge of fact.
There we have it all - sole judge and possessed of a whistle. The referee was born.

Does anyone watch a lot of Pro 12 rugby and AP rugby? Is there a marked difference?

The biggest frustration for me is consistency - you could get a decent ref one week and a bad one the next. The Edinburgh-Connacht game was one that sticks in my mind - it seemed fairly clear to me that we had the more dominant scrum but the ref penalised us off the park. Obviously the scrum is a completely unique topic, but these frustrations don't help your enjoyment of the game. As TJ says - you show your displeasure at all the decisions the ref makes against you, but if you watched them back I'd guarantee that 90% of the time you would either agree with him, or it is so subjective that it could have gone either way.

As an aside, I have a friend who plays high level ultimate Frisbee and it is worth noting that they don't have a referee - it is literally against the rules to 'cheat'.

Decisions are made by the players themselves, and players need to be honest if they've made a foul.

Apparently it works - would be absolute carnage if rugby didn't have a ref though!

George Carlin wrote:Definitely a worthwhile thread, TJ.

For discussion purposes, here are the current crop of Pro 12 refs:

Claudio Blessano	Leo Colgan	Gary Conway	Ian Davies
George Clancy	Neil Hennessey	Leighton Hodges	John Lacey
Lloyd Linton	Matteo Liperini	Andrew McMenemy	Marius Mitrea
Nigel Owens	Neil Paterson	Peter Fitzgibbon	Dudley Phillips
Giuseppe Vivarini	Ben Whitehouse	David Wilkinson

Looking at them, how many people actually think that nominated individuals are poor match officials?

It's quite difficult now to separate the lore from the reality. People have been repeating that the usual suspects of the Gibbon, Clownshoes and Paterson are awful for so long now, that I don't really trust my own objectivity any more.

What I come back to is the question about whether the standard of refereeing should be any better than it is given how fecking difficult it is to stay on top of all aspects of any game involving 30 players on a 100m pitch. Nigel Owens has said many times in interviews that it is literally impossible to referee a match without making a mistake and that in the earlier part of his career he felt he wasn't in control at some points in the match, which jeopordised the players' safety, something he considers all referees are responsible for, first and foremost.

So I think that we are hard on refs. However, some mistakes should not be made and criticism of them is valid. What would help the process would be a little bit more transparency as to how refs are trained and sanctioned for mistakes. It's a black box at the moment, which does not engender confidence.

For me the biggest frustration are whistle happy ref's who interupt the game and spoil the spectacle unnecessarily. Nigel Owens (although not all would agree) is largely seen as one of the best refs in the world and I believe this is because as much as possible he lets the game flow....

Going back to the point about the Dragons game, I thought the ref was poor - not for individual decisions but for the length of time which he allowed to take up at the scrum, I think in the first ten minutes 4 of them were taken up on resent scrums which IMO was down to weak reffing

I think no matter the team, there is always a section of fans will blame the ref when thier team loses. I think we're seeing in more and more as the game becomes more popular.

Sometimes I think its near an impossible game to ref, at each breakdown there are normally at least a couple of things a penelty could be given for, if the letter of the law was followed. Over a course of a game the losing fans then to focus on these and the winning fans forget about them.

Sometimes I've watched a game and thought the ref was poor and costing us, but when reading on reports or watching back, it turns out that overall they have generally had a fair game, so I rarely complain about the ref after a game.

But focusing on the Pro 12 there are improvements that need to be made to the reffing structure,
I've mentioned it a few times over the years, but it does appear that this is starting to change

http://www.scottishrugby.org/news/14/10/09/pro12-appoint-independent-referee-commissioner

LordDowlais wrote:On that list, the worst refs, by a country mile are, Neil Paterson, David Wilkinson and George Clancy,

This is a good illustration of where this is so subjective.
For all his faults Clancy is not that bad imo
No idea about Wilkinson maybe we haven't had him recently

For me Fitzgibbon is by a country mile the worst followed by Patterson
The rest I can, just, live with

I don't think the overall quality of the referees is bad at all.  Nor do I think more players are trying to get away with more.  I do think the criticism of the referees is due to:
We see more on tv and the cameras focus on more things.  
It is much more fast paced than ever and it difficult for even the most fit referee to see everything.  
And, of course, the execution of the scrum.

I do think we need more consistency across all leagues, both in the north and south.  This is a critical step. And is one main reason we criticise one referee versus another.

Keep in mind the NFL has many on field officials for 11 players per side and they still miss things.  If we simplify the laws we run into the possibility of evolving towards League.  If we have more on field officials we run the risk of even more penalties given out.  Not sure the ultimate solution, but I don't think this can be corrected by simply telling the players to remain onside all the time.

A good referee knows the laws and applies them with empathy for the game they are managing. Good communication with both teams is vital...!

Unfortunately the rules are constantly made subjective by the IRB and changes of interpretation without a law change make a fair adjudication hard.

Some people don't have good communication skills, don't have a sense of empathy and don't remember the laws and a apply them fluently.

That is why George Clancy is a poor referee.

The use of the TMO's by the refs are my biggest bug bears, we are seeing more and more kop outs than ever these days, I have no problem if the ref thinks he saw something wrong and wants to make sure of a decision, but we MUST do away with, is there any reason why I cannot award the try question, if he thinks its a try, then award it. to many times I have seen legitimate tries being questioned, then being taken age over to discuss it. Also, the assistants should be used a lot more, afterall, thats what they are there for.

geoff998rugby wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:On that list, the worst refs, by a country mile are, Neil Paterson, David Wilkinson and George Clancy,  

This is a good illustration of where this is so subjective.
For all his faults Clancy is not that bad imo
No idea about Wilkinson maybe we haven't had him recently

For me Fitzgibbon is by a country mile the worst followed by Patterson
The rest I can, just, live with

Fitzgibbon for me is an enigma, one week you will see him have a really good game, then you think to yourself when you next see his name reffing a game you are going to watch that you are happy that he is the ref, then he will go and totally wreck the game by being clueless.

As for Clancy, this man does not know how to communicate to players, he has no empathy for the game, and he has constantly got his whistle in his mouth, Wilkinson and Paterson are the two worst refs I have ever witnessed, how they are in a job of such caliber is just beggars belief.

To comment on some of the earlier points, I have 2 brothers in law, who in any conversation about a game that either Wales or Ospreys lose ALWAYS blames the referee first, I've been to many games and shouted at the Ref that he has had this or that wrong, if the game has been televised I always record it and when watching back, often see that I was wrong.
Then again I see many occasions when I was right, 2 of my real bugbears is the crooked feed, which is allowed and the policing of the offside law, both of these should be the job of the touch judge, one watching for the crooked feed and the other the offside at scrum time, in open play it should be covered by both judges, the number of times Mitrea was telling the team without the ball to get behind the back feet of ruck and maul is embarrassing, he should leave the policing of that to the judges and just penalise on their say so.
For me the only decent Refs that I'm confident will police the game impartially and with empathy in the Guinness League are Owens and Lacey, and I watched a game in the last month or so that was adjudicated by an English set up of Doyle and Small, forgot who the other one was and they were NO better, especially the offside law.
I also have to agree with a few on here who advocate the Ref actually make a decision, not revert to the TMO on so many occasions.

LordDowlais wrote:The use of the TMO's by the refs are my biggest bug bears, we are seeing more and more kop outs than ever these days, I have no problem if the ref thinks he saw something wrong and wants to make sure of a decision, but we MUST do away with, is there any reason why I cannot award the try question, if he thinks its a try, then award it. to many times I have seen legitimate tries being questioned, then being taken age over to discuss it. Also, the assistants should be used a lot more, afterall, thats what they are there for.

I actually think as everyone gets used to the TMO its being used less - I pointed out two instances that Hodges made a decision without going to replay

TJ wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:The use of the TMO's by the refs are my biggest bug bears, we are seeing more and more kop outs than ever these days, I have no problem if the ref thinks he saw something wrong and wants to make sure of a decision, but we MUST do away with, is there any reason why I cannot award the try question, if he thinks its a try, then award it. to many times I have seen legitimate tries being questioned, then being taken age over to discuss it. Also, the assistants should be used a lot more, afterall, thats what they are there for.

I actually think as everyone gets used to the TMO its being used less - I pointed out two instances that Hodges made a decision without going to replay

Yep. I think refs were worried about missing something. The TMO were worried about getting it wrong. Now the refs are being more selective (and they need to be backed up more by the AR) and the TMO getting faster at reviewing things. I have noticed that now they're putting the AR on the TV ref mic they're generally in constant communication with the refs, which is good. One thing that annoyed me in a ERCC game for Wasps (against Castres?) was Lacey (I think) seemed to be ignoring his AR quite a few times (for offsides, knock-ons, maul from a kick so it should have been attacking scrum, etc). Not sure if he was just ignoring them or that was a technical problem.

HammerofThunor wrote:

TJ wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:The use of the TMO's by the refs are my biggest bug bears, we are seeing more and more kop outs than ever these days, I have no problem if the ref thinks he saw something wrong and wants to make sure of a decision, but we MUST do away with, is there any reason why I cannot award the try question, if he thinks its a try, then award it. to many times I have seen legitimate tries being questioned, then being taken age over to discuss it. Also, the assistants should be used a lot more, afterall, thats what they are there for.

I actually think as everyone gets used to the TMO its being used less - I pointed out two instances that Hodges made a decision without going to replay

Yep. I think refs were worried about missing something. The TMO were worried about getting it wrong. Now the refs are being more selective (and they need to be backed up more by the AR) and the TMO getting faster at reviewing things.  I have noticed that now they're putting the AR on the TV ref mic they're generally in constant communication with the refs, which is good.  One thing that annoyed me in a ERCC game for Wasps (against Castres?) was Lacey (I think) seemed to be ignoring his AR quite a few times (for offsides, knock-ons, maul from a kick so it should have been attacking scrum, etc). Not sure if he was just ignoring them or that was a technical problem.

Hammer, there was also that problem when the Phillips incident with Evans red card, and it was mentioned AFTER that incident, that the communication problems were now resolved, they can put a probe on a comet millions of miles away, yet cannot get 4 people within a couple of 100 yards between them to communicate between each other

For me a good ref is anonymous. He or She has done a great job if you don't even notice them being there.

Among my worst Refs are Joubert and Clancy. Among my faves are guys like Owens, Poite and Barnes.

Joubert for me's copy book will forever be blotted by the Penalty Fest between Wales and Scotland 2 seasons ago. The most penalties in an international match. The game was like American Football.

Worst part was Scotland being pinged at the scrum for an early hit 2 times in a row. So the Scottish front row make a deliberate and obvious effort to seem to pull back and get pinged for "not taking the hit". Our front row were placed in an impossible position and Joubert appeared to be refereeing only one team.

This is an isolated case and as others have pointed out the Scrum is a bit of a conundrum for most refs. Barnes and Poite seem to get it right 95% of the time though.

I think the pro12 has a good group of referees, however consitency between NH and SH refs remains elusive. Particularly how the breakdown is interperated.

From TV broadcasts I have watched I have heard teams employ analysts to watch Referees and learn how best to "play" the game to that referees tastes. This is wrong on 2 fronts.

1. All Refs NH or SH should ref the game to the same standards. The laws if they have to be "interpreted" aren't laws at all and should be refined to reduce or at best limit the ambiguity.

2. The players and clubs shouldn't be modifying their play styles to pander to the whims of the Referee. The players have a responsibility to assist the Referee by playing within the confines of the laws. This one I appreciate will be harder to counter since the dark arts we hear so much about at the breakdown are cheating by another name.

I suppose what I'm getting at is the Ref's have a tough job. The IRB rule book and the players don't make it any easier either.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

Among my worst Refs are Joubert and Clancy. Among my faves are guys like Owens, Poite and Barnes.

Again illustrates what I said before so subjective.

For me Joubert is one of the best.
Poite on the other hand I can't stand - doesn't have aclue about the scrum

geoff998rugby wrote:
For me Joubert is one of the best.

28 penalties, 18 Penalty shots and no sin binnings is how one of the best Ref's manages an international test match?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/21692234

I was there and it was by far the worst game of rugby I have ever seen.

You seem to be dwelling on one game by that token all refs are poor

I'm dwelling on this game because I paid £80 to go watch rugby not a broken and fragmented game of American Football.

Ultimately we go to these matches to be entertained, I wasn't entertained and one man who really shouldn't have any impact on the game was responsible for it.

28 penalties in an international Rugby match is pretty unprecedented.

Your making my point - all refs, like players, have the occassional off day

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:I'm dwelling on this game because I paid £80 to go watch rugby not a broken and fragmented game of American Football.

Ultimately we go to these matches to be entertained, I wasn't entertained and one man who really shouldn't have any impact on the game was responsible for it.

28 penalties in an international Rugby match is pretty unprecedented.

Then Scotland should not have tried to cheat.

Didn't like Mitrea up until this season. He has turned me around though and seems to have matured into a decent ref. In previous seasons you could watch a game with him and spot exactly during the half when he realises he has missed something, he would then 'make up for it' at the next breakdown by awarding the hard done by team a penalty, but then you could see him try to make up for that by doing the other side a favour at the next phase of play. He would slowly lose control of the game as he would always try to make amends subconsciously at the next breakdown rather than reffing what he sees in that instance.

Do refs have to have empathy for the game? Yes. But they can only have empathy and let a game 'flow' if the infringed upon team can take advantage of the advantage.

When all is said and done, if the players don't infringe, the ref doesn't blow up for the penalty. If some ref awards 28 penalties in a game, that flack should be put on the players FIRST, not used as an excuse to criticise the ref.

Same goes for 4 of 10 minutes in a game being spent on a scrum. The rules (and ref) want a stable platform, square, shoulders above hips, proper bind and an honest shove from each pack. If there are 3-4 resets it is the players fault for not doing their job. Again I think the referee cops a lot of flack here. If both front rows didn't mess about, you'd never have a reset.

thebandwagonsociety wrote:Didn't like Mitrea up until this season.  He has turned me around though and seems to have matured into a decent ref.  In previous seasons you could watch a game with him and spot exactly during the half when he realises he has missed something, he would then 'make up for it' at the next breakdown by awarding the hard done by team a penalty, but then you could see him try to make up for that by doing the other side a favour at the next phase of play.  He would slowly lose control of the game as he would always try to make amends subconsciously at the next breakdown rather than reffing what he sees in that instance.

Do refs have to have empathy for the game? Yes.  But they can only have empathy and let a game 'flow' if the infringed upon team can take advantage of the advantage.

When all is said and done, if the players don't infringe, the ref doesn't blow up for the penalty.  If some ref awards 28 penalties in a game, that flack should be put on the players FIRST, not used as an excuse to criticise the ref.

Same goes for 4 of 10 minutes in a game being spent on a scrum.  The rules (and ref) want a stable platform, square, shoulders above hips, proper bind and an honest shove from each pack.  If there are 3-4 resets it is the players fault for not doing their job. Again I think the referee cops a lot of flack here.  If both front rows didn't mess about, you'd never have a reset.

The ref has a couple of cards in his pocket. If he starts waving them around the players will start to behave themselves.

The scrum is a tough one. Because so much goes on in the front row it is hard to see who is at fault. If a prop drops to his knees he isn't automatically responsible, his opposite number for instance might have been driving squint or something, I know all about it.

However the players themselves as you pointed out have a responsibility, I wouldn't be opposed for refs to cite for scrummaging penalties after the game, call them blue cards or something. Hand them out to props who have infringed and gotten away with it over the course of the match.

It's pretty obvious sometimes who's at fault if you can spend 5 minutes watching any given scrum after the match.

3 Blue cards in a season sees you banned for 2 matches or something like that. (just a suggestion)

It seems to be a pretty fair way to ensure the front rows are on their best behavior.

You could even recruit former props/hookers to be the judges. Brian Moore get that CV polished up.

Having a blue card system like you mentioned there would be a curious thing to introduce. Once the post match review would be performed consistently and impartially it could clear up a lot of messing.

I know ref's have cards in there pockets, but they then get criticised for showing yellow and 'ruining' the game when a side has to play with 14 men (or less). "Where is the empathy?" will be roared out by the masses.

I'd prefer for the linesmen to actually be 'referees assistants' and help him out.

And to make it even more embarrassing this weekend Nige is the Assistant Ref for Patterson in the Blues Leinster match and on Sunday is the same for us against the Dragons with Dudley Phillips in the middle, is he now being used as a mentor to the incompetents, he actually schooled Patterson in a game in the last month, there is surely no greater indication that some of these Refs are NOT up to the job.

To be honest Wayne, that could be a good thing, I would be more worried if Nigel was not there, as long as he DOES add to the reffing of the game, like he did in the Ospreys V Ulster game then it can only be good for the person in the middle as he can at least make them aware of where they are going wrong.

George Carlin wrote:Definitely a worthwhile thread, TJ.

For discussion purposes, here are the current crop of Pro 12 refs:

Claudio Blessano	Leo Colgan	Gary Conway	Ian Davies
George Clancy	Neil Hennessey	Leighton Hodges	John Lacey
Lloyd Linton	Matteo Liperini	Andrew McMenemy	Marius Mitrea
Nigel Owens	Neil Paterson	Peter Fitzgibbon	Dudley Phillips
Giuseppe Vivarini	Ben Whitehouse	David Wilkinson

Looking at them, how many people actually think that nominated individuals are poor match officials?

Out of these i would say i'm clearly unhappy when i see Clancy reffing, same applies for Blessano (who can't deal with any crowd noise, making him the biggest homer i have ever seen) and Patterson has shown recently why he shouldn't ref at this level anymore (Ospreys-Ulster game).

On the bright side i have never been disappointed by the likes of Davies, Vivarini, Hodges. Mitrea and Henessey are generally ok. Fitzgibbon is quite an homer too but i would say he knows his stuff. Nigel Owens has been getting on my nerves recently as i think he can be clouded by double standards depending on who plays. Still, wish more refs had his empathy for the game.

I have only just noticed, the majority of those refs are Irish, no wonder I get so annoyed with Irish referees, there are more of them so I see them more than any other, surley other nations should be adding to that pool.

LordDowlais wrote:I have only just noticed, the majority of those refs are Irish, no wonder I get so annoyed with Irish referees, there are more of them so I see them more than any other, surley other nations should be adding to that pool.

Doesn't really help that they are no great shakes either i would say Fitzgibbon and Lacey are the best of the bunch but they wouldn't be in my top 6 of the league.

Still we are blessed that we don't have to do with the likes of Jerome "red card" Garces, or Romain "policeman" Poite.

LordDowlais wrote:To be honest Wayne, that could be a good thing, I would be more worried if Nigel was not there, as long as he DOES add to the reffing of the game, like he did in the Ospreys V Ulster game then it can only be good for the person in the middle as he can at least make them aware of where they are going wrong.

Lord I entirely agree with what you are saying, but the point of the matter is if they need his mentoring, they shouldn't be reffing at this level, especially as these two have been Reffing at this level for a number of years.

wayne wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:To be honest Wayne, that could be a good thing, I would be more worried if Nigel was not there, as long as he DOES add to the reffing of the game, like he did in the Ospreys V Ulster game then it can only be good for the person in the middle as he can at least make them aware of where they are going wrong.

Lord I entirely agree with what you are saying, but the point of the matter is if they need his mentoring, they shouldn't be reffing at this level, especially as these two have been Reffing at this level for a number of years.  

I agree, but the thing is, we are stuck with them, so we must do all we can to try and up the anti if you like with these below par refs, for a long time I was convinced that the Irish refs were biased, and the league was structured to favour the Irish provinces, but if the truth were to be told, the Irish refs are just crap, and yes they are biased to a certain degree, but that is only because they are so out of their depth that they unwillingly favour the sides they know best, I am sure that no matter what nationality the refs in our league are, if they can get good enough, they will not look so biased. So, in a nutshell, the refs are not biased on purpose, they are just not at the level we need in our league. Although I am getting very impressed with John Lacey every game I see him, for my liking he is not far off the same level as our Nige.

The situation between Patterson and Owens was embarrassing, not sure i would have come out of the dressing room for the 2nd half if i had been in Patterson's shoes..

VinceWLB wrote:The situation between Patterson and Owens was embarrassing, not sure i would have come out of the dressing room for the 2nd half if i had been in Patterson's shoes..

Vince, Hodges lives not more than 10 miles from me, and I know a local Ref who new him very well, and when he came on the scene a few years ago, my friend told me he deliberately wouldn't take the advice of his touch judges, I hope that has now changed, even the best needs help.

My own opinion is its an impossible task to try and ref a rugby match. Rules are open to interpretation which means everyone will have their own interpretation and 95% of the time fans are biased towards their own team so its impossible for the ref to be right.

wayne wrote:

VinceWLB wrote:The situation between Patterson and Owens was embarrassing, not sure i would have come out of the dressing room for the 2nd half if i had been in Patterson's shoes..

Vince, Hodges lives not more than 10 miles from me, and I know a local Ref who new him very well, and when he came on the scene a few years ago, my friend told me he deliberately wouldn't take the advice of his touch judges, I hope that has now changed, even the best needs help.  

Though if i was Nigel Owens i would think twice before taking advices from lets say Mr Patterson!

I agree that there is so much going on on a rugby field that one ref, regardless how good he is, isn't enough. Take the scrum, how often i have seen exactly the same offence (lets say by the 2 THs) occuring at the same time but the ref will penalise the TH he is next too, ignoring what happened on the other side.

VinceWLB wrote:The situation between Patterson and Owens was embarrassing, not sure i would have come out of the dressing room for the 2nd half if i had been in Patterson's shoes..

Was that when Owens gave him advice on lifting his flag up when Hogg did that massive kick?

It's simple really.

Stop Wee weeing about with the rules and over-complicating things. Look how much of a mess scrums are these days.

Or...pick Ref's with playing experience.

Actually scrap that.....Steve Walsh used to play

RDW_Scotland wrote:

VinceWLB wrote:The situation between Patterson and Owens was embarrassing, not sure i would have come out of the dressing room for the 2nd half if i had been in Patterson's shoes..

Was that when Owens gave him advice on lifting his flag up when Hogg did that massive kick?

No it was at the end of the 1st half between Ospreys and Ulster, Ulster scored a try which was twice (!!) awarded by Patterson once before tmo and once after before Nigel stepped in and basically told him his interpretation of the advantage rule was wrong, Ospreys had indeed knocked on which meant they didn't get any advantage. Shame i can't find a video of it, that was comedy gold.

VinceWLB wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:

VinceWLB wrote:The situation between Patterson and Owens was embarrassing, not sure i would have come out of the dressing room for the 2nd half if i had been in Patterson's shoes..

Was that when Owens gave him advice on lifting his flag up when Hogg did that massive kick?

No it was at the end of the 1st half between Ospreys and Ulster, Ulster scored a try which was twice (!!) awarded by Patterson once before tmo and once after before Nigel stepped in and basically told him his interpretation of the advantage rule was wrong, Ospreys had indeed knocked on which meant they didn't get any advantage. Shame i can't find a video of it, that was comedy gold.

Here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0m4-i7H-NU comedy starts around the 48:30 mark.

My god, I didn't know about that.
Taxi for Patterson.

Some interesting thoughts chaps - ta.

how about using 5 officials? Ref , 2xTJ and 2 try line? or 4 TJs? This allows one TJ to concentrate purely on the offside line for example knowing there is another guy further down the line to watch for the kicks? Hard to recruit enough folk perhaps but I like the idea of having both sides of the breakdown/set piece being watched while someone else is watching for offside in the backs etc?

For replays - I think everyones familiarity with it is improving and I am not sure a system of appeals would work in rugby

TJ wrote:Some interesting thoughts chaps - ta.

how about using 5 officials?  Ref , 2xTJ and 2 try line?  or 4 TJs?  This allows one TJ to concentrate purely on the offside line for example knowing there is another guy further down the line to watch for the kicks?  Hard to recruit enough folk perhaps but I like the idea of having both sides of the breakdown/set piece  being watched while someone else is watching for offside in the backs etc?

For replays - I think everyones familiarity with it is improving and I am not sure a system of appeals would work in rugby

TJ, if the officials have confidence in each other, and to me this is the root of the problem, you do not need any more than what you have now, if a scrum is closer to one touchline than the other, you have that touch judge watching for infringements on that side, the other official is watching the offside position of the team NOT putting the ball in and the referee watching the open side of the field props infringements and the crooked feed, the lineout has the same basics with the official on whose side of the pitch the ball is being thrown watching for a straight throw, the one the other side marking the offside line of the team not throwing in and the Referee looking for infringements in the line and finally rucks and mauls, the official furthest from said passage of play has to police the offside line of the team who has NOT set up that passage and the other 2 can police the infringements of that set up.
Yes there are too many laws and interpretations and different edicts given out each season, but I stand by my first paragraph, most of these officials think they are god and can't make a mistake, in the game quoted, of Ospreys versus Ulster before the kerfuffle of Owen having to school Patterson, he said to Patterson if you want it, that there had been a crooked feed by the Ulster scrum half and the TV company showed it from the other side and you couldn't actually see the ball being put in and Patterson ignored him or couldn't hear what had been said, I would like it to have been the latter, but I'm inclined to believe the former.

I miss a lot of the older refs like Jim Fleming and David Bishop.

My favourite Clive Norling moment was when he was speaking to a giant lock (can't remember who it was) for holding a player without the ball and who approached Norling with wide eyes and a shrug. It was right next to the sidelines so the old microphones picked all of this up:

Player: "Yes, Clive?".
Norling: "Shall we really do this, son? Or shall we just agree that we both know what you did?"
(Pause)
Player: "All right, Clive".
(Player trots off the pitch before the second yellow card had even come out)
Norling: "There's a good lad".

TJ wrote:Some interesting thoughts chaps - ta.

how about using 5 officials?  Ref , 2xTJ and 2 try line?  or 4 TJs?  This allows one TJ to concentrate purely on the offside line for example knowing there is another guy further down the line to watch for the kicks?  Hard to recruit enough folk perhaps but I like the idea of having both sides of the breakdown/set piece  being watched while someone else is watching for offside in the backs etc?

For replays - I think everyones familiarity with it is improving and I am not sure a system of appeals would work in rugby

That's the officiating team system in 7s. There's no TMOs or delays in 7s.



As has been said - recruiting the additional numbers would be a problem.

TJ wrote:Some interesting thoughts chaps - ta.

how about using 5 officials?  Ref , 2xTJ and 2 try line?  or 4 TJs?  This allows one TJ to concentrate purely on the offside line for example knowing there is another guy further down the line to watch for the kicks?  Hard to recruit enough folk perhaps but I like the idea of having both sides of the breakdown/set piece  being watched while someone else is watching for offside in the backs etc?

For replays - I think everyones familiarity with it is improving and I am not sure a system of appeals would work in rugby

The main issue for that is variations in interpretation. We already see issues with 3 refs, what's binding on the arm? What's going off their feet? etc. With 5 it would be even more dependent on which ref saw the incident. Although, if they could improve interpretation variation between refs (which would be good anyway) it would make it more feasible in my eyes (at least for pro level).

Hound of Harrow wrote:As has been said - recruiting the additional numbers would be a problem.

Maybe not a problem in the major countries, there are probably a lot of county level officials or even ex-players who could do a job as touch judges and it would be a good way for players to keep in touch with the game if they didn't quite make the top level.