What do fans ACTUALLY want from a referee?

I wasted two hours of my life last night watching a dire Wolfhounds v Saxons match. Part of the problem was the referee who made a significant contribution to the staccato tempo of the game. Since then I have read comments on various fora that he was dire; incompetent; out of his depth etc etc.

In his defence, he pinged Lee Dickson for feeding on the first scrum and gave a free kick to Wolfhounds; It must be said that having given the first free kick the scrums went well from that point i.e. the two scrumhalves learned very quickly that they had to get the put-in right. This changed a bit when the front rows were replaced about half-way through the second half. At this point there was the first collapse of the match! He also pinged Dickson a second time and correctly gave a penalty; shortly after that Dickson was replaced. There was one scrum where, due to the inability of the hookers to actually hook the ball, the ball stayed in the tunnel while both sets of forwards attempted to shove the other away from the ball. It was refreshing to watch a genuine contest at scrum tijme, but would have been so much better if the ******* hookers could have done their job.

However, at the breakdown he was pinged at almost every ruck. He was clear as to what the offence was, but it resulted in a very stop-start game and certainly reduced the enjoyment of watching. Neither set of forwards seemed to be able to get the message that Mr Hennessy (the ref) was going strictly by the rule book and he would blow his whistle for any infringement. Frankly, I thought they were all being just a tad slow on this point.

So my question is


Do we wnat one who is strictly by the rule book?
Or do we want a ref who klets things go to facilitate the flow of the game?

The former leads to games like last night's. The latter leaves fans whingeing about the other team (it's always the other guys, never our own) getting away with scant regard for the letter and the spirit of the laws.

On the other hand, is it possible for rugby players to learn quickly about a ref's way of reffing, as the two SHs did last night, and stop messing about and just get on with the game without all the shenanigans which can leave fans frustrated?

One I want consistent application of the laws.

The ref pinged the first scrum, then allowed several more squint put ins from both to pass unhindered, then suddenly pinged one that was actually put in the middle.

He pinged the very first lineout, then let the rest go despite being more squint.

The first time he checked for not 10m from a lineout he blew, but ignored the rest.

The first time he checked back foot offside, he blew, then he ignored the rest.



Secondly I do not want the ref to guess, and too often he was.

Personally I have no interest in the refs trying to be 'entertaining'. I want them to apply their interpretation of the laws consistently. If the players keep infringing then it's their fault not the ref (unless he's being inconsistent). Refs letting thing go to keep the game flowing has resulted in the cheaters charter at the ruck. But I am somewhat strict.

Edit: I would expect them to take weather into account. If it's peeing down and mud patch that should allow some leeway (as long as slips, etc are unintentional)

Consistency is what I want. As in, if one ref allows teams to slow down the ball then they all should; if one ref allows 20 metres of advantage then they all should. It's the differences from game to game and ref to ref that have fans pulling their hair out. We all know it must be a hard game to referee, and we all want a certain element of sympathy with a game that could become too stop start if the ref is pedantic, but interpretation is so subjective that there is no consistency and in, for example, the case of scrums a team can go from being dominant and penalty winning one game to the opposite the next game. How do you train for that?!

The problem is that one of the beauties of the game is its idiosyncrasies and breadth of rules and regs. I can't think of many other sports where the decisions are discussed so much. I mean the volume of decisions. In football you might get a rogue penalty call or two in a game, or a wrong yellow/red card. In rugby nearly every penalty kick could have some level of in depth discussion and debate; most tackle areas are a matter of opinion; even the television replays are open to debate! It's a wonderfully beautiful and complicated game to watch, support and referee. To simplify it would on the one hand made the referring easier but on the other hand simply damage the game beyond repair. I do not know the answer I'm afraid.

Easy…nudity and cupcakes.

Consistency of course but is it really possible?

Before every game the ref talks to the teams & whilst I have no problem with that I think it is a reiteration, in many cases of -

'This is how I am going to ref this game'
'These are my expectations'

Whilst everyone has their idiosyncrasies I personally would like a more strict adherence to the rules.
players generally know the different refs & what their expectations are but should paying punters have to put up with different interpretations?
Of course not!

Neil Hennessey started well & should have kept the consistency up & other refs should follow.

All you ask a referee to be is consistent. They're people, not machines and each will have their own set of pet peeves which all professional players should be well aware of. If the players choose not to adapt to the way in which the rules should be applied with this individual, that is their fault.

It's only with the advent of ref cams and pitchside mikes that I started to realise how much captains talk to their referees. If a team doesn't understand the reason for a penalty, they can ask.

They can also query other plays. Rob Harley was held back off the ball in a game against (I think it was) Munster this season. A penalty was called against Glasgow for a different action. Harley quietly told Nigel Owens that he believed he's been held back off the ball and asked him if he would look at video footage of the play. Owens did. Penalty reversed. The point of this story is that I think some fans still regard refs as dictators who are ignorant of what actually happens on the pitch. I think that this is more rare than people think.

I think that the best referees in the current game are Jaco Peyper and Nigel Owens. I have read consistently that with each of them the players know exactly where they are with them.

Yep I think consistency is the big one, even if they make wrong decisions them make them consistently wrong if that makes sense and to remember that they are not the main attraction at the game.

It's common to hear appeals for the referee to be more sympathetic to the flow of the game for the sake of entertainment. I'm not in favour of suspending the laws of the game because players can't be bothered to abide by them.

I can't imagine a football referee thinking "Both teams keep going offside but no-one is paying to watch me blow my whistle all day, so I'll turn a blind eye".

If a rugby referee is worried about slowing up the game, he should just start binning people for persistent offences.

What do I want from a referee?

consistency.

Consistency and good communication.

Question back what's the rule that Hennessy implemented at the scrum in the first half I think when he said use it? The ball was still held in the scrum by Waldrom, he then said it's out and it was snaffled by the Irish 9. Is there a time limit on the ball being there or a rule I'm not aware of in relation to the scrum not moving?

Nothing in the laws 7.5

So long as the team in possession stay straight they can keep it at the back as long as they like. Wolfhounds howver could/should have been penalised from breaking off the scrum. Their blindside admittedly did not - but by the end he was bound on ewers.

I know he said he didn't think it was a pen to either side but I've never heard use it at a scrum before to my recollection. Just seemed a bit strange.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I know he said he didn't think it was a pen to either side but I've never heard use it at a scrum before to my recollection. Just seemed a bit strange.

This came up in another thread (can't remember which one). Apparently, some Pro12 refs have been calling "use it" just as they would do at a maul. Sounds like a local quirk.

Law 20 governs the scrum http://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=20 There is nothing about "use it".

20.10 governs the ending of a scrum:

(a) The ball comes out. When the ball comes out of the scrum in any direction except the tunnel, the scrum ends.
(b) Scrum in the in-goal. A scrum cannot take place in the in-goal. When the ball in a scrum is on or over the goal line, the scrum ends and an attacker or a defender may legally ground the ball for a try or a touch down.
(c) Hindmost player unbinds. The hindmost player in a scrum is the player whose feet are nearest the team’s own goal line. If the hindmost player unbinds from the scrum with the ball at that player’s feet and picks up the ball, the scrum ends.

And 20.1(e) seems to me to be the bit a lot of refs are just letting happen now:

Number of players: eight. A scrum must have eight players from each team. All eight players must stay bound to the scrum until it ends. Each front row must have three players in it, no more and no less. Two locks must form the second row.
Sanction: Penalty kick

Nigel Owens also told the Saints scrum against RCM to use it. Perhaps it is another one of these directives given to refs that are not in the lawbook? These always annoy me. If they deem the laws need changing, then change them. Do not ask refs to arbitrate to an unpublished set of laws.

He was awful on Friday, spoiled what could have been an entertaining game by blowing up every few seconds, usually for very marginal offences. He gave a few lineouts as not straight even though they looked fine and deemed a second offence for "feeding" as a serial offence and therefore a penalty against Dickson. You could tell the players didn't have a clue what was going on, which isn't surprising as the ref clearly didn't.

Hope he never gets anywhere near a full international.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Consistency and good communication.

Question back what's the rule that Hennessy implemented at the scrum in the first half I think when he said use it? The ball was still held in the scrum by Waldrom, he then said it's out and it was snaffled by the Irish 9. Is there a time limit on the ball being there or a rule I'm not aware of in relation to the scrum not moving?

I think it was short for " the scrums gone round 90Degrees - use it or lose the put in on the reset scrum"?

TJ wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Consistency and good communication.

Question back what's the rule that Hennessy implemented at the scrum in the first half I think when he said use it? The ball was still held in the scrum by Waldrom, he then said it's out and it was snaffled by the Irish 9. Is there a time limit on the ball being there or a rule I'm not aware of in relation to the scrum not moving?

I think it was short for " the scrums gone round 90Degrees - use it or lose the put in on the reset scrum"?

Then he shouldn't have allowed the 9 to pick the ball up.

I think the ball then came out as the back row panicked so the 9 grabbed it The scrum broke up so it was over leading to free ball. It was all rather unclear tho for sure. personally I would just scrap scrums - or rejig the laws completely if something goes wrong and the ref cannot clearly penalise someone for a deliberate ( not a technical) infringement then it should be a tap restart 10 m forward.

No it was still in. I rewound it to see what was going on as I thought I'd missed something obvious. As above must just be a made up rule he was playing to. Bit bizarre to see it make it to the international stage though. You could tell the England players couldn't understand it as they kept asking for about 5 min. I suppose that brings it to a 3rd thing I'd like; we all play to the same rules!

I thought the scrum had broken up with the front rows popping up and the back rows breaking away. Only from memory tho so I thought the ball was still under the back rows feet the fact the scrum had broken up meant it was over??????

Scrum laws need a complete seeing to tho for sure.

They had. So it should have been a pen. Just think he had a senior moment.

TJ wrote:I thought the scrum had broken up with the front rows popping up and the back rows breaking away.  Only from memory tho so I thought the ball was still under the back rows feet the fact the scrum had broken up meant it was over??????

Scrum laws need a complete seeing to tho for sure.  

One pack had broken away - but not the one in possession. Laws are quite clear in what should have happened.

Basically the ref was a plank

I have wondered if the best thing for rugby would be for all referees to blow up for every offence, i.e actually implement the laws of the game rather than just the ones they feel like. There would be a period of terrible rugby to watch, but then once players got used to it there would be a level of consistency across the game.

There you go!!!!!!!!!!

That's original!

Blame the players for the shyte rugby and the inconsistencies and the rule breaking and the dark arts and the cheating????????

Brave move Bathman. Not sure the idea will ever catch on though.

I pretty much got what I want from Garces on Friday.

He was decisive and consistent and never seemed to be guessing. Of course there were judgement calls that we will all quibble over but as far as I could tell only one clear mistake where he missed the fact that Webb, having passed the ball into Lydiate's back was in front and offside when he picked the ball up again. However bearing in mind how many mistakes players make that was pretty damn good.

LondonTiger wrote:I pretty much got what I want from Garces on Friday.

He was decisive and consistent and never seemed to be guessing. Of course there were judgement calls that we will all quibble over but as far as I could tell only one clear mistake where he missed the fact that Webb, having passed the ball into Lydiate's back was in front and offside when he picked the ball up again. However bearing in mind how many mistakes players make that was pretty damn good.

I thought he was good

Refs both teams equally, no room for reputation, crowd influence, 50-50 calls -whats up with that? there is something wrong in the rulebook if a ref is allowed to chose to ping one side on a "50-50 call".

LondonTiger wrote:I pretty much got what I want from Garces on Friday.

He was decisive and consistent and never seemed to be guessing. Of course there were judgement calls that we will all quibble over but as far as I could tell only one clear mistake where he missed the fact that Webb, having passed the ball into Lydiate's back was in front and offside when he picked the ball up again. However bearing in mind how many mistakes players make that was pretty damn good.

He also missed Felatau playing the ball in the scrum that led to Wales only try, that was a big mistake.

Steve_rugby wrote:
He also missed Felatau playing the ball in the scrum that led to Wales only try, that was a big mistake.

Love sacks.

1) If it was a mistake it was the TJ - as Garces was on other side of scrum.
2) I have now seen 3 angles. One he looks fine (closest to the view TJ had), another he looks like he pulls it out from the people in front and 3rd is inconclusive.

I wonder how many tries would ever be scored if we went back two phases of play each time looking for any offence no matter how irrelevant? I found some of Garces' decisions odd but the better side on the pitch won the game and we got some continuity during it. That's mostly what I want from a ref.

Game of the weekend was for me, Scotlamd v France and I have question whether it was both sides wanting to play positively or Nigel Owens allowing positivity. Entertaining stuff, but on re watching it with a more analytical eye, his breakdown adjudication is so lax that more savvy teams take the utter urine. The laws of rugby are such that when applied literally the game is an utter bore and when ignored it becomes about the team who can cheat best. Tricky situation.

KiaRose wrote:

what do we the fans want from a referee?

It's very simple: A fair game.

I get a bit worried about the increasing emphasis that is being placed on referees, mostly by TV pundits, but increasingly by fans too, who follow the example.

OK, let's take it back to basics. Every match must have an arbiter of what is and isn't fair play, or what goes on within and without the laws and spirit of the game. He isn't going to get everything right, all the time. There will be occasions when he has to make a decision in a situation where several offences are taking place simultaneously. He can make only one call. He can stop the game only once and in the hurly-burly of everything else that might be going on, somebody is going to come out of it penalised, and others will feel they have gotten away with something.

To all this, I say that ever was it thus so. It's all a part of rugby's rich tapestry and regardless of what Jiffy says or how many little lines Austin draws on his telestrator, the whistle has blown, a decision has been made and the necessary action has been taken by the only person who really matters.

I'd even get rid of TMO's.

Just get on with the game, accept the referee's decisions like real rugby players should and let that be an end to it. Some calls go your way. Lucky you. Some go against you. Oh dear, how sad, never mind.

Man up and get on with the game.

What do fans ACTUALLY want from a referee?

Not be Irish please.