Interview with Referee John Lacey

Interview here which gives a bit of insight into life as a referee. Love the bit where he said in his first Pro12 match he says that Nigel Owens (his Assistant) tore into him at half time about the way he was reffing the breakdown. He is also the fastest ref!


'It's the closest buzz you can get to scoring a try for Munster'
An accidental referee, John Lacey has seen his stock rise all the way to the World Cup, says Brendan Fanning

http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/its-the-closest-buzz-you-can-get-to-scoring-a-try-for-munster-31454340.html

If his performance officiating on Saturday evening is anything to go by, I'd be happy to never see him referee another game. Typical Pro 12 rubbish refereeing, and about where he should stay.

I have no idea which games he may have in the WC (if any), but your team is on a wing and a prayer with that monkey blowing the whistle.

I can understand if Saturday is representative of how the breakdown is managed in the Pro 12 why some people have a poor view of Barnes. It was a bit messy.

Were the two yellow cards fair to give?

Yes, I would have given them and one for Slade as well.

Lacey is rubbish - I'd have given the yellows just to wind up England in fairness too but if it was any other team I'd see them as rather unreasonable.

Marshes wrote:Were the two yellow cards fair to give?

On that note I didn't see the game and caught parts of it in passing. What was Clark's yellow given for?

Clearing out by the neck. Would expect a few more yellows if consistent, which we didn't see even in this game but it's about time it was cracked down on.

Bloody hell - I'm assuming that Lacey is prohibited from reffing any Munster games?

rodders wrote:Lacey is rubbish - I'd have given the yellows just to wind up England in fairness too but if it was any other team I'd see them as rather unreasonable.

That comes across as a slightly unpleasant post.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

rodders wrote:Lacey is rubbish not very good - I'd have given the yellows just to wind up England in fairness too but if it was any other team I'd see them as rather unreasonable.

That comes across as a slightly unpleasant post.

Sorry, fixed it.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Clearing out by the neck. Would expect a few more yellows if consistent, which we didn't see even in this game but it's about time it was cracked down on.

Cheers No7&1/2, that's what I thought it was for although. It has for a long time been the clearing out technique of choice yet hasn't been a penalisable offence it seems until Clark incident on saturday evening. I would hope to see this enforced at all levels before someone is badly injured.

George Carlin wrote:Bloody hell - I'm assuming that Lacey is prohibited from reffing any Munster games?

Yes, unfortunately

Same issue with Alain Rolland and Leinster - he got special permission to ref a Munster v Leinster game on his retirement because he had never done it.

rodders wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

rodders wrote:Lacey is rubbish not very good - I'd have given the yellows just to wind up England in fairness too but if it was any other team I'd see them as rather unreasonable.

That comes across as a slightly unpleasant post.

Sorry, fixed it.

I actually LOL'd at that one.

Very good.

Lacey's arrogance in disregarding the suggestions to even consider foul play put forward by Clancy and TMO is what condemns him the most.

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:

rodders wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

rodders wrote:Lacey is rubbish not very good - I'd have given the yellows just to wind up England in fairness too but if it was any other team I'd see them as rather unreasonable.

That comes across as a slightly unpleasant post.

Sorry, fixed it.

I actually LOL'd at that one.

Very good.

Sorry couldn't resist - original post was tongue in cheek btw - sorry england fans

I really shouldn't read tone into text but it's challenging on here.

Lacey was very poor IMHO - deciding not to look at foul play as the ball was in touch - so presumably if Care had got up and lamped the guy that hacked his legs from under him that would have been OK too according to Lacey's logic.

That was just one of his many poor decisions/omissions ...

LondonTiger wrote:Lacey's arrogance in disregarding the suggestions to even consider foul play put forward by Clancy and TMO is what condemns him the most.

I didn't see the game. What happened (and about when so I can look at it?)

About 69 minutes on clock. Spedding tries to gather the ball and take it into touch. Loses the ball. Care hacks the ball forward, May chases and tries to groung the ball for a try.

Lacey asks the TMO to review grounding. Clancy running touch states he thinks Spedding may have been touching the ball while over the line, so TMO asked to check touch first.

On replays you can see Spedding did have contact with ball while over the line, but also that Care may have been hacked down by a cover defender. Both clancy and TMO suggest that a review for foul play be undertaken. Lacey refuses saying the ball was already in touch. Both officials try again, he refuses to have a review.

I hope he was being deaf and thought they were suggesting reviewing the grounding - after all we know refs are blind so deaf would be ok to add.

I didn't see the incident myself, but from what you are saying he made the correct decision. If Spedding had already taken the ball out of play, then no advantage would have been gained if Care was unimpeded. If there was no impact on the game and no advantage denied to England, he should only look at it if there is a suggestion that dangerous play occurred. Otherwise just restart with the lineout. When you say 'hacked down', was it just a trip or a proper full-on kick to the legs? If the former, don't see the problem tbh.

Law 10 n?

Ah yeah, fair enough.

(n) Misconduct while the ball is out of play. A player, must not, while the ball is out of play, commit any misconduct, or obstruct or in any way interfere with an opponent.

Sanction: Penalty kick

The sanction is the same as for sections 10.4 (a)-(m) except that the penalty kick is awarded at the place where play would restart. If that place is on the touchline or within 15 metres of it, the mark for the penalty kick is on the 15-metre line, in line with that place.

So he should have restarted with a penalty kick where Spedding took the ball out of play, 15 metres in. But not exactly a major incident. I would back a referee not using the TMO for anything short of serious foul play/dangerous play or ruling on a try in order to let the game flow every time.

Lacey is another woeful referee - similar in his incompetence to George Clancy

Actually 10 doesn't refer to decisions post incident, it deals with actions while ball is out of play.

I haven't seen the incident, and will do so asap, but if both Care and Spedding played on the ball at the time of foul play was live, to everyone, the decision would be in hindsight and as long as Speddings actions weren't dangerous then there would be no advantage to the attacking team for being impeded.

If Care was hacked it sounds like dangerous play to me, but if it was just foul, and the words foul play were used then thats the same as an offside by a defender during a play that was going to be cancelled anyway, therefore lineout England.

If I have the scenario right, and the word 'foul play' was used, then of course he has to not look at it.

Not a major incident but it would/should have been a pen and a yellow and a 2nd recent incident where an international ref hasnt known or remembered the laws of the game.

Jimpy wrote:If his performance officiating on Saturday evening is anything to go by, I'd be happy to never see him referee another game. Typical Pro 12 rubbish refereeing, and about where he should stay.

I have no idea which games he may have in the WC (if any), but your team is on a wing and a prayer with that monkey blowing the whistle.

Lacey has the Wales-Fiji, Scotland-Japan, New Zealand-Tonga matches during the RWC.

Hopefully that's all!

No 7&1/2 wrote:Not a major incident but it would/should have been a pen and a yellow and a 2nd recent incident where an international ref hasnt known or remembered the laws of the game.

It wouldn't have been a yellow if it had no impact on the game.

Ye, just watched the incident, Laceys done nothing wrong there.

Checked the ball had been carried in, and asked if he wanted to check for foul play, of which both players are stabbing at the ball with their feet, Care's toe gets there sooner but he tumbles over the Fenchmans leg, nothing dangerous.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Not a major incident but it would/should have been a pen and a yellow and a 2nd recent incident where an international ref hasnt known or remembered the laws of the game.

Out of interest what was the other?

Fanster wrote:Ye, just watched the incident, Laceys done nothing wrong there.

Checked the ball had been carried in, and asked if he wanted to check for foul play, of which both players are stabbing at the ball with their feet, Care's toe gets there sooner but he tumbles over the Fenchmans leg, nothing dangerous.

He was tripped, ball out of play doesnt matter. You would expect to see a yellow for a trip.

Fanster wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Not a major incident but it would/should have been a pen and a yellow and a 2nd recent incident where an international ref hasnt known or remembered the laws of the game.

Out of interest what was the other?

NZ SA game SA tight head and replacement were both injured. SA bench said there was no one to replace them at which pointt he ref should enforced uncontested scrums and SA should have been reduced to 14 men. The ref allowed them to continue with 15.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Fanster wrote:Ye, just watched the incident, Laceys done nothing wrong there.

Checked the ball had been carried in, and asked if he wanted to check for foul play, of which both players are stabbing at the ball with their feet, Care's toe gets there sooner but he tumbles over the Fenchmans leg, nothing dangerous.

He was tripped, ball out of play doesnt matter. You would expect to see a yellow for a trip.

Was he tripped, or did 2 players try to toe poke the same ball and he won the race by millimetres? Granted he went down dramatically, and it looked really impressive (Not that theres any blame on Care, if there was I would be the first to judge him), but the ref was looking directly at it as it happened, and dismissed it instantly to allow play on (not advantage), after waving play on England got the potential score, and happy with the actions had the ball been in play it would've resulted in a try, s it wasn't come back for the lineout.

Bare in mind had the linesman asked if he wanted to check for 'dangerous play' that more than likely woudve been a very different question, and forced Lacey to look at the incident, foul play is as minor as an offiside, and as the ball was already deemed in touch foul play has no action on what happened because they were coming back for the lineout.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Fanster wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Not a major incident but it would/should have been a pen and a yellow and a 2nd recent incident where an international ref hasnt known or remembered the laws of the game.

Out of interest what was the other?

NZ SA game SA tight head and replacement were both injured. SA bench said there was no one to replace them at which pointt he ref should enforced uncontested scrums and SA should have been reduced to 14 men. The ref allowed them to continue with 15.

This incident i'm still fuzzy about, having only watched half the game, and then highlights, I think SA chose to go uncontested? Or did the ref force them?

If you want to go back through the scenario I can, but if you've already done it to death it isn't a massive issue.

Fanster wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Fanster wrote:Ye, just watched the incident, Laceys done nothing wrong there.

Checked the ball had been carried in, and asked if he wanted to check for foul play, of which both players are stabbing at the ball with their feet, Care's toe gets there sooner but he tumbles over the Fenchmans leg, nothing dangerous.

He was tripped, ball out of play doesnt matter. You would expect to see a yellow for a trip.

Was he tripped, or did 2 players try to toe poke the same ball and he won the race by millimetres? Granted he went down dramatically, and it looked really impressive (Not that theres any blame on Care, if there was I would be the first to judge him), but the ref was looking directly at it as it happened, and dismissed it instantly to allow play on (not advantage), after waving play on England got the potential score, and happy with the actions had the ball been in play it would've resulted in a try, s it wasn't come back for the lineout.

Bare in mind had the linesman asked if he wanted to check for 'dangerous play' that more than likely woudve been a very different question, and forced Lacey to look at the incident, foul play is as minor as an offiside, and as the ball was already deemed in touch foul play has no action on what happened because they were coming back for the lineout.

For a start yes he was tripped. 2 ref was nt sure on grounding and asked for it to be checked after ball in or out of play. Read all the 10.4 laws it becomes clear he just got it wrong and ignored the hints from Clancy and the 4th official. The fact it should have been a pen is not really up for debate, whether it was ayellow or not is.

Fanster wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Fanster wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Not a major incident but it would/should have been a pen and a yellow and a 2nd recent incident where an international ref hasnt known or remembered the laws of the game.

Out of interest what was the other?

NZ SA game SA tight head and replacement were both injured. SA bench said there was no one to replace them at which pointt he ref should enforced uncontested scrums and SA should have been reduced to 14 men. The ref allowed them to continue with 15.

This incident i'm still fuzzy about, having only watched half the game, and then highlights, I think SA chose to go uncontested? Or did the ref force them?

If you want to go back through the scenario I can, but if you've already done it to death it isn't a massive issue.

SA chose to say they had no one able to contest safely in the front row. fine but should have been down to 14. That 1 is a bigger mistake, or more aptly had bigger consequences.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Fanster wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Fanster wrote:Ye, just watched the incident, Laceys done nothing wrong there.

Checked the ball had been carried in, and asked if he wanted to check for foul play, of which both players are stabbing at the ball with their feet, Care's toe gets there sooner but he tumbles over the Fenchmans leg, nothing dangerous.

He was tripped, ball out of play doesnt matter. You would expect to see a yellow for a trip.

Was he tripped, or did 2 players try to toe poke the same ball and he won the race by millimetres? Granted he went down dramatically, and it looked really impressive (Not that theres any blame on Care, if there was I would be the first to judge him), but the ref was looking directly at it as it happened, and dismissed it instantly to allow play on (not advantage), after waving play on England got the potential score, and happy with the actions had the ball been in play it would've resulted in a try, s it wasn't come back for the lineout.

Bare in mind had the linesman asked if he wanted to check for 'dangerous play' that more than likely woudve been a very different question, and forced Lacey to look at the incident, foul play is as minor as an offiside, and as the ball was already deemed in touch foul play has no action on what happened because they were coming back for the lineout.

For a start yes he was tripped. 2 ref was nt sure on grounding and asked for it to be checked after ball in or out of play. Read all the 10.4 laws it becomes clear he just got it wrong and ignored the hints from Clancy and the 4th official. The fact it should have been a pen is not really up for debate, whether it was ayellow or not is.

I don't want this to sound derogatory but how much refereeing experience do you have?

We all know the laws are well and good, but the implimentation is the key.

Your claiming there is no argument that Care was tripped, except there is, because I don't think he was tripped, and neither did Lacey, once again, not for the first time someone on this forum claims to know more and be better than the professional who has dedicated his life to the very skill your saying he is bad at!!

Lets use logic, which part of 10.4 are you referring specifically to?

I have never reffed a game in my life. The problem is Lacey discounted the trip as the ball was dead, prompted to check foul play ' no, no ,no he was in touch first'. Im saying he made a poor call, it doesnt matter that the ball was in touch.

10.4 d and n by the way.

OK lets start with 10.4(D) tripping with leg or foot, I've spent hours discussing 'intent' with this appendices..

Intent has to be present to deem a trip a trip, otherwise there will be 1 or 2 occasions per game where a penalty is given for a pure accident. There was a case in which a player was penalised for tripping an opponent while in the process of scoring, ball in hand, twisting the defender inside out then bang, feet collided defender went down and ref awarded penalty. It was a lower league game but a high profile case in the ref world, the argument was that any feet to feet or leg to leg/feet contact is a trip, and the player who makes initial contact is autmatically guilty. Now would you agree with this? Or would you prefer to see decisions based on what actually happens in each scenario?

(n) well at every lineout and ref whistle there is misconduct and players interefere with each other constantly, granted under the guise of pretence, but it happens every time! The ref has to decide who's pretence is good and who's is bad.

In this scenario the ball is actually in play when the incident occurs, so (n) has no meaning here whatsoever.

My point above is that like the decision or not, there are some decisions that are near 50/50, and a ref can only please so many people, Lacey has deemed the loose ball a 50/50 challenge in which Care goes to ground after winning, therefore the play is not dangerous, and foul play at best is not worthy of relooking at because the ball was deemed dead beforehand.

Care was tripped clearly so that doesnt need discussing. If n doesnt apply, which it does, then its a trip pen and a probable yellow as Care was right in the chase. n does apply though as the ball was out. Lacey did not judge the trip. He asked '1st of all touch on the way down and then try yes or no please' (even though you tried earlier to suggest he was happy). After the ball was confirmed out he wouldnt review the trip as 'no, no , no he was in touch 1st'. He was asked again 'no we play on (in) touch first.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Care was tripped clearly so that doesnt need discussing. If n doesnt apply, which it does, then its a trip pen and a probable yellow as Care was right in the chase. n does apply though as the ball was out. Lacey did not judge the trip. He asked '1st of all touch on the way down and then try yes or no please' (even though you tried earlier to suggest he was happy). After the ball was confirmed out he wouldnt review the trip as 'no, no , no he was in touch 1st'. He was asked again 'no we play on (in) touch first.

I'm being as patient as I can with you but the highlighted above is not making things easy! Do you want to discuss? Or are you happy in the knowledge that you know more, and can do a better job than trained professionals?

I'll try once more...

Care was not tripped, you know how I know he was not tripped? Lacey didn't see it as a trip, the linesman and TMO did not see it as a trip, a trip is dangerous play, at no point did anyone mention dangerous play, both the linesman and TMO asked if he wanted to see potential foul play, which is different to dangerous play! Therefore noone mentioed it as a trip, however they enquired as they weren't sure if there had been something unseen due to Care's tumble being so impressive! Care wasn't tripped if the leg of Spedding? was aimed at poking the ball into touch, which it was, so therefore both players led to kick the ball = total accident! Did you not read my ref case previously regarding intention?

Lacey wasn't acknowledging a trip when he said 'play on' or 'touch first', he was responding to a question (not accusation of) regarding wether or not there was foul play, which he clearly deemed there wasn't!

PS and again please don't take this derogatory, but the ball isn't out of play until a whistle is blown, spedding could have taken the ball into the crowd, had a cup of tea, then played on and until a whistle is blown the play is live, therefore play didn't end until the grounding by May? and we returned for a decision, which superceded the question mark over wether ther was foul play.

I'll simplify it as much as I can...

There is a difference between foul play and dangerous play, the ball is never judged out of play until a whistle deems it so, and Lacey made the correct decision, I base that remark on 7 years of refereeing rugby union, paid up society status ref, 28 hours of CPD, and hundreds of hours of experience... where does your guarentee that you are right come from?

All of section 10 is 'Foul play', trips are dealt in 10.4 'Dangerous play and misconduct'. So you re wrong again.

A trip is a trip, and Care was tripped full stop. Lacey discounted the incident incorrectly as he failed to take into account 10.4 n. Im afraid you re just wrong on this. Its Lacey who has deemed ball is in touch so the foul doesnt count.

I can explain the rules to you but I cant understand them for you. Bad error by Lacey, poor decision then to ignore Clanceys advice and then the advice of the 4th official.

Notch wrote:I didn't see the incident myself, but from what you are saying he made the correct decision. If Spedding had already taken the ball out of play, then no advantage would have been gained if Care was unimpeded. If there was no impact on the game and no advantage denied to England, he should only look at it if there is a suggestion that dangerous play occurred. Otherwise just restart with the lineout. When you say 'hacked down', was it just a trip or a proper full-on kick to the legs? If the former, don't see the problem tbh.

The TMO and Clancy thought it may have been serious foul play - or at least worthy of rewatching. It certainly looked like it may have been a thigh high hack into the legs. Lacey's reason for not reviewing showed that in the heat of the contest he had forgotten the laws. Unacceptable.


Of course deliberately kicking a man to trip them seems to be allowed now based on the weekend's other evidence.

The primary error by Lacey was in his reason for not reviewing.

Two of his team asked him if he would like to check for foul play - and asked him twice.

Not taking the hint is pretty bad reffing, but he also clearly stated that he wouldn't review because the ball was already in touch.

Foul play is foul play whenever it occurs and it's incumbent on the ref to check for it unless he is sure it didn't happen, because it affects how you restart the game.

If Lacey had reviewed the play and decided it wasn't a trip, I'd have been OK with that. If he'd said "no, I saw it, it was OK." then that would also have been OK (though I would have thought a review the better option given we were already with the TMO and the TMO wanted him to see it).

But he blatantly made an incorrect and very basic call. This wasn't some obscure technical point - the laws emphasise how to deal with foul play at several points.

Burgess yellow was tough i thought, but Clark's deserved. A leopard can't change his spots and one of these days he will do someone permanent damage

Hmm  this is a new one on me. English fans complaining about an Irish Ref and he doesnt speak French....just not pro-British enough maybe...

I don't wish to wade into someone else's argument, and clearly both of you know the laws and their implementation far better than me. However, a couple of points interest me.

Fanster wrote:a trip is dangerous play, at no point did anyone mention dangerous play, both the linesman and TMO asked if he wanted to see potential foul play, which is different to dangerous play!

I assume by this, that you are referring to a deliberate trip. However, would an accidental trip, where two players are contesting and one takes the other out, not count as foul play? I would have thought so.

If so, it makes the following point redundant (which it kind of is anyway, since above you refer to the officials deciding dangerous play hasn't occurred, and here you equate that with foul play).

Fanster wrote:Lacey wasn't acknowledging a trip when he said 'play on' or 'touch first', he was responding to a question (not accusation of) regarding wether or not there was foul play, which he clearly deemed there wasn't!

Finally, this point suggests that any foul play that occurred was during play, since the reef hasn't blown his whistle. Therefore any foul play that occurred should surely have been punished.

Fanster wrote:the ball isn't out of play until a whistle is blown, spedding could have taken the ball into the crowd, had a cup of tea, then played on and until a whistle is blown the play is live, therefore play didn't end until the grounding by May? and we returned for a decision, which superceded the question mark over wether ther was foul play.

ME-109 wrote:Hmm  this is a new one on me. English fans complaining about an Irish Ref and he doesnt speak French....just not pro-British enough maybe...

Not worried about his decisions during the game as such. At times he got things wrong at the scrum, but both teams benefited. Several calls against us I could debate in other areas, but pretty sure French teams would say the same.

A ref not actually knowing the laws is a major issue however.

Finally what has speaking French got to do with it? I was always happy to see Rolland reffing and it was the Welsh who always complain about him. Maybe you are unable to differentiate between English and Welsh?