Interview with Referee John Lacey

by Sin é Mon 17 Aug 2015, 12:54 pm

First topic message reminder :

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

by Marshes Tue 18 Aug 2015, 11:29 am

Whatever about every team doing what they can to get the upper hand, which all will of course do (don't pretend your team is any different than "certain pro 12 or international teams" as ye put it), to pretend Barnes is the rugby's last bastion against lawlessness of the marauding and cynical Irish is ridiculous. He has his interpretation based on the context and situation which is clearly subjective given how he refs the breakdown versus Owens or Lacey or whoever.

by LordDowlais Tue 18 Aug 2015, 11:33 am

Marshes wrote:interpretation

That's the key word. That's what frustrates me so much, a game can be decided on a refs interpretation. Why should the fact that some teams can benefit from a refs interpretation and others do not. I say if the laws were respected in the first place then a refs interpretation would not have to come into it.

by Fanster Tue 18 Aug 2015, 11:34 am

No way, Mccaw is the worlds greatest directly resultant of that! He has been consistently the best at conning refs into his way of thinking, and has changed the way 7 play, and forward play is approached by coaches and experts! He is a supreme athlete, and a talent, but lets not say he is the worlds greatest, and ignore the dark arts that made him the most effective 7 if not forward of all time!!! Are you deluded?

Your opinion on implimenting all laws to the letter is ridiculous, your opinion on players and coaches respecting laws is ridiculous, you don't coach to laws you coach to trends, and you do whatever is effective to win ball, slow ball, manipulate defence/attack etc, that state of mind will never change, and currently we are in a position where play acting, booing and simulation is creeping into the game, how can you preach respect when players and coaches do the opposite?! Some would say the reason the All Blacks have dominated for so long is due to them playing to win and everyone else playing a far more gentlemanly version of rugby, until professionalism where all bets are off.

by SecretFly Tue 18 Aug 2015, 11:36 am

LordDowlais wrote:
SecretFly wrote:
LordDowlais wrote:

What are you saying, that cheating is ok ? You are basically making out that Richie McCaw is only as good as he is from his cheating. He is good because he has the talent.

Did he cheat?... On occasion? Acres of print has been written about the man stating directly that one of his greatest talents was playing less than honest in a smooth way that often left refs either oblivious or simply blind. All alleged of course.

Yes he did cheat, he is always pushing the boundaries, but that is not what makes him the player he is. The man has talent, you do not captain the All Blacks because of your ability to cheat.

That's a cop out Lord. You 'believe' he cheated - like many. Therefore, it's a logical conclusion that on occasions he helped the All Blacks to victories through.... less-than-honest-dark-art-work (to be euphemistic about it) Therefore too, it is logical to say that it was through some of those victories, notched on his belt, that his very reputation was founded.

His reputation is based on his undoubted skills and his massive win ratio. The win ratio was often assisted by the darker stuff.

Not making a call on it being bad or good. Just an acknowledgement that players will always seek to find a few angles that give them an edge in a game. New rules, tougher rules, they'll all just help evolution along and players will adapt to tougher rules all the time. It's how human 'Sport' works.

by Fanster Tue 18 Aug 2015, 11:37 am

LordDowlais wrote:
Marshes wrote:interpretation

That's the key word. That's what frustrates me so much, a game can be decided on a refs interpretation. Why should the fact that some teams can benefit from a refs interpretation and others do not. I say if the laws were respected in the first place then a refs interpretation would not have to come into it.

Go back and read my rant about this word, it doesn't exist and has been installed in you by media comentators who look for reasons to appease their fanbase!!! Actually find me 1 single case of refs differing interpretation!

by LordDowlais Tue 18 Aug 2015, 11:38 am

Fanster, you keep saying things like implementing the letter of the law, how do you see it then, I see it as you either play by the laws or you do not. All I am saying is, if the players and the coaches respected them, then we would never have to change them all the time, the game would be simpler, better to watch, more free flowing, respect the laws, don't try and break them. That's what I say.

by LordDowlais Tue 18 Aug 2015, 11:41 am

Fanster wrote:Actually find me 1 single case of refs differing interpretation!

You see it all the time, SH refs will ref a game differently to a NH ref. We always see this. Nigel Owens will let anything go in the scrum, as long as the ball comes out quick enough, others will not, some refs will let marginal forward passes go to keep the game flowing, others will not.

by **Notch** Tue 18 Aug 2015, 11:43 am

If we all played exactly by the letter of the law, you would have a penalty or free kick at every single scrum and a penalty at every second breakdown. The laws are, quite simply, unenforceable- at least in terms of having a good game to watch. If you actually enforced every law completely rigidly it would pretty much kill the game. Let's not pretend otherwise.

Every referee interprets the laws between having a balance between letting the game flow and penalising infringements- the debate is only about the extent to which they do it.

by LordDowlais Tue 18 Aug 2015, 11:45 am

Notch wrote:Every referee interprets the laws between having a balance between letting the game flow and penalising infringements- the debate is only about the extent to which they do it.

And if that is the case, then every ref should "do it" to the same extent.

by SecretFly Tue 18 Aug 2015, 11:48 am

LordDowlais wrote:Fanster, you keep saying things like implementing the letter of the law, how do you see it then, I see it as you either play by the laws or you do not. All I am saying is, if the players and the coaches respected them, then we would never have to change them all the time, the game would be simpler, better to watch, more free flowing, respect the laws, don't try and break them. That's what I say.

But a coach isn't a lawmaker. He's employed to win. His career (successful or backwater) is predicated on his winning ratio. He must win to keep employable. He's there to win. So the laws, they're there to be pandered too for as long as needs must (with a ref and TV watching). But I don't recall ever once a coach say that a dodgy try delivered by some dark arts should be taken from them post-game.
It's not the role of a coach or a player to be a ref. They follow laws handed out to them by refs but like all warriors, if the ref is malleable or has his back turned.................. Whistle

Wot he don't see won't offend him..... is the attitude of all coaches and most players. They want to win. The Law is for the lawgivers.

by Fanster Tue 18 Aug 2015, 11:48 am

LordDowlais wrote:Fanster, you keep saying things like implementing the letter of the law, how do you see it then, I see it as you either play by the laws or you do not. All I am saying is, if the players and the coaches respected them, then we would never have to change them all the time, the game would be simpler, better to watch, more free flowing, respect the laws, don't try and break them. That's what I say.

But your saying then game evolution doesnt exist! Mccaw changed 7 and forward play, because he didn't play to the laws and played the referee, now every player and coach is doing the same, they look for a ref trend or weakness, and even get breifings on what ref tendancies are pre game!

Every situation a ref has to deal with is situational, at every single ruck I could penalise most of the players entering, my biggest bugbare is 'gate entry', which doesn't exist, it's an imaginary line based ball carriers body position, which regularly moves, therefore half of the players entering a ruck are illegal by the letter of the law. Then theres going off your feet, which the first defender and attacker automatically does when they touch the ball carrier on the flaw, the ball, the ground etc... Not to mention the knees, elbows, hands that all touch the floor before being lifted and playing on. 90% of the time the defender at A or 1 is offside as his hand or foot is in front of the hindmost feet, some defender (either the tackler or assistant) has managed to 'accidentlly' roll to the wrong side of the ruck, and there has become this trend of clearers dropping on the tackler or assistant to pin them down and not let them up to compete, which is also illegal. That is an average ruck, 5/6/7 players involved and nearly all penalisable in one way or another, if it is this complicated now, how would more laws or harsher laws help?

Human nature will always be win at all costs, some acts you commend, some you condemn due to your personal morality code, others have differing opinions, and will go a lot further than you or I would, the more money is involved in rugby the further players, coaches, refs, and backroom staff will go to win!

by SecretFly Tue 18 Aug 2015, 11:52 am

LordDowlais wrote:
Notch wrote:Every referee interprets the laws between having a balance between letting the game flow and penalising infringements- the debate is only about the extent to which they do it.

And if that is the case, then every ref should "do it" to the same extent.

They is human! Wink

I watched something on BBC news at the weekend where mines in Australia have taken drivers off their monster loader trucks and made them automotive... working from pre-plans based on efficiency of everything and they are obviously saving the mine that uses them lots of money. Now, you might say that the systems themselves are about as expensive as hiring drivers to think for themselves but nope...drivers are human and teaching them to be as efficient as a computer is a hopeless task.

by LordDowlais Tue 18 Aug 2015, 11:56 am

Fanster wrote:Human nature will always be win at all costs, some acts you commend, some you condemn due to your personal morality code, others have differing opinions, and will go a lot further than you or I would, the more money is involved in rugby the further players, coaches, refs, and backroom staff will go to win!

This point sadly is true. The thing is, because of lack of respect for the laws in rugby, the game we all love will change completely. Every season we have law changes, and every season the game goes further away from being rugby union. Because we have such lack of respect for the laws the game will be forever in disrepute, rugby union will die out because of this.

All I ask for is consistent non potential bias from our referees, especially in my league, the Pro12. Because we will never get this I despair not only for the Pro12 but rugby as a whole.

by Fanster Tue 18 Aug 2015, 11:56 am

LordDowlais wrote:
Notch wrote:Every referee interprets the laws between having a balance between letting the game flow and penalising infringements- the debate is only about the extent to which they do it.

And if that is the case, then every ref should "do it" to the same extent.

Your talking marginal calls that have no black or white, like the Lacey/Care 'trip', there is no black or white, just shades of grey.

To what extent do you punish your child? To what extent would a professional child minder punish your child for the same offence? Your response is probably dependant on the situation, and that highlights my point!

Every decision a ref makes is unique, because of the million variables, from the pressure of the match, the history of the teams, the angle of the ruck, the position on the pitch, the momentum in the game etc... there is never going to be a comparible situation to discuss 'interpretation'. Therefore your talking your interpretation of the referee's interpretation based on your stereotyping him as good/bad at a certain area, which isn't even your own thought because the media's opinions of 'interpretation' is directly effecting yours!

Interpretation does not exist!

by Marshes Tue 18 Aug 2015, 11:56 am

LD there is no foolproof system for implementing the laws of the game uniformly. Too many variables at any one time to be paying attention to. What other free-running sport has that level of control where refereeing decisions are not subjective? Attempting to rigidly enforce them for the sake of it is beyond reasoning and no referee actually does it, they will have their areas of particular focus and their blind spots.

by Marshes Tue 18 Aug 2015, 11:57 am

LD there is no foolproof system for implementing the laws of the game uniformly. Too many variables at any one time to be paying attention to. What other free-running sport has that level of control where refereeing decisions are not subjective? Attempting to rigidly enforce them for the sake of it is beyond reasoning and no referee actually does it, they will have their areas of particular focus and their blind spots.

by Fanster Tue 18 Aug 2015, 12:00 pm

LordDowlais wrote:
Fanster wrote:Human nature will always be win at all costs, some acts you commend, some you condemn due to your personal morality code, others have differing opinions, and will go a lot further than you or I would, the more money is involved in rugby the further players, coaches, refs, and backroom staff will go to win!

This point sadly is true. The thing is, because of lack of respect for the laws in rugby, the game we all love will change completely. Every season we have law changes, and every season the game goes further away from being rugby union. Because we have such lack of respect for the laws the game will be forever in disrepute, rugby union will die out because of this.

All I ask for is consistent non potential bias from our referees, especially in my league, the Pro12. Because we will never get this I despair not only for the Pro12 but rugby as a whole.

I share your fears for the game, not for the on pitch dealings however but how the club game will soon displace the international game as the centre stage, with the Englsh and French league dominating and hoovering up talent from all over the world. Super rugby will be ok, but without the international game to prop it up they wll follow suit sooner rather than later.

by LordDowlais Tue 18 Aug 2015, 12:03 pm

Look, I do not care what refs see as cheating or law breaking, all I am asking for is for all the refs to be the same, and if one ref thinks it is ok to do such and such, then the next ref should as well. If the players and coaches respected the laws, then this wall would become less of an issue.

How many times have the scrum laws changed ? How many times have the breakdown laws changed ? How many times do we have to keep changing things before rugby is not even rugby anymore ?

The way some of you are going on on here, it makes me think that you would rather have a game without any laws at all. Shocked

by Marshes Tue 18 Aug 2015, 12:11 pm

LordDowlais wrote:Look, I do not care what refs see as cheating or law breaking, all I am asking for is for all the refs to be the same, and if one ref thinks it is ok to do such and such, then the next ref should as well. If the players and coaches respected the laws, then this wall would become less of an issue.

How many times have the scrum laws changed ? How many times have the breakdown laws changed ? How many times do we have to keep changing things before rugby is not even rugby anymore ?

The way some of you are going on on here, it makes me think that you would rather have a game without any laws at all.

Short of some Terminator-style rugby robot referee that is impossible in not only rugby but any field sport. Human error will play a part in the game whether you like it or not. Equally their it is pointless to be quixotic about it, the game will evolve as it gets older sometimes for better and sometimes for worse. And if all players and coaches respected the laws I don't know what the hell would be left for this forum or any other fans would discuss.

by SecretFly Tue 18 Aug 2015, 12:13 pm

LordDowlais wrote:

The way some of you are going on on here, it makes me think that you would rather have a game without any laws at all.

I thought that's already the game the Provinces play in Pro12?? Wink

For my part, Lord, I'm not saying you're wrong. Throughout the year we all argue about rules and laws and cheating..... But as an overall argument - it's just probably too much to expect that coaches and players will always want to follow any laws to the letter - willingly, without any grumbling.... or that refs themselves will always ref games with the uniformity of a computer program.... (em, 'App' in present Kool Kid parlance). I just think and know it's unreasonable to ever expect everything to be lawfully perfect in Rugby Union however much any of us might want it to be.
Won't stop us all arguing though about individual reffing decisions or 'cheating' plays into the future....

by LordDowlais Tue 18 Aug 2015, 12:16 pm

Marshes, I except human error, I have no issues with that what so ever, what frustrates me is that two sides can play each other one week after the next and the results could differ because how a ref enforces the laws, the thing is, how can you have a penalty one week for a situation, then the next week a different ref sees nothing wrong ?

Either the laws are respected or we do not have the laws at all.

by SecretFly Tue 18 Aug 2015, 12:18 pm

BTW...we do all remember when tries were worth only....................... em, well I forget! Wink

..... 3 points?

God, there were some brutal ~~days~~ games back in the day when you'd watch a side scoring tries but it would still resemble a bit the rabbit and the tortoise! That blasted team that couldn't score a try was still only a point off the f**king lead come the end!

Look back on those games and do we recognise them really as the Union game we see today? Would we honestly go back there in our time bubble? The evolution of Rule changes.

by LordDowlais Tue 18 Aug 2015, 12:20 pm

SecretFly wrote:BTW...we do all remember when tries were worth only....................... em, well I forget! ..... 3 points?

God, there were some brutal days back in the day when you'd watch a side scoring tries but it would still resemble a bit the rabbit and the tortoise! That blasted team that couldn't score a try was still only a point off the f**king lead come the end!

Look back on those games and do we recognise them really as the Union game we see today? Would we honestly go back there in our time bubble? The evolution of Rule changes.

At least they could complete a scrum in one go back then. Laugh

by Marshes Tue 18 Aug 2015, 12:31 pm

LordDowlais wrote:Marshes, I except human error, I have no issues with that what so ever, what frustrates me is that two sides can play each other one week after the next and the results could differ because how a ref enforces the laws, the thing is, how can you have a penalty one week for a situation, then the next week a different ref sees nothing wrong ?

Either the laws are respected or we do not have the laws at all.

I get that is frustrating, and you don't have to wait another week, hypocritical decisions will happen in the same game most of the time! But the devil is in the details for me on these things, no one situation is the same and often its a matter, particularly in the scrum and the breakdown, of which infringement the ref sees first.

But how will we ever be able to account for that?

by LordDowlais Tue 18 Aug 2015, 12:35 pm

Marshes wrote:But how will we ever be able to account for that?

This is where I think the players and coaches should be held accountable, these are the people who should respect the rules and not go on the field with the intention of breaking them.

by SecretFly Tue 18 Aug 2015, 12:53 pm

Okay...one example.... we all see moments when a ball leaves a messy arms'n'legs collapsed maul or ruck.... and as the ball is tidily recycled to go on its merry way in attack, we see those off-the-ball holding back of defensive player moments to ensure a hole or two is available for the ball to chase through Wink

Now, let's say the players and coaches decide not to practice those moments of strategic entanglements and tell their players to release opponent players instantly.... we'd have perfection, all players always mostly on their feet in attacking or defensive formations............?

....starting to look like League to me though!!!!.... I'll explain.

Long long periods of open play attacking and defending (good stuff one might think). But if the defending is good (and the top sides in top encounters tend to be) and the attacking side have more than six moves to toy with ...then it might become a very turgid affair actually as the game spends minutes in the middle as attackers weave over and back and defenders cover all bases.

So....???? - we might be tempted to introduce then a new rule to open up the game. Let's say the new rule says the attacking side can only have the ball for a certain number of moves................

I always think of the dynamic of the Union game as War. Yes it has rules, but it also has so many facets that allows in the grey areas. And the grey areas is what gives the game real warlike bite. It's not a boardgame, it's not an Xbox game - it's a field battle and sometimes one army will go beyond gentlemanly behaviour.... and the crowd will respond! And the fever rises - the hate grows, the lust for vengeance becomes all encompassing and............................................ well, it ain't League... it's Union.

by No 7&1/2 Tue 18 Aug 2015, 1:18 pm

Fanster wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote: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.

Firstly you don't state where your expertice comes from? I suspect it's from your armchair with rose tinted glasses on, which is no slight on you as an individual, just highlight how unimpartial fans are when considering events that go against his team.

This is like banging my head against a particularly stubborn brick wall, but as idiotic as I am for trying I will educate you in what the situation was once more before allowing you to go and scream 'wwaaaaaahhhh' into your pillow...

EVERY potential trip has to be situational, you can ignore my case all you like re the attacking player penalised for a trip, but it is still a pretty sore issue in refereeing circles, a trip can only be deemed a trip if intent is there, otherwise your penalising accidents. Lacey has a clear view of the incident and deems it an accident!

Let me refer you to the highlighted point you make, Lacey is not wrong, the ball is in play until it is grounded by May, Lacey then rechecks the replay to see if the ball had been taking out of play, which it had, Lacey does not deem the ball is in touch, he refers to the replay and deems the ball out of play in hindsight, the ball is IN PLAY UNTIL GROUNDING! There is no argument here, the ball is in play until the whistle, there was no whistle until grounding, hence the play was live until grounding, thats a fact! It's an issue clarified to me semi recently by Tappe Henning!

Lets move to the second highlighted area, your definition of 'advice'. There was no 'advice' given to Lacey whatsoever, had the linesman judged there had been dangerous play he would have flagged, he never, allowing play to go on and therefore didn't deem anything dangerous or foul. It was post event after Cares dramatic tumble that the linesman decided something may have occured, therefore he chose his wording carefully when asking (ASKING, NOT ADVISING) 'do you want to check for foul play?' this wording makes the refs decision easy, no is 100% of the time the answer because foul play, like the try will not be penalised post ball out of play, as it doesn't effect either teams advantage or non advantage. The linesman couldve flagged for foul, or dangerous play at the time and didn't, he couldve said the word dangerous play in his question but didn't, this means he didn't feel there was dangerous play, or a trip (which is deemed dangerous play).

Once again Lacey is absolutely right in waving away any foul play post ball out of play, but even so had already witnessed the incident as an accident and not dangerous play, which again he was spot on.

Where is the argument here, I've told you the laws, how they are implimented, and why they were implimented, the counter 'because England waaaah' is no case unfortunately.

You must be a really poor ref.

by No 7&1/2 Tue 18 Aug 2015, 1:23 pm

''do you want to check for foul play?' this wording makes the refs decision easy, no is 100% of the time the answer because foul play, like the try will not be penalised post ball out of play, as it doesn't effect either teams advantage or non advantage. The linesman couldve flagged for foul, or dangerous play at the time and didn't, he couldve said the word dangerous play in his question but didn't, this means he didn't feel there was dangerous play, or a trip (which is deemed dangerous play). '

10.4n doesn't fit with your view. Read that rule again, the trip can be penalised with a penalty even after the ball is out of play which is what you and Lacey seem not to grasp. Foul play is the over arching term for all of section 10 including dangerous play and misconduct (10.4).

by Poorfour Tue 18 Aug 2015, 2:00 pm

Fanster:
"Once again Lacey is absolutely right in waving away any foul play post ball out of play, but even so had already witnessed the incident as an accident and not dangerous play, which again he was spot on."

The first point is simply wrong. Foul play is not subject to whether the ball was in play. The IRB Laws exam even includes several questions asking how to deal with foul play when the ball is dead. I know this because I have sat and passed the exam, because I am a referee (albeit at a very amateur level).

Lacey at no point indicated that he has seen the incident and did not consider it foul play. His repeated comment was that he didn't want to look for foul play because the ball was already in touch.

That is at best a fairly significant lapse of concentration and at worst a complete failure to understand the Laws. It had a material effect on the game (though thankfully not the outcome) because if England had been awarded a penalty they could have had 3 points or a 5m lineout.

As to whether it was foul play or not, that's more debatable. But a ref has to consider whether a player's action was reckless and likely to risk an injury. Even if he was going for the ball, sliding feet first into the path of an onrushing opponent is a reckless act.

by Fanster Tue 18 Aug 2015, 2:15 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:''do you want to check for foul play?' this wording makes the refs decision easy, no is 100% of the time the answer because foul play, like the try will not be penalised post ball out of play, as it doesn't effect either teams advantage or non advantage. The linesman couldve flagged for foul, or dangerous play at the time and didn't, he couldve said the word dangerous play in his question but didn't, this means he didn't feel there was dangerous play, or a trip (which is deemed dangerous play). '

10.4n doesn't fit with your view. Read that rule again, the trip can be penalised with a penalty even after the ball is out of play which is what you and Lacey seem not to grasp. Foul play is the over arching term for all of section 10 including dangerous play and misconduct (10.4).

Firsty, your comment regarding me clearly being a poor ref is poor form, sadly it devalues your character to insult my abilities because you can't seem to grasp whats going on. For this comment I now think less of you on an individual level.

RE this above...

10.4 n doesn't apply here, the ball was not deemed out of play, unless you can provide me with a link of video in which the whistle goes before the collision? I'm not saying 10.4 n has no merit, or fouls can't be committed after the ball goes out of play, I'm saying this doesn't apply here, as the ball was in play until the grounding. Your claiming this as your argument that Lacey didn't know a rule, what your doing is ignoring Laceys knowledge of the game, his exerience, and his ability becaue the comentator told you to, and well because England woohoo!

Your also still under the misinterpretation that there was a trip, please explain to me where Lacey, the linesman or TMO mentioned a trip or dangerou play?

by Pete330v2 Tue 18 Aug 2015, 2:17 pm

"But a ref has to consider whether a player's action was reckless and likely to risk an injury"

Like making a well timed, really hard hit on a player leaving him requiring attention from the team physio?

by Fanster Tue 18 Aug 2015, 2:33 pm

Poorfour wrote:Fanster:
"Once again Lacey is absolutely right in waving away any foul play post ball out of play, but even so had already witnessed the incident as an accident and not dangerous play, which again he was spot on."

The first point is simply wrong. Foul play is not subject to whether the ball was in play. The IRB Laws exam even includes several questions asking how to deal with foul play when the ball is dead. I know this because I have sat and passed the exam, because I am a referee (albeit at a very amateur level).

Lacey at no point indicated that he has seen the incident and did not consider it foul play. His repeated comment was that he didn't want to look for foul play because the ball was already in touch.

That is at best a fairly significant lapse of concentration and at worst a complete failure to understand the Laws. It had a material effect on the game (though thankfully not the outcome) because if England had been awarded a penalty they could have had 3 points or a 5m lineout.

As to whether it was foul play or not, that's more debatable. But a ref has to consider whether a player's action was reckless and likely to risk an injury. Even if he was going for the ball, sliding feet first into the path of an onrushing opponent is a reckless act.

Poorfour

Your reading out of context, and misconstrewing Laceys words, in the heat of the battle saying what you mean and meaning what you say are difficult. I'm trying to explain to 7.5 that the ball isn't out of play until the whistle goes, meaning had the ball been in the crowd until the whistle goes everyone must play on! There was no whistle until grounding, and therefore the ball was not out of play until grounding, whatever happened in the incident was very much in play at the time.

When Lacey said to the TMO and linesman, who asked questions, never made a statement, made an advicement, or flagged dangerous or foul play, he reiterated the ball was in touch, after viewing the incident as a collision live they would head back for ball in touch after the non grounding. A ref doesn't have to answer anyones questions, or acknowledge foul play he did or did not see, a ref who viewed an incident and deemed it a collision is under no instruction to explain himself to anyone during the game, in a lot of cases your directed not to get into a discussion with players and move the game on. Because he never said it was a collision, doesn't mean anything other than 'no your not getting anything lets move on' which he did very quickly and kept the game moving.

Theres no mistake by Lacey because a handfull of fans doesn't like the outcome or his explenation at the time, ive reviewed it numerous times and he got the decision correct, and dealt with the issue quickly and decicively, what more can you ask?! Had the linesman or TMO had reservations they would've flagged, or asked to check for dangerous play, which then forces the ref to take a look! a question regarding foul play right in front of him he dismissed on the spot will not, and they both know that.

The highlighted is wrong, things don't have to be reckless or risk injury to be foul or dangerous play, however there is a situational element about each decision, and in this case it could be considered that both players tried to poke the ball with their toe/foot and despite the outcoe it was a 50/50 contest.

Because Moore and co explain to you the ref is wrong, and keep talking interpretation, that doesn't exist btw, doesn't mean its a truth!

by Poorfour Tue 18 Aug 2015, 2:36 pm

Pete330v2 wrote:"But a ref has to consider whether a player's action was reckless and likely to risk an injury"

Like making a well timed, really hard hit on a player leaving him requiring attention from the team physio?

A well-timed hard but legal hit by definition isn't reckless. Players expect to be tackled and can prepare for them. They don't expect trips, and don't prepare for them because they aren't legal.

That's why two players genuinely contesting the ball in the air aren't penalised for contact with each other, but if one isn't in a position to contest the ball and makes contact, a sanction will result.

by **LondonTiger** Tue 18 Aug 2015, 2:41 pm

Fanster wrote: Had the linesman or TMO had reservations they would've flagged, or asked to check for dangerous play, which then forces the ref to take a look! a question regarding foul play right in front of him he dismissed on the spot will not, and they both know that.

They both did that more than once and he said the ball was already in touch.

Clancy did not flag directly for foul play as he, like Lacey, was watching the ball. Lacey did not rule out foul play because he had seen the incident and deemed it a fair challenge - but because he forgot the laws he is meant to uphold. Now we may have come to the correct decision - but by a route so wrong that the ref will have been marked down by the assessor.

by Fanster Tue 18 Aug 2015, 2:54 pm

LondonTiger wrote:
Fanster wrote: Had the linesman or TMO had reservations they would've flagged, or asked to check for dangerous play, which then forces the ref to take a look! a question regarding foul play right in front of him he dismissed on the spot will not, and they both know that.

They both did that more than once and he said the ball was already in touch.

Clancy did not flag directly for foul play as he, like Lacey, was watching the ball. Lacey did not rule out foul play because he had seen the incident and deemed it a fair challenge - but because he forgot the laws he is meant to uphold. Now we may have come to the correct decision - but by a route so wrong that the ref will have been marked down by the assessor.

I suggest you go rewatch it, noone asked him to look for dangerous play, they both asked if he wanted to recheck for foul play which he replied 'no'.

Not only did Clancy not flag for foul play, he did not flag for the lineout, I get his view of the ball, in contact with the player, was obstruccted, but his view of what he could have considered as dangerous play, which is what a trip is, dangerous, was totally unobstructed. So he didn't flag dangerous play, he also didn't mention it to Lacey while in the dead ball zone where he mentioned the ball dead and grounding incidents as highlights of what should be considered, he only mentioned it minutes later, after returning to the touhline when the crowd were booing, and English players trying to discuss it. The slow motion replay makes everything look bad, and crowds boo for a spilt drink these days.

Don't get coerced by the comentators, they don't know everything, and they have their own agenda for an audience, not for fair and impartial treatment to the ref.

by Poorfour Tue 18 Aug 2015, 2:54 pm

Fanster, I agree with your point about the ball being in play until the whistle, now you put it that way.

But you haven't understood my point about foul play. The Ref's primary responsibility is player safety. That is made very clear in the training. Any possible dangerous or reckless play is potentially foul play, although there's a wide range of foul play that isn't dangerous but just unfair.

I disagree with your view of what Lacey said and meant. He clearly said he wasn't going to review foul play because the ball was already in touch. That is an incorrect reason not to review under the laws.

I think it's highly unlikely that he meant "I saw it and it was ok", because it's so far semantically from what he actually said. More likely is that he misheard "foul play" and meant "don't check grounding because the ball was dead."

I'm not listening to any pundits on this one. My view is based on what I saw at the time. I haven't looked at a replay, but if I had been refereeing I would have wanted to review - and would have listened to my team - just based on what I saw in real time.

by Scottrf Tue 18 Aug 2015, 2:56 pm

It's clear that one side isn't going to listen to any counter points and will fixate on semantics.

The others clearly think the ref incorrectly ignored the insistence of the TMO.

There's no progress to be made in this debate.

by thebandwagonsociety Tue 18 Aug 2015, 3:06 pm

Just on referees, has anyone come across a Brian Anderson? apparently he has officiated a pro12 game this past season but I can't for the life of me find anything on him.

by SecretFly Tue 18 Aug 2015, 3:10 pm

thebandwagonsociety wrote:Just on referees, has anyone come across a Brian Anderson? apparently he has officiated a pro12 game this past season but I can't for the life of me find anything on him.

He doesn't exist...he's a decoy name used for records. That was a game Munster needed to win so the IRFU demanded no Referee turn up. The Dragons were so annoyed at all the penalties going against them that they failed to see it was POC officiating as player/ref for the day.

by thebandwagonsociety Tue 18 Aug 2015, 3:15 pm

It's a name on statbunker as a referee for a glasgow v osprey game during last seasons pro12. But both those fixtures were reffed by Clancy if I'm not mistaken.

by Fanster Tue 18 Aug 2015, 3:16 pm

Poorfour wrote:Fanster, I agree with your point about the ball being in play until the whistle, now you put it that way.

But you haven't understood my point about foul play. The Ref's primary responsibility is player safety. That is made very clear in the training. Any possible dangerous or reckless play is potentially foul play, although there's a wide range of foul play that isn't dangerous but just unfair.

I disagree with your view of what Lacey said and meant. He clearly said he wasn't going to review foul play because the ball was already in touch. That is an incorrect reason not to review under the laws.

I think it's highly unlikely that he meant "I saw it and it was ok", because it's so far semantically from what he actually said. More likely is that he misheard "foul play" and meant "don't check grounding because the ball was dead."

I'm not listening to any pundits on this one. My view is based on what I saw at the time. I haven't looked at a replay, but if I had been refereeing I would have wanted to review - and would have listened to my team - just based on what I saw in real time.

Your right, player safety is paramount, but there are ways linesmen and TMO's ask to ensure full cooperation is acquired, and the wording of foul and dangerous play is one of them. I know on the few occasions i've been mic'd up (No TMO) a call of dangerous play would stop me dead in my tracks, whereas a question surrounding foul play is regarded as a 'did you see this' kind of thing which I would either disregard, or ask for clarification.

You can't trust what people say in the heat of battle, loads of people say a million things they don't mean, it's no different for the refs, maybe your right, maybe as a ref, and generally someone who looks from their POV, and tries not to be biased in any way I am giving him thebenefit of the doubt, but it's far more likely than the raft of insults and accusations that are being thrown at him on here.

by SecretFly Tue 18 Aug 2015, 3:18 pm

thebandwagonsociety wrote:It's a name on statbunker as a referee for a glasgow v osprey game during last seasons pro12. But both those fixtures were reffed by Clancy if I'm not mistaken.

Clancy's alias for when he doesn't want to be booed?

by Scottrf Tue 18 Aug 2015, 3:19 pm

So you can slap the opposition, spit at them etc if the ball is out of play? None of that is dangerous, so can't be penalised. Right?

by thebandwagonsociety Tue 18 Aug 2015, 3:20 pm

Right so last season in the pro 12, when the referee for the match was Irish;

Irish provinces were 4-5-8 (wins-draws-losses)
Italy teams were 5-1-12
Scottish teams were 14-2-7
Welsh regions were 22-4-18

by SecretFly Tue 18 Aug 2015, 3:23 pm

Scottrf wrote:So you can slap the opposition, spit at them etc if the ball is out of play? None of that is dangerous, so can't be penalised. Right?

A slap and a spit might be highly offensive but I don't think either would be deemed ...unduly dangerous... given that players exchange sweat and spittle all the time in close quarters battles.

by LordDowlais Tue 18 Aug 2015, 3:24 pm

thebandwagonsociety wrote:Right so last season in the pro 12, when the referee for the match was Irish;

Irish provinces were 4-5-8 (wins-draws-losses)
Italy teams were 5-1-12
Scottish teams were 14-2-7
Welsh regions were 22-4-18

Feck me, according to that the Welsh regions had an Irish ref 44 times. Shocked

by SecretFly Tue 18 Aug 2015, 3:25 pm

thebandwagonsociety wrote:Right so last season in the pro 12, when the referee for the match was Irish;

Irish provinces were 4-5-8 (wins-draws-losses)
Italy teams were 5-1-12
Scottish teams were 14-2-7
Welsh regions were 22-4-18

I've done that kinda tally a few times last season... mostly for Lord. But..........................

by SecretFly Tue 18 Aug 2015, 3:26 pm

LordDowlais wrote:
thebandwagonsociety wrote:Right so last season in the pro 12, when the referee for the match was Irish;

Irish provinces were 4-5-8 (wins-draws-losses)
Italy teams were 5-1-12
Scottish teams were 14-2-7
Welsh regions were 22-4-18

Feck me, according to that the Welsh regions had an Irish ref 44 times.

weren't you lucky! You think you'd get 22 wins out of a stubborn Scot???

by thebandwagonsociety Tue 18 Aug 2015, 3:27 pm

LordDowlais wrote:
thebandwagonsociety wrote:Right so last season in the pro 12, when the referee for the match was Irish;

Irish provinces were 4-5-8 (wins-draws-losses)
Italy teams were 5-1-12
Scottish teams were 14-2-7
Welsh regions were 22-4-18

Feck me, according to that the Welsh regions had an Irish ref 44 times.

Potentially LD, though if an Irish ref was in charge of an all-Welsh clash then it will be appearing twice in the stats (as one teams wins, the other loses).

by SecretFly Tue 18 Aug 2015, 3:29 pm

So in a Welsh derby an Irish ref can both prove the doubters very wrong and still show bias against the Welsh side....

Perfect compromise really.

by Sponsored content