Interview with Referee John Lacey

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

Gwlad wrote: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

We actually agree on something....

Many are quick to jump on the 'he's a thug' bandwagon with some players - Tuilagi and Hartley to name but two. However, Clark is an out and out nasty piece of work (i'm not sure how deliberately breaking someone's arm could be construed as otherwise) and it can surely only be a matter of time before he really damages someone (Hawkins may argue that he already has). For me, I don't buy this 'he's done his time' stuff, he shouldn't be anywhere near the squad, but perhaps I should quantify that statement:

It was a ludicrous yellow card, and any rational person wouldn't hold it against Clarke (I'm not rational in this particular case - see above). Lacey made a lot of weird calls in that match - compare the Picamoles headbutt on Slade and the trip on Care, both of which the ref saw and didn't even penalise, to Clarke's questionable clear-out.

In this case, the yellow card should not be the focus when it comes to Clarke's performance. His being a totally ineffective flanker should be the focus. Card or not, that performance was simply not good enough. He's been decent for Saints, but there have been a number of games where the Saints back-row (with Wood and Clarke flanking) has been totally swamped. That happened again on Saturday, and wasn't even remotely resolved until Haskell came on.

Kvesic really should have been in the squad. His few England showings have been streets ahead of anything Wood has produced in years and certainly ahead of Clarke's performance against France. Plus his club form is better.

I wonder if we'll end up seeing one of our locks starting at blindside in the WC when it becomes apparent that our main lineout option at 6 - Wood - is also too far out of form to deserve a place.

Whhhhooooaaaahhhhh

Well, you see, now our English friends on here can see what we have to put up with every single week in the Pro12. The thing is, Irish rugby is a lot like New Zealand rugby, where the players can be very cynical and like to push the boundaries a lot, now put an Irish ref in the mix, and they tend to turn a blind eye, or not give as much attention to things like the breakdown, were players are deliberately slowing things down, or going in off their feet ect and you have all this debate. The thing is, it is not cheating if you do not get caught, but Irish refs control the game the Irish way.

This is why we then start having conspiracy theories on here about the standard of reffing in the Pro12 and why we have calls of biased Irish refs. Lets look at it this way, John Lacey for me is one of the better Irish refs in our league, he is not allowed to ref Munster games because he comes from the Munster branch, they cannot allow it, because they want to get rid of any potential bias, but if that is the case, what is to stop him influencing another game that could end up giving Munster an advantage in the league ? We are already admitting potential bias by not allowing him to ref any Munster games, so why can there not be any other bias by him reffing any other Irish teams, after all, he will ref the Irish teams to how they play, that's how he has been trained.

This is where the frustration comes from for me, Irish rugby allows nonsense at the breakdown, it allows nonsense in the scrums, other unions do not. I know Wayne Barnes is a stickler when it comes to the breakdown, that's why the Irish hate him so much, I think everything is down to interpretation, Irish teams know how an Irish ref is going to ref a game, others do not.

I actually did not see anything wrong with Lacey's performance on Saturday night, but I am used to watching him and I knew what to expect from him, but I can see why the English fans in here are so frustrated. I was more annoyed with the refs performance in the Ireland V Scotland game, there was so much cynical stuff going on and it ebbed into the game and spoiled it.

All fair comments LD but if you are going to be consistent then why allow Barnes to ref games in the 6N, not involving England but which can influence the title race in Englands favour - like Wales v Ireland.

This is a general problem in any multi-national competition and not specific to the pro-12 or Ireland.

I don't like bias ref whatever nationality they come from - it seems some Welsh only have an issue when it affects one of their teams.

Lacey was pretty poor against England, with some questionable calls but then it's not in Irish interests to see France getting a moral boosting win at twickenham either.

Sorry rodders, I was trying to make a point but I must have messed it up. What I am trying to say is, you can never take potential bias out of the game, but Irish sides in the Pro12 will know how to play when an Irish ref is reffing them, the players know they will be able to get away with their jiggery pokery when an Irish ref is in charge. Now put Wayne Barnes in charge who refs things differently then there is a mass call for a cheating ref from the Irish, just because he likes a fair contest at the breakdown, an area where the Irish teams target and try to get away with bloody murder. Is it cheating ? Some will say yes, some will say no. I will call it cynical, and lets be fair, that is the way Irish teams like to play, in the Pro12 Irish refs will let it go, in other competitions, other refs from other countries will not.

LordDowlais wrote:Lets look at it this way, John Lacey for me is one of the better Irish refs in our league, he is not allowed to ref Munster games because he comes from the Munster branch, they cannot allow it, because they want to get rid of any potential bias, but if that is the case, what is to stop him influencing another game that could end up giving Munster an advantage in the league ?

I read an article recently suggesting Nigel Owens may not be refereeing Scarlets games any more since his cousin has just made his debut for them. Owens pointed out that there would be no referees left if they were ruled out for this reason.

It's similar to what you say. Every single game has an impact on the overall competition so if we ruled out referees not just refereeing games involving the team they support/were part of/from their home town but also any game that could hypothetically affect that team, we run out of referees very quickly because that is almost every game they could referee in a league structure.

What needs to be said is that it is always in a referees best interests to be impartial. Referees are ambitious too, they want to rise through the ranks. Their performances are also reviewed- why would they jeopardise their own careers for such little benefit? Not to mention the implication that they lack that basic integrity which prevents them from thinking like that, which for some reason is only assumed by certain posters to apply to Irish refs.

LordDowlais wrote:Sorry rodders, I was trying to make a point but I must have messed it up. What I am trying to say is, you can never take potential bias out of the game, but Irish sides in the Pro12 will know how to play when an Irish ref is reffing them, the players know they will be able to get away with their jiggery pokery when an Irish ref is in charge. Now put Wayne Barnes in charge who refs things differently then there is a mass call for a cheating ref from the Irish, just because he likes a fair contest at the breakdown, an area where the Irish teams target and try to get away with bloody murder. Is it cheating ? Some will say yes, some will say no. I will call it cynical, and lets be fair, that is the way Irish teams like to play, in the Pro12 Irish refs will let it go, in other competitions, other refs from other countries will not.

I like a contest at the breakdown and I think that if you enforce all of the rules rigidly, you don't get that. Thats why Barnes is such a poor referee in my opinion.

Support your body weight, don't get pinged simple.

Notch what I think should happen is every ref in every league gets briefed as to how the game should be played. I do not mean get them every single ref in the world together all at once, I mean get every ref from each league together at some point and then they all get told how they should interpretate the laws, I am fed up of seeing a SH ref do things differently to a NH ref, the game is the same game, why should the refs imply what laws they see fit ?

For me, the refs in our league, Pro12, should be paid by the league, not the unions or branches, the refs should then have NOTHING to do with the teams/branches and all train together as refs and all speak to each other, how hard would it be to get all the Pro12 refs in one place for once a month to speak to each other and agree this is how we are going to do things ?

It is unfair to have an Irish ref to ref Irish teams in our league, or a Welsh ref to ref Welsh teams, because at the moment these refs are to comfy with the teams they are supposed to be controlling, especially the Irish refs, who train with the provinces on a weekly basis. The thing is if Ulster are going to have Lacey reffing them, then straight away they know they can push the boundaries because that's how Irish rugby is played, there is nothing wrong with how Irish rugby is played by the way, but that straight away hands an advantage to Ulster, this is not fair. The referees, from what ever country, should be totally separate from the unions/branches they have come from, as soon as they turn pro, they should be in some sort of referee's union and totally away from the teams they are reffing.

Yeah, a centralised refereeing body for the Pro12 is a good idea. But I don't think referees having nothing to do with the teams is a good idea- refereeing training sessions helps sides prepare.

If there was a central refereeing body, you could rotate which refs work with which teams though. A welsh ref could attend Munster training, Lacey could go work with the Scarlets etc. The problem with this is likely to be referees having to spend too long away from home.

LordDowlais wrote:Sorry rodders, I was trying to make a point but I must have messed it up. What I am trying to say is, you can never take potential bias out of the game, but Irish sides in the Pro12 will know how to play when an Irish ref is reffing them, the players know they will be able to get away with their jiggery pokery when an Irish ref is in charge. Now put Wayne Barnes in charge who refs things differently then there is a mass call for a cheating ref from the Irish, just because he likes a fair contest at the breakdown, an area where the Irish teams target and try to get away with bloody murder. Is it cheating ? Some will say yes, some will say no. I will call it cynical, and lets be fair, that is the way Irish teams like to play, in the Pro12 Irish refs will let it go, in other competitions, other refs from other countries will not.

All the refs report to the head ref who is a French man. Up to last world cup the head ref was a Kiwi. They go on training camps together. There is usually a team of assistants who are all refs themselves. They should have the same interpretation.

Where Ireland/Munster gain an advantage I think is that they have a highly qualified ref like Lacey reffing their contact training sessions. Before the last world cup, Ireland had Alain Rolland reffing their training sessions (and David Wallace was the only pundit who called the Warburton red card as correct as soon as it happened because of these training sessions he was involved in. He was able to say that they were going to be very hot on tip tackles).

As for the Irish v Barnes - funny that we don't have an issue with Nigel Owens who is widely regarded as being the best ref in the world!

Notch wrote:

I like a contest at the breakdown and I think that if you enforce all of the rules rigidly, you don't get that.

If you enforce the rules and the players fail to adapt maybe you will not - but that is the fault of the players for either being stupid or trying to cheat and getting caught.

However if you are saying the rules should not be enforced, then they should be removed from the law book. We have a pathetic situation right now where we have a set of laws and then debate which should be adhered to. Anything (and everything) in the law book should be enforced (with the advantage rule used liberally).

Notch wrote:Yeah, a centralised refereeing body for the Pro12 is a good idea. But I don't think referees having nothing to do with the teams is a good idea- refereeing training sessions helps sides prepare.

If there was a central refereeing body, you could rotate which refs work with which teams though. A welsh ref could attend Munster training, Lacey could go work with the Scarlets etc. The problem with this is likely to be referees having to spend too long away from home.

The Laws of Rugby belong to the Unions/World Rugby - its up to them to interpret them. It would be madness to allow a body not controlled by the Unions to interpret the laws of rugby union.

Sin é wrote:As for the Irish v Barnes - funny that we don't have an issue with Nigel Owens who is widely regarded as being the best ref in the world!

Our Nige lets a lot of things go though, especially in the scrums, it does make for a faster free flowing game, but it does not mean he refs the game properly, Wayne Barnes sticks more rigidly to the rules but the game does not flow as much, although if the players themselves played by the rules the game would flow anyway.

As I have said earlier, it all depends on how we interpret the game, we are all different, some like a free for all, some like a game with boundaries. That's when your choice of favourite ref is made.

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.

Sin é wrote:The Laws of Rugby belong to the Unions/World Rugby - its up to them to interpret them. It would be madness to allow a body not controlled by the Unions to interpret the laws of rugby union.

The Unions/World rugby would still enforce the laws, and the refs can still be told how to enforce these laws, but the referees should not be allowed to be affiliated with any unions/branches, they should be made totally impartial.

LordDowlais wrote:

As I have said earlier, it all depends on how we interpret the game, we are all different, some like a free for all, some like a game with boundaries. That's when your choice of favourite ref is made.

So? Don't leave it dangling, Lord. Mark your card. Which is it for you?

LordDowlais wrote:

Sin é wrote:The Laws of Rugby belong to the Unions/World Rugby - its up to them to interpret them. It would be madness to allow a body not controlled by the Unions to interpret the laws of rugby union.

The Unions/World rugby would still enforce the laws, and the refs can still be told how to enforce these laws, but the referees should not be allowed to be affiliated with any unions/branches, they should be made totally impartial.

So who pays Nigel's wages? Who pays Barnes? Who pays Poite?

SecretFly wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

As I have said earlier, it all depends on how we interpret the game, we are all different, some like a free for all, some like a game with boundaries. That's when your choice of favourite ref is made.

So?   Don't leave it dangling, Lord.  Mark your card.  Which is it for you?

I like the Wayne Barnes style of reffing, I like boundaries, at the end of the day, if the ref enforced every law properly, we would get a few stop start games, but the players would then start playing without resorting to cheating and the game would speed up naturally.

LordDowlais wrote:Sorry rodders, I was trying to make a point but I must have messed it up. What I am trying to say is, you can never take potential bias out of the game, but Irish sides in the Pro12 will know how to play when an Irish ref is reffing them, the players know they will be able to get away with their jiggery pokery when an Irish ref is in charge. Now put Wayne Barnes in charge who refs things differently then there is a mass call for a cheating ref from the Irish, just because he likes a fair contest at the breakdown, an area where the Irish teams target and try to get away with bloody murder. Is it cheating ? Some will say yes, some will say no. I will call it cynical, and lets be fair, that is the way Irish teams like to play, in the Pro12 Irish refs will let it go, in other competitions, other refs from other countries will not.

Not saying that is not the case LD, but it would be cutting off your nose to spite your face. The national team playing to the breakdown you say Irish provincial refs let them away with would not do them any favours when they play other international teams.

I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle between Barnes and Ireland, in the Ireland Wales 6N game he had a different interpretation for each half but Ireland should realistically have clued into quicker before being pinged four times. Unusually Ireland's discipline in giving away silly penalties under Schmidt has generally been good. But to say Ireland are any more cynical in this department than other teams when Wales had two yellows for slowing the ball down is a bit hypocritical

Irish teams dont like Barnes as he doesnt let them get away with murder at the breakdown like they do in the Pro 12.

For all his plaudits, when Mahoney was reffed properly vs Wales he 'surprisingly' wasn't as successful at the breakdown as he was pinged for his normal offences.

If you are supporting your own body weight in the ruck without arms/elbows on the floor there is no way you'd shrug off a prop/lock counter rucking you.

SecretFly wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Sin é wrote:The Laws of Rugby belong to the Unions/World Rugby - its up to them to interpret them. It would be madness to allow a body not controlled by the Unions to interpret the laws of rugby union.

The Unions/World rugby would still enforce the laws, and the refs can still be told how to enforce these laws, but the referees should not be allowed to be affiliated with any unions/branches, they should be made totally impartial.

So who pays Nigel's wages?  Who pays Barnes?  Who pays Poite?

I think we have done this numerous times on other threads, but I will answer anyway. The unions pay the refs in Wales, England, Scotland, France, ect. But the branches pay the refs in Ireland. I might be wrong as we have done this so many times.

Bit unfair to blame everything on the ref though. Look at Saturday's Eng game - the nearside linesman was at fault for incorrectly calling a scrum penalty France's way at least twice that I can recall (Brookes penalised when it was Debaty's low/elbow down binding that caused the collapse). Every ref makes mistakes, but none were game result-influencing.

LordDowlais wrote:

Sin é wrote:The Laws of Rugby belong to the Unions/World Rugby - its up to them to interpret them. It would be madness to allow a body not controlled by the Unions to interpret the laws of rugby union.

The Unions/World rugby would still enforce the laws, and the refs can still be told how to enforce these laws, but the referees should not be allowed to be affiliated with any unions/branches, they should be made totally impartial.

Its just not practical unless you bring in ref from other sports. Everyone will have some sort of a bias because they will all have played rugby at some club or other before becoming a ref.

Do you not think the biases will even up. Can you give any examples of a ref being biased because of the country they came from which may have affected the outcome of a game?

Notch wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:Sorry rodders, I was trying to make a point but I must have messed it up. What I am trying to say is, you can never take potential bias out of the game, but Irish sides in the Pro12 will know how to play when an Irish ref is reffing them, the players know they will be able to get away with their jiggery pokery when an Irish ref is in charge. Now put Wayne Barnes in charge who refs things differently then there is a mass call for a cheating ref from the Irish, just because he likes a fair contest at the breakdown, an area where the Irish teams target and try to get away with bloody murder. Is it cheating ? Some will say yes, some will say no. I will call it cynical, and lets be fair, that is the way Irish teams like to play, in the Pro12 Irish refs will let it go, in other competitions, other refs from other countries will not.

I like a contest at the breakdown and I think that if you enforce all of the rules rigidly, you don't get that. Thats why Barnes is such a poor referee in my opinion.

Bovine Faeces.

The rules are there. They should be enforced properly, or the rule should be removed. Barnes is a good referee because he doesn't take any mucking about, nor does he allow the players to put their own slant on what they consider should and shouldn't be allowed. Fairly obviously, some teams/or international teams in the Pro12 or Celtic side of the NH don't like him because in the cold light of day, they're routinely cheating and they don't like being found out.

I have to adress the word 'interpretation' here...

This word only really exists in the eyes of fans, refs in each league are gathered far more regularly than you'd think, and do a huge amount of CPD off their own backs to ensure they are in line with what is required by their unions, world rugby etc.

No 2 referee's see too much different when watching the same game in 2 different rooms, infact their decision making is generally in the 90% mark on average (not confirmed), and they all are taught exactly what to look for and how to look for it when making decisions.

For example, there isn't a ref alive who likes to see a lineout jumpers outside hand come in to play when in the air, they assume their inside hand is up to something, or the ball hasn't been thrown straight, this is a relativey straight forward example of things refs are taught, that have nothing to do with the laws of the game. It's a pretty good indicator of whats going on, there are more with regards to scrummaging and breakdown.

With regards to consistency, this will never be acheived because every decision is situational, and there will always be a difference of opinion, especially in game. Replays help with decisions but even still with elevated heart rates, differing stressors, and pressures there will be the odd decision, tackle, bounce that is so marginal that 2 perfectly good professionals will differ on opinion.

There is a slight difference between refs of NH and SH as the leagues they ref on regular basis have different trends that they get used to, it's proven that French refs generally move the least of all top league referees, and break into sprints far less too. Whereas Super rugby refs sprint more and average near 2km more per match opposed to French. Therefore refs will be used to concentrating on key contested areas, and when moving to international rugby also have to adapt, which some do better than others!!

When considering a refs play, consider him a fly half, and ask yourself if he, as a third flyhalf played as well, made as many good or bad decisions as the other 2 fly halfs, only then can you gauge performance without focussing on 1 or 2 mistakes and anhialating a guys reutation on here through sheer bitterness!

bathmad wrote:Bit unfair to blame everything on the ref though. Look at Saturday's Eng game - the nearside linesman was at fault for incorrectly calling a scrum penalty France's way at least twice that I can recall (Brookes penalised when it was Debaty's low/elbow down binding that caused the collapse). Every ref makes mistakes, but none were game result-influencing.

If your talking about the occasion where Brookes knee went to ground first you are absolutely wrong, Brookes was clearly wriggling, while Debaty was stable, the reason Debaty's elbow went down was because Brookes brought him down too low, Brookes was in real trouble on a few occasions and it was easy to see him as the reason the scrum becam unstable.

munkian wrote:Irish teams dont like Barnes as he doesnt let them get away with murder at the breakdown like they do in the Pro 12.

For all his plaudits, when Mahoney was reffed properly vs Wales he 'surprisingly' wasn't as successful at the breakdown as he was pinged for his normal offences.

If you are supporting your own body weight in the ruck without arms/elbows on the floor there is no way you'd shrug off a prop/lock counter rucking you.

The Irish... you can't be up to them, the fu......................!!!!!!!!   Well... we'll leave that lingo for after the watershed.  

It's the rugby purist teams of England, Wales and New Zealand you want to be watching and shouting for.  I think I'll burn my Passport and throw my allegiance in with one of the super-honest off-loading genius Teams.

Great post from Fanster.

Jimpy wrote:

Notch wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:Sorry rodders, I was trying to make a point but I must have messed it up. What I am trying to say is, you can never take potential bias out of the game, but Irish sides in the Pro12 will know how to play when an Irish ref is reffing them, the players know they will be able to get away with their jiggery pokery when an Irish ref is in charge. Now put Wayne Barnes in charge who refs things differently then there is a mass call for a cheating ref from the Irish, just because he likes a fair contest at the breakdown, an area where the Irish teams target and try to get away with bloody murder. Is it cheating ? Some will say yes, some will say no. I will call it cynical, and lets be fair, that is the way Irish teams like to play, in the Pro12 Irish refs will let it go, in other competitions, other refs from other countries will not.

I like a contest at the breakdown and I think that if you enforce all of the rules rigidly, you don't get that. Thats why Barnes is such a poor referee in my opinion.

Bovine Faeces.

The rules are there. They should be enforced properly, or the rule should be removed. Barnes is a good referee because he doesn't take any mucking about, nor does he allow the players to put their own slant on what they consider should and shouldn't be allowed. Fairly obviously, some teams/or international teams in the Pro12 or Celtic side of the NH don't like him because in the cold light of day, they're routinely cheating and they don't like being found out.

Sorry mate but thats also bovine faeces... if any ref implimented the letter of the law in a game we wouldn't have a single ruck that didn't end in a penalty to one side or another!

Fanster wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

Notch wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:Sorry rodders, I was trying to make a point but I must have messed it up. What I am trying to say is, you can never take potential bias out of the game, but Irish sides in the Pro12 will know how to play when an Irish ref is reffing them, the players know they will be able to get away with their jiggery pokery when an Irish ref is in charge. Now put Wayne Barnes in charge who refs things differently then there is a mass call for a cheating ref from the Irish, just because he likes a fair contest at the breakdown, an area where the Irish teams target and try to get away with bloody murder. Is it cheating ? Some will say yes, some will say no. I will call it cynical, and lets be fair, that is the way Irish teams like to play, in the Pro12 Irish refs will let it go, in other competitions, other refs from other countries will not.

I like a contest at the breakdown and I think that if you enforce all of the rules rigidly, you don't get that. Thats why Barnes is such a poor referee in my opinion.

Bovine Faeces.

The rules are there. They should be enforced properly, or the rule should be removed. Barnes is a good referee because he doesn't take any mucking about, nor does he allow the players to put their own slant on what they consider should and shouldn't be allowed. Fairly obviously, some teams/or international teams in the Pro12 or Celtic side of the NH don't like him because in the cold light of day, they're routinely cheating and they don't like being found out.

Sorry mate but thats also bovine faeces... if any ref implimented the letter of the law in a game we wouldn't have a single ruck that didn't end in a penalty to one side or another!

Also Bovine Faeces.

Because if every Ref did it properly, players would learn to play properly, within the rules and I think you'd find, there'd be surprisingly few stoppages because of penalties - might be more scrums though.

LordDowlais wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Sin é wrote:The Laws of Rugby belong to the Unions/World Rugby - its up to them to interpret them. It would be madness to allow a body not controlled by the Unions to interpret the laws of rugby union.

The Unions/World rugby would still enforce the laws, and the refs can still be told how to enforce these laws, but the referees should not be allowed to be affiliated with any unions/branches, they should be made totally impartial.

So who pays Nigel's wages?  Who pays Barnes?  Who pays Poite?

I think we have done this numerous times on other threads, but I will answer anyway. The unions pay the refs in Wales, England, Scotland, France, ect. But the branches pay the refs in Ireland. I might be wrong as we have done this so many times.

IRFU pays the refs in Ireland (as per annual report- 330,717 last year).

LordDowlais wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Sin é wrote:The Laws of Rugby belong to the Unions/World Rugby - its up to them to interpret them. It would be madness to allow a body not controlled by the Unions to interpret the laws of rugby union.

The Unions/World rugby would still enforce the laws, and the refs can still be told how to enforce these laws, but the referees should not be allowed to be affiliated with any UNIONS/branches, they should be made totally impartial.

So who pays Nigel's wages?  Who pays Barnes?  Who pays Poite?

I think we have done this numerous times on other threads, but I will answer anyway. The unions pay the refs in Wales, England, Scotland, France, ect. But the branches pay the refs in Ireland. I might be wrong as we have done this so many times.

Yeah, just confirming that you also want Unions to stop paying refs as a Welsh Union paid ref might have a bias against an Irish International side in a game against France given that an Irish loss might help the cause of his Welsh Union in later weeks?

Ye Olde Bias makes an Appearance no matter from what angle

Jimpy wrote:

Notch wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:Sorry rodders, I was trying to make a point but I must have messed it up. What I am trying to say is, you can never take potential bias out of the game, but Irish sides in the Pro12 will know how to play when an Irish ref is reffing them, the players know they will be able to get away with their jiggery pokery when an Irish ref is in charge. Now put Wayne Barnes in charge who refs things differently then there is a mass call for a cheating ref from the Irish, just because he likes a fair contest at the breakdown, an area where the Irish teams target and try to get away with bloody murder. Is it cheating ? Some will say yes, some will say no. I will call it cynical, and lets be fair, that is the way Irish teams like to play, in the Pro12 Irish refs will let it go, in other competitions, other refs from other countries will not.

I like a contest at the breakdown and I think that if you enforce all of the rules rigidly, you don't get that. Thats why Barnes is such a poor referee in my opinion.

Bovine Faeces.

The rules are there. They should be enforced properly, or the rule should be removed. Barnes is a good referee because he doesn't take any mucking about, nor does he allow the players to put their own slant on what they consider should and shouldn't be allowed. Fairly obviously, some teams/or international teams in the Pro12 or Celtic side of the NH don't like him because in the cold light of day, they're routinely cheating and they don't like being found out.

I must say I agree 100% with this.

Jimpy wrote:

Fanster wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

Notch wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:Sorry rodders, I was trying to make a point but I must have messed it up. What I am trying to say is, you can never take potential bias out of the game, but Irish sides in the Pro12 will know how to play when an Irish ref is reffing them, the players know they will be able to get away with their jiggery pokery when an Irish ref is in charge. Now put Wayne Barnes in charge who refs things differently then there is a mass call for a cheating ref from the Irish, just because he likes a fair contest at the breakdown, an area where the Irish teams target and try to get away with bloody murder. Is it cheating ? Some will say yes, some will say no. I will call it cynical, and lets be fair, that is the way Irish teams like to play, in the Pro12 Irish refs will let it go, in other competitions, other refs from other countries will not.

I like a contest at the breakdown and I think that if you enforce all of the rules rigidly, you don't get that. Thats why Barnes is such a poor referee in my opinion.

Bovine Faeces.

The rules are there. They should be enforced properly, or the rule should be removed. Barnes is a good referee because he doesn't take any mucking about, nor does he allow the players to put their own slant on what they consider should and shouldn't be allowed. Fairly obviously, some teams/or international teams in the Pro12 or Celtic side of the NH don't like him because in the cold light of day, they're routinely cheating and they don't like being found out.

Sorry mate but thats also bovine faeces... if any ref implimented the letter of the law in a game we wouldn't have a single ruck that didn't end in a penalty to one side or another!

Also Bovine Faeces.

Because if every Ref did it properly, players would learn to play properly, within the rules and I think you'd find, there'd be surprisingly few stoppages because of penalties - might be more scrums though.

Games would almost definately turn to basketball scores where 1 team goes one end and scores, because the ruck would be uncontestable, and each attack would be played under advantage, thats how quick the game would get, is that what you'r after? games would balance on simple handling mistakes, big hits, no rucks and... oh that sounds a bit familiar doesn't it?

We need the players and coaches to start respecting the laws of the game, not trying to find ways around them and breaking them.

LordDowlais wrote:We need the players and coaches to start respecting the laws of the game, not trying to find ways around them and breaking them.

So you want players and coaches to stop trying to win? Ritchie Mccaws career is based on winning at all costs, would you have prefered him to be a lesser player?

Fanster wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:We need the players and coaches to start respecting the laws of the game, not trying to find ways around them and breaking them.

So you want players and coaches to stop trying to win? Ritchie Mccaws career is based on winning at all costs, would you have prefered him to be a lesser player?

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, what is the point of us having laws in rugby at all if they are not going to be respected. Why not just have a free for all where anybody can do what ever they liked. I like a winning at all costs attitude, but the rules are there for a reason, and for me, players and coaches who do not respect the laws are a bigger issue on how the referee's interpret them.

LordDowlais wrote:

Fanster wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:We need the players and coaches to start respecting the laws of the game, not trying to find ways around them and breaking them.

So you want players and coaches to stop trying to win? Ritchie Mccaws career is based on winning at all costs, would you have prefered him to be a lesser player?

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, what is the point of us having laws in rugby at all if they are not going to be respected. Why not just have a free for all where anybody can do what ever they liked. I like a winning at all costs attitude, but the rules are there for a reason, and for me, players and coaches who do not respect the laws are a bigger issue on how the referee's interpret them.

I doubt if any coach encourages players to go in off their feet for instance. Coaches would prefer if players played within the rules. I really doubt if players want to go off their feet either!

LordDowlais wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Sin é wrote:The Laws of Rugby belong to the Unions/World Rugby - its up to them to interpret them. It would be madness to allow a body not controlled by the Unions to interpret the laws of rugby union.

The Unions/World rugby would still enforce the laws, and the refs can still be told how to enforce these laws, but the referees should not be allowed to be affiliated with any unions/branches, they should be made totally impartial.

So who pays Nigel's wages?  Who pays Barnes?  Who pays Poite?

I think we have done this numerous times on other threads, but I will answer anyway. The unions pay the refs in Wales, England, Scotland, France, ect. But the branches pay the refs in Ireland. I might be wrong as we have done this so many times.

Well go on then Notch, you give an answer, or is a face palm the only contribution you want to make to this discussion ?

Fanster wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

Fanster wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

Notch wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:Sorry rodders, I was trying to make a point but I must have messed it up. What I am trying to say is, you can never take potential bias out of the game, but Irish sides in the Pro12 will know how to play when an Irish ref is reffing them, the players know they will be able to get away with their jiggery pokery when an Irish ref is in charge. Now put Wayne Barnes in charge who refs things differently then there is a mass call for a cheating ref from the Irish, just because he likes a fair contest at the breakdown, an area where the Irish teams target and try to get away with bloody murder. Is it cheating ? Some will say yes, some will say no. I will call it cynical, and lets be fair, that is the way Irish teams like to play, in the Pro12 Irish refs will let it go, in other competitions, other refs from other countries will not.

I like a contest at the breakdown and I think that if you enforce all of the rules rigidly, you don't get that. Thats why Barnes is such a poor referee in my opinion.

Bovine Faeces.

The rules are there. They should be enforced properly, or the rule should be removed. Barnes is a good referee because he doesn't take any mucking about, nor does he allow the players to put their own slant on what they consider should and shouldn't be allowed. Fairly obviously, some teams/or international teams in the Pro12 or Celtic side of the NH don't like him because in the cold light of day, they're routinely cheating and they don't like being found out.

Sorry mate but thats also bovine faeces... if any ref implimented the letter of the law in a game we wouldn't have a single ruck that didn't end in a penalty to one side or another!

Also Bovine Faeces.

Because if every Ref did it properly, players would learn to play properly, within the rules and I think you'd find, there'd be surprisingly few stoppages because of penalties - might be more scrums though.

Games would almost definately turn to basketball scores where 1 team goes one end and scores, because the ruck would be uncontestable, and each attack would be played under advantage, thats how quick the game would get, is that what you'r after? games would balance on simple handling mistakes, big hits, no rucks and... oh that sounds a bit familiar doesn't it?

So cheating alright then. Good, we're all agreed then that rugby union can't be an enjoyable game/spectacle unless the referee allows cheating.

Fooking bollix.

Jimpy wrote:So cheating alright then. Good, we're all agreed then that rugby union can't be an enjoyable game/spectacle unless the referee allows cheating.

Fooking bollix.

Here, Here.

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.

LordDowlais wrote:

Fanster wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:We need the players and coaches to start respecting the laws of the game, not trying to find ways around them and breaking them.

So you want players and coaches to stop trying to win? Ritchie Mccaws career is based on winning at all costs, would you have prefered him to be a lesser player?

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, what is the point of us having laws in rugby at all if they are not going to be respected. Why not just have a free for all where anybody can do what ever they liked. I like a winning at all costs attitude, but the rules are there for a reason, and for me, players and coaches who do not respect the laws are a bigger issue on how the referee's interpret them.

You don't believ human nature dictates how we go about trying to get the upper hand? Do people not speed? Steal? Hurt each other? Will making laws stricter stop all of that?

No matter how strict the laws of the game are, or how harshly employed everyone involved will coach and play to win by hook or by crook, thats an absolute certainty!! It's the reason athletes dope, it's the reason footballers dive, its the reason Ritchie Mccaw does every little thing he can get away with to help his team out!!! Theres no code of conduct for winning, ask Boudjallel!

LordDowlais wrote:Well go on then Notch, you give an answer, or is a face palm the only contribution you want to make to this discussion ?

But it's been explained to you so many times! And it's so simple as well... all referees at every level are affiliated to provincial branches. Those referees who are paid to referee in professional or international rugby are managed and paid through a specialist refereeing unit which is run directly by the IRFU.

This seriously must be the fifth or sixth time we've been over this.

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.

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.

So pushing the boundaries is ok, cheating isn't? Who decides what is acceptable boundary pushing, and what is cheating? The ref does! Listen to yourself, you want total law application and respect by players and coaches, except for pushing the boundaries?! Come on!

Fanster wrote:You don't believ human nature dictates how we go about trying to get the upper hand? Do people not speed? Steal? Hurt each other? Will making laws stricter stop all of that?

No matter how strict the laws of the game are, or how harshly employed everyone involved will coach and play to win by hook or by crook, thats an absolute certainty!! It's the reason athletes dope, it's the reason footballers dive, its the reason Ritchie Mccaw does every little thing he can get away with to help his team out!!! Theres no code of conduct for winning, ask Boudjallel!

Ah well then, that makes it all alright. I will go outside hit somebody over the head with a metal pipe and take his wallet. It's ok though, it's human nature. FFS.

Rugby is a game, a game with laws, and like life in general if the laws are not applied, then we have anarchy, if the players and coaches respected these laws, the game would be much better off for it.

Fanster wrote:

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.

So pushing the boundaries is ok, cheating isn't? Who decides what is acceptable boundary pushing, and what is cheating? The ref does! Listen to yourself, you want total law application and respect by players and coaches, except for pushing the boundaries?! Come on!

No, pushing the boundaries or cheating is not ok. But that is not what made Richie McCaw the player he is. He is one of the worlds best inspite of that, not because of that.