Dudley Phillips

First topic message reminder :

Dudley Phillips is employed by the IRFU as a "Participation Rugby Operations Officer". He used to be part of the Leinster Branch Rugby Referees: http://www.arlb.ie/?tag=dudley-philips

This weekend he is refereeing....... Leinster.

Now, I remember being told explicitly by Sin e that this kind of thing couldn't happen.

Dudley has never refereed Leinster before.

Griff wrote:I do find this debate on bias quite fascinating.  It's intriguing that opinions on something like a refereeing decision can be split by nationality.  Welsh fans will all argue one way, Irish will all argue the other way; Irish will argue Wayne Barnes is a cheating so and so, the Welsh will say he was OK but we'll flip that around for Alain Rolland, etc.  We see it time and time again.  And we'll accuse each other of being in the wrong too.  But how or why is it split so cleanly along lines of nationality?  Perhaps bias is inherent? And if it is inherent could that trump the professionalism of the referee (it was previously suggested that a referee is professional therefore is unlikely to be biased)? I don't know what anyone on here does for jobs but many of us will class ourselves as 'professional' in some way, yet regardless of our professionalism it is nationality that seems to predict our opinion on refereeing matters.  Is there no way that could that not extend to referees too?

It's a good debate though.

You're saying we all - when all is said and done and all the debating points are exhausted - we all revert to type - we all stand by our own on Nationalistic terms?  Well, I think it's a little more complex than that when you select out individuals and particular debates - but as a general sweeping view of the topic of bias, then yes, that's True.  

But......................... there is always a but........................ how then do we play/watch sport if we always want to give ourselves the excuse that "we lost because the ref was biased against us"?  How do we ever solve that?  
We don't.  We will solve nothing if we always have the ready-made excuse available when we're feeling annoyed.  
If we sometimes feel like raising the white flag and saying: "we simply were beaten by a better side on the day" - well then, how quickly is that feeling suppressed when there is a more juicy and aggressive alternative 'narrative' available?  "We were robbed.  We were the better side.  We weren't honestly beaten.  It was a set-up. Quality was beaten by subterfuge. We're never bad enough to lose fairly and only ever lose when the officials conspire against us."

Now - many of us fall into that trap of being bitterly disappointed and directing that to the nationality of the ref/TMO etc.  Many of us fall into that trap over the years - but there are a distinct few who ALWAYS fall into the trap of needing that crutch to soothe their sense of entitlement.
Thankfully, the many outweigh the few...but it's the few who cause all the palaver.

As I mentioned a week ago. When the Welsh teams are going well there's little talk of referees but when the Irish teams start winning it starts up again.

SecretFly wrote:

Griff wrote:I do find this debate on bias quite fascinating.  It's intriguing that opinions on something like a refereeing decision can be split by nationality.  Welsh fans will all argue one way, Irish will all argue the other way; Irish will argue Wayne Barnes is a cheating so and so, the Welsh will say he was OK but we'll flip that around for Alain Rolland, etc.  We see it time and time again.  And we'll accuse each other of being in the wrong too.  But how or why is it split so cleanly along lines of nationality?  Perhaps bias is inherent? And if it is inherent could that trump the professionalism of the referee (it was previously suggested that a referee is professional therefore is unlikely to be biased)? I don't know what anyone on here does for jobs but many of us will class ourselves as 'professional' in some way, yet regardless of our professionalism it is nationality that seems to predict our opinion on refereeing matters.  Is there no way that could that not extend to referees too?

It's a good debate though.

You're saying we all - when all is said and done and all the debating points are exhausted - we all revert to type - we all stand by our own on Nationalistic terms?  Well, I think it's a little more complex than that when you select out individuals and particular debates - but as a general sweeping view of the topic of bias, then yes, that's True.  

But......................... there is always a but........................ how then do we play/watch sport if we always want to give ourselves the excuse that "we lost because the ref was biased against us"?  How do we ever solve that?  
We don't.  We will solve nothing if we always have the ready-made excuse available when we're feeling annoyed.  
If we sometimes feel like raising the white flag and saying: "we simply were beaten by a better side on the day" - well then, how quickly is that feeling suppressed when there is a more juicy and aggressive alternative 'narrative' available?  "We were robbed.  We were the better side.  We weren't honestly beaten.  It was a set-up.  Quality was beaten by subterfuge.  We're never bad enough to lose fairly and only ever lose when the officials conspire against us."

Now - many of us fall into that trap of being bitterly disappointed and directing that to the nationality of the ref/TMO etc.  Many of us fall into that trap over the years - but there are a distinct few who ALWAYS fall into the trap of needing that crutch to soothe their sense of entitlement.
Thankfully, the many outweigh the few...but it's the few who cause all the palaver.

I don't disagree Fly. On here it seems my fellow Welsh posters are most often the ones who fall into the trap you mention. Other nations fans too, but perhaps less so. But if you go looking you'll find many examples of this outside 606. Just take a look at the Munster Fans website if you dare! Sheesh, they don't hold back!

I guess my only point goes back to something I mentioned the other day. Why not try to limit the bias by removing the source of the potential bias. Even Martin Anayi is championing that. Why? Surely not to appease Welsh 606v2 posters? So the league must feel there is something in it. Not sure what their angle is, but the fact they're acting suggests there's a need to act - could it be marketing? Sponsors? Fans? World Rugby directive? Who knows.

I'll be completely honest and say that I actually do not care. Not because I'm some tree-hugging liberal who loves the world and sees no way that refs can be biased (!), but sadly because I've completely lost interest in rugby over the past year and so I simply do not care who referees a game! But I guess it matters to those who do care, and that's where we have the 'few' who cause this palaver.

But debates on nationalism and bias - I find that quite interesting from a behavioral/psychological point of view. Is it conforming to the social/national norm? The fear of going against our own kind? It's interesting stuff (to me anyway!).

profitius wrote:As I mentioned a week ago. When the Welsh teams are going well there's little talk of referees but when the Irish teams start winning it starts up again.

An excellent example of your own bias there, Profitius!  Perhaps selection bias or reporting bias?  What about when the Irish team is going bad during/after a game refereed by Wayne Barnes?!?!?!

Griff wrote:

profitius wrote:As I mentioned a week ago. When the Welsh teams are going well there's little talk of referees but when the Irish teams start winning it starts up again.

An excellent example of your own bias there, Profitius!  Perhaps selection bias or reporting bias?  What about when the Irish team is going bad during/after a game refereed by Wayne Barnes?!?!?!

The Wayne Barnes bias though has been proven though

Griff wrote:

profitius wrote:As I mentioned a week ago. When the Welsh teams are going well there's little talk of referees but when the Irish teams start winning it starts up again.

An excellent example of your own bias there, Profitius!  Perhaps selection bias or reporting bias?  What about when the Irish team is going bad during/after a game refereed by Wayne Barnes?!?!?!

It isn't his nationality that is attacked though, or rooted in some national union conspiracy. It's much more to do with his past record of reffing Irish sides. He's isn't consistent from one half of the game to the next, and that's something that Irish sides never fully understood. So it's not that he's biased, it's just the way he refs.

PhilBB wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:My take on it is quite simple.
He's a grown man being paid to do his job, I belive that like me and everyone else when they turn up for work they do the best they can.
As wouldn't you as a ref aspire to be at the top table reffing internationals?
So being biased aint gonna help you get to the top. It will ultimately see you unemployed.
I understand why it should be avoided if it can.
But really people, he is an adult in an adult world trying  to do his job. If he's good bad or indifferent so be it.
Not really worth all the agro at the end of the day. It's just a game

If you were him, would have you accepted the game? I wouldn't have.

I would have. As it's my job. But everyone is entitled to there own opinion.
We're you at the game phill? I've not seen any of it. How was he over all?

More to the point, what cruel parents call their son Dudley?

Cyril wrote:More to the point, what cruel parents call their son Dudley?

Fair point that. Maybe some players remind him off his dad that's why he's biased?

Griff wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Griff wrote:I do find this debate on bias quite fascinating.  It's intriguing that opinions on something like a refereeing decision can be split by nationality.  Welsh fans will all argue one way, Irish will all argue the other way; Irish will argue Wayne Barnes is a cheating so and so, the Welsh will say he was OK but we'll flip that around for Alain Rolland, etc.  We see it time and time again.  And we'll accuse each other of being in the wrong too.  But how or why is it split so cleanly along lines of nationality?  Perhaps bias is inherent? And if it is inherent could that trump the professionalism of the referee (it was previously suggested that a referee is professional therefore is unlikely to be biased)? I don't know what anyone on here does for jobs but many of us will class ourselves as 'professional' in some way, yet regardless of our professionalism it is nationality that seems to predict our opinion on refereeing matters.  Is there no way that could that not extend to referees too?

It's a good debate though.

You're saying we all - when all is said and done and all the debating points are exhausted - we all revert to type - we all stand by our own on Nationalistic terms?  Well, I think it's a little more complex than that when you select out individuals and particular debates - but as a general sweeping view of the topic of bias, then yes, that's True.  

But......................... there is always a but........................ how then do we play/watch sport if we always want to give ourselves the excuse that "we lost because the ref was biased against us"?  How do we ever solve that?  
We don't.  We will solve nothing if we always have the ready-made excuse available when we're feeling annoyed.  
If we sometimes feel like raising the white flag and saying: "we simply were beaten by a better side on the day" - well then, how quickly is that feeling suppressed when there is a more juicy and aggressive alternative 'narrative' available?  "We were robbed.  We were the better side.  We weren't honestly beaten.  It was a set-up.  Quality was beaten by subterfuge.  We're never bad enough to lose fairly and only ever lose when the officials conspire against us."

Now - many of us fall into that trap of being bitterly disappointed and directing that to the nationality of the ref/TMO etc.  Many of us fall into that trap over the years - but there are a distinct few who ALWAYS fall into the trap of needing that crutch to soothe their sense of entitlement.
Thankfully, the many outweigh the few...but it's the few who cause all the palaver.

I don't disagree Fly.  On here it seems my fellow Welsh posters are most often the ones who fall into the trap you mention.  Other nations fans too, but perhaps less so.  But if you go looking you'll find many examples of this outside 606.  Just take a look at the Munster Fans website if you dare!  Sheesh, they don't hold back!

I guess my only point goes back to something I mentioned the other day.  Why not try to limit the bias by removing the source of the potential bias.  Even Martin Anayi is championing that.  Why?  Surely not to appease Welsh 606v2 posters?  So the league must feel there is something in it.  Not sure what their angle is, but the fact they're acting suggests there's a need to act - could it be marketing?  Sponsors?  Fans?  World Rugby directive? Who knows.

I'll be completely honest and say that I actually do not care.  Not because I'm some tree-hugging liberal who loves the world and sees no way that refs can be biased (!), but sadly because I've completely lost interest in rugby over the past year and so I simply do not care who referees a game!  But I guess it matters to those who do care, and that's where we have the 'few' who cause this palaver.  

But debates on nationalism and bias - I find that quite interesting from a behavioral/psychological point of view.  Is it conforming to the social/national norm?  The fear of going against our own kind? It's interesting stuff (to me anyway!).

Good post, Griff.

Personally, I think nationality is just a scapegoat for one sides failings, and something that is rooted in disappointment and jealousy. It's the easiest thing to accuse another of bias. It's not so easy, for some, to actually think through their arguments and consider more rational alternatives.

Griff wrote:

I guess my only point goes back to something I mentioned the other day.  Why not try to limit the bias by removing the source of the potential bias.  Even Martin Anayi is championing that.  Why?  Surely not to appease Welsh 606v2 posters?  So the league must feel there is something in it.  Not sure what their angle is, but the fact they're acting suggests there's a need to act - could it be marketing?  Sponsors?  Fans?  World Rugby directive? Who knows.

But debates on nationalism and bias - I find that quite interesting from a behavioural/psychological point of view.  Is it conforming to the social/national norm?  The fear of going against our own kind? It's interesting stuff (to me anyway!).

That to me sounds too much like 'appeasement'.  Cut out the sources of 'potential' bias to appease the crowd who shout the loudest and most aggressively either during a game or afterwards in the social network streams.  Give the moaners, whiners and eternally vexed what they want - give in to them, reward them for their endless repetition that when they lose it's always because of a suspect 'biased' decision or two and not just their players or coaches underperforming.

I don't like the sound of appeasing eternal groaners, Griff - why? Because when they realise their power, their very nature makes them want more.  Off they'll go again on another crusade to attack some other seeming injustice that keeps preventing their favourite side from lifting a cup or winning a League.  
We appeased the big French and English sect and what were we told, and by a good few Welsh posters here too?  That it was for the best.  That appeasing AP and Top14 would make Pro12 more competitive and meritocratic, and all partners in Pro12 would be happy again.  That worked out well, didn't it    
Some people always want excuses and yes, I would say that without a shadow of a doubt, it's the social media world, and the 'campaign' pressure it can exert these days that is forming part of Martin Anayi's resolutions on 'bias'
You cannot get rid of potential Bias.  You cannot.  It's a joke.  But let's appease a few who have openly admitted their main aim is the end of Pro12.  Let's have New Zealanders, French, South African and Aussie refs flown in.  I'm not against it.  But it won't stop the habitual, career groaners from attacking 'bias' - I guarantee that.  "That f**king Kiwi made us lose that game because they're sore that we scored as many tries as them in our last International meeting."

On that bit about the fear of going against their own kind.  The simple love of their own kind?  Is regionalised self-love a new bad emotion in the globalisation world of universal forced harmony and pseudo-brotherly love??

SecretFly wrote:

Griff wrote:

I guess my only point goes back to something I mentioned the other day.  Why not try to limit the bias by removing the source of the potential bias.  Even Martin Anayi is championing that.  Why?  Surely not to appease Welsh 606v2 posters?  So the league must feel there is something in it.  Not sure what their angle is, but the fact they're acting suggests there's a need to act - could it be marketing?  Sponsors?  Fans?  World Rugby directive? Who knows.

But debates on nationalism and bias - I find that quite interesting from a behavioural/psychological point of view.  Is it conforming to the social/national norm?  The fear of going against our own kind? It's interesting stuff (to me anyway!).

That to me sounds too much like 'appeasement'.  Cut out the sources of 'potential' bias to appease the crowd who shout the loudest and most aggressively either during a game or afterwards in the social network streams.  Give the moaners, whiners and eternally vexed what they want - give in to them, reward them for their endless repetition that when they lose it's always because of a suspect 'biased' decision or two and not just their players or coaches underperforming.

I don't like the sound of appeasing eternal groaners, Griff - why? Because when they realise their power, their very nature makes them want more.  Off they'll go again on another crusade to attack some other seeming injustice that keeps preventing their favourite side from lifting a cup or winning a League.  
We appeased the big French and English sect and what were we told, and by a good few Welsh posters here too?  That it was for the best.  That appeasing AP and Top14 would make Pro12 more competitive and meritocratic, and all partners in Pro12 would be happy again.  That worked out well, didn't it    
Some people always want excuses and yes, I would say that without a shadow of a doubt, it's the social media world, and the 'campaign' pressure it can exert these days that is forming part of Martin Anayi's resolutions on 'bias'
You cannot get rid of potential Bias.  You cannot.  It's a joke.  But let's appease a few who have openly admitted their main aim is the end of Pro12.  Let's have New Zealanders, French, South African and Aussie refs flown in.  I'm not against it.  But it won't stop the habitual, career groaners from attacking 'bias' - I guarantee that.  "That f**king Kiwi made us lose that game because they're sore that we scored as many tries as them in our last International meeting."

On that bit about the fear of going against their own kind.  The simple love of their own kind?  Is regionalised self-love a new bad emotion in the globalisation world of universal forced harmony and pseudo-brotherly love??

Doesn't sound like appeasement to me. Seems more like controlling variables. Answer me this: why does the IRB insist on neutral refs for international matches? That's not to appease the 606 shouters, surely? It predates 606 and message boards I think. It would be much easier to use an Irish international ref in Ireland, or let Wayne Barnes ref England v Ireland at Twickers. It's to remove a potential source of bias, isn't it? You can't remove it all, you're right. There will always still be the 'home' ball boy delaying giving the ball to the away player. There will always be the more vocal home crowd potentially influencing the ref. There will always be the away dressing room tampered with to be less hospitable for the away team! But a neutral ref is one less thing to add into the mix. I hate to use the term 'level playing field' as that seems to make 606 go into meltdown, but neutral refs is an attempt to move more towards that. So I don't think personally the suggestion is to do with appeasement. We're in a multi-national competition so I think we should follow the example set in other multi-nation competitions such as the 6 nations and provide an impartial adjudicator (or perhaps deemed more impartial than a guy with the same accent as one of the teams ).

Griff wrote:We're in a multi-national competition so I think we should follow the example set in other multi-nation competitions such as the 6 nations and provide an impartial adjudicator.

That's all well and good, but 'neutrality' can't come at the cost of competence. If the current crop of Italian and Scottish referees aren't up to the required standard, do we still chuck them the whistle and hope for the best?

Well I'm glad you brought that up...

Wayne Barnes - the Irish have spoken.  It's clear, it's repetitive, it's heartfelt.  We accuse him of Potential Bias and look to his record as a kind of marker point.  Had some Welsh Regional boys here had such pointed evidence to hand for Pro12 officials, it would be out there backing them up.

So I now declare International Rugby must be seen to support the idea of controlled variables.  I trust Wayne Barnes will no longer ref at any Irish game ever again on the grounds that Irish moaners do not deem him an 'impartial adjudicator'.

Glad you sorted that out for us Griff.  I'll use your posts as supportive argument when I send off my missive to World Rugby this very instant!

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

Griff wrote:We're in a multi-national competition so I think we should follow the example set in other multi-nation competitions such as the 6 nations and provide an impartial adjudicator.

That's all well and good, but 'neutrality' can't come at the cost of competence. If the current crop of Italian and Scottish referees aren't up to the required standard, do we still chuck them the whistle and hope for the best?

and BTW, most Irish posters are more than happy to see Nigel turn up to ref a game between one of ours and one of his. And the fecker doesn't even always let us win!

Griff wrote:

profitius wrote:As I mentioned a week ago. When the Welsh teams are going well there's little talk of referees but when the Irish teams start winning it starts up again.

An excellent example of your own bias there, Profitius!  Perhaps selection bias or reporting bias?  What about when the Irish team is going bad during/after a game refereed by Wayne Barnes?!?!?!

Isn't Ben Whitehouse from Swansea. And wasn't he reffing Connacht v Ospreys the other week. I didn't see any threads or even a mention of that anywhere.


That Wayne Barnes performance was controversial because he completely changed the way he reffed in both halves.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

Griff wrote:We're in a multi-national competition so I think we should follow the example set in other multi-nation competitions such as the 6 nations and provide an impartial adjudicator.

That's all well and good, but 'neutrality' can't come at the cost of competence. If the current crop of Italian and Scottish referees aren't up to the required standard, do we still chuck them the whistle and hope for the best?

Obviously not. I've mentioned previously sharing resources with other leagues. It would be good for the refs AND our players to ref in other leagues/be reffed by refs from other leagues. And we send refs in their direction too.

Aww hell, maybe it's me! I just don't see what's wrong with neutral refs. I don't see it as caving in to right wing extremists. I just see it as...... normal. I prefer the 'neatness' of it I guess. Sorry.

Is it only me who can never see the damn emoticons anymore? or is that a site issue?

profitius wrote:

Griff wrote:

profitius wrote:As I mentioned a week ago. When the Welsh teams are going well there's little talk of referees but when the Irish teams start winning it starts up again.

An excellent example of your own bias there, Profitius!  Perhaps selection bias or reporting bias?  What about when the Irish team is going bad during/after a game refereed by Wayne Barnes?!?!?!

Isn't Ben Whitehouse from Swansea. And wasn't he reffing Connacht v Ospreys the other week. I didn't see any threads or even a mention of that anywhere.


That Wayne Barnes performance was controversial because he completely changed the way he reffed in both halves.

There have been plenty of threads about reffing in the Pro 12.

SecretFly wrote:Well I'm glad you brought that up...

Wayne Barnes - the Irish have spoken.  It's clear, it's repetitive, it's heartfelt.  We accuse him of Potential Bias and look to his record as a kind of marker point.  Had some Welsh Regional boys here had such pointed evidence to hand for Pro12 officials, it would be out there backing them up.

So I now declare International Rugby must be seen to support the idea of controlled variables.  I trust Wayne Barnes will no longer ref at any Irish game ever again on the grounds that Irish moaners do not deem him an 'impartial adjudicator'.

Glad you sorted that out for us Griff.  I'll use your posts as supportive argument when I send off my missive to World Rugby this very instant!

Sarcasm.  Great. How to shut down a debate.

Griff wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

Griff wrote:We're in a multi-national competition so I think we should follow the example set in other multi-nation competitions such as the 6 nations and provide an impartial adjudicator.

That's all well and good, but 'neutrality' can't come at the cost of competence. If the current crop of Italian and Scottish referees aren't up to the required standard, do we still chuck them the whistle and hope for the best?

Obviously not.  I've mentioned previously sharing resources with other leagues.  It would be good for the refs AND our players to ref in other leagues/be reffed by refs from other leagues.  And we send refs in their direction too.  

Aww hell, maybe it's me!  I just don't see what's wrong with neutral refs.  I don't see it as caving in to right wing extremists.  I just see it as...... normal.  I prefer the 'neatness' of it I guess.  Sorry.  

I agree that would be the neatest solution, but the starting point has to be competence, doesn't it?

I'm not saying the refs we have now are brilliant, but the answer can't be to give matches to refs that are worse.

N.B. Not having a go, just debating.

Griff wrote:

Aww hell, maybe it's me!  I just don't see what's wrong with neutral refs.  I don't see it as caving in to right wing extremists.  I just see it as...... normal.  I prefer the 'neatness' of it I guess.  Sorry.  

And if you did witness 'neutral' refs coming in, Griff; and if you then saw the mood swing downward yet again as ref bias became again a frequent subject in social media - this time the English ref being accused of being in favour of an Irish team because he's from Liverpool which has always had a bit of a Irish link culturally.... or that the French ref was corrupt for letting the Italian side beat the Scottish team because his mother is from Milan?

If you began to see all that kinda stuff - and I personally full believe that you would - would you then put aside your cynicism and admit there is just no pleasing some people?

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

Griff wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

Griff wrote:We're in a multi-national competition so I think we should follow the example set in other multi-nation competitions such as the 6 nations and provide an impartial adjudicator.

That's all well and good, but 'neutrality' can't come at the cost of competence. If the current crop of Italian and Scottish referees aren't up to the required standard, do we still chuck them the whistle and hope for the best?

Obviously not.  I've mentioned previously sharing resources with other leagues.  It would be good for the refs AND our players to ref in other leagues/be reffed by refs from other leagues.  And we send refs in their direction too.  

Aww hell, maybe it's me!  I just don't see what's wrong with neutral refs.  I don't see it as caving in to right wing extremists.  I just see it as...... normal.  I prefer the 'neatness' of it I guess.  Sorry.  

I agree that would be the neatest solution, but the starting point has to be competence, doesn't it? I'm not saying the refs we have now are brilliant, but the answer can't be to give matches to refs that are worse.

N.B. Not having a go, just debating.

Completely agree

My last line wasn't aimed at you LP. Just in general as I appear to be swimming against the tide on this one!

Griff wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

Griff wrote:We're in a multi-national competition so I think we should follow the example set in other multi-nation competitions such as the 6 nations and provide an impartial adjudicator.

That's all well and good, but 'neutrality' can't come at the cost of competence. If the current crop of Italian and Scottish referees aren't up to the required standard, do we still chuck them the whistle and hope for the best?

Obviously not.  I've mentioned previously sharing resources with other leagues.  It would be good for the refs AND our players to ref in other leagues/be reffed by refs from other leagues.  And we send refs in their direction too.  

Aww hell, maybe it's me!  I just don't see what's wrong with neutral refs.  I don't see it as caving in to right wing extremists.  I just see it as...... normal.  I prefer the 'neatness' of it I guess.  Sorry.  

I agree with you. PRO12 should work towards neutral refs in all games. Dudley shouldn't have been officiating the Ospreys game.

Ensuring all games are neutral is an appeasement to the frothy ones though. I think it's ok to appease to those who have a perception of bias because it doesn't hurt the other side, in this case. It does actually look more professional to have neutral refs at all games. This is something that PRO12 are already committed to, and something that the frothy mouths do not want to acknowledge. To do so would weaken their little agenda against PRO12.

Griff wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Well I'm glad you brought that up...

Wayne Barnes - the Irish have spoken.  It's clear, it's repetitive, it's heartfelt.  We accuse him of Potential Bias and look to his record as a kind of marker point.  Had some Welsh Regional boys here had such pointed evidence to hand for Pro12 officials, it would be out there backing them up.

So I now declare International Rugby must be seen to support the idea of controlled variables.  I trust Wayne Barnes will no longer ref at any Irish game ever again on the grounds that Irish moaners do not deem him an 'impartial adjudicator'.

Glad you sorted that out for us Griff.  I'll use your posts as supportive argument when I send off my missive to World Rugby this very instant!

Sarcasm.  Great.  How to shut down a debate.

It's a true and valid point, put humorously - not sarcastically.

Why should groaners get their way about implied bias in one kind of competition and not in another? People would rightly laugh at the idea that Irish people should be allowed dictate who gets to ref them and who doesn't? You'd be the first to laugh off such a demand. Potential bias is everywhere. Welsh people have been animated about it in Pro12. The Irish have been animated about it in International. Which has more right to seek the end of potential bias?

SecretFly wrote:

Griff wrote:

Aww hell, maybe it's me!  I just don't see what's wrong with neutral refs.  I don't see it as caving in to right wing extremists.  I just see it as...... normal.  I prefer the 'neatness' of it I guess.  Sorry.  

And if you did witness 'neutral' refs coming in, Griff; and if you then saw the mood swing downward yet again as ref bias became again a frequent subject in social media - this time the English ref being accused of being in favour of an Irish team because he's from Liverpool which has always had a bit of a Irish link culturally.... or that the French ref was corrupt for letting the Italian side beat the Scottish team because his mother is from Milan?

If you began to see all that kinda stuff - and I personally full believe that you would - would you then put aside your cynicism and admit there is just no pleasing some people?

I think we'd see a lot less than we do now because the links you suggest are much more tenuous. Conversely if we started having refs that were blood relatives with the captains of the team they're reffing I think we'd see more whingeing. So we're trying to move in the opposite direction rather than towards it.

I've never disagreed that there's no pleasing some people. I completely agree that there will always be whingers.

Will pick this back up later. Got to go off to teach. You'll never guess what..... bias in research! Honestly. Probably why I'm interested in this topic today.

profitius wrote:That Wayne Barnes performance was controversial because he completely changed the way he reffed in both halves.

He was just adapting to his own refereeing. Isn't that what we ask of the players? It's not his fault if they can't keep up.

Cyril wrote:

profitius wrote:That Wayne Barnes performance was controversial because he completely changed the way he reffed in both halves.

He was just adapting to his own refereeing. Isn't that what we ask of the players? It's not his fault if they can't keep up.

He was adapting to his own refereeing?



Well spotted Cyril!

Dudley was adapting to his own refereeing, you idiots. Close this thread now. It has been solved.

Griff wrote:Will pick this back up later.  Got to go off to teach.  You'll never guess what..... bias in research!  Honestly.  Probably why I'm interested in this topic today.

Well, if you want to research bias internet forums are a veritable PhD in waiting... of course, not one any of us would be impartial enough to work on...

Cyril wrote:

profitius wrote:That Wayne Barnes performance was controversial because he completely changed the way he reffed in both halves.

He was just adapting to his own refereeing. Isn't that what we ask of the players? It's not his fault if they can't keep up.

In a funny way, I actually agree with this. If he was unhappy with his own performance in the first half he's got every right to change to get 'better' at how he refs the game in the second half. Unfortunately it's a complete disaster for the players trying to keep up. A lot is made of Barnes in Ireland because the way we play the breakdown is a bit of a free for all and he goes beyond wanting it to be whiter than white- he penalises things which are just what sometimes happens when you have a bunch of massive men trying to get on the same ball on a wet pitch. People lose their footing, they are penalised for being off their feet etc. Now Barnes is a guy who wouldn't have allowed that Ruddock try, I feel, because he has no empathy for the give and take that has to exist in law. And, of course, he penalises all the clever and illegal breakdown stuff that sometimes wins us Irish sides games while he's at it.

I don't like his style as a referee because I really don'tt enjoy watching games that are reffed that way, at all, but he's usually consistent. People are always slagging him but like all unpopular refs people cherry pick very specific examples to make their point. I mean even I have a dislike of the guy but who's to say I'm not just seeing what I expect to see as well?

Well ignoring the rest of the debate completely, I think country neutral refs are a good idea. Hopefully, enough have been developed by 2019 as planned.

I think the biggest thing people forget is law 6.4
The referee is the sole judge of fact and of Law during a match.

So if the ref says it's so it is.
The players understand this. I think fans need to aswell.
Yes we need more quality refs. Yes they should be "neutral" however you judge that. But most of all they are people, doing a job. Yes they have bad days, just like the players, they ain't perfect (unlike John Eales).
Just except it and move on

Well after watching the BT/Aviva premiership highlights I'm going to change my stance on this one. So was it a double movement? Going by the laws then it's more likely that it is unlikely - perhaps it's now another grey area (one that doesn't jeopardise the safety and well-being of the player thankfully, though not so sure about a players credibility...) and that often comes down to the ref's interpretation. I seen a few instances in the prem highlights where a penalty might have been given but the ref would wave it on and favour the attacking team. I think these 'double movements' or whatever we're calling them happen more often than everyone notices and blowing up for all of them would be showing no empathy for the game. So therefore I would have awarded the try too, but I'm not saying that I agree with some other decisions made by Dudley on the night...

The try was absolutely fine. Don't know about the rest as I haven't watched the game, but with Dudley officiating I'm sure there are a few talking points.

It's ironic that Ulster won our game with a slightly    controversial penalty, and very little complaints from the Osprey fans, or the loony lot.

They can't complain really, Ulster were smart and didn't really break any laws with that penalty the sealed it. Ospreys can blame themselves for not being able to add to their early score.

mikey_dragon wrote:They can't complain really, Ulster were smart and didn't really break any laws with that penalty the sealed it. Ospreys can blame themselves for not being able to add to their early score.

Hmmm .... it was our prop holding cracknell in that won us the penalty. Some refs, like Owens, wouldn't give the penalty, others would.

As a tail-ender to this interesting discussion about neutrality of officials raised by PhilBB, the following was included in an Irish Times article today:

"This issue of neutral match officials is a major bugbear in the Pro12 when there are outcome defining decisions made by referees. It doesn’t matter whether they are right or wrong in their calls; it’s not fair on the officials to have their integrity questioned based on where they were born.
The Guinness Pro12 organisers have made strides forward in spending money on neutral television match officials and on occasions one of the assistant referees but it would make sense to have a cross pollination of referees in the Pro12, Aviva Premiership and French Top 14.
The money to facilitate that process should be taken from the revenue generated by television, marketing, advertising and ticket sales from the European Champions Cup and Challenge Cup tournaments.
After all if Wayne Barnes refereed in France, John Lacey in England and Pascal Gauzere in Ireland more often for example, it would surely foster a greater entente cordiale between the clubs and officials, as they got used to each others’ styles, benefitting both domestic leagues and European competitions."

carpet baboon wrote:
I would have. As it's my job. But everyone is entitled to there own opinion.
We're you at the game phill? I've not seen any of it. How was he over all?

I was there. He was awful. I'd happily suggest that he suffered from a subconscious favouring of Leinster, as would be natural. His key decisions affected the result.

I wouldn't have taken it if I were him. I would have noted that there was a reason he'd never reffed Leinster before in his 5/6 year career and it was only right and proper that it should remain that way.

There were three big losers on Saturday evening: my team, the game itself but, sadly, Dudley was the biggest loser. He was placed in an impossible position and performed as expected.

mikey_dragon wrote:Well after watching the BT/Aviva premiership highlights I'm going to change my stance on this one. So was it a double movement? Going by the laws then it's more likely that it is unlikely - perhaps it's now another grey area (one that doesn't jeopardise the safety and well-being of the player thankfully, though not so sure about a players credibility...) and that often comes down to the ref's interpretation. I seen a few instances in the prem highlights where a penalty might have been given but the ref would wave it on and favour the attacking team. I think these 'double movements' or whatever we're calling them happen more often than everyone notices and blowing up for all of them would be showing no empathy for the game. So therefore I would have awarded the try too, but I'm not saying that I agree with some other decisions made by Dudley on the night...

Two things about the try:

1. It was not Ruddock's movement alone that forced the ball over the line. Therefore, it clearly was not immediate.
2. Dudley didn't go upstairs for it. He put himself in this terrible position by not doing so.

Thought the fact of where the refs were born was never coming into this argument and it was all down to who makes out their pay slips!

In all seriousness the last point is the key for me Pot. WR should be pushing various leagues to do more exchanges. It would help both player and ref to see different styles more.

PhilBB wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:Well after watching the BT/Aviva premiership highlights I'm going to change my stance on this one. So was it a double movement? Going by the laws then it's more likely that it is unlikely - perhaps it's now another grey area (one that doesn't jeopardise the safety and well-being of the player thankfully, though not so sure about a players credibility...) and that often comes down to the ref's interpretation. I seen a few instances in the prem highlights where a penalty might have been given but the ref would wave it on and favour the attacking team. I think these 'double movements' or whatever we're calling them happen more often than everyone notices and blowing up for all of them would be showing no empathy for the game. So therefore I would have awarded the try too, but I'm not saying that I agree with some other decisions made by Dudley on the night...

Two things about the try:

1. It was not Ruddock's movement alone that forced the ball over the line. Therefore, it clearly was not immediate.
2. Dudley didn't go upstairs for it. He put himself in this terrible position by not doing so.

You do know that the 'reaching for the line' is a separate movement? Otherwise it would be a straight forward try.

Dudley didn't need to go upstairs. It was a perfectly fine try.

Munchkin wrote:

You do know that the 'reaching for the line' is a separate movement? Otherwise it would be a straight forward try.

Dudley didn't need to go upstairs. It was a perfectly fine try.

Yes, I know that reaching for the line can be a separate movement. I also know what the law says. As that wasn't an immediate placement of the ball, the lease Dudley should have done was gone upstairs.

That there is so much difference of opinion on whether or not it was a try should educate us all that it was not a 'perfectly fine' try.

PhilBB wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

You do know that the 'reaching for the line' is a separate movement? Otherwise it would be a straight forward try.

Dudley didn't need to go upstairs. It was a perfectly fine try.

Yes, I know that reaching for the line can be a separate movement. I also know what the law says. As that wasn't an immediate placement of the ball, the lease Dudley should have done was gone upstairs.

That there is so much difference of opinion on whether or not it was a try should educate us all that it was not a 'perfectly fine' try.

Phil yesterday you couldn't tell us what immediate was but today you are saying the movement wasn't immediate?

Ignoring the fact Anscombe failed to release which was the first penalty, in the red zone making it a penalty try

So can we end the debate, he got two decisions wrong in the same incident but got the correct result

Phil, would you accept that 90% if not more of the ball placements in a match don't seem to fit in with your idea of immediately?

PhilBB wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

You do know that the 'reaching for the line' is a separate movement? Otherwise it would be a straight forward try.

Dudley didn't need to go upstairs. It was a perfectly fine try.

Yes, I know that reaching for the line can be a separate movement. I also know what the law says. As that wasn't an immediate placement of the ball, the lease Dudley should have done was gone upstairs.

That there is so much difference of opinion on whether or not it was a try should educate us all that it was not a 'perfectly fine' try.

Ruddock made the reach as fast as he possibly could. What you describe as an acceptable reach is a straight forward try.

It was a perfectly fine try. The main source of contention comes from your lot on Gwlad. All the other forums I've read seem fine with it. I believe it's more a case of some of you deciding that Dudley was going to favour Leinster before the game started.

marty2086 wrote:
Phil yesterday you couldn't tell us what immediate was but today you are saying the movement wasn't immediate?

Ignoring the fact Anscombe failed to release which was the first penalty, in the red zone making it a penalty try

So can we end the debate, he got two decisions wrong in the same incident but got the correct result

I didn't answer your question on immediate as it was a moronic question. Ruddock's movement was not immediate.

Where is the 'red zone'? I'll have a read of the law that mentions that, if you could point me to it. Thanks.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Phil, would you accept that 90% if not more of the ball placements in a match don't seem to fit in with your idea of immediately?

Nope.

Munchkin wrote:
Ruddock made the reach as fast as he possibly could. What you describe as an acceptable reach is a straight forward try.

It was a perfectly fine try. The main source of contention comes from your lot on Gwlad. All the other forums I've read seem fine with it. I believe it's more a case of some of you deciding that Dudley was going to favour Leinster before the game started.

His first movement was to place the ball towards his own try line, so it is simply untrue to claim he made the reach as fast he possibly could. It was his second movement.

Twitter is awash with folk noting it was, at best, a decision for the TMO.

Sorry you're wrong on each claim you make.

PhilBB wrote:

Munchkin wrote:
Ruddock made the reach as fast as he possibly could. What you describe as an acceptable reach is a straight forward try.

It was a perfectly fine try. The main source of contention comes from your lot on Gwlad. All the other forums I've read seem fine with it. I believe it's more a case of some of you deciding that Dudley was going to favour Leinster before the game started.

His first movement was to place the ball towards his own try line, so it is simply untrue to claim he made the reach as fast he possibly could. It was his second movement.

Twitter is awash with folk noting it was, at best, a decision for the TMO.

Sorry you're wrong on each claim you make.

He was adjusting to make the reach, and then reached for the line immediately. He couldn't have reached any sooner. I didn't take note of the time, but couldn't have been more than a couple of seconds. How the player moves his body matters not a jot. You would be inventing laws to suit your argument if you claim it does. According to the Law of the game, the try was perfectly fine.

Probably a Twitter invaded by your lot from Gwlad.

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:
Phil yesterday you couldn't tell us what immediate was but today you are saying the movement wasn't immediate?

Ignoring the fact Anscombe failed to release which was the first penalty, in the red zone making it a penalty try

So can we end the debate, he got two decisions wrong in the same incident but got the correct result

I didn't answer your question on immediate as it was a moronic question. Ruddock's movement was not immediate.

Where is the 'red zone'? I'll have a read of the law that mentions that, if you could point me to it. Thanks.

Now who's being moronic?

Saying something is immediate then refusing to give your definition, now you are being pedantic on an oft use term because its not in the laws?

How about not releasing a player and preventing them from placing the ball fast enough to meet your secret definition of immediate? How about that one?