Is reffing at the top level becoming impossible?

First topic message reminder :



An interesting piece of analysis of the final 10 minutes of France vs Wales in the 6N in the blog post below, where 3 of the 11 offences spotted by the author were actually pinged

https://theblitzdefence.wordpress.com/2017/03/24/why-professional-rugby-is-impossible-to-referee/

The overall conclusion is an interesting one - thoughts?

"Given the number of offences by each side that are ignored by the officials, we can easily see how supporters end up feeling their team has been hard done by and then blame the referee.

There isn’t an easy solution to the problem. The 3 possibilities are:

i) coaches and players back off and stop offending so frequently – which isn’t likely to happen given the win at all costs of modern rugby

ii) the officials start to penalise more offences

iii) we move towards the american football model of officiating, with a number of officials looking at different types of offences at any time"

The problem here, I think is that the Law-Makers are evolving the basic Laws of RU without giving any proper consideration to how these evolutions are going to be reffed on the field. A prime example is the Tackle Law, in my day (and I am old) if you were tackled & went to ground you "let go" of the ball you didn't roll over, place it either away from your body or over the try line, you let go & if you had any sense (ie a back) got the hell out of there. That Law was very precise, on the ground tackled don't be in contact with the ball, if you were you were penalised, easy to ref.
Now there are so many considerations, is the tackled holding on (invariably) is the 2nd defending player a support tackler or not, has the 2nd attacking player gone off his feet (again invariably), is there a double movement or not plus probably about 10 others, NO simple on the ground let go off the ball.
2 more quick ones to think about in this region, 1st why can the No9 stand a yard away from a ruck with the ball in his hands and wait until he has called up two teammates to act as obstructive blockers until he feels ready to play the ball, surely as soon as he touches the ball and is not bound onto the ruck he is in open play and is fair game. 2nd How come if a player is choke tackled and gets 1 knee to ground the tacklers must release him? he is tackled, is on the ground, it is surely HIM that is committing the offence by not releasing, penalise him.
There tackle law sorted for you Barnesy

That last point fair enough but if tackled you have to release the player as well. The big.question on choke tackles is why does no ref actually penalise the collapsed maul in this situation?

Cyril wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Not another Steve Walsh please.

Agreed. He became Australian once he sobered up though.

True, it was an odd one. You would think it would be the other way round.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Cyril wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Not another Steve Walsh please.

Agreed. He became Australian once he sobered up though.

True, it was an odd one. You would think it would be the other way round.

The Convicts Aussies are always pinching our stuff

No 7&1/2 I am not sure that you have to release the player, as the tackler you must be on your feet after the tackle having released the ball before you can play the ball again, but is that because you have tackled someone or because you are both on the floor and neither of you can be in contact with the ball?. I still however contend that if tackled players had to immediately (and that means immediately) touching the ground "let go" of the ball it would solve an awful lot of the refereeing problems and lead to a game less static and less fractured by penalty and free kicks.

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Cyril wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Not another Steve Walsh please.

Agreed. He became Australian once he sobered up though.

True, it was an odd one. You would think it would be the other way round.

The Convicts Aussies are always pinching our stuff

Having just returned from doing time in Australia (what my wife laughingly said would be a nice break) I can only say that if Steve Walsh was a beer drinker I'm not surprised he sobered up when he moved to there