Damned if you do, damned if you don't

(subtitled who would want to be a referee)
The June tests are over, and from reading the numerous comments made both on message boards and in the more widespread web or paper press, it seems that one of the lasting memories for some people has been the "rightness" or "wrongness" of decisions made by the refs. On thinking over this the thought comes to mind that no matter what they decide, it is construed as an incorrect decision by someone. And I wonder whether this is at all fair. Should the clock be wound back to the good old days, before endless video reviewd, TMO decisions and trial by TV - back to the days when the overriding principle was the referee was right - regardless of the decision he made? Or do we continue down the present road which has a significant risk of resulting in referees giving up because they are disillusioned with being publicly castigated for a decision which was made with the best intent on the limited information available in the heat of the moment, and which is subsequently proved to be "incorrect" on the twentieth review of the fifteen different camera angles available to the analyst.
I would point out - albeit ineffectually as it probably won't be heeded - that I am not looking to start a thread about how aggrieved people are about specific ref decisions, but rather a discussion about whether it is appropriate for message board posters or more importantly international rugby coaches to "dis" the referees in a public domain about their decisions. Refs are human and will make mistakes - and I guess there is an argument for the mistakes being pointed out to them, but maybe the correct channels are not to go on record in the tabloid press.

We need to go through this pain as we develop and evolve...... all on a path to robot refs and computer based decision making. It’s the future.

I found it interesting that this year World Rugby have been far quicker to comment on incidents. Albeit only in the NZ Test series, but they were making statements just a few days after the game and seemed to happily point out their referees mistake. Something I don't think I've seen before.

Like wise the noise about ref decisions from Hansen and Chieka seemed even louder then usual, perhaps things are coming to a head?

It's the fashion, innit.  And it's been developing for years but in the last two or three it's become a worldwide epidemic.... far worse than Global Climate Warming/"Change"

It's the mass world psychosis of feeling aggrieved.  
We woz robbed!  
We is not equal!  
We woz abused!  
We woz downtrodden!  
We is offended!  
We is getting picked on!  
The world don't love us!  
We need to sue someone!  
We need to sue anyone!  
We need compo!  
We need a cry!  
We need to get on to the Victoria Derbyshire Show to wimper and have sad music playing in the background with some hankies at the ready!  
We need a group hug!  
We need a safe zone!

We need more sanity returned to the world, that's what we need.....and we can start the process by having no more Irish refs in Pro14.........

I think that it is consistency that people want more than anything else. We all understand that referee's make mistakes and usually accept them but when referee's are extremely inconsistent in matches it becomes frustrating.

These June test series (granted I only watched the NZ-France, SA-England and Australia-Ireland) seriously showed some dramatic inconsistencies in rulings. Even down to the fact that a referee and TMO were not fully understanding of the rules, or ignored them.

eirebilly wrote:I think that it is consistency that people want more than anything else. We all understand that referee's make mistakes and usually accept them but when referee's are extremely inconsistent in matches it becomes frustrating.

These June test series (granted I only watched the NZ-France, SA-England and Australia-Ireland) seriously showed some dramatic inconsistencies in rulings. Even down to the fact that a referee and TMO were not fully understanding of the rules, or ignored them.

I'd have to dispute that, Billy.  I think that's one of the big problems.  Many rugby observers/fans around the world Don't understand that referees make mistakes.  They are completely intolerant of any and all 'mistakes'.  They view mistakes as cynical, as bias driven, as sins and as reasons to keep pushing for so many checks and balances on the reffing role that the Refs now don't have a clue how to appear legitimate in the eyes of the Always Angry.  

Just look at that last game against Australia.  The last throw of the dice for Australia.  A home crowd thinking that momentum was probably enough to swing the final ruling on Stockdale's knock down in their favour.   - The ref don't need a TMO in that decision, surely?.  Just call it- "Penalty Try!" - as Pocock muttered.  But the ref went to the TMO.   NO!!!  He's going to try and shift responsibility to the TMO, the Cheat!  He's trying to drag Ireland over the line - to fuzzy the water.
But the Ref went to the TMO................. for safety - for his safety.  To let everyone know he wasn't just going to do a quick judgement on the ground in real time - damned if you do and damned if you don't.  
And then what happened?  The TMO virtually read out slowly each bloody letter of his deliberation - so slowly.   And why was that needed?  Because somehow the crowd and viewers demand that officials realise that time on the clock determines how Serious any infringement is.  The TMO felt the need to emphasise each and every bloody word of his judgement to satisfy the Always Angry that he was doing justice to the Drama of the occasion.  Had he made a quick judgement like he normally would do in the middle of a busy game, then he would have been even more savaged by the crowd and the media.  So he felt the need to change his job and not speak to the ref at all but directly to the viewing audience.  His speech was for the baying crowd to explain to them why he had made his decision and 'Please don't Lynch me.'

So the forever angry get to dictate the Drama of a game now.  Every decision a ref or TMO makes should technically have the same weight and routine as each other - workman-like and not listening to any crowd reactions.  But they are human - and they do listen to crowd reactions - and the crowd want them to listen to their reactions, that's what being an active crowd means; trying to swing the ref's opinion.  The crowd that respond to reffing decisions know they are as biased in the conclusions they want to see happen as allegedly the refs are in being 'inconsistent'.

Michael Cheika thinks all officials are against him and his team.  If he says it, if the media mimic what he says or asks him questions about it then the issue of refs stay in the public domain.  But what did Schmidt say?  As experienced a coach as Cheika is.  He said 'well we could have had legitimate concerns too during the game about decisions but I suppose it all comes down to perspective.  That is to say, Joe was admitting that his side won the game, so few complaints about the ref.....   Cheika would have no issues with the ref had his side won.  
There were bad decisions during the Summer series but there were bad decisions in the 70s, the 80s, the 90s etc etc.  There'll be bad decisions in ten years time, in 60 year's time.  But the 'Narrative' of refs always being inconsistent is a gimmick invented by the media, the social media and Always Angry fans and coaches to sell stories, to keep pundits chatting and to soothe the pain of loss.

Two things have gone wrong with refereeing in recent years.

Firstly we introduced TMOs. I have no problem with referees making mistakes. TMOs undermine referees and still get things wrong.

Secondly there has been a growth in chatting back from players. World Rugby should reiterate that the referee's word is final and instruct them that anyone talking back should receive an instant red card for the first offence.

Perhaps we need to replace the TMO with a committee.

Pete330v2 wrote:Perhaps we need to replace the TMO with a committee.

A committee of 44,000?

On the BIG SCREEN.  

"Aussie Fan One!  Give us your vote please!"  

"It's a Penalty Try, ain't it... and another Penalty Try for Sexton's guff throughout the gyme!"

"Thank you for your Vote.  Now we'll have a five minute break from our sponsors and we'll be right back to hear the vote of Ireland Fan One!!!"

Yeah...could be a real money spinner for Rugby Union Pete.  

I can understand and probably accept that the fans of a particular team will seize on any error by the ref as justification that they should have won rather than lost - I however think that coaches should be a little bit more restrained in their pronouncements - and maybe I am wrong but I think some are more appropriate in their choice of words when quizzed by the media. Maybe thats just down to temperament but I'm not sure Schmidt would have come out like Cheika did in the event that the ref/TMO had come to a different decision at the end of the Ireland game and awarded a penalty try for a deliberate knock-on. And for all the fuss over refereeing and accusations of bias in the NH about SH refs getting in wrong it appears it is Hansen and Cheika who are complaining the most about ref standards.

nah we've come too far with technology to go back now. We're also far far better at its use than Football which is currently struggling with VAR.

The only issue we have a lack of communication between the officials and part of this is because the comms is made public.

The TMO in the last NZ vs France game tried to point out that the ref was in the road by saying "are you ok with that" when what he should have said was "I think you should review the screen as I think you've obstructed the French defender" - This flagging of the incident should have been relayed to the ref privately so no one else heard and then the ref could have reviewed the matter and then made comment on the review.

Refs don't have eyes in the back of their heads so unless something they've missed is clearly pointed out to them then how are they to made the right call???

tigertattie wrote:

Refs don't have eyes in the back of their heads so unless something they've missed is clearly pointed out to them then how are they to made the right call???  

Oh come off it, tattie The cute hoor Pro14 ones do. They got eyes everywhere and a nod is as good as a wink for them rascals when running their betting scams...

And of course I have to add for the Always Angry mob that I do but jest with something called satire.

Surely one way to fix mistakes is you include the 2 assistants who are qualified refs themselves.  If the ARs were to help out more we might get more top refs aswell

I understand difference in interpretation between refs but not during the same game.  That's what bugs me the most.

Agree about reviews should be off mic and when all four have made a decision it is made public. So that no one knows what is said players must stand 10/15m back from the officals

poissonrouge wrote:I can understand and probably accept that the fans of a particular team will seize on any error by the ref as justification that they should have won rather than lost - I however think that coaches should be a little bit more restrained in their pronouncements - and maybe I am wrong but I think some are more appropriate in their choice of words when quizzed by the media. Maybe thats just down to temperament but I'm not sure Schmidt would have come out like Cheika did in the event that the ref/TMO had come to a different decision at the end of the Ireland game and awarded a penalty try for a deliberate knock-on. And for all the fuss over refereeing and accusations of bias in the NH about SH refs getting in wrong it appears it is Hansen and Cheika who are complaining the most about ref standards.

I think iof you have a look at the post match press conferences of Hansen, he wasnt complaining about the referees, he actually agreeing with them and even stated that he felt sorry for Angus Gardner, as it was the laws that dictated the controversial decisions not the odd bad call made by refs (and coaches and players) every game.

I think the 42.ie does a good referee review.
http://www.the42.ie/ref-review-ireland-wallabies-second-test-4083054-Jun2018/

it goes over big calls and presses the ones that the ref got correct which is a little different.

Never going to catch on in polite society Kingshu.

How it's done is all wrong anyway.

It should be like the old gladiator days. TRY/NO TRY.

I want to see an emperor type person sitting in a balcony, who either puts his thumb up or puts it downwards. That's how we should be getting the verdict.

I like it Lord.

I think the Emperor should be either Woodward or McGeechan - the two great sages of correct thought on all rugby matters. Or maybe for even more fun, David Campese - though it'd get bloody for the POMs with him in charge.

SecretFly wrote:I like it Lord.

I think the Emperor should be either Woodward or McGeechan - the two great sages of correct thought on all rugby matters.  Or maybe for even more fun, David Campese - though it'd get bloody for the POMs with him in charge.

Yeah, but they’ve all got Irish cousins so it would be another O’stitch up of some sort, etc., etc.