Has international rugby become boring?

Gooseberry wrote:From a coaches and players point of view the lack of consistency must be infuriating though. The debacle with England vs Italy a few years back and all the abuse Haskell took because the ref fundamentally disagreed on the laws meant a whole tactical approach had to be worked out on the fly.

Course if you argue that's exactly what we need to spice things up a bit. If the core complaint about modern rugby is that teams are too well drilled and play too structured now leading to low risk rugby and predictability then how about we just pick some guy off the street who's never seen rugby and get them to ref it?

Unkind souls would suggest that's what world rugby already do with their elite referees


Joking aside I do agree that theres a limit to how robotic and consistent a ref can be, and the lines between what is holding on and what isn't for example are fuzzy. Laws of the game and the guidance cant cover every single factor that goes into a decision, you only have to look at the absurd length of the regulations around handball in soccer to see what happens when you try to...and still people feel its inconsistent and not applied evenly. Sometimes as well refs will just see something different to what the coach has seen.

But still as a coach and player you want to know that what youve been training is how the games going to be played on the day of the match.

Pivac talking to the refs before and after games made him sound a bit like a big baby but its been a core part of the rugby approach for a long time. Teams can submit questions to the refs in advance etc to mitigate against some of the inconsistency and cover any crazy tactics they have dreamed up. World rugby has gotten better in the pro era about ensuring that the H and SH refs crossover, and that they have a central body overseeing and reviewing them all to at least make sure its the same sport they are reffing. They get the same directives and they have a private forum for discussing the big issues and interpretations. Things arent perfect now, but its better than it was 20 years ago and that was better than it was in the days when touring sides would turn up and find a ref employed to ensure they lost.

Theres then this ongoing question about cards, if an offence is worth one in the 80th minute surely its worth one in the first minute...but do refs "owe the game" to let it slide and err on the side of caution? Its another of those things we are told ruins the game and ask refs to use discretion on. But discretion by its nature is inconsistent, its driven partly by emotion.

dummy_half wrote:Goose
On the last point, given that red cards are generally for dangerous play, there should be no difference whether it's the first play of the game or the last. It may spoil the game as a spectacle, but it's the fault of the offending player, not of the referee. And of course it can lead to some insanely good individual performances to compensate, such as May against Argentina after Daly's early dismissal.

Blaming the ref for a correct red card decision is completely unjustified.

I agree that refs generally are doing a reasonably unbiased job now - it's just frustrating that their style has such a big influence on the match. There are certain referees where I know England are going to have a hard time and others I have no concerns over - it isn't bias, just that we better to what certain refs allow. And yes, it is the subjective questions like judging offensive holding on v defensive not allowing fair release.