Rassie verdict is in.

First topic message reminder :

Just seen the verdict for Rassie’s misdeeds re his video. Guilty of six charges. Two month ban from all rugby and a 10 month match day ban, starting immediately. Plus a £20000 fine and both SAR and Rassie have been given the waggy finger about future conduct.
Where I’m from, that would be regarded as a full swing in the man veg.

World rugby sending out a message?

Well we're talking about this case so of course the focus is heavily on SA and Erasmus. If we're talking mindgames we probably need a separate thread as it's mile away from this.

Brendan wrote:After the match certain connected media people will say and write things that highlight the reffing issues. I doubt they do it off their own back. Maybe I just see things differently.

If this is actually happening, while obviously it wouldn't be helpful in terms of stoking the fires and the environment that makes fans feel like openly criticising referees is fine, is it actually equal in terms of damage to the interests of the sport as coaches actually coming out and saying those things/releasing those videos themselves? I don't see how that could be considered to be equivalent, to me it is far more problematic to have someone from a Union/club actually publicly making these remarks. Journalists are going to fill column pages regardless, and are much more easily ignored than a direct attack on a referees credibility coming from a coach in public.

mikey_dragon wrote:

Brendan wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

Brendan wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:It's amazing to still see how many South Africans think he was okay and completely justified in doing this.

Until all coaches and players are condemend such as Gats on Jonker prior to Test 1 which went unpunished by WR I can understand their position. It's not like Gats apologized and maybe said in hindsight it was overstepping the mark.

Despite your on-going desparation, there really isn't comparison between what both coaches did. I also agree there needs to be more transparency with regards to feedback on refereeing performances, particulary those of French refs... But thinking the world is out to get you and to also think bringing the game into disrepute is okay is crossing a line. That's South Africans for you.

So Jonker is appointed TMO, Gatland publicly brings up the issue.  It's no cocidence it was brought up as Jonker was TMO for the yellow card for Faf in the A game.  Within 24 hours the Lions have had a meeting with the ref team and again state they are unhappy but nothing they can do. Were SA given the same when they had issues with the reffing team.

Also I am sure if the ref on Saturday had only yellow carded the Fijian as he was looking to do and Fiji had won that, Welsh fans would only of had good things to say about him.  I know it's a rubbish publication but seems Biggar had issues with Berry through the match.  Again it's not an SA issue it's a rugby issue.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/he-just-fing-whacked-him-22163933.amp

WR should fund fulltime refs.  It is ridiculous that a top ref often has a second job to think about and why we have such problems because they are weekend refs.

You're still desperate I see, even bringing up clear Red Card offences and suggesting they should be yellow

It was a red Card in the Wales v Fiji but is was TMO who had to convince the ref it was a red as the ref seemed happy to give a yellow.  If the ref gave a yellow would Wales fan as you say "felt justified" if Pivac highlighted why it was red.  All finds find what their coach says or does 90% of the time unless it's player selection.

If you are referring to the SA A game is that not what Gats was trying to do to intimidate Jonker that he was wrong on Faf an had better not do it again in Test 1 of the Lions v SA.  Every time the TMO came in in Test 1 did sky mention him being SA or the SA A game.

By the first test Jonker was just a puppet.

From the full report any real quibbles Brendan or just unconnected issues with others?

TheMildlyFranticLlama wrote:

Brendan wrote:After the match certain connected media people will say and write things that highlight the reffing issues.  I doubt they do it off their own back.  Maybe I just see things differently.

If this is actually happening, while obviously it wouldn't be helpful in terms of stoking the fires and the environment that makes fans feel like openly criticising referees is fine, is it actually equal in terms of damage to the interests of the sport as coaches actually coming out and saying those things/releasing those videos themselves? I don't see how that could be considered to be equivalent, to me it is far more problematic to have someone from a Union/club actually publicly making these remarks. Journalists are going to fill column pages regardless, and are much more easily ignored than a direct attack on a referees credibility coming from a coach in 

Just look at the NZ press after the Ireland game, sheep wanting to stay in the good graces of the NZRU.

If the Union or coach "leak" stuff to the media to get the story out there what s the difference.

SARU should have leaked there was an hour video sent to the ref and Rassie wasn't happy at all and said mean things.  Then questions could have been asked and in the order of transparency released the video.  That would have been the politically correct way to have done it.  Instead someone just didn't make the link private and then gave it out to another person.

No 7&1/2 wrote:From the full report any real quibbles Brendan or just unconnected issues with others?

I don't think I will see things the same way as others but that is debate for you.

The report is there for people to make up their own minds and WR punishment implies they have made it as lient as they thought they could get away with.  SA is heading into an off season with limited fans for the URC and SA not playing till the summer so 2 month ban and then allowing Neibebar to come out of Rassie's shadow in the Wales tour and RC doesn't seem like much of a punishment.

No problem we all see things differently. Just wondered if there was anything specific that you didn't agree with? Or indeed which parts do you think yes they needed to ban him for that?

Is Wales touring SA next June?

Old Man wrote:Is Wales touring SA next June?

I think so. May be July

Japan v France 2 tests
New Zealand v Ireland 
Australia v England 
South Africa v Wales
Argentina v Scotland 2 tests
Italy are playing Canada, USA and Argentina.

That would be cool, we haven't seen Wales in SA since 2014

Old Man wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I know twitter is a weird and wonderful place but bloody hell the SA fans that are posting on this topic....

Don't follow him but Stephen Jones has commented and then ots just a stream of people proving his point.

Unfortunately there are always a minority of people in any culture (SA in this case) that goes off the boil, the majority have voted in a poll that they did not condone Rassie's actions. But it creates an unfair perception that it is South Africans in general that show no class or reason.

Mate, I am convinced the human species goes out of its collective way on a regular basis to prove Darwin was wrong. Country or culture doesn't matter. The only question is whether it is the 80:20 rule or the 20:80 rule.....

I agree Rassie was wrong and went too far. He received sanction for it and is now behind us, whether the sanction was too much or too little is another thing. Frankly, I am much more interested in the match this weekend which now has more storylines than a Hollywood soap opera.

Agree Doc, its going to be a belter

No 7&1/2 wrote:No problem we all see things differently. Just wondered if there was anything specific that you didn't agree with? Or indeed which parts do you think yes they needed to ban him for that?

He was not professional and should not have done anything but neither should Gats, Jones or any other coach that are constantly bring the ref team into it in pre and post match chat.

WR should have tacked this along time ago.  To single out Rassie when some of the charges seems very one eyed and WR should have come out and said that no talking of reffing is acceptable and all coaches are put on notice.

If you take Gats and Jonker and to a lesser extent Foster and Jordi Barrett  (as with most controversial games) charges 2, 3, 4 & 5 could all be applied in one way or another, yet had no action taken against them.  Not even a slap on the wrist or dressing down

So I think I'll leave my final point and be done.

If it was a match Gats should have got a yellow and Rassie a red for retaliation. But Rassie's doesn't happen without Gats but then Gats looks like his coaching days are over so maybe why.

Brendan wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:No problem we all see things differently. Just wondered if there was anything specific that you didn't agree with? Or indeed which parts do you think yes they needed to ban him for that?

He was not professional and should not have done anything but neither should Gats, Jones or any other coach that are constantly bring the ref team into it in pre and post match chat.

WR should have tacked this along time ago.  To single out Rassie when some of the charges seems very one eyed and WR should have come out and said that no talking of reffing is acceptable and all coaches are put on notice.

If you take Gats and Jonker and to a lesser extent Foster and Jordi Barrett  (as with most controversial games) charges 2, 3, 4 & 5 could all be applied in one way or another, yet had no action taken against them.  Not even a slap on the wrist or dressing down

It's got nothing to do with Gatland et al. I'm not asking about that, I'm asking if there were any parts of the report you disagreed with or actually felt no they're right on that? I felt their view on the objectivity and reason for the video was correct for example; did you?

'So I think I'll leave my final point and be done.

If it was a match Gats should have got a yellow and Rassie a red for retaliation. But Rassie's doesn't happen without Gats but then Gats looks like his coaching days are over so maybe why.'

Ah I guess you're not going to comment on this case then. Fair enough.

Old Man wrote:Is Wales touring SA next June?

I hope so, it'd be nice to turn you over on your own patch with the ref in our back pocket.

mikey_dragon wrote:

Old Man wrote:Is Wales touring SA next June?

I hope so, it'd be nice to turn you over on your own patch with the ref in our back pocket.

Good luck with that, you will need a video though, this meandering to the media is soooo last year.

Brendan wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:some stuff...

other stuff...

WR should have tacked this along time ago. 

more stuff...

I don't really agree with Brendan on the whole. I think what Rassie did was far beyond the "next step" in the war of words, and clearly crossed a line that should really not have been crossed.

However, I do agree with the above. It seems to me that rugby has been allowing this sort of behaviour to steadily and stealthily creep into the game far too easily in recent times. Just an example. In the Australia-Scotland game, when Hooper had his try chalked off for an illegal clear-out by the prop (resulting in a yellow card), his response - along the lines of "You've got to be f#cking kidding" would have been considered unacceptable not that long ago, and probably resulted in a red card. As it was, Poite didn't even really respond (other than to say "we can disagree, but I am the referee, and it's my decision, or words to that effect). And that's before you get into coaches raising reffing issues publicly before matches.

I guess there is an issue on where the line should be drawn. I think most would agree that if a team's pre-match analysis had picked up a pattern of infringement from their opponent, it would be fair enough to raise the issue in the pre-match (private) meeting with the ref. Certainly it would be something you'd expect the captain to be communicating on during the game. But I think there's a difference between raising the issue privately, and asking the ref to keep an eye on things, and publicly announcing that your opponents are cheating, and that you really hope the ref will be paying attention.

I don't really agree with Brendan on the whole. I think what Rassie did was far beyond the "next step" in the war of words, and clearly crossed a line that should really not have been crossed

I am with you on Rassie should not have crossed the line, I wonder though, with so many examples of inconsistent officiating, so much gamesmanship etc

maybe, just maybe it was necessary to open the channels between world rugby and the unions?

As they said it was examples of bias not inconsistent officials.

There was suggestion of bias and inconsistencies

Just the merest of hints eh!

@Old Man, a necessary evil then? Perhaps, although I doubt that's how Rassie saw his actions.

I do worry about rugby going down the "all's fair in love and war" route (or the "football" route if you prefer), where as long as you get the win any tactics (on- and off-field) are justified. Diving, time-wasting, putting pressure on or shouting at refs, and so on. It all seems to have become increasingly common in recent times, unfortunately so in my view. Fans aren't exempt from criticism here either: I see far too many fans all too willing to ceaselessly complain about referees.

It is perhaps inevitable. The game is getting faster and stronger, teams are pushing the edge more and more, and the consequences of losing matches are becoming more important (financially if nothing else). It's never been an easy sport to referee, but it certainly isn't getting any easier. As has been said, refs could blow up pretty much for either team at every ruck/scrum/line-out if they wanted to (exaggeration, but only slight). So inevitably they will ignore things: stuff they consider immaterial, stuff they consider relevant but less so than what they actually ping, and so on.

But this in turn can lead to understandable annoyance from fans/players/coaches at what they see as inconsistent officiating. The ref pinged us for sealing off a couple of minutes ago, but let our opponent blatantly flop over the ball to prevent the contest! That sort of thing. In an ideal world we wouldn't get so worked up about it, but...

I'm not sure I have a good solution TBH. We could radically simplify the laws around the ruck I guess, but that would make the game unrecognisable (or Rugby League). A proposed solution I remember reading on here from a few years ago recommended refs stop ignoring infringements and simply blow up at every ruck, pinging whichever side infringed first. The theory was that after a number of unwatchable games teams would start actually obeying the laws...

To be honest I think social media has a very big role in all this discontent around law interpretations, inconsistencies, percieved bias etc.

Everyone and his dog (unless you have a cat) now have instant access to pundits, content creators on youtube, facebook, twitter, twitch, snitch, amazon, and whatever else there is.

Too easy to create negative vibes, blaming referees etc.

Coaches have copped on to that, and as you say too many shenanigans afoot

You have fans of rugby league and football moaning about bias against their teams. Erasmus wasn't out to help point out anything around officiating, if he had been it would have been a different and more comprehensive presentation as noted in the report. Make it a more simple game and you'd still have guys like him moaning if his team didn't win.

A view from South Africa:

That is pretty tough stuff, and whereas I don't agree with everything those gents had to say or how they said it. But, to me, there is a lot they got right.  I had typed a fairly lengthy point-by-point commentary about my opinions about the comments they made.  But that would probably detract from what I think are the larger themes.  I need to think about this more.

Inferring racism is bad and one better have the facts dead nuts right first.  Was the timing of the judgement against Rassie suspect?  Even a hard nosed cynic which have to think so.  But did Rassie cross the line?  Again, I think so.  

The question about a bunch of old white dudes in charge of World Rugby is something I don't know.  But World Rugby surely gives the impression of a sport not governed by people with roots in contemporary modern pro sport.  I always liked Gus Pinchot, radical though he appears to be, and would have liked to give him the reins to see if he could force change.  

All that said, those guys also sound like they have a lot of sour grapes to share, so some of their better points might get buried in the angst.  

Glad you shared and I think there is a lot to discuss....

Mark Keohane is an embarrassmenr.

doctor_grey wrote:Glad you shared and I think there is a lot to discuss....

The broad statement that World Rugby is not running the game well is an easy one to go along with, though there's surely a lot of argument about the better way forward. However, the starting point for a lot of reaction to the Erasmus ruling is that South Africa is more victimized than other unions, and that is always going to get pushback from other rugby supporters. Comparing Nic Berry to Jeffrey Epstein was particularly poor taste.

Rugby Fan wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:Glad you shared and I think there is a lot to discuss....

The broad statement that World Rugby is not running the game well is an easy one to go along with, though there's surely a lot of argument about the better way forward. However, the starting point for a lot of reaction to the Erasmus ruling is that South Africa is more victimized than other unions, and that is always going to get pushback from other rugby supporters. Comparing Nic Berry to Jeffrey Epstein was particularly poor taste.

I wanted to stay away from that completely. That was bizarre (the very kindest thing I can say).

Hmm, they mistake the RFU for WR to start with. Premeditated perhaps, but how could he have possibly been found innocent.

Perhaps sums up the situation perfectly though, Erasmus has cherry picked situations to try and play the victim pretended that its a fair and balanced set of questions and led to this. Over the game you'll also see times where Jones didn't get the chance to say anything, even as captain you can't question everything, something that is regularly pointed out as to whether you are a good captain. Raise issues but don't annoy.

Massive chips on shoulders, conflates Beaumont for representing England again, these 2 are just idiots tbh!

Lol SA are going to break away are they...Comedy gold.

Rassie never pretended to play one side, he said that he is looking at it from a Springbok perspective and welcomed anyone to do the same from a Lions perspective, in fact that was in his opening statement.

As for Keo, he has a minority following in SA as he is the Steven Jones of SA rugby, and has been for a long long time.

Not the defence from the report. But yes the first 15 mins of the video did contradict that I'd fully agree. And when that is then taken by these 2 and the countless people on social media as gospel you again see that this video and his behaviour around it was a real issue/problem.

Of course the video is a problem, if the video was sent to WR, or Jtuge or Berry, or all of them, then he followed procedure. But he chose via however he wants to reason to make it public.

To me it was well reasoned, if it was sent to the authorities, but in the public eye it smells of bad loser and this type of video will always be seen as such.

As to his behaviour since the charges from WR, I leave that up to each individual as to how they see it.

From my perspective he has chosen to say nothing until it is all done and dusted.

Many are upset that he hasn't apologised and I believe at this stage he feels he was justified to do the video.

He could still however have apologised to Berry that he has effected his career and life, although I wonder what he thought would happen to berry?

Unfortunately this issue has blown out of proportion as many have had their opinions influenced by social media and cancel culture to the point it has turned hysterical in certain social media groups.

Was he wrong to make the video? No
Was he wrong to make it public? Yes.
Did it have an effect on Berry? Yes.
Should he have apologised? Yes.
Has he been punished? Yes

Does this give WR a warning that there are improvements to be made? Yes
Do we need more transparency in regards to referee assessment? Yes
Do we need laws to be easier to be interpreted? Yes

Think that first 15 mins shows that it wasn't well reasoned for the reason it was biased with the reason to place pressure on the ref. To threaten someone as he did clearly took it too far and to place this in public and bring such a backlash is far from appropriate.

Transparency, well depends really on what is laid out. I think the coaches get detailed feedback and reasoning but in private, perhaps if everything was in public it would make coaches think twice about stupid questions to them certainly. If people like Erasmus do things like this often may just lead offcials to think sod it.

In terms of easier interpretation, well part of the reason I like rugby is the complexities of the game. We could make things easier though. Get rid of rucks, set it to 6 tackles, get rid of contested scrums (on the whole) allow more high tackles and allow shoulder charges. Hang on...

What would you make easier with laws Old Man out of interest?

I've said it a few times here but I think there is a real issue with SH commentators from what I've seen/heard on tv. We get the southern ones on sky when there are no European teams involved and the standard of knowledge is frankly woeful at times. They regularly spout their own feelings or interpretations o when they played the game rather than the actual laws and interpretations now. You then see it parroted on social media and the like. We have some duff ones in north (Dallaglio for example) but they are generally the exception. If you're constantly told that your team is getting the rough end of the whistle then you're going to feel aggrieved.

https://www.theoffsideline.com/gregor-townsend-rassie-erasmus/

Hmmm. He obviously has his talents, but it looks like he has form for bad behaviour with referees and opposition players.

lostinwales wrote:https://www.theoffsideline.com/gregor-townsend-rassie-erasmus/

Hmmm. He obviously has his talents, but it looks like he has form for bad behaviour with referees and opposition players.

They do need to ban water carriers from the actual teams and bring in technical areas where coaches and the like aren't allowed out of. Be it idiots saying Jamie George likes a good feed, or kicking away balls, or telling people lineout calls. Unfortunately if you give some people leeway they will take advantage and make restrictions on everyone necessary.

No 7&1/2 wrote:What would you make easier with laws Old Man out of interest?

I've said it a few times here but I think there is a real issue with SH commentators from what I've seen/heard on tv. We get the southern ones on sky when there are no European teams involved and the standard of knowledge is frankly woeful at times. They regularly spout their own feelings or interpretations o when they played the game rather than the actual laws and interpretations now. You then see it parroted on social media and the like. We have some duff ones in north (Dallaglio for example) but they are generally the exception. If you're constantly told that your team is getting the rough end of the whistle then you're going to feel aggrieved.

If you look at rucks, it is impossible for referees to look at all the conditions to be met at the breakdown.

If you just look at the important issues, he looks at.

Did you come from the gate, did you stay on your feet, did you clean past the ruck, were you first arrival, did you seal off, did you reload, when did you put hands on the ball, did you first go past the ball before putting hands on it, did you hold on, how long is too long, did you have an extra roll, when is the ball out, when did the halfback pick the ball up, are you behind the hind most feet.

Explain to me how anyone checks all those issues correctly in less than 3 seconds?
Considering there can be anywhere from 3-10 players involved.

I would start there, because the referee is doomed to fail.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

lostinwales wrote:https://www.theoffsideline.com/gregor-townsend-rassie-erasmus/

Hmmm. He obviously has his talents, but it looks like he has form for bad behaviour with referees and opposition players.

They do need to ban water carriers from the actual teams and bring in technical areas where coaches and the like aren't allowed out of. Be it idiots saying Jamie George likes a good feed, or kicking away balls, or telling people lineout calls. Unfortunately if you give some people leeway they will take advantage and make restrictions on everyone necessary.

That is hilarious, and to be very honest pathetic to complain about.

Firstly, character assassination

It is in the law to have two staff members sideline. Usually waterboys or physios.

Rassie motioned to Willie and communicated to Willie he should target the wing because he is kak (shyte) under the high ball.

It WR does not want waterboys, physios or any staff next to the field they need to change the law, but then add another 15 minutes to the process if waterboys or physios or medics need to come onto the field.

As for staff sideline communicating with players, it happens all the time, in every match with every team

That's the start of the answer there; which bits do you drop then?

For me there are refs I don't agree with on their view of the ruck but I generally know what I'm getting. So do players and coaches.

Old Man wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

lostinwales wrote:https://www.theoffsideline.com/gregor-townsend-rassie-erasmus/

Hmmm. He obviously has his talents, but it looks like he has form for bad behaviour with referees and opposition players.

They do need to ban water carriers from the actual teams and bring in technical areas where coaches and the like aren't allowed out of. Be it idiots saying Jamie George likes a good feed, or kicking away balls, or telling people lineout calls. Unfortunately if you give some people leeway they will take advantage and make restrictions on everyone necessary.

That is hilarious, and to be very honest pathetic to complain about.

Firstly, character assassination

It is in the law to have two staff members sideline. Usually waterboys or physios.

Rassie motioned to Willie and communicated to Willie he should target the wing because he is kak (shyte) under the high ball.

It WR does not want waterboys, physios or any staff next to the field they need to change the law, but then add another 15 minutes to the process if waterboys or physios or medics need to come onto the field.

As for staff sideline communicating with players, it happens all the time, in every match with every team

In terms of water carriers overstepping their roles and becoming embroiled in the game you mean? Don't think slowing the game down by kicking balls away and offering coaching are the best things for them to be doing. I know some like to turn this into American Football style resets and coaching during breaks but personally I'd like to see shorter breaks in play. It's ok to at home as you can see replays etc but it's a slog when you're in the ground.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Old Man wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

lostinwales wrote:https://www.theoffsideline.com/gregor-townsend-rassie-erasmus/

Hmmm. He obviously has his talents, but it looks like he has form for bad behaviour with referees and opposition players.

They do need to ban water carriers from the actual teams and bring in technical areas where coaches and the like aren't allowed out of. Be it idiots saying Jamie George likes a good feed, or kicking away balls, or telling people lineout calls. Unfortunately if you give some people leeway they will take advantage and make restrictions on everyone necessary.

That is hilarious, and to be very honest pathetic to complain about.

Firstly, character assassination

It is in the law to have two staff members sideline. Usually waterboys or physios.

Rassie motioned to Willie and communicated to Willie he should target the wing because he is kak (shyte) under the high ball.

It WR does not want waterboys, physios or any staff next to the field they need to change the law, but then add another 15 minutes to the process if waterboys or physios or medics need to come onto the field.

As for staff sideline communicating with players, it happens all the time, in every match with every team

In terms of water carriers overstepping their roles and becoming embroiled in the game you mean? Don't think slowing the game down by kicking balls away and offering coaching are the best things for them to be doing. I know some like to turn this into American Football style resets and coaching during breaks but personally I'd like to see shorter breaks in play. It's ok to at home as you can see replays etc but it's a slog when you're in the ground.

I don't like unnecessary breaks either, the Lions series was atrocious from that point of view. However the perception created there has improved by a good margin since then. Supporters look at SA as they did that in the Lions tour, but now it has become a common perception to say it is only SA that does it, which to anyone opening their other eye is untrue

No 7&1/2 wrote:That's the start of the answer there; which bits do you drop then?

For me there are refs I don't agree with on their view of the ruck but I generally know what I'm getting. So do players and coaches.

I am no expert, but we need to think about what are the most important aspects of the breakdown.

Stay on your feet, Stay onside, only the first arrival has rights to the ball. If you are the tackler get out, attackers don't seal off the ball.

Often a referee will penalise actions that does not affect play. Id a player's action has not affected play, don't blow it. You will see a player moving forward because he thinks the ball is out, then retreats, the halfback plays the ball, fumbles it and the referee blows a penalty, why? the player immediately retreated.

This is not the answer, but its a start.

Old Man wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Old Man wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

lostinwales wrote:https://www.theoffsideline.com/gregor-townsend-rassie-erasmus/

Hmmm. He obviously has his talents, but it looks like he has form for bad behaviour with referees and opposition players.

They do need to ban water carriers from the actual teams and bring in technical areas where coaches and the like aren't allowed out of. Be it idiots saying Jamie George likes a good feed, or kicking away balls, or telling people lineout calls. Unfortunately if you give some people leeway they will take advantage and make restrictions on everyone necessary.

That is hilarious, and to be very honest pathetic to complain about.

Firstly, character assassination

It is in the law to have two staff members sideline. Usually waterboys or physios.

Rassie motioned to Willie and communicated to Willie he should target the wing because he is kak (shyte) under the high ball.

It WR does not want waterboys, physios or any staff next to the field they need to change the law, but then add another 15 minutes to the process if waterboys or physios or medics need to come onto the field.

As for staff sideline communicating with players, it happens all the time, in every match with every team

In terms of water carriers overstepping their roles and becoming embroiled in the game you mean? Don't think slowing the game down by kicking balls away and offering coaching are the best things for them to be doing. I know some like to turn this into American Football style resets and coaching during breaks but personally I'd like to see shorter breaks in play. It's ok to at home as you can see replays etc but it's a slog when you're in the ground.

I don't like unnecessary breaks either, the Lions series was atrocious from that point of view. However the perception created there has improved by a good margin since then. Supporters look at SA as they did that in the Lions tour, but now it has become a common perception to say it is only SA that does it, which to anyone opening their other eye is untrue

Even though I gave 2 examples which were from Premiership games? May I suggest that not everyone is out to get you!

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Old Man wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Old Man wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

lostinwales wrote:https://www.theoffsideline.com/gregor-townsend-rassie-erasmus/

Hmmm. He obviously has his talents, but it looks like he has form for bad behaviour with referees and opposition players.

They do need to ban water carriers from the actual teams and bring in technical areas where coaches and the like aren't allowed out of. Be it idiots saying Jamie George likes a good feed, or kicking away balls, or telling people lineout calls. Unfortunately if you give some people leeway they will take advantage and make restrictions on everyone necessary.

That is hilarious, and to be very honest pathetic to complain about.

Firstly, character assassination

It is in the law to have two staff members sideline. Usually waterboys or physios.

Rassie motioned to Willie and communicated to Willie he should target the wing because he is kak (shyte) under the high ball.

It WR does not want waterboys, physios or any staff next to the field they need to change the law, but then add another 15 minutes to the process if waterboys or physios or medics need to come onto the field.

As for staff sideline communicating with players, it happens all the time, in every match with every team

In terms of water carriers overstepping their roles and becoming embroiled in the game you mean? Don't think slowing the game down by kicking balls away and offering coaching are the best things for them to be doing. I know some like to turn this into American Football style resets and coaching during breaks but personally I'd like to see shorter breaks in play. It's ok to at home as you can see replays etc but it's a slog when you're in the ground.

I don't like unnecessary breaks either, the Lions series was atrocious from that point of view. However the perception created there has improved by a good margin since then. Supporters look at SA as they did that in the Lions tour, but now it has become a common perception to say it is only SA that does it, which to anyone opening their other eye is untrue

Even though I gave 2 examples which were from Premiership games? May I suggest that not everyone is out to get you!

I got that

Been spending a lot of time on an Aussie site, we aren't popular there.

Old Man wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:That's the start of the answer there; which bits do you drop then?

For me there are refs I don't agree with on their view of the ruck but I generally know what I'm getting. So do players and coaches.

I am no expert, but we need to think about what are the most important aspects of the breakdown.

Stay on your feet, Stay onside, only the first arrival has rights to the ball. If you are the tackler get out, attackers don't seal off the ball.

Often a referee will penalise actions that does not affect play. Id a player's action has not affected play, don't blow it. You will see a player moving forward because he thinks the ball is out, then retreats, the halfback plays the ball, fumbles it and the referee blows a penalty, why? the player immediately retreated.

This is not the answer, but its a start.

Ok, fair enough. So from that you'd allow taking players well beyond the ball and clearing paths for the attackers, defenders have the right to go off their feet so have that advantage on the attacking side, attackers though can hold on and replace the ball as many times as they want. Thats from the list you initially posted. It would take some decision making out for refs but I do see some issues arising from that!

Should have also said that I think it does need to be as complicated as it is as they are all a balance of each other and that the complaints some have over the officiating of rucks is the ref judging what has affected play and what hasn't.

Old Man wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Old Man wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Old Man wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

lostinwales wrote:https://www.theoffsideline.com/gregor-townsend-rassie-erasmus/

Hmmm. He obviously has his talents, but it looks like he has form for bad behaviour with referees and opposition players.

They do need to ban water carriers from the actual teams and bring in technical areas where coaches and the like aren't allowed out of. Be it idiots saying Jamie George likes a good feed, or kicking away balls, or telling people lineout calls. Unfortunately if you give some people leeway they will take advantage and make restrictions on everyone necessary.

That is hilarious, and to be very honest pathetic to complain about.

Firstly, character assassination

It is in the law to have two staff members sideline. Usually waterboys or physios.

Rassie motioned to Willie and communicated to Willie he should target the wing because he is kak (shyte) under the high ball.

It WR does not want waterboys, physios or any staff next to the field they need to change the law, but then add another 15 minutes to the process if waterboys or physios or medics need to come onto the field.

As for staff sideline communicating with players, it happens all the time, in every match with every team

In terms of water carriers overstepping their roles and becoming embroiled in the game you mean? Don't think slowing the game down by kicking balls away and offering coaching are the best things for them to be doing. I know some like to turn this into American Football style resets and coaching during breaks but personally I'd like to see shorter breaks in play. It's ok to at home as you can see replays etc but it's a slog when you're in the ground.

I don't like unnecessary breaks either, the Lions series was atrocious from that point of view. However the perception created there has improved by a good margin since then. Supporters look at SA as they did that in the Lions tour, but now it has become a common perception to say it is only SA that does it, which to anyone opening their other eye is untrue

Even though I gave 2 examples which were from Premiership games? May I suggest that not everyone is out to get you!

I got that

Been spending a lot of time on an Aussie site, we aren't popular there.

lol. Last time I looked on some of their sites was prior then post the 2016 England tour. Was amusing as they went from expecting a 3 match white wash to deserting the board after a 3 0 reverse.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Old Man wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:That's the start of the answer there; which bits do you drop then?

For me there are refs I don't agree with on their view of the ruck but I generally know what I'm getting. So do players and coaches.

I am no expert, but we need to think about what are the most important aspects of the breakdown.

Stay on your feet, Stay onside, only the first arrival has rights to the ball. If you are the tackler get out, attackers don't seal off the ball.

Often a referee will penalise actions that does not affect play. Id a player's action has not affected play, don't blow it. You will see a player moving forward because he thinks the ball is out, then retreats, the halfback plays the ball, fumbles it and the referee blows a penalty, why? the player immediately retreated.

This is not the answer, but its a start.

Ok, fair enough. So from that you'd allow taking players well beyond the ball and clearing paths for the attackers, defenders have the right to go off their feet so have that advantage on the attacking side, attackers though can hold on and replace the ball as many times as they want. Thats from the list you initially posted. It would take some decision making out for refs but I do see some issues arising from that!

No player beyond the ruck, I thought that was a given. That to me shouldn't even be said, I disapprove of that completely, release is also a given