Referees, between a rock and a hard place.

Refereeing is and will always be a thankless task. Rugby is the one sport that allows our primal instincts to run havoc with our emotions. The brutal tackles, runs and physicality dictates that rugby provides us with an alternative to modern warfare where at the end of a match there may be some serious injuries, but there is no intent to kill or maim.

Therefor being a referee in the modern day and age is not always the most popular person.

Now I can recite many occasions over the past number of years where referees have made blatant unintentional mistakes where the opposition team sneaked an undeserving win. Well in some opinions undeserving.

I also say unintentional mistakes, why?

Well I have been listening to Andre Watson on an Afrikaans channel the other day, and there were quite a number of phone calls, basically discussing the refereeing of Bryce Lawrence over the weekend. Many fans were rather distressed about some very strange call made by him during the Sharks vs Crusaders encounter.

In particular there was a Sharks scrum in their half early in the first stanza where Bryce Lawrence penalised the Sharks before the engage was called. Now he called it dangerous play because Jannie du Plessis moved his head after the touch.

This is how Andre Watson explained it.

The team feeding the ball sets up for the opponents to line up, their heads are not supposed to touch as they are supposed to stand as they would bind, in between. Because the Crusaders scrum was not aligned correctly Jannie du Plessis moved, which according to Andre Watson is actually the correct call made by Bryce Lawrence.

He says however that in this case the scrum should have been re-aligned as it is the sharks scrum and the Crusaders didn’t align correctly.

He also pointed out quite vociferously that he has never seen a referee intentionally making mistakes or going into a match with a preconceived idea to let another team win.

He does however say that when his career started, he was told by other referees that the Argentinean forwards are dirty and thus he had a perception when going onto the field to watch the Argentinean players like a hawk.

According to him referees do make mistakes, but do not intend to be biased in any way. It is however human to have a perception that certain players are dirty, playing close to the offside line etc.

Now we as South Africans are quite used to players such as Bakkies Botha being perceived as a dangerous player, and his many yellow cards attest to that fact.

A number of years ago, we tested the possibility with two referees on the rugby field, Naas Botha was actually involved in that game, and his personal opinion was that it definitely made the game flow more and found it not disrupting in any way. Now I am not suggesting that we go that far.

What I do think would help to quash these unfortunate incidents where a team concedes points and they are of the opinion that there was a forward pass, or crossing etc.

In cricket the batting and bowling team has 2 appeals, where they can review a decision made by the umpires. Now in rugby we cannot have the television referee look at every point scoring opportunity and check the legitimacy of the situation. Perhaps having the team captain have two appeals which he can use, this will not lengthen the game by much and the captain knowing that he has only two opportunities to challenge a decision will only use them if absolutely certain of his case.

According to Andre Watson referees make an average of 280 decisions in a match, of which 2-8 decisions are incorrect. The important aspect of this is how many of those errors are critical. Those are the decisions that could turn a match. And hence the appeal system might just negate those critical errors.

So, perhaps we need to be a little more understanding of how difficult it must be for a referee when every decision he makes can be scrutinised in this modern era in slow motion.

"So, perhaps we need to be a little more understanding of how difficult it must be for a referee when every decision he makes can be scrutinised in this modern era in slow motion."

I have been thinking about this for a while and I am sure they have some "help" from the TMO or someone in the stands.

Sometimes it takes a ref a few secs to cop on to a forward pass or an infringement.. they seem to hear something in their ears and the game is pulled back.

Could be wrong...

Boyne, they are miked up to their assistant referees who are also providing subtle hand signals. The TJ let them know about blatent offenses he may have missed.

Your never going to make refereeing perfect it isn't in any sport. However a lot of referees aren't consistent and what applies to one team doesn't always apply to the other. Referee's are humans though but sadly like in football so much is at stake in the modern game like relegation's, trophies and money that conning the referee is part of the modern game.

I do think the TV companies should take some of the blame for making refereeing so close to impossible - showing every controversial incident from multiple angles in super slo-mo makes things appear obvious that happened in a flash on the edge of the ref's sight line.

I quite like the idea of having 2 refs, at least for top level games, as long as a sensible division of responsibility could be arrived at - e.g. one refs the contact area while the other is looking at offside in the defensive line.

I've said it on other threads - there is nothing wrong with the positioning, fitness or knowledge of the laws from our referees.

And yes they will always be imperfections to officiating.

But we need to see a more uniform approach to game management - what kind of offenses can or can't be ignored, where and when certain offenses need to be targetted, how to deal with consist offending in different areas of the pitch and escalating from penalties to a yellow/red card for foul play.

These things are where inconsistency is occuring and where there is probably the least amount of clear and universal feedback.

dummy_half wrote:- e.g. one refs the contact area while the other is looking at offside in the defensive line.

Thats what the Referees and Touch Judges are currently doing in most cases.

Biltong, I like the idea of borrowing the appeals system from cricket. As you say, it won't slow down the game that much and it could perhaps extend the video referee's remit when it comes to awarding tries - that is, he can go back to see whether there was a forward pass or blocking earlier in a try-scoring move if the defending team ask for a review. But the limit for each team should be maybe two a game, one per half.

luckless_pedestrian wrote:Biltong, I like the idea of borrowing the appeals system from cricket. As you say, it won't slow down the game that much and it could perhaps extend the video referee's remit when it comes to awarding tries - that is, he can go back to see whether there was a forward pass or blocking earlier in a try-scoring move if the defending team ask for a review. But the limit for each team should be maybe two a game, one per half.

The problem as andre watson stated with doing a television review of every try is this: how far do they go back, one move, two moves, three moves.

The appeal can work , but the appealing captain must be specific. " there was a forward pass on the ten meter line" etc.

Agreed. If the captain can't tell the referee what he's disputing about the try, he shouldn't be allowed to appeal.

I don't think we need 2 referees on the pitch. Firstly, the touch judges provide extra eyes and ears for the ref already so this role is already fulfilled. Secondly, refereeing seems to be about the referee's interpretation. Surely 2 interpretations from 2 refs, such as the contact area, would lead to disagreements and confusion. It would be muddling the situation. I think touch judges as assistants which can be overruled by the referee if neessary, plus assistance in scoring decisions by the TMO, is enough help. Any more may overcomplicate the decision making process.

That said, 'unique' or bizarre decisions like the Wales v Ireland wrong ball fiasco could be clarified by the ref with a TMO at the end of the play, i.e. the TMO could be asked to go further back in his video review to things leading up to a score if it is blatant that an offence occured.

However, and I always ask myself this, if a referee doesn't think an offence has occurred in the build up to a try then why would he ask the TMO to rule on it?! Would he listen to the opposition saying there'd been an infringement? He'd end up replaying every try and every move! Imagine the world cup final. They've brought in the rule that the TMO can be consulted further back in the play. Something happens before a try like a knock on or a defender being blocked or pulled back, yet the referee doesn't see it. The fans would be screaming for the replay. Yet, why would the ref consult it if he thought the try was fine. After the match there'd be calls for his head, but if he saw nothing then in his head there would be no cause for a replay. This may bring added post-match pressure to refs at a time when their jobs are hard enough, and may discourage referees further from taking up the job.

Red Stag is right there will always be imperfections in officiating; I would bet anyone on this board could mention a number of incidents that were unfair and led to their team losing.

However the point:-
“what kind of offenses can or can't be ignored” doesn’t make sense if an offence can be ignored then it shouldn’t be an offense, or you then have to get into the argument “under what circumstances can the offense be ignored” which will create just as much controversy.

Targeting certain offenses and how to deal with consist offending certainly need to be managed and clear guidance given to referees & touch judges, this should at least lead to consistency of decision making which most fans & players would accept.

More official, appeals and too many TMO referrals may ultimately lead to a much slower game and the game adopting a stop start regime as in American Football.

Griff wrote:That said, 'unique' or bizarre decisions like the Wales v Ireland wrong ball fiasco could be clarified by the ref with a TMO at the end of the play, i.e. the TMO could be asked to go further back in his video review to things leading up to a score if it is blatant that an offence occured.

With regards to the Ireland v Wales incident poor communication skills from Kaplan played a big role. Him and Allan were talking at cross purposes and it was hurried and rushed.

When I was in college I studied law and did my final thesis on whether a referee/iRB could face any sort of legal action for failing to use the TMO.

[quote="Griff"] If a referee doesn't think an offence has occurred in the build up to a try then why would he ask the TMO to rule on it?! Would he listen to the opposition saying there'd been an infringement? [quote]

If there was an appeals system, then he'd have to - but as I said before, the captain of the team appealing would have to have a specific reason why there should be a review. If each team had only two appeals each, one per half, say, then there wouldn't be much more disruption than there is now with referees going to the TMO.

I think someone mentioned the TV companies making things tougher due to all the camera angles and replays.

Another, and more important aspect in my opinion, is the often ill-informed commentators, who quite often get laws wrong. These are the guys who lead the people on TV and if they say something most people will believe that. They are the ones who need to be educated.

MBTGOG wrote:I think someone mentioned the TV companies making things tougher due to all the camera angles and replays.

Another, and more important aspect in my opinion, is the often ill-informed commentators, who quite often get laws wrong. These are the guys who lead the people on TV and if they say something most people will believe that. They are the ones who need to be educated.

Full agree about commentators.

red_stag wrote:

MBTGOG wrote:I think someone mentioned the TV companies making things tougher due to all the camera angles and replays.

Another, and more important aspect in my opinion, is the often ill-informed commentators, who quite often get laws wrong. These are the guys who lead the people on TV and if they say something most people will believe that. They are the ones who need to be educated.

Full agree about commentators.

I agree as well.

Modern sports commentators are under onus to sensationalise the game as much as they can. Controversy being a number one tool for them.

The with rugby laws being so overly complicated to prevent the sports inherent cheating by players it increases the variable ways in which an incident can be interpreted. Breakdowns and Scrummages being prime examples.

If the scrum collapses again its a penalty try is a personal favourite of mine

Im comepltly aginst appeals in rugby. Its very differnet to cricket where there are clear absolutes that can be measured. However in rugby theres all sorts of situations that a re purely interpretative, how long is holding onto the ball for example? Its also a game where there is constant infringement, albeit minor. Any ref will miss a number of accidental and borderline incidents from both attacker and defender, and how far back to we wheel the tape to review? What if its shown both the attacking and defending side commited offences?
And dont even get started on forward passes....

Rugby refereeing has a lot to be praised for, most notably the dialogue between refs and players throughout the game. At times it borders on coaching (ie "hands away, youre off your feet"), but that keeps the game flowing and allows the players to uunderstand what the ref expects. Capatins are also allowed to talk to the ref and disucss his interprettaion of the rules during breaks in play, as well as pointing out dubious tactics from teh oppsotion,. At the high level theres also pre game meeting where such issues can be discussed. You dont get that in most sports.

There does come a point though where you just have to accept that if you want a game thats actually played and flows rather than a series of committee meeting interspered with short passages of play that we have to accept on the field calls. Referees are assessed and do have guidance from central authorities. They arent laon wolves deliberatly going tout to sabotage the game....not even Wayne Barnes

Stag,

How about, "He has to allow the player to get back to his feet".

MBTGOG wrote:Stag,

How about, "He has to allow the player to get back to his feet".

Yes thats another one and it seems a recent one too. I don't remember it being an issue when I played a few years ago.

Do the commentators listen to the ref mike? Referes clearly says "penalty - offside", commentator "That was for handling in the ruck". Most of the time you can get it from the hand signals. they seem to ignore these as well. They make their own judgement based on their expertise - and generally get it wrong. Eddie Butler is the worst.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler, I suggested each side would have two appeals each, one per half. With so few appeals available, a captain is going to have to be pretty confident that there was an infringement - he won't want to waste his appeal.

While a lot of this thread has been defending the referees, I have to say one thing against them and that is the poor use of hand signals.

I find Brian Moore irritating in his approach as well. To his credit he did a ref course and refereed about 40 minutes of a match. But he still makes a meal of things and people take his word as gospel due to his publicised referee course.

He also has an agenda with regards to feeding at the scrum to the detriment of other laws.

MBTGOG wrote:While a lot of this thread has been defending the referees, I have to say one thing against them and that is the poor use of hand signals.

Yes yes yes Nigel Owens!!!

There are clearly defined hand signals in the law book. I wish referees would use those. People understand much more from visual signals rather than audio explanations.

red_stag wrote:

MBTGOG wrote:While a lot of this thread has been defending the referees, I have to say one thing against them and that is the poor use of hand signals.

Yes yes yes Nigel Owens!!!

Pet peeve of mine, too. It's not even important but I hate the way he signals for simple things like shots at goal. There's a definite way of doing it, so do it that way. There's no need to invent a new one.

greybeard wrote:I hate the way he signals for simple things like shots at goal. There's a definite way of doing it, so do it that way. There's no need to invent a new one.

Unless he wants to be the Billy Bowden of rugby.

I hadn't noticed. What does Nigel do instead?

Griff wrote:I hadn't noticed. What does Nigel do instead?

Just holds up one hand like you did when you were a kid and pretended your hand was a gun with two fingers as the barrel and then he pretends to shoot the posts.

Ok, not really, but that's what it looks like.

Very true Biltong who`d be a Ref all you can hope for is he will be the same for both sides.
In most matches us fans,most who have only the vaguest knowledge of the laws.
Will question decisions that go against our side,standard cry we was robbed ref.
When very possibly the ref was right he`s human and will make mistakes,but having them constantly replayed on Tv does`nt help.
Forward passes viewed on TV and by the Ref who only has a second to view it is a case in point.
Please note I use the Collective pronoun for"we".Us" etc. to mean every one not just me.

We all do it Emack

One of the biggest changes from amateur days is that adverse results are blamed on reffing much more. Not so much by the fans - who've always blamed the ref - but by coaches and even players.

It's entirely understandable of course. It being their actual, paying, job on the line and all, there's strong pressure on them to deflect the blame.

Back in the day, you just accepted that some forward passes would get overlooked, a punch or two turned a blind eye towards, a few blatant offsides called wrong and so on.

These days, some people are even grumbling because refs are doing the "wrong" hand signals!

Erm...So I'm told.

Griff wrote:I hadn't noticed. What does Nigel do instead?

Wiggles his bum in a provocative manner?

"He also pointed out quite vociferously that he has never seen a referee intentionally making mistakes or going into a match with a preconceived idea to let another team win."

I'll send him a tape of Barnes in 2007, it'll fix that deficiency in his life experience right away.

Without doubt refs do a hard job. Whilst they don't intentionally penalise one side, some refereeing stats indicate they might. To give you an example if the AB's have an English ref they tend to get penalised much more than the opposition. This might be statistical blip, or it may be due to the small no of matches I looked at. It may not be. I'm not suggesting they go out to deliberately penalise the blacks, I think it's more to do with what they penalise. At any ruck there are a number of offenses happening, entry from the wrong side, offside, players going off their feet, hands in the ruck. It may be that that the NZ style may result in more penalties if one of these is favoured over others. If it's not, then why doesn't the pattern occur with all refs.

Another example would be the Australian scrum, which is variably penalised relative to the opposition. When the ref determines there scrum is struggling or scrumming illegally they really hard to compete.

Would 2 refs solve the problems. It's worth a try.

TheGreyGhost wrote:"He also pointed out quite vociferously that he has never seen a referee intentionally making mistakes or going into a match with a preconceived idea to let another team win."

I'll send him a tape of Barnes in 2007, it'll fix that deficiency in his life experience right away.

Greyghost, if that is truly your belief, then I fiund that very sad.

It is one thing to blame a referee for losing your team a match, but to say he did it purposefully borders on disrespect.

biltongbek wrote:it purposefully borders on disrespect.

Actually it borders on libel and defamation.


An English poster (part time ref) on the old 606 summed it up best: Refs aren't biased, fans are.

this fan is very biased against a couple of referees....

aucklandlaurie wrote: this fan is very biased against a couple of referees....

There's no winning with some fans. I ended up refereeing a team in a cup competition a few times this year. In one game (think it was quarter finals) I ended up whistling off the park and though they won were adament I had an agenda of some kind.

I thought nothing more of it even when I was assigned to the cup final and they were there. I awarded a last minute penalty to them 5m out in front of posts and they won by 2 points. Their captain suggested to me after the game I was trying to make amends for their quarter final

Theres also an assumption here that video replays somehow help to reduce controversy.
Theres still plenty of people that are convinved it was a try in the 2007 WC, despite the video ref actually making a very good call at the time.

And go read the debate over the kids cup final between GreyGhost and the rest of the internet over video ref decisions. Even video evidence is open to interpretation (and completly unsuitable for forward passes) one mans grounding is another mans knock on.