North Vs South Referees

There is often a lot made of the difference between the way a game is refereed by our NH refs and the SH refs. They think our refs are poor and we think theirs are rubbish. Both are valid opinions because the SH refs allow the game to be played to a style that suits their teams and the NH refs do the same.
It was interesting to see the breakdown in the super xv final at the weekend because I think a NH ref would have penalised Crusaders off the park but Bryce Lawrence pretty much allowed it to be a free for all. I have two questions based on refereeing and the different styles.

Will the NH coaches have access to any SH refs during the build up to RWC? It would be beneficial to get the inside track on how the game is reffed from a SH standpoint and so be prepared for any differences in interpretation

Also why aren't the IRB doing anything to close down the differences in game play? it almost seems like, by the absence of any action they are endorsing two different games.

By the way if anyone hasn't bought this weekends rugby paper there is a good article about referees in it...can't remember who by though

Said it before-they should swap refs for the Super XV and HC. All parties would gain greater empathy for how the other sides want to play and see the game run.

I don't try to understand referees. They have a very difficult task with intrepreting rules the way they see it. It is always subjective no matter which way you look at it.

To be fair to SH Refs are hindered by being upside down, therefore the blood will rush to their heads making simple decisions harder, e.g. following the rules of the game and a temporary blindness to players wearing black shirts with the No7 on the back!

BATH_BTGOG wrote:To be fair to SH Refs are hindered by being upside down, therefore the blood will rush to their heads making simple decisions harder, e.g. following the rules of the game and a temporary blindness to players wearing black shirts with the No7 on the back!

The converse of that is also true. The NH referees have no blood going to their brains, thus being starved of oxygen.

BIG PROBLEM!

Not strictly true Biltongbek,

As NH refs are the right way up!

Soooo, we should only use equatorial refs? Do we have any?

Carpe Diem wrote:Soooo, we should only use equatorial refs? Do we have any?

Aren't they lying down on the job, based on Bath_BT's definition at least .

Fair point. How about anti-g suits for all the refs to ensure an even amount of blood dispersal no matter what hemisphere. Or robots.

To me there is no North v South difference. I would say if any difference exist it is Union v UNion.

red_stag wrote:To me there is no North v South difference. I would say if any difference exist it is Union v UNion.

Really? You genuinely don't see a difference between NH and SH refereeing? Not sure what you meant by Union v UNion...

mckay1402 wrote:

red_stag wrote:To me there is no North v South difference. I would say if any difference exist it is Union v UNion.

Really? You genuinely don't see a difference between NH and SH refereeing? Not sure what you meant by Union v UNion...

As in I see that each union referees very differently than others. To me South African referees handle things differently to Aussies. Scottish referees have a different approach to Irish ones. It isn't as simple as North v South.

I agree with what you say Red but can we have your opinion on the gravitational effects on the referees circulation and whether robots will be the ultimate answer?

Carpe Diem wrote:I agree with what you say Red but can we have your opinion on the gravitational effects on the referees circulation and whether robots will be the ultimate answer?

I've said it before if people aren't happy for mistakes to be made then they need to let the TMO referee the entire game. So long as there is a human element to officiating there will be errors.

So no robots then.

Why anyone would want to be a ref is beyond me. Make an error (or even the suggestion of an error) and you'll be taunted and booed until our collective throats are sore... have a good game and you're just doing your job.

Besides, it could be worse, we could have this guy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wBOXCckeHg

"I agree with what you say Red but can we have your opinion on the gravitational effects on the referees circulation ..."

But I fear you need to specify which hemisphere you are asking the question, as due to the coriolis effect, that could severely alter the outcome, coming as it would be then, from different direction, as they say..

OzT wrote:"I agree with what you say Red but can we have your opinion on the gravitational effects on the referees circulation ..."

But I fear you need to specify which hemisphere you are asking the question, as due to the coriolis effect, that could severely alter the outcome, coming as it would be then, from different direction, as they say..

This is another extremely valid consideration and only adds more fuel to my robot referee plan. "NO HANDS IN THE RUCK, YOU HAVE 20 SECONDS TO COMPLY" cracking stuff!

Rucking, that's the answer, bring rucking back and game becomes more self policing, my 2c worth

I completely agree with the OPs observation on the breakdown in the Super15 final. Startling what the Crusaiders got away with. They kept taking out Reds players before they got a chance to compete at the ruck. In other words running ahead of the ruck and blocking/tackling Reds on their way to compete at the breakdown. Surely not legal.

Leinsterbaby

My point exactly. I can only assume that Bryce Lawrence wanted a flowing game but that game would have been very different had it been a European ref.

Stag

I see what you mean. I agree to a certain extent but I still think that there is a difference in interpretation between north and south. I also don't think it's so much to do with having a human in the middle as it seems to be a consensus in the south to be more relaxed about competition at the breakdown.

mckay1402 wrote:there is a difference in interpretation between north and south.

There are some differences between different Unions IMO but its not as clear cut as N v S for me. For example Roman Poite has a style thats like nobody else in the Northern Hemisphere. Joubert for me is closer to Wayne Barnes than Steve Walsh.

well yes it would be massively inaccurate for me to say that all SH refs perform the same way and all NH refs do the same thing but there are trends.

SH refs tend to allow players to come round the side and go through and past the breakdown whereas that wouldn't be allowed up north.

I'd be interested to hear a SH perspective on this...

All referees should use Steve Walsh as a model. The guy is a frickin genius.

TheGreyGhost wrote:All referees should use Steve Walsh as a model. The guy is a frickin genius.

You know what I don't disagree. To me he's a very good ref. Fit, has an empathy with the game, has the stones to make a tough call.

I think it depends on who your playing to be honest! If your going with a weakened team to a 3 Nation country you don't want a 3 nation referee because they will let the game flow and keep going till a try is scored unless something dangerous or cynical occurs. In the north referees are more picky and prone to giving cards out.
Wales play Namibia 4 days after Namibia play South Africa and we have a southern Hemisphere ref for that one.
While Wales have Northern Hemisphere refs for South Africa, Fiji and Samoa!

IRB sets the laws,referees apply them that should be the same whether
you are from the NH,SH or Mars for that matter.
There written in black and white ,it is not up to individual refs to try to out think the IRB.
Then if they do the same should apply the same for both sides but seldom is.
In the modern game there should be no such thing as biased referees just
to please politicians,the IRB or television companies.

I think you're right red stag. As a kiwi what really worries me is the amount of propaganda that comes out about the kiwis. I'm guessing that it been around for over a century and perpetuated each nothern tour. Every tour seems to involve allegations of cheating from sections of the UK media. i know it offends many players and fans a like. Given the shear scale of it, I wonder if it subconsciously also affects referees.

As others have stated, who'd want to be a referee. I don't expect a referee to be perfect, but I do expect them to be consistent. As an AB's fan I would like a consistent refereeing style accross the board, even though it would probably disadvantage us (to start with any way). We currently have to overcome a biased penalty count (I calculate an average of 3 per match last year), so in some respects there's likely to be little change.

The problem for the ref is that ALL sides use the professional foul,to put it bluntly cheating.Early.late tackles,killing the ball in the ruck,offside,crooked feeding of scrums,shirt pulling,obstruction,not to mention the antics of the front row mafia.
Time was if someone was making a nuisance of himself,say by winning a lot of lineout ball.
He would be fixed by the "Enforcer" a short hard jab in the short ribs or a good shoeing.Especiallyif said player was jumping across the line early or lifting[then illegal].
You can`t even thump someone without getting a Red card these days.
I don`t condone it but in the days when sending off happened only twice in about 40years at test level.
There seemed to be unwritten code of conduct among players that certain things were beyond the pale.
That matches seemed to be refereed much more simpler.law seemed black or white.
Not like now where many seem to decide on the whim of the ref,and if he dislikes a certain player.Then whistles him out of the game.
I could name one who almost whistled a player out of a career,every match the player was reffed by this ref.he was constanly pinged.

Well spoken Emack2.

Bring back rucking. That's what I've been saying since the Poms conspired to run it out of the game late last century.

As soon as rucking went all this drama about the breakdown rules and the speed of the game/number of penalties started.

Let's go back to the old simple rules about not using your hands on the ground and let anyone who tries have their fingers trampled. It'll stamp out the professional foul, speed up the game and remove the need for all this clean-out-coming-through-the-gate-but-staying-on-your-feet-supporting- your-body-weight-whilst-rolling-away-and-releasing-the-player-before-re-entering- unless- you're- the- first -arriver -and -not- the- tackler- and- not bound- to -another- player- who ... nonsense.

Fact is, a messed up hand is more of a deterrent than either a 3 pointer or a yellow card nowadays since professional players would be loath to have their careers ended and lose all that money...

Grey, whats to stop rucking currently? The laws allows for players to get trod upon if it is unintentional and if you are rucking the ball.

But unintentional and rucking the ball doesn't solve the player not rolling away, or the ball killing, or the not releasing. Getting a good run of sprigs down your spine, or a set of broken knuckles generally does though...whilst leaving it open to a player who can endure this kind of thing to heroically save the day. Remember the old days when "putting your body on the line" actually meant that?

Shoe pie for everybody!

TheGreyGhost wrote:Getting a good run of sprigs down your spine, or a set of broken knuckles generally does though.

You know that with current Health and Saftey that won't be allowed. Insurance costs will rise and the PC Brigade will be up in arms. The questions of "Why did you remove rucking in first place if its so safe" etc will be asked.

I don't think reintroducing rucking could be done.

I tend to agree. But it should be.

IMHO lifting in line-outs, scrum collapses from the "hit" on "engage", the collapse-able rolling maul, the increase in tackles on airborne players resulting from increased in-field kicks from the taken-back law are all more dangerous that rucking...and these were all introduced following the elimination of real rucking, and interesting were all introduced to "speed up the game".

I propose that if all these rules were reversed and rucking re-introduced (i.e. we go back to the laws/interpretations) circa 1990, the game will be safer, faster and better to watch.

TheGreyGhost wrote:I tend to agree. But it should be.

IMHO lifting in line-outs, scrum collapses from the "hit" on "engage", the collapse-able rolling maul, the increase in tackles on airborne players resulting from increased in-field kicks from the taken-back law are all more dangerous that rucking...and these were all introduced following the elimination of real rucking, and interesting were all introduced to "speed up the game".

I propose that if all these rules were reversed and rucking re-introduced (i.e. we go back to the laws/interpretations) circa 1990, the game will be safer, faster and better to watch.

Possibly yes. But IMO it will be too hard to re-introduce rucking. Its a lost cause. You'll get parents reporting it to media that coaches are encouraging other boys to stamp on their dear little Billy at training, teams giving out about rising insurance costs (which is actually a big issue anyway), some doctor will come out with why its dangerous etc.

There was such a vocal response to collapsing the rolling maul - this would be far greater. At its most media spun it is essentially allowing players to stamp on each other in retaliation. You can bet in the PC World we live that this is how it will be portrayed.

Do you believe in irony,before the 2-3-2 scrum was outlawed the All Blacks themselves were going to abandon it.
In 1987 the abadoned the ruck for the driving maul,afraid refs would`nt stand for NZ rucking practices,penalizing them for stamping.
When the ABs became so successful using it[nearly 4 years unbeaten post 1987]IRB changed the laws.
Todays PC laws in many ways are more dangerous than there predecessors.
Props did`nt deliberately collapse scrums it was considered to dangerous.