Fox Sports should appoint an ex-referee to commentate
Roar Guru By Rickety Knees, 29 Jul 2009 Rickety Knees is a Roar Guru
Related coverage
The fallout from the recent Test between the Wallabies and All Blacks has been the Robbie Deans quote, “we are still be penalised for things that we are not doing.”
There has been much dialogue about the refereeing decisions in this Test made by Craig Joubert.
Add the comments from the Clark, Kearns, Kafer and Martin to these decisions and this viewer (who played a lot of rugby) was left totally bewildered as to what was actually happening.
There has been much recent comment about rugby (as opposed to rugby league) being a complex game. The referees’ decisions become even more complex when the commentary team cannot interpret what is going on in front of them.
In this instance, I am referring to the Fox Sports team. This is a disservice to the game of rugby and will drive viewers away.
The Fox Sports Team do a reasonable job. However, is it not time to find an ex-referee who is prepared interpret what is happening and comment on the referees interpretation of the rules?
This would would serve to demystify the game for both gnarly old could-have-beens and the uninitiated.
Recommend this story.
- Explore:
- All Blacks, Craig Joubert, fox sports australia, Rugby Union, Springboks, wallabies
July 29th 2009 @ 10:11am
Rickety Knees said | July 29th 2009 @ 10:11am | Report comment
Referees are going to make mistakes – like all of us they are fallible. I would like somebody who has the knowledge and the experience to explain exactly what is happening – from there we can form our own opinions.
July 29th 2009 @ 10:37am
Wally James said | July 29th 2009 @ 10:37am | Report comment
Rickety Knees
Exactly my point made in my thread on http://www.theroar.com.au/2009/07/28/john-oneill-predicts-a-positive-future-for-rugby/ yesterday. Great men think alike.
The ex-international ref should not be there to agree or disagree on what physically happens in the game – the other commentators can do that. His job will be to discuss the application of the Laws to what ref rules the players do.
For example when Palu was pulled up for that free kick in Auckland, the commentator ref (or shall we say “ref-com”) is not to decide whether Palu allowed the ball to leave his hands. Rather he is to say “The Law says the ball must leave the kicker’s hands. If it doesn’t then a scrum to the non-offending team. That’s what the ref has ruled. He’s right”.
In that way the ref-com does not need to enter into the debate whether Palu actually kicked it correctly but rather what the ref ruled happened and the law which follows from that.
Such an approach certainly beats the hell out of the mindless abuse from Kearns and Marto talking about not on the mark, kicking the ball and how pedantaic the ref is(hilarious and astute as to other parts of the game though they be). The ref-com can quickly pull such drivel up, explain to the viewers and then get on with it.
Rickety, shall we start a ref-com club and lobby appropriately?
Cheers
Wally
July 29th 2009 @ 10:39am
johnno42 said | July 29th 2009 @ 10:39am | Report comment
The fox commentary team (marto n kearnsey in particular) are an embarrassment to the Australian rugby community. They make one eyed obnoxious commentary into an art form. Their carry-on regarding referees and decisions are truly cringe worthy. I would rather listen to any other foreign commentary team and have looked seriously into internet voice commentary while muting the TV. Unfortunately, I find the second or so time lag to be equally irritating, so I must endure… but I DEFINITLY do not like it
July 29th 2009 @ 10:53am
Rickety Knees said | July 29th 2009 @ 10:53am | Report comment
Cheers Wallly – yes mate we should start a campaign on the Roar to get this going. The first step would be to get Roarers to go to: http://www.foxsports.com.au/shows/therugbyclub and make the suggestion in the “Soap Box” . It would even be better if we could get Spiro involved and then the Roar could really flex its muscles!
July 29th 2009 @ 10:56am
Hammer said | July 29th 2009 @ 10:56am | Report comment
On the Palu incident – how many watching didn’t think exactly what the the ref called as soon as he did it … I mean the blokes just played 2 full seasons under the sanctions laws and given his position he would have taken a a multitude of free kicks during this time .. just dumb football … it was the right call and wasn’t pedantic at all ….
why do we need a ref in the box – when all we need is the live feed from the bloke with the whistle – they explain their rulings when they blow … we just a commentary team with a balanced viewpoint
July 29th 2009 @ 11:13am
Even looser said | July 29th 2009 @ 11:13am | Report comment
Yep Hammer on that ‘Palu incident’ the word DUMB pretty much summed my thoughts up nicely. If he has that much trouble with the essential skills, then why’s he even got the ball?
The retired Ref idea is certainly one that’s worth exploring. As long as the other ‘commentators’ played by the rules’. I think he’d make his point far clearer for the average viewer (& ex-players) way better than a miked ref would.
I’d prefer the ref to concentrate on his main job rather than becoming a ‘personality’. For me a good ref is an invisible ref and not someone who looks for the limelight.
July 29th 2009 @ 11:30am
Rickety Knees said | July 29th 2009 @ 11:30am | Report comment
Couldn’t agree more Even looser. For mine the ref should be the 31st player.
July 29th 2009 @ 11:36am
Wally James said | July 29th 2009 @ 11:36am | Report comment
Hammer
The commentary team with a balanced viewpoint is the problem. No ex-international that I’ve heard, with the exception of Rod Kafer, is balanced when they commentate on their own team. I don’t mean that as a biting criticism. Its just a fact of life that a proud Wallaby/Bok/ etc does not have an unbiased view of a bloke running around in his jersey. The ref-com, if appropriately chosen would bring that I think
Rickety
Good idea. Done.
Looser
Point taken about the ref. How would you go with someone like Clive Norling or that man who kept the Wallabies in the 2003 final – Andre Watson. No-one would get a word in. Maybe the likes of Lyndon Bray or Andrew Cole. Well spoken calm individuals
July 29th 2009 @ 11:42am
Rickety Knees said | July 29th 2009 @ 11:42am | Report comment
Wally – I reckon Peter Marshall would be excllent
July 29th 2009 @ 11:49am
Hammer said | July 29th 2009 @ 11:49am | Report comment
Wally 100% agree … although I’d say that Drake was pretty fair – and was probably the closest I’ve heard that didn’t barrick for his home team …
I heard Fox on test duty for the first time on Sat night and he (like most) put in the dreaded “we” when referring to the AB’s … I detest that – if you can’t be objective then really you need to be out of there … some (most) don’t like Mexted – but I like him most of the time and Kafer also – they don’t seem to run on emotion – and they both tend to add something relevant to the action