Technology needed to improve certainty
Roar Pro 
Referee Craig Joubert (left) shows the yellow card to Rebels' Gareth Delve. AAP Image/Lukas Coch
Related coverage
Have you ever genuinely thought a match official was cheating? While we may scream “cheat” at the referee in the heat of the moment, have you ever thought that the match official was motivated by something other than an honest interpretation of the rules?
The honest among us will tell you that we all think it, but won’t say it.
Naturally, the purists say no, the theorists say maybe, and the conspirators say yes. Is each one right in their belief? Osr is there an element of truth in each thought?
Rugby rules open the door to each of the above statements being correct. Most times it comes back to the word, ‘interpretation’.
The rugby rule book is written in a way that many rules are never black and white or clear cut.
A good example is double movement. Whether something is a double movement is interpreted by opinion. The decision made can eliminate a team who have strived for 20 games of the season. It may decide who is on the winner’s podium at the end of the season.
The decision is further hamstrung by the inability of the decision makers of the IRB to acknowledge that this is now a “money income occupation”, that these athletes now sell their services to the highest bidder based on their ability.
The provider of this money is the fan who pays, whether it is by TV, gate or other means. The income is provided by fan satisfaction and no other, for without him, there is no cash flow.
Technology needs to be introduced to modified rules that remove interpretations from the game.
Making them conclusive would remove the doubt and accusations, and make the fan happier to accept that his team was beaten on the day by a better team.
Getting beaten is never a good feeling. However, being eliminated through any reason other than your own team’s failing is a bitter pill to swallow.
Passionate about your union? Then sign up to The Roar's brand new daily union email, delivering Roaring articles directly to you day-in, day-out. You'll love it!
Click here to join now!
- Explore:
- IRB, Rugby Union
August 1st 2012 @ 7:19am
soapit said | August 1st 2012 @ 7:19am | Report comment
the problem is that at every ruck there is probably something you could penalise but the players know the ref wont blow every time.
perhaps we should have a warning system for a number of infringements like coming in from the side which dont necessarily always have a real impact (but are sensibly there for the times where it does have an impact). if you recieve three warnings in a game you miss a match or spend 5 or 10 minutes in the bin.
August 1st 2012 @ 10:20pm
SkinnyKid said | August 1st 2012 @ 10:20pm | Report comment
This idea has been spoken about for year. Much like BBall with individual penalty count and team count resulting in sin bin.
August 1st 2012 @ 7:39am
Wally James said | August 1st 2012 @ 7:39am | Report comment
There are some fundamental flaws in your article, old chap.
Rugby does not have rules. It has Laws. League has rules. There is no law in rugby relating to a double movement. That is a League rule relating to the scoring of a try. Rugby has a Law relating to releasing the ball at a tackle regardless of whether that happens in the act of scoring a try or not.
The Laws don’t require interpretation. They are not written in a foreign language. The ref applies what he sees to those laws and reaches a decision. The decision is not a matter of interpretation. It is a matter of whether he sees what happened correctly. Of course his decisions might cause a team to be eliminated. That is the effect of all refs’ decisions. Someone has to make the decision. Clearly you can’t leave that up to the teams or their fans.
And this technology of which you speak – is that going to be viewed by people and decisions reached? Yes? I thought so. In that case won’t they all be cheats too, according to your hypothesis?
All technology does is introduce another means of gathering facts to which the Laws can be applied. We already have that system with refs and people complain. More technology is not going to change that I don’t think.
All more technology will do is slow the game down, introduce more information about which supporters will whinge. More technology does not lead to conclusive decisions. If it did no TMO decisions this year would have been disputed. Clearly that didn’t happen.
August 1st 2012 @ 11:56am
mitzter said | August 1st 2012 @ 11:56am | Report comment
Straight away I cringed when I saw the example of ‘double movement’ used. No such law in Rugby
August 1st 2012 @ 12:37pm
tonysalerno said | August 1st 2012 @ 12:37pm | Report comment
Mitzter, i agree with the double movement call mate.
There is no such thing as certainty in sport.
It’s a game played by humans and it is natural for there to be human error. Technology will assist the problem but it will never entirely solve it.
August 1st 2012 @ 2:21pm
sixo_clock said | August 1st 2012 @ 2:21pm | Report comment
A technology could be employed but cannot be simply the province of the refs. For example lets imagine a sensor system which includes both the players the ball and a receiver system (a buzzer on a chest strap (NO! not the groin you dirty dirty little boy)) for the players. Now this could alert the players that they are offside, or not retiring, inside the lineout tunnel etc. Should they ignore the warning a second signal may alert the ref as to who and where. Or it could be employed to provide a beacon(s) across the field for the same purpose. The TMO could reset for different phases, kick off, scrum, general play etc alerting the ref at the same time. The ARs could even be replaced.
It is possible with a local GPS system but do we really need to go down that route? I for one do not believe that that kind of accuracy is necessary as it would only be available from a certain level which just adds to the confusion our youngsters feel. They are already faced with decisions too early as to whether to keep playing Rugby or just move on to other pursuits where they may excel. Losing a particular ruck or the game gracefully no matter what the circumstances is a very very important lesson and it cannot be overlooked because of the desire for accuracy. That the refs get it wrong is probably an intention of the laws to reinforce that lesson, they are a massive task to get completely right. Furthermore playing the ref is part and parcel of the game, some are stricter on some aspects than others and that is also an important lesson for the up and coming young leaders, ie play what is in front of you. Flexibility is a wonderful attribute.
This desire for certainty is largely driven by the gambling sector which cannot make money when too many variables are in play simply because noone is going to punt big when the odds are stacked too high. Punters don’t resent losing fairly but to lose out on the bet because an uncontrollable factor made an (perceived) error is not attractive. As Rugby fans are mostly ex-players we get that refs are by in large neutral or uninfluenced so we grumble a little and move on to next week.
Not necessary and just one glitch is going to be a very expensive disaster.
August 2nd 2012 @ 4:48am
mania said | August 2nd 2012 @ 4:48am | Report comment
6o – excuse the paraphrase “Losing a game gracefully no matter what the circumstances is a very very important lesson” agree whole heartedly. i withdraw the gps chip idea.
August 1st 2012 @ 1:42pm
Cattledog said | August 1st 2012 @ 1:42pm | Report comment
Thanks Wally, well picked up regarding some flaws. I enjoyed your interpretation regarding laws and decision making. Specifically, ‘It is a matter of whether he sees what happened correctly’. Now, whilst I agree with everything you have said, I still believe much of the issues arising from some decisions require the referee to know what the ‘intent’ of a player was. As an example, the intentional knock or throw forward requires a referee to decide whether the action was intentional. This requires the referee to know the intent of the player. Was he attempting to intercept or was he actually just wanting to knock the ball down?
It’s a natural reaction to grab for a ball, which happens to be in arms reach. I suggest the intent in the vast majority of cases is to get the ball, although the ref is allow to judge whether his intent was just to knock the ball down. This needs to be cleaned up. A player knocking the ball out of a half-back’s hands is clearly intentional. On the other hand, it would be exceptionally hard to assume intent when a player attempts an intercept but the ball goes to ground. If his hands were down and the ball goes directly to ground, then usually a penalty will be awarded. He may be luckier if his hands are up and the ball goes forward or up first.
Personally, I would prefer this law be revoked as there is too much interpretation of the players intent required by the referee. Actually, I would go as far as saying the player who passed the ball should be penalised in some way for passing too late, too flat or just plain stupidly.
Finally, I would dearly love to see the power of the TMO expanded so as he is able to provide additional information regarding decisions, even as far as lead up play. I agree technology doesn’t lead to conclusive decisions, however, expanded powers of the TMO may, but that’s for another post no doubt.
August 1st 2012 @ 7:54pm
7andabit said | August 1st 2012 @ 7:54pm | Report comment
There is no law about sealing off, reload, turning the corner either but referees use them. Its called Jargon old chap…..
August 1st 2012 @ 7:59am
mania said | August 1st 2012 @ 7:59am | Report comment
technology isnt going to help. look at all the tmo errors in the last few weeks
August 1st 2012 @ 9:24am
colvin said | August 1st 2012 @ 9:24am | Report comment
Mania,
Clearly you are a rugby tragic just like me so it’s surprising that you don’t see technology as the way forward.
What I would like to see is for the results of games to be determined by the performance of the players, not by mistakes from the referees. If we are good enough to win, we should win. Not lose because of a referee’s mistake.
There are too many instances where greater use of technology would have saved games from unnecessary controversy. But it’s not just technology it’s also a tweaking of the rules/laws under which it is used.
Who remembers Drew Mitchell being sent off for the Wallabies against the AB’s based on a ridiculous referee decision. It completely ruined the game and the ABs ran away with the match against 14 men. One I love was a couple of years ago. Wales beat Ireland in a vital International when they scored a try with the wrong ball from a quick throw in. Look at the farce when TMO wrongly prevented a try in SA last year when AB fullback Dagg passed forward just before the line was crossed. The try was wrongly disallowed because the TMO was not surposed to rule on the pass. But justice was somehow done because the pass was forward. This type of thing makes the rules/laws a farce. Too many Super games this year were won/lost as a result of mistakes by the referee. The Hurricanes beat the Highlanders in Dunedin in a vital match when the referee made two major mistakes causing a 14 point turnaround.
Tweak the laws. Use technology better and the best team will win. Not lose as a result of mistakes by referees. If it’s not done then the second best team on the day will always have an unfair chance of winning.
August 1st 2012 @ 10:12am
mania said | August 1st 2012 @ 10:12am | Report comment
colvin – saying i’m a rugby tragic is an understatement. some say i’m a bit obsessed.
that drewMitchell sending off was bad but technology wouldnt have made a difference. mitchell was the victim of his teams transgressions. he was already in the bin when the team got the final warning about slowing the game down. he came back on and knocked the ball out of muliaina’s hands, which is usually a misdemeanor, but as joubert had already given a final warning drew had to come off. totally ruined that game but increased tech wouldnt have helped unless mitchell had an ear piece hooked up to the ref while he was cooling his heels.
colvin how about the decisions that the TMO’s get wrong? last week saders got a try awarded when the player had hit the ground and then was driven and try was awarded. i’ve seen 3 of these kind of tries awarded in the last 3-4 weeks. where was the tech when canes scored 2 tries against the saders when it was obvious obstruction?
i agree better laws will help but better tech wont, better referees will. i’m against relying on tech because at age grade or club level this tech isnt available. test rugby should be emulated as closely as possible for all levels.
August 1st 2012 @ 11:25am
colvin said | August 1st 2012 @ 11:25am | Report comment
Mania,
Well, if the powers that be listen to us then rugby will thrive.
But in the Drew Mitchell event if the TMO was allowed to talk to the referee during the game, Drew wouldn’t have been in the bin. He got 10 minutes for something one of his teammates did.Therefore the sending off was wrong and the game was ruined (for millions of people)
I can’t recall the Hurricanes obstruction in enough detail to comment but I have in mind that the TMO didn’t comment because he wasn’t allowed to. Concerning the Ellis try when he got pushed over, at least it went to the TMO and was looked at. I suspect it was allowed because of the restrictive rules the TMO works under i.e.was the ball on or over the line. Try or no try. No reference to how it got over the line because the TMO can’t comment on that. So in my mind the powers of the TMO need widening. I wonder what the result would have been without a TMO.Also if the TMO’s are making mistakes train them properly.
I take your point about age group rugby etc. but the professional game needs to eliminate referees mistakes. All I want is for the best team to win and not lose because of referees mistakes. I don’t want constant repeats of the 2007 AB v France game. If we’re good enough we should win.
August 1st 2012 @ 11:32am
mania said | August 1st 2012 @ 11:32am | Report comment
colvin – dont bring up the 2007 WC. look at how much fervour it created in the other post on roar.
ok bout the mitchell incident. forgot he shouldnt have been sent off in the first place.
the thing with relying too much tmo’s is the time it eats up and they are still prone to errors. NFL have a real good system and they were the first to use and discard TMO’s. NFL coaches have 3 challenges they can use to relook at a decision. refs will review it. if its overturned then the coach won if not then that team loses a time out.
also tho the tech may be accurate but the refs that interpret it are fallible.
saying all this though i’m surprised no one has thought of putting a couple of gps chips in the rugby ball.
August 1st 2012 @ 1:30pm
colvin said | August 1st 2012 @ 1:30pm | Report comment
Mania,
It’s a pity they didn’t have TMO’s in 1996 because they would have been able to produce footage of ABs throwing up all over the field as evidence of some wrong doing. I still remember Jeff Wilson thowing up on the sideline around halftime.
Also they might have been able to get footage of Suzie in the Bok’s VIP box. Imagine if she was there being toasted by high ranking Boks supporters.
Joking, joking all you SA fans.
August 1st 2012 @ 1:53pm
Cattledog said | August 1st 2012 @ 1:53pm | Report comment
Colvin, nice couple of posts with Mania. However, there appears to be no logic in your comment regarding a TMO in 1996 producing footage of the ABs throwing up everywhere, therefore having evidence of wrong doing. People throwing up from a dodgy vindaloo does not equate to wrong doing. Well, it could, especially if they were told to avoid certain foods and they didn’t!
Perhaps if the TMO could produce footage of a suspicious person adding an unknown substance to meals about to be consumed by a team, then there may be some validity. Otherwise, it’s just barking up the wrong tree.
August 1st 2012 @ 7:05pm
colvin said | August 1st 2012 @ 7:05pm | Report comment
Cattledog
You raise a point that I hadn’t thought about. There is no doubt in my mind that a number of the AB’s went down in the week of the 1996 final.
But your comment on vindaloo is completely valid. The whole issue of Suzie does leave a bitter taste ( no pun intended ) and, when I think about it, should never have been raised. There is nearly a 100 year history of rugby between NZ and SA and veiled accusations without any evidence at all don’t add anything positive to that relationship.
The whole thing is quite unfortunate as it was such a healing day for SA sport which shouldn’t be spoiled by innuendo.
August 1st 2012 @ 7:26pm
Cattledog said | August 1st 2012 @ 7:26pm | Report comment
I also have no doubt that a large number of the team were crook. It’s the wrong doing or poisoning aspect that’s a little off course. That’s not to say there wasn’t something dodgy but until proven, it’s just a bad case of food poisoning, probably unintentional…or perhaps not. I doubt we’ll ever know for sure
August 2nd 2012 @ 5:03am
mania said | August 2nd 2012 @ 5:03am | Report comment
totally agree about the food poisoning, it was a simple accident. these things happen.
but even tho NZ lost its still just a game. after years have passed i can be philosophical about this.
SA deserved it more. they scrambled in defence well and easily contained jonah (who btw wasnt victim to the food poisoning). if NZ had won it only would’ve been a game. SA won and it united a torn nation. the benefits to the rainbow nation of SA winning easily out weigh the pain that kiwi’s felt over losing a simple game.
and i’d just like to point out that even though half the AB’s were crook, they didnt allow in any tries and forced the game into over time and were beaten by a mere drop kick. joelStransky was one of the most under rated players imo. a steady calm sniper that showed courage under fire.
August 2nd 2012 @ 7:19am
David said | August 2nd 2012 @ 7:19am | Report comment
I know you chaps are joking about 1995 (not 1996)
Since you bring up the subject I think I should relay something I saw and heard with my own eyes and ears.
The 1995 ABs were a great bunch of lads and of course amateurs (well shamateurs anyway)
I know the hotel manager defended his hotel by saying the players were eating out.
They did do that quite substantially. I saw them in the lead up weeks to the QF. They were popping into take outs. Really healthy stuff like KFC and Pizza.
They also relayed how they had to sneak around to avoid being busted by Laurie.
I didn’t see them in the lead up to the final (I arrived in jhb the day before and ought tickets from them) but I presume something similar happened.
Anyway that does not prove anything of course.
Great tournament. I got to see lots of games including 2qfs, both semis, the 3rd place off and he final. Also pool games.
What fun.
August 2nd 2012 @ 9:40am
colvin said | August 2nd 2012 @ 9:40am | Report comment
David/Jerry,
One of the joys of getting older is that you can forget things or get them wrong and you can get away with it on the grounds that, well, everyone expects it anyway. Of course it was 1995, but I was very close at 1996. In fact if I was going o be wrong I couldn’t have been closer. There’s some medical condition, the name escapes me just now, where you can’t remember things that just happened, although you can sort of remember things that happened a few years ago, but you can remember things from a long time ago like it was yesterday.
Well, the Drew Mitchell push, I can sort of remember. But I seem to recall that a touchie pinged Drew for something else which was done by one of his teammates. Hence, the bin. But if he got the bin for the push on Richie, well, c’mon, it was nothing. A push from Drew is like handbags at dawn. You can take your pick on what I would call a push on Richie. Early on against the Chiefs he got a decent push from the young Chiefs prop.(since it was just recent I can’t recall his name) Later in the same match he got push from the other prop (name also gone). In both pushes the ref. didn’t do much. There may have been a penalty, but no bin.That’s the way to handle pushes on Richie. A talking to or a penalty, but no bin. Then Drew knocked the ball out of Mils hands when it was out of play. Apparently the ref had given a last warning when Drew was in the bin so he got a red card. Wow, talk about getting the sprit of the game wrong.The game ruined for millions of people.
But as you get older, things that happened years ago are as clear as a bell. I recall Bruce Macleod’s first test for NZ against Australia at Carisbrook in 1964. He got a writeup after the game as being the next best thing. But right in front of me when the ABs won a ruck on the Wallabies line the ball spilled out to Macleod. All he had to do was scoop it up and dive over. My grandmother could have done it. I could have done it. But Bruce dithered around and got dumped into touch.I never rated Bruce Macleod after that..
So if I post on this website you can be sure if it happpened years ago I’ll remember it like it happened yesterday. But if it happened yesterday well it all may be a bit fuzzy so I’ll need a little forbearance. .
August 2nd 2012 @ 10:50am
Jerry said | August 2nd 2012 @ 10:50am | Report comment
McCaw was off balance (on one foot) when Mitchell pushed him which made it look worse than it was (or “McCaw flopped like a dirty cheat” according to some) and the touch judge spotted it from a distance. Was nothing, penalty at worst.
It was Conrad Smith who had the ball when Mitchell knocked it out of his hands – that I didn’t have a problem with, both teams were doing that sort of niggly gamesmanship and the ref decided to knock it on the head. Unfortunately Drew didn’t get the memo, but I still think the ref’s stance was to be applauded.
August 2nd 2012 @ 8:27am
Jerry said | August 2nd 2012 @ 8:27am | Report comment
“But in the Drew Mitchell event if the TMO was allowed to talk to the referee during the game, Drew wouldn’t have been in the bin. He got 10 minutes for something one of his teammates did.Therefore the sending off was wrong and the game was ruined (for millions of people)”
No, he did it. He late tackled Richie McCaw, but it should have been a penalty at worst (some Aussie fans will claim that McCaw ‘flopped’ I’m sure).
The game was effectively over before Mitchell’s red card as the AB’s aren’t likely to blow an 18 point halftime lead.
August 1st 2012 @ 10:26am
Invictus said | August 1st 2012 @ 10:26am | Report comment
The referees should be given every practicable technological aid to improvee their performance. The first thing to do is allow the TMO to operate as a 3rd AR with particular emphasis on offside.
August 1st 2012 @ 10:33am
mania said | August 1st 2012 @ 10:33am | Report comment
they should have 4 touchJudges (i refuse to call them ass refs). one for each half of the field and when a penalty or conversion is being kicked then two under the posts while the other two are on the sidelines ready for a quick break out.
invictus – agree about offsides being better policed, tho TJ’s should be keeping an eye on this at all times as the ref is watching the ball.
August 1st 2012 @ 2:32pm
sixo_clock said | August 1st 2012 @ 2:32pm | Report comment
The Law about double movement is when any part of the body except the arms is used when placing the ball after a tackle. If you use your legs or trunk you have broken those laws. I haven’t a copy of the Laws at the moment but it is there.
August 1st 2012 @ 4:14pm
Cattledog said | August 1st 2012 @ 4:14pm | Report comment
The Law about double movement no longer exists Sixo. It was done away with back in the 90s. Now, you may play the ball and even play it forward to score a try. However, if you are tackled, play the ball forward and you are short, then you must release the ball as you have played it. If you were to make a subsequent lunge and then score, you would be penalised for holding on, not a double movement. Double movement still exists in league.
August 2nd 2012 @ 4:06am
7andabit said | August 2nd 2012 @ 4:06am | Report comment
Law 22.4 (d) Momentum try. If an attacking player with the ball is tackled short of the goal line but the player’s momentum carries the player in a continuous movement along the ground into the opponents’ in-goal, and the player is first to ground the ball, a try is scored.
(e) Tackled near the goal line. If a player is tackled near to the opponents’goal line so that this player can immediately reach out and ground the ball on or over the goal line, a try is scored.
August 2nd 2012 @ 8:45am
Cattledog said | August 2nd 2012 @ 8:45am | Report comment
Correct 7andabit. No double movement.
August 2nd 2012 @ 5:36am
Jerry said | August 2nd 2012 @ 5:36am | Report comment
I always wonder why people get so annoyed when people say ‘double movement’? Yeah, it’s not actually defined in law but it neatly summarises an illegal play. There are plenty of other common phrases that aren’t actually in the law books but that serve to sum up what is actually wrong with the play – ‘forward pass’, ‘shepherding’, ‘truck and trailer’ etc, but you don’t get people complaining about their use.
August 2nd 2012 @ 8:54am
Cattledog said | August 2nd 2012 @ 8:54am | Report comment
Who’s annoyed? Just pointing out fact. Talking about double movements would be akin to commentators calling a particularly good kick in general play from well in the attackers half and finding touch in the opponents 22 a 40-20.
August 2nd 2012 @ 9:11am
Jerry said | August 2nd 2012 @ 9:11am | Report comment
It was a general observation, not particularly directed at you. Apologies.
I don’t think it’s comparable to talking about a 40-20. The phrase “Double movement” neatly sums up what has actually happened whereas saying “He hasn’t immediately released it” doesn’t really (especially for a layperson who is watching) because ‘immediate’ is a pretty vague term.
It’s like when commentators go on about ‘control’ when looking at a player possibly knocking on going over for a try. The law doesn’t require “control”, it requires ‘holding the ball’ but most people would say that holding requires some level of control.
August 2nd 2012 @ 9:35am
Cattledog said | August 2nd 2012 @ 9:35am | Report comment
I suppose the only other reason I don’t particularly like the phrase is it was only ever to do with the act of scoring a try. Your tackled short, the ball touches the ground and your momentum has been halted, you then lunge out and place the ball over the line. That used to be referred to as a double movement. Now of course you can play the ball in that fashion and be awarded a try. Any subsequent attempts, of course, means you haven’t released the ball and so you will be penalised. Not a double movement but perhaps a triple or quadruple movement
August 2nd 2012 @ 11:03am
Jerry said | August 2nd 2012 @ 11:03am | Report comment
Taumalolo’s effort in the semi vs the Crusaders was definitely a quadruple…
August 2nd 2012 @ 7:46am
formeropenside said | August 2nd 2012 @ 7:46am | Report comment
Actually, not according the referee in the Reds v Bulls game – it was OK to reach out, be short of the line, and then pull the ball back to make it available for your team.
August 2nd 2012 @ 8:51am
Cattledog said | August 2nd 2012 @ 8:51am | Report comment
Correct FOS. That’s where increased powers of the TMO would have (may have) sorted that out. I forget the wording used by the referee in that instance, however, the Bulls player (a winger I think from memory) should have been penalised for hanging on. He actually played it twice.
Water under the bridge now.
August 2nd 2012 @ 10:14am
sixo_clock said | August 2nd 2012 @ 10:14am | Report comment
You are all right. There is no specific Law as to double movement except the tackled player’s right to legally place or propel the ball after being tackled. Recently I saw (I believe it was) Joubert disallow a try and he used the words ‘lifted his trunk’ in the explanation so the assumption was made it was there in the Laws. Cheers.
Now for baulking, they are in there and they are creeping back in – free kick.
August 1st 2012 @ 3:57pm
Kuruki said | August 1st 2012 @ 3:57pm | Report comment
More technology? No no no.
They can hardly get it right with the technology that they already have. How often do we sit through 3 or 4 minutes of replay footage only for the TMO to give the incorrect decision anyway? It is hugely frustrating for a fan to have to sit through that and not be guaranteed the correct call.
I’m sure most fans can understand that there will be mistakes made during games, but when there is a neutral ref who is professional enough to do his job without any influence, then at the end of the day things usually even themselves out.
In my mind there is no doubting that some refs are influenced by certain factors, i am absolutely positive of this. Technology will not help in any of these cases as the ref himself has total control over whether he uses it or not.
I for one am not prepared to sit through even more replays, that encompass looking over ruck and maul infringements, looking for knockons, looking for indiscretions 4 minutes prior to a try being scored. There has to be a line drawn in the sand somewhere.
More technology is not what we need, more professional refs with a positive attitude toward encouraging and allowing flowing rugby is what is needed. And a stronger scrutiny of those refs to ensure they remain on the top of their games.
August 2nd 2012 @ 9:39am
Jutsie said | August 2nd 2012 @ 9:39am | Report comment
August 1st 2012 @ 5:07pm
colvin said | August 1st 2012 @ 5:07pm | Report comment
Well, I guess I can’t win them all.
But Mania’s idea of the coach (perhaps captain as well) having a combined three challenges seems to have merit.The key is to somehow stop these howlers that referees come up with regularly. I absolutely abhor a team winning a match unfairly. When it’s a big match it’s even worse.
August 1st 2012 @ 5:10pm
Colin said | August 1st 2012 @ 5:10pm | Report comment
I think referees have to let some things go in order to have a free flowing game. If they blew everything the game would become unutterably dull.
I do think technology has a part to play when the decision is decisive in terms of affecting the outcome of the game, before or after the try-line. (BTW, I don’t think referees cheat – although the incident when Lawrence penalised the (Boks or Sharks front row? can’t remember) for ‘moving’ while the scrum was being set, did test my conviction, fleetingly.
August 1st 2012 @ 6:43pm
PeterK said | August 1st 2012 @ 6:43pm | Report comment
Professional rugby is very different to lower levels of rugby.
First of all the players are employees and they have a job and have to play the way the employer wants them to. This means in a lot of cases they are in the entertainment industry. The spectator via pay tv ratings and gate takings are far far more important.
Hence the set up of conference systems and bonus points in super rugby.
Also winning or losing can impact their job security.
This is in stark contrast to lower levels where it is largely a players game for the players enjoyment.
The game is played and reffed quite differently in the 2 games.
Professionally they intentionally and systematically cheat all the time. The refs are obliged to minimise penalties to let the game flow and hence the jargon of interpretation and only penalising some of the offences. This discretion is the major focal point of the disgruntlement of the fans with refs.
Conversely look at the amateur game, MOST infringments are accidental and issues of timing. The refs by and large do not have to let infringements go because a) there are a lot less b) spectators , viewers dont matter c) a fair game for the players is more important. So the refs are stricter BUT less penalties occur.
Since they are 2 different games with 2 different drivers / priority of stake holders, I am all for the professional game having more technology to get it right and it matters not at all that the same cant be done at lower levels.
Persoanlly if the refs DID enforce all the laws and were very strict and gave yellows for every intentional infringement it would be a lot better game after the initial uproar and upheaval. It is a great game if played to the laws as written. Constant cheating can mire it to a tedious, stop start affair.
August 2nd 2012 @ 5:24pm
colvin said | August 2nd 2012 @ 5:24pm | Report comment
I was going to give a detailed response as to why accuracy of officialdom is necessary in the modern game but most of the relevant points are covered by PeterK. But there are a few more points to consider apart from the financial importance to players, coaches, sponsors, the need to increase the game’s popularity and therefore its financial viability. There are the bragging rights of each country which ties into the importance to a country for their team to win. I can tell you in NZ many are brought up from birth on the need for the ABs to win.
But my biggest beef is the inaccuracy of the current system. I believe if you are the best team on the day you should win. Not always, because the opponent may get a couple of lucky intercept tries that pulls it off for them. But I don’t accept and never will that the opponent can win because of mistakes by referees. These mistakes cover all areas of the game, but most often its tries scored that shouldn’t be or tries not scored that should have been. Also penalties given or not given. In most of these instances the TMO could help the referee if he were allowed to.
And while I’m on it there’s one more beef. When I and my mates played there was no bin and sending off was practically non existent. I will always remember Andrew Stack in a post WC match interview when one of his players had been sent off, he thought unfairly. He said rugby was a team game 15 players against 15. Not 14 against 15. I recall Colin Meads being sent off in Scotland in 1967. It was the first sending off in an International since I think 1925. All NZ was completely up in arms. Horrified. Nowadays it’s pretty common place for players to be sent to the bin. I can probably live with that. But red card, No. It has be for something major serious. Too much is at stake. I did not agree with the Welsh Captain being sent off against France in the WC. It ruined the game for millions of people. Yellow, maybe; White card maybe but not Red. Ban him for 6 months if need be. The TMO should be involved in major decisions like that because of the potential impact on the game. You may as well stop the game at the time of the red card and give it to the other side.
So there we are. More involvement from the TMO; no red cards unless for a major serious action (suspension after the match if need be) red card only after approval by the TMO. Big training programme to stop TMO’s mistakes.
August 2nd 2012 @ 6:12pm
Cattledog said | August 2nd 2012 @ 6:12pm | Report comment
Colvin, whilst I agree with you to a large extent regarding red cards, I think there would be a legal can of worms should a player tackle another player dangerously, not be sanctioned then tackles another player in a similar manner leaving him paralysed. Now, I’m not a lawyer but I would think that there would be significant evidence to sue the player, referee or both. There is insurance of course and I’m not up with the procedures here but there could be ramifications.
Having said that, I suppose a yellow and white card would have a similar effect, especially at international level. Perhaps a fairer situation would be to give a red card but after 10 mins, that player may be replaced? At this level, 14 against 15 is generally not a fair contest but most teams cope with a 10 min suspension.
I think in the main referees need to be seen doing the right thing. However, the red card in the WC to the Welsh captain was harsh and actually spoilt what would have been a cracker of a game. Another referee may have given a yellow, who knows, but if the 10 min replacement rule was active, then at least Wales could have brought on a replacement after 10 mins, which for my mind is considerably fairer
I think the argument that teams would perhaps sacrifice a lesser player early to ‘take out’ an opposition player has little merit, especially at the higher levels. Such action would become fairly obvious and a couple of years suspension would soon cruel such action in the future.
I’m not sure if the replacement of red carded players has been discussed before.
August 1st 2012 @ 8:12pm
Rabbitz said | August 1st 2012 @ 8:12pm | Report comment
Or we could get over this obsession that “it all must be exactly correct”, accept that players, referees, administrators and spectators are all human. Which means that errors will be made.
At the end of the day it is pretty meaningless. It is just sport. It is just another entertainment industry.
No-one gets their birthday taken off them if the team they follow loses, regardless of the reason for that defeat.
Lets get rid of the technology, let the man with the pea make the decision and simply move on. The games will flow better and the aggrieved fans will have something to yell at the TV about.
If you really want to improve rugby there are four simple things that could be done:
1. Get rid of the synthetic ball – Bring back the leather ball and get the players to improve their handling and kicking skills.
2. Bring back proper jumpers instead of these skin tight slippery soccer shirts. Let the props have something to bind on, and allow tacklers something to grab. It might even stop the accidental head shots due to arms slip upwards.
3. Get rid of the hit in the scrums. Go back to the no push before feed arrangements, oh and make sure the feed is straight.
Finally
4. Bring back rucking…
August 2nd 2012 @ 12:51pm
Invictus said | August 2nd 2012 @ 12:51pm | Report comment
Not sure about point 1 but you get my vote for 2, 3, and 4.