CAMPO: Referees and negative play destroying rugby

When he hasn't been injured hes usually played very well

That's it mate. Why do only some people get that?

Some excellent points Matt and good fodder for thought. Campo has re-opened what seems to be a perennial can of worms with his article. Before I weigh in with some opinions of my own, allow me to address the elephant in the room that underlies and dare I say, holds back open and honest debate on this issue. In Australia support of rugby union is seen by many inside and outside the game as being as much a symbol of status and success as the BMW and the beach house. It is for some a way to socially and intellectually validate themselves. This is because it is largely played in private schools of varying exclusivity. I would love a dollar for every time I have heard it described as a “rah rah” game by perfectly normal, decent people. In New Zealand by contrast rugby is more a game for the masses and therein possibly lies its strength. So the basic question facing rugby is do we really want to turn it into a game for the masses? Personally I don’t think we should or even need to. If we make it just like league where is the point of difference? However we do need to adjust to the fact that rugby is now a professional game played in a competitive environment and we are competing for attention and turnstile clicks. We don’t have to appeal to the lowest common denominator but we do need to attract more players and supporters and hence more sponsorship if the game is to thrive and prosper. How do we do this? For starters, more customer focus and less pedantry, particularly from senior referees. Instead of having a plethora of written criteria by which they are judged after a game there should be just one. Did they ensure the game was an enjoyable spectacle for those who paid to attend and those watching at home or at the pub? Even the most welded on supporter gets sick of seeing countless scrum resets and trivial penalties awarded. Also we need to give them more power and discretion. I’ll get to that in a minute. Less substitutions. Even in league they are now calling for this. Professional players in the modern era are bigger, fitter, faster and stronger and have outgrown the original concept of the game. Having less substitutions would certainly open the game up more and see more tries scored. The other option as Matt suggests is reduce the number of players or I would suggest increase the size of the field. The former is probably undesirable from a product integrity point of view and the latter totally impractical. Even thirteen a side on the field in league can seem too many sometimes with teams often resorting to the “bomb” as the only chance of scoring a try. Change the points system. Teams need to be rewarded for scoring tries, usually the consequence of concerted and skillful effort by many. Fair minded non-supporters regard it as a travesty that a game can be decided by penalties and field goals the consequence of one person’s effort and skill. Penalties two points drop goals one point and the value of a try can stay where it is. Give the ref the option of awarding a penalty worth higher points, say even up to four, for continual infringements or dangerous play. Failing this you can always go back to watching school boy rugby, some of the best games you will ever see as natural flair and enthusiasm for the game has not yet been drilled out of them. If you discover you are going to die soon go to the northern hemisphere and watch them play rugby there. You will find the transition from life to death less noticeable.

It is not the players or coaches at fault-it is the laws of the game and mostly at the breakdown-all or most of the problems flow from there.

Are my comments being published?

great because of the atmophere but the play wasnt too great. only 1 try and that from a clean rip from a forward, not really the epitome of backline play.

1) Walshy has gone down the "pecking order" as he is now classed as an Australian referee, so whilst he is undoubtedly world class, he will never referee a NZ game doe to perceived conflict of interest.... and he pissed Paddy O'Brien off which is just as bad (ask Stu Dickinson....) 2) the scrums in recent seasons have reverted to the winning of the hit on engagement... get rid of the hit, it reduces the risk of injury and returns the scrums to what they were originally for, a contest for possession of the ball, not who has a better technique at one scrum. 3) agree wholeheartedly with the YC for a player taken out in the air in the lineout. I myself have queried that law on the South African rugby referees website and am hoping for their interpretation of that law (google Rugby referees rsa, go to Duty Ref) 4) Bryce is no longer "up the pecking order". Obvious reasons as to why. 5) The white card system is essentially the same as a RL ref crossing his arms to report a player. the SXV ref will show a white card to alert the judicial officer to a specific moment in play that the referee wishes to be reviewed. It is handy to have when the officials are unsighted or unsure of a specific number. It in no way replaces a yellow card (in fact, referees have been advised to use yellow cards as previous) 6) Refs for the B&I Lions v Wallabies would have been neutral referees - most likely RSA or Kiwi refs - Wikipedia believes Andre Watson refereed the 1st test (don't want him back....), 2nd test was Kaplan (don't want him either... Brumbies fan), and low and behold the 3rd test was Paddy O'Brien himself!!

The best arguement I can make Sheek is Sevens rugby. As a game it has ALL of the same plethora of rules as 15's, the same ref and the same sized field. The only difference is the amount of time, drop kicks for conversions and of course less players. Yet there is not too much interference from the ref. How often do we hear about refs deciding Sevens matches? Or that the game is too complicated, or that there is not enough creativity, or too much kicking. How much do people lament the lack of a little man with skills or that players are too bulked up and defensive minded in Sevens? How much do we complain that penalties are too valuable in Sevens and that tries are worth too little. This is why I question whether rugby REALLY does have a major problem with it's laws, when the same game with less players can have NONE of the typical rugby 'yawnion' complaints. If anything, Sevens rugby takes all those things that Rugby League fans trumpet about their game to a new level. Instead people say Sevens is too same/same, not enough bump and grind and not enough tight forward play. So why does it not make sense that there is a happy middle ground of game play if we find a happy middle ground in the number of players?

It’s really up to the players! One can’t always blame the refs, it’s the players that give away penalties that have no regard for the rules of rugby and give away penalty after penalty. Honestly refs should be a lot harsher at the ruck area. Its simple attacking team do not go off their feet and defending team roll away, if ruck is formed no hands in, and no coming in from the side.

Knock-on. "A knock-on occurs when a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, or when a player hits the ball forward with the hand or arm, or when the ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, and the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it."

What sort of advice are you talking about? Before you spout off on this, you (and Campo) should do a little digging on the extremely high level of review that even lower level referees are subjected to. Find a ref you know, ask him (or her). At a higher level, refs received detailed reports by an assessor at every match, addressing each decision and pointing out in glaring details how to improve. These are filed with their society and the ref is expected to address those points or slip down the pecking order. To me, that is taking advice, in the correct manner.

Campo you got it right when you said "bring back rucking". Enough whinning about the refs and please talk about the real issues - the rule changes. If you change the rules then you're changing the game. Its not rugby union anymore its rugby yawnion. Also we've all been beaten over the head enough with playing the game for love not money bulldust. You've made plenty of coin out of Rugby Campo and still do.

Why not just play rugby league?

Its simple. Go back to rugby rules of the 1980's. That's it no more tinkering and changing.

You've hit the nail on the head mate. Why don't more people see it? It really bothers me. Its like I'm in the story of the emporers new clothes.

Could this have something to do with where Australia select their players? I recall earlier discussions saying Australia's top college level rugby are mostly between private schools. I know Digby Ioane, Kurtley Beale and Quade Cooper were all recruited in their private schools otherwise they would never have had a chance to make it. So basically Australian Super franchises only really have rich kids that could afford private school and age group superstars. No real opportunity for potential late bloomers. Without generalizing, if I had to pick who would chance their arm and have a crack at the line between players from a private school who are on schokarships and players from a public school who play for the love of it I'd pick the latter. In NZ it seems they have a wide range in which to select as top rugby is played by all types of schools. And more pathways for late bloomers like Rene Ranger who hadn't played rep rugby till age 20 to come through.

Yes. Really worth considering that Sheek. If we are able to have a game like the Crusaders and Blues game, then why can't all games be like that? Perhaps the players (and maybe their coaches) are the one's mostly responsible after all. So much of rugby as a spectacle is about the attitude of the players. The type of game you can have varies so much from thrilling to a real fizzle. No one can expect a professional team to aim for anything less than winning. But there can be a huge difference in the WAY teams try to win.

Well said Nathan. It is only some 25 years or so since touch judges were allowed to do more than (i) mark the line of touch (ii) indicate if the ball was thrown in by the wrong team, from inside the filed of play and at the wrong spot. It is a lot more than that now. Each year they have greater responsibility under the Laws. Trial and error is the only way to see what works. That does not happen overnight.

Kovana advice is not gratuitous abuse. Calling refs arrogant is the latter, not the former.

We had an interesting discussion last year where a poster (who sounded awfully like a ref) said, I think, round when the ELV's were proposed that the IRB reps sat down and tried to rewrite some simpler rules from scratch. From what I could gather a significant influence in those discussions were referees, who surprise surprise, ended up with pretty much the same rules. Clearly they like it complicated so as to make them more invaluable. What is needed is a referee free group to sit down and start from scratch and then say to the Refs this is it. Rugby is a far poorer spectacle than it used to be with it's robotic league like constant recycling, with the players lined up across the field playing bash it up looking and waiting for a crack. Which is why Cooper and the Reds were such a popular breath of fresh air last year with their set moves and ad lib to break those monotonous defences down. I've always thought, despite being a great defence coach, that John Muggleton was largely responsible for the death of a lot of the fun and excitement and randomness in rugby. In a way he was too good in teaching rugby the boring efficiency of league