Super Rugby referees need help from technology

I read with interest some of the posts which argue the issues around refereeing decisions and how they should or should not be sanctioned for erronious decisions. It is obvious that individuals are goint to make some decisions which are not accepted a the right ones by both sets of fans, that is what comes with supporting one team over another. However i have just watched the Bulls v's the Brunbies officiated by Marius Jonker. I have never put a post on before about refereeing, but this display has prompted me to make comment. When he allowed play to progress when all (both sides0 had stopped as they themselves assessed a knock on had taken place, he effectively handed the opposition a score in the corner. lets forget if it was knocked on or not, but refs are usually over keen to go to the video ref for clarification, but in this case where he could have quickly gone to the video, he decides against it. The video ref could have quickly made the decision about the earlier knock on. What makes the whole matter worse is his unaccountability to the public and fan-base. Where else would an official be able to hide behind this dated rule that they are above being asked and required to answer for decisions which may have had an impact on the result of a big match. i should add that i do not come from the Southern Hemisphere so have no axe to grind on behalf of any team. I merely enjoy watching a game of rugby played at high tempo with exeptional skill levels. In contrast to our own recent Six Nations competition wher both tempo and skill were sadly lacking.

anopinion, since you dont like the analogy of the plumber, how about the professional formula one driver? is he responsible for his split second decisions? is the airline pilot responsible for his split second decisions? what about the olympic sprinter? what about the players themselves on the rugby pitch? im pretty sure you have been critical of some player at some time in history for making a mistake, even asked him to be dropped, if the poor performance continued. why should the referee be any different? as stakeholders, what mistakes do we allow, and which ones do we not allow? is a knock on from a player better or worse than an incorrect penalty whistled by the referee that gives one team a massive benefit? we should embrace technology and use the tools that are available to us. it is a nonsense to say that this will slow the game down, as so much is seen from the box that could be called down to the on field ref, immediately. forward passes, knock ons, offsides etc. i would rather watch a game of mistakes by the players involved, and whom of which i have actually paid to see, than the game be ruined by a third party, whom apparently we should allow free rein and minimal accountablity. we talk about equality etc, but want to protect the referee from ultimate responsibility. no one can claim the referee does not care about his own performance or his job, is a cheat etc, but if there is no criticism, then how do they get better? we all want greater transparency with our sporting teams and i would like that to flow onto the aspect of refereeing. all in all, just like the players, the referees do infact, by and large, do a fantastic job and should be applauded, i just wish that we would actually move into using the technology available to us, rather than holding onto some outdated amateur notions from the games history.

so going by this notion of 6.a.4/5, where is the recourse for the stakeholders in the game? if the ref is the sole and only arbiter of the rules, then he in fact is a dictator and what is the point of that? to say that the letter of the laws is adhered to is completely wrong and simply unworkable, and mind you, the game is better for it. we could probably pick out roughly the same 10 rulings made during each and every match, which hardly supports the notion that the game is based on "playing to the letter of the law". we should also remember that this "spirit"of the game changes and adapts to the specific time in history in which the game is played. the "spirit" is not the same in the 20's, as it was in the 50's or today. fair play and respect is a virtue of life, not just sport and not just rugby, but this does not mean that we absolve one of the main components from resposibility. i applaud the notion of the utmost respect for the referee, but with the stakes raised and the professional aspect of the game, these laws become outdated. this does not mean we accept carte blanche refusal to adhere to the referees interpretation during the game, simply remind ourselves that he/she is simply a component part of the overall package, and thus is not excused from poor performance. in all aspects of life we have "laws" that have been on the books for hundreds of years, and thankfully the powers that be do not look to enforce all these laws. i would also suggest that laws 6.a.4/5 are what we would like to believe we SHOULD be like, not actually indicative of what we actually ARE. you would be hard pressed to find any time in history where these specifics have been adhered to, after all, it is in our nature to question what we dont understand, and should we expect an answer? the laws suggest we shouldnt, as we cant even ask the question. so does this really fit into our so called educated, enlightened society? we are all involved at some level in the evolution of the ideas about the game, and at this point of time, the stakeholders want greater clarity about the decisons that have been made by the referee. the idea that players from a bygone era just sucked it up is a myth, as i recall many a game when colin meads would argue about the decision of the referee, and after getting a response (of any sort) would THEN get on with the game, the point being that at least the questions were raised. i guess like anything we just pick our battles, and if the referee is in a good mood then we will ply him as much as possible ( ala the master, richie mccaw) to get favourable decisions throughout. the coaches,players all make mistakes, and we should be trying to help the referee to limit his, as its hard enough playing and coaching the game without the added problem of inconsistent refereeing.

I really think some of the comments are quite ridiculous. How often with plenty of replays it is impossible to award a try, even though balance of probabilities are that it actually happened. I think that far too much has been made of the eye gouging white card incident. Did it happen? Truth is none of us will ever know. If there was evidence, then no one would be complaining. Because nothing could be seen says absolutely nothing. The New zealanders as well as Australians are not angels at all either and I thing that South Africa has done a huge amount of work to clean up this aspect of the game here. In fact the boks had one of the (if not the best) disciplinary record at the last world cup. I agree that the ref has a hell of a tough job and that technology should be used as much as possible. A forward pass is a forward pass - does it matter where the call comes from - tmo / touch judge or ref, as long as the call is correct.

The Refs do not just work 80 minutes a week. Like players they train, watch video, study laws, practice and then for brief moment of the working week they do what is virtually an impossible job they try to get every decision correct. No one gets it right all of the time. The irony astounds me (wait for it is it irony or just coincidence). People who complain about a ref calling the rules incorrectly are by doing so breaking a laws and the principals of rugby which state, 6.a.4 The referee is the sole judge of fact and of Law during a match. The referee must applyfairly all the Laws of the Game in every match. 6.a.5 All players must respect the authority of the referee. They must not dispute the referee’s decisions. Also to be considered is the Playing Charter last updated in 2009. A section dedicated to the Principals of the Game, one of which is headed Spirit. Rugby owes much of its appeal to the fact that it is played both to the letter and within the Spirit of the Laws. The responsibility for ensuring that this happens lies not with one individual - it involves coaches,captains, players and referees. It is through discipline, control and mutual respect that the Spirit of the Game flourishes and, in the context of a Game as physically challenging as Rugby, these are the qualities which forge the fellowship and sense offair play so essential to the Game’s ongoing success and survival.Old fashioned traditions and virtues they may be, but they have stood thetest of time and, at all levels at which the Game is played, they remain asimportant to Rugby’s future as they have been throughout its long anddistinguished past. The principles of Rugby are the fundamentalelements upon which the Game is based and they enable participants toimmediately identify the Game’s character and what makes it distinctiveas a sport.

Good points. Next time my plumber comes over I will give him split seconds to make decisions and... actually I really don't think it is worthwhile mentioning all the reasons this analogy may not be the best. Simply put, if there are better refs out there, please stand up. The refs doing Super Rugby are the best we have at the moment. If they need training let's give it to them. If they need more money or bigger rest periods, let's give it to them. Whatever it takes to improve refereeing I am happy to support. BUT I do not think sacking them, calling them cheats, publicly humiliating them or pointing out their mistakes as the reason your team lost is going to achieve the aim of improving reffing. As a wise colleague used to say when he heard a player whine about a ref, "if you made as few mistakes each game as the reff you would win man of the match each week and your team would have an undefeated season".

Lippy,are you one of the 57 old farts Will Carling talked about?

i think once a player gets to the professional level, rugby ceases to be for fun and enjoyment, and this is the crux of the matter. it may be a game to us, but it sure isnt to the men and women who play it for a living. its a job just like any other, and the odd bad day aside, a professional job has specific targets/objectives and a high level of accountability that must be adhered to in order to be successful. there would be a lot of roarers on here who do a job that i would consider hard and extremely difficult aswell, so its doesnt really follow to allow this excuse for our referees.

im not a plumber Anopinion/WQ, but if the guy does a shoddy job on my bathroom should i only be able to chastise him by taking a course in plumbing? passion and hysteria aside, im sure everyone knows that the refs are trained professionals, but that does not make them unaccounatble for their performance on the paddock. all we ask for is consistancy, just the same from the bank manager, the plumber and the CEO. its a long bow to draw if the stakeholders in the game (players/fans) cannot be critical of the refereeing performance simply because they havent reffed before. its frankly a moot point. the ref is paid as a professional endeavour to do a certain task, and as hard as it may be, the excuses that you offer, do not excuse him/her from doing what they are paid to do. if a player plays terribly, sometimes the team can make allowances during the game to negate that issue, but if the referee is terrible, then what recourse do the stakeholders have? again, it is irrelevant that most of us have never been refs, just as most of us are not plumbers, bank managers or CEOs. i completely agree about the over the top hysteria being a waste of time and clouds the real reason why we have a gripe with the ref, but unfortunately, the referee chooses this profession, and the various reactions of the fans is all apart of his profession. if we cant criticise the ref, are we allowed to be critical of the players/coaches/administrators? ive never been the latter, so am i allowed to be critical of them and their performance? granted, its always helpful to be educated rather than ignorant so that any argument can be reasoned effectively, and i think most of us on theroar have enough nous to understand and accept this.

Have another wine before you go to bed. Goodnight Lippy.

For someone who lives in Australia you certainly are one of the most patriotic Australian I have ever had the pleasure of encountering at the roar. Its quite easy to deduce that you are South African although you may live in Australia. No need to reply as the hole is already deep enough. Goodnight Derek sleep well

It might shock you to know that I live in Melbourne and I support the Rebels. You just assumed I'm South African. Says it all for me.

Derek I love your aggressive style and the fact i have replied to every sour grape on that vine of yours yet you still go off on a tangent. Fact is you have nothing to stand on you keep shifting the goal posts accuse others of being holier than thou yet when your own self righteousness is highlighted you cry foul. Hmmm funny that down here in Australasia we use the term hypocrite. You cry also that you have Been personally attacked then make threats towards me and throw insults that just make me laugh hmmm down in our part of the world we would use the term hypocrite. I read an answered all your points yet you clearly have no.answer for. In short your looking for an axe to grind and throw stones while crying poor me playing the victim card. If your not prepared to have your thought process challenged I'd recommend stepping away from the keyboard.

Lippy I suggest you read my posts again. I have never questioned the finding of the citing commissioner. All I've done is point out the fact that the whining and whingeing started when it was an allegation made against your fine upstanding gentlemanly players. Like I said in my previous post, don't only dislike the white card when it is used against your own players and then demanding apologies. Learn to read properly and if you have a point learn to formulate it clearly and concisely without attacking the individual. You might find that we can actually end up agreeing on a lot of issues.

The fact is Derek you don't like what you have seen in an Australian forum where Kiwis and Australian dont share your clouded view. You claim the evidence doesn't refute the accusations but you also choose to ignore the fact the evidence or lack of also paints another picture of which the obvious conclusions can be drawn. The fact that nowhere outside of Africa have pictures of the "claimed injuries" been seen. Fact 1 are you talking about the Dr being cited for his face slap on Karl Lowe which was so obvious Steve Wonder would have seen it. Fact 2 who specifically are yourselves? Fact 3 you speak of Flips blood I suggest you go back and watch the game again and you will see that he in FACT was injured before the do called eye gauge incident from a stray boot if I recall possibly his own team mates if i recall the breakdown on.reunion correctly last night. Also the incident of where Flip was supposedly gouged was directly in front of the ref he was looking right at the tackle and subsequent ruck. Also pays to note it was a South African citing official who found nothing to prove your and the bulls claims. There is no place for foul play in the game I agree with you there however you imply guilt when there is no evidence to back up your claims.

And yet again you resort to insults instead of countering my argument with facts. Told you you might not like what you see. You have not responded to any part of my argument. Poor form.

As JT sang "Cry me a river" Your clearly incapable of taking your eye patch off and have simply come in here to provoke. Heard of Keo? that poor excuse of a forum would be more suited to your confrontational style of posting.

Mr Lippy, if you want to get personal bring it on mate. Why not argue the facts instead of getting personal and insulting. Let me spell it out for you (failing which I might have to resort to drawing pictures): Fact 1: Nothing has been said about any white cards used against South African players even though none of these allegations had been proved. Fact 2: There was a murmuring amongst yourselves about the Byrnes incident because the poor bugger had been suspended for 10 weeks and of course we can't have an Aussie or NZ players (fine upstanding decent young fellows that they are) sitting out that long especially not given the current state of Aussie rugby. Fact 3: Nobody demanded an apology from anyone for any of the above incidents. Fact 4: Flip van der Merwe had been injured in or around his eye, unless you also think that he may have sneakily placed the blood there himself. Fact 5: Evidence to prove any foul play has been inconclusive. My point: Assist the refs by any means possible and you might see or come to realise something that you might not like! If you don't like the white card system then don't like it all of the time, no matter who the players are that are involved or where they're from or for which team they play . Cheating is as bad if not worse than foul play and both should be eradicated from the game.

Get over your Victim complex already it really is tiresome. Fact is the claims can not be proven anything you or the Bulls say is pure speculation and unsubstantiated at that. You speak of holier than thou attitudes have you stopped to read and think about what your writing? Your infering things are said that weren't and playing the poor me card a little too much. Seems if anyone is being self righteous here its you. The case against Byrnes was the first to raise the eyebrows re the white card and now the weekends match has raised concerns on how teams can possible manipulate the system to give themselves an advantage. No one has said this was the Bulls game plan however after no evidence was found if you can take the eye patch off for a moment you may see how it looks from the otherside of the fence. Foul play has no place in the game that is one thing we can agree on

So again, just because players in the past have committed acts of foul play does that mean the claims are just lies and an abuse of the white card? It seems the white card system is fine as long as its not used by those filthy players from South Africa to show up those fine gentlemanly players from Aus or NZ who 'never' commit any such foul acts. No complaints had been raised when the white card was used against South African players who were similarly found not guilty due to inconclusive evidence. However, now that the tables are turned there is an outcry from the holier than thou chorus of 'we demand an apology' brigade. I say give the refs all the assistance and even force it on them when required. Perhaps then the skewed statistics of foul play will be partially rectified. The constant editing out of off the ball niggle and antagonising behaviour by some players must stop.