Will poor refereeing ruin the upcoming rugby tours?

Kearns, in particular, is very poor. Before him Simon Poidevin was almost comical in showing his lack of rules knowledge.What gets my grits is the constant Aussie whining about Refs who won't let the game 'flow' i.o.w. they must ignore rule transgressions even if they disadvantage the defending side! Zavos is a main culprit if this nonsense. Why not, instead, penalise the guilty side and then march the penalty another 15 metres toward their goal line - that would certainly cut down on the transgressions!

ps Didnt say I dont enjoy the game. I do. But some ref decisions do irritate.

Ah A.S. A purist. Well good for you and good retort, though suggesting a 'vapid simplicity' seems somewhat harsh and may I say elitist, perhaps the vernacular in the circles you feign to represent. I have no objection to a purist perspective of the game, though regretably A.S. I suggest that the majority of your supporters are out to enjoy the simplicity of a battle of two forces, an allusion to tribal warfare, not an attempt to interpret the contest through some exegesis on every element of each rule in the game. Should remind you that I have played the game,in the forwards though certainly not at first class level by any stretch, but I do have a smidgen of an understanding of the rules, though certainly dont profess to be anywhere near the purist you obviously choose to be. My concerns relate to the fact that, with my small knowledge of the game, I am seeing in scrums a multitude of potential penalties, should one be pedantic, all subtle, yet the referee subjectively and arbitrarily identitifies one of these minor breaches to penalise. We all see it. It happens in line outs as well and yet so often forward passes, blatant knock ons, and various elements of offside play too often go unnoticed. I am merely advocating that referees are there to police illegal or obvious breaches of the rules, not to consistently confuse the players and spectators with decisions that do nothing to enhance the spectacle and seem based purely on that official's predilection for addressing certain irrelevancies while ignoring the bigger issues But then I must be vapidly simple..

Bearmax - Rugby is the most dynamic and complex of all the football codes (even more so than American football, though the Yanks will do anything to make something seem more complex than it really is. The complexity is one of its great appeals in the playing of it, and spectators who wish to appreciate our game have to do a bit to learn its intricacies, unlike in some other codes where all one needs to do is just sit there and suck up the vapid simplicity of it all. Such a complex game could not be played without some discretion from the referee, and this is built in to the laws of the game. Players get this, and so do real rugby people. Do some work; read the laws; maybe even pick up a whistle yourself. The illumniation you achieve will mean that you'll enjoy the game a whole lot more than you obviously do now.

PeterK, it is wrong to say that players choose to infringe in most cases. Fundamentally, rugby is a game where you contest possession. Yet, you can also be penalised for contesting, if your timing is wrong, you make a mistake, the referee makes a mistake, or another player (either teammate or opposition) action changes the situation i.e. a maul becomes a ruck, a tackle becomes a ruck as an extra players arrives, an opposition player contests the ball you were placing (legally, before it was contested) etc. These are all instances when a player doing everything within their powers to play within the laws of the game will be penalised.

dont have refs at all then, the players can play to their hearts content, then the game belongs to them and they can play however they want with no interference, all laws are discretionary then. I dont understand why you had to go the personal attack. I have never said there are games that players dont infringe, my point is they choose to infringe in most cases. I have seen plenty of games, and reffed them where in the last few mins not 1 infringement is made due to close scores and not wanting to lose by a penalty. Other than that its all semantics, yes I understand what you are saying about discretionary penalties / decsions but I think what you really mean is what is wanted is consistency ie if a ref lets something go then he should let it go all the time since the players can then adjust, same with penalising some things, players are happy if he consistency is applied. The exception is some teams just want to cyncially cheat using the same ploy time and again and deserve to be carded. However it is always the same ref bashing that its his fault he penalises instead of looking at a player choosing to infringe. On a personal note I do try and ref such that I only penalise where it materially effects the game or its dangerous (to prevent escalation, retaliation and red cards) or dissent. So I get few penalties in the game, it seems inconsistent since I ignore the same offence sometimes and penalise other times depending if it effects the game, the game does flow, the crowd constantly whinges about what i am not penalising, some players whinge as well. What is annoying is in most cases the teams have enjoyed the game , there is a good game, the referee coach / assessor gives me a lecture about all the penalties I did not blow (thinking I missed the infringement) , and some (the minority fool players) also still whinge, maybe they are used to penalty after penalty. I do think it is incosnistent and overly harsh giving scrum penalties in a lot of cases. If youw ant the laws all applied people would whinge far more.

ive never seen a single game or heard of one where the players have played to all the laws of the game, perterK. never seen or heard of a game reffed with "just" material penalties being blown either!! the point of teams not infringing late in games is also simply not true, simply comes down to that magical word of "discretion" being applied. point is, if we cant trust the laws to be applied as they stand as fans, and sure couldnt whilst we were playing, then what hope is there to fix it? should we acknowledge the inconsistancies but then not look to clear them up? the game is made for the players and thats all i advocate. whether that entertains the fans or not is another concern. just let players play. i can acknowledge that you probably have had too many years as a referee to want the game back where it belongs, with the players. maybe a bit too jaded, peterK?

well that trashes your idea of the players playing to the laws of the game, then peterK. if the players should only play to what will be a "material" offence, then a lot of laws should not exist!! you cant argue that one should play to the laws on the one hand and then say that only "material" offences be penalised. its all semantics, but you surely can see how this becomes impossible. we always agree about the use of technology to help the ref and the stupidity of how the laws are written and applied ( scrums are case in point), but if you remember actually playing the game you should realise its not so easy to play to 150 different rules with different interpretations at speed, in contact and in a matter of seconds.

only infringements that MATERIALLY effect play, disadvantaging the opposition should be penalised, regardless of of how blatant or intentional or accidental it is. This single thing would reduce a lot of penalties.

most likely, they are that good. the all blacks had an awesome record long before paddy arrived on the scene, somewhere around 100 years if you actually care to learn the historical facts, with exception of 98, due to the retirement of half the senior all blacks.. the sulking coming out of other nations, blaming referees for the ab's success is just sad. it makes no sense to create a monopoly team, especially a country with a population as small as little nz, rugby is a professional sport and is run as a business, with making lots of money for the players and others involved an objective. long live king richie, dan the man and the mighty all blacks. i was so proud of the boys when they hung on to win the world title and it seems very unfair to point to officials, guiding the all blacks to victory. good luck to all the teams and i can't wait for the four nations championship, it's about time argentina get taken seriously.

The breakdown laws and the contrived nature of the modern game are the problem. Don't blame the referees,blame the people who allowed the game to degenerate into the farce that it now is. AFL wood be looking good for a lot of former Australian Rugby supporters. Rugby was a beautifull game ruined.

Fundamentally this, like most major games, is a spectator entertainment. It exists at this level because people are willing to spend their hard earned cash attending such fixtures. They are not interested in what a referee does, as long as they dont detract from the spectacle of the game. When referees become too pedantic or too discretionary, where many other types of minor infringements from both sides are occuring but only one is chosen, fans naturally become frustrated and the question of bias comes into play. I'm not saying refs are biased though naturally they can be swayed by certain players ongoing behaviour and the pressure of the crowds. But as long as you have rules that are being too pedantically enforced and to a degree too arbitrarily interpreted, you have a referee appearing to be the main focus of the play and a perception that bias is operating. Even the commentators, despite trying to avoid being too critical, obviously get frustrated, and they played the game at this level. What needs to happen is for refs to be instructed to only penalise where the infringement is blatant or obviously intentional. Let the game flow. Those who are purists and know the rules verbatum, need also to appreciate that the majority of the audience dont know every rule and get easily confused when it appears one indiscretion is being penalised when another in the same play is not. The more complex the rules, the less enjoyable a game becomes. Better that common sense prevails rather than excessive technicality.

an infringement is an act contrary to the laws of the game. Just because players decide to cheat all the time doesnt make it the refs fault. They could choose to actually play within the laws. They do so in the last few minutes defending their tryline if a couple of points ahead , to avoid a penalty. No I do not suggest a technicality is wrong, what I am saying is the technicality is too harshly punished imo, most of the scrum penalties whilst offences are too harshly punished and should be reduced to a free kick. I dont think I have ever argued the ref is the sole judge, I am a great advocate for a far greater use of the tmo, and greater involvement by the ar's. Basically you just approve of the cheats charter and want refs to adjust to it rather than enforce players to play to the laws.

Thanks for the clarification RF. I must say that the headline did bias my view of what you were intending with this article!

I agree. A first half yellow card against the Brumbies for repeat and cynical breakdown offences was that match's only chance to become a spectacle. Didn't have a problem with any of the penalties blown - just that the punishment should have been escalated.

Good point about the commentators. They all, with the possible exception of Kafe, have an pathetic knowledge of the laws of the game. They consistently harp on about decisions or non-decisions in blissful ignorance of the laws as they stand today. It is embarrassing, and does a complete dis-service to the game. Also - great point about the correlation between use of the yellow card for repeat offences and an open game. Rugby spectators should remember that refs are encouraged and taught to blow only (a) clear and obvious offences, which (b) have a material affect. That's in their judgment in real time - not your judgment on the third slow-mo replay from different camera angles.

really!? whats an infringement? do the refs rule on every infringement? since when have "all" the laws of the game been played to? you cant claim a technicality is wrong and then suggest the players adhere to the laws of the game, can you? you have often argued that the ref is the sole judge, then now say he is wrong? how can a player have the power over the referees discretionary rulings? you do realise what "discretion" means? all this being the case, how do the players know where they stand in each instance of the game?

bryce helped the reds last year though, ash, didnt he? what about a certain quarter final in the WC last year, ash? dont let that cloud your contempt for another nation, champ.