Technology needed to improve certainty

If every penalty was scrutinized I reckon 50% could go either way. The problem with rugby is in the laws themselves, not the interpretation. The scrum is a battle for possession that usually results from an unintentional mistake (such as a knock on). When the scrum collapses it is almost impossible to impart blame. Clearly awarding a penalty from a scrum is a ridiculous anachronism. All scrum infringements should be short arms - reward the battle for possession with possession, not 3 points.

The All Blacks have never lost a game at the RWC when a SH ref has been officiating! What about the clown who ran the 1995 final. Lomu was being tackled from behind and often the RSA backs had to wait until Lomu almost received the ball before grabbing him. ShaghaiDoc

Well I admit it has been many years since I wore a jersey with a 3 on the back, but I was a front rower for my entire (short) rugby career*. So please explain, why the referees spend so much time and effort saying "Crouch..........Touch.........Pause...................................Engage" if the laws do not reflect the TV requirement of the 'hit'? As for the Chess reference, the wily front rower has more opportunity to display the subtlety required of a chess match when the classic scrum is employed. *My rugby career was shortened due to one reason and one reason alone - I wasn't very good.

Guys for me the problem is far more basic - we just don't have enough good young referees coming through. I coach both junior rep and senior rugby and I am tired of getting geriatric referees who cannot keep up with the game, who are befuddled by the complexity of today's rugby.

You have never pushed in a front row so your opinion is dismissive. I will ask you to go pack in a front row and go look up some rugby laws. Clearly you support your fellow Australians who most supports taking a way a thing THAT IS NOT MENTIONED IN ANY LAW! I repeat there is nothing in the laws about the hit or taking the hit nothing. Rugby is a game of chess not draughts. That is Rugby League. A scrum goes down most of the time due to a front row not feeling comfortable or are in bad to worse situation. Taking away the hit, Limit to binding with your teeth or whatever part will not keep that scrum from staying up. If a frontrower feels he is not comfortable he will take it down. After all the principle of a scrum is that one team wants it stable the other wants it to disrupt it. The problem with the scrum is its over policed and it all started when the IRB decided that everyone must stay bound it.

Thurl I really respect that everyone is totally entitled to a view and your point is completely valid. But to some rugby tragics (i.e.myself) winning or losing is more serious than life or death. You cannot imagine the misery I and any number of AB supporters felt when the ABs lost in the RWC in 1995, 1999, 2003 and 2007. (although, I'm only pointing at the refereeing in 2007 as a cause of that loss) You cannot imagine the stress we were all under in the last 25 minutes of the 2011 final. For us tragics winning is everything (almost) but to lose because of referees not being up with it is shattering. To be honest, Aussie supporters are equally passionate and do not easily forgive a loss brought about by a referee blunder. So anything we can do to bring the officiating up to the standard of the players I would support. It's actually unfair on everyone when the results of matches are determined by referee error. It may take away some of the existing banter but would replace it with discussions on genuine talent.

I reckon the reff should actually be given more of a say. The technology will never be perfect

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.

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.

Not sure about point 1 but you get my vote for 2, 3, and 4.

Taumalolo's effort in the semi vs the Crusaders was definitely a quadruple...

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.

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.

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. .

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 :)

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.

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.

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.

Correct 7andabit. No double movement.