The Australian rugby community is indebted to Wayne Smith, the veteran rugby writer for The Australian, for bringing to mainstream attention new research on refereeing bias.
Last week Smith gave a synopsis of research into international rugby refereeing that was developed by Professor Lionel Page and Dr Katie Page of the Queensland University of Technology.
Data from the Super Rugby tournament in 2009, the European Super League from 2006 to 2009 and results in Super Rugby 2011 and 2012.
The findings from this research? There is a bias tied to a referees’ identity. “Put simply, when a referee is of the same nationality as one of the teams in the match he’s refereeing, there’s a good chance his decisions will favour that team,” Professor Lionel Page has asserted.
“We found evidence that referees tend to systematically favour their own national teams and this favouritism has a strong impact on the result of matches. This is not about referees making mistakes. We’ve discovered a systematic bias in favour of home or two national teams.”
Further findings were these.
The ‘favouritism’ is more likely to happen at critical times of the match when the issuing of yellow and red cards, or the awarding of tries when scorelines are close and when a ‘degree of ambiguity’ was involved – particularly when scores were close at the end of a match.
But referees were less likely to be biased when matches are televised or relayed, therefore enabling strong crowd or audience scrutiny. They were also less likely to be biased when the scoreline difference is large, particularly towards the end of the match.
Wayne Smith summarised his views on this research by saying that he never agrees with anything yours truly, the old Greek, has to say about rugby but … wait for it … he thinks I am probably right when I make the case for neutral referees in all Super Rugby matches.
This call for neutral referees is made by the researchers. They also offer the interesting option of a ‘challenge’ option (perhaps one or two a match for each side) like in sports such as tennis, cricket and American football.
If this option had been available to Reds captain James Horwill in the contentious Lions versus Reds match, he would have challenged the straightness of the lineout throw from which the Lions scored their winning try.
The throw, in my opinion, was palpably not straight. Horwill appealed against it after the try was scored. But under the current regulations, referees cannot revisit the lineout throw after a couple of phases of play resulting in a try.
We need a detailed reaction from SANZAR to this research, with a view to changing the current system of local referees which was brought in 2009 to improve ‘the accountability’ of the referees in the Super Rugby tournament. It has done no such thing. But what it has done is undermine the integrity of the refereeing in Super Rugby.
It was with some interest, therefore, that I tuned into the Reds versus Stormers match on Fox Sports. For reasons that I did not catch, the telecast was delayed.
But the match, when we did see it, was a strongly contested affair, with both sides putting in huge hits and making ferocious contests of the ruck and mauls.
This was real rugby, an enthralling spectacle as both sides played their hearts out trying to revive their seasons. The opening sequence of play, for instance, went on for two minutes as the teams probed each others’ defences. This provided a thrilling start to what became a thrilling contest.
A large part of the reason for the excellent contest won by the Reds 22-17 over the Stormers was the calm, informed, measured and good-natured refereeing by the New Zealand referee, Chris Pollock. Pollock is emerging as one of the top referees in world rugby and the players respond to his accurate and sympathetic reading of play.
Remember that the Reds are the most penalised side in the Super Rugby competition, averaging 14 penalties every match. Also remember that against the Lions, they conceded an avalanche of penalties awarded against them by the South African referee Stuart Berry.
Against the Stormers, though, they had conceded only three penalties but half-time and eight in total by full-time.
The Stormers, too, were penalised (short arm penalties, of course) four times for not throwing the ball in straight. These penalties were rightly awarded and the contrast with the game against the Lions and their lineout throws, which seemed to me too frequently down their own side, was a stark one.
We turn now to the Sharks versus Waratahs match, won by the Sharks 32-10. By my count, the Waratahs were penalised 22 times to 12 penalties conceded by the Sharks.
The referee was New Zealand’s Mike Fraser. The Waratahs deserved their thrashing on the penalty count. They were ill-disciplined, stupid, niggly and sometimes with their scrumming and lineout work, lazy.
Admittedly, the Sharks are an abrasive side and they were playing in front of their home crowd, which is vocal and partisan.
The Waratahs looked lost without their finisher, Israel Folau. Folau averages two tries a match this season. The Waratahs, especially early on, made any number of breaks which needed the finisher to convert into a try.
The Waratahs, too, allowed themselves to be rattled by the tight, aggressive and sometimes ferociously on-rushing defence of the Sharks.
The Waratahs had no counter to this until the end of the match when Kurtley Beale, who had been tackled out of the game, pulled off a superb in-pass that led to Bernard Foley crossing over for a try.
The Waratahs, though, looked bereft of ideas and skills needed to break down the intense Sharks defence.
They could not work out how to get the ball wide of the saucer-defence. They did not have the sort of chip-and-chase option that the Chiefs deploy so well when the defence is lined up like a brick wall against them.
The Sharks look to be clones of the 2007 Rugby World Cup-winning Springboks, who were also coached by Jake White. They have a terrific front-on and scrambling defence. They kick their penalties.
Their set piece is strong, although I’d quibble about the way their front row is allowed to come up, with impunity, when the scrum is under pressure. They also should have been penalised, in my view, for not supporting their jumper in several of the lineouts.
It will be fascinating to see whether this Sharks style can create victories in New Zealand and Australia. Jake White’s Springboks were virtually unbeatable in South Africa (like the Sharks) but extremely vulnerable, except in France in Rugby World Cup 2007, outside of South Africa.
Will the Sharks suffer a similar fate?
And talking about being vulnerable in away matches, the upset of the round was down at Melbourne where the Rebels mounted a spirited second half to roll all over a Brumbies side 32-24.
The Brumbies uncharacteristically caved in under the pressure. The New Zealand import Jason Woodward, unwanted by the Hurricanes franchise, scored 27 points himself which included a sensational try.
The Rebels played a terrible first half. They had the dreaded bootitis disease. Phil Kearns was so exasperated that he yelled out at one stage in his commentary, “Don’t kick it”.
Quite right. The crowd, too, started to boo their own team. Quite right, again.
In the second half, the Rebels kept the ball in hand. They ran at the Brumbies. And the Brumbies, to the distress of their coaching staff and supporters, could not cope with the attack. So instead of recording five-consecutive victories for the first time since 2007, the high-flying Brumbies were brought to earth with a thud.
The Australian Conference is now wide open with the Waratahs, Brumbies and Reds (in my view) all still in contention.
The Sharks seem to have the South African Conference at their mercy.
The Chiefs consolidated their favouritism to win the New Zealand Conference with a typically gutsy and brilliant comeback late in the second half to share points with a draw against the Bulls.
And the Auckland Blues, with not much help from Benji Marshall who in his cameo appeared to be playing touch rugby, gave an inkling of the possibility that they could be contenders with a decisive victory over the Highlanders.
Ma’a Nonu gave the backline a bit of muscle and stability.
But the standout Blues player, in my view, was Jerome Kaino. He was immense at number six. The All Blacks won the 2011 Rugby World Cup on the strength of Kaino’s play, especially on defence and taking the ball up with hard, square shoulders.
The Blues backs can be sensational, with a pack that might be able to match it with teams like the Sharks, they could be a side that causes some upsets this year.
billbo quesac
Guest
The game as a spectacle is suffering. Add to that the poor /pedantic refereeing that I have got to the stage that I dont want to watch it -too much angst. The Reds tried very hard against the Brumbies and deserved a better fate. Only dyed in the wool Rugby followers would have been interested in the game because it was a deplorable spectacle. RL suffered frome stereotyped game patterns but this game showed Ruby is now much worse. The Brumbies say they defended well but not a season has gone by where they do not live offfside- never behind the last feet and the backline have encroached so deeply that on occasions they were even positioned much deeper than the attacking backline.No penalties. The linesmen could help but dont.This is serial cheating but seems to be accepted as a natural feature of the Super Rugby competition. No wonder the game becomes boringly stereotyped. The scrum penalites eventually evened up but in the beginnning were very onesided and very inconsistent. The same goes for the ruck amd maul penalties/ monitoring which heavily favoured the Brumbies. especially at the end of the game. Whether it is incompetence or bias the game becomes a cruel lotttery. Justice is blind but not refereeing. QLd deserved a medal for never giving up when things were so heavily stacked against them. A review system would be great because it would force the referees to do a proper and consistent job. The reviews could be limited to say 5 a match so that they were not overused. Referees are not supervised and it is too late to do anything when the game is lost and the crowds go never to return Regards Billbo Quesac
30mmtags
Guest
Good point. The irrelevancy of some rules condemn a ref who ignores them to be spotlighted by the pedants. Classic is some glacier speed forward 50metres from the play stumbling two or three inconsequential steps in the direction of the opposition after his fullback has booted the ball downfield.
SandBox
Roar Guru
That's ok. When you hit rock bottom, the only way is up kid
Not Cheika
Guest
Two "neutral" refs who were either grossly negligent or malicious. Both indicate bias, but bias can be intentional OR unintentional. All I know is that is Joubert was conspiring, so was Lawrence, and vice versa. http://youtu.be/w9DzAf6Agow http://youtu.be/PuIuXrwPCcc
tubby
Guest
years ago the NFL has a small sideline tv that the referee used. It had a time limit on it (30 or 60 seconds I think) and after that it went blank and the ref had to make a call based on what he had viewed already. Much better system than what we have now
Matthew Skellett
Guest
And you have Mr O'Brien to thank for the work he did to turn things out the way they are today
Matthew Skellett
Guest
If the team the ref is making sure wins wins then the ref wins by keeping his job
RobC
Roar Guru
Thanks Spiro, for keeping on message. And keeping the ref agenda in your radar. I believe the issue goes beyond neutrality. We need more officials in a game to cover more areas. And the game needs to be clear which rules are relevant, irrelevant. I believe its unacceptable for a sport to have refs have to develop their officiating strategy, depending on what to look for in that game. And that they know they will make many basic mistakes, and hope it doesnt affect the outcome.
Chopper1
Guest
What a load...! "Study"? So anyone who knows a smidgen about research in general and behavioral research in particular knows the adage "lies, damned lies and statistics". For good reason. Not even measurable phenomena are proven 100%. And now we have the holy grail of sports psychology from... Queensland university? Wow. Research money well spent. If this were possible, behavioral finance wouldn't be such a grey, contentious field, and that has Nobel winning scientists and researchers behind it. Interesting timing. I think each sanzar nation must commission similar studies to be released immediately after perceived mistreatment by refs abroad. I think my iq dropped just reading this
WEST
Roar Guru
recipe for disaster
Wal
Roar Guru
8-7 is a 14% difference :)
Rambo
Guest
Well said Rhino. I am tired of the sanctimonious NZ supporters, they are so precious. Makes me laugh, every time their All Blacks lose a test they had food poisoning (1994 v Australia & 1995 v SA) or Flu (2003 & 2013 v England) just off the top of my head, there are more. They are in denial, that's why they need to blame it on something, like the ref or illness.
Zero Gain
Guest
Yes, exactly! Wait a minute...
Jerry
Guest
That doesn't seem to gel with the passage quoted.
PeterK
Guest
besides that was clear incompetence not bias, he treated both sides the same for each infringement (ie ignored nearly all breakdown ones by both teams), unlike Berry where he ignored infringements by lions but for the same things penalised reds. BIG BIG DIFFERENCE.
PeterK
Guest
he was incompetent but not biased
Thunderguts
Guest
appreciate your humor. The interview with Pulver identifies the need for all of us to support every form of the game and to find new fans otherwise the game of rugby is headed down the gurgler. Have a great day!
PiratesRugby
Guest
Actually prefer judo, mma, afl, cycling to synchronised swimming. I like 15 a side rugby because it is the ultimate team contact sport. Big guys, little guys, fast guys, fit guys can all play and all have a place in the team. The team can't win unless every player does his bit. And the scrum! That magnificent system of 16 bodies, almost 2 tonne, fighting for the ball. Once you've been in one, you never forget it. The eighty minutes tests every man's courage because you play most of the game in a fatigued state. Love it. Now 7s was fun but so is touch. I'm not going to pay to see either. If you want to then that's absolutely great. I don't mind you keep watching synchronised swimming either...
Charging Rhino
Roar Guru
Gavin By the way- I'm just guessing here, but a reason as to why Berry got the Lions vs Reds game could be because he is from Durban and Bulls supporters would be up in arms that a "Soutie" from Durban refs a Sharks game if they feel he was biased. He'd probably have more reason to be biased towards the Sharks against Bulls than for the Lions vs Reds imo. A Durban boy and Sharks supporter couldn't care less about the Lions or Bulls to be honest. I know I'd struggle with that far more if I was a ref than taking charge of a Lions/ Reds game. It's a long shot but perhaps that may have been why? I dunno. His first half was alright. End of the 2nd half not great at all, some game changing decisions missed but the Reds were infringing pretty hecticly too (hence being the most penalized team for ALL their games they've played) and the Lions were applying so,e Serious pressure, you have to give them credit for the way they came back from being almost out of it. The Res pack seemed to have worked on their discipline A Lot for this past weekends Stormers game so hats off to them. I hope the Rees bounce back and win more games now that they'll be at home quite a bit, there's an opening for them to still take the Aussie conference! And as BB points out, please try the ovoid the anti- South Africanness. If both of us are taking it that way then then must be a bit of validity even if you have not intended it. I don't know why or if you have beef with Saffas but hey. We're actually pretty nice people :-)
Charging Rhino
Roar Guru
Ummmm 1981 Flour bomb test? And many others pre isolation in NZ Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Yet Saffa's don't harp on about these and bring them up all the time. It's amazing how this "SA refs have always been cheats for decades" thing only comes from New Zealanders who had an inferior head to head record against the Boks (the only side they had this inferiority to) from 1921 -1996. Sour grapes they they simply were not better perhaps? Boks put up with NZ refs in NZ for all those years, and yes there were moans but you wouldn't hear those being all bubbled up in NZ now would you...... ? We don't hear this same stereotype and these moans (from all these decades) from British Lions supporters (and English, Irish, Welsh and Scottish for that matter), Aussies, the French and whoever else toured SA. Yes many fans will moan that they think they didn't get the rub of the green when they lose, all over the world, but there seems to be something very different with AB supporters, like it's ingrained into the subconscious and the culture and has even come out from Kiwi friends I have hung out in person, which automatically splurts out the "yeah but the South African refs were cheats etc..." .... It's weird..!!! It's like they just can't handle the fact that they simply could not get the better of the Boks for all those years so their mentality just freezes up and resorts to the easiest excuse in the book.... Blame the "cheating South Africans and refs" Lol...!!! Maybe they did get the rub of the green at home, maybe they didn't.... Meanwhile no Kiwis have really considered what the Boks put up with when they toured NZ.... And as Rambo points out below, the Boks lost more games at home than away during the 103 year pre isolation period.... Go figure... Perceptions a killer isn't it??? Well the ABs have got the better of the Boks for the past 20 years so there you go. Congratulations the ABs have been better. But the Boks will be back. Maybe they will have the next 20 years again??? ;-) Time will tell. I certainly hope so!! :-)