Picture the scene – you’re intently following your team on attack in the final minutes of a crucial match, there’s a ruck and tired bodies fling themselves into the fray.
But alas! The whistle blows and the opposition have a huge pressure-relieving penalty.
‘What was that for?!’ you scream but you are left with no idea why your team was penalised.
If you’re unlucky enough to not be at the game and therefore watching it on TV you might receive an explanation from the commentators.
However, the usual comment is along the lines of, ‘not sure what the penalty was for. Kafe, you’re on the sideline, any idea?’
Scrums, lineouts, rucks and mauls seem to regularly result in puzzling penalties.
Often the best guide to the culprit’s identity is a close up of a particular player walking back to his mark, either on TV or the big screen.
An ongoing frustration about rugby union for me and my mates is the current trend of painfully pedantic officiating by the referees. As a Reds supporter it’s been particularly acute this year. The referees seem to have a mindset where they have to enforce every rule rather than use the rules as a framework so that a game of rugby can take place.
I remember the wonderful Welsh referee Clive Norling being dismissive of minor misdemeanours as long as they didn’t interrupt the flow of the match. But if they are going to call a penalty why not clearly tell us what the penalty is for?
I’m a big fan of NFL and I would like to see rugby union introduce the practice of the head referee switching on his mic and announcing to all and sundry what the penalty is for and who committed it. Something like: ‘offside, No. 7 black’.
I can see two major problems that NFL doesn’t have to worry about:
• It takes time – but I don’t think it would add much more, and the ref could make the announcement while the kicker is mucking about with his kicking tee, or lining up to kick for the sideline. Therefore there is no additional time.
• Quick tap – these are quite rare for penalties but if one occurs the ref can simply abort his announcement and focus on the game. But it doesn’t take long to at least say what the penalty is for, e.g. ‘not releasing’.
There is a requirement for hardware. This system relies on the ref having a mic, which costs money. But professional refs always seem to have mics these days, and certainly at the Super Rugby level and above.
This idea will be particularly satisfying for spectators when the opposition is penalised. All good drama needs a villain, and this is a great way to reinforce our preconceived notions of the villainy of the opposition.
On the other hand, it might be your team penalised. And although it may not reduce your disappointment, at least you’ll know who did what, and you can focus your frustration with a classic Colonel Klink ‘Hogan!’ Or ‘Simmons!’ if you’re a Reds fan – we love the big guy but, oh man, he attracts the ire of the refs.
The big winners will be the potential fans of the game. I have no doubt in my mind that rugby union is the superior sporting code. But mates of mine who follow other sports are often turned off by the confusing penalties awarded. I really admire the elegant simplicity of league and the way the laws are enforced. Why not have the same clarity in union?
William Tell
Guest
The "swimming" call is for a player clawing his way around the outside of the maul (always on the side away from the ref), so as to appear to be coming through the maul, in which case he could legitimately attack the ball carrier. In fact the "swimmer" is coming in from the side of the maul. Penalty!
Pete McAloney
Roar Pro
I knew it! Thanks Sheek :) I was at Suncorp on Friday night and in addition to focussing on the game, and explaining the rules to a couple of League mates who were at their first Union match, I kept a close watch on the penalties. To my chagrin, each penalty was displayed on the screen and announced by the Ground Announcer. "Maybe they read my article?" I thought to myself in a desperate attempt to not be wrong. But then it happened! At the 17'30" mark there was a lineout, a maul ensued and it was looking good. But then the inevitable penalty occurred. I closely watched the ref and he gave this weird swimming gesture with both arms. We had no idea what it was for. And apparently neither did the Ground Announcer because there was no explanation. In any case, disregarding the above as an anomaly, I would still like to know the culprit when I'm at the game.
sheek
Roar Guru
I doubt the NFL system would work. Half the time the refs themselves don't know why they blew the whistle. Like coppers & parking rangers, they work on a quota system. They have to give a certain minimum number of penalties if they want another gig next week. :-) :-) :-)
In Brief
Guest
The issue lies not in the way the penalties are communicated, but in the laws themselves. The laws of rugby are fundamentally illogical, contradictory and unpredictable. It is one of the few sports in which players 'earn' a penalty. In other words, your team can be penalised when they have done nothing wrong. This uncontrolled factor is extremely frustrating. Perfect example of this is the tackle situation where it is legal to place the ball back when tackled, unless the opposition player is contesting when suddenly the legal action of placing the ball is called 'holding on'. If only the full ELVs had been adopted by the Home Unions rugby union would be years ahead.
paul craggie
Guest
Thanks for your support on that one Pickett. I know those with a contrary view will argue that the penalty is a deterrent but, is it ? What defending player in their right mind is going to allow a try to be scored if it is in his power to prevent it. Besides, more often than not the deliberate knock is merely a reflex action misinterpreted by refs. Does that deserve a penalty ? Do we need to complicate matters and confuse refs, players and spectators alike any more. I would argue the penalty doesn't affect player actions and is more frustrating than the initial infringement. Furthermore given the field position deliberate knock on's tend to occur they invariably end only in another penalty goal. Well there goes another 90 Seconds just there. Remember we are trying to simplify the rules and attract new people not complicate the game and disenfranchise everyone.
Pickett
Guest
The deliberate knock on penalty or penalty try when defending the line is the most bizarre, crazy and ridiculous rule I have seen in any sport.
richard
Guest
And that the laws are open to different interpretations by referees.
CRAIG G
Guest
Makes sense to me coming from a non rugby back ground, difficult game to understand, took my brothers to the bledsloe the other year and although they loved it they didnt know what was happening and spent entire game quizzing me and quite a few times I had no idea myself on what occurred by refs decesion. Maybe cause were from Melbourne explains it. GO WALLABIES Looking forward to Brisvegas Bledsloe already Craig Darwin NT
Cj
Guest
I don't think it's a bad idea, but as you mentioned, most grounds state what the penalty is on the big screen. You don't think that is adequate? Funnily enough, my family being big on AFL, I sometimes catch a few qtrs of it. It is shocking, some of their decisions oppose the law of physics eg, tackling a player from behind but you are not allowed to land on players back.
paul craggie
Guest
Totally agree Magic Sponge. There are too many rules, too many penalties and way way way too many penalty goals. I couldn't help but laugh when I read Marty's comment because I too fast forward, usually through the penalty goals. 15 penalty goals a game is not entertaining and not why I like Rugby. Brett Papworth grumble's correctly in my opinion about the illegal knock down. Why, when you are defending like mad shouldn't players knock the ball down if they can ? More time is waisted by penalizing this action than playing the knock on. The penalty does more harm than good and does NOTHING to enhance the spectacle. Furthermore, why not introduce 10 metre scrum resets instead of the traditional 5 metres. This simple rule change would dramatically reduce scrum collapses, penalties and the ugly spectacle of penalty try's without eradicating entirely a teams capacity for pushover try's entirely. Imagine what an attacking platform that would create for expansive set piece action.
Jack
Guest
To call the reason for the penalty the refs would have to know why the penalty as given. Sometimes they just guess. Sometimes it's just the whistle going off on its own.
Brian
Guest
Growing up in America I have loved watching the NFL all my life. Games were so intense that Sundays were devoted to nothing but football. About five years ago, I found a way to watch full length rugby matches online (which I have since learned how to project on to my television). I cannot stand the constant stopping and starting of Football (the American version). If it is not a team I support (Baltimore Ravens), I can't watch it. On the other hand, I feel like I could watch any of the Super 15 matchups and be interested.
Magic Sponge
Guest
They have to reduce the rules in the ruck and maul, be a bit more lenient. They need to really review it to make it more marketable. Played flowingly it is the greatest game , but the great games are too rare to entice the new punter. Refs are becoming more of the focus and are more becoming important than the players, that is the tragedy with over officious refereeing. This should be the main focus of the IRB, I don't agree with the NFL concept as I think there is too much discussion between the refs and players as it is. It is a real pet hate of mine how now the refs have to have a full debate about minor decisions with players.
Andrew Kennard
Roar Pro
Yes, but I don't think it is made clear, why that penalty is taking precedence over other potential infringements was what I was trying to say. In the example, I seem to 'know' which way the referee will give the penalty, but I think it would be very confusing to the untrained viewer.
Insomniactor
Guest
Best thing they can do is abolish most scrum penalties and turn them to free kicks. They are some of the most frustrating penatlies, especially when it is the weaker side gaining rather than the dominant. They have also made it too easy to poach the ball and get a penalty for it. Change it to a turn over. There are way too many penalties, it is getting slower than the NFL.
jason8
Guest
I have a far more innovative solution... The whole game is reffed by computer software enabled by hundreds of cameras around the field tracking each individual players movements. The players wear shock collars like the ones they put on dogs, and every time they infringe we see them do the electro funky chicken. Hazardous job being a flank i tell you !
sircoolalot
Guest
Gridiron is a much simpler game mate. Problem with rugby union is the laws themselves and the amount of them. Its almost impossible at the pro level.
Pete
Guest
I think that many of you Aussies need to learn something about McCaw. When he is wearing the black jersey he is never offside. He is quite simply the greatest sportsman on the planet and a new improved version of Don Bradman. When he is wearing a RED and black jersey, he is an offside cheat.
RobC
Roar Guru
Im not a big fan of NFL. But im a big fan of taking some elements from them. And adding a few more features. Thanks for the article ie agree 100%. re microphone I believe they already have one on. One innovation I thought was introduced by QRU are the live games which they don't have any commentary but let the Mike run. You can hear the ref, players. It is good viewing.
Bakkies
Guest
You don't want to give refs too much of a platform. I know it's different to a refs boss visiting a certain team's hotel after they got slaughtered in the scrums. Just look at Nigel Owens explaining decisions on Twitter and he has copped a fair amount of vitriol and abuse.