We hear a lot about refereeing errors leading to results that could or should have been different, but who is making the biggest noise? And, is the noise justified?
Another interesting part of the process is whether the noise is loud enough to go into the annuls of rugby history, such as the famous Waratah penalty goal in the 2014 Super Rugby final, given as a result of a penalty awarded against Richie McCaw.
The referee Craig Joubert apparently admitted that he was wrong, and so the Crusaders supporters, and New Zealand supporters generally, as well as Waratah-hating supporters, have raised the level of noise around the decision into the stratosphere.
All rugby watchers know that decisions of that sort happen potentially many times a match and in most matches. So, was it unfair? Or just part of the rugby spectrum?
Another element of the noise factor is the potential to drown out competitive noise, which, in the case of the 2014 Super Rugby final came mostly from the Nemani Nadolo try, which had the genuine appearance of being ‘foot-in-touch’, yet was awarded anyway.
This event is little heard of now, just one year on, yet the McCaw penalty apparently robbed the Crusaders of the title.
Obviously those supporters of teams who have apparently suffered make a lot of the noise, but as I mentioned there is a strong element among the rugby fraternity of supporting the team that they hate the least. I think that is a phenomenon that transcends all team sports.
So, those groups of haters are big generators of noise as well, and sometimes the largest. It depends how widespread is the angst against a team, and in the Waratahs’ case, if The Roar is a bellwether of opinion, the spread is very wide indeed.
Another body of opinion supports the view that refereeing decisions, both right and wrong, sort themselves out to even up over time. But how long does it take to even up, if it occurs at all? Most seem to think that a match result can be altered by refereeing decisions, but over a number of matches the referees correct their obvious mistakes and can so produce a fairer result.
There is also a statistical implication that winning a few close matches has a good chance of being followed by a close loss or a loss anyway, because the team’s luck must run out. But does it work that way? Or should it anyway? Teams in form tend to make their own luck and win the tight ones through confidence and belief.
A common theme among the ‘we wuz robbed’ brigade is that certain things that ‘may have’ occurred are raised to the level of ‘would have’ occurred. An example is the 2015 Super Rugby Round 12 match between the Brumbies and Waratahs in Canberra, where a number (four, I think) of penalties were awarded to the Brumbies in the second half which were in kickable, though difficult, positions. The Brumbies went for their rolling-maul try tactic instead and failed, scoring nothing.
What if they had had four shots at goal instead? Twelve points to the Brumbies, and a win sealed by nine. The assumption here is that the Brumbies kicker, Christian Lealiifano, would have kicked them all even though they were from difficult positions. The Brumbies captain chose to go for the try instead, which could either have indicated a lack of confidence in his kicker, or over-confidence in getting his rolling-maul try.
What if the first penalty was a goal attempt, and a miss? Maybe the next would then be more likely to be a try attempt. A fail, and then what?
The point that is most glossed over in these scenarios is that actions have consequences, and a particular action will generate a different set of possible scenarios than an alternative action.
If the first penalty was a successful penalty goal, then it’s back to halfway for a Waratahs kick-off. Perhaps the Waratahs then recovered the ball and so had possession in the Brumbies’ half. The Brumbies infringe in desperate defence and a penalty goal to the Waratahs ensues, nullifying the Brumbies previous three points.
The Waratahs may not get a penalty kick, but the action is still in the Brumbies’ half or halfway, and in a separate part of the field to the area where the Brumbies were earning their four penalties. So, in essence, the four penalties can be looked at as having been earned in the pursuit of one successful scoring opportunity, and not four.
The TMO has been earning some attention this week, with both George Ayoub (Waratahs versus Shorks) and Vinnie Munro (Hurricanes versus Chiefs) earning the ire of SANZAR and being dropped to the bench. The logic is that the TMO has the technology to review what he wants at slow/fast speeds and must therefore come up with the correct answer.
Because they were dropped, the assumption can only be that SANZAR agrees with the critics and thought they were both wrong. The Nadolo try in the 2014 Super Rugby final was the last match, so maybe the TMO was acquitted for that reason.
TMOs are getting into the action to assist with decisions on potential foul-play, and other areas. Invariably they influence the decision, and in many cases appear to make it, but is that logical? There are two assistant referees on the sidelines already there to assist.
We accept that referees will make errors but often the TMO can change the referee’s opinion even though the referee can see the replay footage on the screen just as the TMO sees it. Wayne Barnes the English referee is a shining light, I think, on how the TMO should be mostly treated – as a replay technician with no input to on-field decision-making. Barnes makes the call himself after seeing the replay, so backs his own judgement.
The TMO is wonderful theatre, though, but it can get overdone and perhaps too often in recent times.
The laws of the game of rugby are complicated because it’s more a game of chess than a game of draughts. It’s Test cricket versus One-Day. With the complexities of the game come the complicated rules, and so the many and varied ways of interpreting them. If the rules are dumbed down then the direction moves towards rugby league.
I think it’s the complexities that make rugby great. The refereeing disagreements are just part of the fun.
Objective
Guest
Rohan Hoffman was always appointed to AR this week. George Ayoub is in France for a pre-RWC meeting, and was never appointed this week. So neither was dropped.
Old Bugger
Guest
exactly...
Kia Kaha
Roar Guru
What position is that?
stillmatic1
Guest
your second last sentence almost refutes your whole position, rugby is life. when people in any job make the blunders of judgment that some of rugby's refs do, then I would assume a strong reprimand would be forthcoming. we are not talking about the little things here, it is the game deciding blunders in a "professional" sport. professional doesn't simply mean getting paid, it means being accountable for your decisions. the blunders are simply unacceptable for a game that purports to be "professional". the minor errors, we can all live with, at work, at home, in life, but when so much is at stake, there has to be a higher level of scrutiny. often I think the refs do a great job, until the moment in the game when their sanity leaves them and its a card here, a card there etc etc. peterk often talks about "material" infringements, but also believes that sending people to the bin ad infinitum is the correct way to police a game designed on a constant contest of possession!! Richie mccaw has competed hard his whole life and has gotten it wrong on a couple of notable occasions (2011/2014 finals), and this he must live with, but why should he not be able to compete simply because of an over zealous ref? do the refs not understand what "competition" entails? point is, people pay and watch the game because of the players. too often now, we discuss the ref and the ever increasing mistakes that decide the game. nigel owens got plaudits for a couple of ab vs s.a matches recently, but had also sent 3 or 4 players to the bin. this is not what rugby is supposed to be about!? where in the hoopla was the ethos of a "fair competition for the ball"? make one wrong move, at the wrong time, and your binned. simply crazy, and says more about the whims of the ref, than the mistakes of the players. it may have been captivating in an amateur era, but the sport is now global and professional, and it must start to decide what mantra it wants to follow. we all love the game, always will, but I would rather talk about savea being a clown for dropping the ball over the line, opposed to stuart berry ruining another game with an inept display.
Marty
Guest
Ben Robinson is the biggest scrum impostor around. I mean seriously, he should be in thirds as a sub. Does no work around the park and somehow elicits penalties day in day out by folding at the hips and dropping a scrum. I swear it's all he bloody well does.
stillmatic1
Guest
that's fine, but nobody pays to see the ref officiate. they are necessary, but people can accept that the players, who do all the playing, will make mistakes, not the officials who cost teams with their monumental blunders. it is the game deciding blunders that rile people. lets just get the decisions correct. let the players compete for heavens sake, otherwise just turn the game into league.
Jibba Jabba
Guest
Geez and with a nom de plum like Kia Kaha i thought you were a piggie.
Jibba Jabba
Guest
Its penalised because it is usually weaker than the opposition ! By reputation borne from performace. t
HiKa
Roar Rookie
But refs are too slow to use the cards because it unbalances the contest, but that is the point of using the cards! Penalise infringements until the players and coaches decide that playing the game is better than stopping the oppo from playing.
HiKa
Roar Rookie
Crocket's never packed straight in his life, just as Jannie dP has never bound correctly. And Benny Alexander has never got his hips below his shoulders. Plenty of front rowers have persistent infringements designed to help them or disadvantage their opponents. I expect Australia's scrum to perform well in tests this year... Crazy talk, I know.
PeterK
Roar Guru
you have no credibility, as soon as a kiwi has the same rules applied you back away, you just want to bag aussies, no credibility whatsoever
Mad Mick
Guest
I don't think so. I think Munro didn't look closely enough at what went on. It is possible that according to his eye the Canes player forced the arm of Sam Cane to lose the ball without actually touching the ball and if so this is not illegal except for the fact that he was not on his feet and therefore if you are not on your feet you cant play the ball or the man therefore wrong decisions but an honest one . Very different situation to Ayoub where with Cheikas track record suspicion is warranted and that is why the suspended sentence should have been invoked to protect the integrity of the game along with preventing this type of discussion.
Rugby is Life
Guest
Precisely Peterk.
Rugby is Life
Guest
In which profession do people not make mistakes? Sure referees can be accountable. But everyone makes genuine mistakes. I should think that players make a hell of a lot more and that the mistakes the players make has a much greater impact than the mistakes made by referees. When I was coaching and the players complained about a mistake the referee I would point out that each of them should look at their own games and see how many mistakes they made. One each would add up to at least 30 a game. There are a lot more. Professional or not. It is only the critical mistakes of referees which come into focus. But all of the good decisions they make on a continuing basis. go mostly unnoticed. As for gambling. Well more fool those that do for gambling on sport which is unpredictable and subject to mistakes by 34 people.
PeterK
Roar Guru
yes they do , the aussie scrum is penalised on rep often rather than on substance
Not Bothered
Guest
That may be the case but if the ref is neutral it stops the suggestion of bias to his county or basically the idea of cheating for some motive. Neutral refs may favour home teams but that will be seen as poor reffing, not motive driven bias.
Not Bothered
Guest
I disagree that its interpretations or part of the fun. Imo its a circus. Tries are awarded when if the TMO was called it would have been disallowed, tries are disallowed because a grounding cant be seen on the screen when its almost certain a try must have been scored, TMOs and referees are rushing and missing blatent, obvious and potentially game deciding infringements. What we have now is stup1dity. No common sense is applied and we are getting poor decisions, in some cases we are ending up with far worse decisions than we would without the system. Its simple, ref asks his touch judges who say something like "try but check the forward pass" and then the ref says something like "I was in line and the pass was fine" or "TMO, I have a try but can you check if there was a forward pass" or "TMO, I have no try and a forward pass, could you check please?". Then the TMO checks and has the power to overturn the decision if it is CLEARLY wrong but if not then the ref ALWAYS gets the benifit of the doubt. But no, we have a TMO with no power in a confusing process that has little to no guidelines in which its hard for anybody to follow, understand or be entirely happy with. Fix it. The system I suggest wont be perfect but we will understand why 50/50 calls are not overturned, we can say to ourselves "Sheeeesh, I think that pass was slightly forward but not clear enough to overturn the refs decision of awarding the try" or "Sheeeesh, I think that pass was just OK but its not clear enough to overturn the no try call by the ref". Its simple and the system will allow people to understand thete is a dead spot where decisions will stand even if they may be ARGUABLY wrong. However we have a complicated system in which nobody understands their role, the TMOs have no power or obvious purpose and officials are being hung out to dry because the system is failing them, the players and the fans. FIX IT.
Not Bothered
Guest
I wish the refs could penalise fans for moaning about Crockett. As soon as you mention Crockett, no, even if Crockett wasnt playing and you tell a South African he was, that South African will claim he was angling in all night and how its so unfair. Refs dont penalise reputations.
PeterK
Roar Guru
according to that logic Munro the TMO for the canes - chiefs match must be corrupt
Mad Mick
Guest
Good stuff Nabley