Stephen Larkham was a great rugby player and is making a decent fist of coaching the Brumbies, but his advocacy of a two-referee system for rugby, similar to that used in the NRL, is perplexing and worrying. And it is wrong.
It is perplexing because rugby already has three referees, the field referee and two assistant referees on the sidelines. And we mustn’t forget the TMO, an official who has been given an inch and has become a ruler, and in recent instances has tried to supplant the supremacy of the field referee.
Rather than plonking yet another official into an already crowded house, more thought should be given to a better use of the officials already present in a major rugby match.
I am thinking mainly about the way the scrum, the major area of stoppages and penalties, is policed. It beats me why the nearest assistant referee cannot come on to the field of play and referee the side of the scrum the referee is not standing on.
It is a joke right now that it is invariably the side of the scrum the referee is not on that collapses. Put the assistant referee closer to the other side and there would be far fewer collapses of scrums.
World Rugby (formerly known as the IRB) needs also to bring in the full Experimental Law Variations (ELVs) provisions, where a short-arm penalty was the first sanction available to a referee.
While they are at it, World Rugby should also bring back the other ELVs rule that allowed pulling down of the maul. The reason offered by South Africa and England for kicking this ELV out was that it would create injuries. Nonsense. In all the time I’ve watched rugby I have never seen a major injury from a pulled down maul.
Allowing the maul to be pulled down, just as runners are allowed to be pulled down, would restore some of the balance between the effectiveness of the maul (enhanced by the ‘illegal’ allowance of mauler blocking in front of the ball) and the lack of effectiveness of any legal way to stop a properly set-up maul.
This is why the call for a second field referee is wrong. It will actually contribute to the problem in rugby of too many stoppages, rather than allow for the flow of the game.
Rugby is not like gridiron or even league where the ruck/line of scrimmage is formally set after every phase. Particularly in gridiron, having multiple referees on the field does not affect the flow of play because there is a stop-start flow pattern to that game, rather than the phase pattern of stop-start-start-start (perhaps going on a dozen or more times) and then another stop.
Larkham seems to be reflecting the thinking of his boss, ACT Brumbies chief executive Michael Jones, who was reported in the Sun-Herald as saying: “There has been some discussion (about) two referees and how that would be divvied up. There is certainly some merit in that. We need a whole game approach…”
This is a worrying statement. There is, in fact, no merit in having two field referees. Moreover, there is a great deal of merit in limiting the powers of the TMO to dictate the outcomes of games by torturing the video date with endless replays until, like water torture, the disbelieving field referee finally cracks.
Take the incident in the 70th minute of the Waratahs-Sharks match last weekend. The Sharks were eight points down. Sibusiso Sithole burst down the flank, and seemingly beat the cover with a powerful dive for a try in the corner.
Enter TMO George Ayoub. First the issue of Kurtley Beale using his shoulder illegally to stop Sithole was dismissed without any review. The significance of this was that if the try was disallowed but the shoulder charge upheld, then it would have been a penalty try to be converted from in front of the posts rather than from the sidelines.
Ayoub proceeded to go through the try millisecond by millisecond. He finally found a blob which he claimed was a knee on the ground. And on this shaky evidence, the try was overruled. The Sharks remained eight points adrift rather than needing only a penalty or a dropped goal to win the match.
We had an equally puzzling decision from TMO Vinny Munro in disallowing a penalty to the Chiefs at Wellington with time almost up. The visitors needed a try to defeat the home side, the Hurricanes, when a Hurricanes player clearly played the ball while being on the ground in a tumultuous ruck.
How the referee Glen Jackson allowed Munro to even put forward the proposition that Sam Cane somehow lost the ball through his own mistake is unbelievable.
I want SANZAR to answer a few questions.
First, why is it that the home team, in New Zealand, South Africa and Australia, invariably gets the benefit of the TMOs torturing the evidence? I can’t recall a TMO torturing the evidence to help the cause of a visiting side. Perhaps a Roar reader can help out here?
Second, what is SANZAR going to do about putting these upstart TMOs back in their box? My suggestion is that the referee tells the TMO what he is seeing. Craig Joubert does this. It has the effect in most cases of being officious TMOs back in their boxes.
I said that the ACT Brumbies chief executive Michael Jones was on the wrong track with his suggestion that two field referees is a good way to improve the rugby spectacle. This is nonsense. I point to a recent interview given by the former Springbok coach Nick Mallett on News24.com following last weekend’s weekend of losses by South African teams.
Roll the tape.
“At half-time we heard Naka Drotske, the Cheetahs coach, say it’s back to basics. So for the first 10 minutes of the second half we saw driving mauls and up-and-unders. And it was strange that they were kicking up-and-unders on Patrick Osborne because he’s a very big guy.
“The coaching you get in New Zealand is very different from what you get here. At practice they will put players into situations that they’ll face in the game. They will play attack against defence… And they get the attack to choose the right option in relation to the defence they’re confronted with.
“(But in South Africa) it’s all pre-programed and it’s easy to telegraph…”
The Brumbies, especially in the days of Jakeball, were the epitome of this South African crash-ball, penalty-obsessed system of trying to play rugby.
So here’s a suggestion to Michael Jones. Why don’t you insist on the Brumbies playing like the free-running, smart Brumbies of old, in the days of Larkham, George Gregan, Joe Roff and all the other brilliant runners?
Or if this a too-distant memory, why not try to play like the Hurricanes, who are not only leading the Super Rugby tournament in competition points but are miles in front of any other team this year in the entertainment and spectacle factor.
The Hurricanes are proving that clever, ball-in-hand rugby is winning rugby, much as the Waratahs showed last season.
Post-script
The rugby media has noted that Rohan Hoffman and Glen Jackson have been seemingly relegated to the assistant referee roles, and Vinnie Munro given a total break.I notice, too, that George Ayoub is not in his usual place as TMO for the Waratahs-Crusaders match and has been replaced by Peter Marshall.
RobC
Roar Guru
Spiro, for your consideration. The significance between personal experience and research regarding maul collapse and injuries: 'Contact events in rugby union and their propensity to cause injury' US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health by Colin W Fuller, John H M Brooks, Rebecca J Cancea, John Hall, and Simon P T Kemp - Maul injuries do exists. Of these, 57% were sustained via COLLAPSED MAULS - Significantly more forwards than backs were injured in mauls (forwards: 19; backs: 2; p<0.001) and rucks (forwards: 45; backs: 20; p = 0.010) - Scrum injuries: 7% from collapsed scrums - ie Collapsed mauls cause more injuries than collapsed scrums. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2658974/ Also in 2008, there's reported death of a Portuguese premier Rugby players from a collapsed maul. However, it was been disputed it was a ruck.
Buk
Guest
Highlander - I too thought it was a good example of a tight call that could have gone either way, but did not favour the home side.
Buk
Guest
Thanks Shane I was not aware of what level their involvement was.
Billy Bob
Guest
Yes, Brett. Strict terms of reference such as off side lines only and (perhaps blatant front row illegality.) would confine the assistance to support offside scrutiny. That makes sense. But does not need a ref on field to do it.
RobC
Roar Guru
I believe the priority, as Spiro mentioned is to improve the quality of the Refs available to the game. But its not as easy a turning on the tele. It requires structural adjustment that takes time. To use a crude phrase. You pay peanuts, you get monkeys: - Leckie Hoffman OBrien Lees Leszczynski Ayoub are school teachers, employees and business owners. - TMO Marshall is a cricket match referee - The most important person on the paddock is not a full-time professional. How does that make sense? Like the best players, the best Refs should be afforded the compensation, facilities and programmes to train and hone their skills at the elite level. Currently, not only are we paying them peanuts, we're throwing dung at them too. My opinion is to change the incentive value and structure, and increase competition for top spots. Then we attract the best possible Refs from all fields, not just teachers etc No offence to todays 'pro-am' Refs who are generally doing an excellent thankless job. They are hammered for making a handful of wrong decisions, in one of the most complex game in the world, amongst 1,000s they get right.
RobC
Roar Guru
Sorry for the late feedback. Tied up yesterday. Thanks for the excellent topic and pointer Spiro imo the two Ref system is the future. The Varsity Cup has been doing this for at least a couple of years: - It is successful, along with a few other innovations. - Some of these were adopted (stolen :) ) by NRC. - NRC should pick up the two Ref system, as it trains more Refs more quickly also One Varsity innovation that should be adopted urgently by SR is the binding patches on players jerseys for scrummagers (props). But the two Ref system is not highest priority at senior level, as I believe it takes time to sort out exactly how it should work best. Currently as explained by BB last year: - Varsity Ref takes charge of the game when the ball is in their half of pitch. ie left side or right side. - The other officiates and manages offside and the other side of the ruck. - At scrum time, the two Ref system is v handy both for the engagement and offside As there could be better variations to this, I believe its too early to introduce it at pro level. But it should be continued at places like Varsity and NRC, until they get all the data they need including some potential changes to how the 2 Ref system works. There may be ways for teams, esp at pro level, to game this method by pushing the ruck contests where the 2nd Ref may be unsighted, because the Refs are restricted to their own zone. Its along a parable explained to me once by a friend from Riyadh. Basically, if you get two guys to do a job without preparation, its much worse than just one guy. But as I mentioned. It is the future: - Just like our future, our children and grandchildren - they need time and care to be developed.
Pie_t
Guest
Good article Spiro. You don't mention him by name, but the inference is clear. Ayoub should be banned from any position in which he can decide the outcome of a game.
Billy Bob
Guest
Agree Peter K regarding last feet offsides. There needs to be daylight between last feet and defenders. That is they need to be BEHIND the off side line, rather than across it as at present. This would open games up and reward attacking play
Jibba Jabba
Guest
I know more speights is not better !
Jibba Jabba
Guest
And some fool on Rugby HQ said he was the best TMO in the world (guy who wears glasses and played fullback for Queensland)
pjm
Roar Rookie
It’s amazing in a game that prides itself of having players of all body types that all top tier referee’s are all skinny runts. It seems like fitness is trumping rugby skills.
pjm
Roar Rookie
It's amazing in a game that prides itself of having players of all body types that all top tier referee's are all skinny shits.
Kashmir Pete
Roar Guru
"I am thinking mainly about the way the scrum, the major area of stoppages and penalties, is policed. It beats me why the nearest assistant referee cannot come on to the field of play and referee the side of the scrum the referee is not standing on. It is a joke right now that it is invariably the side of the scrum the referee is not on that collapses. Put the assistant referee closer to the other side and there would be far fewer collapses of scrums." EXCELLENT IDEA SPIRO!!!!!!!!!
Charging Rhino
Roar Guru
Well you can't really compare the two. They were very different situations, but I see your point.
AndyS
Guest
I think two refs would be a shambles. At the moment we get little consistency game to game, or even half to half. The idea that we might not even get it from end to end in a single play...! Agree on collapsing the rolling maul, disagree on the short-arm penalties. They tried that too, and I didn't think it went that well as it was simply no deterrent. I could see the merit of changing some to a penalty without the points option though. I also differ on the TMO. My impression is that the decision most commonly seems to go with the team expected to win. In close matched games that might normally be the home team, but I've seldom been wrong expecting the decision to go with the 'good' team.
Common Sense
Guest
"a line ball call " A touch line call maybe.
Common Sense
Guest
Osborne simultaneously grounded the ball on the try line and the touch line. That is out, get over it.
AndyS
Guest
Yet it worked fine when trialled as part of the ELVs. I have to admit I was very sceptical prior to that, but now support it. It forced the attacking team to create a much more stable maul, rather than the amorphous schoolground blob of players we have now. Some of the best maul plays I have ever seen were during that trial.
HiKa
Roar Rookie
All teams do it because they are all getting away with it 90% of the time. It's the tenth occasion when it gets whistled that is the inconsistency at present.
Highlander
Guest
Allanthus - totally agree, the quick throw in really annoyed esp when each reviewed replay started with it - concur this not a great example but not all close calls go to the home team while is where I thought spiro was going with the above (PS - that loss to the other Mainlanders still bugs me)