The thing about consistency, so the grand old saying goes, is that you have to do it all the time.
And while the introduction of video technology into the various professional levels of the game has allowed referees, assistant referees, television match officials, and even judiciary officers a greater ability to make the game safer from foul play perspective, the use of video technology in such a focussed way has also allowed a whole new level of scrutiny on these same officials and their decisions.
Someone watching the game at home now has access to replay technology down the frame, and all in high-definition. All conversations and decision processes between the on-field referees and his assistants are clearly audible, as are any ‘check-check’ interjections from the TMO.
So while things are being picked up in games to a degree never previously used, that same technology allows the home viewer – equipped with their social media platform of choice and the Laws of the Game – a voice on how the game if being officiated to all new levels as well.
Indeed, these very pages would enjoy far less traffic is said technology was not in place. Very few of us would study the Laws of the Game to the same extent we didn’t see specific incidents replayed.
Back at the start of the season, I was somewhat shocked to the see overwhelming agreement to my suggestion that referees handing out cards don’t ruin games, players committing the infringements that earn said cards ruin games. Followed by coaches who issue the instructions, commentators who blow up about the cards, and then the fans who whinge about not getting value for their money.
At the time, Queensland Reds captain Scott Higginbotham had accepted a three-week ban with an early plea for his crude shoulder charge into the head of Melbourne Rebels lock Matt Philip.
And when viewed alongside the 2017 examples of Sonny Bill Williams and Sekope Kepu, Higginbotham’s suspension was on par by any measure you’d like to employ.
I imagined it being a somewhat contentious column when writing it, but the universal response was clear: it was a red card, it didn’t ruin the game, and that same infringement must remain a red card going forward. If we’re going to be consistent about these things, then the cards have to keep coming out until players and coaches (and yes, commentators and fans too) get the message.
How many times since then, however, have you heard or read or thought, “if Higginbotham got three weeks, why didn’t [insert infringing player here] get the same thing?”
And this is really to the heart of the matter. It’s not red or yellow cards that ruin games and frustrate everyone, it’s when something was a red or yellow card at one point, but suddenly isn’t the next.
Consistency of decision-makers will never ruin the game. But inconsistency might.
On Friday night, I was astounded to see referee Paul Williams rule that Rebels’ winger Jack Maddocks clattering into, and then pulling Higginbotham down from the apex of his jump for the ball ‘was just an aerial contest’, despite Maddocks being well-beaten in the jump and the striking similarities with the Israel Folau charge and yellow card from the third Test against Ireland.
Williams was on the sideline in Sydney when referee Pascal Gaüzère and TMO Ben Skeen conferred to hand Folau a yellow card just before halftime.
From the image above, on the left is the contest with Ireland skipper Peter O’Mahony missed by the officials but Folau was later cited and suspended for; the middle image is the yellow card incident, and on the right is Maddocks’ challenge on Higginbotham.
Given it was only a few weeks since Folau’s incidents, that kind of mid-air collision had to have been fresh in Williams’ mind. It’s just as hard to believe that he didn’t see the obvious similarities as it is that Maddocks wasn’t subsequently cited.
He’s clearly made contact with Higginbotham in the air and brought him to ground heavily. It’s at least on par with Folau’s yellow card contest and collision.
[latest_videos_strip category=”rugby” name=”Rugby”]
And though Williams received praise from commentators and fans at the time, the two Folau decisions and the Maddocks non-decision cannot all be correct.
Later in the weekend, the headlines screamed ‘Brumbies Robbed’ when refereeing cult-hero Rasta Rasivhenge ruled a Brumbies knock-on from the last attacking play of the match, and not a deliberate knock-down from Chiefs lock Tyler Ardron. Despite the protestations of the Brumbies players, Rasivhenge didn’t refer the incident to TMO Shane McDermott.
Going back to Angus Gardner’s mid-season explanation of the deliberate knock-down interpretations in play this year, Ardron certainly wasn’t in a position to regather the ball he touched. If the line-break opportunity was there in the eyes of the officials, then it should’ve been a yellow card; if not, then a Brumbies’ penalty at worst.
The image above shows the similarity of intent to the Jacob Stockdale challenge on a Bernard Foley pass in that same Wallabies-Ireland Test in Sydney, in which referee Gaüzère called on TMO Skeen to check “potential foul play”, but who concluded that no clear and obvious knock-down was visible.
But why was one referred and the other wasn’t, everyone wanted to know? On the Sky Sport coverage, Tony Johnson was even moved to observe, “Surely that’s a situation worth revisiting”.
The problem here is that it’s not actually clear if Rasivhenge could have referred it even if he wanted to. The game’s Law book doesn’t exactly help, as Law 9 (Foul Play) doesn’t make mention of intentional knock-downs – which Gaüzère called upon Skeen – and Law 11 (Knock-on or Throw Forward) doesn’t mention use of TMO.
The January 2018 version of the TMO Global Trial Protocol does, however, make mention under Law 6.15.b.iv that the TMO can be called upon if officials believe “…an infringement may have occurred leading to a try or in preventing a try providing that the potential infringement has occurred no more than two phases (rucks or mauls) … before the ball has been grounded in in-goal.”
Regardless, Rasivhenge only saw it as a Brumbies knock-on in this case, and therefore had no reason to bring TMO McDermott into the discussion.
The question then becomes one of whether or not McDermott saw Ardron’s touch on the ball in the minute or so that followed before the scrum was packed, and whether he should have intervened as he is allowed to, under Law 6.15.c: “Any of the match officials, including the TMO, may recommend a review by the TMO…”
And then it’s a question of when TMO intervention is acceptable and when is it intrusive, a point Geoff Parkes touched on so eloquently yesterday.
My argument remains the same as was the case back in February. As long as it’s consistent, it doesn’t matter whether it’s acceptable or intrusive. Until players and coaches and commentators and fans know better and react accordingly, it’s all necessary.
At the end of the day, we want to watch rugby played and officiated well and not a lottery. We should be able to watch a game with confidence that decisions made this week are in line with decisions made last week, last month, or last year.
Blaming referees for results is always a lazy argument; that’s something I’ve always believed and long stood by. And these are hardly the only contentious decisions from the weekend.
But the game can also certainly itself by addressing the chronic inconsistencies among its’ match officials, especially given it’s never been easier to spot them.
piru
Roar Rookie
No need for the spray Piru, I’m long term rusted on. But you’re head is in the sand if you don’t acknowledge a not insignificant reason for rugby’s diminishing supporter base is the officiating confusion, intrusion and inconsistency. I think I need to adjust the way I word things, I often use the term 'you' rhetorically, but that's twice this week it's been read as a personal attack. My apologise FWM - I do see how that came across and it was not intended to be 'you' but more 'us'. As for the second part, no I don't agree - I actually think it's the other way around. Poor reffing isn't driving crowds away, attitudes towards the reffing is, and in the process driving the myth that the reffing is terrible. It actually isn't, at all. I myself have basically stopped going anywhere near a few online groups during matches as the complaining is too much. I think some people enjoy being miserable, but we can't let them win!
Soapit
Guest
Obviously the refs will like that kind of tmo. The question is whether that's the best way for the game over all I think tmo needs to at least suggest things without being asked with the main red then being in charge of what to do with that information
Boonzie
Guest
Wonder if we should give captains reviews like cricket. 1 per half and if you get it right you retain it. Can't be worse than the random tmo coming in sometimes and not others (usually based on local tv replays)
Melburnian
Roar Pro
Technically, its not stricter application of the laws but of the game management guidelines. Law 9.17 and 9.18, that refer to tackling a player in the air and tip tackles, are only sanctioned by a PK. Its WR's guidelines that mandate a logic flow around points of contact with the ground and leads to a YC or RC. If WR change these, and there is no reason why they can't be different at community level to professional level other than consistency, then the whole tip tackle or contact in the air / RC issue goes away ... until someone get's their neck broken of course.
Melburnian
Roar Pro
Onside - you could equally argue that players in professional sport could be replaced by robots. It's human endeavour but its not life and death. If all the decisions were right there'd be nothing to debate and what would we talk about down the pub?
Melburnian
Roar Pro
Paulo, I don't disagree with anything you've said here. I would make the point that there is, to my mind, too much familiarity between elite players and referees these days. Watching the NH comp's where officials are on first name terms with players is just plain wrong. TJ is a brilliant halfback and as such a complete pest and that means he's doing his job right. The issue as I see it is too much familiarity with a relatively inexperienced referee (and that's the majority of SANZAAR officials at the present time) calls into question the integrity of the officials in the minds of some players and many supporters. Back in the day, if a halfback spoke to the referee in the manner TJ does he'd have been given his marching orders. The implications for community rugby are that up and coming officials will be given a right royal working over by more senior players because of what the latter see on TV.
Jimbo
Guest
Forty years ago the referees were the sole judge of fact and their decision was final. Then touch judges, if they were qualified referees could be consulted. Wireless connection between the officials sped the action up. Now we have so many referrals to the TMO the game is running up to 15 minutes over time. Yes dangerous tackles have to be eliminated but the game in dynamic - humans throwing themselves to complete a tackle can easily slip up and injure the tackled player. It is not easy to determine the intentions of players. However, a good referee should have read the game sufficiently to suss out how each team/player is performing. Allow the referee to make a decision. If unsure, refer to the Assistant referees and only if no clear reading of the event can be made, refer it to the TMO. ps Maybe electronic monitors in the touch lines might help Assistant Referees determine where the ball has crossed the line. Most are usually a minimum of 15 metres out.
Jerry
Guest
Yeah, but it didn't start below - Brown was bent over. This is all just speculation on my part I realise, but I suspect if Brown had been upright and gotten hit square in the chest area with no hint of a high shot, it wouldn't have been a citing. As it was, it was obviously on the low end as he only got one week didn't he?
PeterK
Roar Guru
Jerry - You need to remember this was 2015 before the focus on head shots, and when starting below the head and sliding up wasn't seen as a card as it is now.
Uncle Eric
Guest
Agreed FWM. A lot of teams (particularly the Aussies) live on the margins with their passing. Beale is a particular case in point and I thought that at least one of the Waratahs tries against the Sunwolves came from a forward pass. Ergo my view is if you throw a pass within reach of a defender, so be it, intercept or no intercept. This wouldn't phase most other sides overly much as the attacking players seem to get the ball a little behind the game line.
Harry Jones
Expert
Rugby Championship: Yellow cards: 2014: 7 2015: 6 2016: 15 2017: 10
Harry Jones
Expert
9 cards in one game, in 2017! https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11830707
Cynical Play
Guest
Your in denial TM.
Jerry
Guest
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afsd6Y4-p7w#t=53s I dunno, he would have made contact with the head hitting on that angle. Not with the shoulder perhaps, but still high contact.
taylorman
Roar Guru
None of those is statistically convincing it is the refs bias that is causing the differential, and more importantly, the separation between the simple fact that home sides win more due to familiarity and home support. Theyre merely numbers being thrown up in support of a pre determined theory. It does not go to the level of determining that refs, and no other factors are to blame for the discrepancies. My theory is that away sides feel more threatened and are likely to turn up more defensive when faced with unfavouring crowds and in order to achieve and simply force more errors, and are penalised more. And there are 23 opposition players, and one ref. Where do those studies show the separation between that theory and refs favouring the home side as a rule? They dont. The favouritism may be there but the analysis is too weak to suggest refs are the sole cause, when everyone knows in most sports home sides get an advantage simply because theyre at home. Where do the studies link the percentages to actual decisions made by referees and which are considered wrong and favouring the other team? Within these stats a ref could penalise the visiting side 40 times and the home side ten, with not one incorrect decision, yet by the nature of the survey it gets interpreted as favouring the home side without a single shred of evidence that that was the case. Zero link between ref favouritism and the numbers. Yet the survey is by default calling the ref a che@#eat. Then theres the even more ridiculous assumption that refs arent deliberately doing it, theyre subconsciously doing it. This is to appease the masses that not all refs can be deliberately and consciously favouring the home side...theyre doing it without knowing they are....well how handy is that assumption! So where is the analysis to support how many decisions are deliberately favouring the home side vs those subconscious ones? Where is the referees input to these surveys? Surely if youre going to accuse an entire profession of being substandard ‘across the board’ those at center of these surveys would be expected to have significant input. Dont see any evidence of that. Nope. Until a comprehensive analysis is provided these surveys are merely the throwing up of numbers in the air to support a theory based more on fan, rather than referee bia!as. And one thing Im far more convinced of is that fans are far, far more bia!sed than referees will ever be, so theyll eat these results up without a second look to support their own bi!as.
taylorman
Roar Guru
Robots still have to be programmed by humans so surely there can be no possible chance of error or bias there. And if you believe that then the next leg of pork flies out at 6pm.?
Paulo
Roar Rookie
Apologizes Peter, I am use to certain posters identifying every time a Kiwi does something awful to an Aussie and reacted to that rather than this post, which was not fair of me. I'm sorry if you felt personally attacked. I'm not 100% sure where I said something personal, but if you took offense I will try and be nicer. I sometimes forget others can be more sensitive than I am use to, I would have thought the reference to the fabled Kiwi conspiracy showed the tone of my post largely tongue in cheek. As are my references to laying on a beach on the dole in the Gold Coast.
Paulo
Roar Rookie
Thank you Peter, I have had a quick read but will read more thoroughly when I have more time. I saw that 2 of the links are for the same study and the other link is the same researcher, not a big gig just watching sport for a thesis haha. Do you remember the other studies you found? I did a quick google, but everything seems to be soccer which I don't think relates well enough.
PeterK
Roar Guru
http://www.sportingintelligence.com/2010/07/29/revealed-biased-rugby-referees-in-both-codes-hand-big-advantage-to-own-countries-290702/ http://www.ncer.edu.au/papers/documents/WPNo62.pdf https://www.qut.edu.au/news?news-id=70355 others as well, do a google search
Harry Jones
Expert
Yes, over a decade, it’s a steep RISE in YC in SR. I was only pointing out that we will know after the 2019 season whether 2017 was the high point, and whether the slow decline of 2018 continues or if that is the “new normal.”