I may be cynical with the following views but this has been my rugby experience from player to referee over a 30-year career.
Coaches spend their life devoted to finding and perfecting the impurities of the game to gain an advantage in the continual contest for the ball in what we call the game of rugby.
Referees as the custodians of the laws of the game are in continual pursuit of the perfect game where all players comply with the laws and the referee has a penalty count of 0 for both halves.
Both the referee and the coach are in pursuit of utopia. This can never be achieved.
Rugby is a game of infractions, breaking rules, and improvising as a team strives to achieve a goal. The nature of this 80-minute endeavor results in approximately 100 tackle/rucks, 20 lineouts, 10 scrums, and 18 penalties at Test level on a perfect day. Even games usually mean even numbers of meanderings across the line of law. Terrific games are where two different styles of play (infractions) counteract each other to give a very close result.
The challenge for the referee is to find the melody in this unstructured song. Should they employ a totally analytical approach and identify every error in law, the game will lose its sort after flow and the game becomes a total bore and all be lost to lawn bowls or a similar more exciting sport than an 80-penalty game of rugby.
World Rugby has always and continually challenged with this and uses the concept of advantage, to allow a team to continue on after an infringement, to play as they wish, and that the penalty will be retired once time, tactical or positional advantage has been accrued in the “view of the referee” in real-time during the game. Referees think about this a lot. By considering the type of advantage, field position, and competition (physical) between the teams. All done with a heart rate in the 120s plus fighting dehydration and asphyxiation.
The other concept they use is a material effect. Where penalty infringements with little, if any impact on the game is largely ignored so play can continue. After the first 20 games of refereeing rugby, this becomes the challenge of a lifetime for all referees, and it will never leave them until they hang their boots up. In short, this is difficult to perceive in real-time and get correct. Everybody will assess it after the fact with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.
Nic Berry’s efforts in the South Africa-British & Irish Lions First Test were pretty good in almost all areas of the game given the impossibility of the task. Test Matches are by definition a tough test for everybody otherwise they would be known as “Easy Matches!”
When two highly skilled teams battle at the edges of adjudication of the laws of the game you should expect a less than perfect result. Great players manage the seemingly impossible in the “in-close” parts of the game to gain that slightest advantage which may result in points on the board in a phase or threes time. The only solution is to outplay the other team within the referee’s acceptable levels of the game.
(Photo by Soccrates/Getty Images)
To be objective, this Lions team has a keenness to test the envelope of the referee’s threshold of where the penalty is awarded, and they adjusted accordingly. The Boks do this well enough, but on the night, they were outperformed, and to be fair they needed to change their game plan to win for which they did not.
However, Rassie Erasmus has made some valid points for which I glossed over as a spectator of reasonable rugby knowledge that is worthy of a circle the wagons in the referee world.
The high tackle framework was not adhered to in the game the TMO needed to call the “Check-Check” call to advise Berry of the high tackles. Rassie, identified the two that impacted his team which needed to have been applied and two yellow cards awarded as a minimum but Red Cards have been awarded for less. In fact, World Rugby framework clearly shows a similar action and declares it red as a no-malicious but high dangerous lifting tackle. This is the key work of the TMO and Berry was let down over this.
If he had issued a red, then the whinge would still come but be slightly different. We all know he can never win at his chosen game of refereeing.
Possibly the other more disturbing was the on-field style of the way SA captain and the Lions captain interacted with the team of three. Assistant referees have no place in dealing with questions of adjudication of the on-field with the captains. It is a very bad look to have ushered SA captain away while still allowing the Lions to remain. This displays as unconscious bias and needs to be corrected as fans will react negatively at the sight of this regardless of the actual intent.
In the wash-up, the team of three’s performance was adequate but with areas to work on. I feel this behind doors stuff is poor for the game as much as Rassie’s rant. I only hope we can be more open with referees and coaches having their pregame meetings televised to allow for the mysteries of the beautiful game to be dispensed with.
Even with a performance report as a numerical scale format to allow the conjecture to settle and be averaged out over multiple Tests and multiple referees.
The rugby commentator and professional journalist also carry a special responsibility to ensure that they manage the hysteria with fact.
Just Nuisance
Roar Rookie
It clearly was to achieve just that. I mean Rassie absolutely admitted it.. I wont quote him ad verbatim but he was quite succinct in inferring that with Gatland rubbishing Marius Jonker and the Boks erring in staying silent, the Lions achieved an advantage.. This video was to balance the books... Possibly the real fault lies with World Rugbys existing templates for coaches to express grievances.. If the coaches feel that by going the formal route they are wasting their time then they will exploit social media to address their issues. That is what needs fixing and fast. Maybe unwittingly Erasmus and Gatland ( Who has walked away quite clean from a mess he was pretty instrumental in helping create), have done everyone a favor going forward.
FunBus
Roar Rookie
:happy: :happy: I’d have to get the kids to do it - I struggle to work the ‘like’ thingy on this site.
Greco Dominicus
Roar Rookie
The problem Neil is if what you are saying is true regarding the officials, there is a real advantage to having a white english speaking captain because they will always relate better to a white english speaking official culturally. It's basic social science
WEST
Roar Guru
Berry will be feeling cr** I find it Hard to believe any professional ref will be unprofessional on purpose. Mistakes happen. Similar as hearing about NZ refs being biased! Complete BS
Harry Jones
Expert
Not what he did. Clever coach. Told the Telegraph he was ‘furious.’ Reiterated to all the UK journos. Primed the outrage machine, knowing Jonkers couldn’t defend himself. In the match, Marius sounded freaked out. Not as dramatic as RassieTV, but come on. It was a cynical media play, and well done.
Rugby Geek
Roar Rookie
This currently happens AR's are comms up and there is plenty of help to the guy in the middle.
Rugby Geek
Roar Rookie
PK, to get the ref world to be open and transparent will scare the system lovers to death. It's gonna be a kicking and screaming thing I think.
Buk
Roar Rookie
Ken - 'southern plastic kilts' a low blow :)
Buk
Roar Rookie
— COMMENT DELETED —
scrum
Roar Rookie
This indicates a lack of understanding of the dynamics of Rugby. One of the prime principles is it is a contest for the ball at all phases. So the difficulty is in framing the Laws and then applying them. Contrary to public belief there is a lot of work done on this behind the scenes. Because of the complexity Referees need to apply their judgement especially on "has the infringement impacted the game" . If you want every infringement punished well I hope you enjoy 60 PKs per game. So you may say amend the Laws-if only it were that simple. If you look at the number of tackles/breakdowns per game the actual outcomes are pretty good. The Laws - and the guidelines to apply the Laws- are working at the breakdown. If you loosen up the Laws too much there is the likelihood of the breakdown becoming a pile up of bodies and the ball not emerging. And finally the Referees are scrutinised- the Ref does a complete review of the match as do the Assesors and the Referee Coach. On top of that the Teams put in their review of the Ref .Making this public is problematic. There is so much emotion involved any minor errors-and there will be errors- will be leapt upon to deride the Ref as incompetent . It is always lose/lose for Match officials. To think there will be any rational analytical reaction is rather naive
Tooly
Roar Rookie
Well written. . Coaches and players are cheats . Referee’s are not cheats . . Referee’s can be biased. . All can be incompetent. . Coaches and players are held to account. . Referees are not.
Tooly
Roar Rookie
Brilliant.
BlouBul
Roar Rookie
I have been outspoken about the laws and the inconsistent application of them for years. If a law exist it needs to be applied or it should be removed. The 'interpretation' should be removed. There are laws and then the officials come with their interpretations. That was deliberate but this was accidental, no mitigating circumstances this week then next week week the same situation has mitigating circumstances. Different officials, different interpretations. 'Internally' should become public, no sugar coating. Consistent application of all the laws are the key and nobody is above scrutiny. If you belief your decisions/behaviors are correct then you should be more than willing to justify them when asked to do so irrespective of what nationality you are.
Micko
Roar Rookie
Peter, the TMO should just be a footage gatherer. They've complicated things with this insertion of a new powerful and pedantic official, who can apparently stick their nose into anything.
PeterK
Roar Guru
I too have supported this type of transparency. Added to that how errors are determined, what the guidelines are, since they are instructed to not penalise everything then you can't say every infringement they ignore is a mistake. I would include a breakdown of how the ratings are reached since it involves multiple different areas (i.e the criteria). There is no reason to not provide what you suggest.
PeterK
Roar Guru
yes they do, they are internally ranked and get assigned tests based on that ranking (covid an exception). All laws have NEVER been enforced strictly. I bet you would not be saying this if SA won.
PeterK
Roar Guru
All justified by the DEMAND the refs jump to respond to him by Sunday (day after the match, and they have not even had their own internal review yet).
PeterK
Roar Guru
THIS. It is standard practice to have neutral officials in a test match, every right to question the appointment of a non neutral.
PeterK
Roar Guru
IMO if all the laws were applied stringently it would be a much better game after a bit of settling in. Of course cards must be applied after 3 offences of any type as well. The game would actually open up and speed up. Far less offside. Less slowing of rucks with hands , less not rolling away, less not releasing. Scrums would be cleaner and more about good technique and strength rather than dark arts. Chasers of kicks would not be impeded as much. Less taking out and holding back players off the ball. In fact it would actually work against the bok style.
PeterK
Roar Guru
CPM - Interesting that the biased view produced no card was made in fact by a SA, the TMO made that call. So Jonker is biased against the boks now?