Subjectivity killing the game
31 Mar 2008
The inconsistencies in officiating continue to mar the Super 14 as a spectacle but the fact remains the ELVs leave too much to interpretation.
Stormers coach Rassie Erasmus bemoaned the fact after his side lost to the Blues two weeks ago. Obviously frustrated, he suggested his side needs to learn to adapt to the referee and how he calls the game, especially at the breakdown.
While it may seem ridiculous to make such a statement, Erasmus’s words hold some weight when you consider how varied the officiating has been in this area. The term free-for-all has been bandied about, and critics from all sectors have slated the new laws as they allow defending teams the opportunity to impede repeatedly as most of the time the sanction is only a free kick.
This is where the inconsistency comes into play. When does the contest for the ball at the tackle point become cynical and how many successive penalties does it take before a yellow card is brandished? There are no unequivocal answers to these questions. The referee is entrusted to call it like he sees it, and herein lies the big problem.
There’s been a lot of debate about how structures have taken over the game and how so few players are encouraged to play the situation. While most will agree coaches need to back their players to maximise creative potential, referees cannot be afforded the same leeway. The powers that be need to reconvene and give referees stricter guidelines. Three repeated infringements result in a penalty, and thereafter yellow cards come into play. This will result in less criticism of referees, and players will also be aware of what will lead to a long-arm penalty or a yellow card.
The laws are on a trial basis in the Super 14, but one wonders why these parameters were never considered when the laws were written. The breakdown has long been the most important area of the game, with rucks outnumbering the set-pieces by a vastly superior margin. It’s also arguably the hardest area to officiate.
Erasmus told SA Rugby magazine last year he believes a fourth official is needed to monitor the breakdown. Referees in his opinion currently have too much to worry about, and given the high potential for transgression at the breakdown an extra set of eyes would certainly clean things up. For example, Wikus van Heerden would never have shovelled that ball back with his hands in the ruck at the 2007 Super 14 final against the Sharks. The fourth official would have seen this transgression and awarded the penalty to the Sharks. As it was, Steve Walsh missed the move, the ball came back on the Bulls side and Bryan Habana ultimately scored the winning try.
The ELVs have been brought in to speed up the game, and it’s true it will take some time for everyone to adjust. But in a faster game, can referees really be asked to keep up with everything that happens? Some referees are better than others, and may well adapt, but the truth of the matter is you need a universal standard in operation at the highest level.
We are only going into Round 8, but the mistakes and differing interpretations of the Super 14 referees is alarming. Erasmus is not the only coach who has expressed his concern, with Blues mentor David Nucifora also speaking out recently at how the new laws allow for more negative play. Cheetahs coach Naka Drotske complained when the Force pipped his side thanks to a last gasp penalty in Round 2, a penalty he believes should have been a free-kick when Hendrik Meyer impeded at the ruck. The breakdown rules are under scrutiny, but the new tackle law is something that also needs stricter management with defending players often not getting back onside once a linebreak and subsequent tackle has been made.
Erasmus’s comments following the Blues match is worrying from the stand point that teams may need to take the referee into account when preparing for a particular game. That is not to say they don’t already, but the emphasis should always be on the opposition rather than the official.
By Jon Cardinelli
187 Comments
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] Show All
31 Mar 2008, 17:39 pm
superBul,
If money is the reason you play rugby and not the benefit of doing so, then you’ll never make it to the top. Or if you’re already there, you won’t stay there for long if the hunger to develop and improve dies as others with the required hunger pass you by.
31 Mar 2008, 17:40 pm
stodders,
James Ryan is a die hard Otago boy. He is like Heinkie to Tvl/Lions..they never leave their provinces!
BUt AB’s are seriously slim in the lock department.
31 Mar 2008, 17:40 pm
I was just thinking today.
We all know Zimbabwe’s hyper-inflation is bad at 100,000%, but Uncle Bob must be very surprised that the “special” votes would devalue that much between stuffing the ballot box and counting them…
31 Mar 2008, 17:42 pm
NZ Lottery..$NZ 18m jackpot record prize this weekend!!!
sh*t, if I win..I am buying this site!
31 Mar 2008, 17:43 pm
Agree with your comments @ 13.
Refs need to talk less and officiate the game more.
The IRB needs to reward teams want possession of the ball. Like i said earlier, rugby at the moment is better played without controlling possession. Refs give the defending team too much leverage and penalise attacking teams for wanting to play with the ball.
Offensive defence (pressurised defence without the ball forcing mistakes and penalties) is king at the mo. The IRB need to work out how to reward offence with the ball. It will encourage teams to play more.
31 Mar 2008, 17:45 pm
only 100,000%??..thought it was higher
31 Mar 2008, 17:47 pm
WPTID,
I hope the Zim military do the righ thing and tell Mugabe that he no longer has their support and that they are stepping aside to allow the democratic process to follow its true course.
Sadly, I can see some crock of sh*te power sharing agreement to be brokered (ala Kenya) allowing Zanu-PF and its cronies to retain some measure of power and protection from prosecution.
I hope Zimbabweans string up Mugabe personally with all the shoe laces from the expensive shoes he and his wife bought on their European excursions!
31 Mar 2008, 17:47 pm
146 Stodders,
The thing is that James Ryan was born and went to school in Chrischurch. He then went to Otago University (where he was selected for the NZ under 21s).
He is a Christchurch lad and so has a case for making the Saders.
I just can’t think about next years Crusaders without Robbie
31 Mar 2008, 17:49 pm
152 g13g,
Please read 158. He is a Christchurch lad (he knows what the sun looks like)
31 Mar 2008, 17:54 pm
#159
Ryan clearly stated to Murray Deaker that he could not contemplate playing for anyside but Otago. When he comes back, it will be for Otago.
as for Saders without Deans..well, expect to see a few names going overseas after this season
31 Mar 2008, 17:58 pm
church,
I think Hammett and Blackadder will make a good coaches. Deans has been a great coach, but his biggest legacy will be the structures, telant identifaction and coaching development processes he put in place and improved on during his time at Canterbury and the Crusaders.
There is a natural coaching progression process within the Crusaders franchise, and the development of the next set of coaches is key to your success IMO. Deans is well aware that it is all about the team/franchise, not about one man. His knowledge will have been transferred to his assistants. His experience will of course be missed, but i think you guys will survive.
I can’t see the Crusaders doing a Bulls next year, even if Carter and McCaw were to depart for the lure of the Pound. Your processes are sound and the next set of talented players will roll off the conveyor belt, as will the next set of coaches.
31 Mar 2008, 18:01 pm
In recent months, there has been much hullabaloo surrounding Zimbabwe’s election to head the United Nations Sustainable Development commission, with many saying the Mugabe government has been utterly useless at environmental management.
This is of course a malicious fabrication encouraged by Western Imperialists like the previous Blair, and current Brown and Bush governments. In fact, Zimbabwe has taken some bold initiatives to deal with emissions. It started phasing out petrol and diesel a few years ago.
This has seen the introduction of the pedal bicycle police patrol and reaction force, which has been increasing in popularity over the past months, as motorized cars are apparently being phased out.
Then it came up with a marvelous population control plan, donating a third of its citizens to other countries. The reduction in the population will naturally have a big impact on shrinking the country’s carbon footprint, though some in the media have mischievously argued that any reduction is a drop in the ocean next to the emissions from the Zimbabwe Parliament.
A few weeks ago it announced that it was doing away with electricity in cities.
This week Harare said that, as part of a major “mechanisation programme”, it was encouraging farmers to use ox-drawn carts and ploughs instead of tractors.”
31 Mar 2008, 18:04 pm
g13g,
I think the sense of unity in the Canterbury/Crusaders is what has made them so good. The players enjoy the environment, and they are loyal.
I can see McCaw and Carter heading overseas, but then again, I can see them staying on. Look at the likes of Marshall, Mehrtens and Thorne. All gave their best years to Canterbury/Crusaders when they could have one north earlier to collect the big money. Unlike most other NZ franschises which have arguably had more talented players, Canterbury/Crusaders have the strongest team ethic in NZ, arguably in world rugby.
They are proud to be associated with Canterbury/Crusaders and it will take alot to tempt them away.
I believe that if the ABs could foster the same level of commitment and passion for the black jersey that the Canterbury/Crusaders players do in the red and black one, they wouldn’t lose the important games that so haunt them. Somehow, they have to find a way to bring the pride and passion back when for a player when he wears black.
Giving out fewer jerseys and making it hard to make the ABs once again would go some to solving that conundrum.
31 Mar 2008, 18:06 pm
“would go some way”…
31 Mar 2008, 18:13 pm
well put Stodders, I agree entirely regarding the difference between the “felling” between ABs and Crusaders.
it has also bewildered me, other kiwi sides such as Hurricanes and Blues have depth in naturally gifted players ..but are soo inconsistent. Not helped by consistent indiscipline by players such as Collins and Nonuu – despite their talent.
Crusaders always seem such a far more intelligent side. There is thi sheer aura of intimidation around them because of this. Opposition are pyschologically challenged by this before even taking the field.
you can train work and have 5 Lomu’s in your side..but when your mind tells you you are playing the best province in the world who are undefeated..its a barrier hard to break.
31 Mar 2008, 18:16 pm
pardon my errors
I am in a worry for work..
31 Mar 2008, 18:26 pm
“There’s been a lot of debate about how structures have taken over the game and how so few players are encouraged to play the situation” You mean just like american football? They are just a bunch of robots on the field moving to a set play.
31 Mar 2008, 18:30 pm
g13g,
For me, the closest the ABs have come to that team unity was when Tana Umaga was captain. He was a warrior leader who commanded respect and awe from the players he led into battle.
The ABs in 2005 were Umaga’s ABs. In 2006, after his retirement, they were running on his manna still and probably played better rugby, but the passion was waning. By 2007, the passion and confidence within the team had gone and the confidence came with it.
I do feel that a half fit Umaga would have dragged the ABs over the line in the QF against France through sheer bloody mindedness. Umaga wasn’t the best centre in NZ for the last couple of years that he played 13 in black, but he was irreplaceable as a leader. Opponents feared him, as did his teammates for fear of letting him down.
McCaw does not yet command this respect from the players he leads out in the black jersey. He may never do so. McCaw needs to develop a hard streak. For me, he’s too nice. He is a leader of deed but not yet one of men. And when faced with the darkness of losing that only occurs in a test match of the highest intensity, sheer bloody mindedness and an ability to drag your team through to win outweigh all the skills in the world.
31 Mar 2008, 18:32 pm
“confidence went with it”…
31 Mar 2008, 18:34 pm
Interestingly, I get the impression with the Crusaders that it is Deans who is the leader of men. McCaw displays no difference in his captaincy style for the Crusaders than he does for the ABs. Thinking about, the Crusaders are Robbie Dean’s team. he is their leader and he is the one that drives them subconciously when out on the field.
Without him at the helm, will the next coach be able to instill the same passion and team ethic that has driven the Crusaders to be the outstanding provincial team in world rugby?
31 Mar 2008, 19:10 pm
IMHO,
I recon the laws at the breakdown need to be simplified, this will make it easier for the ref to see transgretions.
An example would be to consider allowing hands in the ruck. As long as the player is on thier feet and coming fromt the right side, what differance would it make. If the attacking team cannot protect the ball, then the defensive side deserve to have it.
I also feel that the TV ref should only have a limited time to answer the ref. If the time runs out the ref needs to make the call, just like the old days. TV officials are making wrong decisions as many times as the refs.
Also like like in the French Leagues, the ref refered a fight to the TV official. It was brilliant, not only did you get to see the fight from all angles, but nobody got wrongly dismissed.
31 Mar 2008, 19:13 pm
Stodders,
Mccaw should be left to play his natural game without the captain tab..he is not captain material IMO..But then there is really no on eesle in that Chokers side that is.
its going to be a hard job replacing Deans for any man. Would lov eto see a World Club Chamionship match between Saders and the NH best side.
31 Mar 2008, 19:15 pm
#171
you know..you would think the chances of making a mistake as a third official would be zero considering the technology availible today.
But then..maybe sometimes the third official left his glasses at home!
31 Mar 2008, 19:19 pm
hardcore,
I like the idea of in-game citings. If the ref believes something untoward has happened, he can refer it to the video ref during the game to investigate whilst play continues. If the video ref does uncover foul play, he can refer it back to the ref at the next stoppage and give a directive on what the correct punishment should be for the offence.
It would hopefully take the pressure off the ref for making “heat of the moment” decisions allowing him to concentrate on the officiating the game, takes the haphazard way that assistant referees see incidents and try to get involved in key decisions (re: Steve Walsh) and makes players aware that no foul play will be tolerated during the game.
31 Mar 2008, 19:28 pm
g13g,
Like the last time the best NH club/provincial side played the best SH provicial side, it would result in a win by the SH team IMO, but the score would be closer for no other reason than the NH teams are full of SH players
31 Mar 2008, 19:31 pm
# 168
Stodders, I agree. And look how long it took the rest of SA to aapreciate John Smit. JW saw it a long time before the rest of SA (except Sharks supporters !!). He wasnt/isnt the best hooker in SA (Bismarck gets that title now) but he will worth his weight (considerable) when he returns to the Bok fold after banking those FFr. PdV has seen that, give him credit.
31 Mar 2008, 19:44 pm
Now Stodders come out of the closet and admit you are Gavin Hastings or Geech[McG]. After reading post 25 thats the impression and summation i came up to.
31 Mar 2008, 19:47 pm
Stodders # 168
Good post Andrew. Especially that last paragraph.
31 Mar 2008, 20:14 pm
Stodders,
I agree.
At this stage anything to improve the standard of reffing.
In the professional era to much is at stake to be ruined by bad decisions. Refs missing blatant forward passes, off sides, carding people who dont deserve it, etc.
There must be a reason for such a poor standard of reffing. Maybe the laws have become to compliated???
31 Mar 2008, 20:26 pm
Rucking which rapidly degenerates into violent macho mountaineering is what drove thousands of mothers from permitting their wee little sons from taking up rugby. Those littlies are the long-term future of rugby.
31 Mar 2008, 21:32 pm
TheTackler
Agree, I know of too many horror stories where schoolkids lost eyes due to irresponsible rucking.
31 Mar 2008, 22:16 pm
WP – are you serious or taking the piss?
1 Apr 2008, 03:34 am
#182 Dont know about you but never heard of a school kid losing his Eyes (both?) in a game of rugby. Perhaps it has happened but would be extremely rare. #181 must be a gullible receptor for “stories” (Gossip?)
If you stop breathing (hold your breath permanently) you wont die of carbon monoxide poisoning!
1 Apr 2008, 05:56 am
I think the IRB should do more in countries such as australia, to improve refs and increase them.
Honestly how bad are paul marx, and those other guys??
1 Apr 2008, 06:57 am
I have to agree, I couldn’t find any level of consistency in the refereeing. No two refs judge proceedings the same way.
The Oz refs are the worst but our refs aren’t really better (Veldtsman, Roos…).
The NZ refs at least explain in clear terms why they make particular decisions and they keep the captains informed of the status in the game – if they are going to start giving straight arm penalties instead of free kicks or move to yellow etc.
1 Apr 2008, 11:09 am
#184 — it’s SA who have the world’s worst refs, not Oz.
1 Apr 2008, 16:59 pm
Don’t care where ref’s are rated and who rates them, there should be a system of retribution where rugby loving public can mutilate those that misuse their authority to influence a game. Remember Watson punishing a player because he could see he was going to commit an infringement before it happened – and admitted to it on TV then never had the decency to apologise. And he’s a senior ref. Idiot. Too many ref’s believe they can “read” the game and blow on “feeling” rather than evidence – a bit like Linda Lovelace but less entertaining. Must be clear rules, no room for interpretation. Beginning to believe ref’s are failed traffic cops.
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] Show All
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.