Protected species
9 Mar 2011
MARK KEOHANE, writing in SA Rugby magazine, says referees must stop interpreting the laws and start applying them consistently.
World Cup-winning Wallabies coach Bob Dwyer consistently condemned players and referees for having no regard for the application of the law at the breakdown, and while he felt there was improvement in 2010 after referees were instructed to effectively police the breakdown, he questioned why it took intervention and a directive from the game’s ruling body to ensure that referees did their job and called play as it unfolded.
Referees, desperate to officiate a game with flow, tempo and greater spectator appeal, use too much discretion with one man’s interpretation more damning and defining than the collective of the lawmakers.
Referees see themselves as managers of a game and some spend the game coaching in the guise of effective communication. They do this at the expense of applying the law but the defence (among referees) is the public wants to see a spectacle and not a stop-start bore.
Those defenders of referees blame players for a disregard for the laws and coaches for teaching their players to cheat and manipulate referees. But if the law was applied more consistently and if referees called what they saw instead of what they interpreted, there would be less controversy and a great deal more consistency.
The tackle area and scrum engage are two areas of the game that give away too much for referee interpretation and while the ‘crouch, touch, pause, engage’ at scrum time was designed for player safety, it has turned scrumming into a lottery depending on who is refereeing.
Dwyer called the scrum a mess and former England hooker Brian Moore, in the Daily Telegraph, lamented the lost art of scrumming, describing the modern day first-phase battle as a combination of players pushing against each other and poor refereeing.
‘The scrums are less stable and less safe, thereby exacerbating one of the very problems that the IRB seeks to remove. The referees’ unilateral, unexplained and unapologetic decision to allow the ball to be put in squint has created an unholy trinity of evils from which the present dangerous, boring farce ensues,’ wrote Moore, adding that the laws of the game were clear and needed to be applied and not interpreted.
Moore concluded that if the binding was legal, if neither team was allowed to push early or at the angle, and the ball was fed along the line of the join of the props’ shoulders, then there would be a fair and competitive scrum that remained aloft.
World Cup-winning Wallabies prop Andrew Blades supports Dwyer’s view that the scrum was a shambles, arguing that referees differed in variation with their timing of the engage call and in some cases it appeared as if the referee was trying to trick the teams on the engage by calling the engage too slow.
Blades offered the solution that takes away interpretation and uncertainty.
‘The referee checks that both sides are ready and then he should do a quick “crouch, touch, pause, engage”, with consistent timing. Referees also need to be harder on props with a hand on the ground, loose forwards not staying attached to the scrum and scrumhalves interfering with opposition players while the ball is still in the scrum.’
Blades said that if referees were more consistent in applying the laws of the game the scrum would be safer, hassle-free and represent a contest that would influence the game positively.
But interpretation is so strong among referees and views are so different that trying to find the consistency is impossible. Preparing for the referee on match day has become as much a science for technically astute coaches as is preparing for the opposition; because referee interpretations of the laws of the game vary so radically.
The emphasis on what is a no-go area in a game is also significantly different with each referee and the approach of a well coached and prepared team these days is as much influenced by the referee appointment for the game as it is by the quality of the opposition.
Those coaches who assume referees merely apply the laws of the game are ignorant. I would say naive but if you coach professionally then a failure to study the strengths and weaknesses of the man with the whistle is more ignorance than naivety.
Referees are the untouchables in rugby union, where an amateur ethos wrongly rules a professional environment.
There is no accountability because it is difficult to punish interpretation as its very nature is subjective and does not accommodate right and wrong.
Coaches and players cannot question a referee’s officiating publicly and when done through the official channels (by way of a post-match report) the response is lame and in favour of the referee – as dictated to by the ethos of a species, so often under attack, that one protects the other.
Referees, as it was during amateurism, are the sole judge and jury and those who play and coach the game simply have to tolerate the unintentional prejudice of a referee, who selectively applies the laws of the game to the way he believes the game should be played.
An analysis of the leading referees shows few see it the same way and most have an area of focus that is not consistent with the next one.
The game’s top 20 referees in 2010 – on average – awarded 20 penalties a game, which indicates consistency and allows for a belief that the laws of the game are obvious, well policed and not up to referee interpretation.
Closer analysis tells another story.
The scrum, like the breakdown, is one of the most contentious areas because too much is about referee interpretation. Some referees blew up to 14 scrum penalty infringements and others did not award a single scrum penalty.
France’s Jerome Garces, for example, awarded 24 penalties in a match and 29% of them were because of supposed scrum infringements. Steve Walsh, by contrast, in awarding 20 penalties, only singled out the scrum in 10% of the penalties. England’s Dave Pearson was even more tolerant at the scrum with an average of 8% of his penalties directed at scrum offenders.
South Africa’s Craig Joubert and Jonathan Kaplan, England’s Wayne Barnes and Ireland’s Alain Rolland and Alan Lewis, penalised the scrum in 15% of their penalties. But South African Mark Lawrence, in his two internationals, found little wrong with the scrum engagement and used it primarily as a restart, with just 3% of his penalties awarded at the scrum. South African Marius Jonker is the opposite to Lawrence and 25% of his penalties come at scrum time, and even more pertinent is that Jonker only penalises the loosehead or tighthead on the side he is standing.
Kiwi Bryce Lawrence, in officiating matches involving South Africa and Ireland, averaged five scrum penalties a game. Wales’ Nigel Owens, with the same teams, blew only a single scrum penalty. Rolland, in three Tests involving South Africa, New Zealand and Australia, not once penalised any of the three teams’ tighthead props. Other referees were not as accommodating.
Those desperate to defend referees will argue match circumstance and playing conditions differ, but extended analysis over a season shows a trend of inconsistency between referees in the way the game is managed and the laws are applied.
Detailed analysis of Super 14, Six Nations, Tri-Nations and end-of-year tour matches in 2010 showed referees awarded penalties for 51 different reasons, but the most alarming statistic for any player and coach is that one referee ruled on just 18 of the possible 51 offending actions (see sidebar below) and another policed 47 of them.
Another point of dispute among coaches is that so many referees in 2010 favoured the team with the ball, with the majority of penalties conceded by the defending team.
Those coaches interviewed identified matches when their support players infringed at the breakdown but because they had the ball they escaped censure. In other games the roles were reversed because of a different referee’s interpretation.
It made for a lottery, said coaches, and while no coach in discussion ever implied or claimed that a referee cheated or deliberately favoured one side, it was the battle to counter preconceived ideas among officialdom’s individuals, rather than any collective, that made it difficult to prepare a team according to the laws.
Some referees were more vigilant on attack and others stricter on the defending side. Some focused on the scrum and others sought control of the game at the breakdown.
In a match in 2010, New Zealand’s Keith Brown penalised the attacking team 55% of the time, while New Zealand-born Steve Walsh penalised the attacking team 10% of the time in a Test in 2010. Both Brown and Walsh awarded 20 penalties in the game.
How can two referees see the game of rugby so differently if the laws were that clear and all a referee had to do was know the laws, identify the infringement and apply the sanction of a penalty?
The obvious counter is that different teams, with different player disciplines and different match conditions, would make this possible, but there is too much variance with referees who officiated with the same teams for it to be as simple as ‘a different Saturday and a different result’.
Those referees officiating in the biggest matches of the year showed as much disparity in the origin of the penalty over a period of three matches, with Ireland’s Rolland penalising the attacking team 44% of the time, as opposed to France’s Romain Poite, Wales’ Owens and South Africa’s Joubert, who penalised the attacking team only 20% of the time.
Joubert, as an example, in his first three Super Rugby matches in 2010, awarded 42 of 44 penalties in favour of the team with the ball, and in his three international matches in 2010 penalised the team without the ball 57 times and the attacking side (with the ball) 15 times (21%). Joubert and Rolland are regarded as two of the best in the business, but their areas of focus are different, which means that the same two teams, on two different Saturdays, would deliver two very different performances and probably get two very different results.
It can’t be right when teams fear or favour a referee more than the opposition, but in rugby it is no longer a case of what is right and wrong, but what is perceived (by the referee) to be right and wrong – and that is very wrong.
Offending actions in 2010
To illustrate the complexities of the modern game, be it officiating, playing or coaching, referees in the leading global competitions judged on the following actions last year:
> Obstruction by attacking player.
> Attacking player sealing off (off feet).
> Defending player off feet (not supporting own body weight).
> Defending player falling on wrong side and sealing off.
> Attacking player in from side (incorrect joining ruck or maul).
> Defending player in from side (incorrect joining ruck or maul).
> Late shoulder charge.
> Early tackle.
> Dangerous tackle – swinging arm.
> Dangerous tackle – tip tackle.
> Attacking player holding on – not releasing.
> Hands in ruck by defending player.
> High tackle.
> Tackler not releasing – preventing release.
> Tackler not rolling away – preventing release.
> Defending player collapsing maul.
> Attacking player advancing – in front of kicker.
> Attacking player playing defender without ball.
> Defending player playing attacker without ball.
> Attacking player playing ball on ground (off feet).
> Defending player playing ball on ground (off feet).
> Defending player kicking ball on ground (off feet).
> Defending player playing jumper in air.
> Defence offside.
> Defending player offside at ruck, maul, or turnover.
> Defending player not retreating out of 10m radius.
> Defending player going off feet and diving on attacker.
> Deliberate knock on by defending player.
> Attacking player must get to his feet first before playing the ball.
> Attacking player playing ball in an offside position (knock).
> Defending player playing ball in an offside position.
> Collision with no arms.
> Foul play by attacking player (trampling).
> Foul play by attacking player (knee to player’s head).
> Foul play by defending player (striking a player).
> Trip by defending player.
> Not back 10m.
> Attacking tighthead – feet went away with the pressure.
> Attacking tighthead – collapsing.
> Defending tighthead – collapsing.
> Defending loosehead – not staying straight (around scrum).
> Defending loosehead – not staying in scrum.
> Defending tighthead – binding (not staying in scrum).
> Defending loosehead – in on angle.
> Defending loosehead – head and shoulders.
> Defending loosehead – straight to ground.
> Defending tighthead – straight to ground.
> Attacking hooker – standing up.
> Defending hooker – standing up.
> Attacking loosehead – collapsing.
> Defending loosehead – collapsing.
– This article first appeared in the March issue of SA Rugby magazine. The April issue will be on sale from 16 March.
Click here to subscribe to print edition
Click here to subscribe to digital edition
58 Comments
9 Mar 2011, 07:25 am
Protected DRAGONS
9 Mar 2011, 07:30 am
Imagine what it would be like if we had 2 refs on the field! Double the chaos : )
9 Mar 2011, 07:45 am
By the way keo, not sure why you post long articles like these to your blog because the average muppit gets lost after the second paragraph…
9 Mar 2011, 07:47 am
If Stuey Dickenson shows his ugly mug at Loftus again he will definitely need protection.
9 Mar 2011, 07:50 am
Impressive list Keo
Go explain it to the Honourable Pro Legote, Jason Jafha or Linston Manuels
Let’s see how far you’ll get?
9 Mar 2011, 07:57 am
Consistancy is all we ask …. They should also rotate Northern /Soutern hemisphere refs so there is uniformity for all players especially in a World Cup year
9 Mar 2011, 08:19 am
‘…but extended analysis over a season…’
Taking stats from a couple games per ref over one season is NOT an extended analysis. An ‘extended analysis’ would require performing this research over several seasons with the same refs.
9 Mar 2011, 08:23 am
@Hondo(Hondo)-5:
Eedjit
9 Mar 2011, 08:33 am
@Hondo(Hondo)-5: you 1 sick,farked up, twisted, miserable, martha Farker…
Seriously my man….you are farked up !
9 Mar 2011, 08:56 am
@grant10(grant10)-9: hey Grant..Im having trouble deciding who to tip for your teams game this weekend…
9 Mar 2011, 09:00 am
@Hondo(Hondo)-5: I haven’t been reading any news of late what have those three been up to?
9 Mar 2011, 09:01 am
said it before..
but we need a refs academy where all are taught one rule of interpretation, they are assessed both on their fitness and their knowledge of the laws.. having reached a certain competency, then and only then should they be put in charge of a test..
9 Mar 2011, 09:01 am
One of the better articles you have ever written.
9 Mar 2011, 09:14 am
Good article Keo
9 Mar 2011, 09:25 am
@poppa69(poppa69)-10: stormers will win my man
9 Mar 2011, 09:34 am
From time to time I time the referee’s call, “crouch, touch, pause, engage”. I’ve found that it varies from 3,9 seconds to 7 seconds! 3 seconds’ difference during the calls is quite a large percentage. The refs should speak to the front rows before the match and give them an indication of his calling sequence. It seems that the stronger scrums get penalised too often and that some of the refs still don’t have a clue who is in fact collapsing the scrum !
9 Mar 2011, 09:52 am
@poppa69(poppa69)-10: 2 easy bets mate , sharks saders to win
9 Mar 2011, 09:58 am
The refs get away with murder sometimes and there has to be consequences.
Willie Roos got a double brandy chucked in his face in Kimberley and he sure did deserve it too. Thanks to them we don’t have a pathetic ref like that still officiating games.
How bout giving Stu Dickinson and Pro Legoete a game or two in Kimberley.
9 Mar 2011, 10:03 am
Refs are humans and prone to error and been human they are not above prejudice as seen by the **** the cheating Dicko, Dronky and Paddy have been up to for years.
Cannot forget Rolland, although he has improved slightly.
There has to be more accountability in this area, not the Paddy doos type, but real accountability with KPI’s, scoring system and unions require a right to redress.
The Scotland game was a great example of incompentancy at is best.
Luckily for us there are a lot of new refs on the scene who are not involved in the petty politics of who can kiss *** for whom.
I dont mind lazy refs who apply the law equaly but watching a game where say Mccaw runs the refs. I laugh how they crumble whn he outs his hands on his hips and pouts.
We have some pretty decent refs but sometimes guilty of provincialism. No names!!
Pro is kak full stop.
Kaplan is ok and he loves Steggies and crying Kuun
Lawrence is sweet with his lovely hair do
Donker Jonker can be pedantic at times
The best though is Mr Jafhta he is consistant and really gets the players on side.
Ya refs hey seen some **** in my time. The best was 20 minutes injury time the Crudaders against the Lions in Egoli which once the Crusaders won the whistle blew, around 1998 some time.
Guess who?
9 Mar 2011, 10:07 am
Keo
What’s your view on the refs “coaching” players during games?
I agree that it speeds up the game and prevents it from being blown to a stand-still, but in some instances refs have blown some players for hands in the ruck, whilst others merely got a “Hands out” call from the ref.
The same goes for the offside/chaser behind the kicker rules.
9 Mar 2011, 10:08 am
@wp_boytjie(wp_boytjie)-18:
That guy should be shot for wasting brandy…
IN all seriousness though, rugby supporters and my fellow supporters (including myself as I found myself swearing at referees in the recent round of Varsity Cup matches), should get over the infatuation that refs are cheats.
Refs make mistakes, they do not cheat, the challenge for SARU and the IRB and SANZAR, is to change the structures in which refs operate in, to minimize mistakes. That means increasing their knowledge of the game, working on their management and people skills (they manage 30 players for 80 minutes afterall) and ensure that people that are, or want to become refs, have the right aptitude for the job, i.e. do proper screening.
9 Mar 2011, 10:18 am
@PissAnt(PissAnt)-21:
I agree , compare Rugby to football for one second and I instantly think on how much more respect the referees enjoy in Rugby.
But there has to be a rating system of some kind.
Kinda like Soccer league’s where the 3 worst teams drop down , the same has to happen with the refs,with the vrot ones dropping out.
Jorrie Muller can play one or two vrot games and he is going going gone. But Pro Legoete can blow how many ***** games and still be around ….
The refs are human for sure, but some get away with making too many mistakes.
9 Mar 2011, 10:20 am
Any ref that blows the bulls away deserves my respect.
9 Mar 2011, 10:32 am
@wp_boytjie(wp_boytjie)-22:
Andre Watson last year mentioned there was a rating system.
9 Mar 2011, 10:56 am
I think if the coaches have all these stats on the way a ref blows a game, the only thing to do is each week during coaching sessions he should instruct the players how to play to each individual refs way of reffing, seems the smart thing to do.
So if you have Joubert you play this way and if you have Kaplan you play that way.
9 Mar 2011, 10:57 am
@PissAnt(PissAnt)-24: yeah, it’s called the “let’s get the yarpies rating scale..”
9 Mar 2011, 10:59 am
@Treehugger(Treehugger)-25: exactly. That’s what Richie does very well. He knows his refs.
9 Mar 2011, 11:19 am
@stormersboy(stormersboy)-26:
“lets get the yarpies rating scale”
level 1 = red card
level 2 = suspension over and beyond acceptable timeframe
level 3 = appoint Dickenson to their tests
level 4 = contra-armbands ( “IRB Justice 4 Australasians”)
level 5 = lenient Australasian suspensions
level 6 = collapse their big top
level 7 = actually make a declaration of war
level 8 = refuse Media pass to PDV’s interpreter
level 9 = extra searches at customs, specially looking for nasal “supplements”
this list is subject to extension, all sensible additions welcomed
9 Mar 2011, 11:34 am
@poppa69(poppa69)-28:
level nine actually exists.
have you ever seen a saffa super rugby team go through customs over there?
it make Guantanamo Bay look like a church social
9 Mar 2011, 11:44 am
@The X-factor is staying at home.(gunther)-29: I thought Guantanamo and a church social were the same..
both full of innocent people arent they?
9 Mar 2011, 11:53 am
Message to supersupporters. Others move on ths iis no tfor you.
I see some very nasty posts are flowing on the board and I think it’s time to stop all of this.
I feel I have made my various points here on Keo – something which I would never have been allowed to do on the board without a red card or banning.
I know that many have enjoyed the board, myself included. I am now out of the picture but sincerely hope that my demise will not cause any further grief to anyone and I mean anyone.
I ask that we part with no more hard feelings. Barlee, all the best to you and I hope you have huge success with the board. I know you think me a hatter but do recommend you give serious attention to governance. The problems are easily solvable and you should draw on the expertise of someone like Moz who is a world class brain as his record proves. You can also email me for assistance!! Thanks for saying I am a decent bloke that was appreciated!
As to hawkeye, the minister of border patrols, who I was astounded to hear voted against my suspension. Good on ya hawkeye! Very impressed. We did clash but I hope you too can put it all behind you. No hard feelings on my side okay?
Duke my old sparring partner! Likewise. Enjoy the peace!
Fireman, time to recover your sense of humour and be a bit gentler with your fellow posters. No hard feelings also I hope.
So peace to one and ALL. Time to forget about Beeno and get on with the rugby. It all is pointing to a bumper year with the Mighty Stormers carrying the flag once more – who but the Mighty Stormers managed a 100% victory over the NZ sides last year I ask!!!
Always remember the bulle suck big time and the sardines are hardly better. Finally I do hope you all learnt that wee victoria is a very pap lock and lardy john is probably no longer lardy!!!
Au revoir mes amis.
9 Mar 2011, 11:53 am
@The X-factor is staying at home.(gunther)-29:
its the officials that worry me.
just like the customs chappies.
9 Mar 2011, 11:56 am
@poppa69(poppa69)-30:In my favourite camp,Koffiefontein,everybody was really innocent.
9 Mar 2011, 12:32 pm
@LORDKITCHENER(hate_dutchmen)-33: So you hate Dutchmen, Hondo hates blacks. Maybe the two of you should get together.
9 Mar 2011, 12:34 pm
@poppa69(poppa69)-28: Oh so you’ve heard of it then??
9 Mar 2011, 12:40 pm
@stormersboy(stormersboy)-35:
heard of them?
they learn them with their multiplication tables over there
9 Mar 2011, 12:49 pm
one two…..give it to stu
three four….favour McCaw
five six…..behind the sticks
seven eight…that tackle was late
nine ten….let’s put it in an email then!
9 Mar 2011, 12:53 pm
@stormersboy(stormersboy)-37: Brilliant
9 Mar 2011, 12:55 pm
Keo, you have put into words my thoughts exactly. I was watching the Lions game with friends and I commented at one stage that Kaplan, whom I believe to be an excellent ref, had lost sight of the ruck law at the breakdown.
The refs are so worried about tacklers releasing the tackle player before he gets to his feet and tries to play the ball, that they forget about what constitutes a ruck.
Unless it changed since the day that I reffed, a ruck is formed when two players – one from each team – are on their feet and bound to one another over the ball. I saw countless occasions were the tackler would release the tackled player, gets to his feet and by this time one of his opponents has bound to him. He still puts his hands on the ball and tries to rip it away. According to the law, he is not allowed to play the ball with his hands because a ruck is formed. It is no longer a tackle and therefore the tackle laws do not apply. Regardless of this, referees still applied the tackle laws when the ruck was already clearly formed.
9 Mar 2011, 13:04 pm
@Heavens Game(Heavens Game)-38: (bows humbly)
9 Mar 2011, 13:05 pm
@stormersboy(stormersboy)-37:
superb.
9 Mar 2011, 13:21 pm
I am of the opinion that a true contest in the scrums has to be brought back. Allow opponents to scrum up, into the hooker and allow front rowers to attempt to give their opponents a working over. The only thing that should be discouraged is to collapse scrums.
This will cause front row forwards to see to it that their scrumming techniques are good. For instance, if the tighthead wants to push in on the hooker to put pressure on him on his ball, the loosehead must be strong and streetwise enough to keep him scrumming straight.
The problems in scrums for the most part is that front row forwards do not have the skills necessary to keep scrums up and to scrum straight. Allow the front row forwards to sort the problems out for themselves and you will see that, before long, all the **** surrounding reset scrums will be something of the past.
As far as injuries are concerned, it is my contention that the most threatening scenario for any frontrow forward is when the scrum collapses and we are seeing more collapsed scrums nowadays than we ever did before.
One of the spinoffs of contests in the front row is that it will take much more energy out of frontrowers, they will have to be heavier and, therefore, slower. This, in turn, will cause locks and loose forward to have to commit to the rucks and rugby union will once more look like rugby union and not the rugby league copy that it now is with players lining up over the width of the field on defense. Forwards committed to rucks will open gaps for backs and rugby will once more be a spectacle for all to see.
My suggestion, however, will never be considered because it will favour our big and athletic forwards. The truth is that the Aussies have, as the biggest driving force behind law changes and as the so-called advocates of expansive rugby, transformed the game to suit them and the way they like to play it. They want to remove the physical contact and contest out of the game because they know it will put them at an advantage.
9 Mar 2011, 13:23 pm
@grant10(grant10)-9: Blah bla……farked up….blah bah waffle waffle…..seriously my man….blah blah…..unspeakeable piece of filth……blah blah waffle…..Plod Plod Plod…….blah bla……….Fat Boy’s Club………..waffle waffle……blah blah….seriously farked up piece of filth my man……..waffle waffle
Jaysus you’re repetitive, predictable and monotonous!!!!!!
Someone give him a whack to get that stuck needle loose!!!!!
9 Mar 2011, 13:37 pm
@COUCHCOACH
As far as injuries are concerned, it is my contention that the most threatening scenario for any frontrow forward is when the scrum collapses and we are seeing more collapsed scrums nowadays than we ever did before.
I think you have a good point about injuries at that time because of lack of control in the collapsing.
9 Mar 2011, 13:42 pm
> Attacking player must get to his feet first before playing the ball.
In one of the weekend games that happened and the one Aus commentator said something about it and the other one sort of shot him down.
9 Mar 2011, 14:00 pm
Ask yourself this: How many times have there been significant kneck injuries in top flight front rankers that can be linked to collapsing scrums? I can’t think of many, if any.
The problem comes in at younger ages particularly. There special rules can be brought in, like a phased scrum down etc.
I personally have played in the front row, and see no difference to the way that the scrums collapse now or before, except in the force with which it happens. Some guys used to practcally take a running start as they packed down.
Most scrums were won and lost in that initial hit. To a large extent that is still true, but i can see how the IRB has tried to even the playing fields there.
For me the biggest inconsistancy that I can see is the way that the Northern Hemisphere Refs treat the collapsed crum vs the Southern Refs.
Northern Refs by and large have been more tolerant and happy to keep resetting for longer before penalising, whilst Southern Refs are very quick to penalise a collapsed scrum, often making a snap judgement and getting the culprit completely wrong.
We are seeing it now, in the Super 15.
I say let them have at each other, and they’ll soon sort each other out.
9 Mar 2011, 14:36 pm
@Treehugger(Treehugger)-45:
Hey Hugz. I tried to reply last night but my internet wouldn’t let me. But I got the same email from Superbru as well. So don’t worry, they weren’t picking on you for your wall street style crash
9 Mar 2011, 15:45 pm
@JockBok(JockBok)-47: hahahahahahahahahahaha you put that so well, its sad i will never do that well again, going to throw myself out the highest tree.
9 Mar 2011, 15:47 pm
@Treehugger(Treehugger)-48:
Lol. I’ll probably be right behind you after the weekend.
9 Mar 2011, 15:54 pm
@PissAnt(PissAnt)-13: If I had to keep a file for everytime someone said it is one of the best I have written … I’d have a few volumes; similarly for those described as shockers. Writing, like any form of creation, is in the eye of the beholder. Nevertheless thank you.
9 Mar 2011, 16:06 pm
@Frankly speaking(Frankly speaking)-20: I absolutely hate them coaching players in the guise of flow to the game. If a player offends penalise him. To warn a player three times ‘keep your hands off … keep your hands off … move away ‘ he has already infringed. Bloody penalise him. Referees should apply the law and not apply when they believe it should be applied
9 Mar 2011, 19:50 pm
@wp_boytjie(wp_boytjie)-22:
A fair observation
Please note:
Pro Legota (and Jason Jaftha) ARE NOT on the list of ANZAR Aprroved Super 15 Referees!
There must be a loophole allows cost effective measured to use local guys if the ANZAR is short hand and can’t send an approved referee
9 Mar 2011, 19:52 pm
@keo(keo)-51:
There is a list of ANZAR Approved referees for 2011 Super15 competition, Pro Legota is not there as a match referee
How come was he appointed then?
10 Mar 2011, 01:03 am
It’s been while since I agreed with an article written by one of the writers on this site.
Massive problems with refereeing and I would almost guarantee a ref will decide an important game in the WC this year. All the players need is some consistency. Last year every player was pinged for diving over the ball or slowing down the ruck, this year (as seen in several games but especially the Kiwi games), players have illegally cut off the attacking teams ball by diving over or not releasing the tackled player. This is kiwi play at it’s best and for some reason isn’t being penalised this year. One of the main reasons they didn’t do to well in Super rugby last year was that tacklers were forced to release the player and roll away from the ruck. Suddenly in 2011 this rule has been forgotten again. What has happened in 4 or 5 months that has rendered this law obsolete?
Also – forward passes have worked their way back into the game. Haven’t seen so many go unpunished since the late 80′s, early 90′s when you could basically throw a ball anywhere and get away with it. What are the sideline refs doing? It’s not like they have much else to do, surely they can call these things.
As for scrums – totally agree with what has already been said. It feels like the refs are trying to “trick” the packs into engaging early so that they can penalise someone. There have been some ridiculously long pauses before the “engage” call this year. If they are going to do that, why don’t we just let the scrums engage at the start, make sure everything is lined up, and then call “push”. Takes away half the contest but what is occurring now seriously isn’t working.
Most worrying part is that we haven’t even seen the garbage from the NH ref a SH team yet this year. I dread the day when Allain Rolland or someone equally incompetent is given control of an SA / NZ final or similar in the WC. Too often bad decisions are dismissed by saying ” well it was only a couple” or “that was only worth 3 / 5 / 7 points and they lost by 10 etc”. People fail to recognise that momentum and rhythm plays a massive part in any game. One or two bad calls or penalties can alter the entire flow of a game, knock a team out of rhythm and ruin their patterns while they try to find a way of playing around the refs interpretations.
Lets hope we can get a consistent set of ruling before September so at least teams can alter their play accordingly before anything important kicks off.
10 Mar 2011, 02:48 am
Pocock versus Jannie Dup: What the aussies say: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/union-news/pocock-and-du-plessis-stoush-put-to-rest-20110309-1bnu6.html
10 Mar 2011, 05:45 am
@poppa69(poppa69)-28: Far too soft! You want to punish them, not marry them and give them posies, pilgrim.
No whipping post, boiling oil or thumbscrews?
Harden up.
10 Mar 2011, 05:46 am
@Hondo(Hondo)-53: Pro Legota? Sounds like a budget sand-wedge.
10 Mar 2011, 06:39 am
@TheTackler(TheTackler)-57:
And about as effective as if Helen Keller was wielding it…
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.