SANZAR gives nod to referees to reward attacking teams

[Lee Grant]

I'm not a big fan of announcements that the attacking side will be treated more leniently. We don't want a return to Brumby ball, though they probably deliberately stopped that years ago when they introduced the law variation that enabled the tackler to stay on the “wrong” side of the tackle.

I wrote recently on another forum that the people in charge of referees did not keep up with players when professional rugby was introduced. When players had the time and facilities to prepare physically they were able to do things the average amateur never did.

Referees allowed too much leeway to these fitter athletes. Perhaps they thought they were doing a good job and were speeding up the game for them, but they ruined it in many areas. A few years ago they tried all these ELVs to solve the problems and I liked a lot of them, but the first thing they should have done was to make referees comply with the laws as they were.

In many areas referees didn't follow the law; they followed conventions that leading referees had established through use. Thus scrummies were allowed year after year to throw the ball into the scrum skew. In doing so they killed the traditional contest of striking for the ball. Thus players left their feet more and more every year until the contest for tackled ball was compromised for both sides. Thus tacklers went to ground never releasing the ball or the tackled player, or both; thus denying the attacking team quick ball: the essence of attacking rugby.

Everybody could list several more without thinking too hard. Referees changed the game.

There have been many meetings about what referees should be instucted to do and a lot of bulletins issued from them. Now there is another one: that the law requiring a tackler to let go of the tackled player will be enforced because not doing so is “actually against the law”. No shit Sherlock.

In the past these crackdowns haven't worked. Nearly 10 years ago there was a blitz on not staying on feet in the Super12 and it lasted 3 weeks.

I posted recently that referees should be brought to account: that they should be censured for non compliance and even demoted. That will cure more problems than meetings and bulletins. Dickinson was publicly upbraided for not refereeing scrums correctly in a game. Whether it was fair or not doesn't matter. What does matter is: why aren't referees publicly criticised for not observing the other things I mentioned above? Guess what they will do in the next game?

I hope that the S14 referees do follow the latest instruction and get tacklers to release the ball carrier.

Many years ago there was a rugby coach at Blackrock College in Dublin, who was also a priest. He said something like: “Next to the the Grace of God the most important thing is quick ball from the ruck.” It's still true. Let's all hope the Super14 refs have the nuts to follow the latest instruction.

[Blackswan]

I posted a link a month or so ago to the IRB laws web site that would answer the questions of 'interpretation'.

It is particularly useful as it includes the directives issued to referees by the IRB on how they are to apply the laws and it has real match video examples that illustrate what is acceptable and what is not. I suggest a visit to the IRB site would be more profitable than uncertain comment (with due exception for Ecky).

http://www.irblaws.com/EN/guidelines/

[Lee Grant]

Thanks for that Blackswan.

Directives are fine. They give me a nice fuzzy feeling.

But I were the IRB or SANZAR ref boss and I wanted the players to change their habits I would censure specific referees for not whistling them up for specific infringements.

If the referees didn't do it I would demote them.

I have the strange feeling that my way would focus the referees attention more than a directive.

PS - By "players" I really mean "coaches". It is they that see the trends and plot what players can get away with this referee and that one. Referee bosses through their referees have to change the behaviour of the coaches and they will do that when coaches think that playing with the old bad habits is no longer percentage play.

And they will change in a positive way when the percentages encourage quick ball for them.

[AndyS]

SANZAR coaches and referees have accepted joint responsibility at the tackle and the scrums in order to produce a faster, more attractive game.....

SANZAR is attempting to correct faults in a transparent way. The two aspects especially under the spotlight at-re the tackle and the scrum. More specifically at the tackle there is the tackler's obligation to release the tackled play - break his contact with him before playing the ball - when he is on his feet.

SANZAR now has a referees' manager - Lyndon Bray of New Zealand, recently a Test and Super rugby referee. He will be in charge of seeing to consistency in application of the law and compliance with it. The first responsibility will rest with the players to comply.

This is not new but an application of law that exists........

Referees who get their application of the law wrong in Super 14 will be told of their problem and the matter could be made public. In fact the buck will stop with the men who select and appoint referees to Super 14 matches - Andrew Cole (Australia), Colin Hawke (New Zealand) and Tappe Henning (South Africa), who is also an IRB referees' selector.

Talking of the tackle, Bray said: "We've agreed philosophically to change what a tackler can and can't do. He's doing too much. In the evolution of the game we've allowed him to remain in contact with the ball and the ball-carrier after he leaves his feet and he stays on the ball and jumps up and rips it away.

"It looks great in a one-on-one scenario, but it's actually against the law. It creates in the game a repetitive scenario where the ball-carrier ends up with no rights because he can't do anything with the ball.

"The tackler inevitably gets the penalty which philosophically goes against what we are trying to achieve. We've agreed the tackler must release everything when he goes to ground and not hold on as he gets to his feet."

Then there is to be emphasis on scrumming within law in an attempt to reduce the resets of scrum which take up to 16% of playing time. SANZAR has appointed three scrum coaches in each of the three countries - Pat Noriega (Australia), Mike Cron (New Zealand) and Balie Swart (South Africa).

If a player in a team is presenting scrum problems, the coach will inform the team. If the problem persists SANZAR has the right and the permission from its teams to go public - let the other teams and the media know.

Full article

[GIGS20]

You're assuming of course that SANZAR want to do more than just appear to be doing something though Lee.

If Law remains as it is and the entire Southern Hemisphere play wonderful, beautiful, folwing running rugby, they'll be screwed come NH tour time, SANZAR don't want that. At the moment, the worst of the SH powerhouses is better than the NH teams on all but their worst day (Aus v Scotland) but with soggy pitches and no sanction ELV they'll get kicked out of the contest if they haven't practiced the territorial game!

[MI5_Dog]

But I were the IRB or SANZAR ref boss and I wanted the players to change their habits I would censure specific referees for not whistling them up for specific infringements.

If the referees didn't do it I would demote them.

I have the strange feeling that my way would focus the referees attention more than a directive.

One of the problems, and this is not just a rugby problem, is that criticism of Referees, Umpires or other officials isn't allowed.
This censorship gives the refs, umps etc free reign to do as they please as suddenly there are no consequences for their poor performances. Those in charge of these officials don't want to be seen criticizing their own, so refs/umps etc don't get disciplined internally either. As a result nothing gets done and a god complex develops as the officials begin to see themselves as untouchable.

I understand why this attitude of not criticising the ref/ump came about. It's a bloody hard thing to do anyway even at the lowest levels of the game without TV cameras and 30,000 fans watching your every move.

[AndyS]

And their response, I guess, would be as below.

At a slight tangent however, I would simultaneously see one of rugby's biggest problems being quite the opposite - that criticism of referees, coaches, players, administration, stadia, the laws, the style of play, etc etc is actually neverending. In no other code is all the publicity so unceasingly critical, with any bright spot or positive story notable and worthy of comment simply because it is bright or positive. I can understand followers of other codes being critical, but it really seems to have been bought into most by those that supposedly love the sport.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Watchers watched - then what?
We have seen what the referees watch and who watches the referee. What happens after that?

The referees referee and their performance is evaluated. For top referees this evaluation comprises five written reports. These written reports go to the International Rugby Board's manager, the local bodies responsible for the referee and to the referee himself. Written reports are accompanied by a DVD.

Let's talk about the top me, for they are the ones most scrutinised and most criticised.

That performance package goes to the IRB's selection panel. - David Pickering (chairman), Bob Francis, Michel Lamoulie, Steve Hilditch, Tappe Henning, Kevin Bowring and Paddy O'Brien. Their job is to see as many of the top referees as they can, including those on the brink of breaking into their merit panel and to study reports on and recommendations of referees. They also try to pay attention to referees outside of great eight. It is a big job, but it does mean that the sifting process is careful.

Their concern is not just the 16 referees who make the merit panel. The IRB relies on the countries and the countries rely on local society to develop referees and present them to the higher body for their possible promotion. The IRB has several tournaments which it uses to find new talent - Sevens tournaments, the European Cup of Nations, Americas Cup, the Asian 5 Nations, the Pacific Nations Cup, the Churchill Cup, the Anglo-Irish competition, the Under-20 World Championship, the Under-20 World Championship and competitions such as the Super 14, the European Cups, the Top 14, the Magners League, the Guinness Premiership, the Currie Cup and the Air New Zealand Cup. It is a huge job, demanding lots of energy and expertise.

Having studied matches and reports of matches, the selectors will promote or demote referees, mindful that the referees are their precious resource, part of rugby assets. Like all companies they treasure their assets.

There is a belief in some quarters that referees are inviolable. Things get said, like: Players have a bad game and get dropped, coaches make a mess and are sacked but referees go on regardless.

Are players, who are the major part of the game's assets, really dropped after one bad match or two bad matches or even after several errors? A succession of bad matches may well see them replaced by players their selectors believe can do better.

When they are dropped, are there banner headlines saying that they have been dropped? No, those who are interested will merely notice that they are no longer in the team. On finding that they are not injured it is assumed that they are dropped.

No coach does not make mistakes. Like players they err, sometimes seriously but they are not necessarily dropped immediately. If they were coaches would become whirling dervishes going from team to team.

The same is true of referees. Under the grand Charles Durand, French referees would be tested on five matches before being demoted. Yes, but are referees demoted?

Yes, they are. There is no great announcement that a referee has been demoted. They are just not appointed to matches they would be expected to be appointed to, and those who are interested will realise that they have been dropped. It has happen bed to several of the world's best referees. They have not been selected for World Cups, not appointed to Six nations matches or November Tests or June Tests where one would have expected to have seen them, and the quality of the match appointed to may also tell a tale of the referee's standing. Some demoted referees make it back - much to the delight of the selectors whose job it is to build, not destroy.

There is, of course, a guillotine brigade - those who would chop referees' heads off, get rid of them immediately. The other day a few of us went down the top 16 referees and listed the countries or top teams who would like to get rid of them. We ended with one referee out of 16! He could not referee all matches. That would mean we would have to go to the next level of referees to find 15 referees to take their place, 15 men regarded as not as good as the 15 we have excised. A little thought would suggest that this is ridiculous.

Then there is the brigade that would like their reports made known. People would soon tire of that but what business/profession would make known in public critical assessments of their best employees/achievers? It does not happen, and if there are errors building up is probably more valuable than breaking down.

There are a lot of people who were hard through constantly refined structures to produce the best referee for the best teams.

Human nature there will always be. In fact sport is possible only because of human weakness. If perfect played perfect, there would be no game, not even chess.

These are practical considerations, not more philosophical ones which would also be worth considering.
http://www.sareferees.co.za/news/ref_news/2180082.htm

[Blackswan]

One of the problems, and this is not just a rugby problem, is that criticism of Referees, Umpires or other officials isn't allowed.
This censorship gives the refs, umps etc free reign to do as they please as suddenly there are no consequences for their poor performances. Those in charge of these officials don't want to be seen criticizing their own, so refs/umps etc don't get disciplined internally either. As a result nothing gets done and a god complex develops as the officials begin to see themselves as untouchable.

In the good old days the laws were very straight forward "The referee is the sole judge of fact". The wording is now changed a bit but the intent is much the same as far as the players are concerned. Law 6.A.4 (a) The referee is the sole judge of fact and of Law during a match. The referee must apply fairly all the Laws of the Game in every match.

However this doesn't give the refs "free reign". They are monitored and are counselled on their performance. This is mostly out of the public gaze but that doesn't mean it doesn't occur. There was the case recently when Paddy o'Brien criticized Dickinson in a kiwi rag and it became very public. Last season another Aussie ref (Matt Goddard) was relieved of his Super14 duties after a particularly poor performance the previous week. No public admonisson but it was clear to all who cared to observe that his immediate relegation was a direct result of his performance. He is not included in the 2010 Super 14 referees panel.

Steve Walsh has only recently been reinstated as a S14 panel ref after he was effectively barred by the NZRU and took up reffing in the Sydney comp. This was after he had received a number of warnings about his behaviour, including 'abuse of players'. Which points to the fact that whilst players can't openly disagree or complain about the ref on the field, the teams they represent do report on referee perfomances and lodge complaints when it is deemed appropriate.

There are some very good referees and there are those that are getting better. They have a very tough job on their hands at any level and they are only human. As I think I've said before on this forum, I may not agree with every decision a ref may make but I will defend to the last pint their right to make mistakes from time to time.

[Lee Grant]

They have a very tough job on their hands at any level and they are only human. As I think I've said before on this forum, I may not agree with every decision a ref may make but I will defend to the last pint their right to make mistakes from time to time.

I have no gripe with that opinion. Nor does any other real rugby fan.


The gripe I have is that referees as a group, and add in ex-refs who are referees bosses, have perpetuated abominations in our game, yet all people can talk about is that a try was scored from a forward pass or he missed an obvious knock on. Those things can be annoying if your team is disadvantaged - but they don't ruin the sport.


People can talk about the systems that referee organisations have and how good their systems are and you have to understand this and have to understand that - but what I understand is whatever they are doing they are letting professional rugby players get away with murder and that that has filtered down.


They are doing a bloody poor job. It is not the players fault or the coaches fault is is the referees as a group fault.


Only schools rugby - and Sevens, an easier game to referee I know - seems immune to the virus of referees deliberate ignoring easy things like putting the ball into the scrum skew. Easy to referee a throw of one metre yet they ping 15M throws to the lineout which are marginal.


Why - they ruined the contest of striking for the ball. There are several examples but it's the easiest one for fans to understand.


Bring them to account. Let's see a SANZAR referees report in the papers every Monday morning and see for each ref - how many crooked scrum feeds were missed - how many tacklers were allowed to get on their feet without releasing the tackled player - and other significant items. Then let's see an overall mark.


I would find them more interesting than how many tackles were missed by Quade Cooper this week. And you know what? The referees will give them a read and they may even try to do better.


Nothing like that has been done before?? That's the problem.

[palitu]

i dont think referees should get publicly chastised. It's a tough gig that they do, and it would also encourage youngins to argue with the refs as well.

HOWEVER, i do believe they should be accountable and they should be punished internally, remember it is a job to them. People have bad days at the office and as long as it isn't consistently bad it should be fine.

However, if the ref calls it strictly, they will then get chastised by the media for being to harsh, not letting it flow etc etc. It has to start with their article above, then implemented by the supervisors, which is then implemented by EVERY ref i nthe competition.

Just look at the penalty count of the last couple of trial matches, 31 in the last one, mainly due to new policing of the tackler and breakdown.

so, no you should not put the refs in the paper and have a go at them.

[AndyS]

I don't know how this will go, but it would make sportears look pretty sick
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Referees and their headbands
Those who have been to Newlands for the two matches in the tri-series will have seen the referees, Jonathan Kaplan and Mark Lawrence, wearing bands around their heads, needing only a feather to look like Redskin braves.

This is part of an experiment. Attached to the band on the side is a camera. The camera faces forward and so sees what the referee sees.

This is recorded in a hard drive on the referee's back, which can be downloaded for assessment purposes of the referee's performance.

It is at the moment only in a trial stage. It is likely that the attachment will change in position and shape to make it less obtrusive.

The use of the camera is seen as a training tool and could be used for simulated refereeing in the training of referees - where the referee sits watching a "match" on a screen and then makes his decisions, all of which can be monitored and tested.

There is also the possible use in a split screen, as occurs in grand prix racing. The TV viewer would then see the match and have the option of seeing a decision from the referee's viewpoint. This could well surprise some people, for sometimes the referee sees more than the viewer sees, sometimes not as much. This could make the referee's job and decisions more credible.

Clearly, this is in an experimental stage and will undergo changes and adaptations if and when it is to be more broadly used.
http://www.rugby365.com/laws_referees/home/2189501.htm

[James]

Does it really matter if the ball is fed into the scrum skewed? If you have a dominant scrum you might steal it anyway and if its only a little bit more dominant you will still pressure the opposition and leave them either backpedalling or under pressure when the ball comes out.

[jazza93]

People get way too worked up over things like this. If no one told us changes would be made to the attacking team at the ruck then no one would of noticed. I can't see any big differences in any of this other than defending teams maybe cheating less to get turnovers because the refs have been told to watch it now.

[MI5_Dog]

Does it really matter if the ball is fed into the scrum skewed? If you have a dominant scrum you might steal it anyway and if its only a little bit more dominant you will still pressure the opposition and leave them either backpedalling or under pressure when the ball comes out.

What if you don't have a dominant scrum? What if your scrum is the equal of the oppositions? If you are not going to feed the ball straight into the scrum you may as well feed it into the second row. And if you are going to do that then why have a scrum at all?

[Blackswan]

A related article at this link http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0,2...843478,00.html

So we all know what's 'wrong' with rugby at the moment. The breakdown has become a lottery. There is too much kicking. Defences are on top. There are not enough tries.

But this is not the referees' fault. The number of times referees have been given new 'directives' down the past three or four years - tighten up here, watch that specific offence, more yellow cards etc. etc. - is not dissimilar to the number of times a 'Venter' has been delivered by a disgruntled team coach whose team has not adapted.

If referees are giving us the short shrift they are said to be doing, it is largely because they are getting it from their superiors who fawningly apologise to coaches as they have done to Venter, undermining the referee completely, and continue to issue conflicting demands and edicts for the referees to follow.

Officials are told to communicate better with the players, yet now the coaches are angry because referees tell players to get their hands away before penalising them for slowing the ball down, so the penalty does not come quick enough. Referees are told to allow a fair contest for the ball in the tackle, yet now coaches and observers are angry because an attacking side loses more ball in the 'fair contest' and there are fewer tries and less attacking rugby as a result. Referees are told to be stricter at the breakdown, yet now the coaches bemoan the increase in harsh penalties, penalties as a result of split-second interpretation which can swing a game. Referees are told to be more consistent, yet coaches complain their teams are hard done by when, in the referee's eyes, they consistently infringe.

But what's the solution? Is there a sweeping move that could eradicate these problems, a middle ground that could be found which would placate both sides? A settlement? After all, there is little doubt that whatever the complaints, the actual quality of referee has improved significantly in recent years, even if the quality of instruction hasn't. It has always been the stance at Planet Rugby that referees are, unless they actually get a letter of law wrong or do not behave appropriately, untouchable. It is impossible to get a game without them after all and we'd really rather have a game. You look at refereeing performances under those criteria and you'd be hard-pushed to find a referee who makes a mistake.

The breakdown can never be cleaned up, short of stopping play at each one à la NFL. Too much goes on there for one official to deal with and there's no space for more officials. So rather than move an immoveable object, work around it. Ask objective questions.

Is three points too harsh a penalty for an unfortunate offside? Yes. Is this what hurts the coaches the most, this trickle of points that ebb away as a result of refereeing interpretations? Yes. Did the Sanctions ELV produce more tries? Yes. Did they, however, rob the game of a bit of structure? Yes.

But would the re-introduction of the Sanctions ELV, coupled with allowing a free-kick to be kicked to touch and the kicking team to get the line-out, retain the necessary elements of structure, reduce the number of infringements being punished by three points and produce more tries? Yes. And would the importance of interpretation by a referee in the context of a result of a match be mildly diminished? Yes. Would we finally see a reduction in the number of coaches/observers/fans wailing injustices about referees the moment they lose a match?