A Stronger Force Edged Out by Bulls

[Pacman]

if you reckon there was too much kicking in this game,just watch(actually,dont bother)the Sharks-stormers match...complete and utter bore-fest(excuse the pun)

Is the kick-a-thon in SA something to do with their very loose soccer surfaces and not trusting their running game because even their Soft Ground Sprigs at pace worried them?
Posted via Mobile Device

[shasta]

Although the ref cannot be blamed, it should be noted that was his Super Rugby debut (and that would have been the game to "blood"someone, given the perceived ranking of the game). He made a few errors, which he will learn from.
.

Please explain the logic of that statement Sir. Seriously. I'm very firmly of the opinion that great sides adapt to the referee and win DESPITE their decisions. But that does not mean the situation is acceptable. Unless I've taken you the wrong way you are saying that the reasoning for blooding a new "home town" referee is that the Bulls were expected to prevail so it wouldn't really matter ir the referee fucked it up?
I believe that thinking is a major part of the incompetent referring we see year-in-year-out. I believe too many officials make decisions influenced by which team they EXPECT to be dominant rather than on what they actually see in front of them.
This is a professional sport with a hell of a lot riding on EVERY match. Referring appointments should have absolutely no relevance to perceived importance of any given match. Neutral referees is a no braine r .
Posted via Mobile Device

[shasta]

PS to the above: Naturally I understand that you personally don't make decisions about referee appointments. But you seem to agree this match ranking is reasonable. I think it's ridiculously flawed.
Posted via Mobile Device

[SinBin]

Frans Ludeke slammed the Bulls for the way they played against the Force

Bulls coach Frans Ludeke has slammed his team's performance against the Force and said it was their worst performance in five years.

The Bulls beat the Western Force 36-26 and secured a bonus point for scoring four tries so on paper everything looks to be fine.

However the final score does not tell the whole story and coach Ludeke could not hide his disappointment in the aftermath of a lacklustre showing from his charges.

"In the first half they kicked long and our kicking game from that wasn't good enough," Ludeke said.

"It was definitely our worst performance in the last five years, the way we almost absorbed the pressure they applied there."

The Bulls went into the half-time break with a 14-9 lead but the Force made serious inroads after the restart to eventually enjoy a 26-19 advantage with 25 minutes left on the clock.

While Ludeke bemoaned his troops' performance he praised them in the same breath for eventually scoring the bonus point try.

"The way we came back in the second half, the way players adjusted on the field, that was a special effort from the team," he said.

"Last year against the Blues we were in exactly in the same situation, we couldn't get out of that grip and tonight we got back.

"All credit to the captain for the way we got back to things that are working for us, the maul started working, we managed the high ball, we forced some turnovers and we converted pressure into points."

While the performance was one the Bulls would like to forget they nevertheless lead the South African Conference in Super Rugby following two victories from two matches.

The Bulls will bank heavily on this momentum ahead of their tour of New Zealand and Australia, where they arguably face one of the toughest conquests of all the teams.

__________________________________________________ __________________________

Credit where credit's due please - the way the played was the cause of the Bull's perceived worse game in five years.

The Bulls will bank heavily on this momentum ahead of their tour of New Zealand and Australia, where they arguably face one of the toughest conquests of all the teams.

Cry me a river... try playing your first 5 games away.

[Pacman]

What an arrogant pr1ck the Bulls coach is.....On paper they're not that much better than the Force......typical Saffa, howabout your team was in a bloody good arm wrestle and they were lucky to walk away with the win.
Posted via Mobile Device

[Ecky]

Please explain the logic of that statement Sir. Seriously. I'm very firmly of the opinion that great sides adapt to the referee and win DESPITE their decisions. But that does not mean the situation is acceptable. Unless I've taken you the wrong way you are saying that the reasoning for blooding a new "home town" referee is that the Bulls were expected to prevail so it wouldn't really matter ir the referee fucked it up?
I believe that thinking is a major part of the incompetent referring we see year-in-year-out. I believe too many officials make decisions influenced by which team they EXPECT to be dominant rather than on what they actually see in front of them.
This is a professional sport with a hell of a lot riding on EVERY match. Referring appointments should have absolutely no relevance to perceived importance of any given match. Neutral referees is a no braine r .
Posted via Mobile Device

Crikey!

In general terms, the higher-ranked referee will be appointed to the higher-ranked game. If it's 1 v 1 from two different "logs" then a very highly-ranked ref will be appointed. If it's a pretty strong team playing a team without a win (and who can't even beat the new kids on the block), then a lower-ranked ref will likely be appointed. or a debutant will be appointed.

I cannot possibly second guess whether the actual referee had a preconception that one team would dominate and/or should win comfortably. I would have thought the the referee would have been more in the mindset that he's got the call-up to higher honours, so strive to do the best job he is capable of.

In any event, that ref refereed that game and it is now over. Were I his assessor, my feedback to him and his coach would be to focus on a couple of area in particular: perhaps the scrum (and put-in) and the maul, and how to determine when a maul is a maul and when "truck & trailer" comes into consideration.

[shasta]

All fair points Sir. But what I was asking you was to explain the logic of appointing referees according to the "ranking" of the match. In a pro environment surely all teams should enjoy equal treatment as far as the standard of refereeing. This is a problem not just in Rugby. Tournaments and finals obviously get the best referees but, IMO, continually appointing the most inexperienced/least competant referees to lower ranked teams just adds to their already difficult task of improving.
Posted via Mobile Device

[Pacman]

Last nights game just goes to show there are no easy or weaker games in Super rugby. We all new this game wasn't.for a rookie to take charge of, history and commonsense tells us that.
Posted via Mobile Device

[Ecky]

All fair points Sir. But what I was asking you was to explain the logic of appointing referees according to the "ranking" of the match. In a pro environment surely all teams should enjoy equal treatment as far as the standard of refereeing. This is a problem not just in Rugby. Tournaments and finals obviously get the best referees but, IMO, continually appointing the most inexperienced/least competant referees to lower ranked teams just adds to their already difficult task of improving.
Posted via Mobile Device

Would you have the inexperienced/least competent referees appointed to 1 v 2 then?

I am not a referee appointments person, but I would have thought that any competition would want to develop the talent in the officials available for selection, thus expanding the pool and generating healthy competition within the ranks; with the old timers feeling threatened by the newbies and the newbies aspiring to be as good as the old timers.

The newbies would have to prove themselves in the tier below that of the "peak competition" by consistently good performances, and then they get appointed to The Big Time. What game should they get? How will they get the experience/competency (thus raising their standard) you/we demand?

[James]

I guess the ideal would be that if you blood a new ref, you either have them ref a game between two teams from their country of origin or no teams from their country of origin (e.g. new Kiwi ref does a Aus team vs SA team game).

What you are suggesting when you rank referees is that there are some who are more likely to make mistakes. So can they reasonably be expected to make decisions against the home team and in favour of the foreign invaders that everyone expects to see torn apart?

Not that it really matters now. We just need to be a better team. That takes good recruitment and, on the basis of not getting flogged in a tough game, last night's game could be considered a relative success to that end.

[Tonkar]

Would you have the inexperienced/least competent referees appointed to 1 v 2 then?

I am not a referee appointments person, but I would have thought that any competition would want to develop the talent in the officials available for selection, thus expanding the pool and generating healthy competition within the ranks; with the old timers feeling threatened by the newbies and the newbies aspiring to be as good as the old timers.

The newbies would have to prove themselves in the tier below that of the "peak competition" by consistently good performances, and then they get appointed to The Big Time. What game should they get? How will they get the experience/competency (thus raising their standard) you/we demand?

Hi All
Last night the referring was sub standard... as for blooding refs into the comp SANZAR should have the top ref as the TMO liasing with the man in the middle so he can help get his decisions correct and help him keep up with the run of play .. They call the men on the sidelines assistant refs now so they also should play a bigger part in the game for a rookie ... I am not saying it should be reffed from the box but at least have the experience and guidance available to the younger rookie... He did use the TMO a few times to request help which he thought he needed it and good to see but having an all SA reffing team is nonsense.. neutral refs with pos. local assistants would be ok and neutral TMO... In most professions guidance is available to a rookie when he starts off But the IRB and SANZar just let them sink and it is costing teams games and the rugby public get nasty...

[Piston]

Hi All
Last night the referring was sub standard... as for blooding refs into the comp SANZAR should have the top ref as the TMO liasing with the man in the middle so he can help get his decisions correct and help him keep up with the run of play .. They call the men on the sidelines assistant refs now so they also should play a bigger part in the game for a rookie ... I am not saying it should be reffed from the box but at least have the experience and guidance available to the younger rookie... He did use the TMO a few times to request help which he thought he needed it and good to see but having an all SA reffing team is nonsense.. neutral refs with pos. local assistants would be ok and neutral TMO... In most professions guidance is available to a rookie when he starts off But the IRB and SANZar just let them sink and it is costing teams games and the rugby public get nasty...

The neutral ref system were used up till about 3 years ago. The teams then said that they would rather prefer having the best available ref for their game (according to ranking) than having the best neutral ref available.
Posted via Mobile Device

[shasta]

The teams then said that they would rather prefer having the best available ref for their game (according to ranking) than having the best neutral ref available.
Posted via Mobile Device

Sure the teams wanted that and it wasn't cost cutting? The original point I made is that all teams should have equal access to the best refereeing. Ranking the "important" matches with the best referees does not achieve that. It condemns the lower ranked teams to continually getting the rookies and least competant officials. Neutral referees at least is better than that.
Posted via Mobile Device

[shasta]

Would you have the inexperienced/least competent referees appointed to 1 v 2

Yes DEFINITELY. In turn. But.I wouldn't expext them to have to deal with it all the time. The current system does that to lower ranked teams all the time. You have not addressed that and that was the original point I asked you about.
Posted via Mobile Device

[DinkyDi]

Enough about the ref please. Ok so Chiliboy should have been yellowed at least for the shot on Alfie and red after the second but it did not happen. It all came down to defending a rolling maul. We could not do it consistently and effectively which cost us tries.

Everyone is talking up Sias and I congratulate him on his place kicking but the kicking out of hand was poor and the number of times he thumped it down Kirshner's throat and allowed a counter attack offset the points he kicked. He is a talent and kept us in the game but I hope that this can improve with more game time.

The player that surprised me most was "the Pie Man" Maafu. for his first start, he was very solid in the set piece and held the bulls pack well. Faulker is so much more mobile around the park and is still learning his craft but against the big packs I think Maafu to start and wear them down and Tetra for run them ragged after half time.

Still not sure about Stanley who defended well but offers a limited attack and frankly Tupou looked lost and a waste of space. Cant kick out of hand, unsure when to run and IMO had a poor game.

All in all though, a significant improvement and a nail biter. Keep this up and we will make headway very soon.