RugbyRebels

So much of the ruck is down to split seconds, that I don't see how it would ever be completely clear. If the ref thinks the ruck was formed before you got your hands in the ruck, then he needs to tell you. How wide an angle is the gate? Again, each ref will be slightly different.

I don't see why you wouldn't want open and ongoing dialogue with the ref

Digby wrote:I don't see why you wouldn't want open and ongoing dialogue with the ref

But, do you think it should be necessary?

It helps the game move along. If a ref can warn a player, rather than penalise, it generally helps the flow. Good communications is really a vital part of reffing now, and all the best refs (Nige and Barnes) talk a lot to the players.

Does it though? It works both ways. It seems that often now you can slow the ball, disrupt the scrumhalf, stray offside etc. etc. until the ref gives you a verbal warning. It might help phases keep going at the time, but I'm not sure if that's really helping the game move along or not, as opposed to players being worried about getting penalised when they knowingly infringe.

Oakboy wrote:

Digby wrote:I don't see why you wouldn't want open and ongoing dialogue with the ref

But, do you think it should be necessary?

Absent of telepathy I do

I just watched the highlights there and I honestly thought van Rensburg was a prop I didn’t recognise until I realised who it actually was ...

fivepointer wrote:It helps the game move along. If a ref can warn a player, rather than penalise, it generally helps the flow. Good communications is really a vital part of reffing now, and all the best refs (Nige and Barnes) talk a lot to the players.

I agree with all that.I think the best refs realise when there is a direct effect ('materiality' they call it don't they?) and ping it, if its not too bad then the dialogue and warnings allow more of a flow. If we have a situation where the refs applied the letter of the laws then every single ruck would result in a penalty and I for one would hate the game being stopped every 20 seconds! (and as a back row would be pretty miffed about the number of yellow cards I'd be getting!)

oldbackrow wrote:

fivepointer wrote:It helps the game move along. If a ref can warn a player, rather than penalise, it generally helps the flow. Good communications is really a vital part of reffing now, and all the best refs (Nige and Barnes) talk a lot to the players.

I agree with all that.I think the best refs realise when there is a direct effect ('materiality' they call it don't they?) and ping it, if its not too bad then the dialogue and warnings allow more of a flow. If we have a situation where the refs applied the letter of the laws then every single ruck would result in a penalty and I for one would hate the game being stopped every 20 seconds! (and as a back row would be pretty miffed about the number of yellow cards I'd be getting!)

I tend to agree but it's a trcky one. To take one example - England dissallowed try vs Scotland last year.

Owens warned Launchbury to stop slowing it down. He did (kindof). Laidlaw then throws a pass badly to a man under pressure and England get the ball and "score". Owens calls it back because, in his view, the slowing it down illegally contributed to it all going wrong. If it hadnt I think he would have been happy to play on and would have viewed it as good communication from him and letting the game flow. All very logical BUT the response to that is that Launchbury's offence (ignoring arguments over whether it was or not) was always going to have an influence whether it was leading to a try or, less obviously, allowing the defence more time to re-align and preventing a try out wide or a significant gain.

Basically I'm all for clear communication but I think some (Owens included) sometimes slip into allowing lots of micro cheating which can massively influence a game and favour one team's style over the other.

Having said that, I quite enjoy Owens' version of the rules. Less so Barnes'

Cameo wrote:

oldbackrow wrote:

fivepointer wrote:It helps the game move along. If a ref can warn a player, rather than penalise, it generally helps the flow. Good communications is really a vital part of reffing now, and all the best refs (Nige and Barnes) talk a lot to the players.

I agree with all that.I think the best refs realise when there is a direct effect ('materiality' they call it don't they?) and ping it, if its not too bad then the dialogue and warnings allow more of a flow. If we have a situation where the refs applied the letter of the laws then every single ruck would result in a penalty and I for one would hate the game being stopped every 20 seconds! (and as a back row would be pretty miffed about the number of yellow cards I'd be getting!)

I tend to agree but it's a trcky one. To take one example - England dissallowed try vs Scotland last year.

Owens warned Launchbury to stop slowing it down. He did (kindof). Laidlaw then throws a pass badly to a man under pressure and England get the ball and "score". Owens calls it back because, in his view, the slowing it down illegally contributed to it all going wrong. If it hadnt I think he would have been happy to play on and would have viewed it as good communication from him and letting the game flow. All very logical BUT the response to that is that Launchbury's offence (ignoring arguments over whether it was or not) was always going to have an influence whether it was leading to a try or, less obviously, allowing the defence more time to re-align and preventing a try out wide or a significant gain.

Basically I'm all for clear communication but I think some (Owens included) sometimes slip into allowing lots of micro cheating which can massively influence a game and favour one team's style over the other.

Having said that, I quite enjoy Owens' version of the rules. Less so Barnes'

And yet I'd argue that Barnes' is the one who rules closer to the lawbook and produces the "cleaner" games.

Raggs wrote:

Cameo wrote:

oldbackrow wrote: I agree with all that.I think the best refs realise when there is a direct effect ('materiality' they call it don't they?) and ping it, if its not too bad then the dialogue and warnings allow more of a flow. If we have a situation where the refs applied the letter of the laws then every single ruck would result in a penalty and I for one would hate the game being stopped every 20 seconds! (and as a back row would be pretty miffed about the number of yellow cards I'd be getting!)

I tend to agree but it's a trcky one. To take one example - England dissallowed try vs Scotland last year.

Owens warned Launchbury to stop slowing it down. He did (kindof). Laidlaw then throws a pass badly to a man under pressure and England get the ball and "score". Owens calls it back because, in his view, the slowing it down illegally contributed to it all going wrong. If it hadnt I think he would have been happy to play on and would have viewed it as good communication from him and letting the game flow. All very logical BUT the response to that is that Launchbury's offence (ignoring arguments over whether it was or not) was always going to have an influence whether it was leading to a try or, less obviously, allowing the defence more time to re-align and preventing a try out wide or a significant gain.

Basically I'm all for clear communication but I think some (Owens included) sometimes slip into allowing lots of micro cheating which can massively influence a game and favour one team's style over the other.

Having said that, I quite enjoy Owens' version of the rules. Less so Barnes'

And yet I'd argue that Barnes' is the one who rules closer to the lawbook and produces the "cleaner" games.

When the players are on board for a good open game I'd rather have Owens, but as Owens lets so much go there are plenty of games I'd rather have Barnes

Is there not an element of choreography in all this? A quick player shoots in outside the gate before the ref can stop him and gets penalised - penalty. A slower player about to do the same gets a 'don't go in there' from the ref and no penalty results.

On the one hand a communicated (stage-managed?) pattern can keep the game more flowing as long as the ref keeps up (and they often don't, so well, late in the game).

The alternative is to blow the whistle more for the first ten minutes or so, penalise according to the laws and expect the players to learn. Explanations to the captains after the offences are the refs' only verbal contribution.

I don't have a fixed view on this but I feel uncomfortable with the current amount of mouth from referees - with a concern that more mouth automatically means less consistency.

Digby wrote:

Raggs wrote:

Cameo wrote:
I tend to agree but it's a trcky one. To take one example - England dissallowed try vs Scotland last year.

Owens warned Launchbury to stop slowing it down. He did (kindof). Laidlaw then throws a pass badly to a man under pressure and England get the ball and "score". Owens calls it back because, in his view, the slowing it down illegally contributed to it all going wrong. If it hadnt I think he would have been happy to play on and would have viewed it as good communication from him and letting the game flow. All very logical BUT the response to that is that Launchbury's offence (ignoring arguments over whether it was or not) was always going to have an influence whether it was leading to a try or, less obviously, allowing the defence more time to re-align and preventing a try out wide or a significant gain.

Basically I'm all for clear communication but I think some (Owens included) sometimes slip into allowing lots of micro cheating which can massively influence a game and favour one team's style over the other.

Having said that, I quite enjoy Owens' version of the rules. Less so Barnes'

And yet I'd argue that Barnes' is the one who rules closer to the lawbook and produces the "cleaner" games.

When the players are on board for a good open game I'd rather have Owens, but as Owens lets so much go there are plenty of games I'd rather have Barnes

I'm not sure I want my games to "clean". A bit of mess makes for a good game but it can verge into inconsistency. With Barnes I just think I see things differently than him

Its all just too complex and arbitrary. I agreed with this letter printed in the Sunday Times last month (redacted, I wrote it )