How long until WR change the result of a game after the fact

[whatisthejava]

I the last 12 months we have seen some absolute clangers at the top of the game

Clancey and the TMO making a complete disaster zone of a decision
Joubert at RWC and 7s
Touch judge at pro 12
Ryans moaning about secret dossier saying Worchester are basically being robbed week in week out



Now WR have a stringent line that they wont adjust a decision after the game,

but they used to have similar rules about critizing refs but that has gone now

So do you think WR will never change the result of a game after the fact or do you think we could be looking at this within 12 months or within the decade ?

[hp18]

I the last 12 months we have seen some absolute clangers at the top of the game

Clancey and the TMO making a complete disaster zone of a decision
Joubert at RWC and 7s
Touch judge at pro 12
Ryans moaning about secret dossier saying Worchester are basically being robbed week in week out



Now WR have a stringent line that they wont adjust a decision after the game,

but they used to have similar rules about critizing refs but that has gone now

So do you think WR will never change the result of a game after the fact or do you think we could be looking at this within 12 months or within the decade ?

Coaches who cross the line are still being sanctioned, and it's been 7 years since POB hung a ref out to dry over Italy v NZ. Nothing has really changed.

[Pieman]

I can't see them ever changing a result after the game as it would open an enormous can of worms. They'd be under pressure every time a ref made a mistake.

[Big D]

I the last 12 months we have seen some absolute clangers at the top of the game

Clancey and the TMO making a complete disaster zone of a decision
Joubert at RWC and 7s
Touch judge at pro 12
Ryans moaning about secret dossier saying Worchester are basically being robbed week in week out

Now WR have a stringent line that they wont adjust a decision after the game,

but they used to have similar rules about critizing refs but that has gone now

So do you think WR will never change the result of a game after the fact or do you think we could be looking at this within 12 months or within the decade ?

They wont and neither they should except in the rare case where corruption can be indisputably proven.

The issue I have is the lack of openness about grading the referees and the apparent adhoc publication of criticism by WR of the referees.

I'd like to see two things happen.

1. Referees be clearly held accountable for mistakes. Maybe a points system where massive errors are punished (not small open to interpretation ones) and eventually refs are stood down.

2. The NFL do something that I quite like. Dean Blandino (the VP of officiating) routinely appears on the NFL network to explain why big decisions the referees make are right or wrong. The PRO12/AP/SR/ER/6N/WR or whoever is sanctioning the competition could easily host a weekly youtube segment doing similar. It would help educate the fans. If the VP of a massive competition like the NFL can correct/back up their amateur refs decisions I am sure WR can do similar to the professional referees (I know not all are).

[switchskier]

I the last 12 months we have seen some absolute clangers at the top of the game

Clancey and the TMO making a complete disaster zone of a decision
Joubert at RWC and 7s
Touch judge at pro 12
Ryans moaning about secret dossier saying Worchester are basically being robbed week in week out

Now WR have a stringent line that they wont adjust a decision after the game,

but they used to have similar rules about critizing refs but that has gone now

So do you think WR will never change the result of a game after the fact or do you think we could be looking at this within 12 months or within the decade ?

They wont and neither they should except in the rare case where corruption can be indisputably proven.

The issue I have is the lack of openness about grading the referees and the apparent adhoc publication of criticism by WR of the referees.

I'd like to see two things happen.

1. Referees be clearly held accountable for mistakes. Maybe a points system where massive errors are punished (not small open to interpretation ones) and eventually refs are stood down.

2. The NFL do something that I quite like. Dean Blandino (the VP of officiating) routinely appears on the NFL network to explain why big decisions the referees make are right or wrong. The PRO12/AP/SR/ER/6N/WR or whoever is sanctioning the competition could easily host a weekly youtube segment doing similar. It would help educate the fans. If the VP of a massive competition like the NFL can correct/back up their amateur refs decisions I am sure WR can do similar to the professional referees (I know not all are).

1. I think that we already have this through peer review, it just isn't open and transparent. Now I can understand why as it would give more power to big powerful unions to apply pressure but I think the IRB has to take that step and be ready to be strong.

2. In NFL however Blandino has been offered up as a sacrificial lamb to be challenged on every issue. NFL officials are also helped out by the multitude of referees on the field at any one time and they still get it wrong. Where they go right is defending the refs strongly at every turn. You won't watch a segment on the nfl website (which is something for rugby to learn from btw) without prominent ex-players saying that they have the best refs in the world.

[Big D]

I the last 12 months we have seen some absolute clangers at the top of the game

Clancey and the TMO making a complete disaster zone of a decision
Joubert at RWC and 7s
Touch judge at pro 12
Ryans moaning about secret dossier saying Worchester are basically being robbed week in week out

Now WR have a stringent line that they wont adjust a decision after the game,

but they used to have similar rules about critizing refs but that has gone now

So do you think WR will never change the result of a game after the fact or do you think we could be looking at this within 12 months or within the decade ?

They wont and neither they should except in the rare case where corruption can be indisputably proven.

The issue I have is the lack of openness about grading the referees and the apparent adhoc publication of criticism by WR of the referees.

I'd like to see two things happen.

1. Referees be clearly held accountable for mistakes. Maybe a points system where massive errors are punished (not small open to interpretation ones) and eventually refs are stood down.

2. The NFL do something that I quite like. Dean Blandino (the VP of officiating) routinely appears on the NFL network to explain why big decisions the referees make are right or wrong. The PRO12/AP/SR/ER/6N/WR or whoever is sanctioning the competition could easily host a weekly youtube segment doing similar. It would help educate the fans. If the VP of a massive competition like the NFL can correct/back up their amateur refs decisions I am sure WR can do similar to the professional referees (I know not all are).

1. I think that we already have this through peer review, it just isn't open and transparent. Now I can understand why as it would give more power to big powerful unions to apply pressure but I think the IRB has to take that step and be ready to be strong.

2. In NFL however Blandino has been offered up as a sacrificial lamb to be challenged on every issue. NFL officials are also helped out by the multitude of referees on the field at any one time and they still get it wrong. Where they go right is defending the refs strongly at every turn. You won't watch a segment on the nfl website (which is something for rugby to learn from btw) without prominent ex-players saying that they have the best refs in the world.

With the NFL, although Dean Blandino is somewhat of a sacrificial lamb it does give a further clarity on the big decisions (forgetting the absolute nonsense of the "catch rule"). It wouldn't need to be a Q+A style for the rugby sanctioning body, perhaps an ex ref on a straight recording stating where the big decisions were right or wrong would go a long way to helping.

Imagine if this had been in existence before the RWC it would have made it far easier for WR to say Joubert had made a mistake without throwing him under the bus. It would also help highlight areas of good refereeing and let the refs gain a bit more backing. The media always focus on bad decisions but if the sanctioning bodies started to put out positive videos too it would help IMO.

As an aside, can anyone remember an international ref being stood down for performance reasons, not off the field stuff?

[Donny osmond]

Wasn't there an Irish ref a few years ago who was stood down after he made a Horlicks of a match involving SA and someone?

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

[Eugene Wrayburn]

People need to be realistic. Referees make mistakes just as players and coaches and all humans make mistakes. None of it is deliberate or malicious.

I would change the TMO to a system of on-field challenges akin to cricket, tennis or hockey. that way referees have to make a decision and rather than constant whining from captains they get a couple of challenges and lose them if they are wrong.

[whatisthejava]

People need to be realistic. Referees make mistakes just as players and coaches and all humans make mistakes. None of it is deliberate or malicious.

I would change the TMO to a system of on-field challenges akin to cricket, tennis or hockey. that way referees have to make a decision and rather than constant whining from captains they get a couple of challenges and lose them if they are wrong.

I want the TMO removed from the game

they dont get the big decisions right enough to justify them and in the last couple of years some of their rulings have been beyond baffling

Anyone remmeber shalke burgers first try against us in the WC

He gets awarded a try even though he cant possibly be holding it at the time

[Eugene Wrayburn]

People need to be realistic. Referees make mistakes just as players and coaches and all humans make mistakes. None of it is deliberate or malicious.

I would change the TMO to a system of on-field challenges akin to cricket, tennis or hockey. that way referees have to make a decision and rather than constant whining from captains they get a couple of challenges and lose them if they are wrong.

I want the TMO removed from the game

they dont get the big decisions right enough to justify them and in the last couple of years some of their rulings have been beyond baffling

Anyone remmeber shalke burgers first try against us in the WC

He gets awarded a try even though he cant possibly be holding it at the time

The chnge I propose would reduce the recourse to TMOs. I'd also change the qualification needed to be a TMO - I would only have people who are, or have been, referees at the standard at which they are TMO.

[Digby]

I'd make the refs give their decision on the field before they can refer to the TMO. And then only if the ref is clearly shown to be wrong does the onfield decision get overturned, and if something looks good or isn't clear from a TV angle then it isn't clear we stay with the refs call, none of this faffing around looking at 6 angles in slow-mo

[Eugene Wrayburn]

I'd make the refs give their decision on the field before they can refer to the TMO. And then only if the ref is clearly shown to be wrong does the onfield decision get overturned, and if something looks good or isn't clear from a TV angle then it isn't clear we stay with the refs call, none of this faffing around looking at 6 angles in slow-mo

Absolutely. This change is vital and can be completed immediately

[Peat]

So do you think WR will never change the result of a game after the fact or do you think we could be looking at this within 12 months or within the decade ?

Few years back a ref went to the TMO after blowing the final whistle in an Ulster-Leinster game - think it was Alain Rolland.

So clearly they're gearing up for this madness.

[Mikey Brown]

People need to be realistic. Referees make mistakes just as players and coaches and all humans make mistakes. None of it is deliberate or malicious.

I would change the TMO to a system of on-field challenges akin to cricket, tennis or hockey. that way referees have to make a decision and rather than constant whining from captains they get a couple of challenges and lose them if they are wrong.

I want the TMO removed from the game

they dont get the big decisions right enough to justify them and in the last couple of years some of their rulings have been beyond baffling

Anyone remmeber shalke burgers first try against us in the WC

He gets awarded a try even though he cant possibly be holding it at the time

The chnge I propose would reduce the recourse to TMOs. I'd also change the qualification needed to be a TMO - I would only have people who are, or have been, referees at the standard at which they are TMO.

It seems very strange that isn't the case anyway. There have already been a number of times the ref has asked for the TMO and then just watched it himself and made a different decision anyway.

Is it practical to just say they can use the big screen? I'm not sure who actually controls them. The slow-mo thing needs clearing up as well.