RugbyRebels

https://www.therugbypaper.co.uk/feature ... f-dissent/

Saw this and thought it interesting - I think he's got a very valid point. It's a short step from allowing chat to allowing questioning decisions and now that that's become commonplace, everyone's at it.

I would be very much in favour of an IRB diktat saying that only captains (and only one captain per team!) are allowed to talk to the referee and anyone else is an automatic reversed penalty/ten metres. I think it's the only way to clamp down on dissent - I'd miss the Nigel Owens show, but anything less would be a half-measure and the game is definitely going downhill as things stand.

Puja

I don't remotely think we should only have the captain talking to the ref, but then I don't think allowing people to talk fosters dissent. How they're allowed to talk is an issue, but that seems a different thing

I’ve found the whole matey ref act annoying for a long time. I want colours and numbers. Not players names or, god forbid, nicknames.

The Barnesy/Goodey episode made me want to be sick.

I do think that lack of impartiality is a path to where we are now, where this shit seems awfully common.

No I haven’t read the article...

I still don't like refs pre-emptive chat for the simple reason that it cannot be totally consistent. Far better to ping the first ruck offence and set the standard than this 'don't go in there' nonsense. Referees tire over 80 minutes and often don't have breath for the same degree of instructive chat in the 75th minute as they did in the 5th. That means identical scenarios can have different outcomes.

The nature of the modern game means that scrums have to be noisily managed by refs. They should continue in that area of play but just whistle elsewhere. I'm happy with arm signals to indicate some offences and I'm in favour of brief explanations to captains only if there is real doubt.

I think the worst aspect of the chatathon is that it invites debate. That undermines referees' authority which harms the game, IMO.

Its a fine balance. Refs have to manage games and getting a rapport with players will help. I think most players actually like refs talking to them and will respond when asked not to do certain things. Of course, refs and players cant be mates, but getting along and working together they can make the game better and reduce the need for blowing the whistle.
I do think players need to button it a bit, though. There is far too much appealing and contesting a decision. There has been a spate of refs pulling aside players and saying, "use language like that again and you will leave the field" I'd rather they pinged them there and then.

Oakboy wrote:I still don't like refs pre-emptive chat for the simple reason that it cannot be totally consistent. Far better to ping the first ruck offence and set the standard than this 'don't go in there' nonsense. Referees tire over 80 minutes and often don't have breath for the same degree of instructive chat in the 75th minute as they did in the 5th. That means identical scenarios can have different outcomes.

The whole pre-emptive chat thing is what really still annoys me about Poite's refereeing of the Italy game. People praise him for being a smug git about, "I'm the referee, not your coach," while ignoring the double standard that he coached Italy all the way through by identifying each breakdown as "Ruck!" or "Just a tackle!" Chatting creates inconsistencies, as you say, and England were frustrated to be sent away when asking the ref for help when he was clearly giving it the other way.

Puja

fivepointer wrote:Its a fine balance. Refs have to manage games and getting a rapport with players will help. I think most players actually like refs talking to them and will respond when asked not to do certain things. Of course, refs and players cant be mates, but getting along and working together they can make the game better and reduce the need for blowing the whistle.
I do think players need to button it a bit, though. There is far too much appealing and contesting a decision. There has been a spate of refs pulling aside players and saying, "use language like that again and you will leave the field" I'd rather they pinged them there and then.

Good point, that last one. I've never seen a player yellow-carded for excess mouth. In fact, it's almost unknown now for penalties to be reversed or sides marched back 10 metres.

I've never understood why players need to get warnings, and if they are required they can be given in the hut before the match starts

Oakboy wrote:

fivepointer wrote:Its a fine balance. Refs have to manage games and getting a rapport with players will help. I think most players actually like refs talking to them and will respond when asked not to do certain things. Of course, refs and players cant be mates, but getting along and working together they can make the game better and reduce the need for blowing the whistle.
I do think players need to button it a bit, though. There is far too much appealing and contesting a decision. There has been a spate of refs pulling aside players and saying, "use language like that again and you will leave the field" I'd rather they pinged them there and then.

Good point, that last one. I've never seen a player yellow-carded for excess mouth. In fact, it's almost unknown now for penalties to be reversed or sides marched back 10 metres.

But you have seen a player red carded for it though. Dylan's "F*cking cheats" exclamation is the only one I can remember being carded of any colour in the last 5 years or so.

Puja

Digby wrote:I've never understood why players need to get warnings, and if they are required they can be given in the hut before the match starts

This. It drives me mad. Penalising players for transgressions is the surest form of deterrent. They've already done something to stifle an opponent so penalise the fekker.

It seems to have emanated from the idea that giving penalties ruins the flow of a game, when it’s actually the constant cheating at breakdowns that destroys the flow and speed.

Players know they can get away with loads in the first few minutes as referees just give warnings. If it’s a penalty, give it! I hate the ‘false start blitz’ in defence, when a player goes forward a couple of steps before retreating: he’s offside and ruining a potential attaching move, ping it and they’ll soon stop!

I think it was Ben Ryan who said for injuries that the way to reduce them would be for the Current rules to be refereed properly, and I think referees are a bit slack these days

Puja wrote:

Oakboy wrote:I still don't like refs pre-emptive chat for the simple reason that it cannot be totally consistent. Far better to ping the first ruck offence and set the standard than this 'don't go in there' nonsense. Referees tire over 80 minutes and often don't have breath for the same degree of instructive chat in the 75th minute as they did in the 5th. That means identical scenarios can have different outcomes.

The whole pre-emptive chat thing is what really still annoys me about Poite's refereeing of the Italy game. People praise him for being a smug git about, "I'm the referee, not your coach," while ignoring the double standard that he coached Italy all the way through by identifying each breakdown as "Ruck!" or "Just a tackle!" Chatting creates inconsistencies, as you say, and England were frustrated to be sent away when asking the ref for help when he was clearly giving it the other way.

Puja

The referee giving an in-play assessment of the current laws being applied to both teams is a great deal different to the referee giving extensive explanations of the interpretations of the laws to one team out of play. One is giving the exact same level of help to both teams - it is not on the ref if one team is greatly more prepared to make use of it than the other - the other is him helping one team. I don't think he was particularly right but I can't see a double standard.

Peat wrote:

Puja wrote:

Oakboy wrote:I still don't like refs pre-emptive chat for the simple reason that it cannot be totally consistent. Far better to ping the first ruck offence and set the standard than this 'don't go in there' nonsense. Referees tire over 80 minutes and often don't have breath for the same degree of instructive chat in the 75th minute as they did in the 5th. That means identical scenarios can have different outcomes.

The whole pre-emptive chat thing is what really still annoys me about Poite's refereeing of the Italy game. People praise him for being a smug git about, "I'm the referee, not your coach," while ignoring the double standard that he coached Italy all the way through by identifying each breakdown as "Ruck!" or "Just a tackle!" Chatting creates inconsistencies, as you say, and England were frustrated to be sent away when asking the ref for help when he was clearly giving it the other way.

Puja

The referee giving an in-play assessment of the current laws being applied to both teams is a great deal different to the referee giving extensive explanations of the interpretations of the laws to one team out of play. One is giving the exact same level of help to both teams - it is not on the ref if one team is greatly more prepared to make use of it than the other - the other is him helping one team. I don't think he was particularly right but I can't see a double standard.

But it wasn't a usual in-play assessment, but one tailored to Italy's pre-discussed plan. He was willing to change his "chat" to allow Italy's plan to work, but preferred to be snide when the England captain asked him politely in a break of play to clarify a law that had come up.

It's currently considered better for the game for the ref to talk colleagially with captains about the laws and help teams out by continually talking with them. The ref wasn't sending Italy away with a snotty, "I'm not your coach," when they asked about why scrum penalties had been given and he didn't ease up on "Roll away" and "Hands off". He only chose one area of law that he wasn't willing to discuss on the pitch, which I can only assume was because he found it amusing that Italy's coaches had outwitted us.

It would've been the work of 3 seconds to say, "If only one side is in a ruck, then it's just a tackle, there's no offside, and they can stand where they like." Instead, he decided to be a d*ck about it.

Tl:dr - if refs want to talk and chat and coach teams through everything, then that's a valid route. If refs want to be autocratic and not discuss anything and rely on players to work out things themselves, then that's a valid route. What isn't fair is if the refs talk and chat and coach and then decide not to for one esoteric interpretation because it's amusing.

Puja

I had no problems with the reffing in the England Vs Italy game a few seasons back. England did manage to adjust to play enough in a style that circumvented some daft Italian tactics to win comfortably, it should have been more comfortable Vs those tactics but it was still a wide margin between the sides. And I've no idea what you'd want the ref to tell England in those situations? Both Haskell and Hartley just came across as stupid, though that's hardly unusual for a rugby player. It would also imo be a very different set of circumstances in that Italy game to the more general problem of players overly talking, talking back and ruefully shaking their heads at a decision, and to the fact that players expect to be able to cheat a large amount before even getting talked to about it.

Puja wrote:

Peat wrote:

Puja wrote:
The whole pre-emptive chat thing is what really still annoys me about Poite's refereeing of the Italy game. People praise him for being a smug git about, "I'm the referee, not your coach," while ignoring the double standard that he coached Italy all the way through by identifying each breakdown as "Ruck!" or "Just a tackle!" Chatting creates inconsistencies, as you say, and England were frustrated to be sent away when asking the ref for help when he was clearly giving it the other way.

Puja

The referee giving an in-play assessment of the current laws being applied to both teams is a great deal different to the referee giving extensive explanations of the interpretations of the laws to one team out of play. One is giving the exact same level of help to both teams - it is not on the ref if one team is greatly more prepared to make use of it than the other - the other is him helping one team. I don't think he was particularly right but I can't see a double standard.

But it wasn't a usual in-play assessment

It was. His calling of ruck and tackle was no different to many games I've watched and played in. The rest you may have a point on - I can't remember how he dealt with the scrums - but on this, I can only disagree.

Peat wrote:

Puja wrote:

Peat wrote:
The referee giving an in-play assessment of the current laws being applied to both teams is a great deal different to the referee giving extensive explanations of the interpretations of the laws to one team out of play. One is giving the exact same level of help to both teams - it is not on the ref if one team is greatly more prepared to make use of it than the other - the other is him helping one team. I don't think he was particularly right but I can't see a double standard.

But it wasn't a usual in-play assessment

It was. His calling of ruck and tackle was no different to many games I've watched and played in. The rest you may have a point on - I can't remember how he dealt with the scrums - but on this, I can only disagree.

I will disagree - refs did not (before the law change) preemptively call "Just a tackle!" for every single occasion that no ruck was formed. It was only generally said when someone looked offside to announce that it was okay, not as a message that players could come round.

Puja

The inconsistency comes when players believe they can do what they like until they are told not to.

The annoyance for me in the Italy game is that he didn't call all the tackles and rucks correctly. There was one in the 2nd half that was clearly a ruck, then the Italian player who'd made it a ruck, came out, then ran up offside.

Raggs wrote:The annoyance for me in the Italy game is that he didn't call all the tackles and rucks correctly. There was one in the 2nd half that was clearly a ruck, then the Italian player who'd made it a ruck, came out, then ran up offside.

This though happens all the time, and is again maybe a different thing to what Italy managed (ignoring their heavy defeat) with their Dr Venter tactics

I never understood why they chose england to use that tactic against. I reckon the novelty would've got them a victory in a couple of the other games. I guess they finally want to get that england scalp but it wasn't like it solved their issues ball in hand.

Digby wrote:

Raggs wrote:The annoyance for me in the Italy game is that he didn't call all the tackles and rucks correctly. There was one in the 2nd half that was clearly a ruck, then the Italian player who'd made it a ruck, came out, then ran up offside.

This though happens all the time, and is again maybe a different thing to what Italy managed (ignoring their heavy defeat) with their Dr Venter tactics

Major reason why I wanted the law changed - it was confusing, even for the ref, even in games where one side wasn't playing silly beggers, and there was absolutely no need for having two different classes of tackle-area.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:

Raggs wrote:The annoyance for me in the Italy game is that he didn't call all the tackles and rucks correctly. There was one in the 2nd half that was clearly a ruck, then the Italian player who'd made it a ruck, came out, then ran up offside.

This though happens all the time, and is again maybe a different thing to what Italy managed (ignoring their heavy defeat) with their Dr Venter tactics

Major reason why I wanted the law changed - it was confusing, even for the ref, even in games where one side wasn't playing silly beggers, and there was absolutely no need for having two different classes of tackle-area.

Puja

Which law is this? This might be a still more question than usual, but I'm reasonably (and certainly happily) drunk at the moment

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:
This though happens all the time, and is again maybe a different thing to what Italy managed (ignoring their heavy defeat) with their Dr Venter tactics

Major reason why I wanted the law changed - it was confusing, even for the ref, even in games where one side wasn't playing silly beggers, and there was absolutely no need for having two different classes of tackle-area.

Puja

Which law is this? This might be a still more question than usual, but I'm reasonably (and certainly happily) drunk at the moment

I'm envious! It was the one that's part of his year's ELVs which previously said that a ruck (and an offside line) was only formed when a player from each team was present and which now says that a ruck is formed when a player from either team is present.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:
Major reason why I wanted the law changed - it was confusing, even for the ref, even in games where one side wasn't playing silly beggers, and there was absolutely no need for having two different classes of tackle-area.

Puja

Which law is this? This might be a still more question than usual, but I'm reasonably (and certainly happily) drunk at the moment

I'm envious! It was the one that's part of his year's ELVs which previously said that a ruck (and an offside line) was only formed when a player from each team was present and which now says that a ruck is formed when a player from either team is present.

Puja

Ah, I was fine with the tidying up the tackle such the tackler loses special rights to make things simpler for the refs, but the non ruck ruck seems a solution to problem that doesn't exist imo. Instead I'd rather they applied the already existing notion that rugby is a game for players on their feet

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:
Which law is this? This might be a still more question than usual, but I'm reasonably (and certainly happily) drunk at the moment

I'm envious! It was the one that's part of his year's ELVs which previously said that a ruck (and an offside line) was only formed when a player from each team was present and which now says that a ruck is formed when a player from either team is present.

Puja

Ah, I was fine with the tidying up the tackle such the tackler loses special rights to make things simpler for the refs, but the non ruck ruck seems a solution to problem that doesn't exist imo. Instead I'd rather they applied the already existing notion that rugby is a game for players on their feet

But you yourself just said that confusion on the part of the ref as to whether something was a ruck or not happened all the time? Surely that's a problem that existed and is now solved - a completed tackle with one player creates an offside line and no-one needs to work out if it's just a ruck or a tackle on the fly.

Puja