Who'd be a Ref..

[Galfon]

Blimey..
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/68282213
Caught between a Rock, a Hard-place and somewhere quite Solid.
Refs should try and stay Solid wherever possible to avoid things like this, maybe.

[francoisfou]

The SRU should be hung, drawn and quartered for taking this to World Rugby. They're going to be judged to be just as disrespectful to the referees as that clown Erasmus.
The game is over. Was it a try or not? The ref decided no, so end of story.
If it does go that far they should say that the ref made his decision and must be respected.

In my day, the ref was the sole arbiter and his word was final.

Jeeez, there is so much TMO analysis for each micro-second of disputable action that takes ages to reach a decision.

[Mr Mwenda]

Embarrassing from SRU.

[16th man]

TBF, the process was absolutely farcical, so you can understand wanting some clarity on why the ref and TMO's communications were so seemingly contradictory to the final decision.

Shouldn't be being done in public though.

[Oakboy]

Are these SH refs the best they've got or are they lumbering the 6N with their lower ranks?

[Puja]

I've seen some Scots fans railing against the TMO and saying it should be got rid of, completely ignoring that the ref's on-field decision was held up, so if there was no TMO, they'd still not've been awarded it.

Puja

[Puja]

Are these SH refs the best they've got or are they lumbering the 6N with their lower ranks?

I thought Paul Williams (the one from the Italy game) was very good indeed, but the one this week was dire, both in decision-making and his control over the game and the fucking about at scrums.

Puja

[Oakboy]

I've seen some Scots fans railing against the TMO and saying it should be got rid of, completely ignoring that the ref's on-field decision was held up, so if there was no TMO, they'd still not've been awarded it.

Puja

My biggest beef about it was that the ref never took charge of the exchange. Whatever the right/wrong, the ref should always be the authority with the TMO's contribution supplementary.

[Puja]

I've seen some Scots fans railing against the TMO and saying it should be got rid of, completely ignoring that the ref's on-field decision was held up, so if there was no TMO, they'd still not've been awarded it.

Puja

My biggest beef about it was that the ref never took charge of the exchange. Whatever the right/wrong, the ref should always be the authority with the TMO's contribution supplementary.

I have to say I disagree. I never like the "I'm going to show you a picture" bollocks. The TMO has the image right in front of them, in HD, and is a qualified ref themselves, but we have to send it back to the man squinting up at the big screen and deal with, "I'm going to find you a different angle" passive-aggressive bullshit as he doesn't see what the TMO is trying to point out.

Puja

[switchskier]

The SRU should be hung, drawn and quartered for taking this to World Rugby. They're going to be judged to be just as disrespectful to the referees as that clown Erasmus.
The game is over. Was it a try or not? The ref decided no, so end of story.
If it does go that far they should say that the ref made his decision and must be respected.

In my day, the ref was the sole arbiter and his word was final.

Jeeez, there is so much TMO analysis for each micro-second of disputable action that takes ages to reach a decision.

The farcial way that the process played out has confused people and made others angry. Asking for clarity and the process to be looked at so that it doesn't happen again doesn't seem unreasonable to me. If that ends up with more empowered refs then I'm fine with that, but the current set up gave Berry an easy way out, almost asking the TMO to overturn it, and then the TMO muddled it.

[Oakboy]

I've seen some Scots fans railing against the TMO and saying it should be got rid of, completely ignoring that the ref's on-field decision was held up, so if there was no TMO, they'd still not've been awarded it.

Puja

My biggest beef about it was that the ref never took charge of the exchange. Whatever the right/wrong, the ref should always be the authority with the TMO's contribution supplementary.

I have to say I disagree. I never like the "I'm going to show you a picture" bollocks. The TMO has the image right in front of them, in HD, and is a qualified ref themselves, but we have to send it back to the man squinting up at the big screen and deal with, "I'm going to find you a different angle" passive-aggressive bullshit as he doesn't see what the TMO is trying to point out.

Puja

I just can't see the case for a junior official being in charge of the senior one. A quaIty ref would have said immediately, "If those are the only views there is no point in looking at them again and again. I'll stick with my on-field decision."

The protocol is that it must be clear and obvious. It wasn't. We all know it WAS a try because there was a good shot of the ball on the boot followed by a shot of the ball a boot's depth lower. But, there was never going to be a shot of the ball in contact with grass - all clear from one viewing. The point is that the ref knew the rules. He could see it all obviously and he should have cut the faffing about. Maybe he would have done had it been the 60th minute rather than the 80th - which makes the case. Indecision is never good for the game.

[Mikey Brown]

It’s all a fucking mess anyway. If it kicks up enough dust that we never get Nick Berry again then I’m fine.

[Oakboy]

It’s all a fucking mess anyway. If it kicks up enough dust that we never get Nick Berry again then I’m fine.

I definitely agree with that. Hopeless ref.

[Puja]

My biggest beef about it was that the ref never took charge of the exchange. Whatever the right/wrong, the ref should always be the authority with the TMO's contribution supplementary.

I have to say I disagree. I never like the "I'm going to show you a picture" bollocks. The TMO has the image right in front of them, in HD, and is a qualified ref themselves, but we have to send it back to the man squinting up at the big screen and deal with, "I'm going to find you a different angle" passive-aggressive bullshit as he doesn't see what the TMO is trying to point out.

Puja

I just can't see the case for a junior official being in charge of the senior one.

You get it all the time elsewhere on the pitch though - a ref starts giving a reset at a scrum, but the touch judge calls "Down by blue 3" and the ref accepts the opinion of the junior official who was in a better position to see what was going on, rather than going over and having a conversation where the touch judge has to show his working and convince him.

Puja

[fivepointer]

Always have sympathy for officials. Its a ferociously tough gig reffing at the top level. Frankly there is a limited pool of people who can handle it.
However, the guy handling England-Wales was quite poor. His management of the scrums was farcically and inexcusably bad.
I dont think Berry is a top ref but he did negotiate the protocol on deciding the try at the end in exactly the right way. The TMO has to find "conclusive evidence" one way or another. Now you might argue that what we saw was conclusive enough, but the bar is set very high and there seems to be absolutely no room for discretion. My own feeling was that Scotland scored but i could see why the TMO didnt give it because he couldnt be 100% sure. We've seen tries given in the Premiership with very similar pictures and they havent always been in the 100% obvious category.
If you want to change the protocol there wont be much of a delay before a coach, player or fans moan that a try was awarded when there wasnt complete certainty! You cant win.
Generally the game spends far too much time talking about reffing decisions. The laws are complex, coaches are ingenious at finding workarounds, far too many calls are marginal, players cheat like mad and decisions have to be made in the blink of an eye. Such is the at times chaotic nature of the game I think we should accept that not everything is black and white, that refs will make errors, that processes can help but wont cover everything to everyone's satisfaction and that the law book needs serious revision.

[Oakboy]

I have to say I disagree. I never like the "I'm going to show you a picture" bollocks. The TMO has the image right in front of them, in HD, and is a qualified ref themselves, but we have to send it back to the man squinting up at the big screen and deal with, "I'm going to find you a different angle" passive-aggressive bullshit as he doesn't see what the TMO is trying to point out.

Puja

I just can't see the case for a junior official being in charge of the senior one.

You get it all the time elsewhere on the pitch though - a ref starts giving a reset at a scrum, but the touch judge calls "Down by blue 3" and the ref accepts the opinion of the junior official who was in a better position to see what was going on, rather than going over and having a conversation where the touch judge has to show his working and convince him.

Puja

Fair point but I see that as different somehow - in that it is obvious and within a prearranged system where the ref has agreed that consultation is not necessary.

In the VAR thing, IMO, the ref must be seen to be in charge. Normally the system works better in head shot incidents, for example, where the ref clearly has the last word. I just think that the Scotland incident showed the ref to be wimpish and not authoritative. It's more about the image of the game then. Basically, in PR terms, the longer the ref let the debate continue, the worse it got.

[Puja]

I just can't see the case for a junior official being in charge of the senior one.

You get it all the time elsewhere on the pitch though - a ref starts giving a reset at a scrum, but the touch judge calls "Down by blue 3" and the ref accepts the opinion of the junior official who was in a better position to see what was going on, rather than going over and having a conversation where the touch judge has to show his working and convince him.

Puja

Fair point but I see that as different somehow - in that it is obvious and within a prearranged system where the ref has agreed that consultation is not necessary.

In the VAR thing, IMO, the ref must be seen to be in charge. Normally the system works better in head shot incidents, for example, where the ref clearly has the last word. I just think that the Scotland incident showed the ref to be wimpish and not authoritative. It's more about the image of the game then. Basically, in PR terms, the longer the ref let the debate continue, the worse it got.

Agreed on the length of discussion, but I think it was a symptom of what I was talking about - the ref and the TMO are dancing around each other, because neither is sure who has precedence - the person with the best information or the person who is supposed to be in charge and "making the final decision". Add that to coaches and fans having outrage if the "correct" decision isn't made and it's no wonder you get this kind of nonsense back and forth.

The game is trying to give the ref control of a situation where he's not the one best placed to decide, simply because it wants the optics of "The ref is the final arbiter" and "the TMO is not taking over", despite the fact that we don't use that attitude for any other ref/assistant interactions. I suspect we'd all be a lot happier if the TMO protocol was like cricket - the referee refers a decision, the TMO looks at it on his own and tells him either Stick With or Change Your Onfield Decision.

Puja

[Banquo]

Dump the TMO. Its killing the game as a spectacle, the casual spectator is going WTF, and they get things wrong anyway. For foul play have a post match review panel for anything refs or assistants miss, and encourage and support match officials to punish to the max anything they do see. If forward passes and ball held up etc are wrongly called, so be it, its not a game of perfect (and clearly never will be). Have to get rid of slow mos in stadia tho
For the rest- enforce the laws on putting ball in and rucking as written; get rid of pre-loading scrums (almost back to the 70's), ban the caterpillar, the ball should be in play as soon as the 9 touches it at the base of a ruck (bit of leeway in digging it out when not presented cleanly). Limit replacements to injury only (yes, I know; needs to be integrity in this, and an accord with players, coaches and management for the betterment of the game), but any knock to the bonce immediate replacement.

I'm sure there's more.

[Galfon]

There should be the means to embrace technology -
we've got a countdown clock for kickers, maybe there could be one for TMO/VAR, with (e.g.) a simple RAG light sytem:
- Red - No try
- Amber- Insufficient evidence, either way.
(on-field decision stands)
- Green - Try
i.e. decision made for Ref.
If time-out occurs, (say 1 minute or 90 s.)
= 'Amber' by default & on-field decision stands.
The whole thing needs speeding up, interminable replays and iffing/biffing appears out of place.

[Mikey Brown]

Maybe give all the fans little remotes and they can vote on the controversial decisions.

[Galfon]

quelle surprise - ( beeb )

..World Rugby will be sticking to its stance of not commenting publicly on specific officials' decisions and is not expected to issue any clarification to clear the situation up in the public domain..

[Spiffy]

Dump the TMO. Its killing the game as a spectacle, the casual spectator is going WTF, and they get things wrong anyway. For foul play have a post match review panel for anything refs or assistants miss, and encourage and support match officials to punish to the max anything they do see. If forward passes and ball held up etc are wrongly called, so be it, its not a game of perfect (and clearly never will be). Have to get rid of slow mos in stadia tho
For the rest- enforce the laws on putting ball in and rucking as written; get rid of pre-loading scrums (almost back to the 70's), ban the caterpillar, the ball should be in play as soon as the 9 touches it at the base of a ruck (bit of leeway in digging it out when not presented cleanly). Limit replacements to injury only (yes, I know; needs to be integrity in this, and an accord with players, coaches and management for the betterment of the game), but any knock to the bonce immediate replacement.

I'm sure there's more.

All good points. I agree especially on squint feeds. Might as well abolish the law if it never gets enforced.
One of my current peeves is the endless awarding of turnovers to defending teams that are not real turnovers al all. I'd guess that as much as 30-40% of turnovers fall under this.

[p/d]

Dump the TMO. Its killing the game as a spectacle, the casual spectator is going WTF, and they get things wrong anyway. For foul play have a post match review panel for anything refs or assistants miss, and encourage and support match officials to punish to the max anything they do see. If forward passes and ball held up etc are wrongly called, so be it, its not a game of perfect (and clearly never will be). Have to get rid of slow mos in stadia tho
For the rest- enforce the laws on putting ball in and rucking as written; get rid of pre-loading scrums (almost back to the 70's), ban the caterpillar, the ball should be in play as soon as the 9 touches it at the base of a ruck (bit of leeway in digging it out when not presented cleanly). Limit replacements to injury only (yes, I know; needs to be integrity in this, and an accord with players, coaches and management for the betterment of the game), but any knock to the bonce immediate replacement.

I'm sure there's more.

Bang on Banquo. Glad you mentioned the 9, that really is one area that has become a joke. Not sure which game it was at the weekend but one of the commentators suggested they should be given more protection after the 9 got scragged with his hand on the ball whilst looking at himself on the big screen.

[Donny osmond]

Always have sympathy for officials. Its a ferociously tough gig reffing at the top level. Frankly there is a limited pool of people who can handle it.
However, the guy handling England-Wales was quite poor. His management of the scrums was farcically and inexcusably bad.
I dont think Berry is a top ref but he did negotiate the protocol on deciding the try at the end in exactly the right way. The TMO has to find "conclusive evidence" one way or another. Now you might argue that what we saw was conclusive enough, but the bar is set very high and there seems to be absolutely no room for discretion. My own feeling was that Scotland scored but i could see why the TMO didnt give it because he couldnt be 100% sure. We've seen tries given in the Premiership with very similar pictures and they havent always been in the 100% obvious category.
If you want to change the protocol there wont be much of a delay before a coach, player or fans moan that a try was awarded when there wasnt complete certainty! You cant win.
Generally the game spends far too much time talking about reffing decisions. The laws are complex, coaches are ingenious at finding workarounds, far too many calls are marginal, players cheat like mad and decisions have to be made in the blink of an eye. Such is the at times chaotic nature of the game I think we should accept that not everything is black and white, that refs will make errors, that processes can help but wont cover everything to everyone's satisfaction and that the law book needs serious revision.

Agree with all of this

[Donny osmond]

Dump the TMO. Its killing the game as a spectacle, the casual spectator is going WTF, and they get things wrong anyway. For foul play have a post match review panel for anything refs or assistants miss, and encourage and support match officials to punish to the max anything they do see. If forward passes and ball held up etc are wrongly called, so be it, its not a game of perfect (and clearly never will be). Have to get rid of slow mos in stadia tho
For the rest- enforce the laws on putting ball in and rucking as written; get rid of pre-loading scrums (almost back to the 70's), ban the caterpillar, the ball should be in play as soon as the 9 touches it at the base of a ruck (bit of leeway in digging it out when not presented cleanly). Limit replacements to injury only (yes, I know; needs to be integrity in this, and an accord with players, coaches and management for the betterment of the game), but any knock to the bonce immediate replacement.

I'm sure there's more.

Agree with all of this too