Consistency
-
@Crucial I don't doubt that it is a difficult game to ref, but I agree, some leadership in terms of how the laws should be interpreted would be helpful. WR should set guidelines down each season, if they can spare the time away from their gin trolleys
-
@Crucial said in Consistency:
My suggestion is to remove ex refs from the top of the reffing governance. They have grown up in a system that doesn't drive consistency and see it as normal. A full on drive right down the grades for 'one set of rules, ruled the same way' is needed.
preach.
This would be awesome - I'll happily die on this hill with you
-
@canefan said in Consistency:
@Crucial I don't doubt that it is a difficult game to ref, but I agree, some leadership in terms of how the laws should be interpreted would be helpful. WR should set guidelines down each season, if they can spare the time away from their gin trolleys
How about starting with not changing laws more than once mid-season. Remember the ELV in NZ, but not for the France series back in 09, but then for the SANZAAR tourney. Weird and annoying.
-
@nzzp said in Consistency:
@canefan said in Consistency:
@Crucial I don't doubt that it is a difficult game to ref, but I agree, some leadership in terms of how the laws should be interpreted would be helpful. WR should set guidelines down each season, if they can spare the time away from their gin trolleys
How about starting with not changing laws more than once mid-season. Remember the ELV in NZ, but not for the France series back in 09, but then for the SANZAAR tourney. Weird and annoying.
For a so called pro game, they are remarkably amateurish about something so important
-
@canefan said in Consistency:
@Crucial I don't doubt that it is a difficult game to ref, but I agree, some leadership in terms of how the laws should be interpreted would be helpful. WR should set guidelines down each season, if they can spare the time away from their gin trolleys
They do actually set guidelines etc but the problem is either that the enforcement is too lenient or the whole system is screwed. I go for the latter as they have tried for years and years and failed in this area. It needs a proper shake up not just another advisory panel. The underlying problem is an acceptance of inconsistency being just 'part of the sport'. For small differences in say timing, that is understandable but when you have refs with totally different interpretations of the same laws it is a problem.
Have a listen to this https://www.allblacks.com/videos/all-blacks-podcast-with-referee-ben-okeeffe/ for a bit of an insight into how refs prep for games etc. It is quite interesting.
BOK states that the attempts at ref influencing are nothing like they are made out. In fact coaches now realise the risk of that backfiring.There is no doubt though that there has been some very obvious turnarounds in interpretation from ref to ref in this RC and you have to wonder how much is the ref in their pre-match analysis noticing the same things as the coaches and how much is reinforcement from reading stuff in the media.
NZ v SA - first match we had to deal with SA players not releasing before Marx would come in over the top and jumpers not genuinely competing for the ball. That completely disappeared next game under a different ref. In fact the Boks seemed to put those tactics away as they knew they wouldn't get away with it twice in a row.
NZ v Arg - Argies very slow to move away first test. Nowhere to be seen in the second.
I'm sure that fans of other sides could point out similar stories from their POV.
Yes, rugby is difficult to ref but when the fundamental stuff you can build a game plan on shifts from under you that takes a bit more that a chat under the goalposts. That might work for things like a ref not giving a lot of reward to 'jacklers' or pinging going past the ball as a focus but not the big stuff of what constitutes a side entry or running plays with timing that gets stuffed by slowly moving tacklers allowed to stay at the back even if it reduces the halfback options and speed.
-
-
@canefan said in Consistency:
@Crucial the breakdown is the problem. Fix that and you fix most of the problems
You can only fix it through the consistent application of laws.
Take BOK as an example. Listen to him talk and he is doing everything he can to prepare and review well. Takes the job seriously is isn't 'incompetent' or dumb. Yet he also puts a bit more focus on materiality than other refs which then appears inconsistent. It's like he has a scale of offence for penalties with some actions being seen and deliberately not blown and some, when blown, not being deemed strong enough to add to the 'persistent' list.
I guess this approach is due to wanting to manage a flowing game.
That's all good but it shouldn't be up to him to decide because the next guy or even the guy on the sideline if he pulls a hammy might have a very different view.
WR should be dictating what goes and what doesn't -
Anyone read this (behind the paywall)?
-
@pakman FYI there is an extension just for nzherald you can get on mozilla to bypass.
To some degree, Pumas coach Michael Cheika was right when he said that in the last few years the general standard of refereeing in international rugby has improved. Some of the worst habits that plagued the game in the last World Cup cycle have been fixed. Now teams can't edge their defensive line to an offside position and get away with it, and no longer can players who were in front of a kick move into a strong defensive position earlier than the laws allow. The failure to referee the basics was wildly frustrating, but at least now that no longer happens and there is a firm sense that at last officials have realised that the offside line isn't a little thing they can choose to ignore. But there remains one area of maddening inconsistency: one facet of the game where teams can operate almost with impunity one week depending on the referee, to seemingly have everything reversed the next. And that of course is the horribly termed breakdown or tackled ball area, where in the series between New Zealand and Argentina, it was refereed to two extremes to produce two entirely different test match experiences and two vastly different results. In Christchurch, the young, Georgian referee Nika Amashukeli penalised the All Blacks 14 times, nearly all of which were at the tackled ball. He was mostly labelled pedantic and some even branded his decisions bizarre. His interpretation of what was legal certainly left All Blacks head coach Ian Foster bemused, as he said after the game: "Overall, I just felt that they got away with some stuff at the breakdown, not releasing the ball carrier on the ground, and we weren't able to deal with it. "It was an area where we got hammered in the penalty count at critical times. I'm probably a little bit bemused by some of that." And this is the crazy thing about the international game at the moment – Foster was bemused by Amashukeli, while Cheika lauded the young referee's work and who would know which of them was right? The following week, the more experienced Nic Berry had control in Hamilton and the All Blacks were clinical, ruthless and highly disciplined at the breakdown. They produced the quick ball they were after, barely lost a turnover and their ability in that area produced an endless stream of penalties against the Pumas. The breakdown is a busy area, lots of bodies flying in, dynamic movements happening which produce high impact collisions, the legality of which are not easy to determine in real time. No one doubts it's a hard area to referee and difficult for officials to strike that desired balance of allowing a fair contest for the ball, while ensuring that the game continues to flow. But as hard as it may be, it can't surely be so complex as to produce such vastly different interpretations from test to test depending on the referee. There must be a way to generate greater consistency of rule interpretation and law application to reduce the volatility we have seen in performance and outcome so far this year. This problem of breakdown interpretation was visible in the series against Ireland as well. In the first test, Ireland felt the All Blacks were able to exaggerate the depth and width of the ruck in the first test, something which helped the home side storm to a comfortable win. In the second test, a new referee came in and ruled that area differently and the All Blacks were heavily penalised and it does appear as if the international game is effectively holding itself hostage to the way one person will view one particular component. Despite the general improvements that have been made in the last few years in the general standard of officiating, the tackled ball area has descended into such an unpredictable and unfathomable mess that it has the potential to turn the World Cup into a farce. France 2023 may not be won by the best team, but by the team which can best anticipate and adapt to how a referee will rule the breakdown and if the randomness of it all is confusing to hard-core rugby heads who feel they have some understanding of how this area should be refereed, imagine what it will look like to the uninitiated who fancy seeing next year if they can use the World Cup as a means to get into the sport. When Foster said after the loss in Christchurch that his team needs to get better at adapting to the referee in real time, he was right. But it shouldn't be like that. Players should have some confidence that what they encounter one week at the breakdown will look similar to what they will face the next time they play and test matches shouldn't be determined by what a team can get away with. -
This post is deleted!
Gregor Paul: The maddening inconsistency of how ABs are refereed
