France Vs Wales

[Balones]

I know I am the only one but I disagree, the ref should be a facilitator not a dictator. He should allow the player to play their own style (from within the law). If a scrum half wants to slow the game (within the law) he should be allowed.

More importantly his constant use of "use it " is unnecessary. At some point in the game, it was at every ruck, when there were no indication that the scrum half was slowing the game.

Intend to agree with this last paragraph. I found the ‘use it’ input monotonous and amounted to ‘white noise’ which as we all know players tend to eventually ignore.

 

[belhysys]

The Law is that when the referee decides the ball is available then the 5 second applies. So your point makes little sense.

Sorry if I wasnt clear.

For me "use it" should be used if SH takes more than 5s after the ball is available. if there is no evidence that the SH is going to take more than 5s, the ref doesnt need to say it.

If you start to say it at every ruck, then you need to say it at every single ruck, if not there is no signal that they have to use it.

To me, a better way is to explain what you expect before the game, see if they are complying. Warn by "use it" if it is too slow. and then penalize if they dont improve. Spending the whole game saying use it at every ruck is not the best use of the communication with the player.


Like I said, I am the only one, so likely to be talking shit

 

[crossref]

I know I am the only one but I disagree, the ref should be a facilitator not a dictator. He should allow the player to play their own style (from within the law). If a scrum half wants to slow the game (within the law) he should be allowed.

More importantly his constant use of "use it " is unnecessary. At some point in the game, it was at every ruck, when there were no indication that the scrum half was slowing the game.

announcing 'use it' is effectively compulsory, as that's the only way to get the 5sec going. (I think we need to change the law to get rid of it - law could simply be that when the ball is avaialble, SH must use it without delay. No need for a use it command'


I do take your point about a refereee being a facilitator, not a dictator. It's a good one.
But in general don't all the players themselves want a fast game. less boring

 

[belhysys]

announcing 'use it' is effectively compulsory, as that's the only way to get the 5sec going.

thanks a lot, I didn't realize that.

in this case, other refs are wrong (me included - not that I ref many games this year) he is the only one (i feel) using it constantly.

 

[crossref]

to clarify - I meant : it's not compulsory to say 'use it' , but it's only by saying 'use it' that the 5s clock applies.

I agree that LP represents peak use-it

 

[belhysys]

to clarify - I meant : it's not compulsory to say 'use it' , but it's only by saying 'use it' that the 5s clock applies.

I agree that LP represents peak use-it

Got it .. a bit slow today

 

[Marc Wakeham]

It's the signal the the ball is available and "they" are in their 5 seconds. It has to come as soon as it is available. A good ref will observe the 9s that get the ball away and will know if they don't need to say it. But if the player slows up then it will be introduced.

As it is the referee's judgement how other than by the call will the player know?

 

[crossref]

here's the law (with scrum as well, for some context)

[LAWS]19.26 When the scrum is stationary and the ball has been available at the back of the scrum for three-five seconds, the referee calls “use it”. The team must then play the ball out of the scrum immediately. Sanction: Scrum.
[/LAWS]

[LAWS]15.17 ruck
When the ball has been clearly won by a team at the ruck, and is available to be played, the referee calls “use it”, after which the ball must be played away from the ruck within five seconds. Sanction: Scrum.[/LAWS]


could it more simply be

15.17 ruck
When the ball has been clearly won by a team at the ruck, and is available to be played the ball must be played away without delay Sanction: Scrum

 

[Marc Wakeham]

That's a different question though is it not. The question was about the repeated call of "use it".

The "problem" you are looking at will still require a "use it" but without the 5 seconds.

 

[didds]

Separately, I could understand a YC for another offside or other offence in the red zone and for persistent offending, but this seemed a bit unwarranted to me?

At the time I thought "thank eff for a ref that follows his threats through and doesnt cop out after the first YC. But i was reviewing the last ten minutes last night and in the cold light of day realised the offense happened about 40m out. Indeed, not in red zone.

All i can suggest is that LP was throughly fed up wrt wales constant PKs (not saying that is right or worng). Perhaps he though afterwards he may have been over zealous, hence wyn Jones staying on for a scrum PK 5m out shortly afterwards... (76th minute?).

In short - yes, I agree that seemed a long way out for a repeat offense YC .

 

[KoolFork]

I was just following up the horrible abuse Liam Williams received after the YC (how can so-called fans react like this to a wonderful player?) and there's an interesting out take from Scrum V with Nigel Owens' view. https://twitter.com/BBCScrumV/status/1373426754753290241

The analysis on Scrum V itself (from 21:16) is a bit one-eyed since it doesn't focus much on the repeated infringements in the red zone or the disputed groundings, but NO is fairly clear that Liam Williams was not off his feet. See https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/rugby-union/56418193

He's very clear that the non-awarded penalty try was an incorrect call too.

So, my question is, was that such a great performance from Luke Pearce after all? Surely the big calls (and both these were match defining) have to be right? It cannot just be about communication.

As someone commented earlier, it would be interesting to be in on the debrief.

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

At the time I thought "thank eff for a ref that follows his threats through and doesnt cop out after the first YC. But i was reviewing the last ten minutes last night and in the cold light of day realised the offense happened about 40m out. Indeed, not in red zone.

All i can suggest is that LP was throughly fed up wrt wales constant PKs (not saying that is right or worng). Perhaps he though afterwards he may have been over zealous, hence wyn Jones staying on for a scrum PK 5m out shortly afterwards... (76th minute?).

In short - yes, I agree that seemed a long way out for a repeat offense YC .

Come on Didds, Irrespective of whether LP cards are right or wrong decisions, are you seriously saying you would not include repeat offences outside the red zone?

 

[didds]

I was under the impression that refs generally looked at red zone.

That doesnt make that view right.

My comment was made in that light.

So whether LW was a card or not, how the hell wyn Jones wasnt is beyond me.

 

[belhysys]

Ctrainor and Didds, you are both right but in different circumstances. I would say it depends what the ref message was before it happen.

No warning, I would look more at red zone
Warning for next ruck / offside - would depend of the type of penalties
Warning for next - doesnt matter you are out. Even if it is the softest penalty.

it also depends how the warning is formulated : "Next one is out", no option he is out. "Next one my option will be limited" gives you a small exit (very small)

 

[SimonSmith]

I was just following up the horrible abuse Liam Williams received after the YC (how can so-called fans react like this to a wonderful player?) and there's an interesting out take from Scrum V with Nigel Owens' view. https://twitter.com/BBCScrumV/status/1373426754753290241

The analysis on Scrum V itself (from 21:16) is a bit one-eyed since it doesn't focus much on the repeated infringements in the red zone or the disputed groundings, but NO is fairly clear that Liam Williams was not off his feet. See https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/rugby-union/56418193

He's very clear that the non-awarded penalty try was an incorrect call too.

So, my question is, was that such a great performance from Luke Pearce after all? Surely the big calls (and both these were match defining) have to be right? It cannot just be about communication.

As someone commented earlier, it would be interesting to be in on the debrief.

NO is becoming the Kaplan des nos jours

 

[DocY]

So, my question is, was that such a great performance from Luke Pearce after all? Surely the big calls (and both these were match defining) have to be right? It cannot just be about communication.

There are two aspects to look at: the management and 'getting the decisions right', and by in large there's not a lot of difference in the latter at international level. In this case, most of the praise is coming for the game management (which, IMO, was exceptional).

There are always mistakes in games, but it's important to look at the reasons behind those mistakes and a mistake is not always a bad decision (and a 'correct' call is not always a good decision).

From here on I'm speculating:

In the LW case, he (and we) have all seen repeated similar offences by Wales, then he sees something that looks a lot like an offence and what do you think's going through his mind? He has a very short time to think about what to do and might not have had the best view of the incident. It's not a great decision - replays have shown it to be wrong - but very understandable and had he got it right there and then I'd have classed it as a 'very good' decision.

The non-PT. He's made a lot of use of the TMO already, including just looking at a possible try in the same passage of play. Probably reluctant to do so again, particularly for a grey area. He may have thought he had a good enough view of the incident that he didn't need to. Yes, in hindsight he probably should have gone to the TMO but that might not have changed his decision.
But again, it was something he had to judge very quickly while still playing advantage so maybe a wrong decision, but not necessarily a bad one.

 

[KoolFork]

Looking beyond referees, do you think the average Joe would accept that the wrong decision wasn't a bad one? This match was watched by over 7m people. We all know refereeing is difficult and that some decisions will not be 'correct', but the review system is there for the big decisions. Isn't this a key factor in professional games?

We might also consider that Nigel Owens is very popular with the rugby public, so he must have been doing something right? People know who is and he's engaging and, with luck, his continuing participation will widen people's understanding. Kaplan has some interesting ideas to make refereeing better too.

I don't know if it's a common view on here to knock former referees who speak out, but it seems a bit short-sighted. (Although I imagine there are some Irishmen who still haven't forgiven JK for that quick throw-in in Cardiff.)

 

[KoolFork]

Kaplan's thoughts from 2015 - available on https://rugbyreferee.net/2015/05/21/more-ruthless-approach-to-referee-efficiency-required-kaplan/

[h=1]More ruthless approach to referee efficiency required – Kaplan[/h][FONT=&quot]

It’s not unusual these days for referees to be in the spotlight for all the wrong reasons. In fact, it’s more likely that there will be more controversy in the coming weeks and months because not enough is being done to help them. It is pointless to axe referees for one week after weeks and months of inept performances. It is merely staving off the next public outcry.
Members of the public have lost faith in the ability of some officials to get it right, and so have the players and teams. The media are constantly scurrying to paint the positives when in actual fact there have been some inept performances, which have had a direct result not only on outcome of a fixture, but the competition itself. Each time long-overdue action is taken, it smacks of crisis management on the part of the authorities.
There should have been remedial steps put in place to help referees a long time ago, and a far more ruthless approach taken in the pursuit of excellence. There is not enough synergy, not enough coherent preparation and not enough integrity in a failing system, and the poor referee is left to try pick up the pieces.
They need more attention, better remuneration and more coaching. The present system has got bogged down and is now running way behind the needs of the modern game. It’s not all doom and gloom, though: there are some referees who have grown very nicely into their roles, such as Angus Gardner of Australia and New Zealand’s Mike Fraser, who have shown remarkable improvement through hard work and application. When Gardner has made a mistake, as he did a couple of weeks ago in Melbourne, it is easier to forgive. Indeed, the same can be said of Glen Jackson — usually a steady performer with a great feel for the game as a former player — who made a howler with television match official (TMO) Vinny Munro, which probably denied the Chiefs a vital victory against the Hurricanes this past weekend.
Australia’s Rohan Hoffmann has been axed for his part in the Waratahs-Sharks debacle, but in truth it should have happened ages ago. What was the difference between that and the Hurricanes-Stormers match a few weeks ago? Nothing. This is clearly not a matter of confidence. Consequently, it is no surprise to me that there are only four referees from the southern hemisphere at the Rugby World Cup. They are generally not good enough. So, how could it be sorted out?

• Referee management must take responsibility for systemic failure by looking to be far more progressive in helping referees and consequently far more ruthless in selection.
• Throw some cash at the problem and stop trying to put out fires. Make sure you get the right quality of individual to do the work required, whether it be the coach, the TMO, or the referee.
• Get someone who is prepared to interface between the referees and the rest of the stakeholders, such as the media and the public, to ensure a better flow of information. The referee will have to accept the consequences when he gets it wrong, but it would lead to far greater credibility.
• Introduce the player-coach challenge, such as the one at Varsity Cup, thus giving our customers a better deal.
• I feel that the logistical and financial gains that are made by the present merit-based system are possibly antiquated. Rugby is saving money through referees staying at home. While the thinking is that referees travelling less is good for their mental state and, as a result, performance, there is still a perception that a referee officiating a team from his country is likely to be biased. It’s either neutrality, or …
• Get a referee coach. Referees meet once a year for a few days and then very few times after that. Employ the top eight referees and tell them they are going to referee all the games. That way there will be a far better chance of consistency in application, and far less political meddling.
• Transform the law book into something much simpler. There are a lot of laws in the law book that we knowingly don’t apply, yet they’re written in the same ink. If we’re not going to apply them, why don’t we get rid of them? • Stop using this competition to develop for the next tier. There are far too many substandard referees.
• We must get a clearer picture of what should be happening at scrum time, and what the referees should be aiming for. I know from experience that there are so many dissenting voices that it leads to confusion.
• Make sure there is a credible judiciary, whose judgments are perceived to be consistent and protect the integrity of the competition.

First published by Business Day Live
[/FONT]

 

[Rich_NL]

I can't help feeling that for both of those, it would have been better to NOT have an on-field decision, but go back to allowing the ref to ask the TMO :"try or No try"
That would have led to No-try in both cases, and felt more equitable.

Or have the default call be no-try. Doubt about grounding = 5m attacking scrum

If the ref has no doubt he doesn't need to check. If the TMO has no doubt then it is awarded.

 

[belladonna]

I'm with Nigel Owens on this:

1. The PT was nailed on, 7 points to Wales and YC to France.
2. Liam Williams was a non-penalty, so no 2nd YC for Wales
3. The penalty against Wales No 10 for high tackle was wrong as the contact was only shoulder.

It's unfortunate that these decisions were not made correctly as the first two certainly had a direct influence on the outcome of the match.

It's also sad to see the French player faking his reaction as if he'd been neck tackled - not what you want to see in rugby, and ironically this is exactly what the French coach accused Wales of in the post-match interview.

The YC against Falatau was interesting as he didn't change his line, or speed, and was making his way back to onside without looking at the play, and the French SH ran in front him him and caused the collision, drawing the penalty. I wondered if this was similar to others we've seen plenty of, where they have been called as, "No, I'm not going to give you a penalty for running into him" - so perhaps this was just clever play by France to draw it.

Wales could of course have made life easier for themselves by not making so many repeated infringements in the red zone, and yes refereeing is a hard job, and we are all just human.

Oh, and yeah, I think it's pretty obvious why it makes sense to give a little more credence to people who actually HAVE been international refs, like Nigel Owens and Jonathan Kaplan - even if (when) they are outspoken