2 incidents - Wallabies v Springboks 18/9/21

UpandUnder

Getting to know the game
Joined
Nov 14, 2016
Messages
72
Post Likes
27
I feel like we are starting to see quite a disconnect between World Rugby, referees and the judiciary. Everyone needs to be singing from the same hymn sheet for foul play.
 

Jarrod Burton


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
725
Post Likes
208
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
"Whilst the Australian player was vulnerable, the contact with the head was not intentional or highly reckless. Wiese was shown to be grabbing for the ball rather than targeting the head of the Australian player. The low force, modest speed, indirect contact and the turning motion used by Weise, meant that the situation was not a highly dangerous one [when compared to the World Rugby examples]."

That is (in my opinion) an absolute cop out by the judiciary and a disconnect from what we would see/expect at lower levels. Could a player who received a RC for a high shot after having their hand deflect off the ball now argue that I was targeting the ball rather than the players head? And the fact that Weise was turning makes it reckless as he essentially removes/reduces the opportunity to grasp the player or maintain good vision of the contact area.
 

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,680
Post Likes
1,760
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
I feel like we are starting to see quite a disconnect between World Rugby, referees and the judiciary. Everyone needs to be singing from the same hymn sheet for foul play.

And much as I disagree with this particular judiciary decision, I also disagree with World Rugby's obsession with outcome driven decision making. As I pointed out to DickieE in another thread, he makes dozens of decisions based on his judgement of intent in every game he referees. Why can't World Rugby trust him to make judgement of intent calls for the rest?

No. Instead, he has to have his hands tied behind his back while he works through some some idiotic bloody flow chart to arrive at the result he probably would have arrived at 99% of the time anyway.

WRT to the thread I mentioned here, I respect Romain Poite's methology for making the decision he did, and the way he went about in.

• no pissing around with flow charts or protocols
• no endless replays or back & forth with the TMO
• no consultations with the ARs...

"Ces't Rouge" Tu pars!..... straight from the "Fred Howard Red Card Protocol" :norc:

I'd like to think he learned from his mistakes on the 2017 Lions tour.
 
Last edited:

SimonSmith


Referees in Australia
Staff member
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
9,335
Post Likes
1,440
That is (in my opinion) an absolute cop out by the judiciary and a disconnect from what we would see/expect at lower levels. Could a player who received a RC for a high shot after having their hand deflect off the ball now argue that I was targeting the ball rather than the players head? And the fact that Weise was turning makes it reckless as he essentially removes/reduces the opportunity to grasp the player or maintain good vision of the contact area.

This smacks to me of an evolving philosophy about how foul play and players are treated. The use of the word intent, and the desire to exculpate players - which strikes me as a deliberate stance - gives me the feeling that SANZAAR Judiciary, and SANZAAR as a whole, are driving in one direction.

This feels to me to be the spiritual cousin of the wanky 20 minute red card.
 

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,680
Post Likes
1,760
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
This smacks to me of an evolving philosophy about how foul play and players are treated. The use of the word intent, and the desire to exculpate players - which strikes me as a deliberate stance - gives me the feeling that SANZAAR Judiciary, and SANZAAR as a whole, are driving in one direction.

This feels to me to be the spiritual cousin of the wanky 20 minute red card.

Keep in mind its only 20 minutes for the team... the player is still sent off for the rest of the match, and as a result, its really a forced substitution.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,804
Post Likes
3,145
Keep in mind its only 20 minutes for the team... the player is still sent off for the rest of the match, and as a result, its really a forced substitution.

a forced substitution with consequences as the player still gets cited / banned as normal ...
 

SimonSmith


Referees in Australia
Staff member
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
9,335
Post Likes
1,440
Keep in mind its only 20 minutes for the team... the player is still sent off for the rest of the match, and as a result, its really a forced substitution.

I was fully aware of what it was when I called it wanky!
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,804
Post Likes
3,145
We are moving to an intention based system, which is ok, but by stealth , which is silly
 

Flish


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 2, 2013
Messages
1,520
Post Likes
351
Location
Durham
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
Either way, I stand by my earlier comment, WR need to openly, clearly, communicate what they want us to achieve and how they want us to measure that. Then we can be consistent all the way up, through the entire process, there should not be surprises
 

Jarrod Burton


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
725
Post Likes
208
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
We are moving to an intention based system, which is ok, but by stealth , which is silly

And we as referee's need to witness enough of the lead up to an event to understand intention with a single view and watching 10 other players/interactions/actions. Some deliberate foul play is clear as day, but intentionality with a high tackle which slips up is not always as clear IMO. And looking at intention would seem to throw the High Contact framework in the bin as I don't recall there being any consideration/mitigation specifically for intentionality - although you could argue a lack of change of height to match the BC could be construed as being intentional.
 

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,680
Post Likes
1,760
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
And we as referee's need to witness enough of the lead up to an event to understand intention with a single view and watching 10 other players/interactions/actions. Some deliberate foul play is clear as day, but intentionality with a high tackle which slips up is not always as clear IMO. And looking at intention would seem to throw the High Contact framework in the bin as I don't recall there being any consideration/mitigation specifically for intentionality - although you could argue a lack of change of height to match the BC could be construed as being intentional.

I wonder how referees were ever able to make a decision back when they didn't have a "High Contact framework" as a crutch to lean on?

Well, we managed just fine without it thanks.
 

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
14,106
Post Likes
2,131
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Well, we managed just fine without it thanks.

Did we? I seem to remember plenty of inconsistency between refs & decisions (which of course the framework was designed to address)
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,804
Post Likes
3,145
And we as referee's need to witness enough of the lead up to an event to understand intention with a single view and watching 10 other players/interactions/actions. Some deliberate foul play is clear as day, but intentionality with a high tackle which slips up is not always as clear IMO. And looking at intention would seem to throw the High Contact framework in the bin as I don't recall there being any consideration/mitigation specifically for intentionality - although you could argue a lack of change of height to match the BC could be construed as being intentional.

And yet isn't the purpose of it all to cchange player behaviour , which amounts to player intentions
 

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,680
Post Likes
1,760
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Did we? I seem to remember plenty of inconsistency between refs & decisions (which of course the framework was designed to address)

Keeping in mind the we are talking in a thread about professional, elite level rugby, are you seeing any improvement in consistency now, because of the high contact framework? Be honest now.

I would say the greatest improvement in consistency has been due to the use of the TMO, especially in more recent years, with reagard to foul play. The vast majority of the RC decisions we have seen since those new TMO protocols were introduced would not have been given with the referee's "one-look-make-a-decision" scenario we had beforehand.
 

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
14,106
Post Likes
2,131
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
And yet isn't the purpose of it all to cchange player behaviour , which amounts to player intentions

now that the word 'intent' is paramount, the words 'reckless' and 'careless' become irrelevant
 

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
14,106
Post Likes
2,131
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Keeping in mind the we are talking in a thread about professional, elite level rugby, are you seeing any improvement in consistency now, because of the high contact framework? Be honest now.

Yes I am. It is now de rigueur for officials to verbally walk through the process ... direct contact, degree of force, mitigating factors, etc
 

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,680
Post Likes
1,760
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
now that the word 'intent' is paramount, the words 'reckless' and 'careless' become irrelevant

Complete and utter bollocks Dickie, and you know it!

An action can be both reckless and intentional, or careless and intentional, and you can still be PK/YC/RC for an action that is reckless and/or careless if it is not intentional.

What I object to with the cock-eyed way the game is refereed now is decision making driven by outcome - a player makes contact with an opponent's head and blame MUST be laid at someone's feet.

It is the word "accidental" that has become irrelevant. I would object less to the current farce less if "was the contact a result of an accident?" was one of the questions in the flow chart.
 
Last edited:

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,680
Post Likes
1,760
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Last edited:
Top