5m or 22 - should the referee change his mind?

[PaulDG]

Early in the first half of the match with the score at 0-0, gold have a scrum about 7m out. They win the scrum and pass back to FB within the in-goal. Blue flanker bundles gold FB over the dead ball line before he can clear the ball.

Referee awards a 22 drop out. Within seconds (with the ball still dead) and in response to quizzical looks from blue he calls out: "sorry lads, I got that wrong but I've given it now so we're going with the 22".

What do we think?

 

[SimonSmith]

Level? League or friendly? Lower level and friendlier, I'd be more inclined to change my mind.
Higher and seriouser ( ) he made the right decision

 

[PaulDG]

Level? League or friendly? Lower level and friendlier, I'd be more inclined to change my mind.
Higher and seriouser ( ) he made the right decision

L9/10 friendly.

 

[Deeps]

L9/10 friendly.

'No, I have got that quite wrong haven't I: it's an attacking 5 metre scrum to blue opposite where it went into in goal, sorry chaps my mistake.'

Hopefully not to make any more!

Whenever there is activity in goal, put down a memory marker as to who was responsible for putting it in goal in order to determine what happens next.

 

[OB..]

1999 Law 6.A.5
During a match, the referee is the sole judge of fact and of law. All his decisions are binding on the players. He cannot alter a decision unless he observes that a touch judge's flag is raised or before he has received a report from either or both of his touch judges relating to Section 4 (a).

2000 Law 6.A.7 (now 6.A.6)
The referee may alter a decision when a touch judge has raised the flag to signal touch or an act of foul play.

The subtle shift of emphasis may imply a relaxation of the earlier strict prohibition on changing a decision. I hope so. I see no advantage to anybody in sticking with a decision that is known to be wrong unless the other team has already taken action on it.

In 1909 Rupert Jeffares penalised Jack Bancroft of Wales for lying on the ball. It became clear that Bancroft had been knocked out by the Scotland foot-rush he was trying to stop. However by law the decision stood. Harsh? Tricky. Did he hold on before or after he was knocked out?!

 

[Deeps]

The subtle shift of emphasis may imply a relaxation of the earlier strict prohibition on changing a decision. I hope so. I see no advantage to anybody in sticking with a decision that is known to be wrong unless the other team has already taken action on it.

In the situation posed above, where the referee has suffered a severe if temporary cerebral aberration and no action has followed, then it is probably in order for him to attempt to retrieve some dignity by an apology and the correct decision, providing he does not make a habit of it.

 

[Emmet Murphy]

I heard once that in a Guiness Premiership (or whoever the sponsors were back then) a referee awarded a try after a defending player had grounded the ball in his own in-goal. Apparently, both teams' kit were covered in mud and so the mistake the referee made was understandable to some extent. The try stood so I was told.

 

[McDuck]

I've overturned a call, pinged a tackler for not rolling away, only to find tackler had been knocked out in the tackle.

Overturned the pen and gave the scrum.

Wrong in law yes, right call? I'd make it again.

 

[OB..]

I've overturned a call, pinged a tackler for not rolling away, only to find tackler had been knocked out in the tackle.

Overturned the pen and gave the scrum.

Wrong in law yes, right call? I'd make it again.

It is no longer 1909!

I suggested previously that the law may not be as strict as it used to be.

Mistaken identity is surely a case where the old mantra Safety - EQUITY - Law should apply.

 

[ex-lucy]

toughie
i know loads of refs who will change their minds ... but wont own up to it.
we all make mistakes ... some are easily forgotten or due to ignorance of players are not noticed.

 

[Greg Collins]

big smile, followed by what deeps said in #4 does it for me. If 31 people know you've got it wrong and all that....

 

[beckett50]

Go with Deeps

 

[stuart3826]

I make a point in telling the players at the pre match briefing - I won't change a decision, right or wrong, under any circumstances. I've found it works well, and have been complimented on it by observers

 

[Toby Warren]

I make a point in telling the players at the pre match briefing - I won't change a decision, right or wrong, under any circumstances. I've found it works well, and have been complimented on it by observers

So what happens if you make a mistake - for example the 5m scrum or 22 - then 10 minutes later you need to make the same call. Do you give the 'correct' call this time and deal with the 'but sir all we want is consistancy' or do you make the same 'wrong' call again?

 

[OB..]

I make a point in telling the players at the pre match briefing - I won't change a decision, right or wrong, under any circumstances. I've found it works well, and have been complimented on it by observers

A hard line view I do not share.

Obviously you do not want to give the players cause to believe they can change your decision by arguing, but I see no need to mention it at briefings. Deal with it on the pitch if it happens.

 

[Davet]

I think over briefing paints you into too tight a corner.

If I make a decision which I know, a split second later is wrong then I have always apologised and corrected myself. It does happen to almost all refs on occasion and to simply say - yes it was wrong but I have to stick to it because the laws say so strikes me as far too officious - and the players would simply despair.

Of course its important not to allow players / coaches / spectators to imfluence and change your mind - but when you KNOW right away, then fix it rightaway.

 

[Deeps]

I think over briefing paints you into too tight a corner.

If I make a decision which I know, a split second later is wrong then I have always apologised and corrected myself. It does happen to almost all refs on occasion and to simply say - yes it was wrong but I have to stick to it because the laws say so strikes me as far too officious - and the players would simply despair.

Of course its important not to allow players / coaches / spectators to imfluence and change your mind - but when you KNOW right away, then fix it rightaway.

Dave is absolutely right in everything he says as I have learned from bitter experience. The less you say at the brief the better for any number of reasons; you can sort most of it out on the field as you go. Make best use of downtime to get your points across such as line outs or when getting ready for a scrum when the ball has gone walkabout.

Recently, I had recourse to use such a line out to say 'C'mon lads, let's have a decent gap please, my assessor's got a thing about the gap and reckons you should be able to fit two fridges down there, side by side.'

Later on, I asked again 'C'mon lads, I couldn't fit a minivan down there.' Immediately, a chorus hit me 'I thought it was two f'kin fridges ref; be f'kin consistent please!'

Referee's make mistakes all the time; hopefully not critical ones and not too often but I think it is best to own up if it's blatant and right there to avoid despair and to show that you are human and man enough to admit your error. In my naval training I was once told 'Never explain, never apologise' but that might have been an old WWI adage for it's not relevant now in the Service or on the rugby field.

 

[OB..]

If you do admit it when you have made a mistake, they are more likely to trust you on other occasions.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

I invariably make the same mistake every other game or so - that is offering a choice of line or scrum for knock ons in the lineout (usually just once, not the first LO but sometimes later when I "switch off" :wow: if there have been a few not straights or not 5s) - I have never been taken up on it and always correct myself as soon as I've said it:biggrin: , as we go to the 15m line. (Inside I'm saying shit shit shit ) - no one has taken issue with it and as some have commented it shows you're human - I try and laugh it off with some self deprecating remark! It's a good job I've never been miked up!!

 

[Andyr8603]

For me if you can change an error 'in-law' quickly, then you should do it, like the 22m drop-out, 5m scrum situation. Where I will not change my mind is on matters of opinion, i.e. I feel the throw is not straight, or I believe it is foul play, or that the ball went forward, etc. But when you are clearly wrong on a matter of fact from the law book, you look completely stupid to continue with it if you and everybody knows it is wrong, or am I missing some unwritten rule that Referees are not allowed to be human?