Equity

RemainingInTheGame


Referees in Australia
Joined
May 16, 2022
Messages
140
Post Likes
95
Current Referee grade:
Level 1
Not at all.

If you're saying you, as the referee, don't ever get involved when you know a player is gaming the system, then you're saying you ignore players who are intentionally time wasting such as faking needing to re-tie their boots, faking injuries, illegally slowing dead ball down at opposition's opportunities, and numerous other tricks players may try to get cheeky with. None of which is in the spirit of the game.

Hard for me to believe you have 0 involvement of any of the kind.
I hear you, but there are things you can do, and things you can't do.

If it's material:

- Re-Tie boots: Play on. (If scrum and it's a tight 5 player I'd probably stand there and look annoyed - if it happened again, or was material (i.e. last minutes of game) I'd probably just stop the clock (our local competition rules say not to stop clock for injuries, and this is not an injury....) or for the second time / on the back of ongoing behaviour, award a free kick for time wasting.

- Illegally slowly ball down: Sanctions are available to you to manage this (throwing the ball away, time wasting etc...)

- Fake injury: I never get involved with this. If medic is on field, ask if it's possible to move player off field to continue play, otherwise I act on what the player/coach/medic is telling me. If questioned by the opposition captain I'd tell them what I had been told, and advise them to take it up through their club officials or in the car park (joking obviously....).
 
Last edited:

Phil E


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
16,136
Post Likes
2,409
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
Once the ball is already dead, the referee may allow time for :
a. Replacement of players.
b. Replacing or repairing players clothing.
c. Re-tying a boot-lace.
d. Retrieving the ball.
 

Marc Wakeham


Referees in Wales
Joined
Jan 5, 2018
Messages
2,849
Post Likes
888
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Not at all.

If you're saying you, as the referee, don't ever get involved when you know a player is gaming the system, then you're saying you ignore players who are intentionally time wasting such as faking needing to re-tie their boots, faking injuries, illegally slowing dead ball down at opposition's opportunities, and numerous other tricks players may try to get cheeky with. None of which is in the spirit of the game.

Hard for me to believe you have 0 involvement of any of the kind.
We are talking ,VERY SPECIFICALLY, about injury and player safety. There is a MASSIVE difference between that and a player needing to "re-tie" his boots. IF you can't see the difference they I do worry for players who you referee. Sorry if that offends but safety is paramount
 

jdeagro


Referees in America
Joined
Mar 6, 2012
Messages
367
Post Likes
72
Current Referee grade:
Level 1
A decision on what is a "fake" injury has safety consequences, which trump spirit of the game consequences. As referees, it's not our job (or right) to make medical assessments.
Again, it seems like what I have said continues to be lost, since nothing I have said so far regards this. 🤷‍♂️
 
Last edited:

jdeagro


Referees in America
Joined
Mar 6, 2012
Messages
367
Post Likes
72
Current Referee grade:
Level 1
We are talking ,VERY SPECIFICALLY, about injury and player safety. There is a MASSIVE difference between that and a player needing to "re-tie" his boots. IF you can't see the difference they I do worry for players who you referee.
I was very specifically clear that I'm not talking about injury and that's a separate case. It's quite surprising how easily that's been lost by multiple people here in their responses. I don't recall the exact original scenario / query of this tangential thread, but if you want to carry on about a potential injury scenario, something I haven't been discussing so far, then I suppose there's not much else for us to discuss.

Sorry if that offends but safety is paramount
Agreed safety is paramount. Not offended, just mildly annoyed how easily the meaning of what I said could be accidentally twisted by reactionary responses. Cheers!
 

Marc Wakeham


Referees in Wales
Joined
Jan 5, 2018
Messages
2,849
Post Likes
888
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
If a player is faking an injury he runs the risk of me saying "he can't continue in my opinion replace him please!"
 

Marc Wakeham


Referees in Wales
Joined
Jan 5, 2018
Messages
2,849
Post Likes
888
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Again, it seems like what I have said continues to be lost, since nothing I have said so far regards this. 🤷‍♂️
Do you think it might be you? It seems a lot our your posts are being "misunderstood". There's a thought.
 
Last edited:

jdeagro


Referees in America
Joined
Mar 6, 2012
Messages
367
Post Likes
72
Current Referee grade:
Level 1
Do you think it might be you? It seems a lot our your posts are being "miss-understood". There's a thought.
I mean this all the same single conversation. What I've written is quite clear in putting injuries aside from this discussion, in the context of uncontested scrums. So again, happy to discuss further if that's the conversation you'd like to have. Otherwise I don't know what your goal is in replying to me.
 
Last edited:

Marc Wakeham


Referees in Wales
Joined
Jan 5, 2018
Messages
2,849
Post Likes
888
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
I mean this all the same single conversation. What I've written is quite clear in putting injuries aside from this discussion, in the context of uncontested scrums. So again, happy to discuss further if that's the conversation you'd like to have. Otherwise I don't know what your goal is in replying to me.
Clearly, from your moans, a lot of us are not getting your meaning. Now the problem could lie with all those misunderstanding you OR it could be that your message is not as clear as you think.

Just something for you to ponder on.
 

jdeagro


Referees in America
Joined
Mar 6, 2012
Messages
367
Post Likes
72
Current Referee grade:
Level 1
Clearly, from your moans, a lot of us are not getting your meaning. Now the problem could lie with all those misunderstanding you OR it could be that your message is not as clear as you think.

Just something for you to ponder on.
Flip a coin I guess mate. Cheers!
 

Rich_NL

Rugby Expert
Joined
Apr 13, 2015
Messages
1,627
Post Likes
505
Again, it seems like what I have said continues to be lost, since nothing I have said so far regards this. 🤷‍♂️

You said that you wouldn't allow scrums to go uncontested if you believed the players were gaming the system, post #37. In #45 you're saying that you'd need a 'good reason' to go uncontested. This means that you're judging whether or not scrums are safe to continue over and above the requests/reports from the people actually involved in the scrums. Now, you do say for a safety concern you'd go uncontested... but that puts you in the position of judging whether a request is sincere or pulling the wool over your eyes.

The point is, if a scrum goes horribly wrong and the captain says "I asked the ref to go uncontested but he insisted we keep going" at the inquest, saying "I thought he was gaming the system" isn't going to exonerate you, or get the tighthead out of a wheelchair.
 

Marc Wakeham


Referees in Wales
Joined
Jan 5, 2018
Messages
2,849
Post Likes
888
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
You said that you wouldn't allow scrums to go uncontested if you believed the players were gaming the system, post #37. In #45 you're saying that you'd need a 'good reason' to go uncontested. This means that you're judging whether or not scrums are safe to continue over and above the requests/reports from the people actually involved in the scrums. Now, you do say for a safety concern you'd go uncontested... but that puts you in the position of judging whether a request is sincere or pulling the wool over your eyes.

The point is, if a scrum goes horribly wrong and the captain says "I asked the ref to go uncontested but he insisted we keep going" at the inquest, saying "I thought he was gaming the system" isn't going to exonerate you, or get the tighthead out of a wheelchair.
Spot on.
 

jdeagro


Referees in America
Joined
Mar 6, 2012
Messages
367
Post Likes
72
Current Referee grade:
Level 1
Now, you do say for a safety concern you'd go uncontested... but that puts you in the position of judging whether a request is sincere or pulling the wool over your eyes.
You're assuming I'm putting one over the other.

In other words, if a player tells me they need to go uncontested because of a safety reason, then we will go uncontested. If a player just says I want to go uncontested but doesn't give me any reason when I ask for one, then as I already stated in my earlier replies, with lack of a reason to go uncontested why would one go uncontested?...furthermore if there's lack of a reason other than it's obvious they want to game the system at this particular scrum. Otherwise a reason can easily be provided when asked for one.

It's rather simple.
 

Rich_NL

Rugby Expert
Joined
Apr 13, 2015
Messages
1,627
Post Likes
505
Oh, I see, that wasn't a possibility I (or seemingly anyone else) entertained. Do you have players who ask to go uncontested and then shrug when you ask why? I've never come across that in years as a (tight five) player or a ref, but it might be a local thing.
 

jdeagro


Referees in America
Joined
Mar 6, 2012
Messages
367
Post Likes
72
Current Referee grade:
Level 1
Oh, I see, that wasn't a possibility I (or seemingly anyone else) entertained. Do you have players who ask to go uncontested and then shrug when you ask why? I've never come across that in years as a (tight five) player or a ref, but it might be a local thing.
I don't ref much these days, to be honest. But I can foresee that being a case locally or even the captain being naively honest about not wanting to get plowed into the in-goal, at the level I play at. Especially if we're considering lower age groups.

To be fair though, Marc's original scenario being so direct, appears to fit that case:
You award a PK 6 or 7 mtrs out. The attacking team opt for a scrum. At this point the defending team say: "We are going uncontested".

Perhaps with more details it could be interpreted in a multitude of different ways. But as it currently stands, no good reason has been provided to go uncontested, and it's quite clear what the reason is for this scenario alone with just the information given. Again, more details could change the scenario and what the outcome should be / what my response would be.
 

jdeagro


Referees in America
Joined
Mar 6, 2012
Messages
367
Post Likes
72
Current Referee grade:
Level 1
Also here's the converse to that too, to prove my point.

If you're telling me that as a ref, we shouldn't question why a team is requesting to go uncontested (especially particularly at the moment around a ~5m PK scrum), and just accept their request blindly, then as a player I'm going to make sure I remember to use that one every time my team has to take a 5m defending scrum, unless I'm sure we've been keen on scrums all game.

I guarantee the ref of my match will minimally question why, if not just automatically reject my obviously reasoned request. But perhaps different mindsets here locally. 🤷‍♂️
 
Last edited:

Rich_NL

Rugby Expert
Joined
Apr 13, 2015
Messages
1,627
Post Likes
505
I'm not telling you anything, besides that in nearly 40 years of rugby I've never had it happen in a game I was in, so I didn't consider you meant that as the case. That's all.

I have been in a match in the weaker scrum, where our captain wasn't confident the ref could keep the scrum safe and called for uncontested scrums. What would you do in this case, as the ref?
 

jdeagro


Referees in America
Joined
Mar 6, 2012
Messages
367
Post Likes
72
Current Referee grade:
Level 1
I'm not telling you anything, besides that in nearly 40 years of rugby I've never had it happen in a game I was in, so I didn't consider you meant that as the case. That's all.
Sorry, not you directly. I meant that rhetorically. But hopefully what I'm saying is clearer.

I have been in a match in the weaker scrum, where our captain wasn't confident the ref could keep the scrum safe and called for uncontested scrums. What would you do in this case, as the ref?
Again, if the captain felt there was a safety issue and wanted to go uncontested because of it, then sure thing, no problem. Even if they felt it was due to my reffing - though I wouldn't need that level of detail, I'd just want to know they felt there was a safety issue and it wasn't an arbitrary ask.

Funny enough, I've been the player in that situation. I was the hooker at the time, our put in, and the opposing hooker kept cheating his alignment so that his head was straight on with mine and we'd knock heads on engagement. Next scrum I tried adjusting my front row a step to the left, and then the opposing hooker did the same to make a problem again. At one point we moved so many steps before the engagement that we were like 10m from the mark. I tell the ref what's happening but he didn't want to listen to me and had my team replace me with another hooker who subsequently had the same problems resulting in collapsed scrums.

When the ref made me leave the scrum I calmly told him "this is a safety issue, we should go uncontested" but he just ignored me. I wasn't the captain at the time so I guess he had no interest in my input. But I did complain to our ref society after about what happened, and the severity of how dangerous that could've evolved, asking they focus on scrum training. They were very receptive on my input and did end up focusing on scrum training shortly after that. (I was a registered ref at the time too but not very active, so I received the announcements etc.). So long story short, I do appreciate the importance of listening when there's a safety issue, regardless of why there's one.
 

Rich_NL

Rugby Expert
Joined
Apr 13, 2015
Messages
1,627
Post Likes
505
Understood, and that's a lot clearer, thanks! My earlier perception (and I think that of others) was that you would respond in the way that ref did, which is clearly Not Good.
 
Top