France Vs Wales

[didds]

2. Liam Williams was a non-penalty, so no 2nd YC for Wales

but then maybe wyn Jojnes WOULD have received a YC shortly after for the collapsed scrum 5m out of course. Maybe it was LW's YC that save WJ's YC. Because it's quite amazing thet WJ didn't walk given the warning issued by LP to AWJ just prior to Falatau's YC, about too many penalties down here (or whatever he said - Ive quoted it in another thread somewhere).

 

[didds]

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)

isnt this where refs just say "dont get there in the first place" (CF wrong side after a tackle etc) ?

 

[SimonSmith]

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.)

I think there is a difference between explaining why the referee did what he or she did to improve understanding - that I entirely approve of.

Given that we think referees have about a 70% accuracy rate (let's be generous and say the top folks get to 85 - 90%) that leaves the potential for a significant number of decisions to be wrong. The more the referees get criticized, the worse it will be, and the referee will be the centre of attention in a way I don't think they should be. Nigel is also on shaky ground. He's an active referee, and still bound by WR Code and Regs. One of his predecessors, Huw Watkins, got nailed for 12 weeks (although he resigned) for questioning a yellow not being red card issued in a 7s game between Wales and Fiji.

Could someone point me in the general direction of how what NO is doing is all that different from Huw Watkins? I think NO is misusing his position.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

I think there is a difference between explaining why the referee did what he or she did to improve understanding - that I entirely approve of.

Given that we think referees have about a 70% accuracy rate (let's be generous and say the top folks get to 85 - 90%) that leaves the potential for a significant number of decisions to be wrong. The more the referees get criticized, the worse it will be, and the referee will be the centre of attention in a way I don't think they should be. Nigel is also on shaky ground. He's an active referee, and still bound by WR Code and Regs. One of his predecessors, Huw Watkins, got nailed for 12 weeks (although he resigned) for questioning a yellow not being red card issued in a 7s game between Wales and Fiji.

Could someone point me in the general direction of how what NO is doing is all that different from Huw Watkins? I think NO is misusing his position.

Totally agree. NO is going the same way as Kaplin. Totally out of order. In Huw's defence the YC was a total disgrace. But he should not have spoken on Twitter.

On the accuracy point pretty much spot on. The only counter is that the "non" penalty was a critical incident. Card situation was debatable LW's was wrong (though it looked right in real time) . Also it is pretty standard (policy?) not to keep throwing out cards. Even allowing for the PT incident and the LW card and the possible other cards. I thought the To4 had a cracking game and Wales' "luck" ran out.

 

[Balones]

Some differences between the Watkins situation and the position of NO.
NO is the WRU leading training officer for referees. From that position/role he would be expected to express opinion/rule on law interpretation. Otherwise what is the point behind the role in the first place. If I was a Welsh referee/official I would want our ‘leader’ to give his opinion on law and its application for the sake of clarity and consistency. That way the next time I go out on the pitch everyone, including players and spectators will not be surprised (hopefully) at a decision I might make. Don’t we want more of this from our ‘leaders’? I would expect my personal coach to tell me I was incorrect so I didn’t make the same mistake again. NO is simply operating at a different level to my coach, where he is in practice, the coach to the coaches. To be able to fulfil that role he had to make public statements. Communicating on an individual basis to everyone is simply not possible. He is actually paid by the WRU to give his opinion, and the fact that his videos are shown on the WR website would suggest that what is expressed there is sanctioned; or otherwise why post them?
If you notice, to a great extent NO has not been directly critical of a referee. He has been pointing out what the law is; admittedly in his opinion but his role and recognised expertise and experience would allow him to do this. I would welcome input from other leading referees that represent their union if they thought NO was incorrect in his law interpretation so that there is greater consistency across borders.
With regards to Huw Watkins, I believe he did not have any formal training role within the WRU and he was directly critical of the referee for issuing the colour of card that he did and was not argued in terms of law application. (Having said that I did think the sanction was a touch harsh.) It was also 8 years ago and I would suggest that the communicating and social media presence expectations of our leading referees have changed.
Also, my experience is that our leading professional referees from all countries are very honest and open about their performance and decisions so a public opinion wouldn’t really worry them. It is this self critical approach that has got them to the top.

 

[KoolFork]

Even allowing for the PT incident and the LW card and the possible other cards. I thought the To4 had a cracking game ...

Marc, No matter how much one might admire the communication skills and the empathy for the game shown by the officiating team, the outcome (especially in front of such a large audience) should be more important than the process? Maybe LP's view from the other side of the LW's incident was different, but I was confused from the get-go.

As you are a Cardiff referee, can you add anything to what Balones is saying about NO and the WRU?

Cheers

 

[Rich_NL]

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.

I find this interpretation of what happened a bit unusual. TF was lying on the wrong side of the ruck, got straight up and shoved the French SH from behind as he was gathering the ball, clear as day.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7VxqrZKa70&t=288s

France do nothing to draw the penalty. Faletau should have cleared the tackle area and left the SH alone.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Some differences between the Watkins situation and the position of NO.
NO is the WRU leading training officer for referees. From that position/role he would be expected to express opinion/rule on law interpretation. Otherwise what is the point behind the role in the first place. If I was a Welsh referee/official I would want our ‘leader’ to give his opinion on law and its application for the sake of clarity and consistency. That way the next time I go out on the pitch everyone, including players and spectators will not be surprised (hopefully) at a decision I might make. Don’t we want more of this from our ‘leaders’? I would expect my personal coach to tell me I was incorrect so I didn’t make the same mistake again. NO is simply operating at a different level to my coach, where he is in practice, the coach to the coaches. To be able to fulfil that role he had to make public statements. Communicating on an individual basis to everyone is simply not possible. He is actually paid by the WRU to give his opinion, and the fact that his videos are shown on the WR website would suggest that what is expressed there is sanctioned; or otherwise why post them?
If you notice, to a great extent NO has not been directly critical of a referee. He has been pointing out what the law is; admittedly in his opinion but his role and recognised expertise and experience would allow him to do this. I would welcome input from other leading referees that represent their union if they thought NO was incorrect in his law interpretation so that there is greater consistency across borders.
With regards to Huw Watkins, I believe he did not have any formal training role within the WRU and he was directly critical of the referee for issuing the colour of card that he did and was not argued in terms of law application. (Having said that I did think the sanction was a touch harsh.) It was also 8 years ago and I would suggest that the communicating and social media presence expectations of our leading referees have changed.
Also, my experience is that our leading professional referees from all countries are very honest and open about their performance and decisions so a public opinion wouldn’t really worry them. It is this self critical approach that has got them to the top.

If Nigel was speaking in his official capacity I would have some sympathy with your line of reasoning. However, there is no indications that he is giving the "WRU" viewpoint to the public.
Further more he is, as you state, "the WRU leading training officer for referees" not a WRU press officer. Perhaps he should refrain from masking critical remarks and address referees through the appropriate internal channels.

Saying a call was wrong is being tacitly critical of the person who made the call. Referee gives a penalty. "Expert" says "the call was wrong" = "the referee made a mistake". Perhaps a comment like "from my angle I could see that Liam did get to his feet before challenging for the ball. But I can't see what the referee saw" Gives an "out".

Nigel was wrong.

Yes times have changed over the last 8 years since Huw W. The rules have been toughened up and we are regularly reminded NOT to put opinions on social media etc. So HIGHER standards are now expected.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Marc, No matter how much one might admire the communication skills and the empathy for the game shown by the officiating team, the outcome (especially in front of such a large audience) should be more important than the process? Maybe LP's view from the other side of the LW's incident was different, but I was confused from the get-go.

As you are a Cardiff referee, can you add anything to what Balones is saying about NO and the WRU?

Cheers

Comment re NO in rely to Balones.

As put in that post, LP may not have had the same view as NO or others. From his view it may have looked different.

Also as previously stated we expect referees to make a few errors just as we expect players etc to do as well. As is said "The man who never made a mistake never made anything". LP, and his To4 made few and performed very well. No he was not perfect. But the only man who is goes by the name N. O. Body.
s

 

[Balones]

MW - just to clarify I was trying to make a general point about NO and not specifically to any decision. I was/am getting the feeling that several/many people on this forum believe that referees of NO’s standing should not make any public announcements. It is possibly impossible to explain the law without implying that a referee made a mistake. It is a tricky line to tread. What one of us finds objectionable others will find acceptable. I don’t always agree with NO but I am grateful that he is prepared to share his opinion for the sake of clarity and, if necessary, generate discussion about an incident or point of law.
I am sure that NO is not the WRU press officer but what he is doing is usually outside the scope of a PO. What I, and possibly you, don’t know is what exactly NO’s relationship is with the WRU and to what degree he had scope to express his opinion. If he had crossed any lines than there are usually processes and procedures that can be followed. At the moment NO may have crossed a line as far as some are concerned and I admit he has to be careful. What he hasn’t been is offensive or rude. I have found his input overall informative and hope he carefully continues as he develops his changing role within the rugby world fraternity.

 

[KoolFork]

France do nothing to draw the penalty. Faletau should have cleared the tackle area and left the SH alone.

I'm not sure I'd go with either of you! TF was the tackler, so he has to release and get away from the ball. I think he can see where the ball is and that's where AP will go. He would have been better going into a more offside position. I don't think TF shoved AP however, but he was in the wrong place.

Fair penalty. And after the warning, it was probably inevitable that it was going to be a YC.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

...What he hasn’t been is offensive or rude. ...

That is nothing to do with it though is it.

 

[KoolFork]

Yes times have changed over the last 8 years since Huw W. The rules have been toughened up and we are regularly reminded NOT to put opinions on social media etc. So HIGHER standards are now expected.

Personally, I am always wary of organisations and their disrepute defences. I have never really understood why querying the actions of other members (with reasonable cause) brings an organisation into disrepute. Isn't this just recognition of your N.O. Body comment?

No-one seemed to worry too much about criticising Pascal Gauzere a few weeks ago.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Not connected, you are missing the point completely. THat comment was about who makes mistakes nothing to do with referees speaking out. That should have been very obvious.


I'm out.

 

[Balones]

That is nothing to do with it though is it.

Just saying that those are the only grounds on which I would object to NO making a comment on another referee’s decisions.
We do however have a problem in society where perhaps the identification of an error may lead to some social media morons making inappropriate comments about the person making such an error, which is unfortunate. NO has made comments on and given explanations of law based on internationals. He has not to my knowledge made comments about refereeing decisions made at Pro14 level. Perhaps he will when he steps down from that level. Would that be acceptable? If he continues into his 60’s reffing in the West Wales lower leagues could he still not speak up? Just genuinely wondering when it would be acceptable. If he waits too long before speaking up no doubt some would then ssy he was out of touch.
I can’t really work out, judging by some of the comments made on this forum, whether people are objecting to him speaking out at all or there is objection to the manner of his input. Personally I haven’t found anything really objectionable so far.

 

[KoolFork]

Not connected, you are missing the point completely. THat comment was about who makes mistakes nothing to do with referees speaking out. That should have been very obvious.


I'm out.

Hi Marc, I didn't mean to offend or bore you. Perhaps I could have been clearer. You implicity imply that all referees make mistakes and good ones recognise this. Like Balones, I see benefits in someone like NO sharing his experience.

Happy to call it a day too.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

I can’t really work out, judging by some of the comments made on this forum, whether people are objecting to him speaking out at all or there is objection to the manner of his input. Personally I haven’t found anything really objectionable so far.

For me , and I thought I was clear on this. He should not be commenting on specific events at all. ALL WRU referees are bound by the COC incuding Nigel. IF not it should be made clear that he has a dispensation.

 

[belladonna]

ALL WRU referees are bound by the COC incuding Nigel.

Now there's a sentence that could be taken out of context :wink::biggrin:

 

[SimonSmith]

Agreed.

For me , and I thought I was clear on this. He should not be commenting on specific events at all. ALL WRU referees are bound by the COC incuding Nigel. IF not it should be made clear that he has a dispensation.

Agree.

 

[crossref]

.
I can’t really work out, judging by some of the comments made on this forum, whether people are objecting to him speaking out at all or there is objection to the manner of his input. Personally I haven’t found anything really objectionable so far.

I think it's acceptable to discuss refereeing mistakes. (I suggested before that the silly ban on discussing referees was a big part of the Sonia controversy)

I'd like to see NO take a wider view. At the moment he seems to comment mainly on the controversial incidents (and the controversial ones are - let's face it - when a mistake may have been made)
This is exactly what every other commentators talk about and his voice blends in with all the other commentators, save that we pay more attention because he is a great ref (although not necessarily a Laws nause)

I'd like him to perhaps show some special insights .. perhaps there were moments of great refereeing , or great game management that he could see, but passed most people by. Perhaps he would have insights into the ref / captain dynamics
What were the challenges to the ref ? What were the key moments

To he fair Kaplan does a bit of that

But NO is new to this game, he will get better

(I have to admit i do enjoy his blokey light-hearted YouTube videos !)