Gloucester v Bath

[Pegleg]

As long as "manage" doesn't become 'abdicate'

Ie.
Followed by : 6 you also watch your binding in the .......
Then ... 8 can you watch your ....
Then .... LHP, please move your bind off the arm ......
Oh no.... Not you now THP. Please bind correctly ......

Each with individual chats ,
Zzzzzzzzzzzz, tick tock

I Nope not.
Tell both captains you expect all forwards to bind legally , they all know what they are doing & why, so, just grow a pair & deal with miscreants and cut all this ' player coaching' crap out.

I don't see that all this referee perma chat at scrum time is working, ....... go on then someone, try convincing me it is .

Spot on!

 

[Daftmedic]

Spot on!

This is taken from the Gospel of Rugby according to St Owens.

 

[menace]

I must admit that I'm not a big fan of NO talking to players as if they're petulant little boys. I'm surprised someone hasn't told him to feck off.

I'm sure if most of us spoke like that to players then our assessor would be marking us down on the communication/empathy quadrant!

 

[andyscott]

I don't see that all this referee perma chat at scrum time is working, ....... go on then someone, try convincing me it is .

Exactly just like the PMB, waste of time and energy.

 

[Pegleg]

It may well be. however, the PMB is in general either compulsory by "statute" or inference. Until that is revoked it must be done. Referees repeatedly issuing warning upon warning or "perma chat" is not. It does not work so let's stop it!

 

[Pinky]

Exactly just like the PMB, waste of time and energy.

Don't agree it is a waste of time and energy because you are setting out what you want when the teams have a reasonable chance to ask for clarification. This they do not have (chance for clarification) once the game kicks off, and you can resonably remind them about what you told them at the PMB and it allows you to move to a warning one mess earlier if you need to.

 

[Browner]

Don't agree it is a waste of time and energy because you are setting out what you want when the teams have a reasonable chance to ask for clarification. This they do not have (chance for clarification) once the game kicks off, and you can resonably remind them about what you told them at the PMB and it allows you to move to a warning one mess earlier if you need to.

I think Andy might be suggesting that even if you include something in the PMB, then current 'management vogue' still expects ( as daftmedic indicated) to go down a chat/warning dialogue.

IMO players ( and coaches) know this and exploit the same to have a few unpenaliseable stabs, if then repeated by a teammate the daftness might even be repeated.

For argument sake, imagine that NO's lecture had taken place at PMB .... Then what?, more chat or.. action? Pros dont need a PMB!

These Pros know the deal, and are using up their 'free unpunished' lives & wasting viewer/game time zzzzzzzz

Early immediate sanction gets my vote. Then we will see the same 'thereafter' compliance that we invariably get after their final (4th) warning etc... so we know they CAN do it. It'd just happen earlier ....win win win win me thinks.

 

[RobLev]

I must admit that I'm not a big fan of NO talking to players as if they're petulant little boys.

On the other hand, if they're going to behave like naughty little schoolboys[*], speaking to them like that is exactly what is called for; ticks the empathy/communication box for me, he's speaking to them on their level. One can take it this isn't the first failed scrum from what is said.

*By cheating when they think teacher/the refereee isn 't looking or they think they can get away with it and dignifying it with the title "dark arts".

I'm surprised someone hasn't told him to feck off.

YC perfectly justified for that.

I'm sure if most of us spoke like that to players then our assessor would be marking us down on the communication/empathy quadrant!

See above.

 

[OB..]

On the other hand, if they're going to behave like naughty little schoolboys
[*], speaking to them like that is exactly what is called for; ticks the empathy/communication box for me, he's speaking to them on their level. One can take it this isn't the first failed scrum from what is said.

*By cheating when they think teacher/the refereee isn 't looking or they think they can get away with it and dignifying it with the title "dark arts".

Not really. He is talking down to them, whereas he should be encouraging them to behave like adults.

 

[Pegleg]

He's making the point in a way that works for him. I would not do so for me. Act like kids get treated like it. I have no problem with his aproach (or Walsh, Barnes etc) if it works then do it. If it does not? change it.

 

[crossref]

He's making the point in a way that works for him. I would not do so for me. Act like kids get treated like it. I have no problem with his aproach (or Walsh, Barnes etc) if it works then do it. If it does not? change it.

At some point I think it will backfire on NO. At the moment players put up with it - presumably because he's NO - but sooner or later someone will crack, I reckon.

 

[ChrisR]

And what then?

 

[Pegleg]

At some point I think it will backfire on NO. At the moment players put up with it - presumably because he's NO - but sooner or later someone will crack, I reckon.

And do what?

It works for his because the is that sort of a person. If you take the P, he will respond in kind but with a smile. As I said it works for him. It would not for me ( at least not to that extent).

 

[crossref]

what then ? he'll have one of those games where he doesn't carry the players with him, and instead of the normal 'St nige' stuff in the paper there will be 'where did Owens go wrong?' and he'll miss out on the world cup final ...or somethng.

 

[Pegleg]

And there are not those games now? Time will come when his is not one of the top refs. That happens to all of them. Not about his style more about waning ability.

 

[OB..]

He's making the point in a way that works for him. I would not do so for me. Act like kids get treated like it. I have no problem with his aproach (or Walsh, Barnes etc) if it works then do it. If it does not? change it.

He is talking down to them, and I do not believe players will appreciate that. It is not a good way to get co-operation.

 

[ChrisR]

If he's getting it right the players will accept his style. However, if he's having a bad day and getting it wrong then his style will not be a substitute for substance.

 

[Dave Sherwin]

If he's getting it right the players will accept his style. However, if he's having a bad day and getting it wrong then his style will not be a substitute for substance.

I think this is the same for all of us. There are days when your normal style doesn't seem to be working, so you revert to other management tools. More often than not, because they are not in your immediate repertoire, they don't quite work either and suddenly you're driving home thinking, "well that was a rum day, wasn't it?". I suspect we've all had those.

 

[Pegleg]

He is talking down to them, and I do not believe players will appreciate that. It is not a good way to get co-operation.

Well he does get co-operation in most cases (certainly more than your average bear). So I think the players have less problems with it that your goodself. Where is your evidence of him not getting co-operation from players that don't appreciate his style? I can't see any less co-operation for Nigel when compared to other top referees.

I'm guessing his assessors / advisors have not got that much of a problem with his style either.

- - - Updated - - -

If he's getting it right the players will accept his style. However, if he's having a bad day and getting it wrong then his style will not be a substitute for substance.

Spot on!

 

[menace]

He is talking down to them, and I do not believe players will appreciate that. It is not a good way to get co-operation.

I agree. He's coming across as if hes a high school principal/police sargeant rather than someone who's suppose to be a game facilitator.