Joubert

TheBFG


Referees in England
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
4,392
Post Likes
237
Current Referee grade:
Level 6
Err, you obviously don't see what I see...

View attachment 1818

1. Left hand around the ball, right hand on the the ground away from the ball supporting his body-weight. The test is surely, if you take that hand away, would the player still be able stand. Looking at the angle of his right leg, I would say that is impossible, he would sink onto his right knee.


2. No. 10, the tackler has not yet released the ball carrier, so what is Dusutoir doing trying to rip the ball. I thought tackle guidlines were

First - the tackler must release the tackled player...

Then - the fetcher (having entered through the tackle gate, can compete for the ball.

Photo also shows very nicely the "cheap shot" from Mc on the France 10, great photo!
 

Dixie


Referees in England
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
12,772
Post Likes
338
Players don't understand decisions and rightly question, referees feel under pressure and react emotionally....
fundamental laws of the game should revolve around the idea that we as players know when we've infringed and don't have to guess or be dependent on the judgement of a single mind.

Consult with us players to simplify things; let's work this out before the role that refs play becomes a growing cancer within our brilliant game.
I started playing in 1974, and the very first law that was drummed into me was the then analogue to the current Law 10.4(s), which says: [LAWS](s) All players must respect the authority of the referee. They must not dispute the referee’s decisions. ... Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS] Where do you get this bizarre idea that players "rightly question" decisions? You seem to feel that players should be allowed to get on with what they are doing wrong without interference from the referee, because they've been coached to do it (or simply have not been penalised enough when they do it). It's a point of view, but not one I have much sympathy with.

30 players on a pitch who can all quote law to you, clause and verse, might put you under a fair bit of pressure.
Doubt it. If any of them open their mouth to dispute the decision, they'll know full well that the PK comes under 10.4(s). They'll then shut up as the laws require them. As a referee, if a player could quote me a law a didn't know, or wasn't applying, I'd feel it was time to find another way of spending my weekend afternoons. As it is, I have always found ti tiresome to ahve to explain to people who have played (and presumably been coached) the game for decades that the "gate" is a tackle concept, and not a ruck one. A referee has to deal with this and countless other routine misconceptions myriad times a season - forgive us for getting jaded and concluding that players are their own worst enemy by refusing to engage with the laws of the game they play - but it's a technical game, and the frustration you mention derives from the fact that the players normally have only the most limited grasp of the technicalities they fall foul of. We are not there to coach you.

...yet the laws around this situation regularly see people who are trying to win the ball penalised for a wide variety of 'technical' infringements and in other cases allowed to commit a variety of infringements based on the referees understanding - just look at what is being said on this very thread.
This is in relation to the isolated player getting pinged. If you've ever heard the phrase "the man on his feet is King", then the application of this is not rocket science. If you get isolated from your team mates, the tackle sequence develops in full without an intervening ruck to complicate things. Does the tackler act so as to permit the tackled player to place the ball if he wishes to do so? Does the next defender arrive through the gate and stay on his feet? When he wants the ball, does the ball carrier allow him to take it? You'll see that before I consider penalising the tackled player, I want to see the defence get two technical requirements right. If they foul up, the attack gets the PK. But as the tackled player has left his team behind, the defence are able to act without pressure of time. They usually get the opportunity to play legally, and take it. In such cases, they either get the ball or the PK.



Strange? I would've thought that the lack of understanding of a decision was the main root of frustration?
I agree with you. But all I can do is give clear verbal and signalled indications as to the reason for the PK. If the players have not done enough homework to understand it, that's a problem we all have to deal with, but not by extended coaching and mega explanation from me on the field. An example from arecent game of mine: red #12 breaks through the defensive line, and makes 20m before being brought down by the fullback. Blue 6 is next to arrive, and without changing his angle picks up the ball. I penalise him for not coming through the gate; he comments (not aggressively) that there was no ruck. I agree, but give a brief explanation of the requirements of Law 15.6(d). He's unconvinced but doesn't push it - I decline to give a dissent penalty under 10.4(s). I've gone as far as I can without disadvantaging the attacking side; he's still frustrated. What more can I do? Coaching is for coaches. Players should know the laws they play under.

...My apologies if I am wrong, but I seem to remember an extensive period of trial and testing lead by the top referees, which in turn lead to the introduction of the ELVs.
It was not led by the referees.




Ian Cook said:
Err, you obviously don't see what I see...

Attachment 1818

2. No. 10, the tackler has not yet released the ball carrier, so what is Dusutoir doing trying to rip the ball. I thought tackle guidlines wereFirst - the tackler must release the tackled player...

Then - the fetcher (having entered through the tackle gate, can compete for the ball.
Interesting example of the point Soulphoenix was making. A situation that occurs countless times in every game, and we have disagreement. I accept that TD is liable to PK for being off his feet; however, if that's within the ref's tolerance levels, then my take on what you've written is:

2. No. 10, the tackler has not yet released the ball carrier, but Dusutoir is legally trying to rip the ball. I thought tackle guidlines were:

First - the tackler must release the tackled player so that he may place the ball as permitted under Law 15.5(c). In this case, there is nothing preventing the tackled player from placing the ball, except the immediate arrival of TD wanting the ball...

So - TD as the fetcher (having entered through the tackle gate) can compete for the ball, and the ball carrier must release it to him under 15.5(e).
 

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,655
Post Likes
1,725
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Photo also shows very nicely the "cheap shot" from Mc on the France 10, great photo!

Crap. You can't seriously suggest that it was deliberate.

Have a look at it at full speed. Its purely accidental.
 

Mike Selig


Referees in England
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Messages
396
Post Likes
0
Crap. You can't seriously suggest that it was deliberate.

Have a look at it at full speed. Its purely accidental.

I agree. I also agree TD is off his feet. I disagree that he wouldn't have rights to the ball even were he on his feet. Para is not preventing release.
 

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,981
Post Likes
1,838
My philosophy on refereeing goes a bit like this: a good referee wants to help the contestants to play within the rules, a bad referee likes punishing the players for breaking the rules. Unfortunately such powerful, privileged positions do tend to attract the types that enjoy the latter.
As an assessor I see a different referee just about every week. I do not recall coming across a referee who likes punishing players. Too often I have to comment that the referee is trying too hard to be nice, and thereby letting the players get away with too much.
As a referee I'd be quite happy explaining the intricacies for the rest of my life - I would've thought this would be part of the job description?
The golden rule is "Explain but do not discuss". In the bar afterwards is the time to discuss the issue, but strangely enough players rarely want to bother then.
 

soulphoenix

Player or Coach
Joined
Oct 11, 2010
Messages
11
Post Likes
0
I started playing in 1974, and the very first law that was drummed into me was the then analogue to the current Law 10.4(s), which says: [LAWS](s) All players must respect the authority of the referee. They must not dispute the referee’s decisions. ... Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS] Where do you get this bizarre idea that players "rightly question" decisions?
Because a dispute and a question are two entirely different things - as you wisely sense in the way you deal with 'Blue 6'. I don't believe the rules were created to kill all communication between players and referee. The most respected referees, and consequently the least questioned, are happy to explain a misunderstanding or ala Wayne Barnes begin with something like 'this is what I saw'.

You seem to feel that players should be allowed to get on with what they are doing wrong without interference from the referee, because they've been coached to do it (or simply have not been penalised enough when they do it). It's a point of view, but not one I have much sympathy with.
Wow! How did I say this? I'm beginning to feel that many refs are far more jaded than I would have ever imagined, holding on to a whole heap of preconceived baggage and seeing emotional ghosts rather than what's actually happening in front of them; once again I will say this - my issue is not with refs, the need for them, even some amount of inconsistency in interpretation, my point is simply that the recent rule changes have led to some confusion. Please try not to take it personally that I've suggested that the impact on the referee has been to become defensive (you are, I believe, human even if some may perceive themselves more akin to Gods:D) - the root cause (and perhaps the solution I'm looking for) lies in what I saw in certain areas as a complication of the rules. I could perhaps accept an argument that over the coming years the 'sense' of the new rules will become more apparent to both refs and coaches and that the game will evolve towards this, even that in the mean time perhaps patience is needed on both sides? However all I see is an us and them mentality developing rather than a desire to protect the social heart of this sport that we purport to love.

As it is, I have always found ti tiresome to ahve to explain to people who have played (and presumably been coached) the game for decades that the "gate" is a tackle concept, and not a ruck one. A referee has to deal with this and countless other routine misconceptions myriad times a season - forgive us for getting jaded and concluding that players are their own worst enemy by refusing to engage with the laws of the game they play
Perhaps the same thing applies to refs as players i.e. if you're not enjoying it any more maybe it's time to stop.

Also, could you understand the confusion in players if for six games in a row referees had allowed opposition sides to, for example, take the ball when not coming through the 'tackle gate' and then being refereed by you who clearly understands the letter of the law? Would this change your dim perception of the players you referee.


This is in relation to the isolated player getting pinged. If you've ever heard the phrase "the man on his feet is King", then the application of this is not rocket science. If you get isolated from your team mates, the tackle sequence develops in full without an intervening ruck to complicate things. Does the tackler act so as to permit the tackled player to place the ball if he wishes to do so? Does the next defender arrive through the gate and stay on his feet? When he wants the ball, does the ball carrier allow him to take it? You'll see that before I consider penalising the tackled player, I want to see the defence get two technical requirements right. If they foul up, the attack gets the PK. But as the tackled player has left his team behind, the defence are able to act without pressure of time. They usually get the opportunity to play legally, and take it. In such cases, they either get the ball or the PK.

...

If the players have not done enough homework to understand it, that's a problem we all have to deal with, but not by extended coaching and mega explanation from me on the field. An example from arecent game of mine: red #12 breaks through the defensive line, and makes 20m before being brought down by the fullback. Blue 6 is next to arrive, and without changing his angle picks up the ball. I penalise him for not coming through the gate; he comments (not aggressively) that there was no ruck. I agree, but give a brief explanation of the requirements of Law 15.6(d). He's unconvinced but doesn't push it - I decline to give a dissent penalty under 10.4(s). I've gone as far as I can without disadvantaging the attacking side; he's still frustrated. What more can I do? Coaching is for coaches. Players should know the laws they play under.

I have no doubt that you are applying the rule to the letter of the law, as I said before I am more interested in why for example this law (gate at tackle, not the ruck) should exist - where's the disadvantage? If this kind of understanding was widely shared amongst referees and players alike perhaps there wouldn't be so much inconsistency and frustration respectively? I can't think of many rules in soccer where the advantage gained through lack of adherence is not apparent. I'm constantly being told by people who don't know the game of rugby that they'd love to watch it but in terms of the rules just haven't got a clue what the hell is going on and why.

It was not led by the referees.
My apologies, I thought Paddy O'Brien was a big voice in this - I am clearly mistaken.

As a referee, if a player could quote me a law a didn't know, or wasn't applying, I'd feel it was time to find another way of spending my weekend afternoons.
My compliments, if all refs were as knowledgeable as you there'd clearly be no need for assessors. :)
 

soulphoenix

Player or Coach
Joined
Oct 11, 2010
Messages
11
Post Likes
0
As an assessor I see a different referee just about every week. I do not recall coming across a referee who likes punishing players.
A trait that perhaps develops through 'jadedness' and is unlikely to be on display when the assessor is around? Unfortunately I have come across it.


Too often I have to comment that the referee is trying too hard to be nice, and thereby letting the players get away with too much.The golden rule is "Explain but do not discuss".
I agree, discussions slow down the game and even brief explanations can be deferred until a natural break in play. Also, I don't think a referee should let players get away with anything that isn't in the spirit of the game.


In the bar afterwards is the time to discuss the issue but strangely enough players rarely want to bother then.

:)I would suggest primarily down to either a desire for alcohol or tiredness (always the latter in my case!).

A few weeks ago after a league game I did sit down with a referee (and his assessor although I didn't know this at the time) to explain that although we'd lost, I thought he'd had a particularly good game, had been really clear and I'd nevertheless enjoyed the game as a result. He seemed pleased with to get some positive feedback.
 

Dixie


Referees in England
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
12,772
Post Likes
338
[An enjoyment of penalising players is] A trait that perhaps develops through 'jadedness' and is unlikely to be on display when the assessor is around? Unfortunately I have come across it.
You may well be right, but you may equally be misjudging the situation. There is at least one major problem here - the fact that you are not privy to, and have no way of knowing, the number of offences the referee has spotted, but allowed to let pass without comment because a clear advantage has accrued, or has let pass but with a quiet word to the offender at the next downtime. If in the third minute of the game the referee pings a high tackle 10m from the goal line, awards a penalty try and issues a yellow card, that might look uncompromisingly harsh - especially if you are unaware that in the build-up to it, there had been two other high tackle attempts that did not materially slow down the attack, and which were dealt with by a quiet word with the offenders and the captain.
 

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,981
Post Likes
1,838
my point is simply that the recent rule changes have led to some confusion. [...] the root cause (and perhaps the solution I'm looking for) lies in what I saw in certain areas as a complication of the rules. I could perhaps accept an argument that over the coming years the 'sense' of the new rules will become more apparent to both refs and coaches and that the game will evolve towards this, even that in the mean time perhaps patience is needed on both sides?
What do the players do to understand any law changes? Do you advocate the referee not applying the law changes?

Also, could you understand the confusion in players if for six games in a row referees had allowed opposition sides to, for example, take the ball when not coming through the 'tackle gate' and then being refereed by you who clearly understands the letter of the law? Would this change your dim perception of the players you referee.
There is a serious problem with the first 6 referees. Are they not attending society training sessions? Are they not getting assessed? How much responsibility should the players take for finding out about the new laws? That is down to them and their coaches, not the referees.

My compliments, if all refs were as knowledgeable as you there'd clearly be no need for assessors. :)
Points of law very rarely take up much time at my debriefs or in reports. Much the most important thing is game management - communication, positioning, observation skills etc.
 

Mike Selig


Referees in England
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Messages
396
Post Likes
0
Points of law very rarely take up much time at my debriefs or in reports. Much the most important thing is game management - communication, positioning, observation skills etc.

Indeed. I have only ever once been taken to task for a point of law by an assessor (and it became apparent that I knew the law, but we differed in our opinion over what constituted "an advantage to either team", this was after a ball hit me). I certainly feel the need to be assessed though.
 

MattyP


Referees in America
Joined
Mar 16, 2011
Messages
77
Post Likes
0
Current Referee grade:
Level 1
I am curious as to the comment that Dusattoir is not supporting his own weight. Personally, if I want to support my weight on one hand, I put my hand on the ground palm-down. I don't put the weight on the back of my wrist... In that photo, it seems to me that TD is in the act of scooping with his right hand. Hard to tell from a single still, but I think the idea that he's supporting himself with the back of his right hand seems a little silly (maybe it's a French thing)?

Those Setanta commentators are a little OTT for mine - mistakes aren't "shameful", lord knows Matt Williams has made enough during his coaching career, ask any Waratahs fan - but the Kaino penalty did look clear and obvious. And even my 17 year old son (who has done a ref course) pointed out the inconsistency between the penalty and non-penalty for straying offside. It's unfortunate for CJ, I'm a fan, but those are the types of incidents which put the focus on the wrong things during and after the match.
 

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,981
Post Likes
1,838
I am curious as to the comment that Dusattoir is not supporting his own weight.
[LAWS]Law 15.6 (a) After a tackle, all other players must be on their feet when they play the ball. Players are on their feet if no other part of their body is supported by the ground or players on the ground.[/LAWS] Supporting yourself with your hand is therefore not legal.

In practice you have to be realistic in that a player picking up the ball will usually touch the ground, but he must be able to recover his stance.

And even my 17 year old son (who has done a ref course) pointed out the inconsistency between the penalty and non-penalty for straying offside.
Did he also explain materiality, and the fact that a player is not penalised merely for being in an offside position (he has to have some impact on play)?
 

SimonSmith


Referees in Australia
Staff member
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
9,123
Post Likes
1,224
Matt Williams?
Does he actually have any credibility left? I wouldn't trust him if he told me the sky was blue.

I have yet to forgive him for what he did whilst managing the Scottish team.
 

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,655
Post Likes
1,725
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Everyone definitely needs to watch this video- sums up everything many of us have said.


I have watched the video and it sums up nothing

This is nothing more than a carefully crafted reel of cherry-picked highlights to show what they wanted to show, with anything that didn't support their flawed opinions being selectively edited out. If I could be bothered, and if I had a studio full of video techs, I could do a highlights reel that would show how and when France infringed without being sanctioned.

For example, they missed out an instance in the first few minutes where a French player picked up the ball while off his feet, from an offside position.

More importantly, they conveniently do not show the offside French player walk down the side of a ruck and kick the ball out of the NZ side without ever binding into the ruck, which is what the Law requires, and that led directly to Dusutoirs try.

Its also obvious that the idiot in the pink shirt hasn't got the foggiest idea about the Laws of the Game, and does not understand the concept of "materiality". It is fairly common for Team A to commit an offence and not be penalised but Team B committing the same offence does get penalised, because the context of the two penalties is different, i.e. Team A's infringement wasn't material and Team B's was.

Also, I do NOT believe Woodcock's tackle was a high tackle under the Laws of the game. The FIRST point of contact on the ball carrier (Trinh-Duc?) was half-way between elbow and shoulder, then he shrugged the tackle off by lifting his right arm up and ducking his head to the left. Woodcock's tackle arm goes completely over the top of his head and misses everything, so no contact with the ball-carrier above the line of the shoulders, so no high tackle.
 

soulphoenix

Player or Coach
Joined
Oct 11, 2010
Messages
11
Post Likes
0
What do the players do to understand any law changes?

Oh my! Would it surprise you to know that I, along with thousands of other players, have a bookmark like this: http://www.irb.com/lawregulations/index.html ?

Do you advocate the referee not applying the law changes?

Lol! I simply can't say it again; please read my previous posts.

There is a serious problem with the first 6 referees. Are they not attending society training sessions? Are they not getting assessed?

It will surprise you greatly to hear that I've had a referee this season who scoffed at some of the new laws and said he'd be refereeing it his way, admittedly it wasn't a league game but still...

TBH I wasn't expecting the idea that referees are human, fallible and indeed occasionally mildly subversive to be so insufferable; I'm not advocating negative characteristics but as a player I accept them as a fact of life.

Another account I could give is from a league game where our hooker had questioned a couple of decisions. At a following line out the ref penalised him for not being two meters away. I then asked the ref if he couldn't have warned him before the ball came in. He said 'Yes, but he was p***ing me off!' - I laughed and said 'Fair enough!' - I'm sure thousands of similar anecdotes could be told by players all over the world. I could mention far more destructive accounts to show how 'bad' referees can be but this wasn't my purpose; I was trying to highlight what I consider to be the real issue around this topic, not be drawn into a mud-slinging competition.

Anyway, I'm afraid this is now taking up far too much of my time so I'm simply going to end with the same statement with which I began - the problem is not Joubert.
 

damo


Referees in New Zealand
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
1,692
Post Likes
276
I have watched the video and it sums up nothing

This is nothing more than a carefully crafted reel of cherry-picked highlights to show what they wanted to show, with anything that didn't support their flawed opinions being selectively edited out. If I could be bothered, and if I had a studio full of video techs, I could do a highlights reel that would show how and when France infringed without being sanctioned.

For example, they missed out an instance in the first few minutes where a French player picked up the ball while off his feet, from an offside position.

More importantly, they conveniently do not show the offside French player walk down the side of a ruck and kick the ball out of the NZ side without ever binding into the ruck, which is what the Law requires, and that led directly to Dusutoirs try.

Its also obvious that the idiot in the pink shirt hasn't got the foggiest idea about the Laws of the Game, and does not understand the concept of "materiality". It is fairly common for Team A to commit an offence and not be penalised but Team B committing the same offence does get penalised, because the context of the two penalties is different, i.e. Team A's infringement wasn't material and Team B's was.

Also, I do NOT believe Woodcock's tackle was a high tackle under the Laws of the game. The FIRST point of contact on the ball carrier (Trinh-Duc?) was half-way between elbow and shoulder, then he shrugged the tackle off by lifting his right arm up and ducking his head to the left. Woodcock's tackle arm goes completely over the top of his head and misses everything, so no contact with the ball-carrier above the line of the shoulders, so no high tackle.


I've been through the game a few times looking for Joubert's alleged match fixing. Instead what I saw was a referee who reffed basically the same way he always does. He pinged the clear and obvious and ignored the immaterial offences as best he could. I saw plenty of offences by France that weren't called, one notable case was from a bomb that landed on their 40 metre line and 3-4 Frenchies inside the 10m were never put back onside or retreated, instead they just went to tackle the ball carrier from behind. Bad miss but these things happen.

I sincerely hope we aren't going to hear 4 years of how unworthy we are. Or how Paddy rigged the cup.


On an unrelated subject, Ian do you know what this "CJ levy" is about? I got stuck with it in a letter from the IRD today. I rang them up and they told me that apparently everyone has to pay it, but the guy wouldn't go into any details. Something to do with Christchurch I suppose.
 

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,981
Post Likes
1,838
Oh my! Would it surprise you to know that I, along with thousands of other players, have a bookmark like this: http://www.irb.com/lawregulations/index.html ?
They must play a totally different game in Norfolk – where the players know the laws better than the referees. Not my experience.
Anyway, I'm afraid this is now taking up far too much of my time so I'm simply going to end with the same statement with which I began - the problem is not Joubert.
Talking of which he wrote
Frankly it's a shambles.

Who is responsible? One thing is for sure, it's not the players; I can't imagine a single rugby player in the world ever thinking that 'collapsing a maul' was ever going to be a good idea.
Mind-boggling.
I see now even a full blown attack on the William Web Ellis mythology! Who cares whether it's true, it's part of our heritage and values
Basing a game on a player who cheated gives us noble values?!

Pity he's gone (he says). He could have been entertaining.
 

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,981
Post Likes
1,838
I've been through the game a few times looking for Joubert's alleged match fixing.
I'm still waiting for someone to post a list of 17 clear penalty chances for France that Joubert chose to ignore. :smile:
 
Top