New record

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

A new record for me on Saturday.

Biggest aggregate score in 13 years of refereeing = 110 pts.

Unfortunately 103 of them were score by one team! :wow:

It was Merit League game which always have the potential to throw up spurious results.

That said the game was excellent in terms of the spirit it was played in and we played the full 80 - losers didn't want to call it early. Both teams were a credit to the game of Rugby. Losers battled through it, winners didn't take the piss at all eg No fat props begging to take conversions.

Down side for me was the muddy pitch and the line breaks from 60/70/80 metres out which had me running about like a shopper in the Andrex aisle.

Beats the 109-0 I had about 7 or 8 eight years ago.

The biggest aggregate I've had in a none one sided affair is 38-50.

Don't forget - keep washing those hands!

 

[Flish]

Wasn't over at Guisborough was it? Heard there was a cricket score over there at the weekend

 

[Rich_NL]

Two seasons ago I had a 0-114 game, both sidse full and with reserves. The away team needed the points difference to be sure of promotion. It was otherwise a fairly dull match.

The highest-scoring even match (within two tries) was a ladies' match last year, 43-39 and competitive right up to the whistle. One of the most exciting matches I've reffed.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

105-0 Is my biggest. It was 2013/14.

The first four games were: 105-0, 48-0, 0-41 and 0-22. Side that lost the first game came across me a month later that time they lost 72-3. A lot of running in for tries from the half way line and beyond.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

Wasn't over at Guisborough was it? Heard there was a cricket score over there at the weekend

No it wasn't. Just seen that score! :wow:

My game was the 2nd team of a club whose 1st XV have been getting 3 figures put on them in N2N with unfortunate regularity recently. Difficult times for some clubs. Perhaps Coronavirus can't come soon enough?

 

[Flish]

No it wasn't. Just seen that score! :wow:

My game was the 2nd team of a club whose 1st XV have been getting 3 figures put on them in N2N with unfortunate regularity recently. Difficult times for some clubs. Perhaps Coronavirus can't come soon enough?

Guis had a 151-0 a couple of weeks ago too, some are definitely struggling, we've had one DN3 team drop out and another getting schooled most weeks, another is struggling for a squad for even home games now - it's not great :-(

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

Guis had a 151-0 a couple of weeks ago too, some are definitely struggling, we've had one DN3 team drop out and another getting schooled most weeks, another is struggling for a squad for even home games now - it's not great :-(

They've scored over 1000 pts in DN2 - relegated from Yorks 1 and can't stop winning in DN2. I'm saying nothing!

 

[smeagol]

My first ever 15s match, with 25min halves (tournament) - 114-0. 18T, 12C.

Highest "competitive" score - 42-40, winning side was 1/8 on conversions.

 

[Arabcheif]

Highest winning margin in a game I Played - 110 - 3
Highest Losing margin in a game I've played - 102 - 0
Biggest margin in a game I've reffed. "64-14" - U-16 mercy rule. Played past that ended up 90(ish)-21. I stopped counting as the game had "ended anyway." Gave a couple of the boys a wee telling off for taking the Mickey. Stopped it after about 65 mins (only 5mins to go).

 

[Zebra1922]

I had a 0-0 last season....

 

[SimonSmith]

161-0 at West of Scotland. In the snow. At Atlantic Park.

 

[RedCapRef]

First team I ever coached in the first year at U16 lost 115 - 0 in one of their first matches, many had not played before that year. Never gave up just not good enough. Played that team twice more that season lost by just 40ish points the 2nd time beat them the third.

 

[OB..]

128-0 back in 2014. At 104-0 after 60 minutes the losing team asked to call it off, but the winning team claimed they needed the points. Not long after that the referee correctly called it off for safety reasons.

The winning team's claim was wrong. With one game to go they could not win promotion however many points they scored.

Curiously, both teams are now defunct.

 

[didds]

128-0 back in 2014. At 104-0 after 60 minutes the losing team asked to call it off, but the winning team claimed they needed the points.

Herein lies the problem... because leagues MAY require points difference to decdie promotion/relegation, weak teams that get saughtered every week HAVE to be slaughtered by their opponents to maintain the mini status quo (we see this in some measure with Italy in the 6N). And the week the weak team cries off and offers a walkover sees the "winning" team awarded (maybe?) +25 rather than the +100 they may have scored - which is inequitable overall .

And a one off match where one team is severely weaked for whatever reason (weddings, illness etc) gives that week's oppnents an unfair advantage over its rivals when they can post 100 points against a side everybody else may well have not come even close - or even lost t in normal circumstances.

there are teams round these parts that have access to miltary players, that are amost two teams depending on whether their soldiers etc are available or not. One week they win by 30 points, the next they lose by 20.

It's why I've long advocated a 50 point cut off. Once a side has a lead of 50 points its game over. 50 points awarded for a walkover. It needs a few caveats - a very string wind may have a huge advantage if 50 points is scored before half time etc - i've not thought it through fully as it will never happen

 

[OB..]

Herein lies the problem... because leagues MAY require points difference to decdie promotion/relegation, weak teams that get saughtered every week HAVE to be slaughtered by their opponents to maintain the mini status quo (we see this in some measure with Italy in the 6N). And the week the weak team cries off and offers a walkover sees the "winning" team awarded (maybe?) +25 rather than the +100 they may have scored - which is inequitable overall .

And a one off match where one team is severely weaked for whatever reason (weddings, illness etc) gives that week's oppnents an unfair advantage over its rivals when they can post 100 points against a side everybody else may well have not come even close - or even lost t in normal circumstances.

there are teams round these parts that have access to miltary players, that are amost two teams depending on whether their soldiers etc are available or not. One week they win by 30 points, the next they lose by 20.

It's why I've long advocated a 50 point cut off. Once a side has a lead of 50 points its game over. 50 points awarded for a walkover. It needs a few caveats - a very string wind may have a huge advantage if 50 points is scored before half time etc - i've not thought it through fully as it will never happen

I prefer to avoid using points difference as a tie-breaker. Much better is comparing scores in the head-to-head matches. We use that locally in our merit leagues (because I wrote the regulations).

 

[didds]

I prefer to avoid using points difference as a tie-breaker. Much better is comparing scores in the head-to-head matches. We use that locally in our merit leagues (because I wrote the regulations).

Now that makes much more sense! As ever, one can see holes in that solution, but at least it is a direct correleation solution.

didds

 

[smeagol]

I prefer to avoid using points difference as a tie-breaker. Much better is comparing scores in the head-to-head matches. We use that locally in our merit leagues (because I wrote the regulations).

I personally am very much against H2H as a tiebreaker, since it's randomly double-counting a game. With points differential, you're at least looking at the total body of work. In a different activity (quizbowl/scholar bowl/uni challenge), someone actually did a study over several years of events where teams that ended up tied in record played a tiebreaker, and assessed how often two different statistical tiebreakers and H2H were predictive of the tiebreaker. H2H was predictive less than half of the time.

IMO, if using points and there were forfeits involved (ie a bottom feeder got slaughtered by one team involved in the tie and forfeited against the other), throw out that one game since you can't make an apples to apples comparison.

 

[OB..]

I personally am very much against H2H as a tiebreaker, since it's randomly double-counting a game. With points differential, you're at least looking at the total body of work. In a different activity (quizbowl/scholar bowl/uni challenge), someone actually did a study over several years of events where teams that ended up tied in record played a tiebreaker, and assessed how often two different statistical tiebreakers and H2H were predictive of the tiebreaker. H2H was predictive less than half of the time.

IMO, if using points and there were forfeits involved (ie a bottom feeder got slaughtered by one team involved in the tie and forfeited against the other), throw out that one game since you can't make an apples to apples comparison.

If you wish to advocate a tie-breaker match, fine. Tricky with a triple tie, but fortunately that is rare to vanishing.
However the "total body of work" argument includes ramping up the score against weak teams, which I am opposed to.

 

[didds]

However the "total body of work" argument includes ramping up the score against weak teams, which I am opposed to.

indeed OB - and see my examples above as to how such solutions can get skewed by odd weekends and scenarios

didds

 

[Rich_NL]

I personally am very much against H2H as a tiebreaker, since it's randomly double-counting a game. With points differential, you're at least looking at the total body of work. In a different activity (quizbowl/scholar bowl/uni challenge), someone actually did a study over several years of events where teams that ended up tied in record played a tiebreaker, and assessed how often two different statistical tiebreakers and H2H were predictive of the tiebreaker. H2H was predictive less than half of the time.

IMO, if using points and there were forfeits involved (ie a bottom feeder got slaughtered by one team involved in the tie and forfeited against the other), throw out that one game since you can't make an apples to apples comparison.

You assume that the tiebreaker is the gold standard, though. A tiebreaker at the end of a season can favour a team with more depth as injuries take less toll, or a second team who can call up a couple of first team players whose seasons are over, not to mention one-offs such as weddings (planned for after the regular season) affecting one team, etc. H2H generally gives two points randomly through the season, and an extra competitive edge to keep the level up throughout the season against the best-matched opponents you'll meet. Less "well, we're two games ahead, we can afford to throw this one as the rest of the season is easy."