[Law] Read & Discuss

[Pinky]

Phil, I thin it was me who outed your accusation of law error. However you and others are right that the tone of the article appeared to be critical of the ignoring (ie not considering) various offences. Looking at the no retiral of the french player, I would not have penalised that as he moved sideways and only moved forward toward play once passed (and thus onside) by the ball carrier. As for the position of the tap by Picamoles, he was right in front of WB and I think go the nod to the position. While not the position the scrum penalty it was for a penalty against Wales 9 for delaying the tap. As for Wales 9, whilst he did not retire all the way to the line initially he was behind it before he bacame active in play, so no penalty for that. So while strictly speaking offences, these were all (correctly in my view) regarded as not material by WB. This approach to refereeing did not come across in the article, I felt.

 

[theblitzdefence]

Most people will take "ignored" to imply that it should have been sanctioned. You correctly make the point that refereeing is difficult,but you leave the impression that referees are not very good at dealing with the complexity.

It's not just the complexity of the laws and how we treat them on the pitch, it's also about the number of infringements, the speed of the play, that pro teams are coached to cheat ....add all of these factors together and we end up with something that isn't manageable by a solitary referee and some help from his/her assistants.

 

[L'irlandais]

I notice you didn’t answer Balones question in #14

It is wrong to suggest Elite squads are coached to cheat. They are coached to play to the limits of the Laws of the Game.
These limits depend largely on the match referee’s interpretation. So teams that can adapt quickly to the way the ref sees things, tend to keep in his good boks. That’s not cheating.
Rugby laws are far too open to interpretation

Players knowingly infringing, who just shug their shoulders and say «*It’s only an infringement if the ref blows his whistle.*» are bring the game into disrepute. But that seems to be fashionably these days.

There is an over-riding obligation on the players to observe the laws and to respect the principles of fair play. The laws must be applied in such a way as to ensure that the game is played according to the principles of play. The match officials can achieve this through fairness, consistency, sensitivity and, when appropriate, management. In return, it is the responsibility of coaches, captains and players to respect the authority of the match officials.

Player are bound to respect the laws of the game, the ref should really only have to arbitrate when the captains cannot agree. Unfortunately, financial interests and a must win mentality have made that impractical.
Player’s charter

 

[theblitzdefence]

Spot on!


Also Phil is right in that getting the law wrong (or selectively omiting part of the law) is crucial. So Yes to simply say the failure to retreat by Wales in the clip is a penalty is only half the story. You must remember the other part of the ofside laws that refer to "taking part in the game" and where that is relevant.

Let's looks at the Final moment of the Wales France game. What did Barnes ignore? Let's talr a quick look at a few of the 11 offencesHe made a call on which offence cause the collapse so The Bind on the Wales LHP was EITHER deemed not to be the cause of the collapse, or his AR may not have called it in , we don;t know if that was missed or felt not relevant by the AR or called in and overruled by Barnes. The Quick PK was taken by France pretty close to the mark. As referees we ask player to take a PK "in front of me" so we can see the tap is correctly taken. Side entry being picked up in such dynamic situations are easily missed. Barnes may well have felt the offence was not Clear and obvious. Just a few observations on the points.

The article could have saught to explain Material effect and Clear and Obvious. It could have explained that not acting upon by awarding a PK may not be the same as ignoring. But that does not make for an interesting story. It could enlighten the public though.

No, it was Phil that was wrong - it is a law, and I have quoted it above.

The French flanker who was in front of the tap ended up being the first French player at the breakdown, so he is very much "taking part in the game".

Regarding your last paragraph, you are looking at this through the eyes of a referee, and not a supporter or 99.99% of people who would watch the game. The person on the sofa will look at that footage, and depending on their nationality be pleased that they were awarded a penalty (if they are French) or p***ed off that Slimani is allowed to bind on the arm (if they are Welsh).

That's the challenge to the game we need to address.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Exactly so if you tried to explain Material effect and Advantage (difference between PK and Scrum ADV for example) then the public just might see things from a fairer point of view.

Yes I'm a referee but I am also a club treasurer and supporter. I write my club's reports on referees to the WRU. I get frustrated by referees on a weekly basis when I watch the game over again on my laptop. I see some of the mistakes were not mistakers at all. Some were managed (you may say ignored) and I can see why the referee handled the game in the way they did. Sometimes there were genuinly poor performances. And yes I have seen poor referees use material effect as an excuse not to act! The biggest bugbear for me is consistency. It is also, possibly, the hardest to achieve in the eyes of the supporter. So t ouse your example of the French TH pulling on the arm of the Welsh LH. Consistency demand that all the Welsh TH's arm pulling is treated in the same way as the French TH's. Was it? I'll leave that with you.

So, in short, if you had put some context on your article then you may havr achieved your, stated, desire. Sadly the way your article was written you have merely added fuel to the fire.

 

[theblitzdefence]

In blitz defence , I get the feeling that posters are reading the article as an attack on referees .. but I don't think it was meant that way. I think he is saying the rugby is flawed , which it is .
It's also wonderful!

That's exactly what it was meant to be and why it was written.

Supporters generally only look at offences against their team and therefore come to the conclusion the officials are poor (my Twitter timeline is full of it after every game). This article was trying to get people to switch sides and see from the other perspective that not all offences are against their team, and that with pro teams and how they are coached, offences are widespread.

Rugby is now big business and livelihoods depend on it. I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that at pro level, we need a radical change to how games are officiated. American Football realised decades ago that the complexities of that sport required more than 3 officials and I think we need to look at moving in the direction that sport has gone.

At pro level, it isn't good enough anymore to just quote nice platitudes from the amateur era about playing to the spirit of the game. There won't be a perfect solution but we need less "interpretation", more objectivity and more consistency.

 

[BikingBud]

The first French player arrived after the red 19 had already flopped onto the breakdown from an offside position, given the previous events were punctuated by the penalty, who do you ping first?

What about the arm position of the red loose-head? Would need to review the preceding few seconds to understand how the hinging developed.

The clip actually jumps from 84:12, as the pop runs on, to 88:28 or thereabouts so there is quite a lot of information missing. These missing moments are critical in the build up and the understanding of the sequence of events and the outcome. Why have those 4 mins been ignored?

 

[theblitzdefence]

I notice you didn’t answer Balones question in #14

It is wrong to suggest Elite squads are coached to cheat. They are coached to play to the limits of the Laws of the Game.
These limits depend largely on the match referee’s interpretation. So teams that can adapt quickly to the way the ref sees things, tend to keep in his good boks. That’s not cheating.
Rugby laws are far too open to interpretation

Players knowingly infringing, who just shug their shoulders and say «*It’s only an infringement if the ref blows his whistle.*» are bring the game into disrepute. But that seems to be fashionably these days.

There is an over-riding obligation on the players to observe the laws and to respect the principles of fair play. The laws must be applied in such a way as to ensure that the game is played according to the principles of play. The match officials can achieve this through fairness, consistency, sensitivity and, when appropriate, management. In return, it is the responsibility of coaches, captains and players to respect the authority of the match officials.

Player are bound to respect the laws of the game, the ref should really only have to arbitrate when the captains cannot agree. Unfortunately, financial interests and a must win mentality have made that impractical.
Player’s charter

Come on....."play to the limits of the laws of the game"? You don't believe this do you?

Pro teams are coached to cheat way beyond the laws in nearly every aspect of the game. From holding back opposition players at rucks and mauls, to pushing early as a defensive line at a breakdown, from blocking chasing runners looking to catch a high kick to faking injuries and offences.

 

[theblitzdefence]

Exactly so if you tried to explain Material effect and Advantage (difference between PK and Scrum ADV for example) then the public just might see things from a fairer point of view.

Yes I'm a referee but I am also a club treasurer and supporter. I write my club's reports on referees to the WRU. I get frustrated by referees on a weekly basis when I watch the game over again on my laptop. I see some of the mistakes were not mistakers at all. Some were managed (you may say ignored) and I can see why the referee handled the game in the way they did. Sometimes there were genuinly poor performances. And yes I have seen poor referees use material effect as an excuse not to act! The biggest bugbear for me is consistency. It is also, possibly, the hardest to achieve in the eyes of the supporter. So t ouse your example of the French TH pulling on the arm of the Welsh LH. Consistency demand that all the Welsh TH's arm pulling is treated in the same way as the French TH's. Was it? I'll leave that with you.

So, in short, if you had put some context on your article then you may havr achieved your, stated, desire. Sadly the way your article was written you have merely added fuel to the fire.

The binding on the arm is a good example of the confusion. Let's say the assistant referee saw it and ignored it (by which I mean decided it wasn't material), then along comes the next scrum and the same player then gets penalised for the same offence.

Can't you see why supporters find this baffling?

Here is another example I highlighted recently from the 6N - the huge inconsistencies around the treatment of the jackal not supporting his body weight.

Two rucks, with nearly identical actions and offences by the jackal - one was given as a penalty to the jackal, the other against.

https://wp.me/p5B4on-1HQ

In pro rugby we can't have these huge inconsistencies.

 

[theblitzdefence]

The first French player arrived after the red 19 had already flopped onto the breakdown from an offside position, given the previous events were punctuated by the penalty, who do you ping first?

What about the arm position of the red loose-head? Would need to review the preceding few seconds to understand how the hinging developed.

The clip actually jumps from 84:12, as the pop runs on, to 88:28 or thereabouts so there is quite a lot of information missing. These missing moments are critical in the build up and the understanding of the sequence of events and the outcome. Why have those 4 mins been ignored?

There could well be other offences in there that I didn't spot.

The prop running on was just the end of the previous bit of the highlights film, before the scrum. I've just focused on the 10 seconds you see on the clip.

 

[Phil E]

Pro teams are coached to cheat way beyond the laws in nearly every aspect of the game. From holding back opposition players at rucks and mauls, to pushing early as a defensive line at a breakdown, from blocking chasing runners looking to catch a high kick to faking injuries and offences.

Where is your evidence to support this claim?

I work for a Pro team and I can assure you this is not true, not even remotely true. Yes they will push the laws to the limit, yes they will test referees to see what will be allowed and what wont, but they are categorically not coached to cheat in the way you suggest.

There will always be the occasional bad egg such as blood gate, but they get rooted out by the system.

 

[theblitzdefence]

Where is your evidence to support this claim?

I work for a Pro team and I can assure you this is not true, not even remotely true. Yes they will push the laws to the limit, yes they will test referees to see what will be allowed and what wont, but they are categorically not coached to cheat in the way you suggest.

There will always be the occasional bad egg such as blood gate, but they get rooted out by the system.

It's widespread.

I'm popping out now, but here is one for starters that I covered a couple of years ago. Shane Williams admitting in commentary that they trained to clear the ruck by targeting players necks and twisting them!

https://theblitzdefence.wordpress.c...oll-in-rugby-players-coached-to-target-necks/

 

[Blindpugh]

The binding on the arm is a good example of the confusion. Let's say the assistant referee saw it and ignored it (by which I mean decided it wasn't material), then along comes the next scrum and the same player then gets penalised for the same offence.

Can't you see why supporters find this baffling?

Here is another example I highlighted recently from the 6N - the huge inconsistencies around the treatment of the jackal not supporting his body weight.

Two rucks, with nearly identical actions and offences by the jackal - one was given as a penalty to the jackal, the other against.

https://wp.me/p5B4on-1HQ

In pro rugby we can't have these huge inconsistencies.

theblitzdefence - having watched both video clips I would explain to players, my wife or friends at my local rugby club that IMO referees in each video clip made the correct decision.

1. Wales vs Scotland - Barclay put his hands beyond the ball and was therefore off his feet allowing Scottish No.7 to jackal.
2. Ireland - CJ Stander perfect technique IMO putting hands under ball and pulling ball up towards him - French penalised fro holding on.

My analysis is based on 12 years refereeing grass roots rugby and watching lots of rugby on TV and videos what about you?

 

[Marc Wakeham]

The binding on the arm is a good example of the confusion. Let's say the assistant referee saw it and ignored it (by which I mean decided it wasn't material), then along comes the next scrum and the same player then gets penalised for the same offence.

Can't you see why supporters find this baffling?

Here is another example I highlighted recently from the 6N - the huge inconsistencies around the treatment of the jackal not supporting his body weight.

Two rucks, with nearly identical actions and offences by the jackal - one was given as a penalty to the jackal, the other against.

https://wp.me/p5B4on-1HQ

In pro rugby we can't have these huge inconsistencies.

Which is WHY Material effect has to be explained to follower or they are trying to solve the equation with only half of the information. You just explained the problem with your article! I see another has answered the question re the two rucks.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

theblitzdefence - having watched both video clips I would explain to players, my wife or friends at my local rugby club that IMO referees in each video clip made the correct decision.

1. Wales vs Scotland - Barclay put his hands beyond the ball and was therefore off his feet allowing Scottish No.7 to jackal.
2. Ireland - CJ Stander perfect technique IMO putting hands under ball and pulling ball up towards him - French penalised fro holding on.

My analysis is based on 12 years refereeing grass roots rugby and watching lots of rugby on TV and videos what about you?

For me in the second clip Stander initially gets his hands on the ball and the no release is a factor that causes him to go off his feet. so the initial offence is the French player on the ground. Often, it is not the 99 things that are the same that define the outcome it is the 1 difference that changes the picture totally.

 

[OB..]

If the article was principally aimed at getting the rugby-watching public better informed, and being less one-eyed, then I think the emphasis on "ignoring" by the referee is unhelpful.

I would have used a format something like this:
1. In this clip. how many potential offences by Wales can you see?
(list)
2. How many by France?
(list)
3. How can a top referee deal with such matters?
Use of advantage. Explain Materiality. Judgement as to what best produces fair competition.

Many judgements are marginal, so absolute scientific consistency is impossible.

(But then I come from a background of writing balanced reports.)

 

[crossref]

It's like Imber Court back in the day ... :after being unexpectedly added to squad, and then sent on the field, late on in a bad tempered game, blitzdefence has found himself inadvertently on the ground, on the wrong side of the ball and is receiving a bloody good shoeing

Undeserved IMO
(but fetches popcorn )

 

[theblitzdefence]

theblitzdefence - having watched both video clips I would explain to players, my wife or friends at my local rugby club that IMO referees in each video clip made the correct decision.

1. Wales vs Scotland - Barclay put his hands beyond the ball and was therefore off his feet allowing Scottish No.7 to jackal.
2. Ireland - CJ Stander perfect technique IMO putting hands under ball and pulling ball up towards him - French penalised fro holding on.

My analysis is based on 12 years refereeing grass roots rugby and watching lots of rugby on TV and videos what about you?

Stander goes straight on to his hands (his fists actually). Play it frame by frame and it's very clear.

I'm not criticising Owens for this decision - ii was very fast and he was caught on the wrong side of the ruck. It's just an example of why we need to help officials at this pro level.

 

[theblitzdefence]

Where is your evidence to support this claim?

I work for a Pro team and I can assure you this is not true, not even remotely true. Yes they will push the laws to the limit, yes they will test referees to see what will be allowed and what wont, but they are categorically not coached to cheat in the way you suggest.

There will always be the occasional bad egg such as blood gate, but they get rooted out by the system.

A bit more on widespread coached cheating:

Every time a scrum deliberately wheels around, or a loose head and his 2nd row shift out and attack the opposition hooker, or a front row engages too early when they know they are in trouble - it's all coached. They practise this week in, week out.

If you want to get a good feel for what's being coached, listen to some of BT Sport analytical sessions with current/recently retired players. Without even realising it, most of them describe illegal acts, but it's what they have been coached for most of their career. Here are a couple of examples:

BOD on the jackal (2.05m). He talks about resting your legs on the tackled player as "leverage" ie not supporting your body weight.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMKhzOQmW-s

Jordan Crane on the driving maul (1.25m). He shows how 2 players join the maul not at the back foot, and the carrier shifts back. WR have started to clamp down on this but it is, and always has been illegal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SM-gKDUj00s

Alex Sanderson on the "dark arts" of the scrum (3.01). Sanderson (who is a forward's coach) talks through some of the illegal tactics front rows use. All coached and drilled during practise.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhIpi2m2QDI

Here are some other pundits and coaches who think cheating is being coached:
Bob Dwyer - https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/jun/14/lions-cheats-claims-bob-dwyer
Austin Healy - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-u...heating-underhand-tactics-threatening-engulf/
John Beatie - http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/johnbeattie/2010/04/cheating_has_crept_into_rugby.html
SMH - https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-...s-reached-epidemic-level-20170621-gwv6ue.html

 

[theblitzdefence]

Which is WHY Material effect has to be explained to follower or they are trying to solve the equation with only half of the information. You just explained the problem with your article! I see another has answered the question re the two rucks.

Materiality isn't relevant to those two examples. The referee was just unsighted in one and had a good view of the other.