Ref and TJ not on same page

[crossref]

You've had your answer as to how it's done in Nat 2 North when I'm doing it so please carry on your one man crusade to change the status quo without me. Cheers.

I don't blame you for following protocol, LLP, the next time I am an AR I will do the same, as it's protocol
(with one exception - I'm not going to make a signal that I believe is wrong)


But the protocol needs a rethink

Maybe the TJs shouldn't even go behind sticks. In all my years I've rarely needed their input. If I can judge a drop goal on the run I can judge a PK and conversion

Or to put it more generally .. do ARs stand in the best place ? I don't think they do. They stand too close to the posts and very often can't see clearly. .
There seems to be a general acceptance that very likely only one AR will be able to see properly, and the other should fall in . Thats sub optimal

Why dont both ARs stand somewhere they both get a good view ?

Nobody is saying that the process that LLP has outlined is perfect. It has generally been accepted that it is better than any other process at the moment. What other process would be better?

So three proposals..

1 adjust positioning (Stand further back) so you can both see properly and make a good judgement

2 Adopt the flag swipe as an official signal for "miss", so that we can distinguish "miss" (swipe) from "don't know" (no signal)

3 prioritise reaching the correct outcome as more important than both ARs making the same signal.
So the ARs signal independently and if the two ARs don't agree or don't know then it's clearly the refs call , and the ref has full information on what the ARs thought


I think those three simple changes would make for a better protocol, with the correct decision arrived at more often

I do think there's some merit in having a different protocol for TJs, who have a stake in the game and opposing goals, vs ARs who have the same goals in mind with each other. Perhaps uncertainty among TJs should have some indication so the ref can sort it out. Whereas uncertainty by the ARs goes to the one who had better sight on the call.

I don't think we can set out a protocol for press ganged sub TJs , they won't read it, they will just continue to do their best, as they do now.
Having a miss signal would help (but most press ganged TJs already use it in fact)

 

[Balones]

Within the process there is flexibility to move to ensure the best and most accurate outcome.
1 - Somebody initially stands short so that a ball that is going just over or under the crossbar can be adjudged accurately. It id highly unlikely that a referee can make that call as accurately. If after the kick it becomes clearly obvious that this is not going to happen then that AR is free to move to get a better sight of the ball flight.
2 - The most correct outcome is AR agreement. If one clearly has a better view of what happens then that person makes the call. It is the situation that gets the best result overall. Having two standing back means one on each post anyway. (Basic geometry.)
3 - Having different signals will only confuse the ref. He/she will obviously try to watch the flight and may be in a better position to adjudge if it goes over the post or to one side but it depends on the position of the referee. At community level I am generally in favour of the referee standing behind the kicker But from experience I know this isn’t always the case. We mustn’t forget that the referee is carefully monitoring the ‘charge’ as well and if the ball topples before the run up had started etc.

Flag swipe for miss - not possible because the ARs are usually/generally behind the players so a side swipe may not be visible. So it is kept simple - vertical signal with flag - success. No signal - miss.

 

[crossref]

We actually saw an example of the current protocol failing in the opening game of the RWC

The ARs didn't agree, and signalled differently, and the protocol doesn't accommodate for that possibility, so confusion.

Was Ridley signalling that he thought it missed ? It was 'his post' wasn't it?

Or was he signalling that he was not sure ?

We don't know, as its the same 'signal' for both.

Here's the video

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1700261276696322255

Telegraph..

Confusion reigned over the final score of the Rugby World Cup’s opening match after one assistant referee raised his flag for the conversion of Melyn Jaminet’s try while the other kept it down.

ITV’s broadcast of France’s historic win over New Zealand had the final score as 29-13, which was also the case for a number of other outlets around the world.

The confusion arose after Jaminet’s conversion of his own 77th minute try. The ball appeared to be heading in between the posts but veered right at the last second, sending it directly over the top of the right post. This led the English assistant referee duo of Karl Dickson, the former Harlequins scrum-half, and Christophe Ridley to initially disagree. Dickson raised his flag, but Ridley did not.

On the pitch, the decision was immediately clarified that the conversion had in fact gone wide despite the initial difference of opinion, but the sight of one raised flag led a number of broadcasters to ‘award’ France two extra points

 

[didds]

Maybe the TJs shouldn't even go behind sticks. In all my years I've rarely needed their input. If I can judge a drop goal on the run I can judge a PK and conversion

Ive always found it an odd requirement.
If onlty because for a missed PK the Tjs have now potebntially got to sprint back to be in position to gauge touch - a far more useful aid to the referee, and if/when club TJs are the chairman aged70 that may not be as quickly as one might require!

 

[Balones]

I think part of the problem at the World Cup was that you had referees officiating instead of specialist ARs.
Having said that, based on the video angle I still think it went over and can understand why CR put his flag up.
Perhaps we should insist on the ball going between the uprights? Piece of string between the top of the posts. Bit awkward if it snaps during the game though!

 

[Pinky2]

I think LLP has it right. When I briefed TJs I would always ask them to agree about kicks and if the did not agree then to talk to me about it and I would decide.

 

[crossref]

I think LLP has it right. When I briefed TJs I would always ask them to agree about kicks and if the did not agree then to talk to me about it and I would decide.

But that's exactly my proposed approach ! And the opposite of the standard protocol as supported by LLP
Indeed it's my whole central point!

The standard protocol is the opposite, as LLP explains .. the ARs must force an agreement

Both flags go up or neither flag goes up. If we decide it’s my post/call then my partner will leave it to me or vice versa. I will say “yes” or “no” and my partner will raise their flag (or not) with me or vice versa. It’s not a referendum. It works most of the time.

Out of interest, @Pinky2 how would you propose that two ARs signal their disagreement to the ref ?

 

[jdeagro]

I think LLP has it right. When I briefed TJs I would always ask them to agree about kicks and if the did not agree then to talk to me about it and I would decide.

The matches I normally play in, the ref doesn't particularly afford the time for the TJs to talk to the ref when they're unsure. Usually a lack of clear signal is automatically immediately interpreted by the ref to make their own decision.

To crossref's point, I think an explicit signal would be helpful.

 

[Dickie E]

I think NRL does it right. Both ARs stand near DBL, both move to the post that the ball is heading towards & there is a clear signal for a miss.

 

[crossref]

I think NRL does it right. Both ARs stand near DBL, both move to the post that the ball is heading towards & there is a clear signal for a miss.

Would be interesting to know how they approach a situation where they disagree

 

[didds]

I think LLP has it right. When I briefed TJs I would always ask them to agree about kicks and if the did not agree then to talk to me about it and I would decide.

but that doesnt solve the being hung out to dry scenario painted in the OP though ?

 

[didds]

Would be interesting to know how they approach a situation where they disagree

or its a REALLY windy day and the wind blows the ball at the last second away form the original post they are both now standing at towards the other one where they are not!!

LOL

 

[Balones]

I think NRL does it right. Both ARs stand near DBL, both move to the post that the ball is heading towards & there is a clear signal for a miss.

There is a clear signal in RFU land. The ARs run towards touch without putting their flags up.

 

[crossref]

There is a clear signal in RFU land. The ARs run towards touch without putting their flags up.

so if the ARs run toward touch with their flags down it means miss
but if they stays where they are - ie under the posts - with their flag down it means they are not sure - and want to discuss?

are you saying that's the signal?
It would kinda make sense - but I never heard that before. I wonder if it would be obvious to the ref.

 

[leaguerefaus]

Would be interesting to know how they approach a situation where they disagree

What's posted before is spot-on - they both adjust as the ball is in-flight

When the ball has past the post, the back TJ calls "now" and they each make their own decision. From grass roots, all the way up, they are told the importance of making their own decision and not just copying the other TJ as the law book is clear - if the two TJs agree, the referee must follow their decision. In the event of a disagreement, the referee decides. Obviously this doesn't apply to non-official TJs.

 

[crossref]

What's posted before is spot-on - they both adjust as the ball is in-flight

When the ball has past the post, the back TJ calls "now" and they each make their own decision. From grass roots, all the way up, they are told the importance of making their own decision and not just copying the other TJ as the law book is clear - if the two TJs agree, the referee must follow their decision. In the event of a disagreement, the referee decides. Obviously this doesn't apply to non-official TJs.

the whole protocol sounds perfect to me - RU should adopt it.

 

[Balones]

There’s nothing in RFU land stopping the referee making up his own mind.

 

[Dickie E]

but if they stays where they are - ie under the posts - with their flag down it means they are not sure - and want to discuss?

unless its a missed PK and the ARs are waiting to see what happens and to stay out of the way

 

[crossref]

There’s nothing in RFU land stopping the referee making up his own mind.

But it's hard to overule two ARs who have made the same signal
(Even though, as he finds out later, one of them thought it was wrong at the time but allowed himself to be over ruled.as per the protocol)

 

[Balones]

There’s no perfect system when humans are involved. We can cock up anything. We just do the best we can. I would say the procedure that is generally adopted in RFU land is as good as any. That doesn’t mean it won’t fail very occasionally. At TJ level I would expect the referee to be more dominant than at AR level.