Referees a threat to rugby !!!!!!

[4eyesbetter]

I have. I've also occasionally come into contact with the kind of person who populates a golf club. The two things complement each other beautifully, and it's a matter of permanent surprise to me that the PGAs have never tried to write some rules for the professional game that don't require setting up a drumhead court in the middle of a hazard.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Have you seen the Rules of Golf? Not to mention the seemingly, if not actually, annual inch thick "Decisions on the rules of golf" and that's for a really simple game - "The Game of Golf consists of playing a ball with a club from the teeing ground into the hole by a stroke or successive strokes"

A player is playing his third shot on a par four to a blind green.

He sees the ball go in the direction of OoB, and think that the ball will be lost, he plays a provisional ball.

When he gets to the green, he finds his provisional ball on the green and his original ball in the hole.

What is the decision?

a: Birdie

b: putting for double-bogey

 

[Ian_Cook]

I have. I've also occasionally come into contact with the kind of person who populates a golf club. The two things complement each other beautifully, and it's a matter of permanent surprise to me that the PGAs have never tried to write some rules for the professional game that don't require setting up a drumhead court in the middle of a hazard.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...to-pga-championship-error-loses-more-than-50k

No one else would ever have known his mistake. His honesty cost him US$53,000

When will you ever find a rugby player who goes offside in the backs then goes to the referee to admit his breach of the Law.

 

[Dixie]

a quantum mechanics debate on an astrophysics forum, about whether or not dark matter waves are what cause the effect that influences the results of Thomas Young's famous "double slit experiment", .... I was also involved in a third simultaneous debate regarding the effectiveness of shielding used to protect the Apollo 11 - 17 Command Modules from the radiation in the Van Allen Belts. At least I managed to post that one in the right place.

We are DEFINITELY in an episode of 'The Big Bang Theory' :shrug:

I think Ian has the role of Penny, but in an alternate universe in which she has found acting employment - playing Seven of Nine's younger sister.

 

[Ian_Cook]

I think Ian has the role of Penny, but in an alternate universe in which she has found acting employment - playing Seven of Nine's younger sister.

Resistance is futile

 

[ddjamo]

A player is playing his third shot on a par four to a blind green.

He sees the ball go in the direction of OoB, and think that the ball will be lost, he plays a provisional ball.

When he gets to the green, he finds his provisional ball on the green and his original ball in the hole.

What is the decision?

a: Birdie

b: putting for double-bogey

if he declared the provisional - birdie.

 

[Ian_Cook]

if he declared the provisional - birdie.

Almost right. This was the first question on my Rules Officials exam.

The player "holed out" with his original ball (so birdie). Even if he did not declare a provisional or if he declared the first ball lost, it makes no difference and doesn't change anything. Once a player has "holed out" he has finished playing that hole.

This ruling is specifically addressed in Decision 1-1/2 of the Rules of Golf; "The score with the original ball counts. The play of the hole was completed when the player holed that ball."

 

[crossref]

well it would be a better scenario if the player played a provisional, couldn't find the original, declared it lost, putted the second ball into the hole, whereupon he discovers the original already in the hole . From what you said : the original counts, but I don't think many people would know that.

 

[Phil E]

Just to add a little fuel to the fire............ :biggrin:

Kaplan Speaks Out

 

[ChrisR]

I read the article and didn't think it said very much. It would have been more interesting if Kaplan had been more explicit and pointed out areas where he thought the ABs were pushing it.

 

[Ian_Cook]

well it would be a better scenario if the player played a provisional, couldn't find the original, declared it lost, putted the second ball into the hole, whereupon he discovers the original already in the hole . From what you said : the original counts, but I don't think many people would know that.

I find it difficult to understand how that could happen, unless he chipped in or putted in his replacement ball from off the green. If he was putting on the green, the flagstick would be out (legal requirement), and the player/caddie who pulled it out would have found the ball in the hole

The issue however is that it doesn't matter what the player thought or did. Once the original ball was in the hole, the player had finished the hole.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Just to add a little fuel to the fire............ :biggrin:

Kaplan Speaks Out

Kaplan says

"I'm not sure about some of Peyps' general accuracy in this fixture as there appeared to be some questionable calls at the breakdown and certainly Barrett was very unlucky to be given his marching orders as it appeared that the ball was not placed at the tackle, but left the hands of the ball carrier and so it could well have been a case of general play and hence a play on situation.
"It was a tough call to make as the outcome depends on slow motion adjudication, and perhaps the referee just had enough of what he rightly or wrongly considered to be negative tactics. I still feel for New Zealand in this particular case."

Which is in line with what I said in the game thread. I thought Peyper had a good game, made no more that the usual odd errors that any referee makes, and I don't buy in to the criticism he has copped from both sides of the Tasman.

That said, the Barrett YC was a poor decision, but in the end, probably wasn't a deciding factor. The referee was OK, the players were crap.

 

[FightOrFlight]

Anyone who thinks that the standard of refereeing at the top (test) level is just fine is living in cloud cuckoo land. There are a couple of very good referees (Owens, Joubert, perhaps Walsh), then there is a huge daylight gap to the next lot. They are generally too slow around the park, too slow to react to what they see and the interpretations are so widespread from referee to referee that the credibility of the game is being compromised. RobLev's comments are partially right, but law knowledge does not automatically make a great referee.

I think the difficulty is less in the quality of the referees in question and more about where they are refereeing. In general the IRB panel refs are broken into distinct sub sections. Top 14(France), AP(England), Rabo and S15. Each of these league demad a different type of refereeing as they are different types of games much of the time.

In France you have referees who will happily see 2 guys beating the bejaysus out of each other in back play and play on only to wag the finger at the next break in play. They referee attritional rugby where teams try to over power eachother and win scrum PKs. This is often slow and hard to fall behind. You just need to keep a lid on the players.

In England they referee a game that can go from quick set moves to slow bring mud wrestling matches. Lots of kicking and PKs. Teams use scrums to engineer PKs much of the time, not to restart games.

The Rabo is a mixed bag. You can have anything and everything there from Leinster v Munster to Zebre v NG Dragons. For me the Rabo has the greatest spread of playing styles and referees are exposed to many more types of games and decisions. It is no coincidence for me that referees like Owens and Rolland who were/are amongst the best out there came through this structure.

S15 is fast with fast ball at rucks and sometimes little competition at breakdowns. Scrums and lineouts are to restart a game not to win PKs in most cases. It's a more user friendly version of the game and is better to watch but again referees only see so much there.

As there is no world league referees are going to bring a different views to games outside of their country. They are used to the trends of their native league and will apply them by default. Remember that their route up the pathway in their union will have been shaped by critique and coaching as to the type of game the union wants played there and that can differ largely from country to country.
At the end of the day the English will moan that the scrums were butchered, the New Zealanders and Aussies will moan the ball was slow and the French will just moan about whatever.

As the song says "It's the world in union". We all have our different cultures, that's part of what makes the game great!

 

[Ian_Cook]

In France you have referees who will happily see 2 guys beating the bejaysus out of each other in back play and play on only to wag the finger at the next break in play. They referee attritional rugby where teams try to over power eachother and win scrum PKs.

In England they referee a game that can go from quick set moves to slow bring mud wrestling matches. Lots of kicking and PKs. Teams use scrums to engineer PKs much of the time, not to restart games.

This is something I think needs to be addressed. The scrum was at one time a means of restarting the game with a contest for possession of the ball, but in the professional era, it has been corrupted into a means of using covert illegal tactics to con the referee into giving away kickable penalties.

If we want to stop the practice of teams using scrum dominance and subterfuge to accumulate points in increments of 3, then a necessary first step is to take away the incentive. One way would be the introduction of an "Indirect PK" (IPK). It would be like a PK, i.e. you can kick for touch with a gain in ground and retain the throw-in, take a quick tap or opt to take a scrum in lieu, but you cannot kick for goal or take a dropped goal. So, its more than a FK and less than a PK.

Initially I would only apply IPKs only to all the PK's in Law 20 (the FKs would stay the same), but ultimately, I would have all technical infringements such as tackle offences, hands in the ruck, offside, playing the ball on the ground etc as IPKs, with only Foul Play, Dangerous play (i.e. Law 10 offences) a full PK.

I would also not allow simple escalation of IPKs to PKs, instead preferring referees to deal with repeat offenders themselves (which would necessarily be Foul Play - Law 10.3) by going to the pocket.

Also, if a YC is given for a technical offence, then that is intentional offending - Law 10.2 (a) - so that should be a full PK as well.

 

[MrQeu]

Oh, well. You just gave defending scrums a good reason to go to ground on the hit/set. And second rowers to take down mauls after the kick to touch on the 5. And flankers the possibility to slow the ball even further. [ironic]Richie would be so proud[/ironic]

 

[Ian_Cook]

Oh, well. You just gave defending scrums a good reason to go to ground on the hit/set.

I think you will find it would not work out that way. Every time you collapse the scrum in your own half, you'll find yourself defending a lineout 5m out from you own goal-line. There is no getting away from defending by giving up three points.

And second rowers to take down mauls after the kick to touch on the 5.

And if they do, collapsing a maul is dangerous play (therefore a full PK) and since it from a line out, its 15m in from touch.

If they take another lineout and you collapse the maul again you will soon find yourself in YC/PT country.

Take a look at what's happening in the Varsity Cup in SA and the NRC in Australia. PKs, esp at scrum time, are costing the infringing teams multiples of 5 and 8 points (but they have to earn them noy be giften them) instead of multiples of 3 or 2). The greater potential of giving up converted tries rather than penalty goals is persuading teams not to give up PK's.

 

[Camquin]

It would be simpler to get the ref to check the bind is correct and then move to where they can see the put in before they give the yes nine

A correct bind and a straight put in will return the scrum to a contest.

But if you do not even bother to look, the ball will go straight to the lock.

 

[Browner]

The scrum PK is a dissuading sanction at ALL levels of the game, if the IRB weaken that sanction then they increase the Grassroots scrum safety risk, which the musclebound pro can more easily absorb. All moves to devalue scrum influence heads us toward the other code ( Cfx searching....)

Perhaps on a wider view, Maybe its time to create a third code ?...... The Pro code.

Entertainment can override injuryrisk and all the laws that slow down frenetic rugby or allow genuine contests for possession can be removed, so we get basketballesk possession until you score .

NZ beat SA 142-136 in WCF & everyone is happy !!

Ps.. SARC ....... (in case you' re undecided)