Rugby Union in Revolt over Referees?

[Chunky Charvis]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ru...nion-in-revolt-what-do-the-experts-think.html

From today's Telegraph. A double page spread.

So 4 out of 6 full time referees are currently injured. That cannot be helping matters.

 

[SimonSmith]

The Smith interpretation:
The further that audience is removed from the actual field of playing (excepting BCM), the more they point the finger at the referee.

 

[crossref]

COS major problem is 'lazy runners' but no one else even mentions it.
perhaps that starts to show why he feels he isn't listened to.

 

[OB..]

COS major problem is 'lazy runners' but no one else even mentions it.
perhaps that starts to show why he feels he isn't listened to.

Maybe the others just don't agree with him. Here's another view.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/sport/rugbyunion/article3650753.ece

Morrison, the RFU’s head of elite referee development, who was at the Kassam Stadium on Sunday, was remarkably sanguine at the turn of events. He is keen to pursue the route of dialogue over confrontation. “I take any comments made by directors of rugby seriously,” he said. “I would be foolish not to listen to what they say.

“Do I agree with Conor? Not necessarily. But you can’t improve or change things by being outside of something. Collectively if people don’t think the process is achieving its aims we need to sit down in a mature way and talk about it.” Is it a worrying trend? “No, I don’t think so,” Morrison said. “We have all got to be accountable.”

As part of his desire for conciliation, Morrison cited what happened after Cockerill’s outburst at Andrew Small’s handling of the scrum when Leicester beat Gloucester as an example of progress. Both the club and the RFU conducted reviews. The two parties then held a conference call last Thursday to go through their respective findings. It involved Small and Brian Campsall from the Union and Cockerill and Paul Burke from Leicester. “Cockers phoned me afterwards to thank me for what he believed to be a very constructive discussion,” Morrison said. “That is how we take the process forward. That is hopefully how we improve the relationship between us. “

 

[Account Deleted]

It's the first time I've ever heard "Lazy runners" are a blight on the game. The Scrum and Breakdown yes bit not lazy runners. As you say perhaps that is why he feels ignored.

 

[Na Madrai]

I believe that this has to be nipped in the bud now.

The RU must tell all coaches, players, administrators et el, that adverse comments about the referee must not be made public under any circumstances and should they ignore this instruction, they will be subject to the strictest penalties and not a touchline ban for one or two matches, but a ban for six months minimum.

There should be clear, concise lines of communication between clubs and the RU in which such comments can be aired but these must be kept strictly in house.

Drako has nothing on Na Madrai when it comes to the integrity of rugby football!

NM

 

[OB..]

The only thing that will really stop coaches is getting their own way - and I doubt if they are all chasing the same thing.

You can go part of the way by having a clear communication channel with clear outcomes. If that were the case,then they would have less cause to gripe. It sounds as if Ed Morrison is trying to do that in an informal way.

Some coaches claim that by complaining they are supporting their players. Surely they are actually encouraging them to be dissatified?

 

[Robert Burns]

James Haskell, England international: I don’t think there’s a crisis. They make mistakes, but they have a difficult job. I play rugby and I still don’t know what’s going on in the scrum area. It’s difficult to referee and these guys will get it 95% right – it’s just unfortunate that sometimes decisions can be down to interpretation.

Realism.....

 

[SimonSmith]

Dialogue - by definition - is a two way process: transmission and reception, requiring two parties.

Regardless of the validity of COS viewpoint, it strikes me that if someone like that, who has hitherto been regarded as a Good Rugby Man, has taken the stance that he has, then something in the process somewhere is broken.

Rugby is a professional sport. Everything about it needs to be professional; the Referees' function must, like all functions, be open to feedback from its clients. We are the servants of the game, and must never lose sight of that fact. I'm not implying that Ed Morrison is not professional or open to feedback. I'm also very very conscious that we don't want to go down the path of soccer.

But we absolutely can't be 'precious'. It destroys our credibility.

 

[Simon Thomas]

Worcester had appointed Steve Lander (ex-Intl Referee as an adviser) some time ago.

And Quins (and hence Conor) have had Geriant Ashton-Jones as a past Panel Referee as an adviser/consultant/paid enmployee for some seasons.

Another thought (mentioned to me by a senior RFU man) is that some are considering (seriously) lodging Referee Abuse Forms re Cockers, Conor and Andy Goode after the last few weeks outbursts - if you read the RFU Regulations, you will see the Referee is not the only person who can do so :biggrin:

- - - Updated - - -

James Haskell, England international: I don’t think there’s a crisis. They make mistakes, but they have a difficult job. I play rugby and I still don’t know what’s going on in the scrum area. It’s difficult to referee and these guys will get it 95% right – it’s just unfortunate that sometimes decisions can be down to interpretation.

Realism.....

Or perhaps just pleased to be back in the England Squad after his NZ and Japan tour ?

 

[Simon Thomas]

Maybe the others just don't agree with him. Here's another view.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/sport/rugbyunion/article3650753.ece

as I said previously, it think it is a shot across the bows of RFU by PRL.

Ed & Rob (RFU) meeting with Peter Wheeler (Leiccester Chairman and ex Engand hooker pre BCM for the younger ones on here and a man who never has, or will, take a backward step) & Phil Winstanley of PRL under Professional Game Board remit - coincidence of timing ?

Nicely diplomatic quote by Ed, stressing conciliation, communication, review process and outcomes.

 

[TheBFG]

Haskell's comments are backed up by an international prop that ran a "Scrum Factory" course i attended........

"all this about dark arts in the front row is BS, yes there are players that try things on, but most times it just goes down and anyone that says they know why everytime, is talking out of their arse!"

But back to the orignal point, i do think that this type of thing was inevitable, as soon as the game went professional people became accountable and that can be the coaches, players or the refs. That said I would hope that the “history” of our game to a certain extent would play some part in this not becoming a pantomime et al the wendyball stuff we see week in week out when coaches are looking for a scapegoat and the man with the whistle is an easy target

 

[rugbyslave]

I suggest that the coaches should put a complaint in with video evidence, but the point is that the referee society will be assessing the referees handling of the game. A referee must be assessed by his peers not by the coaches of the rugby team.
You do not hear the referee society complaining at how badly the team is coached or about the player always trying to break the laws. The referee will have a bad game now and then and he knows it and the society knows it.
The referee never tells the players to dive into the ruck or to always stand offside, the player decides if he will play within the law and if he is penalised he knows what he has done. The coaches have a habit of teaching ways of manipulating the laws of rugby and when the referee catches on then the referee is at fault.
The referee’s job is to enforce the law, in so doing allow a fair contest.

 

[Browner]

The referee’s job is to enforce the law, in so doing allow a fair contest.

ahem........... apart from the scrum feed ! ... where a 'contest' rarely seems to take place at pro matches !

and at < U19 matches the 1.5m max push, means mostly unstolen possession also !

scrums against the head R.I.P. !

- - - Updated - - -

 

[Blackberry]

Is part of the problem the international dimension to the game. Are we free to tighten up on feeding / lazy runners / engages if the rest of the world doesn't? (A bit like the FA trying to introduce tweaks without UEFA's permission). So Morrison, for example, has his hands tied?

 

[Phil E]

I wonder if COS even understands the law regarding lazy runners? i.e. that if the ball carrier runs 5m, then the lazy runners are all put onside.



I also find this comment from the Director of Premier Rugby astonishing:

"Players have no ethical responsibility to keep within the laws."

Has he never heard of Rugby's Core Values? Respect, Discipline, Sportsmanship being amongst them?

 

[crossref]

I wonder if COS even understands the law regarding lazy runners? i.e. that if the ball carrier runs 5m, then the lazy runners are all put onside.
?

hmm, is that correct?

Now, I do understand that running 5m puts the oppo onside, however, lazy runners are, by defintion, offside players who are not making a decent effort to become onside, therefore when you see a lazy runner and don't blow immediately, you are playing advantage, because (for time being) it's immaterial.

But if a fly half receives the ball from a ruck runs 5m forward and is immediately tackled by a lazy runner I think I am going to blow.

Wasn't there a guidance note two or three seasons ago about lazy runners and referees must make sure that player don't gain advantage by being deliberate lazy runners?

 

[Phil E]

Yes and no.

They can't benefit from having been a lazy runner, but neither do they remain lazy runners for the rest of the game.
At some point they are either put onside, or we go back to open play.

It would obviously have been better if COS had provided examples. I can't believe the referee never once penalised 'material' lazy runners as was suggested.


[LAWS]11.8 PUTTING ONSIDE A PLAYER RETIRING DURING A RUCK, MAUL,
SCRUM OR LINEOUT
When a ruck, maul, scrum or lineout forms, a player who is offside and is retiring as
required by Law remains offside even when the opposing team wins possession and the
ruck, maul, scrum or lineout has ended. The player is put onside by retiring behind the
applicable offside line. No other action of the offside player and no action of that player’s
team mates can put the offside player onside.
If the player remains offside the player can be put onside only by the action of the opposing
team. There are two such actions:
Opponent runs 5 metres with ball.When an opponent carrying the ball has run 5 metres,
the offside player is put onside. An offside player is not put onside when an opponent
passes the ball. Even if the opponents pass the ball several times, their action does not put
the offside player onside.
Opponent kicks.When an opponent kicks the ball, the offside player is put onside.

11.9 LOITERING
A player who remains in an offside position is loitering. A loiterer who prevents the opposing
team from playing the ball as they wish is taking part in the game, and is penalised. The
referee makes sure that the loiterer does not benefit from being put onside by the opposing
team’s action.
Sanctionenalty kick at the offending player’s offside line[/LAWS]

 

[crossref]

[LAWS]11.9 LOITERING
A player who remains in an offside position is loitering. A loiterer who prevents the opposing
team from playing the ball as they wish is taking part in the game, and is penalised. The
referee makes sure that the loiterer does not benefit from being put onside by the opposing
team’s action.Sanctionenalty kick at the offending player’s offside line[/LAWS]

yes, bolded, is exactly the bit I was thinking about -- not guidance but there in the Laws.

The lazy runner cannot benefit from being put onside by actions of opponent -- that's actually a good way of phrasing it. The 12-year old IRB drafter of the Laws must have been assisted by his mum for that bit.

 

[Phil E]

er, yes. I know.........that's why I quoted it?

Maybe I should have bolded it as well, to demonstrate that I had actually read it :chin: