SA v All Blacks 1st August

[Donal1988]

I dont see it that way. If you push it far enough why do we give teams a warning if they are starting to infringe a lot. Is that not a form of prevention.

This is a stupid discussion.

 

[SimonSmith]

Simon I really dont follow your point at all.

I cant grasp your train of thought. You seem to think that we wouldnt answer any questions. On occasion I will but not always. It was suggested that a referee has an obligation to try answer every question a player asks during a game. As I have said already I think you are exaggerating our points.

I was answering ExL directly and quoting him, so I don't think I was exaggerating his stance at all.

OB's done a good job of explaining what I think the referee's stance should be.
I guess it depends how you view your role: facilitator or policeman? There are times when you have to change your view according to game situations, but I think we go in with a primary stance.

 

[OB..]

For effs sake, a player knows what they are doing.

No they don't.

Is it out, errr they know when a ball is out or not.

Given the amount of argument we have had in this very thread, with diagrams, videos, Hawk-eye, Wall-eye etc it is surely obvious that on many occasions it will be as clear as mud.

but if I was to be honest, a few penalties and they would learn

Their only recourse would be excessive caution. I don't think that would improve the game. The good referee finds a good balance between speech and silence.

 

[andyscott]

I dont see it that way. If you push it far enough why do we give teams a warning if they are starting to infringe a lot. Is that not a form of prevention.

This is a stupid discussion.

Because its in the law, repeat offences.

Stupid, Hmm maybe not, as we were told at our society meeting, the direction from Edd Morrison, was if you have a word with one skipper about offences then speak to the other one also, as not to show bias

 

[andyscott]

No they don't.


Given the amount of argument we have had in this very thread, with diagrams, videos, Hawk-eye, Wall-eye etc it is surely obvious that on many occasions it will be as clear as mud.


Their only recourse would be excessive caution. I don't think that would improve the game. The good referee finds a good balance between speech and silence.

They should

Ah some on here would argue black is white

 

[OB..]

They should

That is simply not true. There are a lot of judgement calls. You are demanding that players should be able to read the referee's mind. If we can't, how can a "mere" player?

 

[andyscott]

That is simply not true. There are a lot of judgement calls. You are demanding that players should be able to read the referee's mind. If we can't, how can a "mere" player?

So by that thinking, you think you cant get consistency between referee week to week for the players?

 

[ex-lucy]

is it a question of levels ?
those at my level (or thereabouts) believe players ought to know better and shouldnt ask such inane qs ... for various reasons and blv that our preventative reffing should suffice.
SS ... 1 or 2 lvls above me ... blvs he can manage such qs ..

i guess we will have to agree to disagree

 

[OB..]

So by that thinking, you think you cant get consistency between referee week to week for the players?

What do you think consistency is? Ideally in a given situation, every referee would give the same decision. We can often get very close to that (as evidenced by asking referees to judge video clips), but of course situations in different games are never identical.

In reality all we can do is try to get all referees using the same criteria. And in doing so they use their own judgement.