That's done it for me. Goodbye rugby I'm out

[Ian_Cook]

Australia v France. Most ridiculous decision, and not entirely the ref's fault

I understand your frustration

This is a problem that Rugby Union as brought upon itself by

1. all but removing the referee's judgement
2. having a system where outcomes are judged and intent is ignored
3. trying to apply static, cookie-cutter flow diagrams & assessments to a dynamic game with complex laws.

This decision wasn't even a PK in my book, but the referee in this case was given almost no choice but to follow a series of stupid, ill-advised, and fundamentally flawed protocols, down a path towards making the wrong decision.

I feel very sorry for Ben O'Keeffe (as well as Brendon Pickerill) because they have effectively been thrown under the bus for doing what their instructions tell them to do.

 

[didds]

Spot on Ian

 

[crossref]

I understand your frustration

This is a problem that Rugby Union as brought upon itself by

1. all but removing the referee's judgement
2. having a system where outcomes are judged and intent is ignored
3. trying to apply static, cookie-cutter flow diagrams & assessments to a dynamic game with complex laws.

This decision wasn't even a PK in my book, but the referee in this case was given almost no choice but to follow a series of stupid, ill-advised, and fundamentally flawed protocols, down a path towards making the wrong decision.

I feel very sorry for Ben O'Keeffe (as well as Brendon Pickerill) because they have effectively been thrown under the bus for doing what their instructions tell them to do.

this is true - but the converse is that for vast majority of incidents where previously we might have had different refs using diff judgement and arriving at diff decisions ..... now we have a very high degree of consistency,.

so you pays your money and makes the choice : ref discretion or consistency ? Obviosuly both are good, but we can't completely have both

it may be that we have to nudge the pendulum a tiny touch, but I don't think rugby is fundamentally in a bad place in this.

 

[Dickie E]

it looks like "clear & obvious" is from a time long gone.

 

[TigerCraig]

it looks like "clear & obvious" is from a time long gone.

Yep, along with "you know it's a red straight away". Seriously if you have to watch in frame by frame from 50 angles , it's not yellow let alone red

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Yep, along with "you know it's a red straight away". Seriously if you have to watch in frame by frame from 50 angles , it's not yellow let alone red

With the advent of camera angles to show what the ref could not see, of course this concept is dead. The whole point of cameras / tmos it to gt the call right (that is to pick up what the reff NATURALLY misses. If the referee does not see something material "you know it's a red straight away" is clearly no longer valid.

Also comething that is clear and obviose from the referees angle is anything but from the other side of the pitch and "Vicky Veruca".

 

[Flish]

My biggest problem with all this is the end result and attitude in the community game to decisions. The expectation at the top is for decisions to be correct, and they are scrutinised in game, post game (sometimes with officials seemingly thrown under a bus) and of course the media / internet pulling at every thread - end result it’s becoming the norm to challenge every decision a hundred times over (often technically incorrect, thank you ‘experts’) that attitude doesn’t work for me with one glance in the sticks.

Of course we all want to get it right, and we’ll all the make the best decision we can (I certainly won’t be going red unless 100%) but the grass roots players, coaches and fans need to keep their expectations and attitudes right.

 

[crossref]

I don't think the community game is really impacted .
We have no replays, no TMO, few spectators, many of the people present will have had a worse view than the ref did, everyone knows the ref can only give what he saw.

I don't think much has really changed for us

 

[Flish]

It’s more attitude to decisions I’m worried about, there’s so much whinging and whining on social media about decisions that I worry that will be deemed to be ‘ok’ in our game. Much like the rolling around and feigning injury that has become common in kids football.

I hope you are right though.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

My biggest problem with all this is the end result and attitude in the community game to decisions. The expectation at the top is for decisions to be correct, and they are scrutinised in game, post game (sometimes with officials seemingly thrown under a bus) and of course the media / internet pulling at every thread - end result it’s becoming the norm to challenge every decision a hundred times over (often technically incorrect, thank you ‘experts’) that attitude doesn’t work for me with one glance in the sticks.

Of course we all want to get it right, and we’ll all the make the best decision we can (I certainly won’t be going red unless 100%) but the grass roots players, coaches and fans need to keep their expectations and attitudes right.

Indeed that is where C&O is still totally relevant. We see one angle and make a call. I have had the fortune (miss?) to be filmed on a few occasions. One call I remember was a tip tackle (not long after the Warburton World cup one) It looked bad and I pulled the red card out. Not one person argued about the call. The vido showed it was a yellow. I had the chance to discuss it with the coach of the sent off player he agreed it was yellow but looked all the way a red. "Such is life" was his reply. "Maybe the lad will not take the risk next time! was his follow up. Sothe: " You know when it's red" is not always true. But it is a fair measure for us in the sticks. No to at the top when it is easier to get it right.

I think generally if we are honest and open with players and coaches MOST will buy it, at least once their natural dissapointment subsides.

 

[Dickie E]

With the advent of camera angles to show what the ref could not see, of course this concept is dead. The whole point of cameras / tmos it to gt the call right (that is to pick up what the reff NATURALLY misses. If the referee does not see something material "you know it's a red straight away" is clearly no longer valid.

Also comething that is clear and obviose from the referees angle is anything but from the other side of the pitch and "Vicky Veruca".

the concept of C & O is not restricted to the one referee/one view scenario. It applies equally to multiple camera angles - possibly even more so. If, after looking at all angles in super-slomo, you can't see a C & O red card, then it isn't

 

[Ian_Cook]

With the advent of camera angles to show what the ref could not see, of course this concept is dead. The whole point of cameras / tmos it to gt the call right (that is to pick up what the reff NATURALLY misses. If the referee does not see something material "you know it's a red straight away" is clearly no longer valid.

Also comething that is clear and obviose from the referees angle is anything but from the other side of the pitch and "Vicky Veruca".

The problem here is that it wasn't "clear and obvious" even with several camera angles and frame by frame replays. The only head contact I saw was Blue 8's head rotating forwards towards Gold 11's shoulder This was as a result of the the shoulder-to-shoulder contact (like whiplash). This is not what the protocol means when it says "direct contact to the head". This should have been "play on".

What I DID see is Blue 8 going down like he'd been shot, and clutching his face. That sort of "Oscar Nomination" behaviour has absolutely NO place whatsoever in our game. WR need to crack down on this with severe penalties; it needs to be a potential red card offence so that players who do this can be cited and face a judicial hearing.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Yes Ian: but the point I raised is C&O as applied lower down the food chain no longer applies when incidents are subject to forensic analysis. When that happens we expect the correct answer with no regard to C&O we expect CORRECT.

When the TMO system fails to provide the correct answer. Which is what those who watched this one seem to be saying it begs the question of the TMO system.

 

[crossref]

TMO isnt about C&O (when it is
C&O you don't need aTMO )

TMO is like hawk eye, it's endeavouring to be precisely correct . Toenail in touch is touch, a tiny bit offside is offside

 

[Dickie E]

I'm not really fussed about a forensic analysis of the definition of C&O except to say this:

the opposite of C&O is a supposition of an outcome based on circumstantial evidence. For example: not sure player landed on back or neck but he is holding his neck so I'll go with that. Or, not sure if player knocked on but he's looking guilty and all the other players have stopped so I'll blow.

So just because an event is not C&O to the referee in real time, it may very well be C&O to the TMO who has the benefit of camera angles and slo-mo.

If an event is neither C&O to the referee nor C&O to the TMO (as per the Koroibete incident), it is likely that it never occurred.

 

[SimonSmith]

I'm not really fussed about a forensic analysis of the definition of C&O except to say this:

the opposite of C&O is a supposition of an outcome based on circumstantial evidence. For example: not sure player landed on back or neck but he is holding his neck so I'll go with that. Or, not sure if player knocked on but he's looking guilty and all the other players have stopped so I'll blow.

So just because an event is not C&O to the referee in real time, it may very well be C&O to the TMO who has the benefit of camera angles and slo-mo.

If an event is neither C&O to the referee nor C&O to the TMO (as per the Koroibete incident), it is likely that it never occurred.

 

[OB..]

[...]

If an event is neither C&O to the referee nor C&O to the TMO (as per the Koroibete incident), it is likely that it never occurred.

Or just that there is no suitable camera angle available?

 

[Ian_Cook]

Yes Ian: but the point I raised is C&O as applied lower down the food chain no longer applies when incidents are subject to forensic analysis. When that happens we expect the correct answer with no regard to C&O we expect CORRECT.

When the TMO system fails to provide the correct answer. Which is what those who watched this one seem to be saying it begs the question of the TMO system.

If you could see clear and obvious direct head contact at full-speed at the first and only time of looking, you should be getting changed in a phone booth.

 

[Dickie E]

Or just that there is no suitable camera angle available?

venturing into the "if a tree falls in the forest and there's nobody there to hear it, did it make a noise?" territory here however if the plethora of camera angles doesn't see an incident it is certainly not C&O

 

[Marc Wakeham]

If you could see clear and obvious direct head contact at full-speed at the first and only time of looking, you should be getting changed in a phone booth.

Delightfully choosing to miss the point.

Wit hout a TMO we only get one look which is why we use C&O and we miss / "ignore" some things. Having a TMO means the chance NOT to be subject to a single look.

But you knew that really, I'm sure.