Wal v Aus: Coach Verbally Attacks Officials

Marc Wakeham


Referees in Wales
Joined
Jan 5, 2018
Messages
2,778
Post Likes
842
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
That is pretty categoric. Also, elsewhere, he is reported to have said it was an act contrary to good sportsmanship.
 
Last edited:

Balones

Referee Advisor / Assessor
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
1,410
Post Likes
461
That is pretty categoric. Also, elsewhere, he is reported to have said it was an act contrary to good sportsmanship.
The point I was making was not in relation to the incident you have highlighted. I am confused.
 

Balones

Referee Advisor / Assessor
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
1,410
Post Likes
461
The WvA incident is a difference of analysis of an incident. We are all entitled to analyse an incident differently from another person, especially if it is a marginal one. In relation to the ‘header’ incident it is a matter of law knowledge/interpretation. Under law I think by knock on definition and many years of this question being asked, and therefore by tradition, saying it is illegal is incorrect and would suggest that nobody would agree with him. If NO is deeming it illegal simply under being ‘contrary to good sportsmanship’ then we are into the area of subjectivity and that opens a can of worms. In my opinion it wasn’t; it was a case of a player being fully aware of the laws and the definition of a knock-on and as a result should not be penalised for his knowledge.
 

Marc Wakeham


Referees in Wales
Joined
Jan 5, 2018
Messages
2,778
Post Likes
842
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
I'm sorry. I had both links open and read the wrong one.


Howerver, The crass error Nigel makes in terms of the header makes one wonder if he needs think be for expressing his opinions and a WRU "law expert".
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,805
Post Likes
3,145
I'm sorry. I had both links open and read the wrong one.


Howerver, The crass error Nigel makes in terms of the header makes one wonder if he needs think be for expressing his opinions and a WRU "law expert".

NO is not a law expert, but he is an empathy expert
 

Zebra1922


Referees in Scotland
Joined
Dec 20, 2017
Messages
716
Post Likes
233
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
I don’t agree it’s a knock on - the definition of a knock on refers to a player hitting the ball forward with a hand or arm. Therefore chest, waist, knee, leg, head etc. Are all not a knock on.

I don’t agree it was an act contrary to good sportsmanship. Any application of this law is judgemental, what is unsportsmanlike to me may be different to others, but I’m happy with this scenario.
 

Jz558


Referees in England
Joined
Nov 8, 2018
Messages
386
Post Likes
132
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
In the back of my mind I thought heading a ball was considered a throw forward and therefore illegal however having checked I dont think the throw forward definition can be applied. There was a famous rugby league header leading to a try which I think led to a change in the laws to make it illegal (but happy to be corrected). I dont really see anything in the Union laws to disallow it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1cgQPwf1ng
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,033
Post Likes
1,775
yup.

the rather convoluted argument for the throw forward/header thing was that it would be assumed the ball must have travelled forward when put into the air to head. The RL try case showed that thus wasnt at all necessarily happening (he headed a held ball), and its also clear that one could propel the ball backwards onto one forehead anyway.

TBH it just smacks of "i dont like the look of it, I'll lever a law into justifying pinging it"
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,805
Post Likes
3,145
WR could easily make it illegal to head the ball, but they haven't , so i guess they are totally happy with it.

It's very unusual to get the opportunity, and in most cases would be better off catching the ball anyway
 

Ciaran Trainor


Referees in England
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
2,844
Post Likes
361
Location
Walney Island
Current Referee grade:
Level 7
I like the fact you can head the ball. Union Laws are full of little quirks and this is one of them.
Not often NO is so clearly wrong..
I've seen many full face charge downs over the years and I'm sure NO has too, would he call them a knock on, I think not.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,805
Post Likes
3,145
Charge downs are different though, they can come off the hand and are not a ko
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,033
Post Likes
1,775
Charge downs are different though, they can come off the hand and are not a ko

and can come of the head too.

Ive headed a kickoff into touch - albeit accidentally cos i syuffed up my catch.

(just a lineout whistled FTR)
 

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
14,106
Post Likes
2,131
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
I think Nigel has picked up where Jonathan left off
 

tim White


Referees in England
Joined
Mar 14, 2005
Messages
1,996
Post Likes
254
I note the "apology" from Erasmus was written as if by someone else. Therefore ignore it.
 

Fatboy_Ginge


Referees in England
Joined
Dec 14, 2012
Messages
126
Post Likes
29
Current Referee grade:
Level 15 - 11
Just coming back to the page so a bit late to the party... This was so interesting over on social media, Facebook especially, lots of comments from South Africans about poor refereeing and Australians confirming that despite them being top level armchair refs, they knew the square root of jack all about the laws.

The conversations usually consisted of me asking "Which direction does the ball have to travel for a knock on to occur?", "Can you clarify or point me in the direction of a law that says knocking a ball backwards is illegal?" or where many of them made reference to "an illegal knockdown"... " Can you tell me which law deals with illegal knockdowns?"

The responses varied between getting blocked by the OPs or them ignoring what were clearly very awkward questions for them.
 

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,981
Post Likes
1,838
Yes, but we also don't want the ref to be the talking point, and the centre of the game , we would rather be invisible

Knock on would have helped with that. It's the expected decision
It would still have been wrong. The referee saw it correctly at the time. Why should he bow to an incorrect belief by the players?
 

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,981
Post Likes
1,838
because he didn't normally make a decision at odds with what all 30 players are expecting?

I do appreciate there are two points of view here. Perhaps, given the TMO, the norms of international rugby, his instructions from WR, JA made the correct call. But I am not so sure that passage was any good for the game.

back at grassroots: if a ref gives a decision that is at odds with what all 30 players are expecting, as a rule of thumb that's going to be a poor call.
I dislike your last comment. At the bottom levels, the referee will usually know the laws far better than the players. I recall a game at the lowest league level where the referee decided to call off the game with one team losing by something like 120-0. The losers were pleased, but weren't expecting it. IMHO he was correct to decide that playing on was dangerous for the losers, but the winning team tried to insist on continuing because they claimed "they needed the points".

I knew they didn't, and was happy to back the referee's call. The coach even tried to claim that the ref needed his agreement to call off the game!
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,805
Post Likes
3,145
OB - look up "rule of thumb" :)
 
Last edited:

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
14,106
Post Likes
2,131
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
I recall a game at the lowest league level where the referee decided to call off the game with one team losing by something like 120-0. The losers were pleased, but weren't expecting it. IMHO he was correct to decide that playing on was dangerous for the losers,

at first reading I wondered what was "dangerous" about being smacked 120-0. But then thought that, in our modern age of mental health being as important as physical health, perhaps it was a good call.

I wonder, in an idle manner, how far it can go though. Conversion attempt, after time has expired, to win the game. Kicker hasn't missed all season. But he misses this one. To avoid the resulting ridicule, anguish & despondency that may ultimately lead to alcohol/drug abuse, domestic violence, etc ... should he be allowed to take the kick again?
 
Top