Wayne Barnes praised!!

[dave_clark]

no *proper* referee is biased. as a youth coach, i came across shed loads of club refs who used to cheat more than the open sides to ensure their team won. none at my club though

 

[OB..]

Guys, I just read the 4 pages of this discussion and I'm not sure I'm much wiser about stuff - except that whatever Ian writes, seems to upset OB for starters (I seem to remember there's form in that relationship!) and then NH v SH eruptions. ;-)

I am with Ian on this one.

Agreeing is very short. Disagreement means explanation and detail, and is therefore more noticeable. Feel free to chip in.

I like a bit of debate, but Olla needs removing from the forum for those remarks. No referee anywhere is biased. Accept that and move on!!

I could delete his posts, but since he has promised not to post again, and people have responded to them, I saw no point. If anybody is bothered about it, speak now etc ....

 

[Ian_Cook]

I could delete his posts, but since he has promised not to post again, and people have responded to them, I saw no point. If anybody is bothered about it, speak now etc ....

Leave it there OB.

Its a nice reminder that there are ignorant fools out there whose mindless passion for rugby grossly outweighs their knowledge of it!

 

[chopper15]

My first two sentences referred to this a.m's game, Davet. I just couldn't understand why no card. Same for last, week which I went on to draw attention to. No explanation then either.

Watched Pirates v Mosely this pm. (too one-sided to be entertaining 58 -24) but it happened again. Player tackled in the air. Penalty kick, no card. law 10.5 (a). Why? It goes on and on. Ref. my thread #31.

Won't anyone tell me why? Is it something I've said? :sad:

 

[Davet]

Player tackled in the air. Penalty kick, no card. law 10.5 (a). Why? It goes on and on. Ref. my thread #31.

10.5.a
Player infringing foul play law must have 1 of followimng sanctions applied
1) Admonished (= bollocking) OR,
2) Cautioned and temporarily suspended (= YC) OR,
3) Sent off (= RC)

So a card is not mandated by law.

 

[chopper15]

10.5.a
Player infringing foul play law must have 1 of followimng sanctions applied
1) Admonished (= bollocking) OR,
2) Cautioned and temporarily suspended (= YC) OR,
3) Sent off (= RC)

So a card is not mandated by law.

My query, Davet is. . . WHY he should choose not to issue a card?

Surely, if it wasn't considered accidental, he's not going to overlook issuing a card just because the recipient is fortunate enough not to be hurt?

I accept, if in the ref's opinion there's an element of accident, then so be it, an admonishment. But the egs I gave weren't accidental, so I can only assume the ref's/ARses may not have seen the Nonu incident, but I don't think it was even reported after.

Yesterday, 30mins into game; Habana was body checked late. Consultation Barnes/Owens. No warning, no card. 70mins: Nonu speared and bloodied. No action taken by Ref. or ARses . . . it was shown in slo-mo right after.

Pirates v Mosely this pm., player tackled in the air. No hurt. Penalty kick, no card.

Wouldn't a 'sensible' interpretation of law 10.5 (a) be; if considered 'accidental' a finger wag/pen. But should the 'intention' be obvious, a card colour dependent on immediate consequences?

 

[SimonSmith]

On Habana, NO I think blew it by not asking WB for the recommended sanction.

Not commenting on something I haven't seen.

 

[OB..]

chopper - there is no simple answer to your question. It depends on all sorts of factors such as the temper of the game, how the referee saw the intention etc.

The ATP (Ask, Tell, Penalise) sequence continues YC, RC. A referee works his way up the scale from an appropriate starting point. A penalty in one match might become a YC in another because it was happening too often to be accidental. In a third match he might go straight to a RC if that was how he read (ouch!) it.

 

[chopper15]

But, OB, for the refs' sake and for the good of the game you refs have the power to simplify the law by 'sensible' interpretation.

If it's not considered accidental, simply issue a card. Not as it now appears, overlook issuing a card just because the recipient is fortunate enough not to be hurt?

 

[OB..]

chopper - we are more interested in managing a game than simplifying decisions by making them automatic. It's called empathy.

Getting hurt is not necessarily a significant factor. People get hurt in legitimate play, and really foul play can fail to hurt anybody.

 

[Davet]

Wot OB says.

Ours is a complex game that requires players and referees to make continuous and sophisticated judgements.

That's the beauty of it, and that's the way we like it.

If you simplify it then you change the character of the game. I am never in favour of dumbing things down - the answer is always to smarten the observers up, and that is where TV can help. TV's Rugby Club's occasional forays into the arts of the game are a sort of start, but much more is required, and the clubs could help with shows and demos pre-game, as part of the builod up and entertainment. They would need refs involved, and make sure it was done properly, but that and other similar educational initiatives would maintain the complexity that we love, and help the commercials.

 

[chopper15]

Ref. Davet; Ours is a complex game that requires players and referees to make continuous and sophisticated judgements. That's the beauty of it, and that's the way we like it.

'we’ like it, Davet?

Refs privy to unwritten interpretation and the rest of us the written word?

You refs by your comments seem to overlook that fact.

 

[OB..]

Ref. Davet; Ours is a complex game that requires players and referees to make continuous and sophisticated judgements. That's the beauty of it, and that's the way we like it.

'we’ like it, Davet?

Refs privy to unwritten interpretation and the rest of us the written word?

You refs by your comments seem to overlook that fact.

Once again I need to point out that you are not the guardian of the written word. Why should your view count more than that of referee societies? Unlike them, you have no responsibility to the players for managing the game.

 

[chopper15]

‘Once again I need to point out that you are not the guardian of the written word. Why should your view count more than that of referee societies? Unlike them, you have no responsibility to the players for managing the game.’

By the unjustified tone and wording of your reply above, OB, I can only guess you may have misread my comment for I can think of no other justification why you would want to conjured up and pin such belittling claims on me for all your fellow refs and threaders to read.

I was merely querying Davet’s claim, ‘. . . and that's the way we like it’, by reminding him that ‘we’ aren’t all referees. And the ‘we’ who are not referees can only seek answers for the varying decisions we witness out there in the LoG (the written word) or ask on sites such as these for a consensus of opinion (interpretation).

PS. You must admit, Davet, it did have the flavour of arrogance if indeed you were restricting the ‘we’ to the refereeing fraternity. :hap:

 

[chopper15]

I've just had a thought and feel a bit guilty in being over these past years so presumptuous.

The name of this site being 'The Referees' Forum'; should a regular place for rugby supporters' queries and learned terrace refs' comments be tolerated?

 

[SimonSmith]

'we’ like it, Davet?

Refs privy to unwritten interpretation and the rest of us the written word?

You refs by your comments seem to overlook that fact.

So, you're on a Referee website where there are clear explanations about interpretation and your paranoia is kicking in about secrecy. The irony is delicious.

I would challenge you to find something around law interpretation that has been 'restricted' to referees and not any other wider audience. I really don't think you'll find it.

You KEEP banging the same drum, and you keep getting the same answer: it's a complex game. Referees have to manage it within a framework supplied by the laws.

If I adopted your approach and blew the whistle every time there was an infringement it would be too stop/start for words, and the card count would be horrendous.

 

[chopper15]

Simon, I'm only suggesting that you all sing from the same hymn sheet and make a better effort at it instead of pussy-footing around.

Why shouldn't any LTR dig in and attempt to get a consensual answer?

I would challenge you to find something around law interpretation that has been 'restricted' to referees and not any other wider audience. I really don't think you'll find it.

Of course you would, Simon, that's my point there's no written interpretation . . . I've no chance of finding it have I?

I'm afraid I haven't digested your other comments yet. :hap:


Had a bit more read. I'm not suggesting 'secrecy', Simon, I was referring to 'briefed accessibility', sorry.

 

[SimonSmith]

USA Rugby. I may not like WHAT they promulgate, but I can't fault that the referee guidelines are there for all to see. You have, in fact, seen the game management guidelines where they highlight interpretations.

They are there in public for all to see. Which kind of puts your comment "Refs privy to unwritten interpretation and the rest of us the written word?" to bed.

 

[OB..]

Simon, I'm only suggesting that you all sing from the same hymn sheet and make a better effort at it instead of pussy-footing around.

What efforts do you think we currently make?

 

[Davet]

By "we" I mean rugby players, fans, and officials. Certainly not just refs, but all who love our complex game.