Rugby World Cup

[GrumpyGregry]

All you're losing is a few seconds. Are you telling me that you've never made a decision you were absolutely sure was right at the time, only to find out later that it wasn't? I've certainly done so as a cricket umpire.

I have got the laws, or the correct application of them, wrong on many (thousands) occasions for sure. But it doesn't matter The Laws provides me with a helpful shelter...

6.A.4 THE DUTIES OF THE REFEREE IN THE PLAYING ENCLOSURE
(a) The referee is the sole judge of fact and of Law during a match.

post-hoc we can compare and contrast until the cows come home as to my grasp of the actualité but whilst we are on the park if I say the grass is blue, and red seven is offside again it is and s/he is.

But I've never issued an RC or, for that matter binned someone, that I had a seconds doubt about.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

It's a league thing. The ref refers the incident to a disciplinary panel.

I like the idea of citing, for stuff referees miss. RC's always go to disciplinary committees. The ref knows he may have got it wrong when they rule 'sending off sufficient', and even at my level the ref's performance will be looked at after every RC issued. We actively manage the game to avoid giving them because they are such a big deal for all concerned.

But every so often a player does something so poorly executed or so plain dumb your hand is going to your pocket before the whistle is in your mouth.

But once a ref has dealt with it, in any way short of an RC during the game, it is over and done.

 

[User482]

I have got the laws, or the correct application of them, wrong on many (thousands) occasions for sure. But it doesn't matter The Laws provides me with a helpful shelter...

6.A.4 THE DUTIES OF THE REFEREE IN THE PLAYING ENCLOSURE
(a) The referee is the sole judge of fact and of Law during a match.

post-hoc we can compare and contrast until the cows come home as to my grasp of the actualité but whilst we are on the park if I say the grass is blue, and red seven is offside again it is and s/he is.

But I've never issued an RC or, for that matter binned someone, that I had a seconds doubt about.

That the referee's (or umpire's) decision is final isn't in question. What we're talking about is getting that decision right. I've given people out LBW, thinking they were absolutely plumb, only to find later they'd got an inside edge, and I'd missed it. The point is that I had no doubt at the time.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

That's a real blow to my blinkered view of the world Greg... another reality bubble burst

Sorry. I rapidly discovered that a very thick skin, and selective deafness, was needed if I wanted to ref at the level I once played at.

 

[meenaghman]

Don't understand what the fuss is about.. as far as I can see the argument goes something like this .. Warburton is inspirational captain and not a malicious player, the tackle happened in a world cup semi-final so should be refereed differently, He dropped, not speared the French player, it ruined the game, others got away with yellow/no punishment for the same offence in previous games,.. therefore should only have been a yellow card V rule which clearly indicates dangerous play warranting a red card.
Dangerous play can be both intentional (where there is clear malice) and reckless (where there's no malice but no thought on behalf of the tackler). This falls into the latter category. He had to go.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

That the referee's (or umpire's) decision is final isn't in question. What we're talking about is getting that decision right. I've given people out LBW, thinking they were absolutely plumb, only to find later they'd got an inside edge, and I'd missed it. The point is that I had no doubt at the time.

Nope. I don't think that is the question at all.

Rugby has evolved its code of ethics/behaviour on the basis that every decision a rugby referee makes that relates to judgement of fact and the Laws of the Game during a match is right, as well as final. The Laws even say so. One Law about being right all the time and another one Law about the finality of any decision - with the ability to 'go upstairs' for confirmation at elite levels. Given that reffing requires you to impose a whole heap of artificial constructs on a very dynamic game I can't see any other way to do it. The key is to let the players play, safely, equitably and according to the LotG. That pile of bodies is a ruck because I said it was a ruck. It wasn't a ruck, and I wasn't refereeing to the ruck laws until I decided it was a ruck. Was it really a ruck in Law? Dunno, game is going too fast to care, ball is away we are on to the next phase.

Now it may be that somehow, and I'm not sure how at non-elite levels you would do this, you could show that post-hoc, objectively, the referee was wrong. But it wouldn't matter after the match because the game is over and the result stands. During the match the referee is always right.

As an umpire would taking some time to think about those close lbw calls or discuss it with someone, in the absence of a TMO, have changed your decision? How do you know they got an inside edge?

 

[User482]

Nope. I don't think that is the question at all.

Rugby has evolved its code of ethics/behaviour on the basis that every decision a rugby referee makes that relates to judgement of fact and the Laws of the Game during a match is right, as well as final. The Laws even say so. One Law about being right all the time and another one Law about the finality of any decision - with the ability to 'go upstairs' for confirmation at elite levels. Given that reffing requires you to impose a whole heap of artificial constructs on a very dynamic game I can't see any other way to do it. The key is to let the players play, safely, equitably and according to the LotG. That pile of bodies is a ruck because I said it was a ruck. It wasn't a ruck, and I wasn't refereeing to the ruck laws until I decided it was a ruck. Was it really a ruck in Law? Dunno, game is going too fast to care, ball is away we are on to the next phase.

Now it may be that somehow, and I'm not sure how at non-elite levels you would do this, you could show that post-hoc, objectively, the referee was wrong. But it wouldn't matter after the match because the game is over and the result stands. During the match the referee is always right.

As an umpire would taking some time to think about those close lbw calls or discuss it with someone, in the absence of a TMO, have changed your decision? How do you know they got an inside edge?

Except that referees who are shown to get it consistently wrong don't get to be referees for much longer. So, regardless of the finality of the on-field decision, being right matters.

Regarding umpiring: the situation I described was a difficult one - we don't have the third umpire, the square leg umpire can't tell, the fielding side has appealed (so is biased), and the batsman hasn't walked (ditto). So you're stuffed. In retrospect, I didn't go through in my mind all the reasons for giving a batsman not out. E.g. did it pitch outside the line? Did he get an inside edge? That's the trouble with a gut reaction. The best test umpires do take a few seconds before raising the finger...

I know it was an inside edge because the batsman told me and the fielding side admitted it after the game. However, because my decision was final, the batsman walked. That doesn't make it right.

 

[User482]

No it isn't right. Your missing the inside edge is bad, the fielding side knowing that they had appealed for LBW after one is shameful.

Yet it's very common practice at professional level, as is not walking when you know you're out. However, claiming a grounded catch is still seen as cheating. Cricket has a curious code of ethics!

 

[MissTillyFlop]

I think the ref forgot the first basic rule of rugby:

Is it Wales? Then they are right.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Except that referees who are shown to get it consistently wrong don't get to be referees for much longer. So, regardless of the finality of the on-field decision, being right matters.

Not my actual experience tbh. All, except the better and very best, refs get things wrong consistently. (tongue in cheek ; like a f-i-l who gives YC's for RC offences). The refs ability is graded and they get appointed to the level of game that matches it.

Refs care about three things only. Safety, Equity, and the Laws. So, in a way, the last thing a ref is worried about on the field is the Laws. Equity trumps Laws and Safety trumps everything. The only people I've known who have been refused any (society) appointments have been refused them on the basis that they consistently failed, and this despite training and coaching, to manage games safely. You can be a crap ref but stay a ref. You cannot be, and stay, a dangerous ref.

 

[gavroche]

if any of you listened to Francois ( the other compere) about the ref's decision, he also demonstrated that he gave Wales a penalty kick when in fact the fault was Welsh , not French. If the ball had gone over, then the result would have been in Wales's favour. No-one seems to mention that.
Referees are human and have to make instant decision.

 

[User482]

Not my actual experience tbh. All, except the better and very best, refs get things wrong consistently. (tongue in cheek ; like a f-i-l who gives YC's for RC offences). The refs ability is graded and they get appointed to the level of game that matches it.

Refs care about three things only. Safety, Equity, and the Laws. So, in a way, the last thing a ref is worried about on the field is the Laws. Equity trumps Laws and Safety trumps everything. The only people I've known who have been refused any (society) appointments have been refused them on the basis that they consistently failed, and this despite training and coaching, to manage games safely. You can be a crap ref but stay a ref. You cannot be, and stay, a dangerous ref.

So ultimately, it comes down to whether or not, in the opinion of the referee, the tackle was dangerous? That the IRB instruction you quoted is a secondary consideration?

The lifted player is dropped to the ground from a height with no regard to the player’s safety. A red card should be issued for this type of tackle.

How high is "a height"? How do you know the tackler had no regard for his opponent's safety?

As I say, it's all about interpretation.

 

[Bonefish Blues]

How high is "a height"? How do you know the tackler had no regard for his opponent's safety?

Hips above shoulders, isn't it (at least as a working definition)?

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Hips above shoulders, isn't it?

In this context yes. But the simple rule is "if you take him off his feet and into the air it is your job to put him down nicely"

 

[User482]

In this context yes. But the simple rule is "if you take him off his feet and into the air it is your job to put him down nicely"

But that isn't what the instruction says - so we're back to interpretation. I'm not saying that the ref was necessarily wrong, just that it was a matter of judgement.