Rugby's experimental laws confusing for players, officials

Rugby's experimental laws confusing for players, officials

THERE are many unexplained mysteries in the world - the Bermuda Triangle is one - but rugby has an even more mystifying occurance.

That is: why referees continually blow up at breakdowns under the new experimental laws.

Players, not to mention the official himself, could come under Worksafe scrutiny because of the threat of ear damage, so often does the whistle go.

And there is another mystery: why does the referee spend the whole game in a monologue of instructions which players seemingly ignore or do not understand.

Why does he bother barking orders about "hands out of the ruck" or "stay on your feet" - and then award a free kick for just that. It bemuses players and coaches and frustrates fans.

Force captain Nathan Sharpe said after Friday's win against the Cheetahs: "Gone are the days of understanding every penalty that goes on.

The rest here...http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/stor...005403,00.html

This is definitely the point I think i was trying to make in my other thread.

I see it is a two way street maybe with both the players and the officials not quite on the same page.

They might need to have some sort of meeting with coaches and officials to get on the same page.

I think Nick has been reading our posts

South Africa sets rugby style

At a time when especially between Australia and South Africa there appear to be conflicts over the direction of the Super 14 competition it was a neat, symbolic touch that referees from each country provided some of the main talking points of last weekend’s round.

The contrast in the performances of Australian Matt Goddard and South African Mark Lawrence could not have been more pronounced. The Hurricanes-Bulls match, with Goddard in charge and "in charge" was the operative phrase, was a frustrating exercise for players, spectators and television viewers.

The Blues-Chiefs match, which Lawrence controlled just 24 hours later, on the other hand, was a much more enthralling contest and, if purists overlook the alarming malfunctions in the Blues’ defence, by far the most entertaining match seen in this year’s Super 14.

And entertainment, in the professional era, is what the Super 14 is supposed to be all about.

Television comments man Murray Mexted doesn't always get things right, but in this instance most would agree with his assessment of Goddard as "pedantic." Once he started early with issuing yellow cards the contest inevitably lost shape.

What Goddard's performance most illustrated was the need for rugby's laws to be clearer and simpler, and for some sort of system to be introduced like that used in rugby league. Rather than having teams reduced in playing numbers, and games ruined as spectacles and a fair contest, why not put the not quite so serious foul offences "on report" and have them re-visited?

And surely it's time for law-makers to forget about trying to sanitise games and allow the return of some rucking. That was always the best way to stop players deliberately trying to kill the ball and also to stop tight forwards fringing in backlines and cutting down on space.

But now any forward who now lifts a boot, as Jason Eaton did for the Hurricanes last Friday night, is given a yellow card and is then cited.

Where Lawrence and Goddard differed most was in their man management skills. The Blues and Chiefs responded to Lawrence’s calm control, courtesy and his consistency.

Goddard, however, not only caused confusion with his persistent use of the whistle he also made the error of becoming too personal with his comments, describing a Bulls player, Bakkies Botha, as having "big ears." That was almost a comic touch, coming as did from a man with the stature of a bantam rooster towards a man mountain of more than 2m.

Just as the style of the best South African referees, as demonstrated by Lawrence and Jonathan Kaplan, has set a standard for others in the Super 14, so, too, should the stance taken by South Africa's administration over the future of the competition be given some respect.

It has been disappointing for those of us who have been concerned about the way our own domestic competitions, have been affected by Super 14 expansions to learn that most New Zealanders appear to be opposed to the South African stance. But really we should be sympathetic to their determination to ensure their provincial competition, the Currie Cup, retains its status.

In New Zealand, club rugby has undergone a damaging decline over the past 12 years to a point now where it is almost a terminal case. It is kept alive only by the passion and enthusiasm of volunteers whose numbers are now dwindling. The difficulty of trying to cram club rugby into some sort of "window" has been shown by the fact that by last weekend, well before Easter, no fewer than nine club competitions had started already. That's to enable them to conclude well before August, in time for the Air New Zealand Cup.

The national provincial championship and, even the credibility of the Ranfurly Shield, once precious jewels in our rugby crown, have been put under the same threat as club rugby, if attendances for games last year like Wellington’s successful challenge against Auckland and for the provincial premiership play-offs are an indication.

Yet the perception in recent years has been that all of the Sanzar changes have been driven by Australia's John O’Neill and in the interests primarily of Australia, where rugby union battles against the competition of Rules, league and football.

There appears to have been no one making the same vigorous stand on behalf of New Zealand rugby's overall interests. It would be wrong for anyone, even Australians, to assume that rugby here will maintain forever an impregnable position of strength.

The SH refs are like the NH refs were last year and really cracked down on it but went a little too far.

This year especially in the 6N you could see the refs had all backed off a bit.

Just keep the passing back into the 22 rule that's the only good one and I'm not sure if you can kick it out on the first recieval into the 22 from kick off.

If you can they should stop that, who wants to see a game where there's a break 10 seconds after the game has started.

WRF's new rule. After the initial kick off and after the half time restart the first recieving player of the ball must not kick the ball into directly into touch from inside his own 22. A player may after passing the 22 metre area kick the ball into touch as long as it is not directly into touch and lands in the field of play first, or it will be a lineout back inline with where the kick was made.

Cookie, who wrote that load of garbage??

Basically says that South Africa should have the major say on Super Rugby because Goddard has better man management skills than Lawrence.

Its saying people want to attend rugby games for entertaintment,not to see 5 pretty litle yellow cards and 1 pretty red card being flashed around.

I would rather pay money to see a game like the chiefs-blues than to see a crap game like the canes-bulls.Not a good ad for union.

The writer was Lindsay Night from NZ who is worried that rugby in NZ is losing its gloss.

Television comments man Murray Mexted doesn't always (rarely) get things right, but in this instance most would agree with his assessment of Goddard as "pedantic."

What the Commentators did in fact agree on as was that the interpretations were all correct.

We have covered this previously since the match, you can't have it both ways.

Far cop when the officials are wrong, especially when they are glaringly wrong, but it is bullshit to be basing these type of articles on the basis of the Ref actually being right.

I think Goddard is a pretentious twat who got bullied at school, but I also think that the calls that he made in this instance were correct and, perhaps unfortunately for the code, defensible.

Perhaps the same standards should be used on Murray for a couple of matches?

From the same article "Cheetahs coach Naka Drotske said teams now study the way referees police the breakdowns as part of game preparations.

"These days you have to study the referee before you decide what tactics you are going to use at the breakdown," he said. "

And the comments in this thread, it seems to me, indicate that the players would prefer a ref in the style of Lawrence (Mark, not Bryce) or Kaplan, rather than Goddard. This is to do with the style of the official, rather than whether or not the ref "gets it right" in terms of law application.

So it comes down to "man management" skills, in that perhaps Goddard is more of a policeman who will punish the offender, and Lawrence (whom I have previously stated I admire for his style and calmness) who will try talking the offender out of the offence and only penalise if non-compliance. A huge case in point for this was his Bledisloe game last year when he specifically called So'oialo out of a maul, which he entered from the side, three times - and Rodney even looked up at him at one stage, but still stayed in the maul - before penalising him.

I would expect even the good teams in Perth 1st grade to have a look at the ref appointments and see that, for example, if they get me, I really hate the following:
(a) scrums/front rows not steady after "touch",
(b) attacking pillars to be in front of last feet,
(c) ANYONE, including attacking team, entering ruck/maul from the side.
If they persist in doing these things, how can they be surprised when they are penalised?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecky

From the same article "Cheetahs coach Naka Drotske said teams now study the way referees police the breakdowns as part of game preparations.

"These days you have to study the referee before you decide what tactics you are going to use at the breakdown," he said. "

---

And that's going so well for them :iconrofl:

Imagine how shit they would be if they hadn't thought of that pre-match tactic :eek:

There are definitely some ELVs that should stay. The no kicking out on the full when passing back into the 22 laws should stay and maybe stretched to kick-off/restarts, as mentioned previously.

There are however a few things that I seriously don't like. The new ruck rules where players can no longer ruck with their boots is a strange one. Fair enough the new ELVs state that if a player is not rolling away, diving over or playing the ball on the ground then a free kick is awarded. This doesn't really help, if players are going to continually get in those positions they should be at a disadvantage; they will get the f##k rucked out of them!!! This is the rugby I remember playing!

The difficult part is not all refs will eventually take the short arm to a full arm penalty, they may do this if it is a repeat offender, but not necessarily across a group of players who may continually infringe. I know the new laws are there to protect players from getting injured in rucks, but as long as the rucking is down to the old rules, backwards and not in the groin or head area, there shouldn't be an issue. Stamping was always bad and should be kept out of the game, but rucking should never have been taken away!!

A short arm free kick is not enough of a deterrent from infringers! A good rucking (legal that is) that lays a few studs across there legs or back used to teach them to get the f##k out of the way in future rucks! I think still have the free kick but allow rucking and if the player doesn't get out of the way then blow it up.

Another issue is the fact that offside is a direct penalty, where as deliberate diving over, playing the ball in the ruck and not rolling away are not direct penalties; it is up to the ref whether it is a penalty but most times it is only a free kick. In a lot of instances a player is not intentionally offside, most times they jut didn't read the onside line well enough.

Who knows what is going to happen with the ELVs but I do hope that the new kicking rules will stay!!!

Matt gets red card



Australian referee Matt Goddard has been stood down for at least a week.

The man who handed out five yellow cards and one red during the Super 14 match between the Hurricanes and Bulls did not fare well in his official review.

After naming the match officials for this week's round of matches yesterday, New Zealand referees boss Lyndon Bray confirmed what everyone at Westpac Stadium last Friday already knew: Goddard got it wrong.

"Matt, by his own admission, put his hand up and said he got the balance wrong on the night," Bray said. "We all agreed he had clarity of what he wanted to achieve spot-on but, on review [of] some of the decisions, he was too technically minded in giving yellow cards for some of the offences."

In a refreshing move, the New Zealand Rugby Union's high-performance referees manager was happy to talk about Goddard's performance review.

Most fault was found in the sinbinning of Bulls openside Pedrie Wannenburg in the first half and of his Hurricanes opposite number Scott Waldrom just after halftime.

Although the review found both decisions had, technically, been penalty offences, neither had warranted a yellow card, Bray said.

"In reviewing that, he's accepted that he went too far with his punishment for those particular infringements ... he was too hard-nosed technically.

"We have decided it's best to stand down for the time being and Matt will go away and work out an action plan going forward."

Goddard has been bracketed to referee a match in a fortnight's time, but Bray said a decision would be made closer to the time.

"If we have signed off the review and he feels like he's in the right space, then he'll be back for that round."

Goddard accepted he would be criticised, but Bray urged people not to write off referees unfairly because of one "off-night".

"I think it's important to note that Matt was refereeing very well up to this point and, in fact, had been complimented in many quarters," Bray said. "One bad night at the office does not make him a bad referee."

The Hurricanes and Bulls will no doubt be glad to see that Goddard has been held accountable for a performance that frustrated players and coaches from both sides.

Perhaps more pleasing for the Hurricanes is that they have South Africa's Jonathan Kaplan, arguably the best referee in the competition, for Sunday's match against the Lions in Johannesburg.

I think that's fair enough on all parties, case closed.

It certainly is "arguable" re the Kaplan statement though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cookie

....
"I think it's important to note that Matt was refereeing very well up to this point and, in fact, had been complimented in many quarters," Bray said. "One bad night at the office does not make him a bad referee."
...

---

Being a self-important twat does that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by unipirate

The new ruck rules where players can no longer ruck with their boots is a strange one.

---

That is not an ELV. Players can still ruck the ball, but the prohibition against rucking or stepping on players is codified in the current laws and is unchanged. Specifically:
16.3 (f) A player rucking for the ball must not ruck players on the ground. A player rucking for the ball tries to step over players on the ground and must not intentionally step on them. A player rucking must do so near the ball.
Penalty: Penalty Kick for dangerous play

My only problem with the idea of "reintroducing rucking" was highlighted beautifully last weekend by Eaton. As I saw it, Botha (I think) tried and failed to sack the lineout, winding up on the wrong side of the resulting maul. Not being able to roll out, he did what is now required and opened his body up and got his front well trampled. One bump from the side or twist of the maul, it would have been his upturned face.

If the game reverts to rucking, it will also have to revert to the interpretations that allowed the player to protect himself. I also remember when rucking was allowed, but I don't think the ball came out any quicker as a result. It was a different game, played by amateurs, and I am just not sure you can say that what worked then would still work now. You'd probably just find that the players would wear some sort of light guard to take the edge off (a la the arm guard/club that all the Jaapie locks wear) and the ball would never come out at all.