Rugby's refereeing woes spark technology debate

[The InnFORCEr]

DUNCAN JOHNSTONE
Last updated 12:04 09/09/2014



English referees have been told to reduce their reliance on video replays to rule on contentious issues as the rugby debate over officiating explodes following a disastrous weekend of mistakes at test level.

Glaring errors in the All Blacks' win over Argentina and the Wallabies' comeback victory over the Springboks in Perth highlighted the current blight of refereeing mistakes.

It has sparked rugby critics and personalities around the world to continue their push for rugby to use more technology to avoid these ongoing embarrassments in a professional game.

Yet those calls have come in the wake of the English system reportedly being told to pull back on using television match officials (TMOs) because officials are concerned games are running too long.

The Press Association in the UK, covering the English Premiership which has just kicked off, revealed that the guidance had come down from the International Rugby Board and more responsibility had been put on refs to get their decisions right the first time.

"We were rightfully criticised by clubs and the media because we weren't as good as we needed to be. Our aim for this season is to be better," Wayne Barnes, England's leading official, told the agency about controlling games in the high-profile club championship.

"We want to try and take more responsibility. If we're in a good position to see whether a pass is forward or not, we should be calling it.

"Let's not send it to the TMO and take two or three minutes out of the game.

"Let's make as many decisions on the pitch as we can. We should be making decisions ourselves."

Tony Spreadbury, head of the RFU's professional game match officials, echoed that philosophy.

"There has been a tendency to say 'we better check this' or 'we better check that'. But we want none of that now," Spreadbury told the agency.

"When footage of an incident is required, officials have been told to avoid gratuitous use of replays."

South African Jonathan Kaplan, who retired last year as test rugby's most experienced referee, has been hugely vocal on his website ratetheref.co.za throughout the Rugby Championship.

The latest blunders didn't escape his eagle eye and he maintains rugby needs to make more - and correct - use of technology.

"Do I really need to confirm what everyone else already knows ... this was not a good weekend for referees," Kaplan wrote in starting his latest column.

"We are operating in a system where I have said that these type of weekends are not avoidable and until key elements of the system are exposed, and then adequately addressed, this will continue into the future.

"The referees are not getting it right, and it is pointless saying after the fact, that things need to be looked at, when the writing was on the wall from the get go.

"This is crisis management on the part of the powers that be, and smacks of them ensuring that the budgets they offer to this pillar of the game are maintained."

Kaplan said French referee Pascal Gauzere's failure to give Argentina a try from a successful charge down "was not a good look for the game as it appeared the referee didn't understand the difference between a knock and a charge down, which I am sure is not true.

"Are we going to go along the tack that we all make mistakes. Not I. In an age where the technology is available, the referee should have allowed the obvious score, and THEN checked to see if the knock only he saw actually occurred. The fact that he blew his whistle and didn't use common sense is not good enough.

"Argentina were denied and it had a profound effect on the contest.

"The fact is that this type of thing should not be tolerated in professional sport. The technology is there. Use it!"

Kaplan was equally scathing of George Clancy's performance with the whistle in Perth where "there were numerous decisions where the referee got it wrong".

He was particularly critical of the late sin-binning of Bryan Habana for a dangerous tackle.

"Clancy was advised by the assistant referee to confer with the TMO to make sure. He did this and bizarrely still wanted to go to his pocket. That was a poor decision. It is wrong if match officials do not understand the sport at the highest level.

"None of the top 20 officials in the world should be giving a yellow card for that offense. And if you think I am wrong, then there should have been a whole slew of yellows not only in this match, but others in the championship too.

"I have great sympathy for referees who make mistakes on the hoof but not so when they do it from slow motion replays.

"Furthermore, the public will be baying for some sort of action to be taken against the referee as the perception is that they are getting short changed by this type of random decision making."

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/i...hnology-debate

[Ecky]

I must say I was bemused by the Habana sin bin, but I was previously bemused by the couple of earlier penalties for high tackle. I don't reckon many refs would have penalised those as high tackles.

I think that, because he had already penalised those as high tackles, he'd "painted himself into a corner" and propbably felt he had no option. Mayne it was some sort of repeat infringement thing rather than the dangerousness of Habana's tackle.

Didn't see the AB's charge down episode, but have read heaps about it. Cannot comment. I do remember back in the day when I was playing, the ref in one particular game ruled a knock-on from a charge down and that was very strange way back then. It's all in the timing, imho. Did the player simply try to block the kick or did the player try to play the ball (ie catch it)?

[chibi]

I may have mentioned this before, but hockey is doing a terrific job of keeping refereeing interpretations uniform across multiple languages around the world, rugby should consult them.

I also truly believe it's time for a second ref on-field to watch rucks and players being held back; or should I say, one ref for the play and another ref for behind the play, the two touchies for stringent offside adjudication.

At higher levels of the game where technology is available, why does the TMO have to be "called on"..? If something has happened which looks touch-and-go, the TMO should automatically look at the incident and relay his view to the ref on-field. Say if a try is scored from a kick ahead, the TMO should be automatically checking for offside-in-front-of-the-kicker before even being asked by the on-field officials. There will be no need for a stoppage to ask him. Likewise if there is a possible double-movement or possible foot-in-touch before a try is scored; the TMO's should be trained to automatically look at this stuff before being called upon. This could be used in open play to check for late-tackles-on-the-kicker or other infringements which would usually require a stoppage and going back to review. Lord knows it would be bloody annoying to lose a World Cup match because a blatant forward pass was allowed in the movement, but the TMO can't be called be called upon because it was too many phases back. He can relay a message and the ref can bring the play back for a rightful scrum to the defence.

[MI5_Dog]

Didn't see the AB's charge down episode, but have read heaps about it. Cannot comment. I do remember back in the day when I was playing, the ref in one particular game ruled a knock-on from a charge down and that was very strange way back then. It's all in the timing, imho. Did the player simply try to block the kick or did the player try to play the ball (ie catch it)?

It was a definite block. Forward jumped up with both arms straight up and it hit him at about the elbow. The ball then hit the ground and he caught it on the first bounce (although he had to stretch for it) and then ran on for the try.

[AndyS]

There's a replay here (http://www.3news.co.nz/sport/video-l...hip-2014090618), with the incident at about 1:27.

I thought at the time it was borderline. I would have paid it (albeit not without wondering whether sentiment was having a role), but it was hardly smothered off the boot.

[James]

I think that, because he had already penalised those as high tackles, he'd "painted himself into a corner" and propbably felt he had no option. Mayne it was some sort of repeat infringement thing rather than the dangerousness of Habana's tackle.

I thought it was a rough call but then again it was a high tackle while the opposition were very hot on attack in the red zone. Perhaps it would have been different else where on the field and with less momentum.

[Sheikh]

At higher levels of the game where technology is available, why does the TMO have to be "called on"..? If something has happened which looks touch-and-go, the TMO should automatically look at the incident and relay his view to the ref on-field. Say if a try is scored from a kick ahead, the TMO should be automatically checking for offside-in-front-of-the-kicker before even being asked by the on-field officials. There will be no need for a stoppage to ask him. Likewise if there is a possible double-movement or possible foot-in-touch before a try is scored; the TMO's should be trained to automatically look at this stuff before being called upon. This could be used in open play to check for late-tackles-on-the-kicker or other infringements which would usually require a stoppage and going back to review. Lord knows it would be bloody annoying to lose a World Cup match because a blatant forward pass was allowed in the movement, but the TMO can't be called be called upon because it was too many phases back. He can relay a message and the ref can bring the play back for a rightful scrum to the defence.

I'd prefer it if the TMO can act like the touchies and call the ref over the radio to report infringements. The ref usually waits for a stoppage before conferring with the touchie, so it's not really any different - the TMO just has a different angle (and potentially several different angles).

[GIGS20]

I must say I was bemused by the Habana sin bin, but I was previously bemused by the couple of earlier penalties for high tackle. I don't reckon many refs would have penalised those as high tackles.

I think that, because he had already penalised those as high tackles, he'd "painted himself into a corner" and propbably felt he had no option. Mayne it was some sort of repeat infringement thing rather than the dangerousness of Habana's tackle.

agree 100% Ecky, the Habana tackle was the worst in a string of not-particularly-high tackles and was therefore consistent in the Refs interpretation on the night......was it soft? Yes, did it deserve a penalty, probably, was it a yellow card......only relative to other tackles which were called high on the night. It's a shame for South Africa to be on the shitty end of that stick, but that's rugby....we've ended up with it in our fair share of games.