Referee's Training Inadequate?

Not sure what I think about this, whilst it our duty to provide a safe environment we are not there to diagnose or treat a medical condition. Since this match involved school boys the primary care should lie with coaches or teachers and I would question what the first-aid provision was before laying the blame with the referee.

Referee's training inadequate, rugby death inquest told - Belfasttelegraph.co.uk

Its still a good idea to have a look at this.

IRB Pocket SCAT2

More Fiddling

Just when you thought it was safe to look at the law book once again, the IRB comes up with some new variations.

http://www.irblaws.com/2012/

Most are un-contentious, how the TMO is used is yet to be defined so we have to see on that one. The scrum engagement is tinkering around the edges, its been said before the problem at the top of the game is all about winning the hit and I not sure that addresses the issue.

Gods Walk Amongst Us

One of the benefits of being a London Society ref is having Twickenham HQ on our patch and a couple of international referees in our midsts. Last night Wayne Barnes and Steve Walsh held a Q&A ahead of this weekend's international appointments. They have much in common, both having started refereeing at their teens and taking charge of their first international in their early twenties, as well as being subject to some one field controversy. The difference between the besuited ex-lawyer Barnes and the laid-back surfer-dude Walsh is also marked. 

The early conversation focused on Barnes and the lack of red card for Bradley Davies, he made the valid point that he needed to trust his assistant and having watched the replay both Wayne and Pearson clearly admit it was a red card. Another senior referee told me that Pearson's reason for not recommending a red was that he claimed he was too close and could not be sure of the height from which Davies dropped the Irishman. Seems to be a bit of arse-covering if you ask me. Later Walsh did admit that he recognizes that he and other referees are happy to be less strict that the disciplinary committee, he sees a Red Card as something that is instinctive, if he doesn't have the gut feeling then he will Yellow Card and let the citing officer deal with it.

I have spoken before of Barnes' refereeing style and I think it is one that all top refs aspire to, only blowing up if he judges the offence to be material and his intervention really necessary. He said that players want to run about, coaches want their players to run about and spectators want to watch rugby. I have found that trying to implement this strategy has improved my game. Both referees agreed that knowing when not to whistle is what makes a good referee. Given this I find it strange that one of my Twitter followers thinks Wayne is faster to his whistle than any other referee, Barnes' view of being a ref is that its not his ambition to be popular or well know, at least he's half way there!

There was a poignant discussion of Steve much publicised fall from grace and now, his redemption. He described that much of his life he has been angry and used rage to compete, this has seen him get into trouble as a consequence. Whilst the booze wasn't the cause of this, he admitted it made it more difficult to control his demons. He is now tee-total and attends Alcoholics Anonymous, he has learned to let go of his rage and is more at peace with the world. He was very frank and open and some even suggested a post rugby career in life coaching rather than opening a supermarket would be an option. 

Both Barnes and Walsh gave some good development tips particularly finding someone you are comfortable to confide in and trust yourself; what has taken you to your currently level will take you further. Don't change your style as you progress. Barnes admitted that he does watch video of teams he is due to ref and speak to players to get rid of penalties before they happen. They agreed it was important to have key conversations read in your head, speaking to players about problems and dealing with discipline are things that need to be rehearsed

Finally the inevitable scrum question, why is it such a mess at the top of the game? Both agreed that it is the desire to win the hit but the punitive (and random?-ed) response of referees has been changing behaviour and that teams are now prepared to loose the hit rather than concede a penalty. Steve reminded us that the iRB is coming to the end of a two year review of scrummaging, he said there is a really worry that the hit will be removed completely, in the face of this coaches are keen to be seen to be complainant rather than loose what is a vital part of the game. That said, it could be argued that the hit is something that the iRB managed to manufacture in the first place.

I am sure Mr Walsh will listen to me about who should win tomorrow's game rather than all that English pleading, he did admit that there would be a big focus on tackler assist releasing.  

That tackle and the Red Card

As a referee, London Welsh wasn’t a happy place to be last Saturday, well most Saturdays actually. There can be no better place to watch a Wales international short of the the Millennium Stadium itself but as I saw the circumstances of the Warburton tackle I realised I would be justifying the action the referee for the rest of the day. My conversation with the Welsh RFU panel touch judge for the home game was the one exception.

My first instinct on seeing the replay was “oh dear, he is going to get cited and banned for the Final”, a yellow card was inevitable. It was a surprise that Rolland issued the red, not from the action of Warburton but on what referees typically do under such circumstances. A yellow and a retrospective ban is the form and is something we have seen 3-4 times in the RWC, but I’ve seen an Aussie red carded in 3N match for the same thing. The argument of consistency has been made and is a valid one but needs to be applied to the action of the other referees in the tournament. The resultant bans for player show that red cards should have issued at the time.

The IRB in their infinite wisdom has decided that the ‘tip tackle’ is supremely dangerous. It is covered by this;

Law 10.4(j) reads: Lifting a player from the ground and dropping or driving that player into the ground whilst that player’s feet are still off the ground such that the player’s head and/or upper body come into contact with the ground is dangerous play

The upshot is that if you take the player up, you bring him down safely; you do not drive him down (the extreme Melamu/O’Driscoll example), you do not think, “bugger I’ve tipped him I better let go of him now” (as Warbuton did) but you control how you bring him down (as Henson did to Matt Tait in 2005). Intent does not come into it, terrible things happen by accident and we must take the consequences.

What differentiates the referee’s actions on Saturday was he didn’t bottle the decision, he saw what he saw and knew how the IRB had directed him to act and he went to his pocket. The only mistake he made was not consulting his assistant referees, I doubt the outcome would be different but it would have bought himself time to make it clear in his mind and shared the responsibility for call.

Imagine a conversation like this.

REF, “this is what I saw, red 7 lifts blue of the ground and through the horizontal and drops him, he fails to bring him to ground in a safe manner, a dangerous tackle. Do you have anything to add?”

AR1 “nothing to add, it was a dangerous tackle,”

REF, “I am going to award a penalty and issue a red card to red 7”

AR1 “agreed”

The whole world knows what the Ref is thinking, the Ref has a few extra seconds to think about the consequences of what he is doing and he gets the moral support from the touch line. If the AR disagrees him, he will not contradict the Ref, there are code words used, if he thinks otherwise then he could have replied, “ nothing to add, it was a reckless tackle.” Reckless verses dangerous tackle communicated a suggested downgrade to yellow but the referee still has the option to keep it red.

The first responsibility of the referee in any game is the safety of the player and with high momentum impacts between flesh, bone and earth there is a lot that can go wrong. As players and spectators we all love the “ooff” factor of a big hit is exciting and part of the psychological ascendancy that a team looks to establish, however, we all want players to walk off the field. “Dominate do not destroy” is part of my front row talk and it applies to all players, who must have a responsibility to fellow players for their safety.

Much of the criticism of Alain Rolland has been that he has ruined the tournament, Wales were a better team than France and almost certainly would have won with 15 men, thus making a much more competitive final. However, the referee is tasked with managing that game, nothing more. He must make it safe, he must make it fair and he must must punish dangerous play within the parameters he has been given. What ever the consequences for Wales, Alain Rolland full-filled this function and throughout the rest of the game I found him to fair and consistent. Wales did enough to win that match, a little better luck with kicks and we would have still be looking forward to a Final on Sunday.

The broader topic must be how we want the game to be managed by the IRB. Many of the same people saying the red card spoilt the game and the tournament were bellowing for Mealamu to have been red carded for the O’Driscoll tackle. As fans we must be consistent, if we accept that red cards are to be a part of the game we can not apply them selectively. Perhaps red cards should only be used for a foul play; punching, gouging, head butts, ‘genuine’ spear tackles? The latter will keep the debate open on where the line should be drawn.

What is a Forward Pass?

I can't imagine it is going to shut people up in the pub but as this is from the IRB we must take it as gospel

Referees to get TVs

Sounds like a good move to me. It will save a great deal of confusion an
will see the referee restored to the sole arbiter of law

http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,3943_5868505,00.html#

IRB Player of the Year

Hardly surprising since they changed the game to accomodate him.

Richie McCaw. Well done.

Countdown to Chaos

The new rugby season is getting ever closer, the elite are already involved in pre-season friendlies and for the rest of us its two weeks to go. It’s become a regular pre-season ritual to gather and hear what new law or directives have been issued for the new season. This is what I took away from the meeting and my understanding may well evolve during the season as I work with them and discuss with other refs.
Laws
Its been well flagged that a number of last season’s ELVs have passed into Law, the ones that did not make it were being able to legally pull down a maul (good), those Free Kick sanctions tried in SANZAR (good) and not bothering about numbers in the line-out (bad for refs). There has been some tweaking with the off-side at the scrum, with the defending scrum half now required to be besides the putting-in scrummy or behind the 5m off-side line. Once the ball is in, he can go were he likes as long as its on-side.
IRB Directives
These are generally instruction on how the law are to be interpreted and tighten up on what referees may varyingly judge to material. They generally move the game towards encouraging positive play and fair competition.
The big one this year is dealing with obstruction at the maul, anything other than the ball carrier being at the front as the maul forms will be obstruction. Lineout lifters must be careful how the maul forms when they land the jumper. Kick-offs catchers can’t rely on the binding onto a couple of loitering forwards in front of him. Once the ball is at the back of the maul, the ball carrier must lead the detachment and players must bind on behind him. Its all about fair contest for the ball, letting the oppo have a fair crack at stealing the ball.
The next directive involved the tackle and will generate lots of confusion. The first player arriving at the tackle will be given priority in playing the ball with his hands, even if the ruck forms around him. Last year, I would have cried “hands off, ruck!” now, as long as the player has arrived through the gate or was the tackler and is ON HIS FEET, he can handle the ball. This may come as a surprise to many players who have always played this way but finally the IRB are ‘legalising’ Richie McCaw’s game plan! What is import is intent; is that arriving playing looking to play the ball or just kill it? The latter still gets a penalty. The thoughts on this are this will improve the speed of service of the ball and will generate more space as teams will have to commit more bodies to rucks to win back the ball. In truth, at my level I doubt this will be clean enough to call but it should make a difference to what you scream at the TV.
One final thing, spear-tackles or any thing that involves lifting a player off his feet and dropping him down will be an automatic red card. Just like Rich Brown for the Aussies on Saturday who got, oh yes, a yellow card. Remember folk TV rugby is refereed very differently to your Saturday afternoon game.

HQ acts to curb blight of uncontested scrums.

About time too, hopefully this will filter down to all levels.

Run out of Props? Tough Luck!

Too many sides, getting stuff in the scrum, have an injury and on comes another flankler
Update:
It looks like this has its roots in an IRB ruling and it is interesting to note the decline in uncontested scrums when this was trailed in France; from 145/994 to 2/994!
More details here

Honestly!

Much has been said in recent weeks about the declining moral landscape in rugby. We’ve had the Kiwi crowd bottling the French team, a French player lying, Schalk Burger gouging, Bakkies being Bakkies, the arm band protest, Bath using something other than chalk for the white field lines and finally the Harlequins blood replacement scandal.

Aside from the Kiwi crowd, I would say that things have never been healthier in the game. Despite the protests from the media, illegal thuggery is much reduced than in times of old. How many wizened props or back-rows in your club have been gouged in their career, or cleared out a ruck like Bakkies, most of them I bet and they have returned the favour or retaliated with a good punch. The ’74 Lions 99 call would, today, have seen a couple or red cards, at least. It doesn’t happen at the top of the game and is been driven out the lower game because the tolerance of referees for such behaviour is zero.

There is potentially a problem, if lenient sentences are given out for things like gouging and the real shame is on the SARU for trying to defend Schalk rather than saying he’s guilty and asking the disciplinary committee to throw the book at him.

The Harlequins matter is a reflection of the fundamental spirit of rugby; cheating. No other sport I can think of has at its heart the idea of doing whatever you can get away with, playing the referee if you like. Props live for it, back-rows are admired for it, and centres run lines that are designed to confuse. Just because your arms are up, it doesn’t been you aren’t running back slowly on purpose, of course he was on his feet, he couldn’t release the ball any quicker. The list is endless and when you get caught you take the consequences but this requires HONESTY and that is what the SARU and Harlequins are lacking. Why this dishonesty? Its because the stakes are now so much higher. The clubs and Unions have money and power and the IRB must stamp its authority or risk loosing control of discipline and becoming as weak as FIFA and UEFA in soccer.

Harrison, like Matt Stevens, might have problems, but at least they have the honesty to admit it.

Me Welsh-speaking, Japanese*

It is an exciting prospect of having the RWC locally in 2015, but this blog is supporting the competition going to Japan. My return to playing rugby in the '90s was with London Japanese (I was working for an Japanese stockbroker at the time)and I can assure you that the Japanese love their rugby. A more committed, if underpowered, set of players I have yet to met.
Neither should should we think of rugby as a marginal sport in Japan, it is huge, look at these registered player numbers from the IRB website

England 685,582
NZ 128,271
Japan 121,677
Ireland 101,428
Aus 80,449
Wales 47,000

Still convinced it should go to a 'Big 8' country once again?

[* one for the Max Boyce fans]

MSM makes good Point

Play Acting
A couple of articles caught my eye in The Rugby Paper this weekend (no link as they don't publish online) both were by Nick Cain. In the first he makes the point about gamesmanship and in the second he questions the reffing appointment for the Lions tour.
Gamesmanship will always be part of rugby, it is part of getting an edge against your opponent, physical, skill, stamina they are all as valid as a sly comment or witty slight. But Mr Cains is right “the stuff that is creeping in now needs to be slammed back in its box by referees...there is an epidemic of ruffling of hair, patting the head, or applauding an opponent who has been penalised”. The man is right, I would also add some of the more jubilant try celebrations too, hugging and kissing is for the girl friend or soccer players. A manly tap on the shoulder or shorts was more than enough for some of the greats of the game and so it should remain.
A couple of years ago in a junior 7s match at the talented No10 ran in his 4th try he made some comment to rub in the humiliation of the score. I awarded the try but restarted with a penalty. Hopefully that lesson will stick with him.
The Lions tests this year will see neutral IRB referees, with NZ, Australia and France providing the referees and the provisional referees being both British and South African. Mr Cains is concerned on two fronts, firstly the ability of the Aus and NZ referees to allow the Lions to scrummage, an area they should have an edge. Here I too am slightly worried, Stuart Dickinson during the Autumn tests failed to get to grips with England's scrummage nonsense and that day did a convincing display of being outfoxed by both front rows. That is as polite a description of his performance as I am prepared to make!
The second point is that during the last SA and NZ tours, some of the provincial games have taken a high physical toll on the star Lions' players, leaving the test side depleted and vulnerable. I don't see that happening this time. Firstly, all the referees are IRB panel referees, at the top of their game and secondly the 'home' referees include some of the best of the IRB panel Lawrence, Kaplan and Joubert. In fact, its shame the Lions insisted on neutral Test referees.

International Rugby Board - ELV recommendations

Its looking like sense is going to prevail with regard to which ELVs are taken forwards as full changes in Law.
Quick throw-ins and no gain in ground from 22 kicks are to stay, but maul pull downs and line-out numbers are out.
MOST IMPORTANTLY- the sanction laws (lets make Union as dull as League) are not being put forward (at least that what it looks like) - though there may be further examination of this one.

International Rugby Board - Rugby stakeholders agree ELV recommendations

All those puffed out props and backs recovering from ruffled hair will be glad to know that rolling subs will be allowed in the community game as well as the potentional for U19 scrum variations being used in the adult game (a new point on the discussion board for me)

I have said that my original hostility to change was tempered by the experience of refereeing the changes but the maul pull down and the sanction ELVs were the most danagerous and they look to be dead. Expect Mr O'Neil of the ARU to throw a strop.

Some Clarity

In Tuesday's post I talked about the confusion with when a maul ends 'Al Italia' i.e. the oppo disengage and run away.
Its seem there now some direction from the IRB, the RFU (god bless 'em) asked this question..

The RFU has requested a ruling relating to Law 17
A maul is formed with Team A pushing their opponents (Team B) back towards their own goal line with the ball being clearly visible at the rear of the maul, all the defending side (Team B) bound to the maul voluntarily exit the maul, has the maul successfully concluded or is the maul still active?

And the answer from the IRB is

The maul has not successfully concluded and it is not still active.
As the players of the team not in possession have all left the maul the maul ceases to exist and has not ended successfully or unsuccessfully as determined by the definition of a maul. The maul has ceased to exist and the ball is now in open play and the relevant Laws apply.

So do I penalise, obstruction, do I let the oppo pop around the back? This Saturday, I'll shout and tell the ball carriers to use it and hope they take the hint.

Victory Is Ours!!

When the IRB announced that the Sanction ELV would not only be tried in a single competition, it signalled some hope.

Europe puts IRB 'no penalties' rule into deep freeze - The Independent

If this turns out to be true (there is no word on the IRB website) then the most controverisal aspect of the ELV are dead in the water. The word from New Zealand is that players and referees are having trouble with the phyiscal requirement of playing a faster game. Furthermore, I can not see how the IRB could sanction a split in the Laws on geographic lines, given the consequences of the last time this happened.

So let is raise a glass to the "57 Old Farts" of the RFU for saving our game.

ELV; the Official Training

PA142613
Originally uploaded by Bigdai100

Last night the great and good of the London South West referee region gathered to be ELV’d. The official line is ours is not to question why and we will get on and apply the laws in games. The general view is that aside from the maul pull down, there is no dispute with the ELV as being applied in the Northern Hemisphere. Efforts to speed up the game, such as the quick throw-in were only unwelcome for the extra physical effort needed to control them.
The broader issue of the Sanction ELV (pure evil and the Aussie RL Trojan Horse) wasn’t discussed but I did get the feeling from the RFU officials that HQ is dead-set against these coming into law. Comment from the RFU referee development officer suggested that ‘speeded-up’ game in SANZAR is such that even with 7 replacements, players are suffering serious weight loss and even elite referees are having trouble keeping up with the pace of the game. God help the rest of us!

Notes on the individual Laws; I am assuming readers are broadly familiar with the northern hemisphere ELVs

Assistant Referees

For high level games this will continue as it has been for a number of seasons were TJs have always assisted. This does not mean that the reserve for the Extra-Bs will be doing anything other than marking touch. The referee remains the sole arbiter of Law.

Law 17 – Maul

There will be a clear distinction;
Pulling down a maul – Legal
Collapsing a Maul – Penalty
Players can bring a player down by pulling between the shoulders and waist, but not the collar. Players on the ground can not pull down a maul this will be a penalty. Any action involving taking out a opposing players legs is illegal.
As the maul goes to ground, Referees will encourage the ball to be used; otherwise sides will risk a turn-over

Law 19 – Touch and Line Out

The ball can not be played into the 22 and kicked directly into touch and ground gained. If it bounces 1m in field and then out that is fine. If there is a tackle, ruck, maul or it is touched by any opposition player then ground can be gained just like last season.
If centre of a scrum is outside the 22 and ball comes out inside the 22 then that is played backed.
With line outs, it is all about the middle line, a steal on the 22 is not played back, so kicks directly to touch are OK.

Quick Throws

These can go in any direction, but must cross the 5m as last year. There is no off-side, so the non-throwing side can position themselves anywhere behind the point of touch and 5m in to challenge a receiver of the ball. Usually requirements for a quick throw remain; it must be the same ball and must not touch a non-player. There will be greater focus on the speed of ball release from players tackled into touch. There will be an assumption that the quick throw in on, and that this should not be prevented, sanction will be a penalty 15m in.

Line Outs

Minimum of two players and maximum of 13 in the line; there must be a receiver.
The non-throwing side must have a ‘hooker’ in the 5m channel and they must stand at least 2m from the 5m line.

Law 20 – Scrums

Off-side for numbers 10-15 is 5m back from the hind-most foot of the scrum. At a scrum 5m from the goal line, the goal line remains the off-side line, even if the scrum moves towards it. It was felt that the extra space gives the attacking back-row a large advantage at this range and Referees will be watching for wheels and may reset more often to discourage this.
The scrum half’s off-side line remains the ball, but defending halfs can not drift across more than a meter. If they go around the opposite side to the put-in, then they can not move past the flanker, should they retreat back across the 5m, they can not return.
It’s not an ELV, put an IRB directive on No8 will be enforcing the full bind. They must be fully bound as the rest of the scrum engages and can’t ‘rock in’ to an engagement. Last season this would be not bound penalty, now it is an off-side penalty (not bound- not part of the scrum, inside the 5m)

Corner Flag

These are no longer in touch, unless the ball is grounded against them. Defenders will need to switch on, if the ball hit the post and bounces into in-goal, the ball is live and it is not automatically a 22 drop-out. Similarly, hitting the post and going into touch is now 5m line-out.

I still expect mayhem on the few weeks of the season, most referees expect to be contructively coaching sides, but don't expect a pre-match lecture; they will expect you to know the Laws.

Argies Dumped on again

Maul
Originally uploaded by fabdany

During the World Cup, the Argies (Wales' own colony) and the Georgians demonstrated the power and skill that good mauling can bring. Damn entertaining too, unless you are a Fosters-Soaked Aussie 'Sports' fan that seem to be setting the agenda for rugby union "development".

Springboks rely on legal aid

Having watched the first half of the match the Argies seemed to be competing well with the Boks but with their most devastating weapon neutered, they were never going to win a running game against the power Boks back line.

Having so long denied the Argies a place at the top table, the IRB have unwittingly taken away their favourite toys. Now let us think which other international team uses the rolling maul to devastating effect to bully the oppo?

Further law change !

Its barely 18 months since the current engagement sequence was introduced. Its purpose was to bring front rows closer together and, importantly, take the momentum out of the players on engagement. If I remember it was New Zealand that would come down and crounch and engage in one movement. This move looks to deformalise the pause.

New Zealand to trial further law change - WalesOnline

In fact research (Institute of Sport and Recreation Research New Zealand, Auckland) has shown that the "The decline in scrum-related injury claims is consistent with a beneficial effect of the new scrum law in the first year of its implementation." The change has worked, things can always become safer, but reducing the pause doesn't look a step in the right direction.

Secondly, this is the third set of law changes within 3 years, for gods sake! Has Nu-Labour taken control of the law committee of the IRB!