Every week we see examples of inconsistent and poor reffing. Rugby is not a well reffed game. Is it the raw material or the rules? Granted some of these Aussie/NZ types look as bent as fish hooks, but I'm more inclined to think the rules are the problem. There are 4 big problems:
1) Firstly the forward pass. The drift rule is called totally inconsistently and cannot be judged on the basis of "backwards out of the hand". That requires the ref to only be focused on the hands of the passer and judge the fraction of a second when the ball is released. It can't be done, so we have the RWC pass from Jean to Lambie called forward, where not one of the commentators picked it up before it was called.
A better rule would be to assess whether the passer is still ahead of the ball when received, or would be if not impeded.This is akin to the kicking onside rule and provides the obvious guideline for judging drift which comes from the passer's forward motion.
2) Secondly the scrums. We still waste a lot of playing time setting the scrums. Go back to old rugby where the scrums were set and pushing was not allowed until the ball was fed. Penalize every skew feed....and making the scrum a hooking contest as it used to be.
3) Advantage is another totally inconsistent area. Advantage for handling errors should be instantaneous. If the non offending team gets good possession as a result of a handling error....that's it, no divine right to a scrum.
If there is a penalty offense, the team receiving the penalty either calls for it or after one phase, gives up the right to a kick. My guess is 80 per cent of these things come back for the penalty ....call it quickly and clean up the mess. Some refs go on forever, some call it relatively quickly....teams have little clue when they are about to lose advantage.
4) The breakdown is another totally inconsistent area. The whole thing is illogical....how a ball comes out when trapped, without hands, is a problem for Albert to solve. In the RWCQF the Aussies hardly ever released the tackled player. We see fetchers resting their weight all the time. When a try is likely the defending team take the penalty routinely until the yellow is threatened.
In a game like football possession stays with the attacking team, but there is the burden of making 10 yards in four plays....which works in a static game. In rugby we are trying to balance the need to encourage running play, with the penalty of a possession change if not well done. It's at the core of what makes rugby so much more fascinating.
I can't think of an obvious rule change which resolves all the inconsistencies and rugby would be poorer without the possession contest. All the more reason refs have to call the existing rules more consistently....they can be better trained. I'd start with clear evidence the runner can place the ball....so often that basic right is removed by the tackler smothering the player on the ground. Just that motion provides the brief pause which makes all the other activities more transparent.
Finally having addressed these four chronic problem areas, we need to get rid of unequal contests....ie the death penalty a.k.a. the red card. This game killer punishes all the viewers as well as the offender. If a player commits a red card offence, ban him for that game and subsequent games, but allow another player back onto the field after 10 minutes. Nobody needs fourteen man contests.
