JWJust_win
Captain18,570 posts
JWJust_winCaptain18,570 posts
11 Sept 2014, 08:58#3
Well I hope such ideas can be implemented and that this will stop refs from Bowing to Bok Bleating (BBB).
The incessant whining & bleating about ref call is resulting in innocents like Richie getting yellow cards, this tells you there is something wrong with the system for sure
PAPakie
Captain17,321 posts
11 Sept 2014, 09:42#4
Some rules are simple. A chargedown is not a knock-on. They can't get that right. Interfering with someone when they don't have the ball is a penalty. They can't get that right. Simplifying the rules won't help if the officials still can't apply them correctly.
JWJust_win
Captain18,570 posts
JWJust_winCaptain18,570 posts
11 Sept 2014, 09:49#6
Pakie your right in the examples you are giving but the refs have to deal with a lot of other stuff that is harder to call.
Sometimes I think they have brain freezes as the pace of the game & the number of decision they have to make overwhelms them & then they make stupid decisions / non-decisions.
PAPakie
Captain17,321 posts
11 Sept 2014, 10:04#8
JW, no doubt there's a lot of room for simplification. It just seems to me like the refs get so many simple calls wrong that simpler rules may make less of a difference than we think.
PLPlum
Captain21,007 posts
11 Sept 2014, 11:32#9
Agree with Pakie. The calls mentioned are not within any grey area. So i guess what Hansen is saying is that there are so many unnecessary and ambiguous laws to pay attention to that it affects the basic ones/calls.
I wanna make a chirp about human error.
Hey my job is confusing too but i do get the easy stuff right. That would be my counter. Though i don't have a gazillion people watching me work daily. Else i wouldn't be doing this right now
11 Sept 2014, 11:42#10
Hansen is a fat arsed clown who has said absolutely nothing in that article. Looks like he hasn't even had a look at the law book. There is no clause 5 (a)2(c). There is not even a single clause in the law book. There are laws in the law book. In addition to that, he does not even know how the laws are constructed and numbered. Anybody who has ever had a look at the laws would know how the laws are numbered. If anything, it would have been something like law 5.2. (a) (iii). To make matters even worse law 5.2 does not even have sub-paragraphs.
As for his suggestions that the IRB should hire a panel of top referees. They already have an elite panel. If the referees on that panel are not the top referees, then who are?
He wants to rip up the law book and simplify it. The two examples, of balls-ups, that he has mentioned are among the most simple of laws that the refs got wrong. That is very often the case. They do not stuff up with the complicated ones. How often do we not see referees getting decisions right when laws that are not often applied or applicable gets interpreted 100% correct?
To rip up the laws and write new ones will not stop a referee from making stupid decisions like we have seen the past weekend. Those mistakes where made due to referees being on little ego trips. Nothing to do with simple or complicated laws.
One only have to look at the original rugby laws to see how simple it was in its original state. You can simplify it as much as you like, but it will evolve into something more complicated again, over time.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
11 Sept 2014, 11:59#12
The problem is not ncessarily wit the rule book - it is with the outlook/approach of some referees - the mniroty I may add. Referees makes mistakes - but the better ones make far fewer mistakes than the hard-headed ones - w ho refuses to use the TV monitors to check their controversial decisions - and if otherwise advised still do the opposite.
WE do not need tin-pot dictators to do refereeing and thiose who foul up should be penalized.
Hansen is right about a penal of referees though. These referees have off periods and they should be allowed to referee games in both hmispheres in sya the second layer of competitions - so as to allowthem to broaden their interpretations and they should workshop implrementation amongst themselves to esnure that rules are applied uniformly.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
11 Sept 2014, 11:59#13
The problem is not ncessarily wit the rule book - it is with the outlook/approach of some referees - the mniroty I may add. Referees makes mistakes - but the better ones make far fewer mistakes than the hard-headed ones - w ho refuses to use the TV monitors to check their controversial decisions - and if otherwise advised still do the opposite.
WE do not need tin-pot dictators to do refereeing and thiose who foul up should be penalized.
Hansen is right about a penal of referees though. These referees have off periods and they should be allowed to referee games in both hmispheres in sya the second layer of competitions - so as to allowthem to broaden their interpretations and they should workshop implrementation amongst themselves to esnure that rules are applied uniformly.
11 Sept 2014, 13:28#15
Ceradyne, surely even you can realise that Hansen was not actually quoting a law, he was just pointing out how farcical the game has become in it's current over-regulated state by blurting out some inane figures.Too subtle for a Japie?
11 Sept 2014, 17:20#16
People mistake the things Hansen say as brash/boastful/outlandish etc etc it is only in hindsight that people sheepishly agree that he made sense. When he picked out the refs as influencing UNNECESSARILY the Test Result in Sydney, there were howls of protests everywhere BUT when it came back to bite the Boks there was abit more clarity in understanding what he was trying to get across.
11 Sept 2014, 17:23#17
As long as it is not Mark Reason LOLS
AJArthur John
Pro1,748 posts
AJArthur JohnPro1,748 posts
11 Sept 2014, 17:30#18
This is what happens to sport when you have guys at board level justifying their keep at the expense of the game.
PLPlum
Captain21,007 posts
12 Sept 2014, 12:34#20
Cera i actually saw that press conference/interview on tele last night.
Kinda think you made some points there that were not so relevant. Actually not relevant at all.
Hansen was clearly not talking about a specific rule/clauses, he was just using random numbers and letters to make the point that the the rules were rather convoluted and many were unnecessary.
We can excuse him for using the term "clauses" since he is a sport man and obviously not an intellectual, or possibly even well read. Does that detract from his argument? I think not.
It seems the style of argument you used was to pick on his use of words as opposed to confronting the point he was trying to make. That tactic would make sense in a courtroom where you'd be trying to discredit the person long before you actually "tackle" his intended argument. In so doing you'd convince the courtroom that nothing the person says makes any sense so why should anyone support their point of view. Maybe you could teach Saffex some of your tricks
What you also conveniently forgot to mention was that he had a few other ideas too. Namely that a ref is given two touch judges and that's his team, who he works with on every game he officiates. Honestly i think that is a great idea, since reffing is a team sport, these days So i support him on that one.
I feel his ultimate point was streamlining the officiating system. Which i am wholeheartedly behind. Simplify it where you can. Make it easier for officials where possible. But of paramount importance is that the game of rugby itself should not be detracted from. The question is, is that possible?
My opinion is that it is.
12 Sept 2014, 13:41#21
The ref having two touch judges, and that's his team, is nothing new, is it? I am quite sure that we have had two qualified assistant referees for some years now. If he is saying that it should be the ref and the two ARs with no TMO , then I have to agree. The TMOs all seem to be "old refs" who cannot run around and keep up anymore and now have the need to stuff up from upstairs.
I have been wondering about the need for a TMO ever since they started with the idea of the ref requesting for an incident to be shown on the big screen, so that he (the ref) can make a decision. A much better scenario, IMO, is if they through it in the big screen and the ref and his assistants have a quick chat about it and then make a decision. If there is a difference of opinion, it is easy to solve. Since the ref is (as per the law book), the one with the final say in any case, he automatically has the power to veto the ARs. He is the one who will have to face the music afterwards, if there is a balls-up.
PLPlum
Captain21,007 posts
12 Sept 2014, 13:53#22
His point was they are a team who always work together. IE they always work in that group of three...from game to game the ref team stays the same. That way they get to know each other's strengths and weaknesses.
Right now it's a different mix of refs for each game...i think.
12 Sept 2014, 14:33#23
Plum "It seems the style of argument you used was to pick on his use of words
as opposed to confronting the point he was trying to make." I am impressed.
