Is rugby bent?

What do you guys think about corruption in rugby? Soccer, we know it's bent as all hell. Those reporters that wrote about how Juventas' scandal was just the tip of a massive iceberg, well they don't seem so cynical anymore in the light of Fifa's goings on last year. Cricket, has never been honest. Doubt it ever will be. Even sumo wrestling, apparantly one of the most honorable sports known, was discovered to be riddled with fight fixing. So, how is it that we hold rugby in such high regard? Possibly because their is not a whole lot of betting involved? Or just because of the kind of sport that it is, warriors pride n' all. It just sometimes things seems to me like something ain't right in the game of the oval ball. Before anyone assumes that I'm looking for reasons that the Boks and SA franchise sides haven't been doing well, I'm not. I dunno, but something about the IRB doesn't sit right with me. I must be mad, right? Ever notice how cricket umpires hardly ever put a foot wrong these days. Strange how their massive improvement in eyesight has coincided with the advent of the referral system. So many tests I've watched the last few years where not a single incorrect call is made. Apparantly human error is not as prevalent as we thought. I wonder if the same phenomenon would magically happen in rugby too?

 
Oh brother ... what we have here is yet another random thumb suck ... the turning over of every stone in search of god only knows what.

It's called paranoia, Poepol ... and it comes from smoking way too much weed.

Set the spiff aside, my bra ... it may help clear your thinking.


    

 Plumpie its the sanest comment you have made to date.
Rugby involves large amounts of boodle and hence corruption is inevitable and all neccessary precautions must be taken.
The worst obvious problem is the ref debacle and scandal involving those serial down under cheats.How many matches have we seen them burgle as they pursue  their get the Jarpy agenda - kicked off by bryce lawrence's father and still going strong and involving bryce's son - as we saw in the disgraceful sevens exhibit.
It gets so bad I don't watch as much as I used to.

Who would want to be a kiwi or an ozzie - the shame of it! One feels sad for the lost kbbs! 

@Beeno Watched "A conversation with Alan Donald" the other night. They showed a few occasions where umpires gave Not Out to edges that were heading to first slip. The Atherton one is legendary but there were quite a few others. One never ever sees those kinds of mistakes anymore. So it seems that there was a lot more A) biased and/or B) plain corruption than we thought. How else do we explain the fact that stuff like has completely dissappeared now. The Bryce Oz/SA game as well as the Joubert France/ABs final are two massive evidences of this. I watched an analysis of the French game and they said Joubert missed about 40 calls with many of them being blatant as all hell. What's funny is that if something were stolen from a shop, and upon reviewing the CCTV footage in court one could see that the security guard had a clear view of the theft...as clear a view as Joubert had in that final of some some of the mistakes/foul play by the ABs well the court would rule that the security guard was in on it. Another one I can't understand is how many tries are awarded to teams, when the opposing captain actually begs the ref to look at the replay because of a transgression. The ref has this at his disposal, yet completely ignores the captain and awards the try. Upon review it becomes clear that the captain was right and the try should.not have been given. So,what is the ref doing? Is he stubborn? Is he biased? Is he paid? Or is he simply incompetent. Surely he can't be that hard headed to flat out ignore a "tip off" that could save him egg on the face. Remember Romain's sending off of Bizzie? Joubert's penalty that helped the Tah's win the S15. There are so many examples. I bet that when a referral system is brought in we'll suddenly see these errors all but vanish.

Good points there Plum
Very interesting.............

SARefs

@Devs. I dont care too much about sevens. It's like T20 to me hehe. Guess what I'm saying is that I'd like to see a referral system. Mainly because I hate it when refs screw games up. And they do it way too often. For all teams. How guttee must Richie's team have been after that S15 final. Like, you do everything to win and then some know with a whistle steals it from you.

I agree completely Plum
And just as you have said, why would any individual not want to refer any unsure incident, to save face in front of an international audience
Surely their ego is not that b ig...................

 
Yeah ... let's refer everything we don't like and add an additional hour to the game. I'm sure that'll keep the viewers watching live and at home riveted.

Oh please CC
At the most, it will add a few minutes extra....... if that
And if that placates all the attendees at the game, as well as the international TV audiences, who have now watched a fair and well contested and officiated game, that can, and will, only be a good thing for the game
Don't blow it all out of proportion now  

 
The game is already over regulated.

How much time was wasted on re-run after re-run last season? 

How many of those re-runs amounted to nothing at all? ... yet you guys want more of the same added.

I'm not the one blowing it out of proportion, Dumb Ass ... you are.

If you want a perfect sport then rather go join the local tiddly winks clubs down the street.

Leave the little bits of human error in this sport alone ...

CleanCut
 
Status: Senior player 
Posts: 3314RE: Is rugby bent?
February 03, 2016, 12:38:21

I'm not the one blowing it out of proportion, Dumb Ass ... you are. 

 And you posted this.............CleanCut
 
Status: Senior player 
Posts: 3314RE: Is rugby bent?
February 03, 2016, 10:42:12

 
Yeah ... let's refer everything we don't like and add an additional hour to the game.

Not just blind....... dumb as well

You can't compare rugby and cricket when it comes to reviews and getting decisions right.

For starters, sports like cricket and tennis are well suited to reviews because there are natural gaps in the game . . . like between each ball in cricket and between each point in tennis. The game isn't disrupted while the umpires have a look because the bowler is busy walking back to his mark and the tennis players are getting the balls back from the ballboys. In rugby (and in football) the game is much more flowing. Yes, the game does stop for set pieces, free kicks and penalties etc. but those breaks are much more unpredictable and play can theoretically continue for minutes on end before there's a break in play. It's one thing to tell a bowler his foot was over the line on his previous ball and quite another to say to a winger that there was a slight forward pass 13 phases and 5 minutes before he scored his try.

Secondly, rugby's laws have become much more complex than any other sport I know of. In sports like cricket and tennis you're dealing with spatial issues such as did the ball touch the line or hit the bat or was there a noise on the net or the bat. All quite easy to review. Not so in sports like rugby and football, but then again, football's rules are much less complex than rugby's laws. In football, there are rules around offside, handball and foul play and that's about it. In rugby there are literally pages and pages of detail around the laws, many of which are open to interpretation or subject to a referee's style.

I don't know of any other sport that is as difficult to officiate as rugby is. The fans who bleat and snivel about the excellent rugby refs getting things wrong on occasion are just showing their rugby ignorance. It's impossible for a rugby ref not to make mistakes and to compare rugby officiating to that of a sport like cricket is just naive.

Calm down CC, take a breath....... 
It is not about, and never has been, about what "we don't like" you idiot
I have said before, as in this thread as well, if the individual officiating the game was not sure of something, he should be able to refer it..... at any time....... to prevent unfair / negative / bias results.
If that happened, you could throw out any potential accusations of bias or cheating because the option to refer any dubious / unsure decision is always there for the ref to use
And that..... will add a few minutes... if that, to most games.  At least then, the paying public and watching fans will get their 100% money's worth.
If you can't comprehend that, I can try and draw you a picture and email it to you
I assume your email is stupiddumbasscc@increaseyouriq .co.za

I actually enjoyed that post Rooinek
But.... because it is so complex, and the ref cannot and will not always see everything, including his touch judges, he then needs to be given as much assistance as possible to ensure a fair game is played.
Who gets castigated when there is a wrong result...... the ref, and the ref alone...... therefore he should have anything at his disposal to protect the integrity of the game...... period.
Hell.... how many refs have resigned, or careers have been ruined or even having death threats directed at them and their families because of one bad game they officiated.
Not only is it fair on the ref to allow him to do this, but it's fair on the paying public as well.
Imagine there never was a referral system in cricket, imagine how many current results would definitely have changed in the history books....
That, to me... is being naive 

 Plumpie, having an appeal system is definitely the way to go. Captains wont waste their appeals on trivia. Refs will know they will look stupid if the incident is also replayed on the big screen. It could help clean up the game a lot.The only folk who don't moan about corrupt reffing is the down under types given they are the chief beneficiaries!Presently games offc iated by down under refs are so compromised by bent reffing they are hardly worth watching. That said craig joubert has been very bad at times and his bank account needs a scrutiny!

 @Devs

I don't know anyone who thinks that "human error" in adjudication is necessary. Anyone sane anyway. That's after all what the sport itself is for. The team that makes the least errors wins. That's what we pay to see. Refs are admin workers and I most certainly don't accept human error arguments from admin workers.

"And if that placates all the attendees at the game, as well as the international TV audiences, who have now watched a fair and well contested and officiated game, that can, and will, only be a good thing for the game" Exactly man!!!

Funny how not a single person misses human error in cricket. Funny how that human error has all but vanished.

Dude don't worry about CC's irrational bs comments. I showed him to be a liar, hypocrite and all round a-hole and since then he makes a point of disagreeing with anything i say. He's not yet realized that we are not at school anymore, nobody cares and that he has zero credibility. Poor guy. He seems adamant about making himself look silly.

I think each team should only be allowed one or maybe two reviews. That way they will only cause a stoppage to the game and ask for a review if they are absolutely certain of their case! Anyway, rugby naturally has plenty of stoppages. Soccer may be a little more challenging. 
Rooi, you make some good points, and rugby should be allowed to flow as far as possible, but what is the greater injustice, a team winning or losing due to a reffing error, or each team reviewing once in a game adding maybe 5 minutes to the total game time?
Unfortunately rugby is a very complicated game, that is difficult to officiate with extreme accuracy. However, when a blatant injustice has occurred, why not put in to place systems to rectify such an injustice ? Firstly, it would force referees to be more accurate in their execution and it would go along way to shutting up the whinging after games.    

bluebok, by making players hang around waiting for TV decisions (which have about a 50% accuracy rate anyway from what I have seen) you are changing the very nature of the game.

Rugby is played in two halves of 40 minutes with a 10 minute break. It's not a game played with artificial breaks . . . (unless of course you're a preening little hair-gelled back posing for the cameras while the battle-hardened forwards pack down for yet another scrum . . . just so the backline mincers can knock on or kick possession away) . . . but for the real rugby players each half is 40 minutes of hard graft, not loafing around getting your breath back while a TV ref takes 3 minutes to get yet another decision wrong.

 The fans who bleat and snivel about the excellent rugby refs getting things wrong on occasion are just showing their rugby ignorance. It's impossible for a rugby ref not to make mistakes and to compare rugby officiating to that of a sport like cricket is just naive. Opines rooiwtit!
There never has been such a lame poster as rooitwit when it comes to supporting players against corrupt reffing. I found myself standing up for sharks players because ou rooitwit couldn't do anything but make excuses for appalling ref decisions.
Away with ou rootwit's very feeble views which allow corruption to thrive. He is so kiwi like in this regard! JW springs to mind immediately!

Great post bluebok
I am all for having 2 referrals during the game
At least that is a start to more accurate results

I hear ya Rooi. Though the only link i'm making between rugby and cricket is to say that i'm sure a referral system would see refs making better initial calls in rugby. It's still  a complete and un- explainable mystery why this happened in cricket.

Also, if each side has two referrals per game...two to three minutes per referral then you are looking at an extra 8-12 minutes. Rugby is 80 minutes and football 90. So it will mean that a rugby match will go on roughly for as long as a football game. I don't see any harm in that. Everyone seems to happily accept the 15 minutes per games wasted on resetting scrums, where the calls made are pure vudu most of the time.

In your example of a winger being called back for something that happened multiple phases ago, there are two things here. Firstly, shall the transgression go uncalled simply because we don't wanna disappoint the team who fouled? Secondly, i don't think one should shy away from solving a problem just because it is complex. 

I think they need to test the referral system in higher leagues and see what comes of it. If it doesn't work then fine. But if it does and it helps to make the game fairer, then awesome. Right?

Exactly ... I fully agree with you, Redneck.

The game of rugby is of such a nature that it cannot be successfully regulated without spoiling it for the fan.

A little human error is inevitable and in my opinion not as big a train smash as Poepol and co would like to make out.

There is no way that a ref can go through an entire match without error and I seriously doubt that any ref would be stupid enough to deliberately cheat when his career is on the line.

We've heard so many times how stoppages spoil it for the fans and that the constant law changes are necessary to bring more action to the viewer ... yet Poepol and co want to increase stoppages 10 fold ... all to prevent the so called cheating ref from getting away with murder.

Beandip's hysteria seems contagious after all.

How many times have we not witnessed the ref bring proceedings to a halt so that he can check whether Peter stuck his finger in Paul's eye 5 phases ago ... only to discover after 10 minutes of re-running footage ... from every conceivable angle ... over and friggin over ...that Peter wasn't anywhere near Paul to begin with.

The excitement of the moment is lost ... not to mention any possible momentum the teams may have had at that time.

It's disruptive for both teams and irritating for the viewer.

All this so Poepol can feel better about the ref.

CleanCut
 
Status: Senior player 
Posts: 3315RE: Is rugby bent?
February 03, 2016, 14:10:13

yet Poepol and co want to increase stoppages 10 fold ... 

And there she blows again.........
Blowing everything out of proportion....... again
How is giving each captain, two referrals during any given game, increasing stoppages 10 fold?
What a moron you are  

And furthermore, why would we think referrals would improve anything anyway? There is as much criticism of the TMO these days as there is of the on-field referee.

Apart from wasting time, referrals are just going to give the beer-swilling imbeciles in front of their TV sets something more to moan and groan about.

That said, I'd have no objection if the concept was trialled in a tournament like the Varsity Cup or something like that.

If the officials can get to the correct decision quickly then I'm all for it . . . I just don't see it happening.

CC, I hear you, but for me it is not about preventing cheating as much as it is about ref's simply missing something very important. I am not one to carry on about the ref when decisions don't go the way of my team, as most will attest. However, I do believe in the best team winning, and if that means one extra stoppage per team per game...then so be it! And CC, it can sometimes come down to one bad call making all the difference. Just ask any NZer if the French forward pass in 2007 was a significant blunder? Also, I don't believe the excitement is lost! In cricket a close review decision often adds to the tension and excitement of the game. 
We are not talking countless reviews and petty crap wasting 30 minutes a match, we are talking one or two per team...and only once play has stopped naturally....adding at worst a couple of minutes to a game. 
Rooi, I agree with your last post. TMO's may get it wrong too, but sometimes the indiscretion is as clear as day. 

 
Isn't that a fact ... if it's not the refs fault then its the TMO's.

Back in the day the All Blacks brought in their national boxing champion to sort a few of our boys out and that's exactly what he did.

Blood ran that day and it had nothing to do with the hard physicality of the sport.

You'll probably know the story better than I.

Did our boys complain ... or did they accept it as part of the game?

Now a player gets severely punished for a high tackle and heaven help him if he administers an uppercut or two.

Puss!es like Poepol and co have grown up soft and look for every conceivable thing to point their fingers at.

Focusing on the Super rugby & Test level I don't see evidence of a bent or broken ref system. I see human error and this results in our disappointment but going overboard to try and control the human error is a quest for the holy grail & will ruin the game for the fans. 
Gripping about the ref's occasional mistake is part of being a fan anyway Some take this to extremes but such "Beenoism" is not encouraged.
We do need to fix the judiciary system though, there are some very inconsistent ruling about foul play for instance.

Ok, so it's the Cricket world cup final........ Australia are 287/8 after Rabada has taken a wicket with his first ball of the over.....
He takes a 2nd wicket with his second ball of the over...... but it's disputed and referred, and it goes to referral and after endless replays, for 5 minutes,  it is decided that the batsman is out......287/9.
Off walks the batsman, another minute or two for the new batsman to come in and ask the umpire for a mark...... blah blah blah..... move the sight screen......blah blah blah
So Rabada has now waited about 7 - 8 minutes until he bowls his hat trick ball
And the question remains......... has he now lost his momentum ?
If not, why......
If so, how? 

By the way
The above post is for those posters who say the game loses it's momentum when referrals are involved.....
Who also say it spoils it for the paying fan.........

 I don't think rugby is any more or less bent than any other sport. You get crooks in any nick of society,  but there are various sections and processes/procedures that can only gain from some minor improvements.  The less the fiddle with things the better. Just simplifying the laws a bit here, structure some process there. Some sort of revue to prevent howlers. A bit more transparency. ..just a bit more professionalism. 

People had exactly the same issues with the cricket referral system before it came in. Goal line technology in football. Same thing. People were talking about "refereeing tradition". In other words they were saying that it should be done the way it has always been done for the sake of it always having been done that way. Completely irrational and if you apply that kind of methodology to other facets of life, technology, education etc etc then there would never be any progress.

Fact is that there many bunk calls in rugby all the time, and the earth does not have to change its orbit for some of them to be nullified in future. Try referrals are already in place and as a result there are only a few dodge calls as far as grounding is concerned these days. Forward passes aren't rocket science to eradicate either. Neither are off-side calls. Throwing the ball in straight at lineouts? Pretty simple too. There is a camera right there every time, in line with the ball. How many skew throws are let go. I count several per match. Foul play? Well, that's probably more trick, but again, there are cameras right there. It doesn't get everything but it it often gets a good view of exactly what happened.

Referrals are just one issue though.

My original question was about the game as a whole, including players, refs and governing bodies. Are they all squeaky clean. 

Going by what Draad said...

"I don't think rugby is any more or less bent than any other sport."

And considering the state of athletics, soccer, cricket and other sports...well there should be a hell of a lot to uncover.

I reckon it's all about incentive. When humans have an incentive there is almost nothing they won't do. I referred to this book before in previous posts. Freakonomics. It shows just how far people will go when there is something in it for them. The sumo wrestling scandal was the best of the lot. Guys literally throwing fights. And before that, not a single person ever suspected that there was even a hint of anything wrong in the game. But now it's clear as day. They all cheated because at some point they all got something out of it. In fact, the list of people and institutions that cheat is veritably endless.

So, the IRB. Do they have an incentive? Well, i guess they do. The more popular rugby is, the better they do, right? Did world rugby have a vested interest in the Boks winning the 95 Cup. Rugby gave the World a real life fairy tale. So maybe. The game went pro just after that. Did England winning the WC do rugby much good. Sure, it became more popular in the northern hemisphere as a direct result. Every kid wanted to be Johnny Wilks. Is there a vested interest in the most popular team winning the most recent WC. Of course there is. Not that they didn't deserve it. But what if they didn't? What if they didn't deserve to win the WC in New Zealand 5 years back but rugby would have taken a massive knock if they didn't?

Of course, i'm sure all the above teams deserved to lift the cup when they did. Before i get bottles thrown at me. All i am asking is, are sports governing bodies self serving? Is it beyond the IRB to attempt to sway match and tournament outcomes? I don't necessarily think they are corrupt. But it just seems strange that every other sport is corrupt and yet rugby seems to be the shinning light above it all? And that doesn't sit right with me. Just the same way that people who always smile strike me as potential serial killers.

Oh yeah wait. Mr SARU has recently been exposed for embezzling funds. 1 tenth the amount Jake Zuma stole. Not pocket change. So i guess we do have one local example. But that was prior to him getti ng SA's top job. Did he clean up his act when he got the big mister job? Will we ever know?

Anyway, i'm off to the Transkei on Friday. Work and Fishing. I'll smoke some good zol just for you CC

haha Sorry this post was sooooooo lengthy

Yeah
Interesting that one of the most monitored sports (For blatant cheating) still has some of the most attempts at altering the genuine outcome of the games, and that's despite the current referral system in place, in cricket.
Rugby can, and will benefit from a simple 1 or 2 option referral that only that team's captain can ask for.  If you are correct on your referral, you keep your original 2 referrals, if you are wrong in your first one, you drop to 1 left.

 
Yes ... I agree Dumb Ass ... 1 referral per half for each side to choose as they please and the ref only allowed to blow the match as per the law ... with no stoppages for review initiated by him or any of the touch judges.

Stopping the momentum of a single man (bowler) to review his appeal is a whole lot different to that of a team playing as one ... playing as a unit.

You don't only disrupt the momentum of a single lonely man but an entire unit that moves across the field in unison.

Having a referral system in place for the likes of cricket and tennis makes sense. It is suited to these sports but that's not the case with rugby.  

Having a limited amount of challenges available to each side is possibly an answer (say like 1 each half) however it should be left to the capt of each team to decide when to review and what to review. Not the ref.

At this stage in time we find not only the ref calling a halt to proceedings but the touch judge as well.  It seems they all want to partake in the outcome of the match rather than leaving it to run it's course.

We cannot have both halves riddled with stoppages. It's disruptive to the players and irritating to watch all match long.

We the fans pay good money to watch rugby ... not re-runs.

In seems you now agree that reducing the amount of stoppages is the way to go ... not increasing it.

Let's get on with the game.

 



 

CleanCut
 
Status: Senior player 
Posts: 3317RE: Is rugby bent?
February 04, 2016, 07:59:56

Having a limited amount of challenges available to each side is possibly an answer (say like 1 each half) however it should be left to the capt of each team to decide when to review and what to review. Not the ref.

CC, this is the second time in two days where your comprehensive skills are being shown up for the inadequacy you display here.
Are you seriously just dumb?
Does it make you feel better about yourself that you offered this recommendation after I actually proposed it yesterday already ?
What a moron.....
Devil's Advocate
 
Status: Bok regular 
Posts: 1091RE: Is rugby bent?
February 04, 2016, 07:10:04

Rugby can, and will benefit from a simple 1 or 2 option referral that only that team's captain can ask for.  If you are correct on your referral, you keep your original 2 referrals, if you are wrong in your first one, you drop to 1 left.

First you disagree, then when I post that, you agree
Momentum is crucial, one man, team, trips, doubles........
Momentum is momentum............don't try and make it just a team issue
That's just plain stupid

 
Nothing stupid about it at all.

There is a big difference between a team and a single man's momentum being disrupted.

It really is rather simple to understand.

At least you've seen the stupidity of referring everything for review as you originally wanted.

 

 

Here is your original stance on this issue

CleanCut
 
Status: Senior player 
Posts: 3317RE: Is rugby bent?
February 03, 2016, 10:42:12

 
Yeah ... let's refer everything we don't like and add an additional hour to the game. I'm sure that'll keep the viewers watching live and at home riveted.

CleanCut
 
Status: Senior player 
Posts: 3317RE: Is rugby bent?
February 03, 2016, 12:38:21

 
The game is already over regulated.

How much time was wasted on re-run after re-run last season?  

How many of those re-runs amounted to nothing at all? ... yet you guys want more of the same added. 

If you want a perfect sport then rather go join the local tiddly winks clubs down the street. 

Leave the little bits of human error in this sport alone ... 

CleanCut
 
Status: Senior player 
Posts: 3317RE: Is rugby bent?
February 03, 2016, 14:10:13

The game of rugby is of such a nature that it cannot be successfully regulated without spoiling it for the fan. 

A little human error is inevitable and in my opinion not as big a train smash as Poepol and co would like to make out.

We've heard so many times how stoppages spoil it for the fans and that the constant law changes are necessary to bring more action to the viewer ... yet Poepol and co want to increase stoppages 10 fold ... all to prevent the so called cheating ref from getting away with murder. 

The excitement of the moment is lost ... not to mention any possible momentum the teams may have had at that time.

It's disruptive for both teams and irritating for the viewer.

All this so Poepol can feel better about the ref.

Let's put your comprehensive skills to the test.....again
Where..... did any on e poster propose this.........

 What ou cc doesn't understand is we don't have a game we have a match fixed farce going on a lot of the time.Let each side have three referrals per half. Once the reffing improves cut it perhaps to two etc.
The game must be saved from corruption End of