Third umpire referral in rugby.

Goodness me, no.
Do you want a five hour match ? And how often does it actually bring the incorrect result in Cricket ? 
No, what one wants is an overhaul of the Ref panel, a level of accountability not known before and an acceptance that sometimes, just sometimes, they will make an error. Because that is the nature of the game we all know and love. It's part of the reason we all love it. Human failing ! 
But what would one blame if one could no longer blame the Ref ? Ask yourself that.....

 Morne for not kicking the ball out to let Habana back on????? 

 I think that some people are just being impossoble.  The mnumbr of third umpire requests are limited to three per match in the case of tests and two in ODI's - so there is not too much of a delay in match completion times. 
In essence there is nothing wrong in allowing a captin to make a limited number of appeals.  The problem in rugby is that the present syste where referess can ask for video decisions in general is also sound - but some referees do not use it when necessary and others just do not listen to the outome _ they have made up their minds and make an erroneous decision in any event.  
The referees on Saturday made some real clangers and i think they are going to eb in troubl with the Referee Panel of the IRC - nothing will be said in public - and Meyer will say nothing also - but the referees invovled is likely to get their fingers rapped and give a rest period to studythe laws of rugby - a fter which they will get to start reffing in tests between lower ranked nations.
Poite is a typical example - it took him nearly  about months to recover from his exploits at Eden Park and he was much more careful in the subsequent tests.  So this one will go quiet - but the referees concerned will feel the consequences.
iN principle I think that captains should be allowed to ask the referees for reviews and then the referess should have sound reasons to refuse such a request - but any such appealsshould be limied to 2 or 3 per match.  There would not be case then that  some captains will abuse the requests.     

 I think that some people are just being impossoble.  The mnumbr of third umpire requests are limited to three per match in the case of tests and two in ODI's - so there is not too much of a delay in match completion times. 
In essence there is nothing wrong in allowing a captin to make a limited number of appeals.  The problem in rugby is that the present syste where referess can ask for video decisions in general is also sound - but some referees do not use it when necessary and others just do not listen to the outome _ they have made up their minds and make an erroneous decision in any event.  
The referees on Saturday made some real clangers and i think they are going to eb in troubl with the Referee Panel of the IRC - nothing will be said in public - and Meyer will say nothing also - but the referees invovled is likely to get their fingers rapped and give a rest period to studythe laws of rugby - a fter which they will get to start reffing in tests between lower ranked nations.
Poite is a typical example - it took him nearly  about months to recover from his exploits at Eden Park and he was much more careful in the subsequent tests.  So this one will go quiet - but the referees concerned will feel the consequences.
iN principle I think that captains should be allowed to ask the referees for reviews and then the referess should have sound reasons to refuse such a request - but any such appealsshould be limied to 2 or 3 per match.  There would not be case then that  some captains will abuse the requests.     

I think that would be a disaster, Mike. 

And, as a lifelong Rugby fan, I think I am beginning to despair.

The standards of Ref's and their accountability needs to be altered. Not the stupid introduction of technology and the badgering of Ref's, from all quarters, by players.


 

Becs, human error is a part of rugby, and I accept that, but if that human error changes the result of a game, then why not fix it? Anyway, that is exactly the point I am making, humans make mistakes, why not bring in a simple system that will correct those mistakes, and more importantly, stop the biatching and moaning afterwards. Two referrals a game is not going to result in a 5 hour rugby match, maybe two or three minutes longer overall. Surely that won't make a difference in the big scheme of things. Also, more broadcasting time, more money for rugby. Add to that, if the reff's get it right, no referrals!  
 

No, it would be a disaster. 
And it would turn a lot if the actual fans off. 
I don't give a damn about broadcasting rights. I actually think it is time to think about fans....but that day is long gone, isn't it ? 
What happened here is SA played poorly and lost. Even if the Ref hadn't made that mistake, players like Steyn would have been poor. Simple as that ! 
Would you be thinking so much about this if SA hadn't just lost ??  

 And what about the Argie non try? Worst ref blunder I've ever saw.Somehow they should be able to counter such desasters.

THERE IS NO QUESTION ABOUT IT. Something has to be done and why not apply the Tennis model of three appeals but make it three per half.All yellows and reds can be appealed. 
How long would it have taken to correct the incorrect decisions re Duane's tackle and Habana's yellow?
The situAtion currently IS so bad one is begining to wonder why one bothers to watch these games.Everything depends on how effIcient or bent the ref is.ANYTHING THAT IMPROVES REFS COMING TO THE CORRECT DECSION MUST BE EMBRACED.
BECS YOUR TROUBLE IS ENGLISH TEAMS DO NOT GET SHAFTED EVERY RUGBY CHAMPIONSHIP AND EVERY YEAR IN THE SUPER 15 AD NAUSEUM! ONE SUCH SEASON AND YOU WOULD SING A DIFFERENT TUNE BECS.

Beeno: only the sharks got through to the play off games. You cannot believe that all the other teams mediocre performance was due to "bent refs". 
On the appeals a couple a game should suffice. In the case of the Habana bad call I don't know if the ref would have changed his mind even with an appeal. The "knock down" ruled against the argies maybe it would have been over turned, the obstruction/tackle of Savea maybe it would have been over turned. To me this is incompetent refs/mistakes not bent refs.

 Totally support the idea. And no, giving each team a few referrals will not make the game last 5 hours. And even if it did i wouldn't mind, if it meant the outcome was correct decisions that didn't make players and fans a like feel like they had wasted their time.
How many leagues and tournaments have been decided on a bad call? Imagine being one of the players who'd worked your balls off all season to be done over by a whistle.  And no, i don't agree with the traditional stance of human error blah blah. Yes as far as the people competing in the game, IE the players human error and brilliance are what make sport so enjoyable, but you can leave human error out of reffing and not a single person would miss it. Lets not try to lump those two things into one category because they are totally separate. Do you still board ships made from wood when wanting to travel abroad? No!!! You take a plane, and when teleporting becomes available then you'll do that too. Regardless of how frigging traditional a thing sailing is.
And Becs. Yes, regardless of who wins or loses, poor reffing needs to be stamped out. I feel for any team that's on the scammed end of a shyte call. Obviously it stings a bit more when it happens to one's own team...but i think that's just human nature. Not all of us are Ghandi like, especially not in our approach to sport.
And, ain't it strange how much better cricket umpiring has become since referrals have been brought in? Now i wonder why that is? You can't tell me that umpires now have a greater incentive to umpire correctly, because it has always been their duty to make the best call they can. I'll let you take that one to it's natural conclusion on your own.
As far as i'm concerned if we have the technology to make it so that refs are nothing but on-field admin workers then that would be ideal. The game is not about refs. It's about players, fans and the rules of the game...applied fairly.

Good points Plum.  

bluebok

Status: Bok regular
Posts: 1190 RE: Third umpire referral in rugby.
September 08, 2014, 11:16:57 Becs, human error is a part of rugby, and I accept that, but if that human error changes the result of a game, then why not fix it? Anyway, that is exactly the point I am making, humans make mistakes, why not bring in a simple system that will correct those mistakes, and more importantly, stop the biatching and moaning afterwards. Two referrals a game is not going to result in a 5 hour rugby match, maybe two or three minutes longer overall. Surely that won't make a difference in the big scheme of things. Also, more broadcasting time, more money for rugby. Add to that, if the reff's get it right, no referrals! 

I am not for one moment trying to rubbish the consequences of the mistakes by Clancy and this is no excuse for him. I think that this is a storm in a teacup. Let me explain why I say so. Every once in a while we have a game where there is a controversial call. Sometimes they go in your favour and sometimes they go against you. Last year we scored a try against Wales after a brilliant piece of work by Jaque Fourie, if one can look past the fact that he was "miles" offside. This time around we were the ones who got nailed.

You are correct, Bluebok. It was a human error. Even if it was stupid, it was still human.

What nobody has commented on was the vast number of human errors in that game. Has anybody counted them? There were 86 human errors in that game and those are only the ones recorded in the statistics. It does not even count ou Maaikie's favourite, Morne's kick for touch. It also do not take into account the ones that ou Maaikie is conveniently ignoring...... the ones where Willie le Roux could not find touch. Be that as it may, these were the recorded 86 human errors (total for both teams) in that test:

Turnovers conceded - 27
Missed tackles- 27
Scrums lost on own feed - 2
Line-outs lost on own through - 3
Penalties conceded - 24
Free kicks conceded - 5
Yellow cards - 1

Why is there not the same outcry about that?

By all means, act against incompetent referees, but we cannot try and turn the game on its head because of major blunders in the odd game.

Poor Reffing will never be stamped out. 
Cricket has not sorted the issue out at all ! 

And I am sorry, but it is a daft idea.
 

 I used to watch a truck load of cricket but with the demise of the Windies my enthusiasm went too .But in the 70s through mid 90s that I watched the only real problem I saw was controversy over Mullitherans bowling action .Then came betting and match fixing and that was it for me .When I finally watched a bit of cricket during the ashes what do I see ? More controversy and even worse decisions despite the technology .I'm with Becs on this even 1 captains refferal per game would be only the thin end of the wedge .Who wants American Foosball boredom ? even then they still cant get it right .Even in Unions dumbed down wee brother the leaugies  still have reffing controversy .If the ditzy Frog and the Inept Irishman had heeded what was available [ and remember it was a Kiwi linesman who told Clancy Habanas tackle was OK ]  to them it would have been just fine .Maybe their post match peer reviews need to be more stringent .And Mikey leave Morne alone !

 Dankie Blik, forgot about that website ........ good clip .

 I think Video reffing should be introduced to Soccer. All these problems are a fallout from so much diving in soccer that goes unpunished.

 Yeah you guys are still lumping human error into one big category.
"What nobody has commented on was the vast number of human errors in that game. Has anybody counted them? There were 86 human errors in that game and those are only the ones recorded in the statistics."

OMG! Tell you what Ceradyne. Lets just excuse all human error due to it being that, human error. So when you next turn on the tele to watch a game you get a black screen because your TV company forgot to wake up that morning to broadcast the game. Not only that but when you go to take a warm bath to calm down you realise that there is not hot water...why? Because your energy supplier made a human error and didn't turn on the power this week. OH and your children have now failed there school year for the fifth time. Yep, human error baby. 
Human refs have been used in the past because there was no other option. There is now. If you think that you can lump player and ref error into the same category then i really don't what to say.
The fact is that there will always be a few people who cling on to a prevailing system because it's the devil they know. And it's easier, for a lacking mind, to argue from a known standpoint than to conceptualise a solution. I believe the word is naysayer It's just a pity that those people are allowed to breed. 

 Hakwa that would provide more entertainment in the form of falling down in faux agony without even being touched you-tube fodder than the actual soccer !OOps I thought that read "Muff " diving .....wheres them glasses.

Wardad, I hear where you are coming from, but when the wrong team wins because of an error by a referee, then I have a problem with it. And I am not specifically referring to this past weekends games, just in general. Take the French forward pass against the AB's in the 2007 World Cup, NZ were robbed of a win, and possibly another World Cup trophy, because of one crap call from a referee. NZ did not have a good game that night, but they should still have won that game. That is where I have an issue with bad calls. Yes we won that tournament, but who knows what would have happened had NZ gone through? 
The other issue is match fixing, when there is a blatant bad call, one starts to question bribes etc. Look, I just want the best team to win, whoever it is, and I think this is one way to help ensure that happens. 

Soccer is a whole new kettle of fish! I don't even watch soccer anymore because of the diving and acting. I don't deny that there is plenty of skill, tactics etc in soccer, but when my favourite team, Germany, reaches the World Cup final, and I couldn't even be bothered to watch the whole game, because I can't take the sport seriously, then there is a problem . 

 I'd agree with some type of system to try and reduce reffing blunders or maybe a slight overhaul of the current system.

 

Perhaps a review of the incident and a consensus among all the officials before a card is handed out?

 

Cards have the biggest impact and so should be automatically put under more scrutiny. 

 

A bit tougher to stop the rest of the blunders but the current system just needs steamlining and proper use. 

Plum

Status: Ref
Posts: 7 RE: Third umpire referral in rugby.
September 09, 2014, 08:27:57  Yeah you guys are still lumping human error into one big category.
"What nobody has commented on was the vast number of human errors in that game. Has anybody counted them? There were 86 human errors in that game and those are only the ones recorded in the statistics."

OMG! Tell you what Ceradyne. Lets just excuse all human error due to it being that, human error. So when you next turn on the tele to watch a game you get a black screen because your TV company forgot to wake up that morning to broadcast the game. Not only that but when you go to take a warm bath to calm down you realise that there is not hot water...why? Because your energy supplier made a human error and didn't turn on the power this week. OH and your children have now failed there school year for the fifth time. Yep, human error baby. 
Human refs have been used in the past because there was no other option. There is now. If you think that you can lump player and ref error into the same category then i really don't what to say.
The fact is that there will always be a few people who cling on to a prevailing system because it's the devil they know. And it's easier, for a lacking mind, to argue from a known standpoint than to conceptualise a solution. I believe the word is naysayer It's just a pity that those people are allowed to breed. 

If you have missed the point that I was trying to make you could have asked and I would have explained it.

Let me give it a go. Whenever something like this happens everybody jumps on the bandwagon and wants to change everything. Re-invent the wheel, so to speak. Like bring in referrals and more match officials, etc. There is nothing wrong with the system or the protocols. It is humans who are making use of it. Last night, I was having a look at the thread that was going about the tackle by Bismarck on Carter, last year. It was more to confirm that a hell of a lot of our kiwi board members did in fact support the idea that Bismarck was off-side. During that time there were akso loads of suggestions about how the "system can/should be improved". As I said, there is nothing wrong with the system. It is the humans using it.

Like the Bismarck tackle, last year, the ref should just have been prepared to change his mind after seeing the footage. It is as simple as that. Human error.

Where you, my friend, went wrong was when you assumed that I was trying to excuse the error of the ref. You do know the expression about assumption, don't you?  What I was trying to say is that the mistakes, be it intentional or unintentional, were not the only mistakes and although it did affect the outcome of the game, each and every other mistake also had an effect on the outcome.

There were the following high profile games, this weekend:
6 X Aviva Premiership
6 X PRO12
6 X ITM
7 X Top14
4 X CC
4 X RC
4 X National Championship.

That is 37 high profile games in one weekend. How many refereeing controversies were there?

Storm in a tea cup.

 he carried you all the way to the semi-finals didn't he Redsy?

Moletroll

Status: Ref
Posts: 4 RE: Third umpire referral in rugby.
September 09, 2014, 09:50:13

 I'd agree with some type of system to try and reduce reffing blunders or maybe a slight overhaul of the current system.

 

Perhaps a review of the incident and a consensus among all the officials before a card is handed out?

 

Cards have the biggest impact and so should be automatically put under more scrutiny. 

 

A bit tougher to stop the rest of the blunders but the current system just needs steamlining and proper use. 

Well, what is the system at the moment. The touch judges have been replaced with assistant referees who have to be qualified referees themselves. He can and does consult with them. He even has a TMO who can look at footage and advise him. He can also have an incident put onto big screens, complete with slow motion and replays from different angles and even then he can still consult with his assistants. There is not much more that can be done, IMO, is there. What you are suggesting is already in place. There was consultation among the officials, there was consultation with the TMO and there was footage on the big screen, for the referee. Only problem was that he was not prepared to change his mind. He has decided, by the time that he first blew his whistle that it was going to be a yellow card.

I have a feeling that he would not changed his mind about the "illegal" tackle by Duane Vermeulen either, had he followed the same protocol. When he blew his whistle he had already decided that it was going to be a penalty.

How can anyone be against the principle of making sure that a call is correct? If the ref is unsure, or if a player is sure that a ref has it wrong, review it, set the record straight, and the game can carry on. 
Those that find this principle wrong, are basically saying that they would rather have the injustice of a wrong call ruining a game, result, World Cup trophy, than make a simple change to the system.
Stupid and dishonest! 

 I don't think that anybody is against the principle of making sure that a call is correct. I am definitely not against the principle. I just do not agree that the system should be turned on its head because of something that does not happen that frequently. Of course we are all emotional over that yellow card but we should not look at this test in isolation and decided that every single game is riddled with refereeing blunders.

Bryce Lawrence's balls ups had consequences for him. That is general knowledge. Paul Honis balls-up in that test between SA en Ireland had consequences for him. He lost all of his Six Nations appearances, and a shed load of money, for that year. I am sure that this guy will also feel his performance of Saturday in his pocket. The unfortunate thing is that it will never change the scoreboard. That happens in all sports.

Ceradyne. I think i need to refer you to this page. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

1) Yes human error exists. But naturally with the correct use of technology we can minimise it. Think calculator, computer...measuring tape.
2) The Bismark call is only relevant here because it's one of a long list of blatant errors by human refs. He was not sent off for off-side. The ref said "Dangerous tackle".
3) "What I was trying to say is that the mistakes, be it intentional or unintentional, were not the only mistakes and although it did affect the outcome of the game, each and every other mistake also had an effect on the outcome." Here you still don't seem to understand that player mistakes are normal, it's part of sport! Nevertheless, thank you so much for listing all those games. Google could never have provided me with those numbers. But i will reiterate that player mistakes have nothing whatsoever to do with this discussion. Again thanks for the irrelevance. Honestly, i don't even understand how you thought to mention that. Wait wait wait, i have way to make this clearer. Your car! Lets remove all the safety features because heck, it's about how you are gonna drive it anyway. Do you see how that doesn't make sense? Now apply that to your argument.
4) Storm in a tea cup. Ok, tell that to the ABs after that shocker of a forward pass by France, to the Boks after Bryce, to the Crusaders after the super 15 final or to the pumas after this weekend...this list goes on and on and on. Note how two of the above are possible WORLD CUP changing errors. Nobody here is complaining solely about just this weekend. Obviously though, a weekend of poor reffing will re-park the debate just the way string of poor performances by a player sparks a debate about how worthy he is of the jersey. 
5) The fact that ref' s mistakes are felt in their pocket means zero...because as you say, what is done is done. And lets also remember that for the most part they are mistakes, and god i hope not intentional. So no matter how much you threaten them with obscurity they might not be able to overcome crowd pressure etc. So a better system then turns out to make it simpler for the refs and hey, they might even appreciate the job security. So again, irrelevant. 
6) No, what we are suggesting is not already in place. It's partly in place but it needs work. For example. If referrals come in then the off-field ref, less affected by pressures on the field could get to make the call based entirely on video evidence and the decision is taken out of the hands of the on-field ref. And possibly, the off-field ref could also be allowed to blow the whistle if he spots something that the on field ref missed. Those might be poor examples but they serve to prove that there are many options which won't require "the system to be turned on it's head."
Referrals have been proven to work wonders in other sports and rugby, being one one of the most difficult sports in the world to properly adjudicate, could benefit greatly from such a system. That is clear as day.
Anyway i'm done. Please read that wiki page i linked, you might find it interesting.

Oh yeah, because technology NEVER EVER fails, does it ?!    

 Not as much as humans do  Which is the point.

I'm sorry, but I still disagree and think it is a stupid idea. 

Tinkering with Rugby has got us into a lot if these problems in the first place and this constant cry of sponsorship demands and monetary concerns is wrecking the game we know and love...and have done since birth ! 
Well I tell you now, you spend the time referring everything and stopping the game to question everything, it's bad enough with the time spent on TMO decisions that are often plain wrong or ignored anyway, you will lose the fans and your precious revenue. 

So think on that. 

 Ever have the "blue screen of death " ? This malarky will probably come in so I hope they keep it to tolerable levels.And I remember a TMO in PE putting his nose in beyond his purview ........Really rednek ? I mean really ? About a bazillion saffas will disagree with you their clown shoes .The ABS didnt need help putting the Wobs to the sword now did they stupid ? The IRB make wee coopy kick out on the fall to start his slide into oblivion did they ? Best to just ignore reffing balls-ups ,its better for yer sanity .

 @Plum.

1. "Here you still don't seem to understand that player mistakes are normal, it's part of sport! Nevertheless, thank you so much for listing all those games. Google could never have provided me with those numbers. But i will reiterate that player mistakes have nothing whatsoever to do with this discussion."

Refereeing mistakes are human mistakes.

Player mistakes are human mistakes.

More games are affected by player mistakes than what are affected by refereeing mistakes.

Both can be critical to the outcome of a game. In fact, a hell of a lot of games are won or lost due to player mistakes. How many times do we see games where the winning side has scored less tries than the losing side, or even where the winning side has scored no tries at all?

That was the reason why I mentioned mistakes by players.

2. "The Bismark call is only relevant here because it's one of a long list of blatant errors by human refs. He was not sent off for off-side. The ref said 'Dangerous tackle'."

I mentioned the off-side issue because that was the line of argument in the particular thread that I referred to. I know well enough what happened with the Bismarck issue. I spent a hell of a long time arguing with our kiwi friends, who reckoned that if the tackle on Carter was legal then it was still actually illegal because Bismarck allegedly tackled him from an offside position.

The whole example of Bismarck is relevant to this argument because, just like on Saturday, the ref has made up his mind that Bismarck was going to walk.

As for it being another example of a "long list of blatant errors"....... I think you havve it wrong. There is not such a long list if you compare it to the number of games that are played all the time. That was why I mentioned the number of games this weekend. Anyway. Seems like I wasted my time because you still do not get the idea of the ratio between games played and games stuffed up by refs.

3. "The fact that ref's mistakes are felt in their pocket means zero...because as you say, what is done is done. And lets also remember that for the most part they are mistakes, and god i hope not intentional. So no matter how much you threaten them with obscurity they might not be able to overcome crowd pressure etc. So a better system then turns out to make it simpler for the refs and hey, they might even appreciate the job security. So again, irrelevant."

I have nothing against referral systems. I just do not think that it is worth it to turn everything upside down. Ou Maaikie is not quite correct when he mentions the number of available referrals in cricket because he has not taken into account that when a team's referral passes, they do not lose that referral. But that is just by the way, so to speak. Fact is that a referral that takes five minutes out of a game that lasts one day or five days, in the case of a test match is nothing. But to spend five minutes out of a playing time of 80 minutes is another kettle of fish. If there are four referrals of five minutes each, we already have to add 20 minutes to the game time. Somebody will get pissed off at some stage.

4. "No, what we are suggesting is not already in place. "

I know that the referral system is not in place. What I meant was that everything, that is required to make an informed decision, is in place. A referral system basically boils down on a way to clamp down on our friend Beeno's so-called bent refs. They are, IMO, by far in the minority and I question the introduction of such a system to hunt down a few. A referee who finds himself guilty of serious mistakes like we have seen, needs to be dealt with.

5. "Referrals have been proven to work wonders in other sports and rugby, being one one of the most difficult sports in the world to properly adjudicate, could benefit greatly from such a system."

Strange.... it is often the most obvious and easy decisions that becomes controversial. Just like in this case. It was a matter of "Was Habana's tackle dangerous enough to warrant a yellow card, yes or no?". Everybody and their aunties knew that the answer was simply "no". The only one who thought that it was "yes" was Clancy.

Then again, how often does that happen in a game and how often does it have such serious consequences. We are just emotional because it has happened twice to us in two years.

becs

Status: Bok regular
Posts: 874 RE: Third umpire referral in rugby.
September 09, 2014, 11:57:54 I'm sorry, but I still disagree and think it is a stupid idea. 

Tinkering with Rugby has got us into a lot if these problems in the first place and this constant cry of sponsorship demands and monetary concerns is wrecking the game we know and love...and have done since birth ! 
Well I tell you now, you spend the time referring everything and stopping the game to question everything, it's bad enough with the time spent on TMO decisions that are often plain wrong or ignored anyway, you will lose the fans and your precious revenue. 

So think on that. 
Correct. I watched a game on YouTube, some time ago. One of the tests between SA and the NZ Cavaliers in 1986. I was watching the clip around the time when they made the last changes to the scrum protocols and I noticed that the latest protocols have basically gone full circle. The only difference was that, in those days, you didn't have the definite commands of crouch, engage, etc and the scrummy wasn't told when to put the ball in, but they actually followed the same procedure. Go check.