British and Irish Lions Tour: Referee Chat

[smartcooky]

So your saying NH followers want refereees to have to get subbed out after 50 minutes due to finger and lip cramping?

How do you reach that conclusion from 5MO's post?

 

[Which Tyler]

As regards wanting the game refereed to the letter of the Law, I think fans in your "2- 3" bracket need to be careful what they wish for... they might not like what they end up with.

We're well aware that it would be an horrendous spectacle for a couple of weeks. And that coaches would be relatively quick to realise that you're more likely to win with 15 players on the field than 10, and that things would settle down after a copule of months; and THEN we can look at what the game actually looks like when the laws are applied, and can THEN see what changes to the laws are required.

In the opinions of many of us; that 1 "ruined" season would be a small price for mending our game.

 

[smartcooky]

We're well aware that it would be an horrendous spectacle for a couple of weeks. And that coaches would be relatively quick to realise that you're more likely to win with 15 players on the field than 10, and that things would settle down after a copule of months; and THEN we can look at what the game actually looks like when the laws are applied, and can THEN see what changes to the laws are required.

In the opinions of many of us; that 1 "ruined" season would be a small price for mending our game.

It would never happen.

If you want to see what the game looks like with the letter of the Law applied, take a look at 1960's rugby tests on youtube.

 

[Which Tyler]

It would never happen.

ETA: If you want to see what the game looks like with the letter of the Law applied, take a look at 1960's rugby tests on youtube.

We know - so what?

ETA: Yes, because professionalism hasn't happened, and the laws themselves haven't changed since the 60s.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

About 63mins in there was a penalty against tipuric for offside at the lineout, then the ref took them almost up to the 22m for the kick - was this just the ref getting his distances wrong?

 

[smartcooky]

Why did George Ayoub have to work so hard to convince Poite of the obvious?

And Poite going to be refereeing a test match... God help us!!

 

[TRF_heineken]

We know - so what?

ETA: Yes, because professionalism hasn't happened, and the laws themselves haven't changed since the 60s.

The thing is though, that even if it does happen, there will still be different outcomes. As a law student, we had a subject called "Interpretation of Statutes", and it is clear that even though a Law or Rule might be black and white on paper, the way people interpret what it says could be different. That is why there is so many court cases, and why laws and legislation are on a continuous basis changed/amended/replaced.

Just as an example, all referees have the right to play advantage, but some play very little advantage, while others play very long advantages. They all follow the laws of playing advantage, but the way the implement it, is different...

 

[Which Tyler]

Yes, we know all about refs' interpretations - but they make differences anyway. What those of us that want a clamp-down is... is a clamp-down on applying the laws of the game as written so that we can assess what does and doesn't work; reducing the hodge-podge of interpretations we currently have. Then we can tinker the the laws as necessary; try those, and allow greater interpretation again.
Yes, there's always the law of unintended consequences; but we get that with every law variation, every tinkering, every piece of guidance, every individual/local/national/worldwide interpretation as it stands.

Again, we know that the hypothetical season that this applies to will be awful to watch - we just consider it to be a sacrifice worth making. Others disagree, and others still think there's no problem as things stand - all are valid opinions.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Yes, we know all about refs' interpretations - but they make differences anyway. What those of us that want a clamp-down is... is a clamp-down on applying the laws of the game as written so that we can assess what does and doesn't work; reducing the hodge-podge of interpretations we currently have. Then we can tinker the the laws as necessary; try those, and allow greater interpretation again.
Yes, there's always the law of unintended consequences; but we get that with every law variation, every tinkering, every piece of guidance, every individual/local/national/worldwide interpretation as it stands.

Again, we know that the hypothetical season that this applies to will be awful to watch - we just consider it to be a sacrifice worth making. Others disagree, and others still think there's no problem as things stand - all are valid opinions.

Fair enough. But even if we look at the hypothetical, it will be unattainable. Rugby is already trying so hard to make the sport a global game and having it grow into new areas. To have the hypothetical season would be too detrimental to the sport to warrant such a trial...

 

[Which Tyler]

Yes - which is why no-one is expecting it, or even particularly calling for it.
The most forcefully I've seen the argument made is something along the lines of "It'll never happen, but I'd love if we actually enforced the laws of the game and tinker from there"

I'd also like it if a requirement for truthfullness was introduced into politics. Cloud cuckoo land of course, but it'd be nice to see it tried sometime.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Yes - which is why no-one is expecting it, or even particularly calling for it.
The most forcefully I've seen the argument made is something along the lines of "It'll never happen, but I'd love if we actually enforced the laws of the game and tinker from there"

I'd also like it if a requirement for truthfullness was introduced into politics. Cloud cuckoo land of course, but it'd be nice to see it tried sometime.

I would like to see a Summit being held where all the referees on the different panels come together with the lawmakers, old players, current players, coaches and other interested parties, and try to find a more amicable solution to all the issues at hand. Perhaps even go so far as to amend certain laws at the summit...

 

[Which Tyler]

Consensus politics you mane? it'll never catch on

 

[smartcooky]

Yes, we know all about refs' interpretations - but they make differences anyway. What those of us that want a clamp-down is... is a clamp-down on applying the laws of the game as written so that we can assess what does and doesn't work; reducing the hodge-podge of interpretations we currently have. Then we can tinker the the laws as necessary; try those, and allow greater interpretation again.
Yes, there's always the law of unintended consequences; but we get that with every law variation, every tinkering, every piece of guidance, every individual/local/national/worldwide interpretation as it stands.

Again, we know that the hypothetical season that this applies to will be awful to watch - we just consider it to be a sacrifice worth making. Others disagree, and others still think there's no problem as things stand - all are valid opinions.

Yes, yes yes, this was all trailed at Stellenbosch quite a number of years ago and it was a complete and utter failure. The games were almost unrecognizable as Rugby Union, and looked more like Rugby League with no six tackle law and no ten metre offside law. Teams were not prepared to commit numbers to the breakdowns or attempt to turn the ball over because of the risk of being penalised for the slightest infringements, so they lined the trenches and defended, waiting for a mistake while the opponents endlessly recycled possession and went nowhere. The games became a procession of possession because once a team would win the ball at the kickoff, the other team would have no way to get the ball off them. A referee friend of mine, Ethan Boshoff, who used to officiate at Stellenbosch told me that most games were played almost entirely between the 22m lines and it was not uncommon for period of play to get 50 or 60 phases without a break, and with less that 5m gained. A few games finished 0-0 and there were a lot of old fashioned scorelines like 6-3 and 9-6. It became a tactic to try to slowly grind your way downfield until you were in drop goal range, and as a result, there were more dropped goals scored than tries. Ethan told me there were less than 10 ties scored in the 25 or so matches by the sixth week of the trial, which they abandoned at that point because it was clearly unworkable.

 

[Penne Rara]

Yes, yes yes, this was all trailed at Stellenbosch quite a number of years ago and it was a complete and utter failure. The games were almost unrecognizable as Rugby Union, and looked more like Rugby League with no six tackle law and no ten metre offside law. Teams were not prepared to commit numbers to the breakdowns or attempt to turn the ball over because of the risk of being penalised for the slightest infringements, so they lined the trenches and defended, waiting for a mistake while the opponents endlessly recycled possession and went nowhere. The games became a procession of possession because once a team would win the ball at the kickoff, the other team would have no way to get the ball off them. A referee friend of mine, Ethan Boshoff, who used to officiate at Stellenbosch told me that most games were played almost entirely between the 22m lines and it was not uncommon for period of play to get 50 or 60 phases without a break, and with less that 5m gained. A few games finished 0-0 and there were a lot of old fashioned scorelines like 6-3 and 9-6. It became a tactic to try to slowly grind your way downfield until you were in drop goal range, and as a result, there were more dropped goals scored than tries. Ethan told me there were less than 10 ties scored in the 25 or so matches by the sixth week of the trial, which they abandoned at that point because it was clearly unworkable.

Sounds like Verdun

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Is Henderson likely to be cited and banned for what he did?

 

[SelimNiai]

I doubt it/hope not.

Wasn't worth more than the yellow that he got.

 

[Caitlyn Jenner]

Is Henderson likely to be cited and banned for what he did?

Probably cited, probably not banned. At least I'd hope not. Wouldn't surprise me though.

 

[ncurd]

Not seen it, but a tip tackle doesn't really matter on intent should be cited and banned. Dunno if Henderson gets the guilty good boy 50% rule. Anyway low end is 4 weeks so he'll probably get 2 if its as mild as people say.

Harsh but a tip tackle is a tip tackle in my book if the person lands on their shoulders or head its an auto red card.

I know many will disagree.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

How do you reach that conclusion from 5MO's post?

obviously it was hyperbole but before the teams adjust to the clenching down penalties would increase 2-3x

 

[smartcooky]

A citing would mean that the CO thought it should have been a RC... I don't think it was bad enough for that. YC was about right as there were some mitigating circumstances with another player being involved in the tackle.