• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Dual-referee system on the table for Super rugby

  • Thread starter snoopy snoopy dog dog
  • Start date
S

snoopy snoopy dog dog

Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/union-ne...-n5dx.html

SUPER rugby could follow in the footsteps of the NRL and introduce a dual-referee system as soon as next year.

Australian Rugby Union boss John O'Neill, Australian Super franchises and players have been unanimous in their support of providing fans with a more attractive style of rugby in 2010. And should those efforts fail, national referees' coach Andrew Cole revealed a radical contingency plan had been hatched.

''Having two refs is certainly something we're thinking about,'' said Cole, a veteran referee of 31 Tests. ''It's been discussed. It's been trialled in lower grades in South Africa.

''We do watch a lot of other sport and other games and how the officials interact, and all that sort of stuff, and we are keeping a close eye on that development. At this stage it's something we're certainly keeping a close eye on. It's got some merit.''

The Super 14 has already introduced a new interpretation of breakdown laws for this season intended to reward the attacking team - defenders will be banned from interfering with the ball and forced to roll away, get to their feet and allow the tackled player to release the ball back to teammates.

And it is hoped the move will encourage attacking teams to better utilise the ball and reduce their heavy reliance on kicking to gain field position.

''[Introducing two refs] depends how the game goes this year with those new interpretations, I guess,'' Cole said. ''At this stage we're sticking with the breakdown adjustment but it [two refs] is definitely an option.

''I know it was trialled in Durban, but those things tend to need development. I think they found issues in that the game is complicated at the breakdown and therefore because there are so many offences that can occur that it could have refs on either side of the breakdown with different interpretations.

''Again, it's got some merit but at this stage it hasn't pushed forward beyond that.''

NRL television audiences, crowd figures and general interest boomed under the two-referee system's inaugural season in 2009, which allowed for a free-flowing, attacking style of football. Cole admitted that had sparked further interest among the rugby fraternity. In the meantime however, he also revealed referees had been instructed to heavily police offside players from kicks in 2009.

''They'll be cracking down on players advancing in front of the kicker and that's another thing that will hopefully open up a bit more space on the field,'' Cole said.

''The idea behind the breakdown interpretation is to make for more attractive rugby. That's the intention. It's the same idea behind the offside.

''The genesis of them was at the post-Super 14 review in August last year where there was a coach and referee representative from each of the three countries - Dave Nucifora represented Australia.

''What they've found is that referees have been too lax on players being offside and in front of the kicker, and therefore when the player receives the ball there's a straight line of defence in front of him. So he's first option, his only option really, is to kick it back.

''Whereas if we were harder on those players who were offside in front of the kicker, that would open up some more space and hopefully for some counter-attack.

''And I guess, that's an area where a second referee could be an advantage. At the moment we work with the referee and two assistants, so hopefully they will be helping with that sort of thing, but two refs is certainly something we're thinking about [if things don't work out as planned].''[/b]
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (feicarsinn @ Jan 31 2010, 04:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
Good old Super 14, looking to change things that ain't broken again.[/b]
I disagree and think it's a positive step. Referees have a hard enough job looking after the breakdown and as a result they neglect teams creeping up offside in defence. A second referee specifically looking after that area is for the benefit of the game if it frees up space.
 
If SANZAR hadn't been so obsessed with making the laws of the sport so over-complicated in the first place, there wouldn't be a need for a 2nd referee anyway.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
The Super 14 has already introduced a new interpretation of breakdown laws for this season intended to reward the attacking team - defenders will be banned from interfering with the ball and forced to roll away, get to their feet and allow the tackled player to release the ball back to teammates.[/b]

Does this mean there won't be any rucks anymore? This sounds dangerously like Rugby League to me.

Whats going to be on the cards for next season? Six tackles?!
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bullitt @ Feb 1 2010, 07:14 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
If SANZAR hadn't been so obsessed with making the laws of the sport so over-complicated in the first place, there wouldn't be a need for a 2nd referee anyway.[/b]
What the f*** are you talking about?
 
I don’t see how this could work. The laws of rugby union are so numerous and hazy that it comes down the individual referees interpretation. Having two referees would make for inconsistencies in law interpretations depending on which ref blew the whistle.
The reason they have touch judges (or assistant referees as they like to be called) is so they can be extra pairs of eyes when it comes to offside’s and ruck infringements, so why do they need another ref anyway.
Retarded idea in my opinion.
 
If the assistant refs would just keep an eye on the offside line at ruck times it'd be a start. They're in a better place than the ref to do it anyway and it would allow the ref to watch the ruck w/o having to worry too much about other issues.

What they do need is scrum-refs. Just get some props who understand the scrum to ref the scrum and he can sit on the touchline eating cake for the rest of the match.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wally @ Feb 2 2010, 01:39 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bullitt @ Feb 1 2010, 07:14 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
If SANZAR hadn't been so obsessed with making the laws of the sport so over-complicated in the first place, there wouldn't be a need for a 2nd referee anyway.[/b]
What the f*** are you talking about?
[/b][/quote]

The ELVs and the mess that has follwed their introduction (see breakdown for more evidence)
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (feicarsinn @ Feb 2 2010, 08:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wally @ Feb 2 2010, 01:39 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bullitt @ Feb 1 2010, 07:14 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
If SANZAR hadn't been so obsessed with making the laws of the sport so over-complicated in the first place, there wouldn't be a need for a 2nd referee anyway.[/b]
What the f*** are you talking about?
[/b][/quote]

The ELVs and the mess that has follwed their introduction (see breakdown for more evidence)
[/b][/quote]

I believe a better response would have been "Your Mom".
 
I like the initiative for the new interpretation that is being mandated. I do not like the proposal of 2 refs. It is unatural in our lovely sport. As previously stated by other esteemed members of this forum, the laws are completely up for interpretation. Unlike the stripped down and simplified game of league, Union is too varried and is dependant on quality officiating and the good judgement of said officials. Two officials would create on-pitch conflict.
 
Why do SANZAR and Super Rugby always find explaining their myriad rule "variations" an excrutiatingly difficult exercise?

<SANZAR> Well, cobber, we're gonna just do away with scrums and instead decide the set peice by rolling 10 different D20 dice and rolling for initiative and then we'll have a morris dance off eh? Yibbidy yibita folks Rex Hunt style.
<Normal person> But...how exactly would that work in practice?
<SANZAR> DON'T QUESTION THE VARIATION YOU HEARTLESS RUGBY HATING TRADITIONALIST ENGLISH POMME IRISH B*STARD!
<Normal person> No, really, I'm the match day referee for the Reds - Chiefs game and I need to know how this will wor-
<SANZAR> I HATE YOU! GUARDS! TAKE HIM AWAY!
<Normal person> You haven't got any guards you live in a portacabin provided by Speights Brewery...
 
From Dan Retief
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
One of the funniest sights I’ve seen on a rugby field occurred during an experiment to trial the effectiveness of two referees and the opposing teams were simultaneously awarded a penalty.
It happened at Stellenbosch after Doc Craven decided to trial the efficacy of having two match officials in the (still to be resolved) quest to ensure accurate, consistent and reliable refereeing.

The referees involved were South Africa’s leading duo at the time; Freek Burger, later to take on the role of head of referees at SA Rugby and former Springbok centre Wynand Mans.

It seemed to be going quite well until, at a melee in front of the grandstand, both officials blew hard on their whistles, raised their arms aloft and with their backs to each other awarded both sides a penalty.

For a moment Burger and Mans seemed to be at a loss on how to resolve the comical situation but then decided to go with the first offence even though there was some doubt as to which of the teams had committed it.

It was not the outcome Doc Craven had hoped for and the upshot was that the “two referees†idea was shelved and, even though there have been suggestions that it should be re-visited, I have never seen it tried again.[/b]

Source


Dual refereeing (in Union) is doomed to failure, I just don't think it's a good idea at all.

To be honest, the way they're going to start reffing the breakdowns now is they way it's -supposed- to have been reffed all along, the tackler must release the player before he can try and grab the ball, all this time what we've been seeing is Richie/Brussow etc. tackling someone holding onto him whilst he rolls up onto his feet and stealing the ball, which is against the law.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Boggle @ Feb 4 2010, 09:42 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
From Dan Retief
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE
One of the funniest sights I've seen on a rugby field occurred during an experiment to trial the effectiveness of two referees and the opposing teams were simultaneously awarded a penalty.
It happened at Stellenbosch after Doc Craven decided to trial the efficacy of having two match officials in the (still to be resolved) quest to ensure accurate, consistent and reliable refereeing.

The referees involved were South Africa's leading duo at the time; Freek Burger, later to take on the role of head of referees at SA Rugby and former Springbok centre Wynand Mans.

It seemed to be going quite well until, at a melee in front of the grandstand, both officials blew hard on their whistles, raised their arms aloft and with their backs to each other awarded both sides a penalty.

For a moment Burger and Mans seemed to be at a loss on how to resolve the comical situation but then decided to go with the first offence even though there was some doubt as to which of the teams had committed it.

It was not the outcome Doc Craven had hoped for and the upshot was that the "two referees" idea was shelved and, even though there have been suggestions that it should be re-visited, I have never seen it tried again.[/b]

Source


Dual refereeing (in Union) is doomed to failure, I just don't think it's a good idea at all.

To be honest, the way they're going to start reffing the breakdowns now is they way it's -supposed- to have been reffed all along, the tackler must release the player before he can try and grab the ball, all this time what we've been seeing is Richie/Brussow etc. tackling someone holding onto him whilst he rolls up onto his feet and stealing the ball, which is against the law.
[/b][/quote]
The example you've linked is indeed ludicrous and showcases why, if there are two referees, they should have clearly defined roles and not step on one anothers toes ie one ref looks after the breakdown, the other looks after offside and other infringements. It works in the NRL and it works (to another degree entirely) in the NFL.

Hopefully the way the breakdown is being refereed in this seasons Super 14 will help but it won't allow refs concentrate on the offside line and breakdown at once which is a major problem. While touch judges are mandated to police the offside line, most pass the buck so bringing in another ref specifically to guard against offside is, in my view, a good idea
 
It's not just that having two referees able to blow the whistle at any time would undoubtedly cause havoc, it's that having an extra referee on the field would create all kinds of spacial problems as well.

Referees often enough get in the way as it is, the game of Rugby Union is just too much of a fluid beast to allow any unnecessary obstacles on the pitch, it's hard enough breaking the line these days without having to contend with another referee clogging up that all important half gap.
 
For a moment I thought it was April 1st for a second there...whoa Nelly!! I think that this is a silly, nay foolish, idea. I for one don't agree 100% with having a TMO even, let alone a second ref.
For one thing sometimes the TMO cannot see things that a referee is better placed to see, and a TMO can sometimes see things that a referee can't. I've no doubt that we've all seen tries not given as the TMO has not been sure about it, but without a TMO, the ref would have to make his own decision and would probably give the try scorer the benefit of the doubt.
So for having two refs on the field, I think it's unworkable.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Top