Referees in-game coaching i.e. their constant commands

[Which Tyler]

Given that you keep using the word, I think it's worth visiting the definition.
What referees do: "tell somebody about something, especially in an official way"
What coaching is: "the process of training somebody to play a sport, to do a job better or to improve a skill"

The ref.s are not training anyone, they are not looking to improve anyone's skills; they are providing information to enable the player to do their job

 

[TRF_heineken]

Only partly Devil's Advocate, but why should the onus be on the ref? Players should know the rules and while there are plenty of grey areas, players can always ask a ref if it's OK to complete for the ball etc. If they choose not to then they're balancing risk / reward.

From a safety perspective it can't be a bad thing if players have to stop and think for a split second before launching themselves missile like at something they may not be certain is a ruck. If the ref calls a ruck it's countdown to launch.

Because, in most sports, players tend to bend the rules as much as possible to their advantage to get the upper hand against their opposition. The idealogy of sport is to beat your opponent and win. Without guidance from a third party, both teams will end up consistently breaking the rules causing a catastrophe, and quite possibly an unwatchable contest.

The referee's role is also more advanced, in that with the introduction of the microphone, the viewers and commentators have a better understanding of why the referee penalised the player.

Not only is the referee there as an officiate, but also as a teacher of viewers not always aware of the rules/laws. And also part of making the sport a more watchable and enjoyable game.

Can't think of many other Sports where a referee has a fanbase either...

 

[Brandon2k]

Given that you keep using the word, I think it's worth visiting the definition.
What referees do: "tell somebody about something, especially in an official way"
What coaching is: "the process of training somebody to play a sport, to do a job better or to improve a skill"

The ref.s are not training anyone, they are not looking to improve anyone's skills; they are providing information to enable the player to do their job

Semantics aside there are many definitions of coaching and most are subjective.

 

[Which Tyler]

Semantics aside there are many definitions of coaching and most are subjective.

And none include what you're complaining about from ref.s

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

Refs 100% need to keep chatting to the players because they all ref the game differently. If the refs were any good at actually applying all the laws the same across all countries and levels we would reduce the need for their communication but that's never going to happen.

The real questions you should be asking are:

Why are refs allowed to interpret the laws so differently?
And
Why are so many laws not applied at all?
And
Why are the laws so unclear in certain areas?

Until you clear those up we 100% need chat from the refs

 

[BPM]

Absolutely. Living Sacrifice has hit the nail on the head there.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Absolutely. Living Sacrifice has hit the nail on the head there.

Yep, fair play. I'd prefer the chatter to be reduced but those questions get to the heart of it.

The other takeaway is that we've got an incredibly complicated game.

 

[Brandon2k]

And none include what you're complaining about from ref.s

Like I said semantics aside. The ***le of the thread describes it best. Constant commands.

 

[Brandon2k]

Refs 100% need to keep chatting to the players because they all ref the game differently. If the refs were any good at actually applying all the laws the same across all countries and levels we would reduce the need for their communication but that's never going to happen.

The real questions you should be asking are:

Why are refs allowed to interpret the laws so differently?
And
Why are so many laws not applied at all?
And
Why are the laws so unclear in certain areas?

Until you clear those up we 100% need chat from the refs

Some very good points there. I agree. And that is possibly where the heart of the matter lies. The laws of rugby is a truly technical document and very complicated at the same time. I wouldn't expect any player nor most referees below professional level to fully understand them and reat them verbatim. However as previously stated tackle, ruck, maul and offside are the fundamental and most common 'situations' in rugby where players make decisions where misdemeanors can result in being penalised. So it's for them to learn and not for officials to constantly remind them of this. It was statedearkierrugby cannot be compared to any other sport. The fact is neither can the majority of other 'major' sports be compared to other sports. The difference is rugby officials dictate how a game is played and players are held ransom to this. I dont mean that to sound as serious as it might suggest but they are in effect being threatened. And it has become dictatorial. Players have evolved to have someone else make their decisions and I agree with what was said earlier in that without such intervention games might descend into mayhem. But only in the short term till players learn how refs might see situations and adapt their style of play accordingly. It might result in a more beautiful flowing game with less gamesmanship/cheating.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Refs 100% need to keep chatting to the players because they all ref the game differently. If the refs were any good at actually applying all the laws the same across all countries and levels we would reduce the need for their communication but that's never going to happen.

The real questions you should be asking are:

Why are refs allowed to interpret the laws so differently?
And
Why are so many laws not applied at all?
And
Why are the laws so unclear in certain areas?

Until you clear those up we 100% need chat from the refs

Because they are human. And humans wrote the laws.

Interpretation of statutes are one of the subjects you have when studying law (well in SA it is). And there they teach that there will be differences in interpretation on laws between individuals and how they act on it, especially on those laws which has room for improvement/change.

I remember a couple of years ago, I assisted Smartcooky in the writing of certain laws for WR which the NZRU had a difference of opinion on what SARU proposed (it was one of those experimental laws for Super Rugby). And the law was originally written in Afrikaans and then translated to english and then sent to NZRU. Then cooky and the other NZ refs took the afrikaans version of the law, and translated it to dutch. And the found a couple of differences in interpretation of some of the aspect of these laws.

I assisted basically in changing of some of the words to make it more of a go-between the 2 parties.

Come to think of it, those laws never actually became part of SR.

But nonetheless, it's a human's interpretation of laws and how he wants to establish it.

If a part of the law says advantage can be played for a couple of phases, for example, does that mean 2 phases, or more? Some refs will deem it 2, in taking a more literal approach to the word couple, while others will stretch it out for more than 2 phases, some will even go the extreme. But none of them are wrong.

 

[Brandon2k]

Yep, fair play. I'd prefer the chatter to be reduced but those questions get to the heart of it.

The other takeaway is that we've got an incredibly complicated game.

 

[Brandon2k]

Because they are human. And humans wrote the laws.

Interpretation of statutes are one of the subjects you have when studying law (well in SA it is). And there they teach that there will be differences in interpretation on laws between individuals and how they act on it, especially on those laws which has room for improvement/change.

I remember a couple of years ago, I assisted Smartcooky in the writing of certain laws for WR which the NZRU had a difference of opinion on what SARU proposed (it was one of those experimental laws for Super Rugby). And the law was originally written in Afrikaans and then translated to english and then sent to NZRU. Then cooky and the other NZ refs took the afrikaans version of the law, and translated it to dutch. And the found a couple of differences in interpretation of some of the aspect of these laws.

I assisted basically in changing of some of the words to make it more of a go-between the 2 parties.

Come to think of it, those laws never actually became part of SR.

But nonetheless, it's a human's interpretation of laws and how he wants to establish it.

If a part of the law says advantage can be played for a couple of phases, for example, does that mean 2 phases, or more? Some refs will deem it 2, in taking a more literal approach to the word couple, while others will stretch it out for more than 2 phases, some will even go the extreme. But none of them are wrong.

No disrespect to anyone in the legal profession but laws (any laws not just 'rules'of a game) are written in legalese. And again no disrespect but any dispute In the interpretation of such laws are usually decided based on the arguments of opposing lawyers at a very expensive hearing. Interpretation of statute keeps a lot of people globally employed. And it may sound pedantic but if rules were written in 'plain English' more people and more importantly more participants will understand them and enjoy the game more. My Mrs is forever asking why Certain situations were penalised during a game and although I can generally say what was contravened I usually cannot state with confidence why such a rule was in place. And the more people that understand a game the less likely the controversy.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

One more thing I forgot to say was that while playing and in a ruck or tackle, you can't always see what's going on. So it's needed for the refs to call maul and release and no hands etc. Otherwise you are expecting players to have eyes in the top of their heads.

 

[Brandon2k]

One more thing I forgot to say was that while playing and in a ruck or tackle, you can't always see what's going on. So it's needed for the refs to call maul and release and no hands etc. Otherwise you are expecting players to have eyes in the top of their heads.

Or team mates who can advise accordingly.

 

[Brandon2k]

One more thing I forgot to say was that while playing and in a ruck or tackle, you can't always see what's going on. So it's needed for the refs to call maul and release and no hands etc. Otherwise you are expecting players to have eyes in the top of their heads.

Or to look before they leap.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

Because they are human. And humans wrote the laws.

Interpretation of statutes are one of the subjects you have when studying law (well in SA it is). And there they teach that there will be differences in interpretation on laws between individuals and how they act on it, especially on those laws which has room for improvement/change.

I remember a couple of years ago, I assisted Smartcooky in the writing of certain laws for WR which the NZRU had a difference of opinion on what SARU proposed (it was one of those experimental laws for Super Rugby). And the law was originally written in Afrikaans and then translated to english and then sent to NZRU. Then cooky and the other NZ refs took the afrikaans version of the law, and translated it to dutch. And the found a couple of differences in interpretation of some of the aspect of these laws.

I assisted basically in changing of some of the words to make it more of a go-between the 2 parties.

Come to think of it, those laws never actually became part of SR.

But nonetheless, it's a human's interpretation of laws and how he wants to establish it.

If a part of the law says advantage can be played for a couple of phases, for example, does that mean 2 phases, or more? Some refs will deem it 2, in taking a more literal approach to the word couple, while others will stretch it out for more than 2 phases, some will even go the extreme. But none of them are wrong.

I agree and disagree with this. I work in construction contract law in the UK and there is a different between something that is explicit and something that is not.

We could easily write explicit rules for rugby but I'm still not sure the refs would carry them out. Nearly every ruck I see you could penalise something and refs currently pick and choose what they want to penalise.

I'm not bothered by the chat but what I do want is a consistent reffing around the globe.

 

[TRF_heineken]

No disrespect to anyone in the legal profession but laws (any laws not just 'rules'of a game) are written in legalese. And again no disrespect but any dispute In the interpretation of such laws are usually decided based on the arguments of opposing lawyers at a very expensive hearing. Interpretation of statute keeps a lot of people globally employed. And it may sound pedantic but if rules were written in 'plain English' more people and more importantly more participants will understand them and enjoy the game more. My Mrs is forever asking why Certain situations were penalised during a game and although I can generally say what was contravened I usually cannot state with confidence why such a rule was in place. And the more people that understand a game the less likely the controversy.

There isn't always a hearing. There are alternative dispute resolutions, and other avenues to follow. Or sometimes both parties agree on the facts, but differ on the outcome, then approach a judge to make a final ruling. This is what we call a stated case.

The referee and players have split seconds to make a decision, and while we at the luxury of our home in front of our big screens with the pleasure of replays, panoramic camera views etc. The ref blows what he sees, sometimes he too has to bend, crouch, touch, pause and engage to see what's happening, and he doesn't have that spidercam view we have.

I am all for criticizing a referee when he's having a bad game, and my history on this forum there are plenty of threads and posts where I have been very vocal about a certain referee(s). But to criticize all of them? Nah. They are an integral part of the game, and they are one of the reasons people love this game.

Sure we won't always agree with them, that's being human.

I agree and disagree with this. I work in construction contract law in the UK and there is a different between something that is explicit and something that is not.

We could easily write explicit rules for rugby but I'm still not sure the refs would carry them out. Nearly every ruck I see you could penalise something and refs currently pick and choose what they want to penalise.

I'm not bothered by the chat but what I do want is a consistent reffing around the globe.

Most laws are explicit, I agree with you. But many aren't and that's why laws are regularly amended/abolished. Some are old, and the wording doesn't work anymore, some have broken parts while other parts are clear and concise, some have vague parts, etc. Laws are by no way perfect. If they were, why change them??

 

[BPM]

Or team mates who can advise accordingly.

So this can work in some cases. I used to play with a very experienced (and very good) 8 who was like a second set of eyes and ears for me, but that only works in certain situations.

The game is too fast and too physical for the speed of decision making you want.

 

[Brandon2k]

So this can work in some cases. I used to play with a very experienced (and very good) 8 who was like a second set of eyes and ears for me, but that only works in certain situations.

The game is too fast and too physical for the speed of decision making you want.

Good to hear. Although at present the ref is making those speedy decisions it must follow that team mates can do the same especially play makers like scrum halfs.

 

[Brandon2k]

Good to hear. Although at present the ref is making those speedy decisions it must follow that team mates can do the same especially play makers like scrum halfs.

Most team contact sports rely on team mates providing cover and advice as well as direction especially from their captains. Rugby isnt played at lightning speeds half the time the ball is resting on the ground so even a couple of seconds is plenty time to make a decision.