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

[TRF_heineken]

Not for 40 years. And I do appreciate the game has changed a great deal since then especially the big bang in 1995 of professionalism. I also appreciate that players, refs and spectators (and of course pundits) will all see the game from different perspectives and have different agendas.
There are many conflicting ideals that come to the fore on this site and the overriding one with respect to Rugby Union in general is that it must be both watchable and entertaining; hence the seemingly overwhelming attitude to see as many tries scored in a game as possible; supported by the inducements firstly of more points per try and bonus points for 4 or more tries. And with the requirement to be entertaining then this element can only be judged by those watching the game itself. So where it is welcomed to hear from a players perspective it is the spectators who need to be satisfied (for want of a better phrase). Its ok for the ref to give a running commentary but his commands/warnings/directions coupled with the need to see more tries run in are eating further into the natural game and the worry is it will lose a lot of its appeal due to the artificial elements that are being imposed. Please dont get me wrong. We all love to see a try scored. But as a result well worked and well taken drop goals (which have won world cups in the past) are going out of fashion in that quest for that 4th try and elusive bonus point. It's just my opinion but the game is changing (not for the better) and this is not being helped by the referees commentary.

There is a bit of contradiction in this remark.

But I think the main issue here is that you are putting way too much blame on the referees and not on other factors of the modern game.

Let's take drop goals as an example. The reason we see less drop goals, is because players don't practice it as much as in the past, and some players don't want to take the risk of attempting the drop goal when there is a possibility to score tries. But with that said, in South Africa, the drop goal is still a very good weapon, and it's still seen a lot. Just this past weekend, during the warm-ups for the rainbow cup, the Cheetahs fullback made a drop goal from his own half. The referee had no influence whatsoever in him taking the chance.

 

[califauna]

Rugby Union rules and officiating are a gigantic group-think clusterfuck and if they intend on exporting it to the USA without the US coming up with their own version of it they'd better to sort it quick. Some of it boils down to the fundamentals of how the game is played and world rugby don't seem to be able to grab even the low hanging fruit at the moment so persoanlly I don't hold out much hope of them avoiding that, or for it taking off there. Arbitrary calls like 'use it' during mauls have no place in the game and most of the time are actually frustrating for viewers not helpful rom a spectator point of view. Other calls do help improve the flow though I think.

The scrum rituals, the constant professional time-wasting, the pre-game chats with referees to find out how they're going to apply the rules, the whole thing is FUBAR.

At any rate, US audiences used to tight, no-nonsense officiating and application of rules rather than constant interpretation like as happens in Rugby will either just turn off or give up trying to understand. It's currently not an easy game to come at without having played it.

 

[ncurd]

if they intend on exporting it to the USA without the US coming up with their own version of it they'd better to sort it quick.

About 153 years late

American football - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

First sentence "American football evolved in the United States, originating from the sports of soccer and rugby."

 

[Brandon2k]

There is a bit of contradiction in this remark.

But I think the main issue here is that you are putting way too much blame on the referees and not on other factors of the modern game.

Let's take drop goals as an example. The reason we see less drop goals, is because players don't practice it as much as in the past, and some players don't want to take the risk of attempting the drop goal when there is a possibility to score tries. But with that said, in South Africa, the drop goal is still a very good weapon, and it's still seen a lot. Just this past weekend, during the warm-ups for the rainbow cup, the Cheetahs fullback made a drop goal from his own half. The referee had no influence whatsoever in him taking the chance.

I know this is slightly deviating from the original thread but the objective of any game is to win and this means usually by scoring more 'points' than your opponent. It seems though that scoring tries has become the be all and end all of rugby union and previously where an attack was looking likely not to succeed there was always the fall back of a neat little drop goal to come away with some points. The pressure now though is to run in those tries to maximise the advantage of the bonus point. And as a consequence we are seeing more and more penalties conceded down to the sheer determination to get the ball over the line. And like it or not it appears some teams are happy to go looking for penalty after penalty to enable this.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

I know this is slightly deviating from the original thread but the objective of any game is to win and this means usually by scoring more 'points' than your opponent. It seems though that scoring tries has become the be all and end all of rugby union and previously where an attack was looking likely not to succeed there was always the fall back of a neat little drop goal to come away with some points. The pressure now though is to run in those tries to maximise the advantage of the bonus point. And as a consequence we are seeing more and more penalties conceded down to the sheer determination to get the ball over the line. And like it or not it appears some teams are happy to go looking for penalty after penalty to enable this.

I like more tries though. I like a few flowing game which usually means the ref chatting more rather than just blowing how whistle more.

I'm not sure what type of rugby you want to watch but I think it does around 30 years ago.

 

[TRF_heineken]

I know this is slightly deviating from the original thread but the objective of any game is to win and this means usually by scoring more 'points' than your opponent. It seems though that scoring tries has become the be all and end all of rugby union and previously where an attack was looking likely not to succeed there was always the fall back of a neat little drop goal to come away with some points. The pressure now though is to run in those tries to maximise the advantage of the bonus point. And as a consequence we are seeing more and more penalties conceded down to the sheer determination to get the ball over the line. And like it or not it appears some teams are happy to go looking for penalty after penalty to enable this.

But where is the referee to blame for this??????

 

[Brandon2k]

But where is the referee to blame for this??????

As mentioned in my post; it's a slight deviation (given that the thread had now included reference to the rules of the game and player attitudes.

 

[TRF_heineken]

As mentioned in my post; it's a slight deviation (given that the thread had now included reference to the rules of the game and player attitudes.

Oh, so you are giving up on the whole idea of "Everything that is bad in rugby is the referee's fault"?

Can I close this thread then?

 

[Brandon2k]

Oh, so you are giving up on the whole idea of "Everything that is bad in rugby is the referee's fault"?

Can I close this thread then?

You use quotation Mark's in your post. Have you a reference where the quote came from so I can look it up in it's full context?

 

[Kiwiwomble]

You use quotation Mark's in your post. Have you a reference where the quote came from so I can look it up in it's full context?

....if it was actually a quote...he would have used the "quote" function like ve just done to you

Oh, so you are giving up on the whole idea of "Everything that is bad in rugby is the referee's fault"?

Can I close this thread then?

i think the question has been asked and answered....

 

[Gerjo]

....if it was actually a quote...he would have used the "quote" function like ve just done to you

i think the question has been asked and answered....

I think there is a total overemphasis on referees in rugby. I don't believe they should be making a running commentary during the game - they should be concentrating on their own job and not deferring to TMO on any substantive decision. The emphasis on the referee has reached the points where referees are now being put on as pundits to tell the viewer what the referee is doing. Professional sport makes its money from entertainment and people don't want to spend their time watching and listening to referees.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

I think there is a total overemphasis on referees in rugby. I don't believe they should be making a running commentary during the game - they should be concentrating on their own job and not deferring to TMO on any substantive decision. The emphasis on the referee has reached the points where referees are now being put on as pundits to tell the viewer what the referee is doing. Professional sport makes its money from entertainment and people don't want to spend their time watching and listening to referees.

you understand that is largely because we as fans have been bagging refs for decade for missing things we could see easily (on a huge tvs, from an elevated camera angle in super slow mo)

 

[BeeJay]

Something that has become too much of a norm these days is the persistent coaching of players by referees in top level games/tests. The constant screams of 'use it', 'roll away', 'hands away', 'stay there', 'don't move', 'ruck', 'maul', 'get onside', 'stay on your feet' 'tackle', is actually becoming quite patronising. and there really is no place for it. It doesn't happen in any other sport that I can think of. Imagine a football referee saying something like 'if you kick that ball now your mate is offside' or 'don't tackle him from behind or I will book you' or 'keep your hands down or the ball might hit them'!
The top rugby players in the world should know one thing for absolutely sure. The laws of the game. Yet the referees treat them like they don't (perhaps they really don't know). The laws are very complicated (too complicated perhaps) but they should know the fundamentals off by heart at least.
By screaming out the above commands (and more) throughout a game is dictating the play. Players are old enough and wise enough to know what a ruck is; what a maul is; when they are offside; when they should not touch the ball. So why do referees constantly have to remind them of this?
In days of yore referees never spoke during games other than to state what a whistle was blown for (if this couldn't be illustrated by arm movements) or to reprimand a player.
My guess is they believe that a game will fall into disrepair without such 'expert' guidance. And it might very well do because the players have been molly-coddled in this way and got used to it. And it has spurned unsporting behaviour. Players now play to the referee knowing that they will get a verbal warning if they stray to close to the edge, so they work him again and again until enforcement action is taken then they back off a little; let the heat wear off then start chipping away at him again. Its not a bonny sight to watch and it has also encouraged players acting like footballers waving imaginary cards about and pointing at their perceptions of infringements in rucks and tackles among other things rather than following that good old maxim 'play to the whistle'.
I am of the opinion that if referees kept their mouths shut and their thoughts to themselves) that it would only take 4 or 5 games at the start of a season before all the players actually played rugby and not the referee. It would encourage them to make their own decisions (knowing for example they had 5 seconds once a maul stops moving before they must play the ball or they would lose possession). Yes am sure the penalty count would be disproportionately high during these initial games but it would come down naturally, the ball would be in play for longer and all for the greater good of the game.

It would be interesting to hear other people's opinions on this.

It's now 2024, & I watch Rugby Union, but I've just watched the Rugby League final at Wembley between Wigan & Warrington. I could never follow this sport, with the ref shouting & bawling throughout the game. It's as if the players didn't know the rules. It took me a while to understand the union game, but rugby league, for me, forget it.

 

[BeeJay]

It's now 2024, & I'm with Brandon2k: on this. I watch Rugby Union, but I've just watched the Rugby League final at Wembley between Wigan & Warrington. My first thought on this game was, why all the shouting? Because of this constant cacophony I could never follow this sport, with the ref shouting & bawling throughout the game. It's as if the players don't know the rules. It took me a while to understand the union game, but at least the players know them & don't need to be coached by the ref. but rugby league, for me, forget it.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

put simply, the ref needs to be communicating with the teams because so many rulings are subjective, like when a maul is formed, when it has stopped etc

personally i would rather have little warnings throughout the game than continuous penalties

 

[ShropshireAllBlack]

It's now 2024, & I watch Rugby Union, but I've just watched the Rugby League final at Wembley between Wigan & Warrington. I could never follow this sport, with the ref shouting & bawling throughout the game. It's as if the players didn't know the rules. It took me a while to understand the union game, but rugby league, for me, forget it.

The first thing taught on a referee's course are the different forms of communication that a referee should use.
As a referee, you have 2 eyes and only 1 perspective, so communication means the players can know what picture you are seeing. Players on the other side of a ruck may be seeing something completely different to the referee and may not understand what is happening or why decisions are made.
Different laws apply at different points in the game, the maul being a prime example. Calling "maul" or "ruck" informs the players what they can and cannot do at that point. That may seem silly to the spectators, but when your face is jammed in a lock's armpit, your game awareness can be somewhat limited.
Finally there is the issue of materiality. You shouldn't blow for every infringement, just the offences that affect the game (foul or dangerous play is always blown). The ball bounces off 2 players competing in the air, the players around them need to know whether to catch the ball or not, because they could concede a penalty.

 

[Karel Gaman]

Something that has become too much of a norm these days is the persistent coaching of players by referees in top level games/tests. The constant screams of 'use it', 'roll away', 'hands away', 'stay there', 'don't move', 'ruck', 'maul', 'get onside', 'stay on your feet' 'tackle', is actually becoming quite patronising. and there really is no place for it. It doesn't happen in any other sport that I can think of. Imagine a football referee saying something like 'if you kick that ball now your mate is offside' or 'don't tackle him from behind or I will book you' or 'keep your hands down or the ball might hit them'!
The top rugby players in the world should know one thing for absolutely sure. The laws of the game. Yet the referees treat them like they don't (perhaps they really don't know). The laws are very complicated (too complicated perhaps) but they should know the fundamentals off by heart at least.
By screaming out the above commands (and more) throughout a game is dictating the play. Players are old enough and wise enough to know what a ruck is; what a maul is; when they are offside; when they should not touch the ball. So why do referees constantly have to remind them of this?
In days of yore referees never spoke during games other than to state what a whistle was blown for (if this couldn't be illustrated by arm movements) or to reprimand a player.
My guess is they believe that a game will fall into disrepair without such 'expert' guidance. And it might very well do because the players have been molly-coddled in this way and got used to it. And it has spurned unsporting behaviour. Players now play to the referee knowing that they will get a verbal warning if they stray to close to the edge, so they work him again and again until enforcement action is taken then they back off a little; let the heat wear off then start chipping away at him again. Its not a bonny sight to watch and it has also encouraged players acting like footballers waving imaginary cards about and pointing at their perceptions of infringements in rucks and tackles among other things rather than following that good old maxim 'play to the whistle'.
I am of the opinion that if referees kept their mouths shut and their thoughts to themselves) that it would only take 4 or 5 games at the start of a season before all the players actually played rugby and not the referee. It would encourage them to make their own decisions (knowing for example they had 5 seconds once a maul stops moving before they must play the ball or they would lose possession). Yes am sure the penalty count would be disproportionately high during these initial games but it would come down naturally, the ball would be in play for longer and all for the greater good of the game.

It would be interesting to hear other people's opinions on this.

Just a trifle: in the 1950s, a French international was asked what he said about changing the rules. He replied, "I don't care, I don't even know the old rules very well!"