Super 15 Referee Discussion Thread

[TRF_heineken]

I thought it would be better if we had a thread just about the referees in the Super 15, instead of each and every guy starting his own thread to lash out at a specific ref. Here you can lash out, talk about a certain call, ask questions (hopefully Smartcooky & others will lend a hand) and just talk about the refereeing, Assistant Referees, TMO's and whatever else regarding the officiating in Super Rugby.

With that said, I think most of you have seen the articles the past few days regarding Rohann Hoffman and his pathetic display in the Waratahs vs. Sharks clash.

And I hope that SANZAR will sort him out as that display was unacceptable. But what frustrates me even more is the the TMO was just as poor as Hoffman in that game, yet he hasn't come under scrutiny, even though he (the TMO) has had a history of poor calls being made. Yup you guessed right, the TMO was George Ayoub.

But I don't want to stand still with just these guys, because this past weekend was just a bad weekend in general for the referees. It seemed like they were in holiday mode. Missing forward passes (like the one in the Lions vs. Brumbies game which led to a try), penalising a team at scrums/maul incorrectly, not giving yellow/Red cards when they should (Raymond Rhule should consider himself a very lucky chap), just in general very poor officiating.

I think the biggest culprits are Rohan Hoffman, Jaco Peyper, Stuart Berry, Jaco van Heerden (he's new, but certainly not up to the task IMO), Angus Gardner, Chris Pollock and then at the TMO bench, George Ayoub and Shaun Veldsman.

This ongoing trend is a worrying sign, especially with the World Cup around the corner. I think something should be done sooner, rather than later.

 

[MotherRucker1]

I can't say I keep keep tabs on individual referee performance on a weekly basis; but the worst officiated games I have watched this season have had Hoffman, Gardner and Berry presiding over them. Brain explosions, unnecessary yellow/red cards, neglected opportunities for actual cards, schoolboy level errors that, quite frankly, are embarrassing as a Rugby Union supporter. These are guys who aren't making the occasional innocent mistake, they are dictating the outcome of a match, and that concerns me. I dunno, I just hope that after these errors they are made to reevaluate their interpretations of the law. I don't think we can be too tough on these guys, otherwise we might find ourselves with a shortage of referees - it isn't always the most attractive career in the world. Yes you get to travel a lot and do what you love, but the amount of abuse is horrendous. I just hope training is ongoing.

There was actually an article back in April where someone believed Gardner was the best referee in the competition. http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/...view-Angus-Gardner-in-top-form-in-Super-Rugby

 

[nickdnz]

I think calls to simplify the game are going to start being taken more seriously post the RWC. It's pretty clear that there are times when players are not following any of the rules surrounding rucks - and are only arbitrarily being penalised. The rolling maul is a complete mess.

 

[TRF_heineken]

I think calls to simplify the game are going to start being taken more seriously post the RWC. It's pretty clear that there are times when players are not following any of the rules surrounding rucks - and are only arbitrarily being penalised. The rolling maul is a complete mess.

The rolling maul and the Scrums are a real mess!!

But I think it would be stupid of the Referees panel to leave everything as it is and only attend to the matters AFTER the World Cup. If they sort out the problems now, the World Cup will just be better off as a spectacle. Nobody wants headlines in the form of "England wins world cup thanks to bias NH referee" or, "Cheating Captain takes team to successive world cup ***le"...

I certainly don't want that.

 

[nickdnz]

True, however trialing new laws in a RWC year means your shifting the yardstick on teams who have been developing how they play to the laws over the last 4 years with next to no time to adjust. It's not as if we have ever changed the rules and found a perfect solution anyway, I think it would be naive to assume we will find one in time for September.

 

[TRF_heineken]

True, however trialing new laws in a RWC year means your shifting the yardstick on teams who have been developing how they play to the laws over the last 4 years with next to no time to adjust. It's not as if we have ever changed the rules and found a perfect solution anyway, I think it would be naive to assume we will find one in time for September.

I'm not saying they should trial new laws, I'm just stating they should try and sort out the mess as much as they can before the World Cup without having to change the laws.

For instance, the Mauls should just be officiated correctly which will sort out most of its problems without changing anything.

Scrums can be sorted out by just giving the referees more training on what to look at, instead of guessing every damn time.

And the TMO's should not be making mistakes at all. I have no problem if they take a while longer to come to a decision which is correct instead of rushing through the footage and making a terrible call. Also the TMO should IMO have the rules with him while in the booth, a quick reference will do wonders...

 

[MotherRucker1]

Best thing they could do for the TMOs is get them a proper television instead of those pathetic small 10 inch monitors that look to be out of the 80s/90's. Just the technology in general could do with an overhaul. Yes it would cost more but you'd have a much more attractive game than what you do now in some regards.

 

[Icemn]

well if match fixing is involved you can discuss all you want about whoever...

i find it fascinating that in 2015 with all the technology they are using in the game of rugby to still get those kinds of decisions wrong in rugby...

im referring to the Canes vs chiefs match... the forward pass to disallow the try and the ruled knockon to disallow the chiefs try...

did they realize they made a mistake with the disallowed forward pass try and tried to make up for it by disallowing the chiefs try?

are the refs being told before a game by SANZAR "ok do everything in your power to make team A win..." are these refs independent? or do they work for sanzar?

dont the tv refs know the rules of the game?
are the questions asked by the refs to the tv refs to vague?
are the tv refs trying to answer back to formally and not getting the real answer across? miscommunication

wtf is goings on?

 

[smartcooky]

I think calls to simplify the game are going to start being taken more seriously post the RWC. It's pretty clear that there are times when players are not following any of the rules surrounding rucks - and are only arbitrarily being penalised. The rolling maul is a complete mess.

The problem with the rolling maul (especially those being formed at line-outs) is that many referees appear to be ignoring the directive from WR and allowing mauls to be formed illegally.

When the lineout jumper catches the ball, there are two things that must not happen

1. They must not hand the ball back to a team-mate before their feet touch the ground

2. The lifters must not position themselves in front of the catcher either before or after he lands.

If either of these things happen then the catching team are guilty of obstruction, and the opponents are denied the opportunity to contest the formation of the maul, i.e. they have no chance to sack it. The end result is that opponents try using "cute" ways to defend the maul, such as backing off and not competing at all and then running around and tackling the ball carrier. The whole thing becomes a mess!

The directive goes right back to the conclusions reached by the "Maul Working Group" at the ELV Conference waaay back in 2009

[TEXTAREA]The ELV Conference in March 2009 expressed a concern that the maul can be observed to be, and actually can be, a form of 'legalised obstruction'. This is evidenced by players at the back of an elongated maul holding the ball whilst the maul moves forward ('truck and trailer'). An IRB working group concluded:

The maul must be formed so that the opposition can contest the maul at the formation; this includes the formation of the maul at a lineout and from a maul formed after kick-offs or restart kicks. (Match Officials were instructed to apply this from May 2009 - a DVD was circulated to all match elite match officials and Referee Managers.) Mauls from open play should be refereed in the same way as mauls formed at lineouts or from restart kicks.[/TEXTAREA]


Its coming up six years and IMO, most referees are still getting it wrong.

 

[TRF_heineken]

The problem with the rolling maul (especially those being formed at line-outs) is that many referees appear to be ignoring the directive from WR and allowing mauls to be formed illegally.

When the lineout jumper catches the ball, there are two things that must not happen

1. They must not hand the ball back to a team-mate before their feet touch the ground

2. The lifters must not position themselves in front of the catcher either before or after he lands.

If either of these things happen then the catching team are guilty of obstruction, and the opponents are denied the opportunity to contest the formation of the maul, i.e. they have no chance to sack it. The end result is that opponents try using "cute" ways to defend the maul, such as backing off and not competing at all and then running around and tackling the ball carrier. The whole thing becomes a mess!

The directive goes right back to the conclusions reached by the "Maul Working Group" at the ELV Conference waaay back in 2009

[TEXTAREA]The ELV Conference in March 2009 expressed a concern that the maul can be observed to be, and actually can be, a form of 'legalised obstruction'. This is evidenced by players at the back of an elongated maul holding the ball whilst the maul moves forward ('truck and trailer'). An IRB working group concluded:

The maul must be formed so that the opposition can contest the maul at the formation; this includes the formation of the maul at a lineout and from a maul formed after kick-offs or restart kicks. (Match Officials were instructed to apply this from May 2009 - a DVD was circulated to all match elite match officials and Referee Managers.) Mauls from open play should be refereed in the same way as mauls formed at lineouts or from restart kicks.[/TEXTAREA]


Its coming up six years and IMO, most referees are still getting it wrong.

That's not all they get wrong, they get the call of changing lanes also wrong. The Sharks game last week was a prime example.

The other thing they get wrong an awful lot is whether an opposing player is part of the maul or not. Take the Blues vs. Bulls game last Friday. The Bulls went over twice through a maul in the first 2 minutes, and neither resulted in a try. If you look at the second attempt, you can clearly see a Blues player holding on to a Bulls player jersey as the maul is driving forward, the Blues player might not have been in the maul try to stop it, but he was nonetheless still part of the maul.

There has been a lot of calls in SA to allow the mauls to be collapsed. Nick Mallett being the guy leading the front. He says, there has been very little injuries when the maul collapse, and it usually happens with a guy's arm getting stuck in a strange position. With that said, mauls are getting collapsed on a regular basis and penalties are given for that offence.

Edit: I see Lyndon Bray has commented on this past weekend's performance by Hoffman:

"While we acknowledge that the match officials cannot get it right all of the time, there are some basic standards that have simply not been upheld over this past weekend, resulting in some disappointing decisions and selection consequences.

"A thorough and robust system is in place whereby the development and performance of each match official is reviewed by SANZAR and its member unions on a daily basis and like any athlete participating in elite competition, our referees are accountable to performance levels for the competition.

"Appointments are made weekly based on performance reviews from the previous round but also includes an evaluation of the current form of each official over the term of the competition.

"We have completed our reviews from the weekend and have followed strong internal processes as we prepare our team to reach their physical, mental and technical peaks as we head into the critical last four rounds of the regular season and Super Rugby finals series.

"Public confidence in match officials is essential to the ongoing success of our product and we will continue striving to enhance the quality and accountability of refereeing across all SANZAR competitions."

http://www.sport24.co.za/Rugby/Super15/SANZAR-axes-shocking-officials-20150518

 

[smartcooky]

The "changing lanes" issue is bloody hard to referee. Honestly, I have looked at a number of examples of split mauls where changing lanes penalties were either given or not given and even with slo-mo, multiple and elevated angle replays, I struggle to see the differences. How on earth referees can tell with one look at full speed from ground level beats the hell out of me.

Perhaps the Law needs to be reviewed so that splitting the maul is either illegal or ends the maul.

 

[TRF_heineken]

The "changing lanes" issue is bloody hard to referee. Honestly, I have looked at a number of examples of split mauls where changing lanes penalties were either given or not given and even with slo-mo, multiple and elevated angle replays, I struggle to see the differences. How on earth referees can tell with one look at full speed from ground level beats the hell out of me.

Perhaps the Law needs to be reviewed so that splitting the maul is either illegal or ends the maul.

I agree, but for now I think there should be a directive, if there was suspicion of changing lanes, rather refer it to the TMO, have a proper look at it and make a calculated decision. If the ref is unsure, then refer it, don't try to make a gut-call and then suffer the wrath of the fans and commentators.

 

[easy2288]

In one of my replies on wrong decision by referees. I suggest each team to be given 4 opportunities to challenge a referee decision. If they feel the decision is wrong, they challenge it and the referee has to ask the TMO for a replay on the screen. The final decision then has to be decided by the referee, TMO and the assistance referee. Very similar to Tennis. Some members replied this will slow the game down to many interruption.

I think this is the best approach

 

[TRF_heineken]

Rohan Hoffmann's Wikipage has been hacked by angry Sharks fans:

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

Peter D'Rohan Hoffmann (born 14 January 1972) is an Australian-Portuguese rugby union referee and former international player for Portugal. He played as a fly-half and a fullback. One of the best Portuguese players of his generation, he earned nicknames like Zé Rohan and Mister Canguru. His career as a rugby referee has earned him nicknames like 'Incompetent' 'Useless' and 'Cheat'.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

This muppet cost the Stormers against the Hurricanes as well. Honestly, The 'Canes are gonna get the home final off the back of some bloody awful refereeing going their way vs Bulls, Stormers, Sharks and just on the weekend the Chiefs as well. Asuming they'd have picked up losing BPs that's still 12 very lucky log points (and importantly against the Bulls, Stormers and mostly Chiefs as conference competition, log points those teams didn't get so they count for double!).

I'm seriously getting turned off rugby. Never thought it'd happen but it's happening.

 

[Car]

I think calls to simplify the game are going to start being taken more seriously post the RWC. It's pretty clear that there are times when players are not following any of the rules surrounding rucks - and are only arbitrarily being penalised. The rolling maul is a complete mess.

I agree. I've been watching rugby since 2007 (more intensively since 2009/2010 or so when I started being able to receive French and British TV), I have read several books about the rules and yet I still find it difficult to tell why something is called (or not). I've talked about this with an Aussie mate and he said he often finds it hard to see as well. They've changed the scrum several times, but it's still such a mess that you can sort of understand why league fans say it's weird.

In soccer, most of the mistakes happen because they don't use TMOs, in ice hockey, I find it much clearer to tell what was called and why and I only really got into it at the start of the season. Also TMO use has become annoying in rugby while that's certainly not the case in the NHL.

It's really starting to affect my feelings towards rugby. Not only because I can't stand all the mistakes, but also because it's frustrating if you don't know why something was (not) called. I think TV channels could do more about that, the level of analysis by them seems rather low as well, even if that's better off discussed elsewhere.

 

[smartcooky]

This muppet cost the Stormers against the Hurricanes as well.

If you're talking about the "changing lanes" call in that match, I thought that was one of the most obviously correct "changing lanes" calls, at least of all the ones I have seen.

What it amounts to is judging who leaves the maul....

a. When the team NOT in possession at a maul, voluntarily leaves (all the players from the team NOT in possession unbind from their opponents) the maul continues because the ball or a player carrying it has not left the maul.

b, When the team IN possession at a maul, voluntarily leave (all the players from the team IN in possession unbind from their opponents) the maul ends because the ball or a player carrying it has left the maul. The ball must be cleared immediately, if the ball carrier continues to run forward bound to players in front of them, then that is obstruction.

Paragraph b. is exactly what the Stormers did against the Hurricanes. They unbound, so it was their responsibility to clear the ball immediately. They didn't, and instead, carried on driving forwards. It is judging WHO unbound from WHO that is the hard part of spotting a "changing lanes" move, and I thought Hoffman got it dead right on this occasion.

Here is an example from 2013... same team (Stormers) penalised for changing lanes, and it is much clearer what happens and why it is penalised. The commentator (Naas Botha?) explains it pretty well.

Honestly, The 'Canes are gonna get the home final off the back of some bloody awful refereeing going their way vs Bulls, Stormers, Sharks and just on the weekend the Chiefs as well. Assuming they'd have picked up losing BPs that's still 12 very lucky log points (and importantly against the Bulls, Stormers and mostly Chiefs as conference competition, log points those teams didn't get so they count for double!).

Sorry, but that is BS. All teams get lucky breaks from time to time, and there were referee calls that went the Stormers way in that match that were wrong too. When a bad decision is made in the middle of a game and a try or penalty is awarded or not awarded, the game starts in a different place and unfolds differently. There is no way to tell what might have happened if that changing lanes call was not made and the try awarded. The Hurricanes might have scored from the kick-off; no way to predict.

 

[Five Meters Out]

Even the Hurricanes are resorting to rolling mauls now. Who would have thought that would ever happen. That's the sort of thing dour South African, English and Canterbury teams do. A sure sign something is amiss in the sport.

 

[TRF_heineken]

I'm a bit surprized that Laurie Weeks only got 3 weeks for the several punches he landed on Jannie Du Plessis' face...

 

[OhDannyBoy]

I'm a bit surprized that Laurie Weeks only got 3 weeks for the several punches he landed on Jannie Du Plessis' face...

Me too.

At least 4 punches thrown over the space of about 8 seconds. Sustained and unanswered.
Could have stopped or tried to regain control over himself at any stage.

I'd been thinking he'd get 8 weeks minimum for that.