PDA

View Full Version : Rob Dickson's very own Law book!



Account Deleted
23-10-05, 21:10
A week ago, during the Osperys Vs Connacht game Rob Dickson took exception to Connacht players passing the ball about before taking a 22 metre drop out. At the time Connacht lead by a couple of points and the game was in the last few minutes.

The ball was throw to one of the Connacht second row forwards and Dickson is heard to thell Connacht to get on with the game. The Second row immediatyely throws the ball the the outside half. and Dickson blows and awards a FULL penalty. The Ospereys kick the goal and win the game.
Now the penalty for delaying a drop out is a FREE KICK. (Law 13.11) The penalty fro Time-wasting is also a FREE KICK (Law 10.2 (b)). Dickson has "justified" the full penalty on the grounds of "ungentlemanly conduct" prsumably Law 10.4(k).

He follows this up with the following action in the HC game at CArdiff Arms Park yesterday:


In the Cardiff Blues Vs Leeds Tykes game Rob Dickson strikes again. He awards Cardiff a try and then, following a host of protests from Leeds' players, the goes to the "Video Ref".

Now my reading of Law 6.A (6) Referee altering a decision, tells me he was wrong again!
The Law reads:
The referee may alter a decision when a touch judge has raised a flag to signal touch or for an act of foul play.

Neither condition existed so surely he was wrong.

What do others think?

Simon Griffiths
23-10-05, 22:10
As far as the try decision goes. If having awarded it both he and the touch judge realise that it was a decision given without enough consideration, then I'd have no problem with a referee checking with the video official. The Heineken Cup is big prizes etc., so the correct decision with regards to scoring must be made - however it comes about.

I think I've seen it a couple of times before, and personally have no problem with it - it might be a different matter if they do it simply because the oppositon were whinging, but in this instance he and the TJ did have a brief chat (which I believe led to the TMO becoming involved).

Bloody good try mind! What finishing! :)

Robert Burns
23-10-05, 23:10
Anyone see Lawsons try saving run in the Glasgow game? awesome!

Account Deleted
24-10-05, 09:10
Surely, by awarding the try, The referee indicated that he was happy with the score. The "fact" that the linesman was not sure is not relevent.
If Dickson was not sure himself why did he award the try?

Was he swayed by the Leeds players (acting like Manchester United players)?
Was he unsure about his own reading of the action?
Did he allow the TJ to effectively over-rule him contrary to Law 6?
Whichever is the case it is disturbing that a top referee handled the incident so badly.
Coming on top of the farce at the Ospery game the week before questions have to be asked about Mr Dickson's suitability at this level.

To quote Simon and Ed M "'You don't have to make the right decisions, you just have to make sure everyone believes you!'
RWC 1995 Final Referee - Ed Morrisson
(Gloucestershire Federation of Referees)"

Simon Griffiths
24-10-05, 11:10
As it happens I don't think Dickson should be refereeing the level he is.

I'm just playing Devil's Advocate - as it happens, I was very glad that Cardiff scored (as I 'support' them). I do think though that in the HC, as I said, the correct decision with regards to scoring should be made - however it is made. He could have got carried away with the situation and awarded it without thinking about his TJ and then realised the TJ was in a better position so asked his opinion...

Wert Twacky
24-10-05, 11:10
Maybe there are a few learning points that Mr D could take away (as could most us most matches) as in the penalty for timewasting incident, it appears that he just snapped with the timewasters and didn't give himself enough time to think through sanction - a familiar ocurrance that many of us could sympathise with I think.

Regarding the TMO referall after the try incident, I didn't see the game, but at that level surely the referee would be looking at his TJ before awarding the try, rather than after? I think what makes this worse is the appealing of the Leeds player after the score - not something we want to encourage in our beloved sport surley - the further we stay away from the influenence of kissballers the better.

BUT - what in God's name where Stade Francais wearing on Sunday? I suppose their kit guy conned them into thinking it was "salmon". not pink!

Kissballers stay way :mad:

ex-lucy
24-10-05, 12:10
just watched the match on Sky Sports .... looks like he did make a decision and then hesitated and then decided to check with Video ref ... TJ looks like he is happy with try.

I was unhappy with RD's decisions in the first half ... Quinnell should have been binned at least for his antics with Marshall nr the try line..

and some of those early driving mauls that were brought down by Cardiff should have seen some blues in the bin.

"boots on bodies" ... no dropping driving mauls as well.

Simon Thomas
24-10-05, 12:10
WertTwacky

Why would the Stade Francais kit man need to con them re shirts not being pink ? They are a French club and like most Europeans do not have the same reaction to that colour as some more straight-laced Brits.

However I couldn't agree more re Leeds players appeals - why RFU citing for un-gentlemanly conduct / dissent perhaps ? Even though they are on a bad losing run, and look in dire trouble there is no excuse for such appeals.
Quite right - we don't want to go the way of soccer (who are trying to get their house in order).

OB..
24-10-05, 12:10
Did he allow the TJ to effectively over-rule him contrary to Law 6?I did not see the incident, but Law 6.A.6 says:
"The referee may alter a decision when a touch judge has raised the flag to signal touch or an act of foul play. "
Law 6.A.7 (a) adds:"The referee may consult with touch judges in regard to matters relating to their duties, the Law relating to foul play, or timekeeping."

I agree that from the descriptions he did not handle the situation properly, but I would prefer a referee to accept a sensible comment from a TJ instead of sticking rigidly to his first reaction come hell or high water. He would surely get a black mark from his assessor for the latter, but perhaps only a grey one for the former.

Dickson used to be on the IRB A panel, but was dropped to the B panel a couple of years ago.

Robert Burns
24-10-05, 14:10
It does seem he has had a couple of howlers recently, and from current performance I too have to wonder If the best ref in Scotland, is good enough?

Account Deleted
24-10-05, 20:10
The whole game on Sat was full of players coming in from the side and killing the ball (both teams). Several yellows could have been given.

At one point RD indicated the ball was "out" a Leeds player dived on the ball with a possible contravention of 14.2(c) or 16.4(e) he lost the ball and a Cardiff player did the same thing and was penalised. The two actions were identical and one was pinged and the other ignored. The Leeds player was also standing at the side of the maul and had therfore not come from behind the back foot.

We get RD, IR and the Changeling brothers very often and the bizzare is the norm. It does not help the players know what is OK or not. It leads to frustration and that's often where trouble comes from.

We do expect a better standard from the "top" refs why else are they "top"refs if they are not not better?

Ricampbell
24-10-05, 22:10
I just hope that you are all (And NO I don't mean everyone) as good at refereeing as you are at finding faults with others. Granted RD has had a few wobbles recently but the man is a better referee than 99% of the other referees in the world (IRB B panel = Top 24) and hasn't done anything that either law or common sense couldn't justify. I haven't read the Ospreys thread but he can give a penalty for delaying a 22 drop out rather than a free kick under law 10 unsporting behaviour, granted that is harsh and not what we would hope to see but still legal. Also checking with a TMO should be encouraged not questioned, getting the right decision is what matters not the protocol of getting there. Finally and my apologies for this rant, why don't we try learning from what they are good at, rather than picking out the two or three questionable decisions out of approximatley 350 they make in each game.

ExHookah
25-10-05, 04:10
Mr Campbell,

Fair point. I think that it's just become noticable that Mr Dickson has had a couple of games in which he's made omse unusual decisions.

The difference there is that he has his matches on TV where people all over the planet are watching, whereas most of us crowds ranging have 2 men and a dog to maybe a couple of hundred most of the time. (I know you are higher ranked so probably get a more than that)

I see your point, but you should just realize that some of the criticism on here is not intended to be personal attacks and more heated debate on scenarios, whether they are real or hypothetical.

Account Deleted
25-10-05, 09:10
I just hope that you are all (And NO I don't mean everyone) as good at refereeing as you are at finding faults with others. Granted RD has had a few wobbles recently but the man is a better referee than 99% of the other referees in the world (IRB B panel = Top 24) and hasn't done anything that either law or common sense couldn't justify. I haven't read the Ospreys thread but he can give a penalty for delaying a 22 drop out rather than a free kick under law 10 unsporting behaviour, granted that is harsh and not what we would hope to see but still legal. Also checking with a TMO should be encouraged not questioned, getting the right decision is what matters not the protocol of getting there. Finally and my apologies for this rant, why don't we try learning from what they are good at, rather than picking out the two or three questionable decisions out of approximatley 350 they make in each game.

Law 10.2 (a) would allow you to give a penalty for not putting the ball in straight at a scrum. Or indeed any offence (if you deem it to be intentional). So yes he could give a penalty for ANY offence he cares to. It doe nort make him right according to the principles of the game.

I wish I was a better referee. However, my faults do not absolve RD from his problems. Through the Celtic league we suffer, and I have no problem with that word, the antics of Mr Dickson all too often. The two cases refered to above are just "high profile" examples of his problem. Hopefully the assesors will deal with these and other issues in due course. JUST AS THEY WILL WITH ME if justified!

Ricampbell
25-10-05, 10:10
Surely though we can enter into the debate about the laws of the game without naming and attacking a referee. And as pointed out the assessors will deal with it, as in this case as he has been droped from A to B panel over recent years. It could quite simply be done by saying at a game on Saturday I saw........ and we could all discuss that, you could even mention the game with no personal reference to the referee. My fear is that if this is the reaction referees are giving other referees its not long till it turns into football. Maybe I am just overreacting, but it would be a shame for one of the sports that still respects its officials to go down the football route.

Mike Whittaker
25-10-05, 10:10
Hopefully the assesors will deal with these and other issues in due course. JUST AS THEY WILL WITH ME if justified!

Of course all assessors have their own way of doing things as do referees. I would hope that all have a balanced approach and use the appropriate style according to the level.

On several occasions on this board I have used the expression, "It's not what you do but the way that you do it". Clearly it is better to do the right thing, but if you know why you are doing something it is easier to do it the right way; and not just because it is in the book!

Don't just learn the law book but understand what it says and why. When watching a ref, try to understand why he is doing what he is doing.

For myself I cannot remember the last time when I discussed law with a ref during debrief (maybe later over a drink with others). If the ref is CLEAR, CALM, in CONTROL (safe), CONSISTENT and with CONTINUITY they are on course for a 'Good' at anything below level 4.

Account Deleted
25-10-05, 10:10
Surely though we can enter into the debate about the laws of the game without naming and attacking a referee. And as pointed out the assessors will deal with it, as in this case as he has been droped from A to B panel over recent years. It could quite simply be done by saying at a game on Saturday I saw........ and we could all discuss that, you could even mention the game with no personal reference to the referee. My fear is that if this is the reaction referees are giving other referees its not long till it turns into football. Maybe I am just overreacting, but it would be a shame for one of the sports that still respects its officials to go down the football route.


Fair point, to a point. We all feel it's fine to be critical of players who have a "mare" yet the man in the middle is immune from this. We have to accept that we are a vital, integral part of the game and as such we must accept that we are subject to people venting their dissapointment at our poor displays.
When you get to the top you must surely accept that the critical comments with be more public and vocal. At the top players ansd officials alike are expected to be better than the "parks boys". They are expected to display better skills and when the games are high profile play their part.

Ricampbell
25-10-05, 10:10
Law 10.2 (a) would allow you to give a penalty for not putting the ball in straight at a scrum. Or indeed any offence (if you deem it to be intentional). So yes he could give a penalty for ANY offence he cares to. It doe nort make him right according to the principles of the game.


I wish I was a better referee. However, my faults do not absolve RD from his problems. Through the Celtic league we suffer, and I have no problem with that word, the antics of Mr Dickson all too often. The two cases refered to above are just "high profile" examples of his problem. Hopefully the assesors will deal with these and other issues in due course. JUST AS THEY WILL WITH ME if justified!

All the time ref you appear to be picking the most on poor RD so just a few questions from your comments

Well actually I was talking about law 10.4 k - Acts contrary to good sportsmanship, you say it does not make him right according to the principles of the game? What principle allows you to run the clock down when the referee is asking you to take the kick? I mean you are discussing law and then using principles what section of the law book are you reading these in? Can you send me a copy so that I can make such intelligent arguements?

Secondly no-one is absolving RD of his faults but there is no referee personally attacking you when you make yours. The guy has made mistakes and I am sure like all of us and every referee this weekend will make hundreds more. Yes its high profile but discuss the event not the referee, I mean you even listed the rest of the scottish referees in your rant. They are the best in their country and amongst the best in the world so please please please lets discuss law and management and how to improve ourselves, not the few flaws of an incredibly talented group of people.

Account Deleted
26-10-05, 01:10
Pages iv to ix give a hint!

Ricampbell
26-10-05, 11:10
But where does that say what he did was wrong? Maybe you are just to good and we should all be listening to you instead.

Davet
26-10-05, 14:10
I would agree that we should look at the top referees, and rather than simply say "that was a poor decision" try to work out why a ref who is a "top ref" gave that decision. Maybe it wasn't as bad as we individually think. For example, there may well have been strong game management reasons for it. We all talk about materiality these days, and many would say that when the scrum half goes blind without even a look towards the openside then we should not penalise the breaking openside flanker - to do so would be petty, de minimis, and his action immaterial to the game. True - but when that same flanker has been told more than once NOt to break early, then a penalty and even a card might be required - pour encourager les autres.

But lets try to find reasons why a top ref may make what to us down in the depths are "odd" or even perverse decisons. If we can work out the answers they may help us develop as well.

Of course sometimes refs simply make mistakes.

didds
26-10-05, 14:10
We all talk about materiality these days, and many would say that when the scrum half goes blind without even a look towards the openside then we should not penalise the breaking openside flanker - to do so would be petty, de minimis, and his action immaterial to the game. True - but when that same flanker has been told more than once NOt to break early, then a penalty and even a card might be required - pour encourager les autres.

Not to forget of course that maybe the SH went blind etc because the open flanker by consistently breaking early was reducing the options on that side - so the flankers actions are in fact very material.

didds

Mike Whittaker
26-10-05, 19:10
But where does that say what he did was wrong? Maybe you are just to good and we should all be listening to you instead.

But surely you realise that we are all experts on here? ;)

Knew a ref a few years ago who knew every pica dot in the law book, however on the pitch... :o

Account Deleted
26-10-05, 20:10
But where does that say what he did was wrong? Maybe you are just to (sic) good and we should all be listening to you instead.


I'm afraid that the above is a "highly intelegent" contribution to the debate.

Referees are required to show "...fairmess, consistency, sensitivity and, at the highest level, management..." page ix of the Law book playing charter.

In a game where almost every drop out involved this sort of "delay" (from both sides) with not a single warning from the referee, to award a full penalty in front of the posts to the home side who were 2 points behind right at the death does not smack of fairness, consistency, sensitivity or management. Even if he can make a very teuous link with a "justification" this was a judgement that lacked the four mentioned qualities

If you look at my post concerning the non award of a penalty by a senior international referee on this site I did not then say who that referee was. Why did I this time? Well, unfortunately, in Wales due to the Celtic league we regularily have games refereed by Mr Dickson and other scottish referees. The result is often disbelief and issues with the interpretations made by this referee in particular. Therefore whilst accepting that every referee has a bad day we are getting fed up with games being spoilt by Mr Dickson.

He and many other referees may well be far better than I will ever be. However I respect referees who are able to say, when needed, sorry guys I got it wrong! Dickson in not this sort of humble referee.

A senior Welsh referee ( Nigel Owens) recently refereed a game where he appeared to make a very poor decision. I met him a few weeks later and he held his hand up and said "Sorry I was wrong!" I have more respect for him than a referee who scours the Law book to find a justification for failing to apply a clear law 13.11 (specific to the drop out) to display a lack of "feel" by justifying the call under Law 10. 2 (a) as explained in a press release. Don't forget that if we all adopted his interpretation every not straight into the scrum (if it is even called!) could be a full penalty under 10.2 (a) indeed almost every free kick and many scrums could be upgraded under this law. It is clear that that is not the intention of this law.

Mr Dickson is a "top level" referee we are entitled to expect him to display better standards than we are getting from him. That is regardless of my qualities as a referee.

You have clearly lost your argument since you desend into personal attacks. on my view which I back from the Law book. I attack Mr Dickinson because HE made the poor decisions Ther is a clear difference in the two.

Mike Whittaker
27-10-05, 09:10
To have the space and time to stand back and appreciate the wider picture is the mark of a good referee.

Similarly in our discussions we should be able to do the same.

Ricampbell says, “Maybe you are just to good …”

ATTR says, “you desend int opresonal attacks”

Now I understand what is meant and would not dream of criticising the use of the English language in this context. However, the very best referees also show a commendable attention to detail and make use of positive rather than negative communication in establishing a point.

Let's keep it light folks and leave the fighting to the front rows! :D

Account Deleted
27-10-05, 11:10
To have the space and time to stand back and appreciate the wider picture is the mark of a good referee.

Similarly in our discussions we should be able to do the same.

Ricampbell says, “Maybe you are just to good …”

ATTR says, “you desend int opresonal attacks”

Now I understand what is meant and would not dream of criticising the use of the English language in this context. However, the very best referees also show a commendable attention to detail and make use of positive rather than negative communication in establishing a point.

Let's keep it light folks and leave the fighting to the front rows! :D

How right,
However, this thread displays a reason why supporters get so angry with referees.
Too often we hide behind "the referee is the sole judge" and close ranks, when a little humility and a sorry it was wrong would be a more correct and grown up reply.

I refereed at a tournament last season (details changed to protect the guilty!) An assessor was refereeing in this particular youth event along wit habout 9 other refs of varrious levels. We go to discussing senariois, as you do, and a particular senario was discussed which seemed a little unusual. The advise of the assessor was "Don't worry if you get it wrong say that it is a new IRB ruling the playersand coaches will not know" then the "referee is the sole judge mantra can out. Several of us were flabergasted.

We are integral to the game and whilst we do not break the laws we must appliy them fairly, consistently and in accordance with the stated principles of the game. Of course we will make errors. During a game we must try to get on with the game and not allow players to brow beat us into reviewing our calls. Or indeed changing our mind after the event as in the Try / video ref incident at the Cardiff V Leeds game last week. As soon as we allow doubt to appear the players will jump on it. The referee refered to in this thread has made, for me, far too many errors for such a highly ranked official. Just like players lose form so can we. I don't think he should be refereeing high level games.

If Mr Dickson can, HONESTLY, put his hand on his heart now and say his call, in the Ospreys Vs Connacht game was correct then so be it. However, he'll never convince me that it was.

The Cardiff call with the Video ref. Was wrong in Law. It could have cost Cardiff a bonus point. In Rugby league virtually every try is refered "upstairs" it make for a bore of a game. Players, refs, coaches all make mistakes let's accept them as part of the game. Why can't all of us accept the play (during the game) and afterwards apologise for the mistakes, especially the howlers?

Ricampbell
27-10-05, 12:10
I am going to try and get my point across one last time. No one is saying that was the right call all we are saying is by law he can (and did) do it. personally from the little info I have I would be appalled if I made that decision. My main point is that we can discuss these issues and points without attacking the referee, all referees are culpable, but that is the assessor and the IRB's task and they will, as we have said before, do something about it.

You quote fairness, consistency etc which are fair arguements but it is not fair to delay a drop out either.

"Well, unfortunately, in Wales due to the Celtic league we regularily have games refereed by Mr Dickson and other scottish referees. The result is often disbelief and issues with the interpretations made by this referee in particular. Therefore whilst accepting that every referee has a bad day we are getting fed up with games being spoilt by Mr Dickson" - Can you tell me whats fair or sensitive about these comments?

If we as referees attack a fellow referee in this way then how can we ask suppporters, coaches etc to show them the respect that is asked for in the principles section of the law book. I just hope that when you have your next bad day, there is a positive attitude shown towards you.

Ross

OB..
27-10-05, 13:10
In a game where almost every drop out involved this sort of "delay" (from both sides) with not a single warning from the referee, to award a full penalty in front of the posts to the home side who were 2 points behind right at the death does not smack of fairness, consistency, sensitivity or management. Even if he can make a very teuous link with a "justification" this was a judgement that lacked the four mentioned qualitiesI did not see the incident (I feel I need to include this fact just about every time) but your assertions are overstated. If he judged that the players were deliberately wasting timne in order to run down the clock and deprive the opposition of a chance to score, thinking they could only be penalised with a free kick, then I claim the referee had every right to award a full penalty under 10.2 (a) or 10.4 (k). In that scenario they were cheating. It is irrelevant whether or not there had been previous warnings.

That is a theoretical position, which may or may not have been supportable from the facts.

a referee who scours the Law book to find a justification for failing to apply a clear law 13.11 (specific to the drop out) to display a lack of "feel" by justifying the call under Law 10. 2 (a) as explained in a press release. I have not seen the press release. I disagree with your assertion. I note the personal nature of your attack.

Don't forget that if we all adopted his interpretation every not straight into the scrum (if it is even called!) could be a full penalty under 10.2 (a) indeed almost every free kick and many scrums could be upgraded under this law. Ludicrous exaggeration.

You have clearly lost your argument since you desend into personal attacks. Whereas you haven't? Mr Dickinson might disagree.

my view which I back from the Law book. As I do mine.

I attack Mr Dickinson because HE made the poor decisions In YOUR opinion.

If Mr Dickson can, HONESTLY, put his hand on his heart now and say his call, in the Ospreys Vs Connacht game was correct then so be it. However, he'll never convince me that it was.Suppose he convinced me? Would that count? Are we discussing the incident, or your attack on Dickinson?


Footnote: if I had seen the incident, it is entirely possible I might have agreed it was a harsh decision. I would still regard your comments as overstated.

Ricampbell
27-10-05, 13:10
OB,

I wish I could have put it like that.

Well Said

Ross

Deeps
27-10-05, 15:10
I am very glad I did not see it - I would hate to be in OB's bad books!

Account Deleted
28-10-05, 00:10
Quote:OB quoting ATTR

I attack Mr Dickinson because HE made the poor decisions

In YOUR opinion.
Yes my opinion. Mr Dickson can and I believe should answer for his choice of sanction.

To refer to my refereeing ability, the standard of which is not known by the poster is irrelevent to the issue of Mr Dickson's display.

As stated I do not believe we should close ranks behind a referee when he makes, what we as individuals feel to be, poor calls for a man of his ability. Just as we can be critical of players for poor displays. What makes us so special as to be above the comments of fans and the like?

The is much I could add to this argument but I feel it would be counter productive. Some posters would use it to belittle the ability of a referee they have never seen in action rather than discuss the actual situation (not hypothetical!) That is sad.

Maybe real debate is not wanted on this forum just a nice mutual appriciation society where we treat the "greats" as gods.

I named Dickson for two reasons:

Firstly his name in relation was already in the public domain (the game being high profile) anonimity being irrelevent therefore.

Secondly This is for me the latest in a long line of "interesting" calls by him

I did not mention the name of the ref in the thread re the last minute non award of a penalty as that incident was not already in the public domain and the incident was very much out of character. You will note, if you care to revisit that thread, I refused to be drawn into anything that might have Identified the re in question. Ask yourselves why I chose two diferent courses with the two senarios.

If I have offended any of you; I apologise. However, I remain unrepentant. One of the reasons referees get such a hard time with directives about abusing referees being made in many parts is because we are seen by many supporters and people in the game as being a group who think we are above the Laws and not part of the game. This will not change If we refuse to anknowledge the concerns of these groups and accept we get it wrong sometimes.

OB..
28-10-05, 01:10
Mr Dickson can and I believe should answer for his choice of sanction.At his level, he is regularly assessed by different people from different countries. Apparently they think he is good enough. The incident in question would have counted as a Critical Incident, and attracted significant attention.


To refer to my refereeing ability, the standard of which is not known by the poster is irrelevent to the issue of Mr Dickson's display. You over-stated your view, making it sound as if you think it is incontestable.


I have no objection to naming referees in high profile games, nor to criticising them - or rather, their decisions. You turned a decision that upset you into a personal attack.


Maybe real debate is not wanted on this forum just a nice mutual appriciation society where we treat the "greats" as gods.How odd. I thought I was engaging in a debate.

This is for me the latest in a long line of "interesting" calls by himI still think I am justified in pointing out that others may disagree - in particular those who assess him. Perhaps he will get demoted again, who knows? Meanwhile we are surely better off sticking to the decisions not the personalities.

Mike Whittaker
28-10-05, 10:10
To refer to my refereeing ability, the standard of which is not known by the poster is irrelevent to the issue of Mr Dickson's display.



In no way querying your reffing ability, anyone is free to comment as they wish.. But, please what is WRU Level 1? Sorry I am not familiar with some of the colonial grading schemes. :D

PS I hope you appreciate that the great Clive Norling started and gained the essential basics of his refereeing here in Hampshire. It's the way we train them!

Account Deleted
28-10-05, 20:10
In no way querying your reffing ability, anyone is free to comment as they wish.. But, please what is WRU Level 1? Sorry I am not familiar with some of the colonial grading schemes. :D

PS I hope you appreciate that the great Clive Norling started and gained the essential basics of his refereeing here in Hampshire. It's the way we train them!

District level reffing for 2 seasons now.

Clive was one of the best referees I ever saw aways had the mood of the game. Remebers three great incidents.

UAU semi (or final) the son of the great JBG Thomas (rugby reporter of the highest regard) was plaing for one of the sides and the opening 5 mins were bad tempered. Clive called the two sides in and said "my name is Clive Norling". The game restarted and there was no futher trouble.

Another game up at Newbridge in the Gwent Valleys ( in the days of friendlies) Cardiff led by John Scott were the visitors. Late in the game a replacement came on and joined Scotty in the back row. " Watch it that B@@@@@d Norling is missing nothing" warned Scotty. Norlings response was a grin and a penalty with a "I heard that Scott" thrown in for good measure.

On another occasion the great "Viet Gwent" Windsor, Price and Faulkner were in action. At a ruck / maul / pile-up Norling made the mistake of getting too close to the play Faulkner and Windsor saw their chance and drove into the play binding onto Norling and driving him into the mass of players. Amid much protest from Norling the Pooler pair only agreed to release him if he bought the first round after the game.

He could be hard if you messed him about but he could let it flow if you wanted to play rugby.

ex-lucy
30-10-05, 18:10
ouch ... howler... by Dickson

stamping all over the shop... he (and his TJs) keeps missing (defo not rucking!!)

and now he goes and misses third option from kick off .... the line out if ball goes out on full.

oh dear ....
always listen to the captain .... and in this case the captain wanted a line out not a scrum which is what Dickson gave. why ?

Simon Griffiths
30-10-05, 19:10
always listen to the captain ....
Mind you, they sometimes talk as much twaddle as the coaches we come across on a Sunday morning!

Thread closed.

Note: All referees are now banned from watching any of Dickson's matches! ;)