Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 68

Thread: So, about this framework then...

      
  1. #31

    Referees in England


    Soc/Assoc
    --
    Grade
    Grassroots
    Join Date
    14 Sep 09
    Posts
    17,801
    Thanks (Received)
    139
    Likes (Received)
    1768

    Default Re: So, about this framework then...

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc Wakeham View Post
    It might be that the PI boys get more than most because they fail to grasp the difference. Or maybe they don't care?
    very unwelcome stereotyping
    Last edited by crossref; 18-10-19 at 08:10.

  2. #32
    Rugby Club Member Flish's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Durham
    Grade
    Level 9
    Join Date
    02 Sep 13
    Posts
    891
    Thanks (Received)
    16
    Likes (Received)
    211

    Default Re: So, about this framework then...

    Quote Originally Posted by TigerCraig View Post
    .... Luckily all 3 of the high tackles had no suspension recorded as the tribunal thought the referees over reacted ....
    Obviously don't know the full facts here, but this would concern me, especially if different refs issued the cards, it looks like there's some re-education / expectation setting needed somewhere, who sits on the tribunals? We all make errors in judgement but I would be worried that my county wouldn't have my back if this pattern emerged

  3. #33

    Referees in England


    Soc/Assoc
    --
    Grade
    Grassroots
    Join Date
    14 Sep 09
    Posts
    17,801
    Thanks (Received)
    139
    Likes (Received)
    1768

    Default Re: So, about this framework then...

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian_Cook View Post

    For mine, the sooner the game returns to tackling by grasping the opponent with the intent of bringing him to the ground (which is what the Laws describe) rather than trying to belt seven bells out of the opponent with the intent of knocking him to the ground, the better off the game will be.

    .
    so Law and convention changes that might drive that would be
    - change the turnover Law, so that there is no longer an incentive to create a maul instead of a tackle
    - ref the breakdown so that it can be contested

  4. #34

    Referees in England


    Soc/Assoc
    --
    Grade
    Grassroots
    Join Date
    14 Sep 09
    Posts
    17,801
    Thanks (Received)
    139
    Likes (Received)
    1768

    Default Re: So, about this framework then...

    Quote Originally Posted by Phil E View Post
    Everyones?

    I don't think it's crossed my 88 year old Mum's mind
    she probably thinks like Eddie Jones, and expected Aus to attack down Ford's channel, hence dropping him for that game?

  5. #35

    Referees in England
    Phil E's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Staffordshire and Royal Navy
    Grade
    8
    Join Date
    22 Jan 08
    Posts
    14,895
    Thanks (Received)
    160
    Likes (Received)
    1298
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: So, about this framework then...

    Quote Originally Posted by crossref View Post
    she probably thinks like Eddie Jones, and expected Aus to attack down Ford's channel, hence dropping him for that game?

    Follow my Award Winning blog The Rugby Ref


  6. #36

    Referees in Australia
    TigerCraig's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Sydney North & NSWRRA
    Grade
    Level 1 Ref/Level 2 AR
    Join Date
    19 May 08
    Posts
    1,365
    Thanks (Received)
    17
    Likes (Received)
    197

    Default Re: So, about this framework then...

    Quote Originally Posted by Flish View Post
    Obviously don't know the full facts here, but this would concern me, especially if different refs issued the cards, it looks like there's some re-education / expectation setting needed somewhere, who sits on the tribunals? We all make errors in judgement but I would be worried that my county wouldn't have my back if this pattern emerged
    2 different refs. In one game there were 2 send offs. Other club supported us, sent a letter and offered to come give evidence. Competition manager came to me before the hearing (i was club advocate) and said if the boys pleaded guilty to making high contact he was sure things would go our way. The chair of the tribunal was open in criticism of the ref. I'm guessing he had form.

  7. #37

    Referees in New Zealand
    Ian_Cook's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Retired player and referee
    Grade
    Level 2
    Join Date
    12 Jul 05
    Posts
    13,311
    Thanks (Received)
    111
    Likes (Received)
    1503

    Default Re: So, about this framework then...

    Quote Originally Posted by crossref View Post
    so Law and convention changes that might drive that would be
    - change the turnover Law, so that there is no longer an incentive to create a maul instead of a tackle
    Perhaps a maul formed in General Play that ends unsuccessfully results in a scrum to the team that took it in, but a maul formed from a lineout results in a turnover scrum.

    Quote Originally Posted by crossref View Post
    - ref the breakdown so that it can be contested
    I wouldn't like to see the breakdown contest making turnovers easier to get. We saw what happened the last time we had that...players unwilling to take the ball into contact for fear of losing possession, which resulted in "The Great Aimless Kicking & Aerial Ping-Pong Contests" of 2007 to 2009.
    "Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed"
    - Jay "Utah" Windley

  8. #38

    Referees in England


    Soc/Assoc
    --
    Grade
    Grassroots
    Join Date
    14 Sep 09
    Posts
    17,801
    Thanks (Received)
    139
    Likes (Received)
    1768

    Default Re: So, about this framework then...

    Indeed.
    It's a tricky balance to get, and you can never know what the effect of any change will be until you try it .

    Perhaps we could ban offloads from the ball carrier after they have hit the ground ?

    (one reason to tackle high is to stop offloads, tackle low and ball carriers arms are free, they can hit the ground and then pop the ball up )

  9. #39
    Player or Coach

    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Level 1
    Join Date
    02 Nov 18
    Posts
    466
    Thanks (Received)
    2
    Likes (Received)
    45

    Default Re: So, about this framework then...

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian_Cook View Post
    A question (or three).

    Do you think Bundi Aki's hit on Ulupano Seuteni was a just a "good hard hit"?

    Do you think SBW's hit on Anthony Watson was just a "good hard hit"?

    Do you think Reece Hodge's hit on Peceli Yato was just a "good hard hit"?
    Bundi, for me you can only control what you do. The height of the contact point is indeed high. However the Samoan lad has lowered into the contact. The ball was loose, so it was a reactionary tackle for me, there's no aggravating factors, and 2 mitigation factors for me, so I'd YC it in that match using the mitigation. In grass routes, where I ref I'd prob do the same tbh as the contact was high and the tackle was completed, but still mitigate from the RC to the YC. As there was a wrap with arms in the tackle.

    SBW - This is a different Kettle of fish, he's lead with the shoulder. His arm is most def in the Sling position. He's had a couple of seconds to line Watson up, Head contact, no attempt at a wrap and leading with the shoulder. RC.

    Hodges, can't really remember that one. The stills make it look similar to SBW's one. So I'd say thats fair enough for a RC. But as we all say, it's difficult to judge with a still. So I'm open to have my mind changed if some can post a video of the tackle.

  10. #40
    Rugby Club Member

    Soc/Assoc
    Prefer not to say
    Grade
    Retired
    Join Date
    10 Dec 15
    Posts
    1,773
    Thanks (Received)
    17
    Likes (Received)
    402

    Default Re: So, about this framework then...

    For my money, it's not working and is going to be slow to work for two reasons:

    1) it's a deterrent against something that nobody's trying to do in the first place (since it's been a penalty since time immemorial), so isn't going to be effective in that regard. It's like saying that you'll be imprisoned if you cause a car crash - everyone's trying to avoid that anyway, and increasing the penalty for it doesn't make them try to avoid it much more.

    2) it doesn't penalise tackles that are likely to end up high - unless they actually do - so in almost all the cases of the risky behaviour, there is no penalty at all. It's just those that are an inch higher, at which point the RC comes out.
    The Lavanini incident, for instance: he's probably gone for that sort of tackle hundreds of times and it's not been a problem (even though the risk has been there) so will maintain the attitude of "I just got it wrong" rather than trying to take fewer risks. Yes, ultimately attitudes will change, but far more slowly than if there's some (even minor) penalty for taking the risk, whether or not the risk materialises.

    The chance of getting caught is a much better deterrent against crime than increased punishments, and the same principle applies here.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •