Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Food for thought

      
  1. #1
    Rugby Club Member

    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Ref'd social games only
    Join Date
    26 Jun 11
    Posts
    262
    Thanks (Received)
    3
    Likes (Received)
    20

    Default Food for thought

    I tried to download the new Band-Aid song to support the fundraising to fight Ebola but my anti-virus program wouldn't let me

  2. #2

    Resident Club Coach
    didds's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    N/A
    Grade
    Club Coach
    Join Date
    27 Jan 04
    Posts
    10,022
    Thanks (Received)
    76
    Likes (Received)
    1029

    Default Re: Food for thought

    i might have said at one time its possibly more because SA refs ref other SA domestic matches which emjans SA players arev more in tune with the way SA refs interpret and blkow the laws... ("SA" is of coiurse interchagnable with other nations)

    Howver, Im not sure how true this is these days I poe4rceive (?) SH where elite level players do little more than play elite level rugby with elite level refs from "all over". ??

    didds

  3. #3
    Rugby Club Member Rich_NL's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Rugby Nederland
    Grade
    WR level 2
    Join Date
    13 Apr 15
    Posts
    1,343
    Thanks (Received)
    23
    Likes (Received)
    382

    Default Re: Food for thought

    Super Rugby tends to appoint local refs for local matches, on a merit-based/cost-saving system. Which naturally brings accusations of bias.

    If it's a regional difference thing, local teams adapting to and consulting with local refs, you'd expect to see similar in Aus, NZ etc. If SA teams play cleaner, you'd expect to see the same advantage with non-SA refs.
    https://www.reddit.com/r/rugbyunion/...itted/fhvqhbv/
    Apparently these aren't the case. It's interesting to find out what the reasons are.

  4. #4
    Rugby Club Member

    Soc/Assoc
    KSRFUR
    Grade
    Level 10
    Join Date
    11 Apr 18
    Posts
    360
    Thanks (Received)
    19
    Likes (Received)
    94

    Default Re: Food for thought

    correlation is not causation, but that's a lot of correlation...

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
  •