Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 43

Thread: 2 incidents - Wallabies v Springboks 18/9/21

      
  1. #31

    Referees in Australia
    Jarrod Burton's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    TRU
    Grade
    Level 2
    Join Date
    19 Jun 13
    Posts
    431

    Default Re: 2 incidents - Wallabies v Springboks 18/9/21

    Quote Originally Posted by crossref View Post
    We are moving to an intention based system, which is ok, but by stealth , which is silly
    And we as referee's need to witness enough of the lead up to an event to understand intention with a single view and watching 10 other players/interactions/actions. Some deliberate foul play is clear as day, but intentionality with a high tackle which slips up is not always as clear IMO. And looking at intention would seem to throw the High Contact framework in the bin as I don't recall there being any consideration/mitigation specifically for intentionality - although you could argue a lack of change of height to match the BC could be construed as being intentional.

  2. #32

    Referees in New Zealand
    Ian_Cook's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Retired player and referee
    Grade
    Level 2
    Join Date
    12 Jul 05
    Posts
    13,628

    Default Re: 2 incidents - Wallabies v Springboks 18/9/21

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarrod Burton View Post
    And we as referee's need to witness enough of the lead up to an event to understand intention with a single view and watching 10 other players/interactions/actions. Some deliberate foul play is clear as day, but intentionality with a high tackle which slips up is not always as clear IMO. And looking at intention would seem to throw the High Contact framework in the bin as I don't recall there being any consideration/mitigation specifically for intentionality - although you could argue a lack of change of height to match the BC could be construed as being intentional.
    I wonder how referees were ever able to make a decision back when they didn't have a "High Contact framework" as a crutch to lean on?

    Well, we managed just fine without it thanks.
    "You can Google for information, but you can't Google for understanding"
    - Jay Windley

  3. #33

    Referees in Australia
    Dickie E's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    VRRA
    Grade
    Level 2
    Join Date
    19 Jan 07
    Posts
    13,185

    Default Re: 2 incidents - Wallabies v Springboks 18/9/21

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian_Cook View Post

    Well, we managed just fine without it thanks.
    Did we? I seem to remember plenty of inconsistency between refs & decisions (which of course the framework was designed to address)
    I, for one, like Roman numerals

  4. #34

    Referees in England


    Soc/Assoc
    --
    Grade
    Grassroots
    Join Date
    14 Sep 09
    Posts
    19,259

    Default Re: 2 incidents - Wallabies v Springboks 18/9/21

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarrod Burton View Post
    And we as referee's need to witness enough of the lead up to an event to understand intention with a single view and watching 10 other players/interactions/actions. Some deliberate foul play is clear as day, but intentionality with a high tackle which slips up is not always as clear IMO. And looking at intention would seem to throw the High Contact framework in the bin as I don't recall there being any consideration/mitigation specifically for intentionality - although you could argue a lack of change of height to match the BC could be construed as being intentional.
    And yet isn't the purpose of it all to cchange player behaviour , which amounts to player intentions

  5. #35

    Referees in New Zealand
    Ian_Cook's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Retired player and referee
    Grade
    Level 2
    Join Date
    12 Jul 05
    Posts
    13,628

    Default Re: 2 incidents - Wallabies v Springboks 18/9/21

    Quote Originally Posted by Dickie E View Post
    Did we? I seem to remember plenty of inconsistency between refs & decisions (which of course the framework was designed to address)
    Keeping in mind the we are talking in a thread about professional, elite level rugby, are you seeing any improvement in consistency now, because of the high contact framework? Be honest now.

    I would say the greatest improvement in consistency has been due to the use of the TMO, especially in more recent years, with reagard to foul play. The vast majority of the RC decisions we have seen since those new TMO protocols were introduced would not have been given with the referee's "one-look-make-a-decision" scenario we had beforehand.
    "You can Google for information, but you can't Google for understanding"
    - Jay Windley

  6. #36

    Referees in Australia
    Dickie E's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    VRRA
    Grade
    Level 2
    Join Date
    19 Jan 07
    Posts
    13,185

    Default Re: 2 incidents - Wallabies v Springboks 18/9/21

    Quote Originally Posted by crossref View Post
    And yet isn't the purpose of it all to cchange player behaviour , which amounts to player intentions
    now that the word 'intent' is paramount, the words 'reckless' and 'careless' become irrelevant
    I, for one, like Roman numerals

  7. #37

    Referees in Australia
    Dickie E's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    VRRA
    Grade
    Level 2
    Join Date
    19 Jan 07
    Posts
    13,185

    Default Re: 2 incidents - Wallabies v Springboks 18/9/21

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian_Cook View Post
    Keeping in mind the we are talking in a thread about professional, elite level rugby, are you seeing any improvement in consistency now, because of the high contact framework? Be honest now.
    Yes I am. It is now de rigueur for officials to verbally walk through the process ... direct contact, degree of force, mitigating factors, etc
    I, for one, like Roman numerals

  8. #38

    Referees in New Zealand
    Ian_Cook's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Retired player and referee
    Grade
    Level 2
    Join Date
    12 Jul 05
    Posts
    13,628

    Default Re: 2 incidents - Wallabies v Springboks 18/9/21

    Quote Originally Posted by Dickie E View Post
    now that the word 'intent' is paramount, the words 'reckless' and 'careless' become irrelevant
    Complete and utter bollocks Dickie, and you know it!

    An action can be both reckless and intentional, or careless and intentional, and you can still be PK/YC/RC for an action that is reckless and/or careless if it is not intentional.

    What I object to with the cock-eyed way the game is refereed now is decision making driven by outcome - a player makes contact with an opponent's head and blame MUST be laid at someone's feet.

    It is the word "accidental" that has become irrelevant. I would object less to the current farce less if "was the contact a result of an accident?" was one of the questions in the flow chart.
    Last edited by Ian_Cook; 3 Weeks Ago at 10:09.
    "You can Google for information, but you can't Google for understanding"
    - Jay Windley

  9. #39

    Referees in Australia
    Dickie E's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    VRRA
    Grade
    Level 2
    Join Date
    19 Jan 07
    Posts
    13,185

    Default Re: 2 incidents - Wallabies v Springboks 18/9/21

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian_Cook View Post
    Complete and utter bollocks Dickie, and you know it!
    ad hominem attack. I'm out.
    I, for one, like Roman numerals

  10. #40

    Referees in New Zealand
    Ian_Cook's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Retired player and referee
    Grade
    Level 2
    Join Date
    12 Jul 05
    Posts
    13,628

    Default Re: 2 incidents - Wallabies v Springboks 18/9/21

    Quote Originally Posted by Dickie E View Post
    ad hominem attack. I'm out.
    Nope, telling you you are talking rubbish is not ad hominem.


    https://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/r...d-Hominem.html

    Ad Hominem



    (Attacking the person): This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument.


    I'm not calling you rubbish, I'm calling your argument rubbish.
    Last edited by Ian_Cook; 3 Weeks Ago at 19:09.
    "You can Google for information, but you can't Google for understanding"
    - Jay Windley

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
  •