Brian McDermott’s in-depth transcript about how games are being refereed

[redjonn]

10 minutes ago, JohnM said:

The remedy lies in his own hands or in the hands of his players.  If they were not so intent on getting their hands between the  ball and the tackled player so trying to force the ball free....

When I say hands, i really mean his miserable moaning mouth....

Thanks for that articulated argument...

Its not his players only, it is a common occurrence within the games, that is players play acting for a penalty.   I see it in almost every game and it has significantly  increased from my perspective, he is spot on.... now maybe that makes me a "miserable moaning mouth".

[Adelaide Tiger]

49 minutes ago, Saint 1 said:

A lot of McDermott's interview is about teams trying to milk penalties around the ruck while in possession, so trapping a defender's arm in and getting a penalty for hands in, or collapsing to the floor and getting a penalty for slowing the PTB down, or moving off the mark and getting a penalty for markers not being square - and thus teams don't have to do the hard work on exit sets. Referees reward that behaviour by giving those penalties and thus you never get the arm-wrestle and teams going set for set, as McDermott says. 

Thank you.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

4 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

But there are still an awful lot of times when conceding a penalty is preferable to losing the ruck. Wiping the tackle count on the tackle 1/2/3 isn't a particularly meaningful punishment. 

And there's is next to not punishment for stripping. As you disguise it a little there' no risk and all reward. There would be no flow to the game to destroy.

In which situations is conceding a penalty better than losing the ruck? Only breaking a tackle to delay for the defenders to get back, which would be a professional foul and a sin-binning, can I think of off the top of my head.

[Konkrete]

He's a good man is Brian McDermott, and for me he's right in what he's saying.  Doesn't matter that he's the Leeds coach.  This milking of penalties at the ruck whilst in possession is a clear frustration for everyone.  It's crept into the game in the last few years (we've got a couple of actors), dare I say since the ridiculous behaviour of Sam Tomkins when he first appeared on the scene.  I'm not blaming it on Sam for a minute but I would say that there are certain unspoken codes of conduct that, once players see are no longer sacrosanct because of a blatant public disregard for them, then it changes the perception.  Those two long-standing codes of conduct that are now clearly lost are cheating to get a penalty and disrespecting the referee.  These responsibilities lie with the players not the referee.  Unfortunately exactly the same sorts of things are happening in cricket.  So it's not just RL, and we can't be claim to want to be in splendid isolation.  We need to recognise it as a sport and deal with it.  The first step in that process is to start talking about it.

The crowd influence is a more obvious one.  Crowd pressure on a referee absolutely works, clear as day.  'Why do all the big clubs get all the decisions?' is a familiar question.  Referees need more/better/different training on how to dial out the crowd.

 

[JohnM]

53 minutes ago, redjonn said:

Thanks for that articulated argument...

Its not his players only, it is a common occurrence within the games, that is players play acting for a penalty.   I see it in almost every game and it has significantly  increased from my perspective, he is spot on.... now maybe that makes me a "miserable moaning mouth".

How refreshing it would have been for him to take a positive leadership role by saying that he'd commanded his players to adhere to the rules by keep their hands off the ball in the tackle, thus denying the opposition the opportunity to milk penalties by trapping his players hands. It's the exact equivalent of blaming the police for a burglary, rather than blaming the burglars.

[DoubleD]

17 minutes ago, JohnM said:

How refreshing it would have been for him to take a positive leadership role by saying that he'd commanded his players to adhere to the rules by keep their hands off the ball in the tackle, thus denying the opposition the opportunity to milk penalties by trapping his players hands. It's the exact equivalent of blaming the police for a burglary, rather than blaming the burglars.

Either you don't understand the game or you're deliberately stoking here for a reaction. All players look to wrap up the ball to prevent the offload.

What we'd like to get back to is how the game was ref'd in the World Cup, with minor infringements around the ruck ignored and players told to get on with it. This led to a much freer flowing game and players were too tired to keep deliberately trying to gain penalties. The message soon got out

[Blotto]

29 minutes ago, Konkrete said:

H

The crowd influence is a more obvious one.  Crowd pressure on a referee absolutely works, clear as day.  'Why do all the big clubs get all the decisions?' is a familiar question.  Referees need more/better/different training on how to dial out the crowd.

 

Perhaps making the assistant refs more proactive and listening to them in the first place instead of the crowd.  They get all this feedback via the videos each week and for some reason ignore the obvious, Ganson still keeping on the blinkers inherited from Cummings so it isn't going to change soon!

[Wellsy4HullFC]

1 hour ago, scotchy1 said:

Against a broken line, when the defence is out of posiion, when there is a massive overlap on one side, when the defence isn't set. When the opposition  have a roll on. 

First would be a professional foul if I'm following you're scenario correctly, so more than just holding down.

When the opposition have a roll on, then wouldn't it be better to not stop the game for a penalty (like I said) and keep the flow going by just wiping down the tackle count? The momentum will have slowed, but not stopped completely like in a penalty situation. If they take the mick by holding down even longer after the call has been made, blow for a penalty.

Persistence = yellow.

[meast]

I agree with both McDermott and Ganson in a way,

There is far too much playacting and cheating going on, but referee's should be penalising players who are trying to con them

[jacksy]

Isn't he just trying to gain another advantage for his team with the refs with this? 

[fairfolly]

Whatever happened to the old maxim "never let the opposition know your hurt" get up and play the ball.If you are hurt walk off the field if at all possible,the stretcher is the definite last resort.Nowadays wriggle around on the floor until you get a penalty.Just last Saturday I was speaking to a well respected ex prop/second rower of the 70s and 80s, ex Wakefield,Hull and Leeds also G.B. captain.I asked him if he still watched the game,he said he watches it on Sky but got so frustrated on how the game is going.He was not harping on about the old days just frustrated with todays game.

[Lowdesert]

1 hour ago, fairfolly said:

Whatever happened to the old maxim "never let the opposition know your hurt" get up and play the ball.If you are hurt walk off the field if at all possible,the stretcher is the definite last resort.Nowadays wriggle around on the floor until you get a penalty.Just last Saturday I was speaking to a well respected ex prop/second rower of the 70s and 80s, ex Wakefield,Hull and Leeds also G.B. captain.I asked him if he still watched the game,he said he watches it on Sky but got so frustrated on how the game is going.He was not harping on about the old days just frustrated with todays game.

That still stands imo.  

What was refreshing at the York v Cats game was that there wasn’t any play acting.  

I agree with Konkers in his views but I feel the fans and the media should name names.  Posters on here know who regular offenders are but are conscious of relevant fans bearing down on them in their defence. 

 

[Wellsy4HullFC]

4 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

Not really. There's a big difference between a broken line and a professional foul.

When the opposition have a roll on and get a penalty they get 30metres and 6 more tackles. In your example they just get 6 more tackles.

We already have a yellow card punishment for persistent penalties. 

In my example, the get 6 more tackles and to maintain momentum rather than break in play.

If the line is broken and someone holds you down in order for the line to get back, then that's a professional foul.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

8 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

How can they maintain momentum and get 6 more tackles when the reason they have been given 6 more tackles is that the defence have illegally stopped the momentum.

The bar for a professional foul is higher than that. The simple fact is that if there wasnt an advantage to do it now it wouldnt happen now. Yet teams risk it now with a higher penalty

they would be given 6 more tackles because they've slowed momentum, not stopped it. A penalty stops the game. Wiping the tackle count down doesn't. It's effectively like the difference between playing on after a knock on or stopping for a scrum.

The rule change I have suggested would not effect the situation you've said as those instances would be a penalty, as I've already said. Holding down after a break is different to the penalties we see holding down to just control the pace of the game. Different tactics, different consequences.

I've said my piece on this anyhow. I no longer feel the need to go round in circles.

 

[Saint Toppy]

On 4/21/2018 at 11:02 AM, Mark S said:

Leeds and Wigan are the main culprits of all this. McDermott can moan all he likes but it’s his team that are one of the main culprits. The fact Leeds got a penalty when Briscoe has hold of the tackling players was a low point of the game. Also, at one point Ferres walked about 3m before playing the ball.

I agree about Briscoe,  he's probably the worst in the league for moving forward off the mark and flailing his arms and legs about on the ground to milk penalties. 

Mcdermott is every bit as much to blame for how the players behave on the field and he wants to look closer to home first before publically criticising the officials. 

[redjonn]

On 4/23/2018 at 1:23 PM, JohnM said:

How refreshing it would have been for him to take a positive leadership role by saying that he'd commanded his players to adhere to the rules by keep their hands off the ball in the tackle, thus denying the opposition the opportunity to milk penalties by trapping his players hands. It's the exact equivalent of blaming the police for a burglary, rather than blaming the burglars.

may of given him the moral ground agree... but in mitigation he did say even when he tells the players they will still try it on if they think the ref is given such in a game.

[terrywebbisgod]

Loving the holier than thou posts from supporters of other clubs.

Comedy gold.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

9 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

except you get 30/40 metres and 6 tackles or the chance to kick at goal.

Which would you rather have. 6 tackles, or 30/40 metres 6 tackles or the the chance to kick at goal.

Well isn't that the other side of the problem... players play for penalties. Wouldn't it stop a lot more of that if the reward is less?

[Wellsy4HullFC]

7 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

But your argument is you give them more. So why not play for it if you are going to get it more often?

The problem isnt that a penalty is too big a punishment because defences are willing to risk one to lay on. And clearly it isnt too little of a reward because attackers are willing to lose possession/momentum to try and win one.

The biggest problem is we dont get enough of the decisions right in every way, decisions that should go to the attack go to the defence and vice versa and some are completely missed.

Well what's your solution then?

For me, the problem is the spectacle is ruined by stop-start penalties, most often around the ruck. The reduction of stop-start by waving all-on will at least keep the flow of the game going. There are always going to be pros and cons. Your counter argument is that the defenders would lay on more. I disagree, and I think we're just gonna have to agree to disagree on this one.

[Konkrete]

2 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

Two refs so we have eyes on the ruck, make defenders roll off immediately so no wrestle at all but dont force the markers to stand square.

A nice idea but we haven't got enough referees or budget for that I suspect.  You'll end up with two versions of the game depending on what level you play at.

I think I'd start with something less dramatic and see how it went... referee would have the option to put a player on report for simulation.  Putting a player on report for simulation would mean that the player's behaviour for the whole match would be reviewed with that in mind.  There would then be a scale of punishments.

[Bulliac]

20 hours ago, Konkrete said:

A nice idea but we haven't got enough referees or budget for that I suspect.  You'll end up with two versions of the game depending on what level you play at.

I think I'd start with something less dramatic and see how it went... referee would have the option to put a player on report for simulation.  Putting a player on report for simulation would mean that the player's behaviour for the whole match would be reviewed with that in mind.  There would then be a scale of punishments.

To be honest, we've already made the first move to having 'two games' when the lower divisions don't have in goal judges.

[M j M]

McDermott speaks again - picks up at the start point below, then again from 11:01

 

[WakefieldCityLoyal]

Proud Wakefield lad is Brian, he knows his Rugby and I agree with him.