Refereeing (Multiple Merged Threads)

[Maximus Decimus]

2 hours ago, LeeF said:

I understand what you are saying but that doesn’t justify the non fans and the fans of a team still vociferously complaining and insulting Match Officials days after the match which is what has occurred on here and across various social media. Some posters on here have said either directly or implied, that the errors, which most aren’t errors, were deliberate

I struggle to understand how even the most one eyed “fan” can claim that Bentley, Gale or Foggin-Johnston was hard done by and are the victims of perceived bias. That’s not being a fan.

Fans who are journalists running win/loss ratios without any context - how is that being passionate? I’m still waiting for the knock on and other errors count for every Leeds player broken down for the opponents played to see if anyone is deliberately playing badly at times

I think we're talking about two slightly different things. I'm mainly referring to the culture around refereeing where fans will boo, shout and even chant things about the referee's pendant for self-love. 

The bigger decisions, like those we've seen over the last couple of weeks, are more akin to what we might see in other sports rather than being RL specific. A big decision, like a sending off or a disallowed-try faces a very similar reaction to what we might see in football for a sending off or a penalty. Half of Europe went into meltdown over the penalty awarded to England in the semi-final of the Euros, and that absolutely included shouts of corruption etc. I've very little time for people who believe that there is a conspiracy against their team, and take their anger from the stadium into a vendetta.

The RL-specific issues that I've been talking about, is more about the greater focus on refereeing decisions in general compared to other sports, which can lead to an overly negative atmosphere. In my opinion, this is an inevitability caused in large part by the subjective nature of the rules in RL; I don't think there is anything especially problematic about the RL fan in comparison to other sports of a similar demographic.

I don't think your point about mistakes quite works either. Of course fans might be annoyed or irritated by a mistake a player makes, but there is never the real possibility that that player has done so to purposely damage the team. The flaw in the referee argument, is that we want fans to treat them almost like neutral machines that sometimes make mistakes and not as people with the variety of flaws that humans have. As a human-being it is definitely not beyond the realms that a referee could have taken a dislike to your club or your team, or that your reputation could be influencing them. When your team gets 5 contentious decisions against it in a row, you are bound to get some fans thinking that the referee has done so because he is favouring the other team, because essentially he could favour the other team. Are we saying that no referee in any sport has ever been biased towards one team before?

Now don't misread me into saying that referees are rarely if ever biased against a team in this way, certainly not consciously. I don't think the referee on Saturday went deciding that he wanted to favour Saints (or even that he did), but the fact that he could have done will mean that there will always be people questioning the motives of individuals. 

[Maximus Decimus]

2 hours ago, JohnM said:

Very much agree. Shouting "forward" or "gerrumonside, ref" etc. in the heat of the game is a perfectly understandable and widely- shared activity, part of the match-day experience, part of being a fan.

Spending the following week frame-grabbing, headlining, relentless forum-posting and worse etc smacks more of paranoia than fandom.

I feel like there is someone in particular being referred to here and I'm none the wiser! 

[LeeF]

7 minutes ago, Maximus Decimus said:

I think we're talking about two slightly different things. I'm mainly referring to the culture around refereeing where fans will boo, shout and even chant things about the referee's pendant for self-love. 

The bigger decisions, like those we've seen over the last couple of weeks, are more akin to what we might see in other sports rather than being RL specific. A big decision, like a sending off or a disallowed-try faces a very similar reaction to what we might see in football for a sending off or a penalty. Half of Europe went into meltdown over the penalty awarded to England in the semi-final of the Euros, and that absolutely included shouts of corruption etc. I've very little time for people who believe that there is a conspiracy against their team, and take their anger from the stadium into a vendetta.

The RL-specific issues that I've been talking about, is more about the greater focus on refereeing decisions in general compared to other sports, which can lead to an overly negative atmosphere. In my opinion, this is an inevitability caused in large part by the subjective nature of the rules in RL; I don't think there is anything especially problematic about the RL fan in comparison to other sports of a similar demographic.

I don't think your point about mistakes quite works either. Of course fans might be annoyed or irritated by a mistake a player makes, but there is never the real possibility that that player has done so to purposely damage the team. The flaw in the referee argument, is that we want fans to treat them almost like neutral machines that sometimes make mistakes and not as people with the variety of flaws that humans have. As a human-being it is definitely not beyond the realms that a referee could have taken a dislike to your club or your team, or that your reputation could be influencing them. When your team gets 5 contentious decisions against it in a row, you are bound to get some fans thinking that the referee has done so because he is favouring the other team, because essentially he could favour the other team. Are we saying that no referee in any sport has ever been biased towards one team before?

Now don't misread me into saying that referees are rarely if ever biased against a team in this way, certainly not consciously. I don't think the referee on Saturday went deciding that he wanted to favour Saints (or even that he did), but the fact that he could have done will mean that there will always be people questioning the motives of individuals. 

Yes you can boo and cheer etc but to continue days afterwards when you have clearly been proven wrong is what I am referring to. That is very strange and out of order behaviour.

To counter your comment which I have made bold are you saying that no player in any sport has ever thrown or tried to throw a game which is the analogy you should be using.

I can not recall ever seeing a professional RL referee ever be biased. Can you? 
 

Also define a contentious decision. One that doesn’t go your way? One that is 99% of the time shown afterwards as correct? By definition all decisions are contentious. In RL they involve 1 usually or maybe 2 people’s view of a complex situation. These people having 1 view in real time. No replays. No elevated positions. No numerous angles. Yet their accuracy is extremely high and there are less errors than made by players & coaches 

[LeeF]

12 minutes ago, Maximus Decimus said:

I feel like there is someone in particular being referred to here and I'm none the wiser! 

The Bentley red card incident. Also the Powell try incident. I would refer you to a discussion on this forum but it was more akin to a lecture from someone 

[Bobby123]

On 15/02/2022 at 10:49, whatmichaelsays said:

Week one, and despite what I would suggest is an objectively successful launch to the new season by any measure, already there seems to be a lot of discussion (on social media at least) around the match officials in RL. 

Peter Smith this week penned an article in the YEP comparing Leeds' win rate when playing under different match officials and I think it is fair to say that whilst it has split the room, the reaction has been more negative than positive. My view, for what it's worth, is that publishing a club's win ratio under different officials, without any context, and inviting the reader to "draw their own conclusions" is probably a reflection of a very toxic culture we seem to have in this sport around match officials. 

We know, as a sport, we have a hard time recruiting and retaining officials at all levels. We have seen professional officials driven off social media due to the abuse they receive, and we've seen referees societies withdraw officials at the amateur level due to the behaviour of clubs and inaction of authorities to tackle that behaviour. 

I suppose the big question is how on earth does the game tackle this? People will say "the referees need to be better", but that is putting too much expectation on individuals who are inherently fallible to be infallible. People will say that officiating needs more consistency, but that's unrealistic without significant investment in making their job easier through additional resources and technology. People will say "make referees accountable" or "make them do post-match interviews", but you'd just end up with referees spending more time in media training sessions - and I don't think that you can really "bully" people into being less error-prone.

How does the sport get it through to a large part of its audience that match official errors are a part of professional sport and that, if you can't deal with that, then maybe you don't have the mental maturity to watch it? Do we need to start putting the onus on players on coaches to respect officials more and impose bigger sanctions on clubs, coaches and players at all levels? Do we need to start paying referees more to encourage more into the sport? Is this all an over-reaction and is RL no worse than most other sports? 

Not many comments regarding linesmen. Exactly what is their job title?. It is pointless moaning about the refs incorrect decisions when the linesmen do not get involved in the forward pass and offside decisions, be it due to the refs pre match instructions, ( a  fact that I have been reliably informed about), or is it a mandate from the hierachy. For goodness sake let the linesmen earn their corn.

[LeeF]

So after yesterday’s outrage at Gale’s charges and the potential ban we have this from one of the game’s top journalists

Yes he is trying to justify a player pulling up an injured player should not be banned

[LeeF]

Just now, Bobby123 said:

Not many comments regarding linesmen. Exactly what is their job title?. It is pointless moaning about the refs incorrect decisions when the linesmen do not get involved in the forward pass and offside decisions, be it due to the refs pre match instructions, ( a  fact that I have been reliably informed about), or is it a mandate from the hierachy. For goodness sake let the linesmen earn their corn.

We don’t have linesmen in RL. They are touch judges.

They do provide input to the referee throughout the game on numerous things which they are fully trained to do so and aren’t made up pre match in the changing rooms. Forward pass and offsides are included in specific circumstances and if you watch games you can see them doing so on a very regular basis.

They definitely “earn their corn”.

[David Dockhouse Host]

27 minutes ago, Bobby123 said:

Not many comments regarding linesmen. Exactly what is their job title?. It is pointless moaning about the refs incorrect decisions when the linesmen do not get involved in the forward pass and offside decisions, be it due to the refs pre match instructions, ( a  fact that I have been reliably informed about), or is it a mandate from the hierachy. For goodness sake let the linesmen earn their corn.

Touch judges are in constant dialogue with the ref in the modern game much more than they were years ago.

[JohnM]

6 hours ago, Maximus Decimus said:

I feel like there is someone in particular being referred to here and I'm none the wiser! 

No, really. Its a composite of various posts over the years.

[David Dockhouse Host]

We ran a poll on our rugby group on Facebook asking about performance if refs the other week.

Results, approximately 240 said ok, good or very good. 40 said poor or worse.

So about 80+% believes officials do an ok to better job, and less than 20% (hoping my maths is correct) believe they are poor or worse.

This isnt reflected in the social media platforms. It suggests that the few are much more vocal than the majority. Do we ignore the few or try to engage them, reason and hopefully show them refs are human and we don't need to focus so much of them.

 

[David Dockhouse Host]

Results here

[unapologetic pedant]

On 20/02/2022 at 11:50, Damien said:

This is the crux of it for me. The whole tackle, wrestle and play the ball is so subjective and open to interpretation. 

In relation to what is permissible before and after the tackle is complete, and thus how quickly the tackled player is entitled to play the ball, I don`t detect any inconsistency across major RL nations. I seldom see a call that could fairly be characterized as subjective.

What constitutes a second effort, working on the ground, not clearing the ruck, crowding the mark, etc are all matters of objectivity, intelligently and rigorously applied.

I do however notice a profusion of RL media and fans who have no understanding of these details, who judge the RL tackle and ruck purely in terms of time from initial contact to PTB.

There is of course one exception to all this uniformity. Namely, the RFL`s decision to abandon the necessity for the tackled player to make a genuine attempt to play the ball in favour of a vague unwritten requirement for "balance and control", entirely at variance with the rulebook. The discrepancy here is not between our referees, but with the UK and the rest of the established RL world.

The tackled player making a genuine attempt to play the ball imparts a structure and integrity to the process. Without it, our ruck is messy, full of anomalies, and most certainly "open to interpretation".

[David Dockhouse Host]

7 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

In relation to what is permissible before and after the tackle is complete, and thus how quickly the tackled player is entitled to play the ball, I don`t detect any inconsistency across major RL nations. I seldom see a call that could fairly be characterized as subjective.

What constitutes a second effort, working on the ground, not clearing the ruck, crowding the mark, etc are all matters of objectivity, intelligently and rigorously applied.

I do however notice a profusion of RL media and fans who have no understanding of these details, who judge the RL tackle and ruck purely in terms of time from initial contact to PTB.

There is of course one exception to all this uniformity. Namely, the RFL`s decision to abandon the necessity for the tackled player to make a genuine attempt to play the ball in favour of a vague unwritten requirement for "balance and control", entirely at variance with the rulebook. The discrepancy here is not between our referees, but with the UK and the rest of the established RL world.

The tackled player making a genuine attempt to play the ball imparts a structure and integrity to the process. Without it, our ruck is messy, full of anomalies, and most certainly "open to interpretation".

Agree but we get complaints it's slowing the game down

[redjonn]

17 minutes ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

Agree but we get complaints it's slowing the game down

agree, but then its a good thing we slow it down as far as I am concerned. Then it may focus on other skills more.

[Maximus Decimus]

1 hour ago, unapologetic pedant said:

In relation to what is permissible before and after the tackle is complete, and thus how quickly the tackled player is entitled to play the ball, I don`t detect any inconsistency across major RL nations. I seldom see a call that could fairly be characterized as subjective.

What constitutes a second effort, working on the ground, not clearing the ruck, crowding the mark, etc are all matters of objectivity, intelligently and rigorously applied.

I'm sorry but I couldn't disagree more. I say this as somebody who only really realised this as a problem after spending some time away from the game and coming back to it.

As there is no set time amount as to what constitutes holding down, then of course it is subjective and will be applied differently. The problem is when exactly a referee decides whether it is holding down or not; one referee could decide it is legitimate slowing of the PTB another could decide it is a penalty and neither can be proven definitely wrong. It doesn't feel like a consistent approach often even within a game, and feels far more like a lottery. It's not like a rule like offside, which despite having a very clear rule is sometimes missed, it seems to depend on how the referee is feeling at that very moment.

Prior to the changing of the PTB rule, this used to be one of the most frustrating. About once or twice a game, a referee would suddenly decide that a player hadn't played the ball properly and give a penalty against the attacking side. However, during the same game there would be probably 100 PTB's that were played as poorly as that which would always lead to frustration amongst fans at the random nature of the offence. Penalties around holding down are like this but less extreme.

I actually found ball-stripping the more frustrating of the two, because the call was so often an incorrect one and again the penalty usually means the opposing team being marched up the field to a scoring position. This is something that in theory could be sorted out if we were refereed like the NFL with a team watching video footage, but that is certainly not likely to happen anytime soon.

 

 

[redjonn]

The game appears to be to be quite structured (if that's the right word) or a bit of a procession from one end to another - assuming limited mistakes.  A little bit like NFL but with a little more randomness.   Thus the game can become about arm wrestle and slowing PTB to ensure your defence is aligned or structured as can be.     Thus the subjectivity around these area's become so important.

For me to lessen the above we need more competition for the ball to be available. Over many decades we have lessen or closed down area's with real competitive ball winning opportunity.  Open this up and maybe the impact of ref subjectivity may be lessened. 

I am quite sure coaching staff monitor how officials referee key area's and try and adapt their play to suit.   As those area's are such an important component of the game. Unlike say soccer and other sports that have more competitive open play which make such meaningless.

[Damien]

2 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

In relation to what is permissible before and after the tackle is complete, and thus how quickly the tackled player is entitled to play the ball, I don`t detect any inconsistency across major RL nations. I seldom see a call that could fairly be characterized as subjective.

What constitutes a second effort, working on the ground, not clearing the ruck, crowding the mark, etc are all matters of objectivity, intelligently and rigorously applied.

I dont agree with this at all. Referees in one competition vary never mind across competitions. That is why there has been much debate around the ruck and the interpretation when it comes to internationals and have seen a completely different style of game with NRL referees.

[Maximus Decimus]

I was just looking on the cross-code forum, where there is a thread based on a Guardian article about why RU isn't more popular. I found it interesting because it has a lot of comments from the public at the bottom, and the amount about refereeing is telling, especially as one poster claimed that RU didn't have the problem we have. Here was one telling one:

Quote

The result of too many games is referee dependent.

The scrum is a joke , too many daft penalties. Many find the rules too hard even the commentators. And if you are at a match you have no idea what is going on in a ruck or scrum.

Looks like it isn't only in RL that we are frustrated by the role of the referee.

[unapologetic pedant]

1 hour ago, Maximus Decimus said:

As there is no set time amount as to what constitutes holding down, then of course it is subjective and will be applied differently. The problem is when exactly a referee decides whether it is holding down or not; one referee could decide it is legitimate slowing of the PTB another could decide it is a penalty and neither can be proven definitely wrong. 

The rulebook is very clear. Defenders can delay the completion of the tackle by keeping the ball or the ball-carrying arm above ground until the ref calls held. Once the ball or the ball-carrying arm reaches the ground, tacklers are required to roll off or away and clear the ruck. There is no ambiguity.

[unapologetic pedant]

1 hour ago, Damien said:

I dont agree with this at all. Referees in one competition vary never mind across competitions. That is why there has been much debate around the ruck and the interpretation when it comes to internationals and have seen a completely different style of game with NRL referees.

Vary in what way? Specifically which tackle and ruck criteria are interpreted differently?

Apart from the RFL`s non-enforcement of the requirement to make a genuine attempt to play the ball with the foot, I don`t observe any deviations. Quite the reverse. The tackle and ruck rules are applied with remarkable consistency across all major RL nations.

[Dunbar]

I agree with @unapologetic pedant.  We tend to use 'too slow' or 'interference' as umbrella terms for a variety of offences like making a second effort, late into the tackle, working or holding levers on the ground, not clearing the ruck, or crowding the play the ball.  I think he is right to say that the majority of these are policed with some consistency both within and across our professional comps.  It is what happens after the tackle is complete and the execution of the play the ball when the variance starts.

[Damien]

1 minute ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Vary in what way? Specifically which tackle and ruck criteria are interpreted differently?

Apart from the RFL`s non-enforcement of the requirement to make a genuine attempt to play the ball with the foot, I don`t observe any deviations. Quite the reverse. The tackle and ruck rules are applied with remarkable consistency across all major RL nations.

Do you not watch RL? The differences in the ruck between Super League and the NRL have been debated and talked about many times. They are a bone of contention in every international between England and the Southern hemisphere.

You seem to be trying to have a different debate around the rulebook when we all know in reality its a completely different situation. The rules in the days of scooter hookers and in times when we have had very slow rucks stayed the same.

[Damien]

43 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

The rulebook is very clear. Defenders can delay the completion of the tackle by keeping the ball or the ball-carrying arm above ground until the ref calls held. Once the ball or the ball-carrying arm reaches the ground, tacklers are required to roll off or away and clear the ruck. There is no ambiguity.

So you dont consider until the ref calls held to be subjective? I would say it is very subjective.

The time a tackler has to roll off or away and clear the ruck is subjective too. It is impossible for the defender to just disappear and instantly do this and so the time that is allowed to do this is again subjective.

You may think these things are black and white in the rule book but the reality is different and teams are trained to push these subjective calls to the max.

[Dunbar]

7 minutes ago, Damien said:

So you dont consider until the ref calls held to be subjective? I would say it is very subjective.

 

Personally, I think that there is remarkable consistency despite these calls being subjective.

[meast]

On 22/02/2022 at 09:06, Maximus Decimus said:

Whilst I agree with this, I will allude to what I said earlier about what it means to be a fan.

Being a fan of a club, isn't a neutral experience where things are judged rationally. Being a fan of a club means being emotionally involved in both your team and the outcome. This inevitably means that there will be considerable bias in how the game is viewed.

When a referee gives 4/5 decisions against your team on the spin, which in turn means that your team might be losing the game, then you're not going to be thinking rationally about it. Statistically even the fairest referee in the world with two equally fair sides would at times gives 5 penalties in a row to one side. However, it is wishful-thinking to think we could change the culture to the point where this wouldn't be viewed with significant frustration by the fans of one side.

Nor should we want it to be. In my opinion, booing the referee is a side-effect of the passion and emotion that is the lifeblood of the game. The only real solution is to view the game dispassionately. I will refer again to the time when Lampard's goal wasn't given. I was furious, after all it was potentially going to lead to my country not winning the World Cup. The only way I'm going to sit there and say 'well everybody makes mistakes' is to not care about the result nearly as much, which in turn is to take much less enjoyment out of the experience of being a fan.

I would contest that if your team are conceding 4/5 penalties on the spin it's because your team are already losing.

Again, it's something I've tried explaining to people at the game, that if the Giants are losing the game and on the back foot then we tend to concede more penalties because we are desperately trying anything to find a way back in the game, therefore, we are trying every trick to slow the opposition down and put them off their stride, when a team is winning, it generally concedes less penalties as it isn't as desperate.

It's very rare that a team that is on the front foot concedes a succession of penalties, it's the other way round for me, the ref doesn't care who wins or loses or what the score is, he simply does his job, if a ref is giving penalties against a team there's usually a reason for it and it's up to that team to stop giving him cause to blow.