I Agree With GE!!

After watching games over the last two weeks the breakdown is reffed a heck of a lot better in Super Rugby then in the NH.

It makes a massive difference not having bodies laying 5 deep on the ball at every ruck.

I'll go lay down now....

I agree with it as well, the game is a lot faster because of it

Better use of cards as well.

From an AP perspective, without naming names, there are some very poor refs who havn't grasped the modern game.

But what I don't get is why there is a difference. Rules are rules, surely?! I get that one ref can interpret things differently from another, but why is there a split based on hemispheres? How can all the refs in one hemisphere see things differently from those in another? Are there ELVs being trialled that I missed somewhere? Or is it to do with the direction the water goes down the plug hole in the two respective hemispheres?!

its an example of the difference between a union organised controlled competition versus the club distilled version where relegation demands a commercial imperitive for a points at all costs win.

the refs are directional instruments of the union and only mirror the demands of the enviroment in which the perform.

Griff wrote:But what I don't get is why there is a difference. Rules are rules, surely?! I get that one ref can interpret things differently from another, but why is there a split based on hemispheres? How can all the refs in one hemisphere see things differently from those in another? Are there ELVs being trialled that I missed somewhere? Or is it to do with the direction the water goes down the plug hole in the two respective hemispheres?!

Griff your questions go right to the heart of the situation, I tried to touch on it in the Steve Walsh thread in the International section, but without much success I fear.

Some referees manage the game so that an entertaining, skillful, game at pace evolves. whereas there are other referees who approach from a "traffic cop " (only interested in issuing tickets) perspective and scrutinise the players/teams against every rule in the book, and the resulting game is a completely different product.

Yeah, totally agree. Watching the Super 15 it's quite clear to see why NH rugby remains a distinct 2nd best. If NH team bring the intensity to the breakdown recently shown by Ireland and then Wales last night the games will be a lot quicker.

Not so sure it is the referees. The Super Rugby teams generally seem to commit fewer people to the ruck. So the ball is played cleaner.
Is that because of the referees? Or an overall strategy? Having watched a few Super Rugby matches so far, I am not sure.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Griff wrote:But what I don't get is why there is a difference. Rules are rules, surely?! I get that one ref can interpret things differently from another, but why is there a split based on hemispheres? How can all the refs in one hemisphere see things differently from those in another? Are there ELVs being trialled that I missed somewhere? Or is it to do with the direction the water goes down the plug hole in the two respective hemispheres?!

Griff your questions go right to the heart of the situation, I tried to touch on it in the Steve Walsh thread in the International section, but without much success I fear.

Some referees manage the game so that an entertaining, skillful, game at pace evolves. whereas there are other referees who approach from a "traffic cop " (only interested in issuing tickets) perspective and scrutinise the players/teams against every rule in the book, and the resulting game is a completely different product.

I agree with you. But I don't get why those who do the former are all from one hemisphere and those who do the latter are all from another! It would make more sense if we have both types in both hemispheres. The fact that we don't seems to me to suggest there are different directives given to the refs in the North and South, perhaps at different training sessions or meetings? That's how it seems anyway.

doctor_grey wrote:Not so sure it is the referees.  The Super Rugby teams generally seem to commit fewer people to the ruck.  So the ball is played cleaner.
Is that because of the referees?  Or an overall strategy?  Having watched a few Super Rugby matches so far, I am not sure.  

I think it's in response to strict reffing last season, teams have realised that flooding the breakdown only causes you to get penalised and leaves you with less players across the park.

I think it's a combination of things. IRB directives and SANZAAR, referees and coaches discussions pre season and teams adapting.

I think it's going on for a while.

In terms of teams holding back in the ruck. I think that's ben going a fair while. It's a question of analysis of effectiveness of competing. You commit to slow the ball down or win the ball back, otherwise you're more effective in the defensive line. We've heard players and coaches bang on for it for a while and seen it for a number of years (Crusaders and AB's being key examples).

I pretty sure that I can remember reading that the refs and coaches are involved in the review process which leads to where the emphasis on refereeing is going to be. The IRB put out emphasis on the ruck back in 2008. SANZAAR from memory looked at a range of things. There's around 150 decisions that a ref could make at a single ruck.

The things that I like are:
*the emphasis on the tackler and and tackle assists to clearly release the tackled player.
** the penalising for players lying on the ground in the ruck.

The other thing is the refereeing tends to change during the season. from memory, they're often hard on these issues at the start of the season.