A New Low for Pro 12 Referees

First topic message reminder :

[Edited so we don't get in trouble]

Something needs done here and quickly or the credibility of a bloody good competition is gone.

"Watch too much rugby? That's not possible!"

Oh it is. It can do funny things with your mind. Like seeing things that aren't there

SecretFly wrote:

Griff wrote:So to sum up: no referee, ever, has had universal praise or support from rugby fans in domestic or international rugby. Every ref has some fans, and every ref has his knockers (so to speak). Someone says he's good, someone else says he's bad, someone else is good, but someone else is worse. Hardly worth even discussing it.

I'd agree.  Thus the conundrum..... in Pro12 land, we're always discussing it.  I think it's more a fanbase issue.  The Pro12 fanbase are naturally inclined to see a ref and see his faults - rather than see the sloppiness of their own players or, God forbid, the limitations of their own coaches......

It's not a fan thing at all where fans are disgruntled with refs making poor calls against their team.

The pro12 have realised the standard is up to scratch and brought in ed Morrison this season to try and help improve the standard.
Have a look online, there are quite a few articles by journalists and other rugby sites all commenting on the standard.

Journalists my arse Majestic.

You think a Journalist (ex player or not) is going to rubber stamp an opinion for me?

I say it Is a fanbase issue; and I say the chatting classes of social media fandom put pressure on, and organisers then feel they must respond.

I prefer to moan about my players not doing enough to make a wanderly ref irrelevant.  And I prefer to moan about my coaches who can make life easy for pinging refs by sending out clueless players.

It's a personality thing.  Some of us like to dog refs, others like to dog players, others like to dog coaches.  Pro12 is a mostly Ref-obsessed League.

SecretFly wrote:Journalists my arse Majestic.

You think a Journalist (ex player or not) is going to rubber stamp an opinion for me?

I say it Is a fanbase issue; and I say the chatting classes of social media fandom put pressure on, and organisers then feel they must respond.

I prefer to moan about my players not doing enough to make a wanderly ref irrelevant.  And I prefer to moan about my coaches who can make life easy for pinging refs by sending out clueless players.

It's a personality thing.  Some of us like to dog refs, others like to dog players, others like to dog coaches.  Pro12 is a mostly Ref-obsessed League.

Absolute rubbish!

I would love for the refs to be irrelevant but unfortunately it's not the case in pro12. As said before I have criticised refs when they have made decisions in favour of my team, in games when I have been a neutral supporter etc.

The league has become ref obsessed as you put because the refs are that poor.
If your happy with sub standard refs than so be it but I don't want to watch games ruined by refs and or have the league mocked by other countries because of amateurish refs!

Absolute balls!



We'll leave it there, Majestic. We won't be agreeing. Pro12 The Reffing Voyeurism League. Sexyyyy!!!!

SecretFly wrote:

Griff wrote:So to sum up: no referee, ever, has had universal praise or support from rugby fans in domestic or international rugby. Every ref has some fans, and every ref has his knockers (so to speak). Someone says he's good, someone else says he's bad, someone else is good, but someone else is worse. Hardly worth even discussing it.

I'd agree.  Thus the conundrum..... in Pro12 land, we're always discussing it.  I think it's more a fanbase issue.  The Pro12 fanbase are naturally inclined to see a ref and see his faults - rather than see the sloppiness of their own players or, God forbid, the limitations of their own coaches......

Some Leinster fans think their coach is the sole reason of their failings.

Cyril wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Griff wrote:So to sum up: no referee, ever, has had universal praise or support from rugby fans in domestic or international rugby. Every ref has some fans, and every ref has his knockers (so to speak). Someone says he's good, someone else says he's bad, someone else is good, but someone else is worse. Hardly worth even discussing it.

I'd agree.  Thus the conundrum..... in Pro12 land, we're always discussing it.  I think it's more a fanbase issue.  The Pro12 fanbase are naturally inclined to see a ref and see his faults - rather than see the sloppiness of their own players or, God forbid, the limitations of their own coaches......

Some Leinster fans think their coach is the sole reason of their failings.

Oh it's true Cyril!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! There's a bloody formal Pro12 Investigation into MOC. I think they're going to get him a teacher Coach in to teach him the rudiments so that he doesn't embarrass the Pro12 lads and ladies of the mad social media Meltdown Club.

OK folks, I'll crack my fingers, hike up my trousers and wade in.

On Mitrea, I did think his refereeing of the breakdown ranged from pretty inconsistent to downright odd - I'm pretty sure he penalised a Glasgow player for 'tackling from the side' at one point. Maybe this is all in the eye of the beholder, but I think there is generally a poorer standard in the Pro12 than in other leagues. Part of the problem is the need to develop referees and officials from countries that have been under-represented at international level (basically Scotland and Italy). Because of the direct link between the unions and the league, this policy requirement is addressed with Pro12 supporters having to put up with some real duff candidates with the whistle - Neil Paterson, Leyton Hodges and Peter Fitzgibbon all spring to mind.

The TMO's ruling on the try is a separate issue. Schitz makes his point in his idiosyncratic way, but it does have merit. The whole reason for having a TMO is to allow close inspection of the sort of things a referee can't be expected to see in real-time. In this case, the ball was quite clearly knocked on and was grounded noticeably short of the line. I simply couldn't believe it when the try was awarded.

Let me be clear, I'm not accusing anyone of bias like Alan Quinlan did live on Sky Sports back in February. However, I think it's a problem with any multi-nation league like the Pro12 that the use of native TMOs and linesmen naturally leaves them open to accusations of bias. There was no reason why the 2012 Semi Final played in Dublin had to have an all-Irish refereeing team. I don't think there was any obvious bias, but it still leaves a bad taste in the mouth.

What do we need?
1) Higher standards of refereeing and TV screens available at all grounds; and
2) An end to referees, linesmen, TMOs and citing commissioners covering matches with teams from their country (unless it's a derby, of course).

Bias.  

Now there's an honest word, honestly spoken.  Bias of course has nothing to do with competence - indeed, the more 'competent' a referee, the more skilled he'd potentially be at constructing a biased result.

So incompetence has little to do with what Century Guy was claiming - and everything to do with rabid suspicions (and accusations) of corruption..... season long in these threads too.

Thanks for bringing the show back to the Honest issue, Ian

It's easy to call for higher standards, but harder to implement them.

Referees and officials don't get paid much (the citing commissioner gets paid nothing) although they do get travel and accommodation expenses but have to give up their weekends away from their families. Having "neutral" official teams is impractical because it's not just the expense of shifting them about but actually getting the commitment to give up every weekend away from home.

George Clancy is a tax inspector and will only ref for maybe another one or two seasons. Most refs are in it because they love the game and have given up playing - when they have to travel so much only to face abuse when they get there it gets pretty wearing after a while.

The standard in the Pro12 isn't worse that any other league but it is criticised more. That's because it's an international league so there will always be some numpties who love to stereotype race as being a factor in some paranoid conspiracy theory they have. It is ironic that those calling for better standards criticise young referees out of the game so they never get the experience to be better referees and are then replaced by younger more inexperienced ones.

I didn't actually think the referee was that bad. Yes a lot of the 50/50 decisions went the way of Connacht, and that includes the 2 yellows. The one thing I find unforgivable is the try being awarded by the TMO.

funnyExiledScot wrote:Relax Schiz, George Carlin will defend you in court pro bono...

Very straightforward insanity plea.

irn bru you miss a point on the "try" Mitrea saw the ball grounded and he was in a better place than the TV camera so he asked "any reason not to award they try" if that question is used the knock on must be "clear and obvious" - it wasn't. It looked like a kock on but it was not "clear and obvious" hence the right decision to award the try.
If he had asked "try yes or no" then the TMO has to be sure the try was scored - TV pics inconclusive = no try

TJ wrote:It looked like a kock on but it was not "clear and obvious".

You couldn't tell if his hands lost contact with the ball from the replay I saw. Yes it looked like a knock on but was it certain? was it "Clear and obvious" Can you be sure his hands did not remain in contact with the ball?
If the ref had asked the first question then no try - as you cannot be sure the ball is grounded properly but neither can you be sure it was not grounded from the replays and remember Mitrea was happy with the grounding only looking for the knock on

TJ not only do I think it was an obvious knock on but it also was fairly obvious the ball was short, so not sure what the ref saw grounded over the line.

Can somebody please answer me this ?

I re-watched Blues V Ospreys yesterday, and Ospreys had a try disallowed in the first half, for a knock on, now, it was a knock on, but unless you know the rules you would not think so as the players hands did not lose contact with the ball, but the ball touched the ground so it was given as a knock on and the TMO and the ref both acknowledged this, thus did not award the try. So, did the TMO and the ref not know the rules in the Connacht V Glasgow game ? The knock on in the Connacht V Glasgow game was much more obvious than the other knock on, the question I would like to ask is, why do you not think the TMO or the ref called the knock and instead awarded the try ?

Well in true Pro 12 style the 'highights' shows the ref calling for the TMO after Connacht bundle over the line but then doesn't show any of the replays and discussion between the ref and TMO. So unless someone finds another video we can't see it.

Found it on Iplayer

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b05rp91v/live-rugby-20142015-21-connacht-v-glasgow

Skip to 1:19:00

To me it definitely looks short, and a possible knock on.

But as TJ said if the ref asked 'any reason not to award the try' then there is nothing conclusive. If he had asked 'try yes or no' then surely the TMO couldn't have awarded it given it looked short.

So the ref obviously thought the ball was over the line...

I do not need to see it again, I saw it yesterday and straight away I thought it was not a try, when a TMO, a person who's job it is to watch things and give the correct outcome cannot see it after numerous viewings still gets it wrong is worrying. Strangely though, I only seem to recall the Irish provinces benefiting from wayward TMO's. Just saying.

LordDowlais wrote:I do not need to see it again, I saw it yesterday and straight away I thought it was not a try, when a TMO, a person who's job it is to watch things and give the correct outcome cannot see it after numerous viewings still gets it wrong is worrying. Strangely though, I only seem to recall the Irish provinces benefiting from wayward TMO's. Just saying.

Zebo's try against Edinburgh was also incredibly dodgy, but given that it was a Scottish TMO that gave it we can't really complain (plus we were getting pumped anyway). Still can't fathom how the TMO gave it though!

Lads!! Remember,
to err is human
to forgive divine.
To hold a grudge until it becomes a vendetta while frothing at the mouth is truly schizoid.

RDW_Scotland wrote:Zebo's try against Edinburgh was also incredibly dodgy, but given that it was a Scottish TMO that gave it we can't really complain (plus we were getting pumped anyway). Still can't fathom how the TMO gave it though!

Who said anything about the nationality of the TMO's ?

All I am pointing out is that the Irish provinces are the one's who always gain with dubious decisions from the TMO's.

RDW_Scotland wrote:

But as TJ said if the ref asked 'any reason not to award the try' then there is nothing conclusive.  

Why couldn't the TMO say "The reason you can't award the try is because there is not 100% certainty that it was over the try line?"

Crazy decision to award that.

LordDowlais wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:Zebo's try against Edinburgh was also incredibly dodgy, but given that it was a Scottish TMO that gave it we can't really complain (plus we were getting pumped anyway). Still can't fathom how the TMO gave it though!

Who said anything about the nationality of the TMO's ?

All I am pointing out is that the Irish provinces are the one's who always gain with dubious decisions from the TMO's.

My point being that incompetent officials do not only occur when Irish teams are playing in Ireland with Irish officials.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:

But as TJ said if the ref asked 'any reason not to award the try' then there is nothing conclusive.  

Why couldn't the TMO say "The reason you can't award the try is because there is not 100% certainty that it was over the try line?"

Crazy decision to award that.

For the 'any reason the try cannot be awarded' question the TMO doesn't need 100% certainty it has been scored - he is only looking for 100% certainty it has not been scored.

You see quite often rolling mauls going over the line and the ref asking that question - the TMO cannot see if the ball is grounded but because he hasn't seen anything to suggest the ball definitely isn't grounded the try is given.

It is very rare for that question to be asked and the try not given, so if there is is a decision needing questioned it lies with the ref - he must have been convinced he saw the ball over the line.

RDW_Scotland wrote:

For the 'any reason the try cannot be awarded' question the TMO doesn't need 100% certainty it has been scored - he is only looking for 100% certainty it has not been scored.

You see quite often rolling mauls going over the line and the ref asking that question - the TMO cannot see if the ball is grounded but because he hasn't seen anything to suggest the ball definitely isn't awarded the try is given.

It is very rare for that question to be asked and the try not given, so if there is is a decision needing questioned it lies with the ref - he must have been convinced he saw the ball over the line.

It's a pointless question then isn't it.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:

For the 'any reason the try cannot be awarded' question the TMO doesn't need 100% certainty it has been scored - he is only looking for 100% certainty it has not been scored.

You see quite often rolling mauls going over the line and the ref asking that question - the TMO cannot see if the ball is grounded but because he hasn't seen anything to suggest the ball definitely isn't awarded the try is given.

It is very rare for that question to be asked and the try not given, so if there is is a decision needing questioned it lies with the ref - he must have been convinced he saw the ball over the line.

It's a pointless question then isn't it.

I suppose it goes back to the good old days before TMOs where the ref gave the attacking team the benefit of the doubt - for example a well formed maul falling over the line with the player in control of the ball was generally given as a try. Under current TMOs you'd often not be able to see the ball actually grounded, so it allows for that.

You do get the odd try disallowed though - I'm sure there was one recently (Wayne Barnes maybe?) where it clearly was't a try - can't remember if he was in touch or the ball knocked on or something.

If the referee is sure it has touched the line, then he should award the try.

There's absolutely no point in asking such a loaded question. It's basically asking the TMO to undermine the referee on live television.

By the way I think he also lost control of it. So it wasn't a try twice.

Chunky Norwich wrote:If the referee is sure it has touched the line, then he should award the try.

There's absolutely no point in asking such a loaded question. It's basically asking the TMO to undermine the referee on live television.

By the way I think he also lost control of it. So it wasn't a try twice.

Would you agree that the question does have its uses though? My rolling maul example being one of them.

RDW_Scotland wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:If the referee is sure it has touched the line, then he should award the try.

There's absolutely no point in asking such a loaded question. It's basically asking the TMO to undermine the referee on live television.

By the way I think he also lost control of it. So it wasn't a try twice.

Would you agree that the question does have its uses though? My rolling maul example being one of them.

Not really because nobody can see if the ball is grounded. It's guesswork. Why should a try be given on probability? That's the whole point of TMOs, to make use of the technology to get the decision right. Until world rugby change the question, then referees cab basically decide whether they feel like awarding 7 points or not. It's a try lottery, and the game is already suffering from too many lotteries.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:

But as TJ said if the ref asked 'any reason not to award the try' then there is nothing conclusive.  

Why couldn't the TMO say "The reason you can't award the try is because there is not 100% certainty that it was over the try line?"

Crazy decision to award that.

Because thats not the way the rules work. The TMO has to see conclusive evidence it is not a try if the second question is used. If the first question is used the the TMO has to be sure its a try.

In this case Mitrea saw the attackers hands on the ball and the ball over the line so unless there is a knock on then its a try. Mitrea asks - "any reason not to award the try?" - and asks to look for a knock on. TV replays inconclusive so the try stands

If Mitrea had not seen a grounding he was happy with he asks - "try yes or no" and it would be ruled no try - as you cannot see the ball grounded.

At the end of the day, depending on what team you support the ref is always going to make some dubious calls. We've all had 50/50 calls that go against us but also for us.

I don't think until you've actually refereed a professional, high-intensity game of rugby you can really know how easy/difficult some calls are to make e.g. a ruck that's taken place 15m away that you are running to get to and can't fully see.

Standards are low compared to other leagues, and ARs don't appear all that useful, but hopefully more training and funding might help.

I really do not think standards are low overall. I saw little wrong with Mitrea overall and he is usually good and he is still fairly new. Maybe not one of his best games. Glasgow got on the wrong side of him at the breakdown and a couple of 50 / 50 calls went against Glasgow.

TJ wrote:

Because thats not the way the rules work.  The TMO has to see conclusive evidence it is not a try if the second question is used.  If the first question is used the the TMO has to be sure its a try.

In this case Mitrea saw the attackers hands on the ball and the ball over the line so unless there is a knock on then its a try.  Mitrea asks - "any reason not to award the try?" - and asks to look for a knock on.  TV replays inconclusive so the try stands

If Mitrea had not seen a grounding he was happy with he asks - "try yes or no" and it would be ruled no try - as you cannot see the ball grounded.  

But the attacker clearly lost control of the ball.

That's a mistake by the official not a problem with the rule.

Hmmmmmm

Mitrea was a bit woeful but Glasgow only have themselves to blame! Refs are human and unfortunatly, they find themselves making judgement calls on things.

Fusaro's yellow card is a good example of things.  In another game, he may not have been carded for the tackle, but as Glasgow had already given away about 15 penalties before that, it was the straw that broke the camels back!

Too many silly penalties were causing Glasgow to "get on the wrong side" of the ref as they say!  Seymour's pointless holding onto the ball in touch and Murray's blatant handling on the deck are perfect examples of Glasgow making things bad for themselves!

tigertattie wrote:Hmmmmmm

Mitrea was a bit woeful but Glasgow only have themselves to blame! Refs are human and unfortunatly, they find themselves making judgement calls on things.

Fusaro's yellow card is a good example of things.  In another game, he may not have been carded for the tackle, but as Glasgow had already given away about 15 penalties before that, it was the straw that broke the camels back!

Too many silly penalties were causing Glasgow to "get on the wrong side" of the ref as they say!  Seymour's pointless holding onto the ball in touch and Murray's blatant handling on the deck are perfect examples of Glasgow making things bad for themselves!

+1

I have said many times before on different threads that I don't think a ref purposely goes into a game with the intention to help one side win or lose.

However that said the standard in the league is poor and Clancy is one of the worst, his 'assist' in the Owens try on Saturday was just the latest in his blunders.

I am sure these refs get monitored but do they get sanctioned if they make a big balls up?

Looks short, but don't think it was a clear and obvious knock-on. Looks like he regathered the ball before it hit the ground. He doesn't need to have complete control, just to be applying downward pressure on the ball as it hits the ground. I definitely do NOT think that was a knock-on.

Don't think it should have been awarded, because I can see no angle which shows it on or over the try line. But I think thats down to the wording of the question; should have asked, "try yes or no?" and not "any reason why I cannot award the try"

I've seen several TMO decisions in the last season that are much worse than this. Unlucky for Glasgow, but a very close call. The mistake made by the officials was not to check whether it was short and too only look for the knock-on. Correct decision on the knock-on, don't think he reached the try line.

Notch wrote: He doesn't need to have complete control, just to be applying downward pressure on the ball as it hits the ground. I definitely do NOT think that was a knock-on.
.

If you drop the ball then touch it down over the line as it touches the ground it is a knock on.

No snippets?

If you guys are going to debate detail at least produce some!!! This is getting sloppy by 606v2! I think it shows that 606 needs to perhaps merge into a bigger Forum where better standards apply.

Chunky Norwich wrote:If you drop the ball then touch it down over the line as it touches the ground it is a knock on.

The same as what happened for the pass before Dan Bakers non try, it was a correct call, the ball hit the ground so it was a knock on, Matavesi used the ground to control the ball with his hands, so it was a knock on even though it never really left his hands.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Notch wrote: He doesn't need to have complete control, just to be applying downward pressure on the ball as it hits the ground. I definitely do NOT think that was a knock-on.
.

If you drop the ball then touch it down over the line as it touches the ground it is a knock on.

Thats not what happens here though. He fumbles the ball but he is applying downward pressure again before it hits the ground. It doesn't hit the ground and then he applies downward pressure, nor is it simultaneous (which is a grey area). You'll see it called both ways as it's an extremely close decision. But the try shouldn't have been allowed due to being short of the line. There was no problem with the knock-on.

RDW_Scotland wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:Zebo's try against Edinburgh was also incredibly dodgy, but given that it was a Scottish TMO that gave it we can't really complain (plus we were getting pumped anyway). Still can't fathom how the TMO gave it though!

Who said anything about the nationality of the TMO's ?

All I am pointing out is that the Irish provinces are the one's who always gain with dubious decisions from the TMO's.

My point being that incompetent officials do not only occur when Irish teams are playing in Ireland with Irish officials.

Ospreys 31 Ulster 20. Ulster had a try disallowed by the TMO (Tim Hayes) that even the Welsh commentators thought was a perfectly good try.

Notch wrote:Thats not what happens here though. He fumbles the ball but he is applying downward pressure again before it hits the ground. It doesn't hit the ground and then he applies downward pressure, nor is it simultaneous (which is a grey area). You'll see it called both ways as it's an extremely close decision. But the try shouldn't have been allowed due to being short of the line. There was no problem with the knock-on.

If the ball hits the ground then it's a knock on isn't it ? I do not claim to be right in this case, but that is how I have always seen it.

LordDowlais wrote:

Notch wrote:Thats not what happens here though. He fumbles the ball but he is applying downward pressure again before it hits the ground. It doesn't hit the ground and then he applies downward pressure, nor is it simultaneous (which is a grey area). You'll see it called both ways as it's an extremely close decision. But the try shouldn't have been allowed due to being short of the line. There was no problem with the knock-on.

If the ball hits the ground then it's a knock on isn't it ? I do not claim to be right in this case, but that is how I have always seen it.

Yup. Same with a knock on that "turns into a kick" by dropping on the players foot. It's a knock on.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Notch wrote: He doesn't need to have complete control, just to be applying downward pressure on the ball as it hits the ground. I definitely do NOT think that was a knock-on.
.

If you drop the ball then touch it down over the line as it touches the ground it is a knock on.

So long as his hand is in contact with the ball all the way until the ball touches the ground its OK - as soon as his hands leave the ball its a knock on.

LordDowlais wrote:

Notch wrote:Thats not what happens here though. He fumbles the ball but he is applying downward pressure again before it hits the ground. It doesn't hit the ground and then he applies downward pressure, nor is it simultaneous (which is a grey area). You'll see it called both ways as it's an extremely close decision. But the try shouldn't have been allowed due to being short of the line. There was no problem with the knock-on.

If the ball hits the ground then it's a knock on isn't it ? I do not claim to be right in this case, but that is how I have always seen it.

Yes, the issue here is whether or not he is back in control of the ball before it hits the ground. I think he is. It's a very close call though.

The bigger issue is whether the ball was actually on or over the line. I don't think it was.

Notch wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Notch wrote:Thats not what happens here though. He fumbles the ball but he is applying downward pressure again before it hits the ground. It doesn't hit the ground and then he applies downward pressure, nor is it simultaneous (which is a grey area). You'll see it called both ways as it's an extremely close decision. But the try shouldn't have been allowed due to being short of the line. There was no problem with the knock-on.

If the ball hits the ground then it's a knock on isn't it ? I do not claim to be right in this case, but that is how I have always seen it.

Yes, the issue here is whether or not he is back in control of the ball before it hits the ground. I think he is. It's a very close call though.

The bigger issue is whether the ball was actually on or over the line. I don't think it was.

Mitrea was closer and he thought it was.

Mitrea said he was happy with the grounding and only asked the tmo to look for a knock on.