Now that NZ have won the RWC...

tolosenc

... the rules are going to be enforced.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10785383

Watch for the white card during the Super 15.

Referees who suspect foul play but cannot identify a culprit or pinpoint the incident will use a white card to alert a citing commissioner to scan the footage.


That "on report" move is one innovation being introduced when the Super 15 begins next week.


Administrators, officials, referees and coaches have also agreed to streamline the judicial process, with players cited to face charges initially offered leaner bans if they accept a guilty plea and suspension suggested by the duty judicial officer.


Players who refuse that offer or want to contest the charge will now have their cases heard electronically with their counsel, the judicial officer and the player all able to appear on a video conference hookup instead of having to appear in person.


Sanzar chief executive Greg Peters said the aim was to improve the consistency of citing and sentence. Where possible, Sanzar wanted to use one citing commissioner and one judicial officer for the entire tournament with those officials due to be announced shortly.


Referees will concentrate more this season on the breakdown where they will demand the tackler release his victim, while officials will also be focusing on the work of the assisting tackler and the body height of players from both sides arriving to contest the area.


Most referees have favoured a fair bit of "vocal coaching" as part of their game management but they insist they will reduce their level of instruction and penalise players who breach ruck rules, creep up ahead of the offside line at rucks and other blatant infringements. They also want to reduce the number of scrum resets.


Peters said television viewership across the New Zealand, Australian and South African audiences totalled 56 million last year, an advance on the 54 million who watched the series the previous year.


However Peters said that increase should have occurred as there were 31 more games in last year's Super 15.


Television viewership was up 41 per cent in Australia, stayed flat in South Africa and had slipped 5 per cent in New Zealand with Peters suggesting the earthquakes, cancelled matches and fans saving their money for the World Cup contributed to that decrease.


Local derbies seemed to attract an average of 4000 more spectators than other matches, while 2.5 million fans attended the matches which was an increase of 697,000 on the previous season.


The Reds' ascension last year showed how fans appreciated success. Two years ago their membership was 5000 while last season it soared to 26,000.

How much will really change, though?

mallachyrivers

How long is a piece of string? Sounds daft to me, they should just allow it all to be done retrospectively!

CatFromHue

It's good that they'll use video conferencing for the hearings and it'll be interesting to see how it goes.

I also think it's better for the game for the refs not to be shouting at players to not do something. The players know what they're doing it in my opinion leads to them pushing the boundaries and gaining small advantages.

I presume the body height of the players contesting the breakdown is to stop sealing off. This has crept back in, or did it ever go away?, where you see fellas flying into the breakdown at 2 feet off the ground. They're effectively diving into the breakdown and sealing it off.

WeeBushy

What I think could happen is that if they do rigorously enforce the rules we will see a season of matches dominated by penalties, and people will complain about the new rules being bad for the game. Then one of two things will happen: 1. They discontinue the changes/relax the penalties quite a bit , or 2. Teams will adapt and stop giving away so many penalties, because its not worth trying to cheat any more and the game will be better as a result.

I hope it's the second.

MungBean

tolosenc wrote: »

... the rules are going to be enforced.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10785383




How much will really change, though?

Nothing. Refs cant spot blatant infringements as it is. Reducing instruction will just lead to more and more penalties but no reduction in infringements. If you get your hands on the ball and the ref doesnt tell you to release your not gonna release.

I'd like to see refs do a better job of implementing the rules that they are suppose to be implementing now rather than allowing players to do stuff for the sole purpose of calling them up on it.

Reloc8

Actually in the NH the better refs have very much toned down the vocal instruction.

Back a few years ago it was almost like a monologue/commentary on the game and the important stuff got lost in the clutter. They're a lot more concise now in what they'll say and when they'll say it.

On the white card thing - I suppose it is possible citing commissioner could miss something - can't see the harm in the ref having an option on flagging it. Seems a bit immaterial though. If he sees it, he's likely going to penalise or not based on what he saw. I suppose in some instances he might not have an ideal angle on something.

Question :

If he sees something in open play with a live ball that he isn't sure about, does he just hold up the white card when the ball goes dead and hope that the thing he isn't sure about is so blatant - albeit that he didn't penalise (!) - everyone knows who he's carding ?

Presumably he has to make a little note for himself so that he can file a report later on.

I know ! Why not forget about the card and just give the ref the option of putting in a report to the citing commissioner ?

edit : eh obviously he would show it to the player suspected of foul play. I am an idiot.

andrewdcs

white card thing seems a bit, I dunno, flimsy. Why cant the ref just say (bearing in mind all S15 games are recorded) "I would like to refer number 15 for investigation, game time 34 minutes"? This I'd imagine would be as the result of being accused at the bottom of a ruck etc. injury to an eye or something nasty.

I appreciate refs telling players to release, watch the line etc. as long as its not every time (ie the ref should say it once, at the next breakdown if the same thing happens, its a penalty, then the ref can just refresh what hes specially looking, being tackler release, feet at ruck etc. periodically....) as has often been said if a referee called everything the game just wouldnt work.

Shelflife

The problem with putting incidents on report is that the refs will use it as a cop out.

In RL time and time again the ref uses the "on report" instead of sending the player off as he should, that way he doesnt "spoil" the game as a contest.

Its fine for things he or his assistant dont actually see but not imo for infringements that he sees but cops out of making the big decisions.

eg in the RWC semi if the white card was available would rolland have just given a pen and a white card? ( i suspect a strong ref like rolland would still red card but alot of refs would take the easy option)

keano_afc

McCaw may as well just retire now so.

Eoin

Shelflife wrote: »

eg in the RWC semi if the white card was available would rolland have just given a pen and a white card? ( i suspect a strong ref like rolland would still red card but alot of refs would take the easy option)

They're not getting rid of yellow cards though, are they? So in that particular situation, they have the same easier way out as before.

Reading the article, it says it's to be used like this: "Referees who suspect foul play but cannot identify a culprit or pinpoint the incident will use a white card to alert a citing commissioner to scan the footage."

So, maybe a better example is when Leamy(?) was bitten but no official saw it.

Would it apply to cases like Hines holding back two defenders? Does the score still stand?

WeeBushy

Eoin wrote: »

They're not getting rid of yellow cards though, are they? So in that particular situation, they have the same easier way out as before.

Reading the article, it says it's to be used like this: "Referees who suspect foul play but cannot identify a culprit or pinpoint the incident will use a white card to alert a citing commissioner to scan the footage."

So, maybe a better example is when Leamy(?) was bitten but no official saw it.

Would it apply to cases like Hines holding back two defenders? Does the score still stand?

Yeah the way I understand it is that if the ref thinks something has happened but didn't see what (like a player lying on the ground after a rucl holding his eye, as an extreme example), or players complain about an incident of foul play, the ref produces the white card - almost like a marker on the video for the citing comissionaer to watch out for. I don't think its purpose is for refs to think (for example) 'I saw a spear tackle but don't want to make a big call becuase its the WC semi final so I'll just produce a white card'.

In the Hines case the score would still stand. Once the ref has made a decision on a score, it can't be reversed after the game. And rightly so imo.

Eoin

WeeBushy wrote: »

In the Hines case the score would still stand. Once the ref has made a decision on a score, it can't be reversed after the game. And rightly so imo.

Absolutely, otherwise you'd be winding the clock back x amounts of minutes, resetting the score and so on.

What does the white card have to do with NZ winning the world cup? Am I missing something?

WeeBushy

Basil3 wrote: »

What does the white card have to do with NZ winning the world cup? Am I missing something?

The OP is making reference to the fact that NZ have a reputation for pushing the rules as far as they can, and these new rules (including the white card) are being brought in after NZ finally won the WC again.

WeeBushy

WeeBushy wrote: »

Basil3 wrote: »

What does the white card have to do with NZ winning the world cup? Am I missing something?

The OP is making reference to the fact that NZ have a reputation for pushing the rules as far as they can, and these new rules (including the white card) are being brought in after NZ finally won the WC again.

I see plenty of examples of rules being pushed by 6N teams. You can always find infringements if you look hard enough.

I still can't believe people seem to think the most closely watched flanker in international rugby is given extra leeway at the breakdown.

Personally, I can't see the benefit of the white card. The ref has enough to worry about in a game as it is. I guess time will tell.

CatFromHue

WeeBushy wrote: »

The OP is making reference to the fact that NZ have a reputation for pushing the rules as far as they can, and these new rules (including the white card) are being brought in after NZ finally won the WC again.

I thought it was more to do with McCaw being gouged by Rougeire but nothing being able to be done about it. If I remember right McCaw said to the ref he'd been gouged but the ref didn't see anything and that was that. Whereas now if it happened the ref could recommend the incident for extra video examination.

As for the extra attention to the breakdown these type of statements are made regularly.

CatFromHue

CatFromHue wrote: »

WeeBushy wrote: »

The OP is making reference to the fact that NZ have a reputation for pushing the rules as far as they can, and these new rules (including the white card) are being brought in after NZ finally won the WC again.

I thought it was more to do with McCaw being gouged by Rougeire but nothing being able to be done about it. If I remember right McCaw said to the ref he'd been gouged but the ref didn't see anything and that was that. Whereas now if it happened the ref could recommend the incident for extra video examination.

As for the extra attention to the breakdown these type of statements are made regularly.

Could NZ not have chosen to cite Rougerie under the current system? For some reason I thought they just chose to leave it.

.ak

Hrmm, but then ref's like Joubert would be screwed when they had to ignore the Kaino's writhing along the ground playing the ball.

In all seriousness though, it would open up a lot of soccer-ism where you get loads of players running up to the ref appealing for a white card. Tedious at best.

.ak

Basil3 wrote: »

Could NZ not have chosen to cite Rougerie under the current system? For some reason I thought they just chose to leave it.

No team can cite another. It's up to the citing commissioner. I think they could recommend it, or make a fuss about it in the press, but other than that...

.ak

.ak wrote: »

Basil3 wrote: »

Could NZ not have chosen to cite Rougerie under the current system? For some reason I thought they just chose to leave it.

No team can cite another. It's up to the citing commissioner. I think they could recommend it, or make a fuss about it in the press, but other than that...

Under the current system teams can refer incidents to the citing commissioner, I believe. I don't see how any major incidents would get missed, unless teams choose not to refer the incident.

It will be interesting to see how many times the white card is shown over the Super 15.