Peter Fitzgibbon, Leinster V Edinburgh, Assessment

Tim Robbins

Ok, I scribbled some note for Peter Fitzgibbon's performance for this match. Hopefully you don't mind me putting it in its own thread.

Summary: Game was never going to be a classic. Needs to work on communication and managing key moments of the game to make it to next level.

Fitness:Very good but doesn't have amazing top gear. Noticeable when black 9 makes break in first half (and at 64 min sin second half). A extra bit of pace would have been good.

Positioning: Very good. Sometimes at wrong side of ruck - e.g. white ruck 61 mins. Other times really good positioning for ruck e.g. Black Ruck at 66 mins (spots a not releasing), 67 mins (spots forward pass from 9).

Advantage: Play more of it and if possible, indicate scrum or penalty advantage. Let advantage run longer (e.g. knock on 22 min), White not rolling away on 46 min (only allowed on phase). Try at least two phases especially if team are in good attacking position.

Ruck: Some good (40 mins) and not so good calling of "Use it" (see communication notes). Good unplayable call in min 74. Needed more communication when Leinster were attacking on min 76. Black were infringing.


Key moments / decision making:

• Missed a material offside from a Black kick and Chase in first 10 mins (can't remember exact time)
• Missed material Black 3 offside at a black attacking maul 36 min
• Black off his feet (48 minute) (materiality subjective)
• White offside at ruck (57 minute) (very little materiality in fairness)
• Black lazy running interfering with play (59 minutes)
• Correctly pinged white offside at Ruck at 72 mins when black were attacking. But could have been a Yellow Card. Similary, black ruck offence in min 76 was also YC.

Communication:

• Sometimes too much explaining of laws to players. For example, instead of just penalising Black 6 for not rolling at the 20 mins, we get a full explanation. Keep communication terse, succint. Less is more. Don't bring unnecessary attention to yourself. Similarly when explaining things like you want props "cheek to cheek" instead of "head on head" - do it quickly. 3 seconds not 10.
• Sport enjoyment - the best refs have a passion for the sport. They give the impression that they are not just in control but they love the game. Sometimes I think Peter Fitz comes across as too pedantic and strict with application of laws. Or too lecturing to players (e.g. Kevin McGlaughin for hitting a man without the ball a split second before ruck forms. He says: "Be very very very careful". Just ping them. What advantage does the lecture give?
• At 36 mins - Leinster concede penalty on their 5M (Boss goes in at the side) ref does a "time off" to talk to captain. Why? This slows the game down and gives Leinster a breather. Again just make the decision and don't engage in needless lectures. After awarding the penalty Ref then refers to number 7 as the offender (previously he said it was 9). Then Black opt for shot at goal (well there's no point taking it quick now is there?). Again, if you are going to engage in lecture, maybe wait until captain has elected for kick at goal and then you can do it without slowing anything down.
• Sometimes needless communication. Breakdown at minute 40, ref shouts "White release" There was no white player that had to release. Too much noise.
• Sometimes communication sounds too shout-y. Example all the "Use ittttttttttt" calls. Don't sound panicky. Sound like you are completely in control. Just a calm "Use it" suffices. Only the 9 needs to know. Not the entire stadium.
• Sometimes Ref whistled when ball was out of play but there was no need to (examples: 42 mins, 49 mins, 52 mins). The players had clearly stopped playing and were walking up to form lineout that touch judge had clearly marked. More whistling means more attention goes you way. Only whistle when you need to alert players. Game is not about ref.

Signalling
Generally good. Leinster line out (42 mins) , wrong arm stuck up to indicate line out is on.

Scrums

• Pitch is cutting up, weather is not fantastic. Need to be a bit more flexible here. For example at 10 mins - Pinged Leinster for Hooker popping up. This was a marginal call. And the Leinster scrum was going backwards anyway. Would it not be better to just be better let play continue - if Leinster were marginally infringing, they were suffering already by having a bad scrum, they were hardly getting a tactical advantage from a marginal thing? Also, inconsistent Black hooker pops up at 51 mins and 71 mins but no pinging either time.
  
• Jennings breaks bind at scrum minute 39 - but Black had potential good possession here, why not play advantage?
• Black 3 boring in at minute 54 - missed.
• Black LH goes down (68 mins) - but in fairness Ref changes positioning for reset but then misses Black TH boring in.
• Really really annoying reset at minute 78 - at critical point of game. If you have to do this stop clock. This was TERRIBLE. Critical part of the game ruined.

Lineouts
Generally good. Varied position between front and back well. But no need to give full explanation when players infringe. E.g. in first 15 mins, Black receiver joins line out before hooker throws in even thou Ref was pre warning him. Instead of pinging and getting the game to move on quickly, Ref gives full explanation and takes line out again.

accidentprone1

I must say that that was a fascinating read. Thank you for taking the time to do such a detailed analysis. I'd love to read more of these in the future if you wouldn't mind taking the time to do similar write-ups?

Tim Robbins

accidentprone1 wrote: »

I must say that that was a fascinating read. Thank you for taking the time to do such a detailed analysis. I'd love to read more of these in the future if you wouldn't mind taking the time to do similar write-ups?

Hey thanks for that. Yeah will try again. It's great we have a forum for this sort of stuff.

Losty Dublin

One thing about Fitzy is that he loves to talk. A lot

vienne86

Losty Dublin wrote: »

One thing about Fitzy is that he loves to talk. A lot

He likes to lecture the players, which is tedious to listen to. Many thanks to OP - great post.

mun1

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Hey thanks for that. Yeah will try again. It's great we have a forum for this sort of stuff.

Just because you have an opinion on the ref doesn't make you right.
Some of your narrative lets the piece down.
Your post only comes across as an anti ref, pro Leinster rant.

But hey, that's only my opinion

Tim Robbins

mun1 wrote: »

Just because you have an opinion on the ref doesn't make you right.
Some of your narrative lets the piece down.
Your post only comes across as an anti ref, pro Leinster rant.

But hey, that's only my opinion

But you don't discuss even one technical aspect of the game and throw in some provincial crap. (I thought this forum tried to stay away from that nonsense). Thanks for spending so much time to make detailed and thought out points.

accidentprone1

mun1 wrote: »

Just because you have an opinion on the ref doesn't make you right.
Some of your narrative lets the piece down.
Your post only comes across as an anti ref, pro Leinster rant.

But hey, that's only my opinion

Can you repost the OP's post with the pro-Leinster rant sections highlighted please?

P_1

Very interesting read and well written Tim. Am I right in thinking that you occasionally dabble in the dark art of refereeing?

launish116

mun1 wrote: »

Just because you have an opinion on the ref doesn't make you right.
Some of your narrative lets the piece down.
Your post only comes across as an anti ref, pro Leinster rant.

But hey, that's only my opinion

harsh! maybe you should watch the match and do the same from a neg Leinster point of view!

personally nice to see someone take the time and effort to bring something different to the forum for further discussion

Tim Robbins

launish116 wrote: »

harsh! maybe you should watch the match and do the same from a neg Leinster point of view!

personally nice to see someone take the time and effort to bring something different to the forum for further discussion

Incredible to think you substantiate every single point you make with references to the minute and you get accused of provincial bias. I really think Rugby isn't the sport for some people. Soccer maybe. Rugby no. :-) :-)

Tim Robbins

P_1 wrote: »

Very interesting read and well written Tim. Am I right in thinking that you occasionally dabble in the dark art of refereeing?

I did a few years but then got kids. I haven't given up on togging out again. In fact, I really miss it. It's really hard to do anything with young kids - they require so much time and attention and I found reffing required 4 hours per game and then say 3 hours or so training. I would highly recommend anyone with a bit of passion for the sport to give it a go.

CoDy1

Interesting read, Don't know if it serves much purpose, no offence.

You've written your thoughts on a game you've watched on TV.

The ref was actually on the pitch.

Refereeing hasn't been great lately but I wouldn't have put tonights game in the bracket of bad refereeing. Is that what you were aiming for?

ArmaniJeanss

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I really think Rugby isn't the sport for some people. Soccer maybe. Rugby no.

Sigh that you go and ruin your own thread with nonsense like this.

finatron

CoDy1 wrote: »

Interesting read, Don't know if it serves much purpose, no offence.

You've written your thoughts on a game you've watched on TV.

The ref was actually on the pitch.

I agree fair play for the effort but I think a tread for reviewing refs is a bad idea.

accidentprone1

finatron wrote: »

I agree fair play for the effort but I think a tread for reviewing refs is a bad idea.

What makes it a bad idea though?

Personally I think it adds hugely to the forum. I feel that we're too comfortable with the provincial and national superthreads that are permanently bumped to the top - we end up with a bit of banter and discussion of the progress of the main teams, interspersed with circular arguments on the same contentious talking points (Earls can't pass, Heaslip's not up to captaining the good ship Ireland, Is BOD old? etc.)

There's been a few different threads recently that have certainly made the forum a more interesting place, with an increase in the quality and quantity of actual debate. Threads like this, I would argue, are what keep the standard of discussion at a high level.

Heroditas

Tim, that was an interesting read and thanks for posting it. I enjoyed reading it.
I hate when Fitzgibbon refs and could never put my finger on it. After reading the post, I fully understand why.
It's his "lecturing" and the way the game is broken up when he takes the time-outs to do this. The penalty against Boss on the 5m line is a classic example.
He certainly knows his stuff but I'd put him in the pedantic category of refs. I'd prefer Lacey to him who I feel let's the game flow a lot better.

vienne86

I too enjoyed Tim's post. I have never played rugby so wouldn't have even thought of some of the things you pointed out. Thanks.

Buer

A well thought out post regarding the refereeing of a game highlighting examples is far, far more preferable to the rubbish and abuse spewed in every match day thread.

I really cannot see the issue with it. Having a specific thread for it instantly tidies up the match thread.

launish116

the amount of match threads and people blaming the ref for certain decisions and loosing games!

personally its a breadth of fresh air to the forum and if anything all are teams build data and analysis ref traits so us discussing it could help us grasp, how team sheets/tactics are decided with a ref'n style in mind.

Would love to see your opinion o the Ulster V Zebre game last night! was a dire game!

Swiwi.

finatron wrote: »

I agree fair play for the effort but I think a tread for reviewing refs is a bad idea.

Not if it's objective and evidence-based. Sure a thread just full of whinging would be tedious, but if it's an actual evaluation, I'm all for it.

gaius c

finatron wrote: »

I agree fair play for the effort but I think a tread for reviewing refs is a bad idea.

A single thread for them would be good. OP has made a decent stab at what a real assessment would look like.

Also, anybody know why an Irish ref was reffing a game between a Scottish & Irish team?

jamiedav2011

I find it ridiculous that poster are replying to a well thought thread with balance and insight with negativity, and without even given any riposte to the analysis. Stupid stuff, Tim's is a great post.

gaius c wrote: »

Also, anybody know why an Irish ref was reffing a game between a Scottish & Irish team?

This happens every week. Fitzgibbon is Munster branch.

durkadurka

Reasoned , evidence based and thoughtful.

More please.

gaius c

jamiedav2011 wrote: »

This happens every week. Fitzgibbon is Munster branch.

Still don't like it. Non-Irish supporters will just see an "Irish" ref.

jamiedav2011

gaius c wrote: »

Still don't like it. Non-Irish supporters will just see an "Irish" ref.

You asked why, it's a very, very regular occurrence.

If anything, Leinster supporters could also say Fitz is a pro Munster ref, works both ways.

phog

jamiedav2011 wrote: »

You asked why, it's a very, very regular occurrence.

If anything, Leinster supporters could also say Fitz is a pro Munster ref, works both ways.

Has he ever reffed a game involving Munster?

Munster have had Rolland and Lewis ref games between Munster and Leinster.

jamiedav2011

phog wrote: »

Has he ever reffed a game involving Munster?

Munster have had Rolland and Lewis ref games between Munster and Leinster.

My point, as I'm sure you're aware, is that he's from Limerick and part of Munster branch afaik.

I'm quite obviously being facetious as a reply to another poster stating there might be an indication of bias because Fitz is Irish.

gaius c

phog wrote: »

Has he ever reffed a game involving Munster?

Munster have had Rolland and Lewis ref games between Munster and Leinster.

Lewis used to go fairly hard on Leinster in those games.

Heroditas

gaius c wrote: »

Still don't like it. Non-Irish supporters will just see an "Irish" ref.

That's their problem. For many years it was never an issue and it still shouldn't be.
A referee's impartiality should never be in question.

phog

jamiedav2011 wrote: »

My point, as I'm sure you're aware, is that he's from Limerick and part of Munster branch afaik.

I'm quite obviously being facetious as a reply to another poster stating there might be an indication of bias because Fitz is Irish.

You replied to a post about Fitzgibbon being an Irish ref Reffing an Irish province and said Leinster fans might think Fitz is Munster biased, my point was the he never reffed a game involving Munster unlike Lewis and Rolland actually reffing Leinster.

Tonight Munster have a Welsh ref reffing a Welsh club, should the Rabo try for neutral refs

phog

gaius c wrote: »

Lewis used to go fairly hard on Leinster in those games.

He was also lenient on them at times. I wouldn't think he was biased just his view of the laws or how he saw things.

Tox56

phog wrote: »

You replied to a post about Fitzgibbon being an Irish ref Reffing an Irish province and said Leinster fans might think Fitz is Munster biased, my point was the he never reffed a game involving Munster unlike Lewis and Rolland actually reffing Leinster.

I'm pretty sure he was saying he might be pro-Munster which would be anti-Leinster by default... and yes I'm pretty sure it was a joke

Tomtom364

phog wrote: »

Tonight Munster have a Welsh ref reffing a Welsh club, should the Rabo try for neutral refs

A couple of years back the Celtic Rugby took the decision that the then Magners league would from now on use the highest quality refs available.

This was an attempt to balance the reffing of all games and bring in more consistency as due to the way the league is made up, often the level or reffering was very inconsistent and subject to alot of complaining.



http://www.leinsterrugby.ie/news/1369.php#.UrXHZ7SvN-Y

jamiedav2011

phog wrote: »

You replied to a post about Fitzgibbon being an Irish ref Reffing an Irish province and said Leinster fans might think Fitz is Munster biased, my point was the he never reffed a game involving Munster unlike Lewis and Rolland actually reffing Leinster.

Tonight Munster have a Welsh ref reffing a Welsh club, should the Rabo try for neutral refs

I'm sure you knew what Im getting at Phoggy. Enough now.

Tim Robbins

finatron wrote: »

I agree fair play for the effort but I think a tread for reviewing refs is a bad idea.

It depends. If people are just going to spout off bile without even thinking about what a technical and demanding role it is then I'd agree.

The idea for this thread was to put as much substance as possible to it. People can take it or leave it.

I'd have no problems someone who played a lot in the front row going into detail about the various aspects of every single scrum in a match and putting that in a separate thread

Thanks for feedback.

Tim Robbins

CoDy1 wrote: »

Refereeing hasn't been great lately but I wouldn't have put tonights game in the bracket of bad refereeing. Is that what you were aiming for?

I have referenced the minute for nearly every single point I made. So it should be easy for you to check what you disagree with.

Otherwise, this post is way too general and impossible to take any further.

durkadurka

Tim what's your view on two early decisions:

1 Luke has a leg in dead ball area when he touches down in his own in goal area.
Ref says he needs to catch it or something for it to be a scrum back. Calls 22 drop out

2 Zane jumps up, catches ball and lands in touch.
Ref seems to call it carrying it over.

Both surprised me.

Sandwlch

Interesting op but in a way not sure its fair to scrutinise refs so closely. I think most performances would be pretty ugly if you really analyse every decision. Rugby happens so fast and in a bigger field of vision than we can really expect a man to follow. Its easy to miss stuff that looks obvious from a TV angle, replayed while we take our eyes of the ball and focus on some peripheral event, or in slow motion.

I feel its a big like the sentiment in the sign in the wild west saloons "Don't shoot the piano player - he's trying his best".

.ak

durkadurka wrote: »

Tim what's your view on two early decisions:

1 Luke has a leg in dead ball area when he touches down in his own in goal area.
Ref says he needs to catch it or something for it to be a scrum back. Calls 22 drop out

I couldn't hear as I was at the game, but the call not to go back for the scrum was correct. The ball has to be moving in order to pull that trick. It looked like it stopped.

2 Zane jumps up, catches ball and lands in touch.
Ref seems to call it carrying it over.

Both surprised me.

He jumped from within play, caught the ball in the air in play and landed out of play, so he did carry it over I think.

matthew8

.ak wrote: »

I couldn't hear as I was at the game, but the call not to go back for the scrum was correct. The ball has to be moving in order to pull that trick. It looked like it stopped.

On TV it looked like it was still moving.

Sandwlch

durkadurka wrote: »

1 Luke has a leg in dead ball area when he touches down in his own in goal area. Ref says he needs to catch it or something for it to be a scrum back. Calls 22 drop out

He explained that one to Luke (which I have a problem with - the ref should not be coaching players on the rules, simply officiating on what they do) at the time. Luke touched the ball down => 22 drop out. Had he simply picked it up the ball would have been dead due to Luke's foot out of play and so gone dead from the kick => scrum back at the kick.

Teferi

Interesting thread Tim, thanks for the insight.

Are there any other refs on this forum?

The Lost Sheep

Sandwlch wrote: »

He explained that one to Luke (which I have a problem with - the ref should not be coaching players on the rules, simply officiating on what they do) at the time. Luke touched the ball down => 22 drop out. Had he simply picked it up the ball would have been dead due to Luke's foot out of play and so gone dead from the kick => scrum back at the kick.

Dont see any issue with a referee instructing players on different laws, aspects of game within reason.

Teferi wrote: »

Interesting thread Tim, thanks for the insight.

Are there any other refs on this forum?

Have the associate ref course done. Reffed predominantly at under 14 level in schools so far but have reffed one or two under 16 club games as well and have been told I have to do full referee course as im good and will be wanted to ref up in Galway possibly this season and def next season.

Reffing games is easy enough. Just be totally confident on the laws of the game. If you make a mistake don't dwell on it and ignore all the voices from the sideline and there's no issues.

Buer

.ak wrote: »

He jumped from within play, caught the ball in the air in play and landed out of play, so he did carry it over I think.

Correct. Wherever you were last standing is the location of possession when you catch it. If ZK was in play, caught the ball in the air and then landed in touch then he carried it over.

This is why players normally plant their feet in touch before touching a kicked ball.

phog

Sandwlch wrote: »

He explained that one to Luke (which I have a problem with - the ref should not be coaching players on the rules, simply officiating on what they do) at the time. Luke touched the ball down => 22 drop out. Had he simply picked it up the ball would have been dead due to Luke's foot out of play and so gone dead from the kick => scrum back at the kick.

Will you stop, if he just pointed to the 22 for the drop out he'd have Luke (I thought out was Zane) or Leo questioning the decision. Refs usually tells the players the reasoning of the decisions in cases like this.

gaius c

phog wrote: »

He was also lenient on them at times. I wouldn't think he was biased just his view of the laws or how he saw things.

Absolutely. It's just that sometimes your determination to show how impartial you are might colour your thinking. I always avoid reffing my own team now because the lads don't talk to me for a week after.

Tim Robbins

Sandwlch wrote: »

Interesting op but in a way not sure its fair to scrutinise refs so closely.

Why not? If you were reffing amateur rugby you'd get more detailed reports written about your performances.

It's surely better than giving out about them without any technical info. Ref'ing is a tough tough tough job and I would have hoped that this thread would make people realise it's harder than most people think.

I think most performances would be pretty ugly if you really analyse every decision. Rugby happens so fast and in a bigger field of vision than we can really expect a man to follow. Its easy to miss stuff that looks obvious from a TV angle, replayed while we take our eyes of the ball and focus on some peripheral event, or in slow motion.

I think there is a clear difference between the top 5 refs in the world and the next level down. There is no way I would be able to pick out so many things on a world class ref.

There's a big difference in the next level down imo.

Dravokivich

Sandwlch wrote: »

Interesting op but in a way not sure its fair to scrutinise refs so closely. I think most performances would be pretty ugly if you really analyse every decision. Rugby happens so fast and in a bigger field of vision than we can really expect a man to follow. Its easy to miss stuff that looks obvious from a TV angle, replayed while we take our eyes of the ball and focus on some peripheral event, or in slow motion.

I feel its a big like the sentiment in the sign in the wild west saloons "Don't shoot the piano player - he's trying his best".

As someone who's trying to learn more about the game, because it's extremely technical, this is of benefit to learn why such decisions are made and if any issues with a decision, what the appropriate judgement should have been.

I think this is all what Tim's intentions were as well.

Sandwlch

Dravokivich wrote: »

As someone who's trying to learn more about the game, because it's extremely technical, this is of benefit to learn why such decisions are made and if any issues with a decision, what the appropriate judgement should have been.

I think this is all what Tim's intentions were as well.

Not quite sure what your point is, but mine is more that it isnt lack of technical knowledge or the fine detail of the rules that are really at issue - its that despite refs knowing the rules fully (barring the occasional brainfart like Wales try against a couple of years ago) its simply impossible for them to be reliably correct.

I would think that all decisions they make are correct - for what they see. They do make every decision for a reason and not on a whim. But they cannot see everything. 30 players, a ball, and they themselves also moving relative to it all is a very complex process. Add in different 'philosphies' or 'interpertations' of the rules, that he must make an instant decision without seeing a replay, and fans perceptions (one teams supporters 'should let the game flow more' view can be 'letting them away with murder at the ruck' from the other side), and refs just cannot get it right for everybody.

Some fans expectations from refs are simply too high - and more often than not, coloured by whether they won or lost. Victorious fans never get too fussed about the ref's performance.

Tox56

Sandwlch wrote: »

Not quite sure what your point is, but mine is more that it isnt lack of technical knowledge or the fine detail of the rules that are really at issue - its that despite refs knowing the rules fully (barring the occasional brainfart like Wales try against a couple of years ago) its simply impossible for them to be reliably correct.

I would think that all decisions they make are correct - for what they see. They do make every decision for a reason and not on a whim. But they cannot see everything. 30 players, a ball, and they themselves also moving relative to it all is a very complex process. Add in different 'philosphies' or 'interpertations' of the rules, that he must make an instant decision without seeing a replay, and fans perceptions (one teams supporters 'should let the game flow more' view can be 'letting them away with murder at the ruck' from the other side), and refs just cannot get it right for everybody.

Some fans expectations from refs are simply too high - and more often than not, coloured by whether they won or lost. Victorious fans never get too fussed about the ref's performance.

I understand that refs get a hard time, but I really think an approach like this is too far in the other direction. These are elite referee's officiating at a very high level, and a thread like this is simply an assessment of their performance, nothing personal or spiteful. Players are not spared from criticism, and I'm sure they don't intend to make mistakes or have poor games. Neither do refs, but fact is they do. The idea that 'well they can't be perfect' has good intentions but also limitations, these are the guys charged with enormous responsibility, don't think you can completely ignore their performances, good or bad, simply because it's a difficult job (which it undoubtedly is)