terrible refs

The Lost Sheep

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Not really. A ref can learn and if they miss some things then they get training and learn.

Ruck entry is a basic knowledge skill set which can be taught very easily, allowing u15 enter from the side is dangerous. System that states a ref can learn about it afterwards is negligent.

There is a duty of care to the players, especially minors.

Zzippy

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Vouched expenses. I don't think money necessarily is way to get more people doing games.

Money wasn't what got me into refereeing but as a student it certainly encouraged me to volunteer for more games, and the more games I did the more experience I got and moved up the age grades. If you want to get young people taking up refereeing before they're lost to the game for good it certainly wouldn't hurt.

The Lost Sheep

Deleted User wrote: »

Ruck entry is a basic knowledge skill set which can be taught very easily, allowing u15 enter from the side is dangerous. System that states a ref can learn about it afterwards is negligent.

There is a duty of care to the players, especially minors.

There is a duty of care but you weren't at the game. I wasn't either but there is always entry from the side in a game and it wont always be dangerous. A ref learns from their mistakes. There is a duty of care but this ref was fine in the game and like everyone, coaches, players .... will learn from the game.

Refs like players need to learn and improve in games as well.

brocbrocach

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Not really. A ref can learn and if they miss some things then they get training and learn.

Vouched expenses. I don't think money necessarily is way to get more people doing games.

Depends on the province and area but there is plenty of refs who will do 2 games plus a weekend.
Rugby refereeing is appointed provincially so its not a worry about people not from an area refereeing though most clubs will have some officials and there is always people not affiliated to any club/school who ref.

Gosh, are you saying that the system is fine and nothing can be improved? :rolleyes:

Losty Dublin

Zzippy wrote: »

Money wasn't what got me into refereeing but as a student it certainly encouraged me to volunteer for more games, and the more games I did the more experience I got and moved up the age grades. If you want to get young people taking up refereeing before they're lost to the game for good it certainly wouldn't hurt.

A few years ago the ITRA decided to pay it's referees. Within a few years their referee standards fell drastically, partially because loads of inexperienced teens signed up looking for what was perceived to be pocket money. While there was other factors at hand, a lot of the older heads ended up in the IRFU tag systems where they were doing it for free

The Lost Sheep

brocbrocach wrote: »

Gosh, are you saying that the system is fine and nothing can be improved? :rolleyes:

Well done on debating the points at hand :rolleyes:
Paying people doesn't mean better referees. In no way does it as you will get more and more in it for the wrong reasons and that isn't a good thing or better for the game.

Zzippy

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Well done on debating the points at hand :rolleyes:
Paying people doesn't mean better referees. In no way does it as you will get more and more in it for the wrong reasons and that isn't a good thing or better for the game.

No one said paying people gets you better referees. You're totally misunderstanding the point. Paying people gets more people interested in actually doing it, as lack of referees appears to be a central theme emerging from this thread. It's up to the organisation then to ensure they are trained correctly, that they improve and are up to standard, that the better ones are retained and improve further to move up the ranks. It works for the GAA, why would it not work for rugby?

purpleisafruit

Having been involved in refereeing, starting out can be very difficult. You're almost begging co-ordinators to give you games. It can be very clique-y and some refs get multiple games over a weekend at multiple levels. Seen situations where one guy was given 4 games in a week and I was left calling up clubs offering my services. I hasten to add that 2 of these games were underage, non-schools games.
Beginners make a lot of mistakes but you learn quickly and you're assessed multiple times per year, given things to work on and you get better. Everyone has to start somewhere and whilst failing to referee the breakdown correctly is bad, scrums are a huge focus for beginners. You want to make sure that scrums aren't collapsing for no reason to ensure some 15 year old doesn't end up paralysed.

brocbrocach

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Well done on debating the points at hand :rolleyes:
Paying people doesn't mean better referees. In no way does it as you will get more and more in it for the wrong reasons and that isn't a good thing or better for the game.

You're not contributing to the debate yourself. You're just saying everything is fine, la la la la. How can more refs being available not be a good thing in just the same way as a bigger playing base is a good thing?
A referee untrained/unskilled enough to not penalise wholesale side-entry on a ruck (going on the OP, maybe it was an interpretation) shouldn't be learning on the job and ruining the game for the other 30 participants. More referees would mean less reliance on untrained or bad refs.

The Lost Sheep

Zzippy wrote: »

No one said paying people gets you better referees. You're totally misunderstanding the point. Paying people gets more people interested in actually doing it, as lack of referees appears to be a central theme emerging from this thread. It's up to the organisation then to ensure they are trained correctly, that they improve and are up to standard, that the better ones are retained and improve further to move up the ranks. It works for the GAA, why would it not work for rugby?

I don't see that I am and paying refs wont really get more people doing it, or at least the right people, in many cases.
GAA refs get travel, per KM, and then subsistence costs and that's what rugby refs get as well.

purpleisafruit wrote: »

Having been involved in refereeing, starting out can be very difficult. You're almost begging co-ordinators to give you games. It can be very clique-y and some refs get multiple games over a weekend at multiple levels. Seen situations where one guy was given 4 games in a week and I was left calling up clubs offering my services. I hasten to add that 2 of these games were underage, non-schools games.
Beginners make a lot of mistakes but you learn quickly and you're assessed multiple times per year, given things to work on and you get better. Everyone has to start somewhere and whilst failing to referee the breakdown correctly is bad, scrums are a huge focus for beginners. You want to make sure that scrums aren't collapsing for no reason to ensure some 15 year old doesn't end up paralysed.

Never have had that issue with getting games and yes there will be some refs who get multiple games at multiple levels in a weekend but quite often many of them will be refs getting extra training and coaching and are in a development panel.

brocbrocach wrote: »

You're not contributing to the debate yourself. You're just saying everything is fine, la la la la. How can more refs being available not be a good thing in just the same way as a bigger playing base is a good thing?
A referee untrained/unskilled enough to not penalise wholesale side-entry on a ruck (going on the OP, maybe it was an interpretation) shouldn't be learning on the job and ruining the game for the other 30 participants. More referees would mean less reliance on untrained or bad refs.

The OP thinks this ref in this game couldn't ref side entry at ruck but quite often there is many things ignored in a game that are not picked up. We don't know if OP is correct. This ref wouldn't have been reffing at 15s without having already been looked at at younger age groups. A ref has to learn on the job. As workshops off pitch are not enough as how else do you learn but in practice on the pitch. Saying a ref ruins a game is a nonsense. Should we say similar if players cant pass/tackle etc????

brocbrocach

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

I don't see that I am and paying refs wont really get more people doing it, or at least the right people, in many cases.
GAA refs get travel, per KM, and then subsistence costs and that's what rugby refs get as well.

Never have had that issue with getting games and yes there will be some refs who get multiple games at multiple levels in a weekend but quite often many of them will be refs getting extra training and coaching and are in a development panel.

The OP thinks this ref in this game couldn't ref side entry at ruck but quite often there is many things ignored in a game that are not picked up. We don't know if OP is correct. This ref wouldn't have been reffing at 15s without having already been looked at at younger age groups. A ref has to learn on the job. As workshops off pitch are not enough as how else do you learn but in practice on the pitch. Saying a ref ruins a game is a nonsense. Should we say similar if players cant pass/tackle etc????

GAA refs get paid a flat amount from each team in a match. It's not a fortune but it probably makes up a bit for being roared at for 2 hours. I don't think it attracts gold-diggers but it helps keep good refs.
How else do you learn? There is a basic understanding needed before stepping on a pitch. Refs need to start at that base level. A poor ref can ruin a game very easily, he/she is vastly more influential than any one player.

CMOTDibbler

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

I don't see that I am and paying refs wont really get more people doing it, or at least the right people, in many cases.
GAA refs get travel, per KM, and then subsistence costs and that's what rugby refs get as well.

Somebody who wants a few bob for their time and effort in training to be a ref and giving up their time to go to matches is the 'wrong' type of person. In many cases?

The Lost Sheep

brocbrocach wrote: »

GAA refs get paid a flat amount from each team in a match. It's not a fortune but it probably makes up a bit for being roared at for 2 hours. I don't think it attracts gold-diggers but it helps keep good refs.
How else do you learn? There is a basic understanding needed before stepping on a pitch. Refs need to start at that base level. A poor ref can ruin a game very easily, he/she is vastly more influential than any one player.

How do you define this base level? Refs will gain an understanding while in meetings hosted by dev officers/experienced referees however you can only truly learn by doing games.

brocbrocach

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

How do you define this base level? Refs will gain an understanding while in meetings hosted by dev officers/experienced referees however you can only truly learn by doing games.

I'd be far happier with the idea of retaining trained refs by giving them small monetary compensation, although they're not "the right people" according to yourself, than training up someone from scratch by letting them ruin other peoples weekly match.

The Lost Sheep

brocbrocach wrote: »

I'd be far happier with the idea of retaining trained refs by giving them small monetary compensation, although they're not "the right people" according to yourself, than training up someone from scratch by letting them ruin other peoples weekly match.

You can only train referees up by giving them games.
You can only see if someone is suitable for a game by giving them games. A poor ref doesn't ruin peoples matches. Does people who cant pass the ball, who cant tackle ruin the game for their team mates?

Paying referees doesn't make better refs or necessarily get people who may be better refs to volunteer and train and become a referee.

Quin_Dub

Fundamentally, at junior/youth level the only minimum expectation that I have from a referee is consistency and control..

They won't see everything , they won't get everything right but as long as they are consistent in their interpretations and they exhibit control over the game then I'm fine.

By Control , I typically mean being decisive and authoritative in their decision making.

Players need to be able to adapt to a referee and typically as long as everyone is being treated the same, players will view that as fair and get on with it..

I'll give a recent example , at a game last week-end at U18 level the referee had a somewhat different interpretation of the breakdown than we had been used to - He basically allowed the ball carrier to hold the ballfor about 6 or 8 seconds on the ground even if a player was jackaling over him.. If the jackaler survived any clear-outs in that period he'd then give a penalty to them. Our guys would have been expecting to get the penalty much much earlier..

However unique his interpretation he was absolutely consistent in it.. It took our lads most of the 1st half to adjust, particularly in terms of them holding on to possession on the ground that bit longer , but they did eventually and went on to win the game well.

A lack of consistency is the biggest thing that will de-rail the discipline in a game.

I've been on all sides over the years - Player , Coach , Referee and spectator and it's not easy to please everyone , but in my experience if people see consistency and control regardless of the underlying standard of the referreeing , then they'll be happy enough.