Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Munster vs Connacht, Fri 14th May 6pm; Eir Sport
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
On the 29th minute there should have been a penalty try and a yellow card. Tom Daley tripped Craig Casey while off his feet. That is not a legitimate rugby tackle and Casey was going to score if he wasn’t stopped
Law 14.
“ Other players must: Not play the ball or attempt to tackle an opponent while on the ground near the tackle.”
Tom Daley had just tackled a Munster player and before getting back to his feet he deliberately moved to get in the way of Craig Casey and ended up tripping him
I'm not sure he's still "near the tackle" when he follows up on Casey. There's a good two or three metres of a gap from the first tackle area.
If he's moved away from the tackle then it's play on.
0 -
Former Former Former wrote: »I'm not sure he's still "near the tackle" when he follows up on Casey. There's a good two or three metres of a gap from the first tackle area.
If he's moved away from the tackle then it's play on.
That's a very literal interpretation of the laws. It's also interesting now that you point it out considering Law 13.3 provides that
A player on the ground without the ball is out of the game and must:
a. Allow opponents who are not on the ground to play or gain possession of
the ball.
b. Not play the ball.
c. Not tackle or attempt to tackle an opponent.
No mention of being near the tackle area. Interesting quirk.
That being said, I'm not quite sure Casey didn't just run into Daly and collide with him. If you look at it in real time it'd be very hard to conclude that Daly purposefully went to tackle Casey having just spun out of the previous tackle and been flung backwards.
0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Burkie1203 wrote: »Yes because the narrative is always to micro analyse ref decisions that didn't go Munster's way.
Even a senior Munster player is now pushing that narrative in the media.
It's not about micro analysis...it's about trying to raise standards.....and if an international player is thinking there is an issue, then you should probably listen, for a change
0 -
-
Shaka Hislop wrote: »It's not about micro analysis...it's about trying to raise standards.....and if an international player is thinking there is an issue, then you should probably listen, for a change
You're making the very dangerous assumption that the International player knows the laws better than a professional referee.
Just because he doesn't like the decisions doesn't make them wrong !0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
Shaka Hislop wrote: »It's not about micro analysis...it's about trying to raise standards.....and if an international player is thinking there is an issue, then you should probably listen, for a change
but the narrative from Stander is the ref is biased.
Neither did 23 penalties shared almost evenly but CJ Stander fumed at the performance of the referee Dan Jones afterwards when he told eir Sport that it had felt like “playing against more than 15 men”, adding “I can say it now I’m done but it’s difficult for both sides.”
Plenty of calls went Munsters way too.0 -
-
Burkie1203 wrote: »but the narrative from Stander is the ref is biased.
This was the point raised by Shaka Hislop.Shaka Hislop wrote: »There has to be a coming together of clubs and referee's to sit down and watch games together...to have clear and open dialogue between both sides and for input from players taken on-board..and for the reasons behind decisions to be acknowledged by players.
It'll benefit both sides immensely imo
Where does "bias against Munster" come into it? All you're doing is trying to drag down the conversation and rope a few lads into an argument. Maybe address the point made instead of peddling nonsense?
0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
Burkie1203 wrote: »the international player in question - his issue is he believes the ref is biased against his team with his "we are playing against more then 15" comment, they arent.
And in what way is that related to Shaka's proposal for an open dialogue between refs and squads for greater understanding of rules? Exactly, none. Stop changing the goalposts. We know you don't like Munster.
0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Burkie1203 wrote: »That open dialogue goes on all the time.
Assuming you knew this when the conversation started, and aren't just piggybacking off of Lost Ormond's comment - then please just lead with that next time instead of making a false equivalence in order to push the anti-Munster agenda. You'll save us all a lot of bother.Lost Ormond wrote: »Yet virtually nobody has ever came up with a proposal of how to improve the ref standards...
What would you propose? There are obviously some form of directives and guidelines in place to ensure that the refereeing of some aspects of the game is relatively consistent (see Head Contact Process, and other World Rugby guidelines viewable here https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/guidelines/15) - yet there remains many areas of the game where refereeing can be anywhere from "strict" to "lenient".
You seem fairly well placed to discuss refereeing standards, so would you say there's a lot done to align the thought process of refs with decisions regarding say the breakdown? Or the scrum? It seems like, from an outsider perspective, the only time there's any consistency in this regard is just after new interpretations/laws are introduced (the "pulling action" required for jackalling, for example). There needs to be some form of "one size fits all" approach which will make refereeing certain parts of the game a lot easier (obviously one size fits all isn't applicable everywhere, there is a certain level of subjectivity always).
Take scrummaging for example - it's an area some refs simply do not understand. I saw a comment online about Nick Berry in the SH saying how scrums are basically a free for all when he's refereeing. Surely there can be some video education to show refs what good and bad pictures are? TH boring in, LH swinging out, short binds, etc are all usually straight forward enough to spot and could, IMO anyways, be refereed to near perfect consistency if the education is done.
Same with the breakdown, it should be easy enough to show referees pictures which are good compared to pictures which are bad (hands/elbows beyond ball and onto the grass/shoulders below hips/taking off v landing).
Once this education is conducted, there needs to be accountability as well. Reflection, analysis, external review. I'm sure this does occur on a fairly regular basis, and it should lead to referees learning from their mistakes and becoming more consistent. However, it doesn't seem to happen - to the point where teams can analyse areas where referees are deficient and take more risks in those areas. That shouldn't in a perfect world, be able to happen.
Maybe re-affirmation and re-education on a consistent basis is required - none of this "forgetting to apply new interpretations after four weeks because eh" that tends to happen (crooked feeds a prime example, jackalling slowly returning to old norm of "surviving the clearout"). There needs to be constant communication of "this is a bad picture, penalise it"; ongoing all the time. Obviously, again, this is a perfect world situation, there's always going to be some element of subjectivity - and that's okay; but the inconsistency shouldn't be to the point where in an important 6N game, a referee doesn't know what a knock on is.
I realise that none of this is exactly revolutionary, and is probably already implemented. Which poses the question - why doesn't it work? Maybe it's implemented poorly, or maybe the buy in isn't there from the refs to improve their game. As the All Blacks say, "if you can't change the man, change the man". I wouldn't consider myself familiar enough with the systems in place to
definitively comment - maybe you would.
There are 21 Law headings in the rule book, of which about 15 aren't formalities such as equipment, the field of play, regulatory stuff. It shouldn't be hugely difficult to produce some form of alignment document and/or video(s) which shows the aforementioned "good and bad pictures" for these 15 areas of the game, and produce a decent level of consistency for the majority of decisions.
Would love your thoughts.
0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement