Something similar happened a few years ago in ice hockey: The professional players are just too fast and the encounters too quick for one person to keep up with. On a large surface, such as a rugby pitch, this is especially difficult, and it is not aided by the fact that, no matter how hard the referees train, they are not going to be able to keep up with much younger, professionally trained players. Ice hockey has 10 mobile players to keep track of (plus two goal tenders); in rugby union there are 30.
Granting that it would take some time to work out how to interact, is it time for Rugby to consider a two-referee (plus two assistants - whose duties could perhaps be cut back to controlling touch only) system? I think it offers real advantages in terms of coverage of the field, loose play (better vision of the entire action), and other factors. The Welsh try on the improperly taken lineout v. IRE would never have been allowed with a second referee, for example. I'd be very happy if in addition to 2 referees, one was required to be experienced with front-row play, and so could properly interact with and influence scrums, lineouts, and other black arts.
The arguments for two extra egos being worse than just one are not borne out in ice hockey, nor in the levels of association football that already use two-referee systems. Professionals can solve those probelms.
Responses? Other options?
Mark LApproaches to Improved Rugby Union Refereeing?
This is a delicate issue.
The main obstacle being that a rugby game is much more open to interpretation than pretty much any other sport. Two refs means two lots of interpretations to deal with, though if each ref is responsible for a different area, I guess this would be minimised to some degree.
I don't feel there is a need for another official on the pitch (bear in mind we already have 3) if communication between the two assistant refs and the referee is good. In all the higher level games I have reffed, the ARs are able to watch the offside and communicate to the ref if there is an issue, leaving him free to ref the TRM area. One idea that was trialled for a time in Australia was the use of In-Goal Judges (basically a touch judge who can rule on things like groundings, dead balls, etc) saving the ref from missing the play after an intercept or break out try.
I think you are dead on about the front row area, and I have actually had the opportunity to speak to some international refs about the issue. Their main theme is that they try to leave it alone completely unless it affects the game. Bryce Lawrence actually said to me "What right have I to tell an international frontrower that he's doing his job wrong?"
This is obviously not borne out by the results we see on the telly every week! The only solution imo is is to have more front row forwards train up as refs (we are few and far between).
Most refs below the elite international level are not full time, perhaps making them so would give them time to train and prepare for games to the same level as the players
I honestly don't know why they don't make more use of the TMO.
Or put one referee at each side of a scrum?
I suppose the idea is to avoid arguing between referee's.Approaches to Improved Rugby Union Refereeing?
In my opinion referees get in the way of players (or gets used by players) way too often, and that is with only one of them on the field. Many on field calls are often borderline as well (especially the ruck area) - what to do when both whistles go, but for different teams?
I think introducing a second referee might cause more problems than it actually solves. I also don't much like the idea of a TV referee being used too often, it would slow the game down immensely. Perhaps a kind of appeal system could be put in place - similar to tennis and UDRS in cricket, that each team is allowed to challenge 2 calls a referee makes during the game. But this has too be subject to a time limit, you cannot spend more than a minute or 2 to verify a decision.
Hi Mark -- you're right -- we heard a ton of moaning and groaning about this when the NHL adopted the two referee system about ten years ago, but I don't think anyone would want to return to the old system now. I suppose we should also tip our hat to the League game, because they have made it work too.
I'm particularly concerned about scruming and the constant resets we see because elite level props are so skilled at stretching (or outright evading) the binding and boring-in laws. I would hate to see Union scrums go the way of those group hugs that League calls a scrum. A second set of trained eyes, onfield so that both sides of the scrum could be policed, would go a long way to solving this problem.Approaches to Improved Rugby Union Refereeing?
This is being used in rugby league at the moment. In some ways this is a more pertinent view than using ice hockey which is played on a much smaller playing area than a rugby union.league ground and there being only 12 players on the ice at a time.
This is the second season using two refs in league and while this year the refs are performing better there are still a lot of things missed by both referees and the two touchies. Perhaps in rugby, leave it to a single referee but allow the video ref more scope than just try line decisions. This may help.
I would prefer to see (in the Super 15) neutral refs used. If an Aussie side is playing a SA side with an Aussie ref, the Australian side is more aware of what that ref requires than the visitors so it does give the Australian side an advantage. That is Kiwi refs for games involving Australian and SA teams, Aus ref where the two teams are from NZ and SA, etc.
No comments:
Post a Comment