Comments on: North-South Divide: Steve Walsh Talks Interpretation, Inconsistency and Improvement

By: Barry

Barry — Tue, 17 Sep 2013 19:55:23 +0000

Didn’t want to get into the whole piece about Poite but you’re right it went a bit pear shaped. Personally I feel the second yellow should’ve been a straight red. Forearm/elbow strike to the neck area is as dangerous as a stamp to the head IMO but that’s an argument for a different day (and possibly different website).

Not sure where I currently sit with the IRB’s reaction to it. Surely they’ve massively undermined not just their elite referee of that game but also the likes of Joel Jutge? IIRC Paddy O’Brien as head of the Elite referee panel back Wayne Barnes completely after a game changing incorrect decision during the NZ v French RWC game.

Not appearing to back Poite is a dangerous precedent. However that said rescinding the first yellow is completely correct.

By: Bill Burgess

Bill Burgess — Mon, 16 Sep 2013 15:08:01 +0000

There is no doubt that that there is a huge difference at the break down interpretation between Northern and Southern hemisphere referees and it is good to at least here that it is trying to be addressed.What really however, annoys me(liberal word)! as already mentioned, is the use of the TMO! To much and to often wrong(ala Poite last week end)What is the purpose of the assistant referees?. It is becoming a joke now . TMO should only be used for Try/no try etc. Read my blog. Role of TMO in Rugby!

By: SJB

SJB — Mon, 16 Sep 2013 09:08:33 +0000

Hi Barry. Understand what you’re saying about excessive TMO usage being disruptive and I have to say I agree. I also think there’s an argument that over-use undermines the refs authority on the field…

But, on the flip side, we have a good example this weekend with the Bismark de Plessis double yellow. The first yellow was a big decision that the ref took on himself, got wrong, and effectively ended the game.

With this particular incident what I really can’t understand is why he didn’t get the TMO to check the tackle having ALREADY interuppted the game to get his ruling on the aftermath. The additional delay in checking the tackle itself would have been negligible….

By: Barry

Barry — Sat, 14 Sep 2013 10:11:35 +0000

It’s refreshing to hear that they’ve identified a condition (calling it a problem seems a little excessive). However more dangerous is the other split between the referees that’s becoming more and more apparent…

There now seems to be a massive split between how, when and why to use the TMO. Some of the elite refs, Messers Wash, Rolland and Owens for example, seem to have no problem making big, crucial decisions on their own or with their on field colleagues. Right or wrong they’ll take a decision and live with it and then suffer the ire of the fans, pundits, management and players.

You then have refs, especially in the Avia Premiership, that seem afraid to make a decision without referring to the TMO. It’s disruptive and frustrating especially to the fans and players. Some referrals for scores seem so straight forward it’s baffling as to why it was asked for, the replays showing the referee in a prime position with a better view than any camera angle are extremely frustrating.

Add to that the literal interpretation of what the officials are asking for and being answered with is another cause for concern. Language is a strange beast so a missed word or misused word can completely change the meaning of a question or resulting decision.