• Revised Television Match Official (TMO) trial for tier one hosted matches kicks off this weekend
• No change to match official focus areas this year with RWC 2019 on the horizon
• Collaborative dialogue with coaches continues to achieve alignment
Referees and coaches have been meeting in London this week ahead of he autumn internationals. The conclusion sees a continued unified approach to the focus areas which continue to include foul play and head contact.
Game management and coaching approach
With a busy window of more than 60 men’s and women’s matches kicking off last week, these regular workshops enable referees and coaches to consider key areas of game-management and coaching approach. November focus areas include foul play, the scrum pre-feed, offside at the tackle and ruck and closing the gap in the lineout.
While the approach for November is one of ‘no change’ to recent international windows, World Rugby re-emphasised its ‘zero-tolerance’ expectation regarding the officiating of foul play in the interests of player welfare.
Following a review of recent matches, including those outside the window last weekend, match officials were reminded of their obligations in sanctioning illegal no arms tackles, high tackles and charging with the forearm or elbow. This is all part of the game-wide commitment to evidence-based head injury prevention. This was also reinforced at a highly-productive match officials/disciplinary workshop.
Trial TMO protocol
The meeting also looked into the revised Television Match Official (TMO) protocol trial that will operate at tier one hosted tests from this weekend. Here from New Zealand TMO, Ben Skeen on how it will work:
Chairman of the World Rugby Match Officials Selection Committee Anthony Buchanan said, “These workshops are about clarity, alignment and consistency and with no change in emphasis everyone is clear on our officiating approach as we build towards Rugby World Cup 2019.
“There are always areas that we can re-focus on or strive to do better at, both as match officials and coaches, and we spent time today discussing and calibrating focus areas, including those that are linked to player welfare. It is very encouraging that the coaches have all bought into the process.”
Rolland added, “These meetings have incredible value for all participants and I would like to thank the coaches and referees for their full input and alignment on key areas of officiating. It is through this dialogue that we are able to ensure that the game continues to improve as a spectacle and experience for players, coaches, match officials and fans.”
Match official focus areas
- Scrum: The match officials are looking for infringements including pre-engagement, pushing early, crooked feeds, non-hooking and wheeling
- Lineout: The match officials are looking for infringements including closing, stepping or running into the gap before the ball is thrown in
- Space: Match officials are looking for infringements that close space, including from kick-offs and kicks and at the tackle/ruck and maul
- Penalty tries: A penalty try will be awarded if an act of foul play prevents a probable try
- Foul play: Match officials will be vigilant for ball carriers who lead into contact with the elbow or forearm to the neck or head, no arms tackles (Law 9.16), high tackles (Law 9.13), neck rolls and ruck-charging
At the joint coach and referee meeting there was also a comprehensive update on rugby’s injury-prevention approach, focusing on controllable injuries and unified injury surveillance.
Why has World Rugby not commented on Farrels armless tackle on Esterhuizen in the England vs Springbok test match last week?
Why would they? They haven’t commented on the 7000 other decisions or non decisions referees made last week. There was no citing so nothing to say. It’s not as clear cut as some think and it’s a judgement call. Disagree or not, but at least appreciate that there’s two sides to any issue.
So what you are saying there were 6999 other bad decisions too.
Yep, that’s exactly what we’re saying…. we appreciate the comments but some form of appreciation and objectivity would be nice
So try to be objective then. There was no attempt by Farrell to wrap with the arm on the tackle shoulder side, which is the requisite. Even O’Driscoll has now said he was wrong in backing the ref’s call, and now says he understands why it was illegal.
There’s no law which says which arm needs to do which thing. But we entirely understand why people see what they see. All we want is folk to understand there’s a judgement call which was made.
The call was made and Angus and Owen has to live with that forever now. World Rugby will wait for a while before making any comment until emotions calmed down. No publicity is better than bad publicity. One can’t disagree that this incident caused a consistency issue for World Rugby and Farrell has a habit of making no arm tackles. Was it a shoulder charge? Yes, no discussion. IMO and thousands of rugby fans’. There was no wrap end off. Illegal. Error made and let’s move on from this. In time Farrell will admit it and one would hope Angus has the gentlemanly conduct to recognise the dangerous precedent he set. Let’s hope there is no life threatening injury in the coming weeks due to this example of a “legal” hit. The good this has brought is that us referees took note of the serious consequences of such collisions and will manage it accordingly. Keep whistling! But only if it’s not safe or unfair.
Of all the areas of the game where -against one’s desire to give you the benefit of the doubt- one suspects a “policy” behind certain types of decision, the wearying line of similar (and utterly outrageous) omissions concerning the failure of test refs and supposedly “assisting” touch judges to penalise advantage line infringements is the one engendering the greatest cynicism and contempt. Week after week defending players give themselves a “start” that would never withstand a video replay; same thing (even if less detrimental) with restarts. Pleeeese don’t come back with a plea about the “TV angles”; just apply an eye that is un-protecting of your group and devoid of hidden desires for promotion by the individual refs.hoping to please the WR refs panel. It may not be in the interest of WR to have stoppages BUT it is in their interest to make for less boring games by giving the attacking team more space. The number of advantage line infringements by Wales against Aust. yesterday(it just happens to have been Wales as they lacked possession; it could just as easily have been Aust.) was laughable. After a few desultory penalties the NZ ref and his touch judges just gave up as the Red shirt infringements continued throughout the game, rendering it laughable as a fairly policed contest. There should have been a warning followed by a YC. I am an ex Wallaby but have the same criticism of all teams and all matches with regard to the defending team. I keep on imputing to you blokes all sorts of suspect motives – exacerbated by the self-promotion involved in this website – whose existence may be a reflection of modern times but makes one skeptical about its principle motive (namely your “brand” and your group). It is inimical to the old expectations of the referee – not seeing himself as a “stakeholder”, above the fray, not motivated by ambition to please WR and to be a “player”. If I am wrong I apologise but perhaps you should understand why a failure to police certain groups of infringements (vide scrum introductions as another eg) causes a lingering suspicion to exist.
As ever, we appreciate your comments.