Harlequins director of rugby Conor O'Shea has called for greater consistency in key matches following England's loss in Cardiff.
Referee Steve Walsh has received criticism from the English camp over his officiating of the scrum, and whilst O'Shea sympathises with top referees, the former Ireland full-back feels there is a need for more accurate decision-making in key fixtures.
"Being a referee is the hardest job in the world but what infuriates people is when a call is made and it is quite obviously a guess and games change on those decisions," said O'Shea.
"You can't get every decision right but it is having that consistency. When you make a decision you can't just think something has happened.
"Because a scrum disintegrates one way, is that because it is someone pulling the wool over your eyes and getting away with it? A summit on what's going on (could solve it). It can be difficult after you lose a game to say what you want to say.
"The big thing is you want massive consistency and both sides to be treated equally and in a manner that will give them an equal opportunity within the game.
"Will there still be decisions that are wrong? Of course there will. We all make mistakes. That is fine.
"I can understand where people come from when they see consistent officiating of one side over another. I am not saying that in relation to last week's game but it does happen.
"We are from a club where our biggest area is the breakdown. The scrum is massive and I know it is the current blight. It has become an issue.
"But we want to play quickly and we want to make sure the tackler releases and rolls away to free up the breakdown and give more latitude to the attacking team.
"When a turnover that should be a penalty to one team ends up being a try for another, those are massive things.
"If I was on the working party that is what I would be banging on about."
Comments
rugby_rockstar says...
Yes APV1, as you rightly point out, it all depends if this was BBC Spotlight or the national News At Six.
We in the Westcountry do take for granted things that would amaze the rest of England and have George Alagiah and Sophie Raworth dropping their chewing gum onto the Six O'Clock news desk as their jaws hit the floor.
Posted 16:57 02nd April 2013
APV1 says...
@ rugby_rockstar - "... a Devonshire cat learns how to drive a tractor." That's not really news, now, is it? It's a well-known fact that West Country felines are well-versed in agricultural machinery, their workings and operational techniques. Now if the cat was from the North East or Scotland, that would have been news.
I'm also faily sure it was Kelly Brown they wanted covered in jam as well - they are an equal opportunity condiment-covering organisation, after-all.
Posted 13:26 28th March 2013
rugby_rockstar says...
Alledgedly, The IRB response to Conor O'shea's comments were:
"O'Shea wants scrum clarity? Well I want Kelly Brook covered in jam. So I guess we're both going to be disappointed."
In other news, UK weathergirls summise that white witch has found her way through the wardrobe and cast her winter spell on the UK, and a Devonshire cat learns how to drive a tractor.
Posted 13:10 27th March 2013
APV1 says...
Consistency. That is the word I keep hearing and reading in anything to do with refs. I agree with COS that it's one of the toughest jobs in the world, certainly in Rugby, but that should not be an excuse. And here's my brilliant plan, which I've mentioned before: Pre-Tournament Ref School!
Just before any tournament starts, all the refs and a member of the coaching staff from each team spend a little time together. They agree on how things will be officiated and "interpreted" and it's all IRB approved. The coaches then take this knowledge back to their clubs.
I agree that there really shouldn't be room for "interpretation", but it's there. So let's "interpret" the Laws consistently, fairly and openly. If everyone knows what the refs will do in any given circumstance, they can better prepare.
Didn't SCW take a ref with him to Oz for the RWC to help England understand decisions and learn from them?
Just a couple of points to add:
I don't think that a flanker releasing their bind should result in a penalty if they retire 10m. If your scrum is dominant and you have the drive on, the flankers should be allowed to release themselves from the bind and become part of the attacking line. If the scrum is in retreat, then they should be allowed to release the bind in order to join the defensive line. The speed of them retiring 10m should, obviously, be considered. As a BR player myself, I could never be accused of "lazy running" of course, but I've heard rumours of it happening elsewhere...
If we can manage to get the 9 to feed straight, what do you reckon on the hookers standing behind the line when throwing at a line-out? Just another bug-bear of mine.
Posted 11:21 27th March 2013
Ramage says...
I would like to thank Jamie The Prop for his thoughtful posts. It is irrelevant whether we agree with him or not as he has given us much to think about and digest. One thing that is loud and clear which I believe is a problem in the modern game and that is the amount of latitude the referee is given to interpret the laws. Here in is the problem, because believe it or not as referees are human (no I am not joking) then there will be good and bad decisions made and a single referee can contradict himself one week to another. Of course we will agreee or disagree with the referee depending on our own biased point of view. However Jamie The Prop has reminded us of the how the law book is written and what it says and for that he makes a very telling point and one that has escaped me. I will be spending next week focussing on this very reading of the laws and watching with interest next week's Super games to see just how much of this interpretation is correct or not. (Of course in my own biased way lol.) Thanks for your insight Jamie the Prop as a former prop and referee I am grateful you have taken the time to enlighten us and remind me of how the law is written. Who says props are the least intelligent rugby players?
Posted 23:36 23rd March 2013
backnforward says...
@JamieTheProp
Are you suggesting that, with all the resets, that scrums aren't long-winded now??!??!?
Actually, I didn't mean that the 2nd row engage and then the back row engage. I am suggesting that the 2nd row and back row are pre-formed before engaging the front row.
@everyone else
I agree wholeheartedly about the rules - they are the fundamentals of our game - enforce them rigorously. There is no need, nor scope, for interpretation. Indeed many of the rules include the word "MUST" and therefore, by definition, cannot and should not be open to interpretation.
The IRB laws state: -
"Whatever a player does must be in accordance with the Laws of the Game..."
So an example from Law 20d (scrum) : -
"The scrum half MUST throw in the ball straight along the middle line, so that it first touches the ground immediately beyond the width of the nearer prop¿s shoulders."
This contains the word MUST and therefore cannot be open to interpretation. So why do referees allow crooked feeds?
And to this end the IRB is clearly at fault. Too scared to make officials officiate to the letter of the law. Only when this is done will we see a marked improvement in our game...
Posted 21:14 22nd March 2013
lawynd says...
@Jamie - most of us that played at an amateur/semi-pro level look silly in tight jerseys, regardless of our position! ;)
Posted 10:06 22nd March 2013
JamieTheProp says...
@ Sprogrugby - yes! I think the thing is an initial sensible hit (which is all about gaining the best body position for pushing when the ball is in or preventing the opposition doing so).
But the trick is then that the scrum should be static and just enough pressure exerted to hold it before the ball goes in.
Very simple really.
Oh - and props should wear bagger shirts to help with the bind. We look silly in tight tops anyway!
Posted 09:00 22nd March 2013
Sprogrugby says...
JamieTheProp
Agree with you, I recently presented a seminar paper on exactly this - 'remove' the hit and everything is more stable and steady, making it easier to officiate. Wins against the head are something to be revered and encouraged, which is more likely if we can move to 'scrum heaven' that you propose.
This has been mentioned time and time again by others, but when I played we had no engage call, we had far less resets, far less scrum penalties, but far more wins against the head - SWEET !
I'm an ex-front rower who had a share of junior international caps, and now ref, and I find it tough to officiate consistently if you allow teams to build up power pre-engage, because of the extra pressure it puts on all players (and officials) concerned.
It is no wonder the coaches are complaining.
I wouldn't like to see a complete scrum packed in stages statically, as I do like the point of impact where you as an individual choose to hit an angle, or use a particular bind set up with front row colleagues to exert pressure on one of the opposition front row. This still didn't lead to collapses, but it did mean you could move the opposition scrum about once the ball was in. God I missing scrummaging !
Posted 22:42 21st March 2013
JamieTheProp says...
@ papachinzo - the big problem with what you suggest is that it will fundamentally change the scrum - it will remove the need for dedicated props and take the game further towards rugby league.
Our game is great because whatever the bodyshape or skill set there is a place on the pitch for you. Remove forward scrummaging and you take the game away from people like me (traditional scrummaging props - yes we still exist as lower levels).
Fundamentally changing the game we love is not required - just enforce the existing laws and ensure our sport is inclusive of a wide range of player types. It is what makes it great!
Posted 19:00 21st March 2013
jontheref says...
Jamie and backnforward
I agree with you, but can the cheats who populate the "working" parties see the sense?
No.
If they cannot cheat, or as they put it, "interpret" it in their way, they don't want to know.
The laws are quite clear, we do not need interpretations, which is a way of benefitting some who cannot compete under the laws.
Posted 18:57 21st March 2013
JamieTheProp says...
@ backnforward - I agree with most of what you have to say. The only thing I would say is that adding props, then second rows then everyone else will be quite long winded.
I think ensure everyone is bound and then simply call 'crouch, engage' and then quickly 'ball in'. There should still be a coming together of the front rows (but from a short distance of less than an arm) but then the scrum should be static until the ball actually goes in. If it isn't then penalise the team who put the pressure on before the ball went in (they will soon stop).
That will give the props the time they need to get (and keep) a bind and stop both front rows simply bending in the middle and going down - giving a chance to get body positions sorted and comfortable.
Other than that agree with everything else - but let's be totally clear - there are no new rules needed for this - these are the rules!
Posted 18:56 21st March 2013
trelawney says...
@JamieTheProp - very good comment agree with you.
@backnforward agree with you regarding the binding.
Posted 15:16 21st March 2013
backnforward says...
JamieTheProp,
A man after my own heart...
Enforce the rules as they are written - no ambiguity, no intepretation.
Regarding the scrum, I posted on another thread a proposal to change the "crouch, touch, set" farce: -
Engage the 2 front rows - no hit and no pushing.
Engage the back 5 - again, no hit and no pushing.
Call "in" and the scrum half must put the ball straight down the middle with no delay.
Any pushing before the ball hits the deck in between the 2 hookers feet is a penalty...
As an addendum, the number eight must remain bound with BOTH shoulders on the backsides of the locks. The flankers must be bound with the full arm AND shoulder.
If the number eight has the ball at his feet but has only hands on the locks then the referee should call "ball out" and therefore the scrum is over...
If any of the flankers shoulders leave the backsides of the prop or the number eight of the side without the ball disengages his shoulders from the locks, award a penalty. This way, they remain bound and give more opportunity for the ball to leave the scrum area. Result? A more open game!
Posted 14:27 21st March 2013
papachinzo says...
Not going to happen; the only way to ref the scrum is to literally highlight the area for binding on each jersey, and for any movement other than an engagement followed by forward scrumming to be penalized.
Also, only one reset per scrum, followed by a free kick with no option for a rest...
Posted 13:38 21st March 2013
dodgyrog says...
@ jamietheprop
Well said
Posted 13:24 21st March 2013
carpelone says...
JamieTheProp
Agree with you. But somebody should tell the refs.
Specifically, the timing of the call should be standardised and not be left to the referee judgement. When the ref waits too much between the touch and set commands, then problems arise.
Posted 13:20 21st March 2013
ArmchairGeneral says...
How about a scrummage ref who comes on for scrums. With ref but scrum refs decision is the decision for scrum until ball leaves scrum
Posted 13:16 21st March 2013
ArmchairGeneral says...
So Jamie you're saying OShea is wrong, keep guessing refs. Enforcement pressure causes bad decisions.
Posted 13:13 21st March 2013
JamieTheProp says...
There is no need for clarity - just enforce the rules as they are laid down.
The front row should come together and take the pressure (without pushing) until the ball goes in - then they should push straight.
Then the ball should also go in the centre of the tunnel.
This is how the scrum is reffed at pretty much every level below the Premiership - successfully and safely while still being a competition.
At the moment the scrum (from Premiership up) is dominated by enormous guys with an emphasis on 'hitting' each other hard - hence the number of times it goes down. If you have a steady scrum with the pushing starting when the ball has gone in it removes the emphasis on size and brute strength (how hard can I plough in) and adds emphasis to skill and guile (body position, angles of pushing etc.).
Also if the hookers are made to hook it stops them from simply charging in - as they need to consider body position and striking position.
There are no need for rule changes - the rules are already there - just enforce them! Fair enough the 'jonny-come-lately' who thinks that scrummaging is all about a huge hit at the beginning of the process won't find them as exciting - but anyone who understands their rugby will - because you will get strikes against the head, actual pushing (without collapse) and generally a better quality of scrum.
Plus you'll have less areas for the ref (who generally hasn't ever been closer than 3 feet to a scrum) to interpret - which is always a good thing.
One final point - nowhere is the term 'hit' or 'take the hit' mentioned in the rules of rugby union - this is something that has crept into the game and should be removed.
Rant over.
Posted 12:31 21st March 2013