The Ref Stop

Trouble in Paradise

Donate to RefChat

Help keep RefChat running, any donation would be appreciated

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Ref Stop
I mean, it's remarkably reminiscent of Mike Dean not wanting to send Taylor to the screen for invalid reasons. Obviously not great at all, but also much more in line with that exceptional incident and a long way away from the routine failings of VAR that happen every week.
 
Rugby is often lauded as getting things right, and it is in a much better place on some things - general player / official respect and crowd behaviour being the most obvious (and by the way this applies just as much to Rugby League as Rugby Union).

However they are far from having everything nailed. Wayne Barnes retiring due to online abuse after the World Cup Final is not a great look and there is loads and loads of moaning about TMO intervening incessantly. It matters a bit less than in football because the nature of the game is more stop start, but plenty of fans are not happy about it and the online forums are full of that and moaning about specific decisions.

However I do think there is one massive thing they have right on TMO, which is the transparency. Everyone can see and hear how they are picking decisions apart in real time. Even if you don't agree with where they end up, at least you know why and can see that they are applying structure and logic to get there. Waiting weeks to see if Howard chooses the decision for Refs Mic'd Up is not quite the same.
 
Quarryref said:
Rugby is often lauded as getting things right, and it is in a much better place on some things - general player / official respect and crowd behaviour being the most obvious (and by the way this applies just as much to Rugby League as Rugby Union).

However they are far from having everything nailed. Wayne Barnes retiring due to online abuse after the World Cup Final is not a great look and there is loads and loads of moaning about TMO intervening incessantly. It matters a bit less than in football because the nature of the game is more stop start, but plenty of fans are not happy about it and the online forums are full of that and moaning about specific decisions.

However I do think there is one massive thing they have right on TMO, which is the transparency. Everyone can see and hear how they are picking decisions apart in real time. Even if you don't agree with where they end up, at least you know why and can see that they are applying structure and logic to get there. Waiting weeks to see if Howard chooses the decision for Refs Mic'd Up is not quite the same.
Click to expand...

I agree with you, but I think there is already far more pressure on our Premier League referees without adding the pressure of knowing that millions of people are listening to the conversation live. The pressure on Rugby officials will never be equivalent to the pressure on football officials at the same level. Not saying that we shouldn't broadcast it live, but it's an alternative viewpoint and I can see both sides of the argument.
 
What's the suggestion here? Involve pundits in the TMO/VAR process? Where does it all end?
 
RefereeX said:
I agree with you, but I think there is already far more pressure on our Premier League referees without adding the pressure of knowing that millions of people are listening to the conversation live. The pressure on Rugby officials will never be equivalent to the pressure on football officials at the same level. Not saying that we shouldn't broadcast it live, but it's an alternative viewpoint and I can see both sides of the argument.
Click to expand...
I mean, quite literally millions of people do watch rugby, at least at international level: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1441433/tv-viewers-six-nations-uk/

The 2023 6 nations tournament had between 3.0 and 4.5million viewers in the UK alone - and rugby may not be the biggest sport in the UK, but it has a good shout for occupying the same cultural position as football in some countries like South Africa, Aus and NZ. At some point, once you're being broadcast live on national and international TV, it's kind of irrelevant if it's "only" one million people or pushing 30 or 40 times that - it either gets to you or it doesn't. Put the right people in the booth and the system doesn't have to just automatically break.
 
GraemeS said:
I mean, quite literally millions of people do watch rugby, at least at international level: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1441433/tv-viewers-six-nations-uk/

The 2023 6 nations tournament had between 3.0 and 4.5million viewers in the UK alone - and rugby may not be the biggest sport in the UK, but it has a good shout for occupying the same cultural position as football in some countries like South Africa, Aus and NZ. At some point, once you're being broadcast live on national and international TV, it's kind of irrelevant if it's "only" one million people or pushing 30 or 40 times that - it either gets to you or it doesn't. Put the right people in the booth and the system doesn't have to just automatically break.
Click to expand...
You're talking about a peak international Rugby tournament almost equivalent to the European championships. Lets talk about the number of spectators watching a Gallagher Premiership match compared with a Premier League match. Lets then talk about the number of other countries it's watched in and how watched it is on social media.

Appreciate what you say about it being irrelevant if its 1 million or 30/40 x that, but it's also the pressure of the scrutiny you'll receive afterwards. In addition, Rugby people accept subjective decisions against their team far easier than football people, and there are more subjective incidents in a match of football than a game of Rugby. The 2 simply aren't comparable.
 
RefereeX said:
You're talking about a peak international Rugby tournament almost equivalent to the European championships. Lets talk about the number of spectators watching a Gallagher Premiership match compared with a Premier League match. Lets then talk about the number of other countries it's watched in and how watched it is on social media.

Appreciate what you say about it being irrelevant if its 1 million or 30/40 x that, but it's also the pressure of the scrutiny you'll receive afterwards. In addition, Rugby people accept subjective decisions against their team far easier than football people, and there are more subjective incidents in a match of football than a game of Rugby. The 2 simply aren't comparable.
Click to expand...
Yes I'm talking about peak international tournament....but so? TMOs are still going to work towards being heard on TV in front of millions of people, I don't really see why it matters that you need to be one level higher in rugby (international) for that to be the case that you do in football (top club games)?

As to your second paragraph, it's chicken and egg.

Do they accept decisions because they're rugby fans and rugby fans are intrinsically better people than football fans and so are therefore permitted an explanation?
Or are they treated like adults who can be trusted with law explanations and therefore are more inclined to accept decisions because they understand the reasons for the decisions better?

I'm heavily on the side of option 2. Is it too late to fix it? Maybe, but I don't think that means it's sensible just to refuse to even consider the possibility.
 
GraemeS said:
Yes I'm talking about peak international tournament....but so? TMOs are still going to work towards being heard on TV in front of millions of people, I don't really see why it matters that you need to be one level higher in rugby (international) for that to be the case that you do in football (top club games)?

As to your second paragraph, it's chicken and egg.

Do they accept decisions because they're rugby fans and rugby fans are intrinsically better people than football fans and so are therefore permitted an explanation?
Or are they treated like adults who can be trusted with law explanations and therefore are more inclined to accept decisions because they understand the reasons for the decisions better?

I'm heavily on the side of option 2. Is it too late to fix it? Maybe, but I don't think that means it's sensible just to refuse to even consider the possibility.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone has refused to consider it, I would imagine to this point it's been carefully considered and decided against, but we don't know.

Some people are anti-VAR just because they can't get their head around the fact that they won't suddenly think every decision is correct. This will never, ever happen in any sport, and even less so in football where so many room splitting incidents occur every week.
Do you think allowing these people to hear it live will change that? I doubt it. Does a football player you explain your decision to at the weekend suddenly accept that decision and walk away? Maybe sometimes...
 
RefereeX said:
I don't think anyone has refused to consider it, I would imagine to this point it's been carefully considered and decided against, but we don't know.

Some people are anti-VAR just because they can't get their head around the fact that they won't suddenly think every decision is correct. This will never, ever happen in any sport, and even less so in football where so many room splitting incidents occur every week.
Do you think allowing these people to hear it live will change that? I doubt it. Does a football player you explain your decision to at the weekend suddenly accept that decision and walk away? Maybe sometimes...
Click to expand...
I mean....yes. Frequently.

There are some people who will never be placated and some decisions that will be hard to justify to the person they've been given against regardless of what is said. But there are a good number of borderline calls, or those based in more obscure law or offside technicalities where the explanation does make a difference.

I remember a goal I disallowed for HB where the defence was "I didn't mean to HB it ref" - explaining that I agreed, but was obliged to disallow the goal scored directly after even though it was accidental definitely helped that player accept the decision and get on with the game (even if unhappy) in a way he absolutely wouldn't have done if I'd just shouted "handball" and run away. It doesn't need to work on everyone for every decision for it to be a significant change in the right direction.
 
RefereeX said:
Because many, many people like to compare them and claim that Rugby's TMO system is wonderful. I thought that much was obvious...
Click to expand...
And your big headline counter-example is.....someone choosing not to use the system?

I mean 1) I think you're hugely exaggerating the extent people like TMO - the argument is that IFAB could easily have just said "we'll do that" but instead, built their own system from the ground-up and came up with something worse.

But also 2) this is just an example of someone not using the system properly. Bad, but not a system issue. The problem with VAR is that it's used "properly," comes up with outcomes that PGMOL expect and still no one understands what's happened. I do think it's partly a problem of trying to implement badly written laws, but most differences between VAR and TMO end up with the VAR looking more complex, more secretive or harder to use.
 
GraemeS said:
And your big headline counter-example is.....someone choosing not to use the system?

I mean 1) I think you're hugely exaggerating the extent people like TMO - the argument is that IFAB could easily have just said "we'll do that" but instead, built their own system from the ground-up and came up with something worse.

But also 2) this is just an example of someone not using the system properly. Bad, but not a system issue. The problem with VAR is that it's used "properly," comes up with outcomes that PGMOL expect and still no one understands what's happened. I do think it's partly a problem of trying to implement badly written laws, but most differences between VAR and TMO end up with the VAR looking more complex, more secretive or harder to use.
Click to expand...
I mean the other reason for starting the thread was to generate a little bit of debate which is one of the things this forum is for.

Do we know that VAR is something worse? TMO relies on more, longer stoppages of the game to work. I think people would dislike that in football if they realised it.
With regards to point 2, many peoples arguments relating to VAR relate to the operators allegedly not using it properly as opposed to the system itself.
I personally don't believe there are any issues with VAR that won't be solved with time, but people will never ever agree on every decision and that will always lead to uproar.
 
Rugby and football are not comparable. The culture, history, money and global popularity are still worlds apart.

Rugby has it's code:
Teamwork • Respect • Enjoyment . Discipline • Sportsmanship.

Tied in to that are:
Play to win - but not at all cost.
●Win with dignity, lose with grace. ●Observe the Laws and regulations of the game .●Respect opponents, referees and all participants. ●Reject cheating, racism, violence and drugs. ●Value volunteers and paid officials alike. ●Enjoy the game.

Football on the other hand has no such "tenets"

Anybody that thinks the two can be compared is simply dreaming ...
 
Kes said:
Rugby and football are not comparable. The culture, history, money and global popularity are still worlds apart.

Rugby has it's code:
Teamwork • Respect • Enjoyment . Discipline • Sportsmanship.

Tied in to that are:
Play to win - but not at all cost.
●Win with dignity, lose with grace. ●Observe the Laws and regulations of the game .●Respect opponents, referees and all participants. ●Reject cheating, racism, violence and drugs. ●Value volunteers and paid officials alike. ●Enjoy the game.

Football on the other hand has no such "tenets"

Anybody that thinks the two can be compared is simply dreaming ...
Click to expand...
Agree rugby (both codes) has a different ethos.

But reject drugs err no. Massive issue with steroid use, not least in South African junior rugby union
Reject cheating - at least as much gamesmanship, they just call it ****housery and laugh about it. Neil Back anyone ?
 
Kes said:
Rugby and football are not comparable. The culture, history, money and global popularity are still worlds apart.

Rugby has it's code:
Teamwork • Respect • Enjoyment . Discipline • Sportsmanship.

Tied in to that are:
Play to win - but not at all cost.
●Win with dignity, lose with grace. ●Observe the Laws and regulations of the game .●Respect opponents, referees and all participants. ●Reject cheating, racism, violence and drugs. ●Value volunteers and paid officials alike. ●Enjoy the game.

Football on the other hand has no such "tenets"

Anybody that thinks the two can be compared is simply dreaming ...
Click to expand...
There's nothing innate to rugby that means this could only possibly happen in that sport and cannot possibly happen in football. The above (whether true or not!) is the result of choices made by Rugby's governing bodies, and the spirit and approach to football is the result of choice made in that sport. Different choices have every chance of changing that, if the right decisions can be made and committed to.
 
Quarryref said:
Agree rugby (both codes) has a different ethos.

But reject drugs err no. Massive issue with steroid use, not least in South African junior rugby union
Reject cheating - at least as much gamesmanship, they just call it ****housery and laugh about it. Neil Back anyone ?
Click to expand...
Agree to some extent.
My point was, that no such code exists in football.
 
GraemeS said:
There's nothing innate to rugby that means this could only possibly happen in that sport and cannot possibly happen in football. The above (whether true or not!) is the result of choices made by Rugby's governing bodies, and the spirit and approach to football is the result of choice made in that sport. Different choices have every chance of changing that, if the right decisions can be made and committed to.
Click to expand...
Yes, choices made 100+ years ago. The behaviour in football is nothing new, it was happening in the 70s so 50 years ago. Not saying that football shouldn’t try to improve things, rather it is decades behind rugby. You can’t change decades of behaviour overnight.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top