Pro 14

[Son of Mathonwy]

Actually it was just hyperbole. I'd assumed that because I'd only been half watching the game that given the outrage it must have a fair basis in fact. In fact they were much more marginal.

My point really is that we tend to accept the close decisions that go our way and remember the ones that didn't, no matter how fair minded we try to be.

What do you actually think about the decisions in the match in question?
(On a second look, but without frame-by-frame analysis, Connacht's first try was from a fairly clear forward pass, Harries' try was clearly good and I didn't have a good shot of the possible k-o for the last Connacht try. Also, Connacht gave away 5 penalties trying to keep Cardiff out between the 57th and 69th minutes without getting a yellow.)

More generally, what do you think about officials (particularly the ref or TMO) being drawn from the same unions as the teams?

My main point is that I wouldn't trust you or me to TMO that match. We might be biased - we shouldn't be eligible.

First Connacht try was probably ok. The issue isn't whether the ball travelled forward which I think it did, but whether or not it was thrown forward. Ref and TMO were happy that it wasn't, given the enormous gale blowing. The try from the kick off looked dodgier but I'm not sure you'd ever get a clear enough shot and be able to sufficiently disentangle the backwards motion from the forwards motion.

The Cardiff try wasn't clearly ok, but it might have been fine. Personally I didn't see any conclusive evidence to rule it out. One camera view looked like a try. The other was less clear cut though simultaneous seemed to me a cop out. I frankly didn't care enough to worry, but even watching it after your complaint it was pretty close.

I think that there should certainly be entirely neutral officials. It just removes one stick for crowds/fans to beat them with, but it won't stop the complaints. If you doubt that, you should see the paranoid ravings by some on the URSC Facebook page. I would also observe that the ref was neutral and the decision rested with him. I think that it's only 1 part of the issue though and what they need is for an on-field decision to be taken in real time and only overturned if there is clear evidence that it is wrong. Looking frame by frame for a minute decision and pretending that 2 dimensional images will always give answers for 3 dimensional events is just silly. I would restrict the use of the TMO to appeals by the captain and give them only 2 a half.

I think the fact that we disagree over two out of three of the tries (and I imagine, the third also, had good video evidence been available) is excellent evidence for why we need neutral officials - it's not just for appearances, it actually affects the scoreline.

I'm happy with the use made of TMOs. I think they usually come up with the right decision. (I think there's a case for having them based offsite, at a neutral location/country, to remove some of the pressure that comes from being amongst a vast crowd of home supporters. But this is being picky...). But I would give them better tools - like the ability to add gridlines parallel to try- and touchlines. Obviously something like Hawkeye would be ideal.

Re the ref being being neutral and the decision resting with him - yes, strictly speaking that is true, but if the decision is over a try and he and the linesmen didn't clearly see it then he has little choice about whether to call on the TMO. And once this is done, the decision is essentially delegated to the TMO. Again, the ref could overrule, but does that ever happen?

The strange thing is that the question of the non-neutrality of officials appears to be off-limits for discussion on the BBC. Which makes for very little pressure to change things. And this is despite the fact that neutral officials are (presumably?) mandatory at the test level.

The Pro14 should really move in this direction. They should start with referees and TMOs. Linesmen/women have much less power to influence the scoreboard, so are not so much of a priority.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

The ref watched it himself on the screen didn't he? They usually do nowadays.

[Son of Mathonwy]

The ref watched it himself on the screen didn't he? They usually do nowadays.

But how often do they disagree with the TMO and overrule them?

[Eugene Wrayburn]

The ref watched it himself on the screen didn't he? They usually do nowadays.

But how often do they disagree with the TMO and overrule them?

How often has the TMO made a mistake?

[Son of Mathonwy]

The ref watched it himself on the screen didn't he? They usually do nowadays.

But how often do they disagree with the TMO and overrule them?

How often has the TMO made a mistake?

Well I don't keep a list, but possibly three times in that Connacht/Blues match. It seems like every few weeks there's an error (and I only watch a few matches a week from the Pro14).

If you want certainty, there was an error made in last year's England/Wales match, but - of course - it's rare that the referees ever admit such a mistake has been made.

How often do referees disagree with the TMO and overrule them? Has it ever happened?

Do you think that non-neutral officials actually make more biased decisions than neutrals?

[Eugene Wrayburn]

"Possibly" isn't really helpful. Reasonable people can come to different conclusions watching the same piece of footage, which is a problem in and of itself but a discussion for another time. My main point is that where the margins are so small we really shouldn't be pretending like it's a massive issue of potential cheating. It's just a question of optics for the Pro14. For me that means that we should have neutral country officials

What tends to happen now is that the ref stops for the footage and says what he sees which often is very obviously not what the TMO thinks he saw, or he wouldn't have got the ref to look at it. This is reasonably frequent.

[Son of Mathonwy]

"Possibly" isn't really helpful. Reasonable people can come to different conclusions watching the same piece of footage, which is a problem in and of itself but a discussion for another time. My main point is that where the margins are so small we really shouldn't be pretending like it's a massive issue of potential cheating. It's just a question of optics for the Pro14. For me that means that we should have neutral country officials

What tends to happen now is that the ref stops for the footage and says what he sees which often is very obviously not what the TMO thinks he saw, or he wouldn't have got the ref to look at it. This is reasonably frequent.

I used the word "possibly" because we're having a polite discussion and there is no definite answer on any of these calls; there's no independent, public review of them. Don't get hung up on that word: I am certain about two of those being bad decisions; only the third is a mere possible for me (because I didn't have good enough video to review).

I wouldn't say it was a massive issue, but I believe it does have a material impact. When you say it's a matter of optics, do you mean it's just a matter of appearances? ie that it makes no difference to the results?

(NB I'm not generally thinking of points where the TMO brings up something unseen by the ref. This is chiefly about when the ref calls on the TMO to decide on important points, generally tries. Re dangerous play, cards etc, I agree that the ref and TMO often come to a decision together while viewing the footage.)

[Eugene Wrayburn]

"Possibly" isn't really helpful. Reasonable people can come to different conclusions watching the same piece of footage, which is a problem in and of itself but a discussion for another time. My main point is that where the margins are so small we really shouldn't be pretending like it's a massive issue of potential cheating. It's just a question of optics for the Pro14. For me that means that we should have neutral country officials

What tends to happen now is that the ref stops for the footage and says what he sees which often is very obviously not what the TMO thinks he saw, or he wouldn't have got the ref to look at it. This is reasonably frequent.

I used the word "possibly" because we're having a polite discussion and there is no definite answer on any of these calls; there's no independent, public review of them. Don't get hung up on that word: I am certain about two of those being bad decisions; only the third is a mere possible for me (because I didn't have good enough video to review).

I wouldn't say it was a massive issue, but I believe it does have a material impact. When you say it's a matter of optics, do you mean it's just a matter of appearances? ie that it makes no difference to the results?

(NB I'm not generally thinking of points where the TMO brings up something unseen by the ref. This is chiefly about when the ref calls on the TMO to decide on important points, generally tries. Re dangerous play, cards etc, I agree that the ref and TMO often come to a decision together while viewing the footage.)

You being certain doesn't make it objectively true. If it were that clear cut, the neutral referee who watched the footage in this case and for at least 1 of them explicitly made the decision would have agreed with you.

I've no reason to believe that having non-neutral officials has affected things either way. However the appearance of injustice is just as important.

[Son of Mathonwy]

"Possibly" isn't really helpful. Reasonable people can come to different conclusions watching the same piece of footage, which is a problem in and of itself but a discussion for another time. My main point is that where the margins are so small we really shouldn't be pretending like it's a massive issue of potential cheating. It's just a question of optics for the Pro14. For me that means that we should have neutral country officials

What tends to happen now is that the ref stops for the footage and says what he sees which often is very obviously not what the TMO thinks he saw, or he wouldn't have got the ref to look at it. This is reasonably frequent.

I used the word "possibly" because we're having a polite discussion and there is no definite answer on any of these calls; there's no independent, public review of them. Don't get hung up on that word: I am certain about two of those being bad decisions; only the third is a mere possible for me (because I didn't have good enough video to review).

I wouldn't say it was a massive issue, but I believe it does have a material impact. When you say it's a matter of optics, do you mean it's just a matter of appearances? ie that it makes no difference to the results?

(NB I'm not generally thinking of points where the TMO brings up something unseen by the ref. This is chiefly about when the ref calls on the TMO to decide on important points, generally tries. Re dangerous play, cards etc, I agree that the ref and TMO often come to a decision together while viewing the footage.)

You being certain doesn't make it objectively true. If it were that clear cut, the neutral referee who watched the footage in this case and for at least 1 of them explicitly made the decision would have agreed with you.

You ask for an impossibly high standard. There is no mechanism for any decision to be determined to be "objectively true". To even approach this there would need to be an independent review of decisions made, with the results made public. This does not take place.

I've no reason to believe that having non-neutral officials has affected things either way. However the appearance of injustice is just as important.

I believe we are two fairly sensible, non-hysterical viewers, reasonably free of paranoia. And yet we disagree about the decisions in this match enough to cause - at least - a 14 point swing in the scoreline. And, perhaps not entirely coincidentally, we each favour a view that serves our preferred team best. This strongly suggests that biases can affect decisions which actually affect results.

Officials are also human beings. They need to act quickly, but rationality is not the only thing their brains use to come up with each decision. Biases also are in the mix. Whether they like one person or another, one team or another, has an impact on decisions whether they are aware or it or not - particularly marginal ones.

The appearance of injustice is important, but surely not as important as injustice itself.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

Bias could certainly affect results, and in both directions. I've played plenty of games where the ref provided by one team gave all the 50/50s against them. There's just no evidence that bias has actually affected any of the games. And as you say there can be bias for all sorts of reasons, including whether a referee likes someone. So yes we could and should have officials from neutral countries (as I've repeatedly said) but there's little reason to suppose that it will make any difference. Neutral officials won't stop the complaints, or the chants of "Cheat" (though there seem to be fewer of those from the welsh fans of late, unless I'm just inured to it).

[Son of Mathonwy]

Bias could certainly affect results, and in both directions. I've played plenty of games where the ref provided by one team gave all the 50/50s against them. There's just no evidence that bias has actually affected any of the games. And as you say there can be bias for all sorts of reasons, including whether a referee likes someone. So yes we could and should have officials from neutral countries (as I've repeatedly said) but there's little reason to suppose that it will make any difference. Neutral officials won't stop the complaints, or the chants of "Cheat" (though there seem to be fewer of those from the welsh fans of late, unless I'm just inured to it).

Non-neutral bias - in my opinion - does not have the greatest impact compared with other biases. But it could so easily be removed from the game, and should be (as we agree).

IMO greater, and much more difficult to counter are:
1) home bias (eg consciously or subconsciously not wishing to upset an army of home supporters)
and
2) bias towards the team which is higher ranked or otherwise considered to be better (eg not wanting to cause an upset)
Both of these affect (IMO) the ref potentially in most things he or she does, in any situation where the ref can us his or her discretion (which means a LOT of situations in rugby)... eg who collapsed that scrum? who collapsed that maul? the tackled player player often holds on for a split second, but how long is too long? should I blow up for that flat-ish pass? did that fumbled ball really go forwards? how many penalties do I allow before getting out the yellow? did that infringement probably stop a try?
All of these, and many more, are often fifty-fifties whose outcome depends on whatever the ref has on his or her mind at that moment and no doubt biases can play their part in this.

For me, we ought to do the following:
a) reduce the opportunities in which the ref is allowed to use discretion (eg make a yellow card mandatory for the 10th penalty in a match and after say, 4 penalties within 10 minutes),
b) drum into the refs the need for consistency across matches. In-depth reviews by (other) neutral officials should be done
and
c) introduce Hawkeye-type technology to decide on forward throws and knock-ons.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

a. I'm not generally in favour of things being mandatory in that it tends not to solve the problem. You'd still need to have discretionary yellows for cynical play. This woul just tend towards officials copping out from giving those as they tend to for collapsing mauls/scrums and other goal line penalties.
b. They do have that already.
c. You'd actually have to change the laws to make hawkeye useful as the question isn't whether the ball travels forward, but whether it was thrown forward. Hawkeye isn't sophisticated enough to pick up hand direction.

[Son of Mathonwy]

a. I'm not generally in favour of things being mandatory in that it tends not to solve the problem. You'd still need to have discretionary yellows for cynical play. This woul just tend towards officials copping out from giving those as they tend to for collapsing mauls/scrums and other goal line penalties.
b. They do have that already.
c. You'd actually have to change the laws to make hawkeye useful as the question isn't whether the ball travels forward, but whether it was thrown forward. Hawkeye isn't sophisticated enough to pick up hand direction.

a. Agreed that discretionary cards would still be needed; it's impossible to codify every detail. But currently there's a huge range of tolerance for multiple penalties from refs, and we get the pantomime of the ref allowing a few, then giving a warning (for what, are the players not aware of the rules?) before - in some cases with extreme reluctance) finally handing out the card, long after it can make any difference to the result. I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say things being mandatory tend not to solve the problem.
b. Allegedly. But there's little point if it's in secret. This is not just a check for the officials in the match - it's a test of the system. Self- regulation is usually very weak regulation - it needs to be done by an independent group with public results (not necessarily on a match by match basis, but we need to know overall what kind of and how many errors are being made, and how material an effect they are having).
c. To determine if a forward throw has taken place you just need to compare ball speed in the direction of the goal-line before and after the throw. If it has increased towards the opposition goal-line (ie speed relative to the thrower has increased) then it's forward*. Whether this is best done by a visual, Hawkeye-type system or an accelerometer-based one (or a combination of the two) is to be determined.

* NB the wording of the law does not make this clear (and should really be updated), but this is consistent with the official referees' interpretation of the law.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

a. I'm not generally in favour of things being mandatory in that it tends not to solve the problem. You'd still need to have discretionary yellows for cynical play. This woul just tend towards officials copping out from giving those as they tend to for collapsing mauls/scrums and other goal line penalties.
b. They do have that already.
c. You'd actually have to change the laws to make hawkeye useful as the question isn't whether the ball travels forward, but whether it was thrown forward. Hawkeye isn't sophisticated enough to pick up hand direction.

a. Agreed that discretionary cards would still be needed; it's impossible to codify every detail. But currently there's a huge range of tolerance for multiple penalties from refs, and we get the pantomime of the ref allowing a few, then giving a warning (for what, are the players not aware of the rules?) before - in some cases with extreme reluctance) finally handing out the card, long after it can make any difference to the result. I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say things being mandatory tend not to solve the problem.
b. Allegedly. But there's little point if it's in secret. This is not just a check for the officials in the match - it's a test of the system. Self- regulation is usually very weak regulation - it needs to be done by an independent group with public results (not necessarily on a match by match basis, but we need to know overall what kind of and how many errors are being made, and how material an effect they are having).
c. To determine if a forward throw has taken place you just need to compare ball speed in the direction of the goal-line before and after the throw. If it has increased towards the opposition goal-line (ie speed relative to the thrower has increased) then it's forward*. Whether this is best done by a visual, Hawkeye-type system or an accelerometer-based one (or a combination of the two) is to be determined.

* NB the wording of the law does not make this clear (and should really be updated), but this is consistent with the official referees' interpretation of the law.

a. You'll still get that pantomime, or you'll get teams knowing that they have 10 penalties to play with.
b. I don't think they make it up, though I agree more openness would be better. If you listen to Brian Moore's Telegraph Rugby podcast he talks regularly to Nigel Owens who regularly describes the processes for the international referees and there was a good piece somewhere recently with Greg Garner who (somewhat incredibly given how shit he was) is in charge of the pro14 refs - you'd like that piece it says they got the Cardiff try decision wrong and explains it was because they didn't show the ref the crucial footage from the broadcaster and a couple of other problems.
c. a gust of wind would immediately put paid to that accuracy and you'd need a way of determining when the ball was released. In any event you are not scientifically correct. The acceleration of the ball would occur pre release in the players hands rather than at the point of release in any forward pass, other than where there has been a gust of wind.

[Son of Mathonwy]

a. You'll still get that pantomime, or you'll get teams knowing that they have 10 penalties to play with.
b. I don't think they make it up, though I agree more openness would be better. If you listen to Brian Moore's Telegraph Rugby podcast he talks regularly to Nigel Owens who regularly describes the processes for the international referees and there was a good piece somewhere recently with Greg Garner who (somewhat incredibly given how shit he was) is in charge of the pro14 refs - you'd like that piece it says they got the Cardiff try decision wrong and explains it was because they didn't show the ref the crucial footage from the broadcaster and a couple of other problems.
c. a gust of wind would immediately put paid to that accuracy and you'd need a way of determining when the ball was released. In any event you are not scientifically correct. The acceleration of the ball would occur pre release in the players hands rather than at the point of release in any forward pass, other than where there has been a gust of wind.

a. IMO at least you'd have consistency. But there would need to be total penalties trigger AND a penalties in the last 10 minutes (or so).
b. Thanks - the podcasts are interesting. Do you know when the Greg Garner one was - I couldn't find it? Agreed, openness would be good.
c. A gust of wind isn't going to significantly affect a short flight of a rugby ball (a goal kick is a different story), and anyway it'll be obvious if the ball is accelerating or decelerating while in flight. I see this as more of a tool to help the TMO rather than an automatic system which will go ping whenever it sees something it doesn't like. I said compare the speed before and after the throw, not the release. Of course the ball undergoes acceleration while it is being thrown (which is by definition "pre release") and this short period of time (determined visually by the TMO if it's not obvious from the burst of acceleration) would be excluded from the comparison.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

Incidentally there was a lovely refereeing choice from a bias point of view.Frank Murphy refereed 2 of his former teams this weekend.

[Son of Mathonwy]

The Pro14 starts up this evening (not that you'd know it from the BBC's website).

For this weekend all Welsh matches are viewable on Freesports or S4C, albeit two are not live. So, although I suspect I will end up resubscribing to Premier Sport, there doesn't seem much point at the moment.

The question is how will I be able to fit all this rugby in? Can there be too much rugby???

[Sandydragon]

The Pro14 starts up this evening (not that you'd know it from the BBC's website).

For this weekend all Welsh matches are viewable on Freesports or S4C, albeit two are not live. So, although I suspect I will end up resubscribing to Premier Sport, there doesn't seem much point at the moment.

The question is how will I be able to fit all this rugby in? Can there be too much rugby???

I’d like to say no, although watching it is becoming increasingly difficult. The joys of having a young family!

[Sandydragon]

Scarlets managed to win at home to Connaught. Not a great game but the weather was awful and didn’t help.

Good win for the Blues too.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Change of management but no change of form for the Dragons. No disaster though - a tough place to win, even during the RWC.

[Sandydragon]

Change of management but no change of form for the Dragons. No disaster though - a tough place to win, even during the RWC.

If we are still crap by the end of the season then all bets are off, but for now a new coach needs time to settle in and better teams than us have got stuffed by Munster so not the end of the world.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

The Pro14 starts up this evening (not that you'd know it from the BBC's website).

For this weekend all Welsh matches are viewable on Freesports or S4C, albeit two are not live. So, although I suspect I will end up resubscribing to Premier Sport, there doesn't seem much point at the moment.

The question is how will I be able to fit all this rugby in? Can there be too much rugby???

I'm currently trying to fit every RWC match around the entirety of the Athletics World Champs. It's not really working.

[Son of Mathonwy]

The Pro14 starts up this evening (not that you'd know it from the BBC's website).

For this weekend all Welsh matches are viewable on Freesports or S4C, albeit two are not live. So, although I suspect I will end up resubscribing to Premier Sport, there doesn't seem much point at the moment.

The question is how will I be able to fit all this rugby in? Can there be too much rugby???

I'm currently trying to fit every RWC match around the entirety of the Athletics World Champs. It's not really working.

Yes. I've decided to take a break from sleeping this week.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Well played the Dragons and Scarlets (all their hard work done in 10 minutes). Worrying Ospreys capitulation.

[Sandydragon]

Well played the Dragons and Scarlets (all their hard work done in 10 minutes). Worrying Ospreys capitulation.

Our first away win since, actually I can’t remember when we last won away so happy with that even if it isn’t against the strongest in the league.