Blake wrote: ↑Fri Jul 30, 2021 11:10 am
JM2K6 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 30, 2021 10:56 am
Get a ref in to explain things to them like every major side does on a regular basis
But let's be painfully clear here: he's not looking to "understand" the rulings. He simply wants to complain that they were wrong. That's what this whole circus is about.
They often do, but the WR Referee Assessment report of a referee's last performance is also a valuable tool that forms part of the preparation for a match.
It is where referee error is admitted and corrective action is recommended.
Even if an independent referee advises the Boks that the on-field decision was incorrect, without feedback from WR or the official on the day admitting that, there is no reason to assume it will be a focus area for the official in the next match. If the referees are going to allow players to fly off their feet at rucks, then we select other players to when a referee is likely to allow for 2 extra seconds of competing for the ball on the ground. If the player in a better position jumping for a high ball is not going to be given the benefit, then maybe you prepare by not contesting in the air and rather timing a tackle and going for the counter-ruck.
You're asking the impossible. Referees and the laws of rugby are essentially subjective - expecting WR to write up a report on the hundreds of decisions + non-decisions the officials make after every match is not what the Referee Assessment is about.
And if you really want to get cynical, if tip-tackles are allowed as long as the ball carrier braces with their arm risking a shoulder injury, then maybe we should train players to resist the urge to brace so we can milk the yellow/red card?
Tip tackles are not allowed regardless of whether they brace with their arm, what on earth are you talking about? The sanction might be different, but that's not the same thing. Yellows and reds have been given even in cases where an arm has stopped direct head contact because referees can view this subjectively and decide in their opinion it was still dangerous enough.
Of course you're probably talking about Hamish Watson's tackle, which did not involve any movement of the tackled player to brace himself and would not have involved him being speared head first into the ground if the arm hadn't hit first.
I will say that the idea that milking things can lead to a better outcome is not new and it is a concern. But that's a difficult thing to legislate for.
None of that will come from just asking Andre Watson for his opinion of the Berry's performance...especially if Berry is going to be running as AR in the next match and hasn't given his errors from the previous week have not been formally reviewed yet.
No, ffs. The idea isn't to ask Andre Watson for his opinion of Berry's performance. The idea is to ask Andre Watson to help the Boks avoid falling foul of the decisions Berry was making (or not making). Watson will be able to explain the justification for most of the decisions in particular areas - it's pretty common practice when teams need help sorting out their discipline. But if all you're doing is saying "well, Berry was fucking shit so Watson can't really help" then what the fuck do you expect WR to do? It's just a gigantic whinge on the back of a loss where the Saffers had some decisions go against them after a first half in which plenty of dodgy decisions went their way, exacerbated by a pissed coach who thinks it's a great idea to drag the sport down with this gigantic toy-throwing exercise.
you guys seem so upset
