[
PLEASE LOGIN TO POST TO THE FORUM
]
|
|
|
ob
|
Sun, 04 November 07 19:40 GMT
|
You cannot referee an international in the same way as you referee a Level 13 friendly.
In the former case, almost nothing happens by accident. In the latter, almost everything does.
That means refereeing will change gradually as you work your way up. The perception of two games arises from the fact that most people see either top level (on TV) or local park rugby. The playing differences are immense, and this MUST be reflected in the refereeing.
That is not just me theorising. That is the official line.
This message edited on Sun, 04 November 07 by ob
|
|
|
ealing bill
- wjgrist@tiscali.co.uk
|
Sun, 04 November 07 19:03 GMT
|
The problem is, we are playing to two sets of laws.
One is written down, and most of us play to them. The other exists in the minds of those who play senior rugby.
This is stupid, and dangerous to those that copy the game they see on TV.
This message edited on Sun, 04 November 07 by ealing bill
|
|
|
zackly
|
Sun, 04 November 07 15:15 GMT
|
Ouch ! The RFU are recommending a playing technique which has got us excited because it's thought contrary to the LoG and is dangerous.
"Bridging" is contrary to LoG 15.7(b) - by preventing a grounded tackled player moving away from the ball & to 15.6(a) by allowing a player arriving at the tackle to support himself on that grounded player. This exposes Community players (especially the young) to unecessary and unwanted dangers, as rightly & clearly highlighted by LoG 15.7(f). All of which could leave the Community referee (especially in Junior games) exposed to charges of negligence - should a player (especially a child under UK law) be injured whilst "bridging" - because the game was not refereed strictly enough iaw LoG in this area of dangers - as highlighted by the RFU itself.
As justification for allowing "bridging", the Referees Forum has recently drawn attention to a 2003 RFU-sponsored Article on Tackling in the Coaching section of the RFU website (thanks KayG$k6#9L !). This recommends coaching of "bridging" as a technique, whilst attempting to get round the restriction of LoG 15.6(a) requiring an arriving player to support his weight on his feet only. The recommended gripping of the grounded player's clothing whilst keeping weight entirely on own feet in reality is impractical - especially at low skill levels found in most Community games. The article is characterised by following extract :
<<< This session was delivered by Kingsley Jones to coaches at a World Cup coach education day at Wakefield in November, 2003.
Hit, down, clear and bridge.
Player 3 then bridges Player 1 on floor, ensuring he carries all his weight on his feet to comply with the Law.
Both hands grip Player 1. The important thing is to get a good tight grip
and this can be on shorts and shirt or both hands on the shirt. >>>
Hopefully the RFU Referee Department will provide guidance on how to referee this aspect of the game - ideally via this Referees Forum.
On a related point, the Forums for Coaching & Continuum give names of the official RFU contact for that topic. No-one however is nominated for Referees Forum which suggests the Referee Dept remain routinely UNaware of the great grass-roots wisdom (oh yes !) fedback via "their" Forum.
This message edited on Sun, 04 November 07 by zackly
|
|
|
KayG$k6#9L
|
Fri, 02 November 07 22:56 GMT
|
The bridging sealing technique is described in some detail in the article “Decision Making in the Tackle” by Kingsley Jones in the coaching section of this web site.
Clicking [Coaching>>Articles>>Tackling] from the side bar should get you there. p2&p3 "Hit, Down, Clear and Bridge" refers.
While Mr. Jones emphasises a head-up, weight-on-feet body position (which addresses some of the safety concerns mentioned below), he does encourage the bridging player to "to get a good tight grip" on the tackled player which, as mentioned below, seems contrary to LotG 15.7(b).
Is it therefore surprising to find this being coached at mini/midi level when it is in a freely available RFU coaching resource?
|
|
|
nicknell
|
Fri, 02 November 07 16:44 GMT
|
It was the mini section of a very senior club.
|
|
|
didds
- scrumtime@hotmail.com
|
Fri, 02 November 07 08:46 GMT
|
cheers for that Nick - I hadn't meant to imply that my expereinces were universal:-)
when you say you saw it coached to u12s was this by an RFU employee/representative? Or a club coach that "thougt" it was Ok? I'm sure we all see examples of the latter all the time (though obviously *harumph* not at OUR clubs of course *jowel wobble*)
;-)
didds
|
|
|
nicknell
|
Thu, 01 November 07 16:55 GMT
|
Didds
I saw this coached at an RFU conference two years ago.
And I saw it coached to U12s last season. When I queried it, I was told that the question had been asked up the line and green lights given.
Nick
|
|
|
didds
- scrumtime@hotmail.com
|
Thu, 01 November 07 09:27 GMT
|
freed - w/out meaning to imply that it is "right", the reason i suspect that coaches continue to coach sealing is becausae as has been pointred out it happens at elite/televised levls and is NOT penalised.
As I have said earlier, this creates an arms race in effect with the technique... coaches t=lower down then coach it because not to do so leaves their sides "unarmed" with a ref that doesn;t penalise it in their matches... there is also the approach (that I take) given this if I coach it "properly" there is less chance of somebody trying ot and exposiong themselves to injury. This doesn;lt mean 9and I explain this) that I ADVOCATE its use. I just feel happier that my players IF they so choose to do so, have the technique properly ingrained.
NB: I would NEVER advocate coaching this technique at continuum levels, and only _maybe_ at youth levels.
The bottom line is until it is penalised at top levels, it will remain.
FTR I cannot recall ever seeing the technique demonstratated at any RFU led coaching education workshop or course.
didds
|
|
|
fredfarndon
|
Wed, 31 October 07 12:18 GMT
|
Agree simon.
Players must stay on their feet.
Hopefully a senior member of the refereeing community will read this thread and explain why coaches - trained by the RFU are coaching this dangerous and illegal practise. The professional game may be different but they have a duty of care to those kids who watch them and try to copy them. Look forward to a positive answer'from above', but not holding my breath.
This message edited on Wed, 31 October 07 by fredfarndon
|
|
|
zackly
|
Tue, 30 October 07 16:08 GMT
|
Lazily I've merely copied what I'd written before under The Scrum (this page). Like The Scrum, The Tackle is an area of significant dangers if not refereed to the LoG - especially for young and other unskilled, but enthusiastic, players. Both areas have significant impacts on the temper & therefore control, of a game - and its result.
<<< We've been here before - many times I think.
The reason it seems VERY important to me is the Showbiz Rugby refereeing is watched by millions - in TV transmissions that are VERY effective training videos, especially for younger, more impressionable, players and their enthusiastically competitive coaches.
That's what we as Community Referees have to deal with by applying the LoG more strictly - largely for safety reasons, both direct safety (tackle-zone, scrums and so on) and by limiting over-excited, poorly-disciplined competitive play. The Showbiz refereeing standards in certain key, intrinsically dangerous, areas of the game as frequently seen on TV do little to help us.
The IRB and all the national Unions have a collective responsibility to players and referees in Community Rugby - but have proved themselves unwilling (NOT unable) to act. They are in default, but seem to have chosen the same dual-standard approach as Fitba'. >>>
|
|
|
the whistleblower
|
Tue, 30 October 07 10:01 GMT
|
Further to Nigib, this was discussed on another forum (http://www.rugbyrefs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4626). One poster (- 4th post from bottom of page 1) put these forward, which seem to make sense:
15.6(a): After a tackle, all other players must be on their feet when they play the ball. Players are on their feet if no other part of their body is supported by the ground or players on the ground.
Penalty: Penalty Kick
The last sentence suggests that if your weight is even partially supported by the player on the ground, you are off your feet in Law, and have effectively "fallen" to ground. You then look at the following in the light of that awareness:
15.7 FORBIDDEN PRACTICES
(a) ...
(b) No player may prevent the tackled player from releasing the ball and getting up or moving away from it.
Penalty: Penalty Kick
(c) No player may fall on or over the tackled player.
Penalty: Penalty Kick
(d) No player may fall on or over the players lying on the ground after a tackle with the ball between or near to them.
Penalty: Penalty Kick
16.2(d): All players forming, joining or taking part in a ruck must be on
their feet.
|
-------------------------
Whistleblower |
|
|
didds
- scrumtime@hotmail.com
|
Tue, 30 October 07 09:40 GMT
|
agree entirely with the safety aspect which is predominant in my ,ind also.
I would also add from a COACHHING perspective at these ages I also feel it is a negative idea as
1) it potentially sells an idea that rucking CLEAR of the ball is now not as imperative, and this is a skill that is sadly lacking at ALL levels of the English game. Better IMO to ensure ALL players understand and demonstrate the ability to ruck PAST the ball to ceate fast, clean ruck ball.
2) sealing CAN be done with hips below shoulders, but it requires excellent core and leg strength which generally players of this age do NOT have - and so it can ONLT be done dangerously (and illegally ie hips above shoulders).
Alliued to which it is clear as day from reading the laws that it is an iullegal tactic at all levels. But referees - at senior levels certainly - rarely if ever actually penalise it, and so the arms race of its use continues.
didds
|
|
|
Nigib3
|
Mon, 29 October 07 22:16 GMT
|
Can't reference law numbers directly as my venerable tome is not to hand, but I use a combination of:
1. Safety. Assuming that the player is leaning over forwards, with hands on prostrate tackled body or ground, then the neck is exposed to oncoming opponents. I do not want a paraplegic as a result.
2. Holding a body on the ground means that the tackled player is not rolling away, the holding player is preventing him rolling away, and opponents are obstructed from fair competition for the ball.
3. The position assumed usually means that the shoulders are below hips, illegal in a ruck.
At junior level I emphasise the safety aspect, and that's usually enough for the coach. I stress that if the player stays on their feet (ie knees/legs not resting on prone player), with head up facing the oncoming opponent then they are in a correct position to hold in a ruck or clear out.
|
|
|
MichaelPole
|
Mon, 29 October 07 21:31 GMT
|
Yesterday, I saw this being coached at joint U10 training session, at which squads from three clubs were present.
If i want to penalise this practice, what Law(s)are being broken?
|
|
|
the whistleblower
|
Fri, 28 September 07 17:57 GMT
|
Agreed. There doesn't appear to be any way to cancel a profile
|
-------------------------
Whistleblower |
|
|
NBHmark3
|
Fri, 28 September 07 17:35 GMT
|
You've got two profiles and as they are linked you get two posts.
I had the same problem, only mechanism I found - even after talking to the Web Administrator was to set up a new profile and use it unassociated to any club or CB.
As you can see I am on my third iteration
|
|
|
nigib
|
Fri, 28 September 07 16:00 GMT
|
..and completely off topic, if someone could advise me how to get solve my "double posting" problem, I, and I guess everyone else, will be mightily grateful! :-)
|
|
|
gibsonox3
|
Fri, 28 September 07 16:00 GMT
|
..and completely off topic, if someone could advise me how to get solve my "double posting" problem, I, and I guess everyone else, will be mightily grateful! :-)
|
|
|
nigib
|
Fri, 28 September 07 15:59 GMT
|
This issue seems to rear its ugly head again and again, and every time demonstrates the difference between showbiz rugby and us down in the weeds.
IMO there are at least 4 infringements happening with this type of action, with the safety of the exposed neck to oncoming players the biggest issue.
At my level (9/10/junior) I tend to let it go as long as the ball is won and it is obvious that there is no contest for the ball; otherwise I blow.
As to where it's being coached; I've heard that the technique has been taught to U11s in my area (!!!). As an U16 (and lower) coach I have never advocated the tactic, but the players pick it up from school and tv. We coach how to deal with it when the ref doesn't pick it up.
I fear that the widespread acceptance at senior levels of this odious practice means it is destined to continue - I have a concern that it will become increasingly prevalent until a serious injury causes a rethink. I just hope a rethink happens before the accident...
|
|
|
gibsonox3
|
Fri, 28 September 07 15:59 GMT
|
This issue seems to rear its ugly head again and again, and every time demonstrates the difference between showbiz rugby and us down in the weeds.
IMO there are at least 4 infringements happening with this type of action, with the safety of the exposed neck to oncoming players the biggest issue.
At my level (9/10/junior) I tend to let it go as long as the ball is won and it is obvious that there is no contest for the ball; otherwise I blow.
As to where it's being coached; I've heard that the technique has been taught to U11s in my area (!!!). As an U16 (and lower) coach I have never advocated the tactic, but the players pick it up from school and tv. We coach how to deal with it when the ref doesn't pick it up.
I fear that the widespread acceptance at senior levels of this odious practice means it is destined to continue - I have a concern that it will become increasingly prevalent until a serious injury causes a rethink. I just hope a rethink happens before the accident...
|
|
|
ob
|
Thu, 27 September 07 16:06 GMT
|
didds - I like the pragmatism. It means that if a referee starts pinging it, your players would be aware, and able to adjust, thus stealing a march on the opposition who will continue to get pinged.
|
|
|
didds
- scrumtime@hotmail.com
|
Wed, 26 September 07 21:20 GMT
|
Far be it for me to proffer advice to you of all people dan, but I have had the same "dilemma".
As a rugby "fan" sealing gthe ball irritates me... it is CLEARLY in breach of the laws regarding being in contact with a player on the ground maing you equally on the ground etc. But it is universally accepted at elite level and by osmosis far lower down the pyramid.
With my rugby purists head on it is illegal IMO and shouldn't be allowed.
With my duty of care head on, I also have concerns about poorly executed sealing exposing the nape of the neck to big hits.
With my coaches head on, if I don;t coach my players the technique then I potentially leave my side unarmed against an armed man i.e. if the oppo follow this tactic and they are not pinged for it (level 7 refs are generally happy I find that it occurs), then if my players are not au fait with it, then they have one less skill/tactic available to them than their opposition, putting them at a disadvantage.
With my pragmatists head on it is clear that whether I coach it or not some if not all of my players will probably try it anyway (based on watching TV if nothing else) - with the da nger that they get it wrong and expose themselves to injury.
So - I do coach the technique if only to ensure those that use it do so as safely as possible. i also take great pains to explain that it has inherent dangers and that if players choose to use it that is up to them, and that I coach it as a safety precaution not necessarily because I expect them, to use it.
Maybe that's a cop out, I couldn't disagree with any such accusation to be frank.
cheers
didds
|
|
|
the whistleblower
|
Wed, 26 September 07 17:12 GMT
|
You are being helpful to your team, depending on the level they play. At Level 9 and below, I always ping this tactic as contrary to both the spirit and the letter of the LoTG. The Young Ospreys probably get more senior refs who "manage" this issue by ignoring it in the interests of keeping the penalty count down to manageable levels. So it depends which of your teams you are thinking of.
|
-------------------------
Whistleblower |
|
|
Dan Cottrell
|
Wed, 26 September 07 12:19 GMT
|
I know what the laws say about contact with the grounded player, but it seems at most of the levels I watch to be ignored. That is the first supporter into a contact situation where his teammate is on the ground, seals off the ball by grabbing his shirt (though hips below shoulders)
Am I being a stick in the mud for not coaching it or am I misinterpreting the law?
|
|
|
[
FIRST
|
PREVIOUS
]
|
|
|
