rugbyunion
Latest News:
New Page 1

Whatever your views on Saracens, whether a Sarries fan or not, leave them here.

To leave a message on this board you must register. To register click HERE, it takes only a minute.
Non-rugby posts are welcome, but please prefix your subject header with "OT" or "Off Topic".


Thought for the Day:
3 LOSSES IN A ROW - BECOMING A HABIT?

Latest: GLOUCESTER RUGBY 23 : 17 SARACENS
Next: SARACENS v EXETER CHIEFS Sun 26th Nov 15.00
Aviva Premiership, Allianz
Audio: Click the link below. If it ain't there, it ain't on!
Upcoming TV: Saracens v Exeter Chiefs
Sun 26th Nov 2017 BT Sport 14.30

BBC Online Rugby Union Commentaries

The Fish | Rugby Union News | Fez Boys | Saracens Fixtures | The SSA


Goto Page: 12Next
Current Page: 1 of 2
Karl Dickson
EnfieldMal (IP Logged)
14 November, 2017 13:40
Karl Dickson is going to ref us on Friday down at Kingsholm. He had a good game on Sunday. Good to see previous players coming through as refs

 
Re: Karl Dickson
Seany_Boy0511 (IP Logged)
14 November, 2017 13:44
I hear his brother is a better referee than Karl is (Sm100)

Excellent news and congratulations to Karl it looks like an incredibly tough job

 
Re: Karl Dickson
Jim 55 (IP Logged)
14 November, 2017 14:04
How long has he actually been Reffing?

 
Re: Karl Dickson
Waldo (IP Logged)
14 November, 2017 14:31

 
Re: Karl Dickson
Seany_Boy0511 (IP Logged)
14 November, 2017 17:09
I still think the fact he has recently retired will stand him in good stead to become one of the best referees in the league

 
Re: Karl Dickson
AP (IP Logged)
14 November, 2017 22:30
Good luck to him, though he sounds a bit raw, but I guess Glen went a similar speedy route.



Successful hills are here to stay
Everything must be this way
Gentle streets where people play
Welcome to the Soft Parade

 
Re: Karl Dickson
flavman 35 (IP Logged)
15 November, 2017 05:50
Good luck to him. Really good to see ex players taking up the whistle.
It helps their decision making as they know the kind of stunts they pulled themselves. Ha ha.
Glenda for example doesn't kill the game with constant use of the TMO.

 
Re: Karl Dickson
Seany_Boy0511 (IP Logged)
15 November, 2017 09:42
Glenda is well on his way to becoming a world class ref, I think he was spot on with his explanations and got most 50 50 decisions correct on Saturday

 
Re: Karl Dickson
Enu (IP Logged)
15 November, 2017 12:43
Surely you can't get a 50/50 decisions wrong? It's the 51/49 that take skill.

 
Re: Karl Dickson
kakshaks (IP Logged)
15 November, 2017 22:22
I don’t think he should be allowed to ref in the Premiership so soon after retiring from playing for a Premier club. Will he be allowed to ref Quinns this season?

 
Re: Karl Dickson
King Zak (IP Logged)
16 November, 2017 08:03
Quote:
kakshaks
I don’t think he should be allowed to ref in the Premiership so soon after retiring from playing for a Premier club. Will he be allowed to ref Quinns this season?

I agree entirely! It will be interesting to see the evaluation of his performance on here come Saturday morning. I'm not expecting it to be positive!!



Nous sommes l'armée noir et rouge !

 
Re: Karl Dickson
Adey (IP Logged)
16 November, 2017 09:18
Quote:
kakshaks
I don’t think he should be allowed to ref in the Premiership so soon after retiring from playing for a Premier club. Will he be allowed to ref Quinns this season?

Why not? And when should be allowed to ref in the Prem? When everyone he played with/against has retired? That could be a while. If he’s good enough to ref at that standard then I can’t see a problem with it. If anything he’ll be better for it. He knows he’ll have plenty of eyes on him so there’s no room for complacency.

I doubt he’d want to ref Quins anytime soon. He’s got mates there and ties to the club. One poor decision could put him and whoever placed him in charge of their game in a bit of bother.

 
Re: Karl Dickson
The Bard (IP Logged)
16 November, 2017 11:43
On a far more sombre note, the citing official for the game was listed as Steve Savage. I rather fear this was the same chap who passed away earlier this week.

 
Re: Karl Dickson
AP (IP Logged)
16 November, 2017 20:45
Quote:
kakshaks
I don’t think he should be allowed to ref in the Premiership so soon after retiring from playing for a Premier club. Will he be allowed to ref Quinns this season?

So Glen Jackson shouldn't be referring internationals with Saracens players involved? I think he did one where there were there were 5 or 6 involved, and not just in the England side!

 
Re: Karl Dickson
JO'G (IP Logged)
17 November, 2017 08:30
I think there is a difference between a match with ex players involved and reffing the side you played for

I don't really have a problem with Dickson reffing, but I would hope the scheduling would exclude him officiating at a match involving Quins; or if they were pushing for 6th place at the end of the season one of their competitors

I watched the RWCup game between USA and Japan reffed by Glen at Glaws. Both Borths and Wyles made a big point of going over and shaking his hand before the game to try and get the personal connection across. Made no difference as far as I could see



Park team from London
Just a park team from London
European Champions
Just European champions

 
Re: Karl Dickson
Sara'sman (IP Logged)
17 November, 2017 11:26
My concern is exposure! Refereeing relies on making a huge number of instant decisions, and in part this is helped by experience, having been exposed to similar situations before. I've little doubt that Karl's long playing career at a high level gives him a significant advantage in understanding the game. What concerns me is that he has not yet officiated in a sufficient number of matches at a lower level to enable him to refine his skills including communication. His rise strikes me as too quick.

Having said that, I do think the RFU deserve great credit for the number of good new young referees that we are seeing come into the game. The overall standard in the premiership is excellent in my view and clearly the refereeing body believe him to be ready. I watch quite a lot of Championship and National 2 rugby, where I'm usually impressed with the quality of the officials but I've not seen Dickson perform before last week where he was strong in a game that was simple to referee (other than dealing with a dominant scrum).

I tend to agree with JO'G - refereeing former team mates is fine, perhaps inevitable, but his former team must be avoided until his good reputation is established.

 
Re: Karl Dickson
King Zak (IP Logged)
17 November, 2017 12:09
Quote:
JO'G

I don't really have a problem with Dickson reffing,

You will!!! (As will the rest of us)



Nous sommes l'armée noir et rouge !

 
Re: Karl Dickson
TonyTaff (IP Logged)
17 November, 2017 15:41
Who the phucq thought it a good idea to grant him a Prem debut in front of a cider-soaked Shed on a Friday night?

If Karl is able to rise above the intimidation, he will have a fine reffing career ahead of him.



£630.67 (*) donated to the Saracens Foundation due to visits to the Sarries frontpage [www.rugbynetwork.net]

Please read and submit articles for publication. (*) As at October 31, 2016.

 
Re: Karl Dickson
King Zak (IP Logged)
17 November, 2017 15:43
Having awarded THREE penalty tries last week, he's technically the joint leading try scorer in the Anglo-Welsh tournament



Nous sommes l'armée noir et rouge !

 
Re: Karl Dickson
Huxley (IP Logged)
17 November, 2017 16:07
Last season we had the so called "best ref" in the prem at glaws and that didn't work out too well! Ive not seen Karl ref in games, other than last week, but I thought he did quite well. I think a more nervous ref would have bottled giving 3 pen tries, but in my opinion they were right.

Surely scrum halves make the best refs, they spend every match telling anyone who will listen what the laws are!


saying all this, I'm sure I'll be moaning about him if we lose...

 
Re: Karl Dickson
The Bard (IP Logged)
17 November, 2017 18:46
Quote:
TonyTaff
Who the phucq thought it a good idea to grant him a Prem debut in front of a cider-soaked Shed on a Friday night?
If Karl is able to rise above the intimidation, he will have a fine reffing career ahead of him.

They were hardly likely to send him to Sale!

 
Re: Karl Dickson
Highbury Saracen (IP Logged)
17 November, 2017 20:30
Started off ok
Couple of p**s poir decisions since then



Double Champions of Europe,we know who we are!! smiling smiley

 
Re: Karl Dickson
Quin Kong (IP Logged)
17 November, 2017 20:45
Quote:
Highbury Saracen
Started off ok
Couple of p**s poir decisions since then

Which ones?



QUIN KONG

 
Re: Karl Dickson
Highbury Saracen (IP Logged)
17 November, 2017 20:58
Couple of collapses of maul
& that last one on 72 mins when there was still forward movement



Double Champions of Europe,we know who we are!! smiling smiley

 
Re: Karl Dickson
Man from LA (IP Logged)
17 November, 2017 21:01
Quote:
Highbury Saracen
Started off ok
Couple of p**s poir decisions since then

The worst one was allowing the Sarries try.

 
Re: Karl Dickson
Severus (IP Logged)
17 November, 2017 21:01
Quote:
Highbury Saracen
Couple of collapses of maul
& that last one on 72 mins when there was still forward movement
What law is that then?

Don’t forget Sarries try should never have been awarded (but they were clever to take the conversion quickly)

 
Re: Karl Dickson
Highbury Saracen (IP Logged)
17 November, 2017 21:04
I thought you pulled it down a couple of times & got away with it



Double Champions of Europe,we know who we are!! smiling smiley

 
Re: Karl Dickson
Sarriebone (IP Logged)
17 November, 2017 21:09
Can anyone explain to me why collapsing a maul from a lineout is illegal, but collapsing a maul from a choke tackle isn't? Genuine question

 
Re: Karl Dickson
Severus (IP Logged)
17 November, 2017 21:10
Quote:
Highbury Saracen
I thought you pulled it down a couple of times & got away with it

But we had a player with his hands on the ball carrier. He’s allowed to bring him down.

 
Re: Karl Dickson
Severus (IP Logged)
17 November, 2017 21:11
Quote:
Sarriebone
Can anyone explain to me why collapsing a maul from a lineout is illegal, but collapsing a maul from a choke tackle isn't? Genuine question
The clue is in the word ‘tackle’

 
Re: Karl Dickson
Sarriebone (IP Logged)
17 November, 2017 21:16
Quote:
Severus
Quote:
Sarriebone
Can anyone explain to me why collapsing a maul from a lineout is illegal, but collapsing a maul from a choke tackle isn't? Genuine question
The clue is in the word ‘tackle’

But they're both mauls are they not? So why the difference in laws?

 
Re: Karl Dickson
The Bard (IP Logged)
17 November, 2017 21:18
Our defeat was certainly none of the ref's doing. Thought he went pretty well. We can't have any complaints about Ben's try being ruled out, it did look genuinely short.

 
Re: Karl Dickson
Severus (IP Logged)
17 November, 2017 21:19
Just editing this post as I was wrong. You cannot bring the ball carrier down in a maul. Live and learn.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 17/11/2017 23:08 by Severus.

 
Re: Karl Dickson
Sarriebone (IP Logged)
17 November, 2017 21:24
Quote:
Severus
Quote:
Sarriebone
Quote:
Severus
Quote:
Sarriebone
Can anyone explain to me why collapsing a maul from a lineout is illegal, but collapsing a maul from a choke tackle isn't? Genuine question
The clue is in the word ‘tackle’

But they're both mauls are they not? So why the difference in laws?

This is really basic stuff. In a maul if you have your hands on the ball carrier you can bring them to ground. Simple.

Right that makes sense thank you. I've never played and have only learned the laws through watching so while it may be basic for some, occasionally there are things that don't necessarily make sense to a newbie

 
Re: Karl Dickson
Westrock (IP Logged)
17 November, 2017 21:28
Maybe not that simple
[laws.worldrugby.org]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 17/11/2017 21:33 by Westrock.

 
Re: Karl Dickson
Severus (IP Logged)
17 November, 2017 21:34
Quote:
Sarriebone
Quote:
Severus
Quote:
Sarriebone
Quote:
Severus
Quote:
Sarriebone
Can anyone explain to me why collapsing a maul from a lineout is illegal, but collapsing a maul from a choke tackle isn't? Genuine question
The clue is in the word ‘tackle’

But they're both mauls are they not? So why the difference in laws?

This is really basic stuff. In a maul if you have your hands on the ball carrier you can bring them to ground. Simple.

Right that makes sense thank you. I've never played and have only learned the laws through watching so while it may be basic for some, occasionally there are things that don't necessarily make sense to a newbie

Yeah sorry if I was condescending. You can forget that people are new to the game and the laws can be complicated.

 
Re: Karl Dickson
Sarriebone (IP Logged)
17 November, 2017 21:40
Quote:
Westrock
Maybe not that simple
[laws.worldrugby.org]
Thank's I'd seen that but couldn't find any distinction between the two cases. The only mention of collapse is that if a maul is intentionally collapsed that it constitutes foul play. Colour me confused grinning smiley

 
Re: Karl Dickson
Westrock (IP Logged)
17 November, 2017 21:44
Quote:
Sarriebone
Quote:
Westrock
Maybe not that simple
[laws.worldrugby.org]
Thank's I'd seen that but couldn't find any distinction between the two cases. The only mention of collapse is that if a maul is intentionally collapsed that it constitutes foul play. Colour me confused grinning smiley

It doesn't seem to say that if you have your hands on the ball carrier you can bring him to ground?

 
Re: Karl Dickson
Sarriebone (IP Logged)
17 November, 2017 22:00
Quote:
Westrock
Quote:
Sarriebone
Quote:
Westrock
Maybe not that simple
[laws.worldrugby.org]
Thank's I'd seen that but couldn't find any distinction between the two cases. The only mention of collapse is that if a maul is intentionally collapsed that it constitutes foul play. Colour me confused grinning smiley

It doesn't seem to say that if you have your hands on the ball carrier you can bring him to ground?

Not that I can se, no

 
Re: Karl Dickson
Severus (IP Logged)
17 November, 2017 23:12
Quote:
Westrock
Quote:
Sarriebone
Quote:
Westrock
Maybe not that simple
[laws.worldrugby.org]
Thank's I'd seen that but couldn't find any distinction between the two cases. The only mention of collapse is that if a maul is intentionally collapsed that it constitutes foul play. Colour me confused grinning smiley

It doesn't seem to say that if you have your hands on the ball carrier you can bring him to ground?

Yep, I was wrong.

If a defender has their hands on the ball carrier they do not have to release if it goes to ground but they cannot bring a player to the ground. So you often see a maul collapsing and defenders deliberately not rolling away (because they don’t have to because it isn’t a tackle), but a defender cannot bring the ball carrier to the ground (but I suspect many do as part of the dark arts).

 
Re: Karl Dickson
Sarriebone (IP Logged)
17 November, 2017 23:21
Quote:
Severus
Quote:
Westrock
Quote:
Sarriebone
Quote:
Westrock
Maybe not that simple
[laws.worldrugby.org]
Thank's I'd seen that but couldn't find any distinction between the two cases. The only mention of collapse is that if a maul is intentionally collapsed that it constitutes foul play. Colour me confused grinning smiley

It doesn't seem to say that if you have your hands on the ball carrier you can bring him to ground?

Yep, I was wrong.

If a defender has their hands on the ball carrier they do not have to release if it goes to ground but they cannot bring a player to the ground. So you often see a maul collapsing and defenders deliberately not rolling away (because they don’t have to because it isn’t a tackle), but a defender cannot bring the ball carrier to the ground (but I suspect many do as part of the dark arts).
Yeah the not releasing I was ok with, but on numerous occasions commentators talk about them collapsing as soon as a maul is called, which is what I found odd about it.

 
Re: Karl Dickson
King Zak (IP Logged)
18 November, 2017 07:19
A decent performance from Mr Dickson, although by Premiership standards, it was probably one of the easier games to referee in the end. Most of the 'debatable' decisions seemed to favour Saracens, certainly a solid 7.5/10 for Sir



Nous sommes l'armée noir et rouge !

 
Re: Karl Dickson
BaltiBoy (IP Logged)
18 November, 2017 11:13
Quote:
Sarriebone
Quote:
Severus
Quote:
Westrock
Quote:
Sarriebone
Quote:
Westrock
Maybe not that simple
[laws.worldrugby.org]
Thank's I'd seen that but couldn't find any distinction between the two cases. The only mention of collapse is that if a maul is intentionally collapsed that it constitutes foul play. Colour me confused grinning smiley

It doesn't seem to say that if you have your hands on the ball carrier you can bring him to ground?

Yep, I was wrong.

If a defender has their hands on the ball carrier they do not have to release if it goes to ground but they cannot bring a player to the ground. So you often see a maul collapsing and defenders deliberately not rolling away (because they don’t have to because it isn’t a tackle), but a defender cannot bring the ball carrier to the ground (but I suspect many do as part of the dark arts).
Yeah the not releasing I was ok with, but on numerous occasions commentators talk about them collapsing as soon as a maul is called, which is what I found odd about it.

I still find it confusing why you can't deliberately collapse a maul but you can deliberately collapse a maul that has arisen from a choke tackle.

Collapsing a maul is a penalty offense as it is considered dangerous play.

So why is this law applied differently when the maul has developed from a choke tackle?

Please can someone explain this, as it has driven me nuts for ages. What am I missing?



Cheers & Beers
BB

 
Re: Karl Dickson
Sarriebone (IP Logged)
18 November, 2017 11:37
Quote:
BaltiBoy
Quote:
Sarriebone
Quote:
Severus
Quote:
Westrock
Quote:
Sarriebone
Quote:
Westrock
Maybe not that simple
[laws.worldrugby.org]
Thank's I'd seen that but couldn't find any distinction between the two cases. The only mention of collapse is that if a maul is intentionally collapsed that it constitutes foul play. Colour me confused grinning smiley

It doesn't seem to say that if you have your hands on the ball carrier you can bring him to ground?

Yep, I was wrong.

If a defender has their hands on the ball carrier they do not have to release if it goes to ground but they cannot bring a player to the ground. So you often see a maul collapsing and defenders deliberately not rolling away (because they don’t have to because it isn’t a tackle), but a defender cannot bring the ball carrier to the ground (but I suspect many do as part of the dark arts).
Yeah the not releasing I was ok with, but on numerous occasions commentators talk about them collapsing as soon as a maul is called, which is what I found odd about it.

I still find it confusing why you can't deliberately collapse a maul but you can deliberately collapse a maul that has arisen from a choke tackle.

Collapsing a maul is a penalty offense as it is considered dangerous play.

So why is this law applied differently when the maul has developed from a choke tackle?

Please can someone explain this, as it has driven me nuts for ages. What am I missing?
This is what I've been trying to find out, I can't see anything in the laws that makes a distinction between the two...

 
Re: Karl Dickson
TonyTaff (IP Logged)
18 November, 2017 15:00
Veterans of this thread know more about the laws than the former players used as co-commentators by BT Sport!



£630.67 (*) donated to the Saracens Foundation due to visits to the Sarries frontpage [www.rugbynetwork.net]

Please read and submit articles for publication. (*) As at October 31, 2016.

 
Re: Karl Dickson
JO'G (IP Logged)
18 November, 2017 17:28
Quote:
Sarriebone
Quote:
Severus
Quote:
Sarriebone
Can anyone explain to me why collapsing a maul from a lineout is illegal, but collapsing a maul from a choke tackle isn't? Genuine question
The clue is in the word ‘tackle’

But they're both mauls are they not? So why the difference in laws?

quite correct - choke tackle, bring him down when you like
MAUL shouted , bring him down penalty



Park team from London
Just a park team from London
European Champions
Just European champions

 
Re: Karl Dickson
Innings (IP Logged)
18 November, 2017 23:07
Even inexperienced referees have to learn, and learning is best done by doing. I thought he was good. He wanted a flowing game, as we all do. He favoured neither side, as we all wish he'd stop doing and favour our own. He mad mistakes, as every referee does, but watching again on TV I'd argue that the key game-changers were all correct. His control was good, his empathy with the players was good. I'd ask for little more of his first time out.



Innings

Points win matches: tries win hearts and minds.

 
Re: Karl Dickson
AP (IP Logged)
19 November, 2017 09:41
Quote:
Innings
Even inexperienced referees have to learn, and learning is best done by doing. I thought he was good. He wanted a flowing game, as we all do. He favoured neither side, as we all wish he'd stop doing and favour our own. He mad mistakes, as every referee does, but watching again on TV I'd argue that the key game-changers were all correct. His control was good, his empathy with the players was good. I'd ask for little more of his first time out.

And, as this thread amply demonstrates, not many of us would have any chance of doing a better job of it!



Successful hills are here to stay
Everything must be this way
Gentle streets where people play
Welcome to the Soft Parade

 
Re: Karl Dickson
JO'G (IP Logged)
19 November, 2017 10:30
I especially liked the comments to Heinz - "your player is holding him, get on with it"



Park team from London
Just a park team from London
European Champions
Just European champions

 
Re: Karl Dickson
SBFez (IP Logged)
19 November, 2017 13:02
Agree the maul thing is hard.

I think often in a choke tackle situation the tackled player continues trying to get to ground. When a maul is set up from a lineout the players move the ball purposely to the back to protect it whereas in a choke tackle the ball is usually stuck in the middle. I guess it must be easier sometimes to try and still get to ground and somehow place the ball back to your team (which mostly doesn't happen which is why it's so effective as a tactic but does happen sometimes if the players fall in the right way).

I also think in a choke tackle maul you often end up with players charging in and a because it's only a 'small maul' with 2 or 3 players as opposed to a lineout maul which may have 7/8 the momentum changes a lot faster and it's more unsteady. Now how often that unsteadiness leads to the maul falling over and how often a player manages to take it down and make it look that way I don't know- but that may be a reason why most choke tackle mauls end up on the ground.

Goto Page: 12Next
Current Page: 1 of 2

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
We record all IP addresses on the Sportnetwork message boards which may be required by the authorities in case of defamatory or abusive comment. We seek to monitor the Message Boards at regular intervals. We do not associate Sportnetwork with any of the comments and do not take responsibility for any statements or opinions expressed on the Message Boards. If you have any cause for concern over any material posted here please let us know as soon as possible by e-mailing abuse@sportnetwork.net
 
 

Who is online?

Total users online:  

Most users online:  

Users on this site:  

Where are they?