Bath
ASK THE REF
Spreaders: entertaining
By PG Tips
February 14 2024
Last night I was at “Ask the Ref”, Tony Spreadbury’s annual talk to Bath Rugby Supporters’ Club. In these talks Spreaders aims to explain the laws and how referees interpret and implement them, as well as highlighting coaching and playing trends that challenge regulation of the laws. He introduces his talks with video clips to highlight the refereeing issues of the day and openly addresses recent controversies around major referee decisions. He is always entertaining (slipping in wry observations about officials who are pantomime villains from time to time) and informative.
With a recent World Cup, topical new initiatives such as the “Bunker” system, plus 6 Nations controversies from last weekend, there was much to cover. I will highlight the main items of interest.
6 Nations
Scotland v France “No Try”
- Process and decision were correct, but TMOs verbal comms were poor.
- Showing different angles from those available to the Ref & TMO, Tony concluded “It was a try.”
- However, a Scottish hand had knocked the ball on in the preceding ruck. Had that been spotted, the try would not have been awarded anyway and there would be no controversy.
England v Wales. - Penalty Try, Roots Yellow Car. Correct. Wales moving forward at speed, Roots body position pulls maul down.
- George Ford’s charged conversion. Technically correct, but the wording is a “grey area” so a different interpretation could have been permitted.
- Chessum Yellow Card. Foul play, yes. Mitigation in Underhill’s tackle lowering Assiratti’s height. Penalty only.
The “Bunker”
- Costly. At present in RWC & 6 N only. Not in Premiership or EPCR
- Identity of World Rugby Officials in Bunker at World Cup kept secret -to avoid online abuse.
- Unions will be encouraged to prosecute Social Media abusers of Refs as WR has. (These abuses were direct messages to officials or their families containing abuse and threats. One “fan” is on trial in Queensland for this offence. He was not referring to debate about accuracy of decisions or quality of refereeing.)
“Kick Tennis”
Asked to comment on W Barnes’ view that being stricter with the jackal would eradicate “kick tennis” his proposed solution was:
- Get rid of “caterpillar”
- Reduce “use it” time to 3 sec and enforce!
- Make players between kickers retire to prevent “mid pitch loitering”.
“Shape of The Game” Forum
On 23 Feb a WR Forum to discuss ways of improving the game. Interested parties to present ideas (some of above may be included, as could stricter control of offside).
Yellow Card After a Try
Asked if this was “double jeopardy” and “ a bit too much”, he said -if it is a deliberate act, not an error, it is right to penalise and card. (The card could apply if a try had not been scored.)
Forward Pass
On the question of a forward pass being defined by the hands facing forward, asked “relative to what?”, he replied –“To the pitch. 100%”.
“Smart Mouthguards”
These are in use in 6N only, to assist application of Head Contact Protocol( HCP). If a player declines to wear one and a medical official decides he has taken a blow to the head, he must leave the field permanently: HIA is not applied. Those who wear them go through HIA as normal.
Off Feet At Breakdown
Asked about players off feet-particularly at the ruck, he said:
- “we need to sanction off feet more”
- in some cases what looks like off feet is a good, low clearout. If it is safe and wins quick ball, -allow.
- If it smothers the ball or is a dangerous dive, penalise accordingly. He showed clips to illustrate both.
Offside
- Refs have been “lazy” about offside.
- Regulating it is a priority for 6N.
Not straight
- At lineout- if to jumper’s outside shoulder = not straight.
- Penalise even if opposition do not contest.
Safety
Asked if the HCP is enough to reduce head contact risk, he argued for:
- introduction of the “Community law” – tackle below sternum – at all levels. He noted steep reduction in HIAs in France (where “community law” is waist high tackling).
- Also stated this would improve the game as spectacle by facilitating more offloads.
- He also agreed “Shape of the Game” initiatives could improve safety by game changes that would reduce the frequency of collisions and % that are “upright” collisions.
- As this was near the end of the session there was insufficient tome to develop this theme in detail.
Goal Line dropout
- A positive move in ending the endless “pick and drives” favoured by Exeter.
- A negative in denying the attacking side reward for being held up over the line-especially as some refs erroneously use it for “held up just short”, when it should be 5M scrum.
- Would like to see a change -did not specify what.
Future Changes
Changes he would propose include:
- Force players in front of kicker to retire.
- Allow more (any) movement of players at lineout
- Reduce number of replacements -especially for community game, where teams now find it hard to field squads of 23.
As said, entertaining and informative. I would recommend anybody interested to register and attend next year. Open to BRSC members and non-members alike.
Digg
Delicious
Facebook
Reddit
StumbleuponASK THE REF
Discussion started by Comeonmylovers.co.uk (IP Logged), 14/02/2024 09:53
14/02/2024 09:53
What do you think? You can have your say by posting below.
If you do not already have an account Click here to Register.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2024:03:20:13:02:50 by hasta.
If you do not already have an account Click here to Register.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2024:03:20:13:02:50 by hasta.
Thanks PG. Its interesting how quite a few of these are actually already in the Laws and are just not applied.
Such as Law 10.11@
An offside player may be penalised if that player:
- Fails to retire without undue delay and benefits from being put onside in a more advantageous position; or
- Interferes with play; or
- Moves towards the ball.
Sanction: Penalty.
There are a few references to 'retiring immediately' towards own line in the Laws.
[24/25 adoptee: Francois van Wyk]
Such as Law 10.11@
An offside player may be penalised if that player:
- Fails to retire without undue delay and benefits from being put onside in a more advantageous position; or
- Interferes with play; or
- Moves towards the ball.
Sanction: Penalty.
There are a few references to 'retiring immediately' towards own line in the Laws.
[24/25 adoptee: Francois van Wyk]
Could be summarised by "use the existing laws properly with a little common sense".
Thanks for the summary, can you clone him (TS)?
Tyler Offiah
Opinion is based on assumptions, whereas fact is based on observation or research.
Thanks for the summary, can you clone him (TS)?
Fascibating PG. Tks.
I wonder if there's a single main issue/law that referees feel the general public get wrong and then call referee out about?
Interestinh about the Scottisk knock-on too. Judging by the lack of mention online it seems it was missed by pretty much everyone.
I find the application of the Laws around clear-outs bewildering. A friend said they were always taught you clear out low to high to ensure you do so legally. Routinely (especially if you're playing Chiefs) it is the opposite with the intention to seal off contest rather than clear the opposition. I find it frustrating how infrequently its penalised although appreciate it may just be I don't understand the Laws as they are applied.
I wonder if there's a single main issue/law that referees feel the general public get wrong and then call referee out about?
Interestinh about the Scottisk knock-on too. Judging by the lack of mention online it seems it was missed by pretty much everyone.
I find the application of the Laws around clear-outs bewildering. A friend said they were always taught you clear out low to high to ensure you do so legally. Routinely (especially if you're playing Chiefs) it is the opposite with the intention to seal off contest rather than clear the opposition. I find it frustrating how infrequently its penalised although appreciate it may just be I don't understand the Laws as they are applied.
Setting aside the alleged knock on, why was the footage that showed the clear grounding not available to the TMO?
As ever, a lot of the issues we see are the referees choosing not to enforce certain laws.
As ever, a lot of the issues we see are the referees choosing not to enforce certain laws.
The footage in use is the national broadcaster footage and that broadcaster controls what is shown.
PG
PG
OM
As much as anything else, I think it is that the laws are not being (consistently) applied. Tony was too loyal to say so but I think he accepts there has been some slackness - as he said “we need to sanction off feet more”.
PG
As much as anything else, I think it is that the laws are not being (consistently) applied. Tony was too loyal to say so but I think he accepts there has been some slackness - as he said “we need to sanction off feet more”.
PG
Doesn't laws 10.11 refer to players at a breakdown? I assume this was with reference to kicking? I think Finn and Bath have read and understood the law remarkably well in that case.
I do think it would be easy to make a reference to making an attempt to get onside, but its more subjectively which people don't seem to like, one refs attempt is another's not enough.
"Forward Pass
On the question of a forward pass being defined by the hands facing forward, asked “relative to what?”, he replied –“To the pitch. 100%”."
If you get a chance can you ask how on earth professional refs are making the decisions they are if its the pitch. Actually its not quite the right question. It the -motion- of the arms (not hands) that's important, not the direction they are facing.
I disagree with the benefits of the goal line drop out. We are seeing NO less pick and goes near the line. Perhaps we should be, but they are happening just as much. Given its unfair reaction for being held up it should go. There must be a mechanism for giving an attacking scrum after a couple of attempts? That seems fair, you've got the ball in a good attacking position, banging your head against it isn't happening, nothing to penalise, let's have a nice attacking scrum.
I do think it would be easy to make a reference to making an attempt to get onside, but its more subjectively which people don't seem to like, one refs attempt is another's not enough.
"Forward Pass
On the question of a forward pass being defined by the hands facing forward, asked “relative to what?”, he replied –“To the pitch. 100%”."
If you get a chance can you ask how on earth professional refs are making the decisions they are if its the pitch. Actually its not quite the right question. It the -motion- of the arms (not hands) that's important, not the direction they are facing.
I disagree with the benefits of the goal line drop out. We are seeing NO less pick and goes near the line. Perhaps we should be, but they are happening just as much. Given its unfair reaction for being held up it should go. There must be a mechanism for giving an attacking scrum after a couple of attempts? That seems fair, you've got the ball in a good attacking position, banging your head against it isn't happening, nothing to penalise, let's have a nice attacking scrum.
Law 10 covers offsides under lots of situations Dan, broken play, kicking and breakdowns. I just copied one of them. In any event they all say that players should look to make an active effort to retire towards their own line until played back on side.
[24/25 adoptee: Francois van Wyk]
[24/25 adoptee: Francois van Wyk]
I'm not sure that's true Matt, 10.11 is specifically under a heading about ruck, maul, scrum or lineout as opposed to open play, the other main heading in law 10.
[passport.world.rugby]
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2024:02:14:15:02:35 by Dan Wiley.
[passport.world.rugby]
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2024:02:14:15:02:35 by Dan Wiley.
Quote:Dan Wiley
"Forward Pass
On the question of a forward pass being defined by the hands facing forward, asked “relative to what?”, he replied –“To the pitch. 100%”."
If you get a chance can you ask how on earth professional refs are making the decisions they are if its the pitch.
As these are annual events Dan, the next chance will almost certainly be in 24-25 season, unless I happen to pass him in the street (unlikely).
Maybe you would like to come to the next session and ask him yourself? Or- your referee organisation should have a communication channel to him.
PG
Thanks, I wasn't trying to be difficult there and I don't think we need the conversation again. I should try and get along to one of them one day. Ultimately I do keep coming back to "but its clearly not being reffed relative to the pitch and hasn't been for decades." I just can't really see why people are still asking and I'm a little baffled that a ref, albeit one that retired 20 years ago, apparently is saying differently?
I'm going to try not to follow up on that one as its all been said.
I'm going to try not to follow up on that one as its all been said.
Dan
Tony Spreadbury is much more than a "ref who retired 20 years ago". He is in charge of EPCR Referees. Before that he was Head of Match Officials for The Premiership.
So he sets the tone for the way the laws are applied.
PG
Tony Spreadbury is much more than a "ref who retired 20 years ago". He is in charge of EPCR Referees. Before that he was Head of Match Officials for The Premiership.
So he sets the tone for the way the laws are applied.
PG
Thank you for this excellent summary PGT, much appreciated. It's good to see Spreaders being so consistent in his arguments for player safety/welfare
I remember, many many years ago going to watch Quins v Bath at the Stoop. Horrible weather, boggy ground, terrible skills on show from both sides. After the umpteenth scrum reset of a dire second half, right in front of us standing on the running track, I took it upon myself to shout "get a grip, Spreaders" whereupon he looked at me and just grinned. A real gentleman of the game.
... IMHO, of course.
Now in Honolulu
... IMHO, of course.
Now in Honolulu
Quote:Dan Wiley
Thanks, I wasn't trying to be difficult there and I don't think we need the conversation again. I should try and get along to one of them one day. Ultimately I do keep coming back to "but its clearly not being reffed relative to the pitch and hasn't been for decades." I just can't really see why people are still asking and I'm a little baffled that a ref, albeit one that retired 20 years ago, apparently is saying differently?
I'm going to try not to follow up on that one as its all been said.
Maybe I'm misreading this, but it seemed like they were saying it's reffed as forward with the direction of the hands relative to the pitch, not the ball relative to the pitch. Which it is.
Not going there hasta. Hands are totally irrelevant. Direction of the arms motion is what the laws talk about. The only question is whether that direction of motion is relative to the pitch or player. I accept in the laws it's not clear except I can't recall it ever being reffed, by pros, as relative to the pitch. I can't think of an example where the arms have been moving backwards from the player and it's been given as forward. I think that's all there is to say.
There's lots of good points on that list, many I agree with, I've only mentioned the ones I don't because there's not a lot to say when you agree. Something that just isn't reffed that way just isn't worth it.
There's lots of good points on that list, many I agree with, I've only mentioned the ones I don't because there's not a lot to say when you agree. Something that just isn't reffed that way just isn't worth it.
Sorry, the wasn't intended to be abrupt, there's just loads more interesting things to discuss in that list and it's me not trying to make it about forward passes again.
Fascinating
I was asked the other day by a Welsh Friend of mine (shurely shome mishtake - Ed) living in Australia who has not watched a minute of the 6 Nations whether he had missed anything.
Sadly I had to say it has been fairly nondescript with lots of kick tennis, interminable scrums and repeated pick and drives........all highlighted above.
Only Ireland seem to be able to play the game properly.
I was asked the other day by a Welsh Friend of mine (shurely shome mishtake - Ed) living in Australia who has not watched a minute of the 6 Nations whether he had missed anything.
Sadly I had to say it has been fairly nondescript with lots of kick tennis, interminable scrums and repeated pick and drives........all highlighted above.
Only Ireland seem to be able to play the game properly.
Ignoring the idea of 'playing the game properly', an alternative way of looking at it is that every single game has been within one score - apart from Ireland - showing it's a competitive tournament (I'm not expecting the Rugby Championship to being anything like that).
More nuanced take - a lot of teams are demonstrating that the post world cup churn of players and coaches has disrupted their fluidity, with Ireland having the lowest churn and the least disruption.
More nuanced take - a lot of teams are demonstrating that the post world cup churn of players and coaches has disrupted their fluidity, with Ireland having the lowest churn and the least disruption.
Recent law changes do seem to have incentivised more kicking- Spreaders acknowledged that.
As for Ireland, the politics & geography of domestic rugby is a big help. The squad is dominated by Leinstermen who play to a well developed and understood system. So newbies like MCarthy & Crowley can slot in relatively smoothly.
That said, the 6N is not the only rugby & quite a few GP & ECC games have been very constructive and entertaining.
We will still though always have queries and gripes about ref decisions!
PG
As for Ireland, the politics & geography of domestic rugby is a big help. The squad is dominated by Leinstermen who play to a well developed and understood system. So newbies like MCarthy & Crowley can slot in relatively smoothly.
That said, the 6N is not the only rugby & quite a few GP & ECC games have been very constructive and entertaining.
We will still though always have queries and gripes about ref decisions!
PG
There's way less kicking than 2007-2013. Fix the Dupont loophole by making players retreat if they're offside and you're fine.
Fix and enforce, no point saying players have to get back and then letting them get away with a half arsed attempt.
I'd be interested in the effects of saying only the kicker can put players onside. It would make kicking dangerous. Would people just kick to touch slowing the game down? Was that why they did it in the first place?
I'd be interested in the effects of saying only the kicker can put players onside. It would make kicking dangerous. Would people just kick to touch slowing the game down? Was that why they did it in the first place?
Just go back to the original law whereby either the kicker or anyone behind the ball when kicked had to put players onside, and those in front had to actively retreat.
I was thinking that, but then it you take out the "or anyone behind" bit so the kicker has to put his team onside then the team that's just kicked had one less kicker deep. Surely that would end kick tennis sooner? There's just wouldn't be the players to kick off even if they worked really hard gaps would appear.
Probably makes it easier to get as well, anyone in front of the kicker is offside. I suppose you have to account for anyone behind the kicker being onside though.
Is it unreasonable to say it has to be the kicker?
Probably makes it easier to get as well, anyone in front of the kicker is offside. I suppose you have to account for anyone behind the kicker being onside though.
Is it unreasonable to say it has to be the kicker?
Dan
The kicker may have been tackled and felled so unable to follow his kick, hence a teammate chasing to fulfil the same function.
PG
The kicker may have been tackled and felled so unable to follow his kick, hence a teammate chasing to fulfil the same function.
PG
Pat Lam suggested that a mark can be called anywhere in your half but then has to be quick tapped.
From 6:30:
[www.youtube.com]
[24/25 adoptee: Francois van Wyk]
From 6:30:
[www.youtube.com]
[24/25 adoptee: Francois van Wyk]
Marks always feel a bit jarring to me, they tend to just release any tension in the game, having more doesn't feel the way to go. Making them quick taps could help, but what does that mean? You have to tap quickly, within seconds, then what's the point, you might as well just kick it back? If they can stop and wait for their team to be onside I feel like that will slow the game down.
I think just going for you need to be put onside by an onside player advancing works. It means kicks are encouraged to always be "to compete", which I have no problem with as game play, if an onside player needs to put your team onside then the kick might as well be to compete for it. I think the concern would be that teams just kick to touch and the game slows down, as I say that's my memory of why it was changed in the first place, they wanted to keep the ball in play. I'd combat that in two ways:
- the ball going into touch doesn't mean everyone's onside, a quick throw can still catch players offside.
- Stop the clock. Ok if it takes 30 seconds to have a line out, stop the clock when the ball goes into touch and start it again when the two packs are in line.
On that second point I think I'm at the point where stopping the clock should be done far more often:
- kicks at goal. Dump the shot clock and just say "you've got about a minute but there's no point delaying it." We'd probably find they kick after about 30 seconds rather than the whole minute (1:30) the shot clock enforces. Start the clock again at the strike of the ball.
- Scrum, clock goes off when the ref blows and on when its stable and he says to the 9 "now."
That is taking it out of the refs hands (is it still there anyway?) which I don't like, but I think the benefits are there. We don't get the clock run down at every scrum reset, time wasted while the line team talk about their weekend or shots at goal. I also think that the players have to play for much closer to 80 min, rather than 40 something, means the dynamics of the game might change. I don't really mind changes in the pace of the game, I don't want a continuously fast game. But spending 10 min of a game watching 10 kicks at goal seems wrong.
A bit of a problem at grassroots, but just say to refs "This is what we're aiming for, we know you're not going to track every second, do you're best." It's not really a problem at this level.
I think just going for you need to be put onside by an onside player advancing works. It means kicks are encouraged to always be "to compete", which I have no problem with as game play, if an onside player needs to put your team onside then the kick might as well be to compete for it. I think the concern would be that teams just kick to touch and the game slows down, as I say that's my memory of why it was changed in the first place, they wanted to keep the ball in play. I'd combat that in two ways:
- the ball going into touch doesn't mean everyone's onside, a quick throw can still catch players offside.
- Stop the clock. Ok if it takes 30 seconds to have a line out, stop the clock when the ball goes into touch and start it again when the two packs are in line.
On that second point I think I'm at the point where stopping the clock should be done far more often:
- kicks at goal. Dump the shot clock and just say "you've got about a minute but there's no point delaying it." We'd probably find they kick after about 30 seconds rather than the whole minute (1:30) the shot clock enforces. Start the clock again at the strike of the ball.
- Scrum, clock goes off when the ref blows and on when its stable and he says to the 9 "now."
That is taking it out of the refs hands (is it still there anyway?) which I don't like, but I think the benefits are there. We don't get the clock run down at every scrum reset, time wasted while the line team talk about their weekend or shots at goal. I also think that the players have to play for much closer to 80 min, rather than 40 something, means the dynamics of the game might change. I don't really mind changes in the pace of the game, I don't want a continuously fast game. But spending 10 min of a game watching 10 kicks at goal seems wrong.
A bit of a problem at grassroots, but just say to refs "This is what we're aiming for, we know you're not going to track every second, do you're best." It's not really a problem at this level.
Quote:BathMatt53
Pat Lam suggested that a mark can be called anywhere in your half but then has to be quick tapped.
From 6:30:
[www.youtube.com]
What is the benefit of calling a mark but having to take a quick tap and go?
Doesn't that totally defeat the point of calling a mark so that you have time and space to think about where you want to kick back to. If it was a benefit then players would take a quick tap from a mark now
Glad he mentioned offside. There was a lot of it last week and when looking along the line from a ruck probably an easier one to spot? I am not referring to players who retreat after over stepping, happy to let the game flow in those cases.
Yes the back foot does seem to be a vague attempt at a back foot. That's one that seems easy to solve, no it's not what the ref should be looking at, but surely one of the assistant refs is in the perfect place? Quick message to the ref and he can put his arm out.
Could not agree more Dan - exactly what ARs should be tasked with, so the ref can concentrate on the ruck itself.
I believe though that ARs are instructed only to intervene on a limited number of offences - foul play, high tackles, deliberate knock ons - and that offside is not among them.
IMO it should be.
PG
I believe though that ARs are instructed only to intervene on a limited number of offences - foul play, high tackles, deliberate knock ons - and that offside is not among them.
IMO it should be.
PG
[passport.world.rugby] - Strangely, Offside is not one of the AR's responsibilities In Soccer, that seems to be their main role in life.
There is though allowance for assisting the ref as directed:
"providing assistance to the Referee in the performance of any of the Referee’s duties as directed by the Referee."
I believe it would greatly help referees (whose eyes must necessarily be on the set piece or breakdown) if ARs were tasked with regulating offside.
PG
"providing assistance to the Referee in the performance of any of the Referee’s duties as directed by the Referee."
I believe it would greatly help referees (whose eyes must necessarily be on the set piece or breakdown) if ARs were tasked with regulating offside.
PG
I think it needs a means of comms, at pro level I think they are all mic'd up so that's easy. Probably need a signal a intermediate level (with proper ARs) like in football holding the flag out. Ref can make a quick look up and hold his arm out if its flagged. At low level of course, when the AR is one of the coaches/players/friends/dads it wouldn't work so well, I guess the ref could ignore them if he felt they were only seeing it from one side.
Quote:Dan Wiley
I think it needs a means of comms, at pro level I think they are all mic'd up so that's easy. Probably need a signal a intermediate level (with proper ARs) like in football holding the flag out. Ref can make a quick look up and hold his arm out if its flagged. At low level of course, when the AR is one of the coaches/players/friends/dads it wouldn't work so well, I guess the ref could ignore them if he felt they were only seeing it from one side.
Tbf, we're not talking about the amateur game here.
Even in the amateur game it's not rocket science.
As a lineout is being set, ref asks AR "anything I should look for?". Once per half per AR should be enough.
Ref uses own judgement if the thinks the coach/player/friend/dad is biased.
PG
As a lineout is being set, ref asks AR "anything I should look for?". Once per half per AR should be enough.
Ref uses own judgement if the thinks the coach/player/friend/dad is biased.
PG
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Bath News 24/7
More Bath headlines
- LEARNINGS FOR NEXT SEASON. SEASON REVIEW CONTINUED.
- World Rugby Junior World Championship 2026 Preview
- FAILURE, FRUSTRATION OR FLATLINE? 2026 SEASON REVIEW
- "IT'S IN OUR HANDS”...BATH V EXETER.
- NOW OR NEVER: BATH V LEICESTER
- BOUNCEBACKABILITY: EXETER CHIEFS V BATH RUGBY
- LE HANDICAP? BORDEAUX v BATH ECC SEMI FINAL
- “MAY YOUR CHOICES REFLECT YOUR HOPES NOT YOUR FEARS”.
- EYES BACK ON THE OTHER PRIZE! BATH v HARLEQUINS
Bath latest threads
- Ben Spencer Shoulder
- O/T Postcards from the Past No 4 – Naples 2010
- Injury latest on forgotten Bath Rugby wrecking ball Jaco Coetzee
- OT / Prostate
- OT - Fox wins the Open at Birkdale
- O/T Postcards from the Past No 3 Théoule-sur-Mer – May 2017
- OT/ Site advertising
- Will Roue Signed ahead of the 2026/27 season
- Bath Rugby's confirmed 2026/27 incoming signings and outgoings
- 2026/27 PREM Rugby Cup fixtures confirmed