So farewell then Stuart Cummings. After 13 years - it really doesn't feel that long - he's stepping down as the RFL's controller of match officials.
As with any job, he's had challenges and successes. The big success has been to oversee the move to full-time professional referees, the biggest change in officiating the game since the limited tackle rule was introduced. Never before have our referees been better prepared, and yet never before has the level of opprobrium dished out to officials seemed to be higher.
Frankly, refereeing a modern game of rugby league is an impossible job and, at the risk of sounding like a stuck record, the whole codification needs a thorough going over. For starters, there needs to be a one body responsible for setting down the rules and those rules should be played the world over, not picked at like some sort of rule buffet. Only then will we stand a chance of a coherent framework for the future. It's sheer lunacy that the two major leagues in the world play to an increasingly different rulebook and the ugly compromise that dwells under the banner 'international rules' should never need to come about. At this stage, it's not important what the rules are so long as there's one set and everyone plays to them. Then comes the challenge of making them 'right'.
The USP of rugby league ought to be it's simplicity, but the current code is so nuanced and contains so many areas open to interpretation that inconsistency is built in to the system and it's that inconsistency that so angers fans, fans not normally slow in reaching for the bumper book of conspiracy theories. Have in mind what you want the end product to look like. Then take a blank sheet of paper, write on it "six tackles then hand over, 4 for a try, 2 for a goal, 1 for a drop-goal" and go from there. Anything with more than two clauses should be discarded. Anything requiring a clarifying footnote should be dismissed. Make it black and white and get referees to police those rules and not coach players through games. I refuse to believe that it's that hard.
Every major sport has one set of rules with one body responsible for them except rugby league. Until that situation is rectified, whoever is in charge of match officials will find progress difficult to make.
Showing posts with label rules. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rules. Show all posts
Tuesday, 26 February 2013
Tuesday, 14 August 2012
Balance of probabilities
The RFL list nine people under the full-time match officials section on their website. All of them have come in for varying levels of opprobrium in recent weeks from large sections of the rugby league public, from spectators to coaches and administrators. Some of the wilder accusations are of particular referees having a vendetta against certain clubs to the RFL conspiring to keep clubs out of it's showpiece events. But the more general chatter is simply a background hum of whining about how they're all rubbish and the standard of refereeing is at an all-time low.
But can this be right? It sounds preposterous. What likelihood is there that nine separated individuals are all just bad at their job, especially when few complaints were made less than twelve months ago? The principle of Occam's razor says that the explanation which makes fewest assumptions is most likely the correct one and suggesting conspiracies or a group of nine people suddenly failing to do things they were doing well until recently does not fit that maxim. There has to be a simpler explanation stemming from something consistent to every aspect of the debate.
The item that's common in all these arguments is the rules. Every year, we get a series of tweaks to the rules and directives on certain aspects. Consequently, the current code has a haphazard look about it with vast swathes of rules open to the interpretation of the referee rather than a black and white, this is OK, that isn't approach. For example, rules about whether there's an intention to play at a ball when judging knock-ons and whose scrum it is are almost impossible to police, as are ball steal/loose carry decisions or judgments regarding intent. Without seeing into the mind of the player in question, it's an impossible task and when rules become that hard to police, then it's not the fault of the policeman trying to enforce it. And when so much of the game is down to interpretation, consistency goes out of the window and that's where the frustration comes from. Moreover, where there's obvious confusion over the application of a particular rule, it adds scope for players to push the boundaries, use obfuscation and downright duplicity to con penalties and give us the unedifying sight of umpteen players all trying to referee the game at the same time. That's something that's been noticeably increasing as the rulebook has evolved.
So, short of appointing Derren Brown to referee all Super League games, what can be done? The rules need clarifying and a complete review is required - start with a blank piece of paper and a debate about what we want the game to look like and go from there. Rugby league's unique selling point used to be it's simplicity, but the endless debates over minutiae of every decision shows that to not be the case any more. What the final outcome of such a review would produce is almost secondary - whether the defensive line remains at ten metres or goes back to five isn't as important as coming up with something coherent, unified, straightforward and, most crucially, easily policed. It doesn't need to be too complex - go back to the mark, play it with your foot, don't smack anyone round the chops and don't swear at the officials. Start with that and maybe that background hum of whinging about it will drop off and be replaced by coaches, administrators and fans having to explain why their team has lost without turning into a great conspiracy theorist.
But can this be right? It sounds preposterous. What likelihood is there that nine separated individuals are all just bad at their job, especially when few complaints were made less than twelve months ago? The principle of Occam's razor says that the explanation which makes fewest assumptions is most likely the correct one and suggesting conspiracies or a group of nine people suddenly failing to do things they were doing well until recently does not fit that maxim. There has to be a simpler explanation stemming from something consistent to every aspect of the debate.
The item that's common in all these arguments is the rules. Every year, we get a series of tweaks to the rules and directives on certain aspects. Consequently, the current code has a haphazard look about it with vast swathes of rules open to the interpretation of the referee rather than a black and white, this is OK, that isn't approach. For example, rules about whether there's an intention to play at a ball when judging knock-ons and whose scrum it is are almost impossible to police, as are ball steal/loose carry decisions or judgments regarding intent. Without seeing into the mind of the player in question, it's an impossible task and when rules become that hard to police, then it's not the fault of the policeman trying to enforce it. And when so much of the game is down to interpretation, consistency goes out of the window and that's where the frustration comes from. Moreover, where there's obvious confusion over the application of a particular rule, it adds scope for players to push the boundaries, use obfuscation and downright duplicity to con penalties and give us the unedifying sight of umpteen players all trying to referee the game at the same time. That's something that's been noticeably increasing as the rulebook has evolved.
So, short of appointing Derren Brown to referee all Super League games, what can be done? The rules need clarifying and a complete review is required - start with a blank piece of paper and a debate about what we want the game to look like and go from there. Rugby league's unique selling point used to be it's simplicity, but the endless debates over minutiae of every decision shows that to not be the case any more. What the final outcome of such a review would produce is almost secondary - whether the defensive line remains at ten metres or goes back to five isn't as important as coming up with something coherent, unified, straightforward and, most crucially, easily policed. It doesn't need to be too complex - go back to the mark, play it with your foot, don't smack anyone round the chops and don't swear at the officials. Start with that and maybe that background hum of whinging about it will drop off and be replaced by coaches, administrators and fans having to explain why their team has lost without turning into a great conspiracy theorist.
Wednesday, 8 August 2012
How journalism works
And our example for today's lesson is this article in today's Star, titled "Angry Cats' Quit Threat".
Lesson one. Make the headline unusually dramatic.
Forget, if you can for a moment, the erroneous use of the word "cats" in the headline of an article about the Dragons. Instead, focus on the words "Angry" and "threat". Dramatic, eh? That got your attention.
Lesson two. Don't worry about the headline and body matching up.
Scour the copy below the angry, threatening headline. Do you see anyone actually saying that the Dragons are about to quit Super League? Of course you don't.
Lesson three. Sensationalise!
And that's basically it. All that's missing here is a liberal sprinkling of the word 'EXCLUSIVE' and it's a full house.
As far as the Dragons (not Cats; not now, not ever) are concerned, their focus is a little off. All through this season, there have been some bizarre calls and, yes, the Dragons have got the rough end of some of those. Instead of railing against referees and refereeing standards though, the spotlight should really be turned on those in charge of the rules - the lawmakers rather than the policemen if you like.
Rugby League's USP ought to be it's simplicity, but years of tinkering have produced a set of rules with vast grey areas between the black and the white. Think how you'd describe a game to a new spectator. How many times do you think you'd describe an incident as "well it looked like x to me, but the ref's obviously seen it as y"? I do it all the time on radio commentary. A series of minor tweaks over the years has left a lot of what happens down to interpretation rather than one thing being OK and another not and that breeds inconsistency which breeds frustration and anger in fans, players, coaches and club officials. Currently, that frustration and anger is being vented at the referees. It needs channeling to the rulemakers.
Regarding the Dragons, then it's to be hoped that Trent Robinson's comments are an attempt to deflect crticism from his players at a crucial point of the season. Rather than worry about 50/50 decisions that go against his team, he'd be better controlling the things he can control, such as ensuring his scrum-half doesn't gob off at the referee giving penalties away while in possession and allowing the opposition to score cheap tries against his side. Just a suggestion.
As for the claim that there's a conspiracy afoot to deny the Dragons a shot at Old Trafford glory, that has to be filed away with the rantings of David Icke and Kevin Pietersen, the great conspiracy theorists of the age. If we thought the powers that be in the game had a Machiavellian plan to bar a side from big finals, we'd stop watching altogether. Besides, if a plot existed, it would convey rather more competence and planning from top bods inside the game that we flatly refuse to believe exist.
Lesson one. Make the headline unusually dramatic.
Forget, if you can for a moment, the erroneous use of the word "cats" in the headline of an article about the Dragons. Instead, focus on the words "Angry" and "threat". Dramatic, eh? That got your attention.
Lesson two. Don't worry about the headline and body matching up.
Scour the copy below the angry, threatening headline. Do you see anyone actually saying that the Dragons are about to quit Super League? Of course you don't.
Lesson three. Sensationalise!
Note the line "Around 500 fans walked out during their last home game in protest at a video referee ruling." Given that the ruling came in the last minute, the only surprise here is that they don't say that 9,000 fans walked out. Also, "There is a belief around the club that the RFL don’t want fourth-placed Dragons to reach the Grand Final because it may affect crowd numbers." Quite a claim, again not backed up.
And that's basically it. All that's missing here is a liberal sprinkling of the word 'EXCLUSIVE' and it's a full house.
As far as the Dragons (not Cats; not now, not ever) are concerned, their focus is a little off. All through this season, there have been some bizarre calls and, yes, the Dragons have got the rough end of some of those. Instead of railing against referees and refereeing standards though, the spotlight should really be turned on those in charge of the rules - the lawmakers rather than the policemen if you like.
Rugby League's USP ought to be it's simplicity, but years of tinkering have produced a set of rules with vast grey areas between the black and the white. Think how you'd describe a game to a new spectator. How many times do you think you'd describe an incident as "well it looked like x to me, but the ref's obviously seen it as y"? I do it all the time on radio commentary. A series of minor tweaks over the years has left a lot of what happens down to interpretation rather than one thing being OK and another not and that breeds inconsistency which breeds frustration and anger in fans, players, coaches and club officials. Currently, that frustration and anger is being vented at the referees. It needs channeling to the rulemakers.
Regarding the Dragons, then it's to be hoped that Trent Robinson's comments are an attempt to deflect crticism from his players at a crucial point of the season. Rather than worry about 50/50 decisions that go against his team, he'd be better controlling the things he can control, such as ensuring his scrum-half doesn't gob off at the referee giving penalties away while in possession and allowing the opposition to score cheap tries against his side. Just a suggestion.
As for the claim that there's a conspiracy afoot to deny the Dragons a shot at Old Trafford glory, that has to be filed away with the rantings of David Icke and Kevin Pietersen, the great conspiracy theorists of the age. If we thought the powers that be in the game had a Machiavellian plan to bar a side from big finals, we'd stop watching altogether. Besides, if a plot existed, it would convey rather more competence and planning from top bods inside the game that we flatly refuse to believe exist.
Wednesday, 14 December 2011
The biggest issue in the game
It's a familiar programme of events. New fixtures follow the international autumn, quickly to be followed by a raft of new rules. At some point, we may even find out what the national teams might be doing in 11 months time or whether there's a title sponsor the RFL's premier competition, but let's not get ahead of ourselves.
Every year, there are tweaks to the rules. Sometimes, there are new ones altogether or the withdrawal of others. That's fine. The game has constantly been nipping and tucking throughout it's history. Big things like the reduction in numbers on the field and limited tackle rules forged the identity of the game - minor things like the one-on-one ball steal and not allowing players to play the ball to themselves less so. We could pick holes in the current code. For instance, it is our contention that there are too many grey areas - like the one-on-one ball steal, obstruction, what constitutes a dominant tackle and offside rules - which make the interpretation of a given referee on a given day too much influence over the outcome. But that's by the by compared to the major issue which reared it's head in the Four Nations and will do again when the World Club Challenge comes around and that is the issue of consistency.
Who is in charge of the rules? In football, the responsibility lies with IFAB, the international game boars, the MCC in cricket, the IRB in the fifteen-a-side game. It is clear. In terms of international authority, we have the RLIF, possibly the most toothless and useless organisation in world sport. This is comprised of the heads of the domestic game around the world, but who leads it is unimportant seeing as it does nothing. The RFL make changes to the rules their competitions are played to. So do the NRL. (So do BARLA and the FFRXIII, but they do tend to reflect the RFL position as their member clubs also play in RFL competitions). There is never an attempt to align the two and this leads to a discord when clubs and nations come together under what are always termed 'international rules', but in reality are an ever-changing, flexible compromise between the two codes dependent on the whim of the man in the middle. This year, the NRL are wanting to scrap the differential penalty (sacrilege) having already done away with corner flags and added a second ref. The RFL are retaining corner flags, but they won't be deemed to form part of the perimeter of the field, which kind of makes them redundant anyway. And you'll be able to convert a try with a drop-kick, which we thought you could do if you wanted to anyway. The upshot is there'll be more diversion between the way the game is policed depending which hemisphere you play in.
Somebody, or indeed some body, has to have overall control of the laws of the game. Only then can we make progress on developing the rules to make the job of a referee easier and, consequently, take focus off them and onto the supreme athletes who play the game and whose endeavours take the heat off the administrators time and time again.
Every year, there are tweaks to the rules. Sometimes, there are new ones altogether or the withdrawal of others. That's fine. The game has constantly been nipping and tucking throughout it's history. Big things like the reduction in numbers on the field and limited tackle rules forged the identity of the game - minor things like the one-on-one ball steal and not allowing players to play the ball to themselves less so. We could pick holes in the current code. For instance, it is our contention that there are too many grey areas - like the one-on-one ball steal, obstruction, what constitutes a dominant tackle and offside rules - which make the interpretation of a given referee on a given day too much influence over the outcome. But that's by the by compared to the major issue which reared it's head in the Four Nations and will do again when the World Club Challenge comes around and that is the issue of consistency.
Who is in charge of the rules? In football, the responsibility lies with IFAB, the international game boars, the MCC in cricket, the IRB in the fifteen-a-side game. It is clear. In terms of international authority, we have the RLIF, possibly the most toothless and useless organisation in world sport. This is comprised of the heads of the domestic game around the world, but who leads it is unimportant seeing as it does nothing. The RFL make changes to the rules their competitions are played to. So do the NRL. (So do BARLA and the FFRXIII, but they do tend to reflect the RFL position as their member clubs also play in RFL competitions). There is never an attempt to align the two and this leads to a discord when clubs and nations come together under what are always termed 'international rules', but in reality are an ever-changing, flexible compromise between the two codes dependent on the whim of the man in the middle. This year, the NRL are wanting to scrap the differential penalty (sacrilege) having already done away with corner flags and added a second ref. The RFL are retaining corner flags, but they won't be deemed to form part of the perimeter of the field, which kind of makes them redundant anyway. And you'll be able to convert a try with a drop-kick, which we thought you could do if you wanted to anyway. The upshot is there'll be more diversion between the way the game is policed depending which hemisphere you play in.
Somebody, or indeed some body, has to have overall control of the laws of the game. Only then can we make progress on developing the rules to make the job of a referee easier and, consequently, take focus off them and onto the supreme athletes who play the game and whose endeavours take the heat off the administrators time and time again.
Tuesday, 4 October 2011
Rules
Set of instructions on how to play the game for which you'd think one body/committee/organisation would have control of. Not so, hence we have the two major leagues in the world playing to different regulations and the international game played to an unhappy compromise between the two.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)