Following best practice
Further to Exec meeting 26/7/21 we are intending to follow the excellent work developed and produced by MAD Refs in relation to refereeing trends to support the development of the community game. We are grateful to Manchester Society for allowing us to use this important development material and guide and fully acknowledge the effort and copyright they have made.
Below, is the core messages which we intend to train, coach and develop into our referees, assessors and watchers in 2021-22 season during our monthly meetings, online training interventions and at clubs with referees as they officiate and are watched/assessed.
This will form the sine to our training and the first session on 23/8/21 will be when we intend to roll out formally.
If you want a more readable format
https://www.madrefs.co.uk/download/po21-managing-refereeing-trends-at-professional-level-with-reference-to-the-community-game/
-----
Manchester & District Rugby Union Referees’ Society – Preferred Options #21.
Managing Refereeing Trends at Professional Level with particular reference to the ‘Community Game’ in
preparation for a return to full engagement in the near future.
Rationale and Introduction for PO#21: Members will have watched recent 6-Nations, Premiership,
European matches and others and noticed some areas which appear to be at variance with the current PO
advice to referees. Some of these changes have arisen through changes in law, others at the behest of
World Rugby and yet others which arise through interpretation of law. Another movement includes trends
which may hope to improve the pace, attractiveness or fluency of the game. This may have modified the
expectations of coaches and players in the community game who have watched the same matches.
PO#21 is the result of a consultation on how trends emerging from the ‘Professional Game’ can be
managed at the ‘Community Game’ Level. We need to consider how we approach these trends and to
what extent they are appropriate, workable or welcome in the community game at society level so as
give members best advice and some consistency of approach by the society’s referees.
Guidance below reflects a general consensus among the survey’s responders. Where there is some
variance between non-refereeing responses and active refereeing responses, this is indicated in the text.
Referees manage a game to the best of their ability bearing in mind the context, level, skill levels and
intensity of the match. Members are reminded that the Preferred Options Doc series provides a basis for
effective management of a match and does not prevent a referee putting his/her own stamp on it. The
society, however, believes that adherence to the PO docs provides consistency and security to decision
making for the benefit of players, clubs and the society.
Surveyed issues.
Longer penalty advantage.
At community level, long advantage is not to be encouraged. It is thought to be rarely effective or accurate
and causes confusion among the players. Advantage has to be ‘real’ and not merely a possibility. Players
would rather not be brought back after failed long advantage as this was seen as aimless advantage and a
contributor to fatigue. There is nothing to be gained by the non-offending side being forced to go side to
side against a well set defence. Even if the non-offenders were going forward, a maximum of three phases
should determine whether to go back or call advantage over. Once non-offenders have ‘played the ball as
they wished’ it should be advantage over as long as they were not under any pressure or going backwards.
The speculative kick under pressure or going backwards is not felt to be a contributor to the game at
community level. Refs should remember that a pk followed by a quick tap is often more effective than an
advantage especially if the non-offenders have possession of the ball immediately after the offence has
taken place.
Some active referees may consider that longer advantage could lead a more open game but this depends
on the referee’s appreciation of match context. Referees should not prolong the inevitable and limit
advantage to approximately four phases. An exception might be if the advantage is close to the offenders’
goal line.
Shorter scrum advantage.
Short scrum advantage is better for the community game. At community level, advantage is generally
measured by possession. On occasion, allowing scrum advantage in broken play is often better than forcing
a scrum where one side is heavily dominant or where the scrum is a mess. As long as the non-offenders
can play the ball as they wish (including kicking the ball) and are not under pressure or going backwards,
then ‘advantage over’ is reasonable. Going beyond three phases at community level is unwise unless the
non-offenders were pressuring the opponents’ goal line. Two good passes or a kick is enough but blow if
non-offenders are going backwards. It is recommended to keep matters as simple and realistic as possible.
Head contact protocol.
Incidents covered by the RFU Head Contact Protocol MUST be followed. Ignorance is no excuse and not
negotiable. The RFU decision tree is easy to follow and all referees should learn this and the accompanying
trigger phrases. It is acknowledged that the use of ‘mitigations’ could be problematic at the community
level if they were not clearly understood and referees could be under pressure to apply mitigations where
none exist. Consider options, start with RED and consider CLEAR AND OBVIOUS mitigations. Be clear in
reaching and explaining decisions. Be consistent as far as ONE VIEWING allows. Don’t over-react to players’
reactions to head contact, take time over the decision and give a credible explanation of the decision as the
ref saw it in real time using RFU language prompts. Clarity and ‘sticking to the facts’ are vital in that
disciplinary committees may struggle without clear video evidence where the decision is challenged.
Pressure on 9s to ‘use it’ at scrum and breakdown
The idea of encouraging the 9 or acting 9 to use the ball is good for the game. ‘Use it’ is not a major issue
at community level as most teams want to use the ball rather than engage in fruitless tussle. Where not
backed by sanction, ‘use it’ becomes white noise. If the ball is available and playable but delayed to allow
support to arrive, then a word with the 9 or captain will usually solve the problem rather than repeated
calls of ‘use it’. There is a risk that players will end up waiting for the ref’s call. The same applies to scrums.
Delay in getting the ball away from the scrum can result in balance problems and 9s getting at each other.
If delay persists then ATS. There is a need to be consistent with both sides and could be covered in the prematch briefing.
Exaggerated angle of throw-in at scrum
This is recognised as a recurring issue, never resolved, because interpretations conflict with the visible
evidence of televised scrums. It is acknowledged that the scrum is ‘only a way of restarting the game’ and
reduces the possibility of resets but that, at community level, the contest at the scrum is an integral part of
the game. At lower levels, teams generally respond to a warning shot. The law allows the non-offending
side enough advantage to guarantee possession at least at the strike. As a society, we should offer
consistency in line with the law and apply ATS where necessary. This approach is likely to be popular with
players and spectators alike. However, it is not recommended to sanction a first offence near a goal line.
Some active referees argue that the issue is never going to go away and that it might be best left alone.
This undermines any consistency of approach.
No8s changing position in the scrum after the ball is thrown in
This tactic is more commonly seen at televised scrums without response from referees. Players may not be
aware that this is an illegal move if both full arm binds were lost. For the society to be consistent the issue
needs to be mentioned in the pre-match brief and followed up with ATS early in the game if the tactic is
used.
It may be that materiality is a valid consideration. If changing position is not part of a contest for the ball,
e.g. the ball emerging in the wrong channel or if the player is not seeking to get any other advantage e.g.
obstructing the 9, then it should be allowed to be played away.
Tolerance of players going to ground at the b/d when the opposition ‘backs off’ or opts out of contest .
Materiality applies in this case but referees should manage this, initially through captains, to try and keep
players on their feet and the tacklers moving away. It might be suggested to the captain that this was a PK
waiting to happen. At some levels, the consideration of the materiality is another layer of decision-making
in an already fractured phase but that latitude might be allowed if no contact was made with the
opposition. Any attempt to prevent contest, however, should be penalised. Referees should be aware that
this could create an opportunity for players to interfere in play past the ruck. The referee must
communicate to explain the rationale in downtime.
Both arms extended at the lineout to control backs
This is not an appropriate strategy in matches without ARs. It is an unnecessary activity which has little
positive impact if players see it as ‘visual white noise’. It is also impossible to operate where the traditional
position of the referee is usually at 45 degrees to the line and once started the ref has to continue
throughout or is ‘asking for trouble’ if he/she forgets. Staying onside is the players’ responsibility. One arm
should be enough for both sets of backs to show that the lineout is still in progress. If one side is taking
advantage by creeping – ATS. The society should not expect two arms to be the norm.
Active signalling to call backs into play at the lineout
The arm being dropped to indicate lineout over is simple and sufficient. Active signalling is another
scenario where the referee could make a rod for his/her own back if he/she forgets to apply the practice
consistently. Staying onside is the players’ responsibility and they generally respond well to the ‘dropped
arm’ at the community game level. Whatever the strategy, refs should manage backs through ATS.
Encouraging quicker formation of scrums and lineout
At community level ‘encouragement’ is good and any deliberate delay should be managed with ATS. The
issue of safety arises where players at community game level could expect fatigue in the later stages of a
match and allowance should be made for that, especially if there is any chance that safety could be
compromised e.g. setting the scrum with stability or giving ‘jump supporters’ in the lineout time to set for
the lift. ‘Pre-lineout huddles’ constitute a deliberate delay and should be managed out of the game as
should frequent ‘stand-ups’ in the scrum where a front row player feels under pressure. Walking into the
lineout just before the ball is thrown is also potentially dangerous as it could mean that supporters are not
ready to support.
Scrums can be ‘played on’ even when collapsed
This is a safety issue. The society will not advocate an issue which could be used against a referee on safety
grounds. In the community game the norm is a quick whistle and reset and any deliberate collapse
is penalised immediately. While it might be true that there are fewer collapses at community level, fitness
and a degree of strength which can cope with irregular body positions in a collapsed scrum is a major
consideration. However conscientious, a referee cannot control a secondary push and no referee would
want to play away from a collapsed scrum then find someone hasn’t got up from the scrum. Players are
entitled to a safe and consistent approach to this issue.
Increased sanction levels for ‘deliberate knock-on’
At community game level the referee gets one look at the event and that in real time. Many of the ‘video
reviews’ on TV highlight the possibility that the deliberate knock-on was disguised as a potential tackle. It is
probable that at community game level this skill set would not be commonly practised. Therefore in most
cases, the decision will be ‘Knock-on, scrum’. If, however, the referee feels that the knock-on was deliberate
in a clear and obvious manner and that the offender never had a real chance of regaining possession, then
this was a PK with a possibility of a YC if a scoring opportunity had been prevented. In rare circumstances, a
penalty try might also be considered. It is felt very important that a consistent approach during a match is
vital and that the decision should be made and ‘sold’ clearly and concisely.
Frequent questions and appeals from players
Recent RFU and WR directives should be enforced. ‘Frequent questions’ should be severely curtailed but if
properly asked by the captain this could be managed in downtime. If persistent or trivial - ATS. Questions
from others should be managed quickly through ATS and sanction escalated quickly. Action against appeals
should be quickly escalated to arrive at a PK and, if necessary, YC.
Ignoring dissent
If the dissent is trivial or non-confrontational it may be possible to manage ‘off the ball’ through the
captain. Any further or serious dissent MUST be dealt with immediately and strongly as it will not go away
of its own accord and is likely to get worse and more frequent, and have more serious repercussions.
Referee giving an extended rationale for a decision
Giving extended reasons for a decision is unwise. The usual sequence of whistle, signal, decision is
sufficient and appropriate. If the referee considers an explanation helpful to the context of the game it can
be made in downtime. A possible exception to this is the decision involving the Head Contact Protocol
where mitigation may need to be explained at the time. The explanation of mitigation is not a subject for
debate but a clarification of the process. Other reasons for not extending decision explanation include a)
the more said, the more can be challenged, b) ref’s decisions are often subjective judgement calls and final
in nature, c) decisions are made in real time without reliable review, d) slows down the game, e) can result
in ‘but sir, you said earlier……..
Player and captain pressure on officials after a decision
This needs to be stopped immediately and at source. Pressure never eases of its own accord and could
have serious implications when it gets out of hand. ATS with rapid escalation is the best policy. The referee
needs to be balanced and even handed between the teams. Follow up in downtime is possible if the
pressure being applied is non-confrontational. Refs should be clear that they will talk only to team
captains.
Instead of getting to the breakdown and then getting away, referee stays close to the breakdown
Without ARs, the current advice on positioning at a range of phases given in various POs is the best
approach at community game level. As well as a number of instances of referees getting in the way, the
referee in the community game usually needs to get to the next phase and have a wider view of the action.
‘Get in, have a look, find the ball and get away’ should still apply. One possible exception might be a period
of pressure close to the goal line which needs the referee’s continuing presence and another might be if
the contest at the breakdown was particularly ferocious and possibly dangerous or where preventative calls
might benefit the match.
Increased flexibility on ‘offence impact’ in offside decisions including hands on the floor at the
breakdown
Refereeing offside is an essential element in the effective refereeing of rugby. Space in which to play is the
basis of the game. Players generally know what is expected but, in the case of ‘hands in front’, ATS is
probably the best way forward but with rapid escalation if there is no improvement. Application to both
sides is essential. Players prefer PKs for offside rather than tolerance of the offence. Referees should be
particularly aware of the quick tap option near the goal line where the defence is penalised but the nonoffenders may be in possession of the ball. While accepting that materiality could be an issue, it is not
always understood by players. Materiality has a part to play in refereeing but leniency should reduce as
the play gets nearer the goal line. This could be made clear to captains in downtime.
Higher levels of referee commentating during a match
There is a clear distinction between commentating and preventative refereeing calls. It is appropriate if
communication keeps the game going or maintains its pace e.g. ‘Ball available’. It is more appropriate for
the referee to focus on accurate decision making rather than ‘flow’ but if he/she could do both then that is
a benefit. Too much voice becomes white noise and might negatively impact on player listening at a time
when the referee has something important to convey e.g. ‘release’.
Repeated reminders of points of law pre and post event
With some specific exceptions this is inadvisable. Important issues of law, especially recent changes,
should be dealt with at the pre-match briefing. Reminders regarding law should only be given if the
circumstances were unusual or not in the normal run of play. This could be done in downtime. It may be
necessary to expand on HCP especially in relation to mitigations. The odd reminder about a point of law
may be helpful but not repetition.
More frequent use of player names
With the exception of captains and other players with a specific role, this is unnecessary and unwise at the
community game level. Use of names opens the door for doubts about even-handedness or favouritism. It
can alienate or unnecessarily raise resentment with players who only get a number call. ‘Naming’ rarely
adds value to the game. At some levels a long term relationship built up over many years with some
players may make it appear churlish to suddenly withdraw the use of names. Experience and knowledge of
the players allows a judgement to be made about when and where to use the player’s name.
Trends from the professional game raised by responders which were not included in the original survey.
Almost all of the subjects below are dealt with in current POs and the advised strategy would be ATS with
prompt escalation if the behaviour did not improve.
Line-out players moving into receiver’s position before throw – in. ATS
Players in front at restarts. ATS
Hookers stepping to one side before line-out throw. ATS
No9s interfering with other 9 while the ball is in the scrum.
Pre-match brief and ATS quickly for contact, offside or obstruction at scrum and maul.
Raising a hand to appeal for a card. ATS and rapid escalation of sanction
Players standing in 5m to stop quick throw. ATS
Coaches coming onto pitch at breaks. Referees need to be aware and include a warning in the pre-match
brief.
Players winding up opponents by word or action. Creeping into the community game. ATS and escalate
quickly and seriously.
©Manchester & District Rugby Union Referees’ Society Ltd