Page 1 of 2

Consistency of officials language terminology

Posted: Sat Aug 01, 2009 6:05 pm
by cpwigan
First and foremost when a player is seemingly tackle/not tackled it always creates confusion. Phil Gould has long argued the referee should tell the player to go back to the mark even when he has tried to move off it unaware that the referee thinks the tackle has been completed.

Joel Tomkins. Ben Thaler clearly thought he was held but to shout get up and play the ball is IMO a really poor choice of language. HELD is a single word and all players know what it means. You could even shout TACKLE(D) and for me if the tackle is not complete PLAY ON.

Next 6 Saints scored. Is a penalty for this mistake too harsh. At worst a scrum to the defending team?

Re: Consistency of officials language terminology

Posted: Sat Aug 01, 2009 6:08 pm
by Red Hot Mama
Being able to count to six may also be considered a prerequisite for refs as well. Mr Thaler seemed to struggle with 4 and 5 last night.

Re: Consistency of officials language terminology

Posted: Sat Aug 01, 2009 6:16 pm
by Panchitta Marra
cpwigan wrote:First and foremost when a player is seemingly tackle/not tackled it always creates confusion. Phil Gould has long argued the referee should tell the player to go back to the mark even when he has tried to move off it unaware that the referee thinks the tackle has been completed.

Joel Tomkins. Ben Thaler clearly thought he was held but to shout get up and play the ball is IMO a really poor choice of language. HELD is a single word and all players know what it means. You could even shout TACKLE(D) and for me if the tackle is not complete PLAY ON.

Next 6 Saints scored. Is a penalty for this mistake too harsh. At worst a scrum to the defending team?
All comments made by referees, types of decisions judged must be more standardised. It must also be standardised with levelparity between Southern & Nothern Hemisphere games.
I cant understand why Superleague, NRL & ARL dont have a joint a major conference(s) prior to the respective seasons started where all clubs representatives, referees and heads of the sport attend, to make sure all is clear without doubt, and on a level playing field.
Once the standards have been set, referees can then be judged on clarity of their decisions and comments made throughout the game.
As Northern Hemisphere, we are falling behind again to a sport with two referees which has a faster more effective play the ball for starters.

Re: Consistency of officials language terminology

Posted: Sat Aug 01, 2009 7:21 pm
by ian b
cpwigan wrote:First and foremost when a player is seemingly tackle/not tackled it always creates confusion. Phil Gould has long argued the referee should tell the player to go back to the mark even when he has tried to move off it unaware that the referee thinks the tackle has been completed.

Joel Tomkins. Ben Thaler clearly thought he was held but to shout get up and play the ball is IMO a really poor choice of language. HELD is a single word and all players know what it means. You could even shout TACKLE(D) and for me if the tackle is not complete PLAY ON.

Next 6 Saints scored. Is a penalty for this mistake too harsh. At worst a scrum to the defending team?
i agree j tomkins looked genuine and wasnt trying to pinch yards,Thaler is an arse who struggles counting :D

Re: Consistency of officials language terminology

Posted: Sat Aug 01, 2009 7:32 pm
by Wigan_forever1985
I had this rant after the match what ever happened to HELD, NOT HELD!, 2 clear and concise calls. Also if its difficult to hear them which it may be why not a clear gesture like ref holds his arm straight in the air holding out however many fingers to denote the tackle count

Re: Consistency of officials language terminology

Posted: Sun Aug 02, 2009 8:40 pm
by turf
On the replay though when he allegedly got mixed up with tackle 4 and 5, he seemed to say, that's 4, it's 4.

Re: Consistency of officials language terminology

Posted: Sun Aug 02, 2009 9:48 pm
by Mike
I've been banging on about this for ages. Its simple to fix. Why aren't referees controlled by someone intelligent?

Re: Consistency of officials language terminology

Posted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 9:23 pm
by turf
I think Thaler also rightly penalised J Tomkins, because he said, "get up and play the ball, play it, play it" and even quickly with his hand gestured for him to get up and quickly with his foot to play the ball.

J Tomkins got totally confused as to what Mr Thaler wanted so he carried on and gets penalised.

Re: Consistency of officials language terminology

Posted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 11:47 am
by Spanakopitta
yes but the first words you hear are - GET UP

this could be followed by PLAY IT or by PLAY ON.

at least by shouting HELD there is no confusion.

PS Thaler must have a yorkshire tape measure, it seemed a few metres short to me!

Re: Consistency of officials language terminology

Posted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 9:36 am
by Big Steve
Shouting PLAY ..... could either be play on or play the ball.

Shouting HELD it's obvious that the tackle has been made.

Waving your hands in the air to seemingly indicate 'get up' could easily be taken as 'get up and play the ball' or get up and carry on'. As far as I know, an encouraging wave of your hand isn't a standard sign for play the ball is it?

Why award a pen for an obvious mistake/confusion when there are far more serious (and advantageous to the offending team) things that should be penalised.