From the Beak

Home
Up

USARRA  Announces the Launching of the 
Referee Development Program

By Edwin Todd III

In today’s continuous game, with its emphasis on high intensity and speed, there is a global demand for referees who meet the rigorous standards required to excel in this frantic environment, capable of performing both physically and mentally at greater pace and with less recovery time than ever before.  These demands make it increasingly difficult for the older referee to consistently produce prescribed outcomes with consistency.

This changing ecology of top level Rugby is having a predictable effect.  Most national unions have in operation special programs to identify, recruit and train referees who display promise early in their careers, and the process of replacement is well underway as the next wave of youthful performers is beginning to break upon the scene.  

None of them are American.  In fact, outside of the Pac Rim Competition, opportunities for our referees seem to be diminishing.  This may be the result of a multitude of factors, of which our lack of an aggressive advancement program is just one.  But this situation has caused a degree of introspection with the following observations.  In the USA old patterns are entrenched in a culture that make change difficult, and influence the rate at which referees advance.

1.   Our players still enter the game at a much later age than most of the world, which effectively delays the typical transition to refereeing While studies have not been conducted to substantiate this conclusion, it seems quite probable that on the average we become referees in this country in our mid-to-late thirties.  

2.   We learn from experience.  Once into it, a junior referee in the US may officiate 20 –30 games a season.  In some areas it is less.  Compare this to the career of England’s Roger Quittendon, who in his first three years refereed over 300 matches. 

3.   Finally, our development philosophy has remained cautious.  In one example, a former A panel began refereeing in 1980.  Four years later, 37 years old, a B1, an exchange with the RFU under his belt, the future looked great.  But it was not until 1996 that the promotion came into port.  He was 49.  This case is not the extreme and illuminates the basic pattern in US refereeing that most reach the top in the latter portion of their prime.  A check of those who have been on the A panel since 1995 reveals that the average age at which they received promotion is the mid-forties, an age when most top referees are retiring.

The Referee Development Program

USARRA established the Referee Development to identify, recruit and develop a small panel of referees, who have demonstrated potential and are prepared to make the necessary commitment to achieve, on an accelerated time scale, the standards required for acceptance onto the IRB Referee Panel.  Commitment is the keyword because the RDP is an ambitious, intensive undertaking.

Successful appointees will be assigned USARRA-trained mentors; annually they will be given four developmental appointments to be worked with the mentor.  There will be two national appointments that will be evaluated by a national evaluator.  The highlight of the program will be an annual coaching camp prior to a major the event where the Panel will receive two days of intensive instruction and undergo rigorous fitness testing.  Developmental tours will also be arranged to other rugby countries providing opportunities to hone skills and be exposed to greater concentrations of competition.

Panel members will be subject to constant evaluation and expected to continue, in the opinion of the program officers, to be a better prospect than other promising referees not on the panel.  The Panel is an ongoing project, and referees aspiring to it will also be evaluated regularly to insure the best possible composition.

To implement the program the USARRA management committee has created three Panel officer positions and made the following appointments:

Development Officer: Jeremy Turner (jetlease@aol.com)

Coaching Officer: Ed Todd (NuvoRef@aol.com)

Program Oversight: Don Morrison (USARRA RDO) (don.Morrison@charter.net)      

Nominations have already been received from numerous sources, to whom formal application forms are being sent.  There is no deadline for nominations.  Candidates can be submitted to Jeremy Turner at anytime.  The criterion is a balance of potential and age.  Current grade is not an issue.  Final selection will be based on information provided in the application process including a personal statement, endorsements by the candidate’s society, union and territory as well a written commitment from these same organizations to become developmental and financial partners in the program, which is vital to the success of the program.  

The RDP officers will make final selections. Applications will be due by the end of January 2001, and the panel appointment will be made within two weeks.

USARRA is excited about the Referee Development Program.  The advancement of referees with potential is a long overdue commitment.

Return to Top

How Straight is Straight?

By Dick Podmore

Question: 

Referees seem to be much stricter on having the ball thrown in straight at the scrum.  Why the change? 

Answer:

The change is partly the outcome of an observation that the International Rugby Board (IRB) made during the 1999 World Cup.  The IRB became concerned at the competition that a lowering of the standards of the throw-in at scrums had lead to the effective elimination of hooking as one of the important and unique aspects of the game.  The stricter standard applied this year is part of an attempt by the IRB to reintroduce a fair contest for the ball at scrums, thereby saving the hooker’s traditional role from extinction. 

Law 20.6 lays out in detail how the ball should be thrown into the scrum.  In essence the ball should be thrown in straight along the middle line between the two front rows.  To find out how well this was being done a study was made of videos of all the scrums that occurred during the World Cup quarter-finals, semi finals and final.  During those matches there was a total 134 scrums.  For the analysis all scrums at which the video angle made it impossible to determine whether or not the ball was thrown in correctly were eliminated.  That left 59 scrums that could be analyzed.  Of these, the ball was thrown in clearly not straight on 39 occasions, not straight on another 17 occasions, and 3 free kicks were awarded.  At none, repeat none, of the scrums was the ball thrown in such a way that it conformed to the Law. 

Although the degree of non-conformance was perhaps a bit of a surprise, extensive “feeding” wasn’t exactly earth shattering news.  Players, referees, coaches, evaluators and spectators all acknowledged that the standard for the throw-in had been increasingly relaxed, or even ignored, over the years until the ball was often thrown in closer to the team’s locks than it was to the opposing hooker.

To be fair this relaxation of standards was done with the best of intentions.  The idea was to have the ball back in play as quickly as possible.  But as time passed the IRB recognized that something important was lost along the way, and that the upside was no longer sufficient to compensate for the downside. 

 Thus there comes a renewed emphasis on a straight throw-in and a fair contest for the ball.  A fair contest doesn’t necessarily mean an even contest.  The team throwing in still has the advantages of being able to time the throw-in and of having the “head”.  But that’s all it should have.  From now on, to quote from Law 20.6: 

·     The scrum-half must stand one meter from the scrum, on the middle line.

·     The scrum-half must hold the ball with both hands, over the middle line between the front rows, midway between the knee and ankle.

·     The scrum-half must throw in the ball at a quick speed.

·     The scrum-half must throw in the ball straight along the middle line, so that it first touches the ground immediately beyond the width of the nearer prop’s shoulders.

·     The scrum-half must throw in the ball with a single forward movement.  This means that there must be no backward movement with the ball.  The scrum-half must not pretend to throw the ball. 

The throw-in should be such that the contest for the ball is fair.  That means no spinning of the ball so that it bounces to the right as it hits the ground.  How straight is straight? The scrum half should throw the ball in straight to the best of his ability.  If he consistently favors his own side, he is in violation of the Law.  

Applying a new standard is going to seem strange for a while.  But if we all approach the problem sensibly it shouldn’t take to long to adjust.  The end of the spring season should see it through.  I am sure there will be some who enjoy the old ways and who will try to retain the extra advantage of an unfair throw-in.

For them it may take a little longer, and they will suffer some frustration.  But in the end they too will come around, and the game will be better for retaining the art of hooking as something special in rugby.  We may even see a few taken against the head.  Wouldn’t that be a treat?

Return to Top

This page last revised 10/07/04