How to deal with a ref

[Tervueren]

From the Telegraph, could we learn from this next time we get CMK?

South Africa ‘complimented referee Jerome Garces on his physical appearance' to get decisions at Rugby World Cup

The book, 'Miracle Men', details how South Africa approached their handling of referees after extensive research

South Africa complimented referee Jerome Garces on his physical appearance in order to receive favourable decisions during last year's Rugby World Cup, a new book into the Springbok's triumphant campaign has revealed.

Rassie Erasmus, then South Africa's head coach and now SA Rugby's director of rugby, launched an extensive study into the mannerisms of all the game's top referees following South Africa's controversial 12-11 defeat to England in November 2018, when Owen Farrell was surprisingly not penalised for a high tackle late in the game.

The book, 'Miracle Men’ written by Lloyd Burnard, examines how Erasmus turned South Africa around in his two years as head coach, with the research that went into understanding the game's leading referees in order to potentially get the rub of the green proving beneficial in Japan. South Africa comfortably defeated England in the final, with Garces on the whistle.

"The research included analysis on how the referees blew games of rugby, from scrummaging to the dark arts at the breakdown and the offside line. But it went much deeper than that," Burnard writes, in an excerpt published by SA Rugby Magazine.

"The level of detail in the refereeing reports included personality traits, all with the hope of finding an edge. The Springboks would role play at team meetings and at training sessions, practising what they would say to the match officials with the research in mind.

"The report compiled on Garces, for example, revealed that he responded well to being complimented on his physical appearance. If the match was fast-paced, the Boks would make a point of praising Garces on his condition and his ability to keep up with the players, hoping to rub him up the right way."

The book also details how South Africa assigned players with individual roles when it came to interacting with Garces. Duane Vermeulen, the player of the match in the final, would raise any concerns, while Springbok captain Siya Kolisi would take a more respectful approach.

Having recognised that Garces favoured sides who showed "a clean set piece" at the scrum and lineout, Springbok hookers Bonga Mbonambi and Malcolm Marx were put in charge of ensuring both areas remained well-structured.

Other notable methods including players bending down to tie a shoelace or resting their hands on their knees when being spoken to by officials, so that referees were taller in that moment than the players they were addressing, with some referees as a result feeling "more powerful or more in control".

[baldpaul101]

That sounds like complete nonsense to me, like something out of a self help book, "how to get ahead in business" or similar.

That said, this kind of cod psychology does tend to have a root in something more serious, so who knows.

[Shugs]

Intriguing but I'm not sure what most refs would make of Launchbury sidling up to them and telling them he liked their hair.

[wasps]

One of the blog websites has posted a number of things that they say confirm that the officials were actively siding with South Africa on the final.

Such as them losing the toss, but actually being given the decision anyway.
I think they also highlighted an act of foul play whereby the ref actively said he was ignoring it



To be honest, it seemed like utter crap to me, but felt related to this post.
I'll try to dig the blog out

[backdoc]

The idea of an enormous hairy gorilla of a springbok forward complementing the French ref on his décolletage or whatever for the sake of the team is not something I can take seriously.

[Lwasp]

To be fair that isn't what it says. It says if the game was fast paced they would compliment him on his conditioning. Easy enough to do without asking him out for dinner and dancing too.

It's funny that we complain on here match after match that we don't manage the ref, where's Launchbury in the ref's ear, why aren't we adapting etc. Yet the reaction to a story that the Boks put some effort in to studying the refs and trying to instruct players on ref management is to call nonsense. In a game of small differences appointing players specifically to manage the team so as to keep Sir happy, letting everyone know who is and who isn't to address Sir and about what they can and if it comes to it advising what sort of things to say that history tells us Sir responds favorably to sounds like time well spent. The one thing SCW was right about in 2003 was marginal gains. If it doesn't take too much effort or distract from more important training/work these kind of things could deliver the marginal gains needed. And if not they aren't going to make anything worse off are they?

For those unhappy with Tuesday, we will get CMK again at some point, maybe studying him will be as useful as studying the oppo.

[MarleyWasp]

The problem is, if we changed our approach towards a ref, after this article he'd work.out what we're doing and ignore it...

[Rossm]

Sounds to me like giving an apple to teacher.

[mike909]

Dealing with any official is at least in part analogous to sales or management. Sales people/managers do specific training as it works - if it didn't, no one would waste money going to seminars, having 1-2-1's or role playing etc.

To date, it's been left to chance how individuals deal with refs. For example, just asking for clarity on a decision could (and only could...) make a ref consider how they have come to their conclusion. It provides something to discuss with a ref, as "oh come on ref, that's never offside" is likely to wind anyone up...

Whilst the SA story does look a little keen....it surely wouldn't be time wasted to provide some person management training/support to Capts and senior players - as if they are to make a difference on the pitch IRO penalties etc  they need to have some idea what's being decided by the ref - and that requires dialogue.

On Tues, Launch was asked to go and speak to the players after successive penalties - his problem was that no one on Wasps side really had a clue what CMK was so p'eed about....I re-watched the play and was really struggling to see what Wasps players could be told, without having referred to the ref several penalties before.

Small margins, something to consider.

[wasps]

Researching referees is certainly diverging that should be done as a matter of course.

If for no other reason than to know which refs are likely to want a quick, clean scrum, and which are likely to be happy to see a fair contest drag on.

There will also be those that want a clean break down and others that will allow a little more bending of the breakdown rules.

Knowing who will allow what would be more than a marginal gain sometimes

[westwaleswasp]

Sure look at refs, but England lost as they were markedly inferior in the final. Anyone could have been ref and the result would be the same, compliments to the ref were not going to win much for us in the final.


As an aside, I think England lost for two reasons, really.

One, they were needing to beat Arg, Aus, NZ and then SA to win it, which is  a tough ask and sooner or later you are going to lose on that level of opponent. England were a good team but one of several. I actually think a lot of teams could have had us after that magnificent semi.

In contrast SA could lose to NZ and really only beat  Wales, just, and then England, in tier one terms, an easier task than England's, one that on paper is just more likely.

Secondly we needed to play a different game in the final.

Warren was right, England basically shot their bolt in the semi, a common thing in many sports at high level.

Of course, the one guy you don't want to piss off is the ref, and yeah, they need studying at the top, but if you play like we did in the final it would take a Joubert NZ 2011 type performance to even bring us within striking distance, and we would still  have lost.

[wasps]

Although the article has been about the world cup, I think the general feeling is that understanding the nuances of the ref is important in any match.

Some teams adapt to conditions and the ref better than others.
If you already know what the ref is looking for before the game then it's one less thing to adapt to

[baldpaul101]

Theres a big difference between knowing what the ref is likely to be hot on or let go and trying cod phsycology, like complementing him on how he's keeping up with the game or being lower than him when he's talking to you.