Christophe Ridley started judging professionally in 2016 and now competes regularly on domestic and European circuits. Photo: Getty Images/David Rogers
Referees are the most scrutinized and criticized representatives of professional rugby. They don't have fans; a team of four neutral mercenaries hired to keep the peace in a sport where the interpretation of the law dictates matches and even players' career.
To better understand the profession, Telegraph Sport followed Christophe Ridley, a Premier League regular who will officiate his first World Cup later this year. Our four-part series begins today with coaching sessions that take place every week. Return to Wednesday to explain the game day reviews, including the ruck-defending controversy. On Thursday, we explain what officials do on the weekends. And the series concludes on Friday with a closer look at what exactly happens on game day.
Workout at the bookstore cafe
In a quiet corner of the Cheltenham Waterstones, Christoph Ridley discusses whether the yellow card he issued last weekend for a questionable tackle was the right sanction.
Across from him sits Chris White, senior referee, veteran of 50 tests and over 200 matches England's top flight, head coach of the RFU's Official Professional Matching Team (PGMOT) and the man responsible for saving Ridley from an injury-prone midfielder scrum with an international official. White also cannot decide, although he supports Ridley's decision on the field.
In this safe space, a clear definition of right and wrong, black and white is not the goal of the game. When White shows off a template that showcases his method of training Premier League referees, full of buzzwords like “priorities”, “sell” and “personality”, it's not so much the application of the law that's under scrutiny, but it certainly gets a lot of airtime – but process; subtle, arcane skills that professional judges require.
An example of a coaching template used by PGMOT for academic learning < img src="/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/afa77ff9f2cf9055f2a aee3fa1ac4692.jpg " /> Chris White has managed three World Cups, including the semi-finals between Australia and New Zealand in 2003. Photo: Getty Images/Dean. Mukhtaropoulos
After each weekend, England's top officials scrutinize each part of their performance, filling out a chronological self-assessment, which is then shared with their counterparts from the previous weekend – a TV match official (TMO) and assistant referees (AR) – to add their thoughts, and also White and independent performance reviewer.
After that, there are three separate areas of feedback and evaluation: the first is a weekly coaching session with White, where the more philosophical, poetic “hows” and “whys” are much more analyzed than the “whats”; the second is a more prosaic phone conversation with an independent scorer who does the opposite, highlighting all correct and all wrong judge decisions for 80 minutes before the judges discuss those findings – with internal evaluation – in the group. in Twickenham (more on this later).
Both Ridley and White reiterate that it would be easy, almost superficial, for us to make general judgments about the correctness of the results of specific West Country cafe decisions. Refereeing live is completely different. Professional referees are only able to decide on 99 percent of incidents in a match if they see them.
Yes, TMO is a useful tool, but if you calculate the total possible number of fouls that can occur on each tackle, ruck, maul, lineout, scrum, kick or pass – only a few of which can be attributed up – then, in fact, the referee and his assistants, for the most part, are alone.
What did you see live? 'Nothing'
“I'm going to learn from Christophe today because he's obviously been down to earth and there are things he experiences and conversations he has that I can't,” says White, however.
However here and now, over coffee and cake, is the sanction of last weekend's tackle that occurred when two vertical players met and the defender made high contact with the attacker. This is the main topic of conversation.
“What did you see live, Christoph?” White asks. “Nothing,” is the answer.
“Well, here we are,” White adds before turning to me. “It's a pretty interesting concept in my head because if you can't see anything and someone then provides you with proof, you're completely moving from [dark to light].
“If you think that something has happened, then you are already halfway to making a mental decision. So, this is when you need a process so that you know where you are going, but you also want the conversation to be very natural. And I think our guys have moved very, very well into very natural conversations describing what's going on within those parameters. It's the tone, the choice of words.
“I've been watching review processes for 30 years at this level. We now spend what seems like 50 percent of our time talking about big, foul-playing decisions over and over again. And I have the utmost admiration for these guys on the pitch who have to take off refereeing to deal with these incidents.
“You're talking to someone you can't see about something that you're hoping to get better photos by going through a process that you have to internalize and then articulate to the world. It's a fantastic skill set.”
Ridley adds: “In incidents like this [when I didn't see a tackle because a player blocked it], you're talking facts.
“When we've seen this on the field, TMO starts by saying contact starts at the chest and goes up, and when we watch it a few times, we'll probably know it's not. From the judge's point of view, when you have a picture in your head that you think you're about to see, but you don't quite see what you thought you'd see, it adds complexity because you're 39. Then trying to understand what was described by TMO and you don't quite understand it. So we're talking about speed, we're talking about the right wording; it works effectively as long as we always get the facts right.
“When you increase the speed to its actual speed, the defender loses the collision. The carrier ball wins this encounter, so it becomes a passive tackle, it doesn't dominate, it loses. And for this reason, you speak of a structure in which we then formulate our facts correctly.
“If it’s a passive takeover, your entry point is low danger, yellow card, and that was our defining fact to make that decision. You heard at the end of the description I said 'This is a jaw safe rig and the entry point to the structure is yellow' Again, this needs to be resolved on live footage. If you slow things down, you look at a freeze frame, you can [convince yourself] to make whatever decision you want.”
TMO 'totally dependent' about TV directors
The role of TMT in this process is, of course, vital. They are the eyes and ears of referees making decisions from the TV truck's point of view. Ridley and White explain how TMO will watch the game live on their main screen, while the secondary screen will display the same images but with a seven second delay.
If TMO notices an incident that it thinks needs further attention, it can quickly glance at its secondary monitor for another look at it. If, after double checking, they feel it needs further study, this is where you will hear them call the referee to make a decision.
Therefore, in this situation, the question arises: do television directors really have anything to do with the outcome of decisions in a rugby match? Surely, if TMO has two screens at its disposal, is the theory that the local TV director can manipulate the referee's decision-making through biased replay selections nonsense?
“No, this is not nonsense,” Ridley explains, “because TMO has to ask the director to show the angles that he wants to see. We all just agreed that it's almost impossible to tell from the video if [the above incident] is a tackle or not. So you wouldn't really know at this point, so I would then say to the director, “Can you show me another angle?” Then you're relying on the director to provide a different angle.
“If they don't do what you asked for, then you're sitting there like a TMO with nothing but live footage. You don't have anything else, so you, as TMO, are completely dependent on the director.”
White adds: “We're not saying people do it on purpose, it's just a relationship – you have to ask for it.
“We find quite often that the final frame just doesn't exist. So you can watch and watch and watch and you'll think, “I wish I could see it from there.” You often see this when attempts are scored.”
'Judging depends on priorities'
White, however, is not so much interested in the result as in the process. The 59-year-old knows that professional umpires can't see everything – and in this particular case, with the tackle going over the break line, Ridley couldn't help but see that his view was blocked – but it's about how the next few minutes are played. . from what interests him. How does the referee interact with the players? How do they interact with TMO and their AR? Do they “add value” to the match? Do they “emphasize” it?
“When I talk to Christoph about the game; Refereeing is no different from the game, it's a whole range of options,” says White. “And that choice is based on your priorities in the game.
“What is his priority at the moment, what is he going to say? There were some brilliant touches with the players last weekend in which he “added value”. When you watch Christophe, I would call him the “arbiter of presence.” He is really there and quietly organizes everything. He looks a bit like a scrum half in the back of a ruck.
“For very important games, I say, 'There will be theater, all you have to do is get on stage and leave the stage when your time is right.'
'Introduction to the players is a threat'
There are only 10 things in this game that White is interested in, knowing that for most of a rugby match, his referees are so skilled that the refereeing almost takes care of itself. White's intrigue quickly turns to two occasions in the match when Ridley interacts with the players.
“How you market the solution is very important,” White says. “Again, when you watch him play over the weekend, there have been some nice soft sells that the players are accepting. There was a really good example with an explanation of one of those 'no roll, no reward' situations with the scrum half – by the time they ended the conversation, they were chatting as if they had known each other for a long time.
“That was the first time I judged him,” adds Ridley. “But at times, familiarity can be a threat, and then the players feel like they can ask more questions, especially if you're like me; I want to keep in touch with the players because I can learn a lot from them.
“There is a good example in this game where I have to make a choice to nip [messages with me] in the bud. On two occasions early in the game, a player decided to challenge me with their decisions. Now the reason he challenges me is because I saw him a lot during the premier league. So what you don't see – and Whitey is talking about these subtle communications – is at the beginning of this corridor, I go and mention to the player that it is unacceptable to constantly talk, which he completely agrees with.
“What you see next – and this message was not formally given to him, I didn’t call him and drag him aside – is the moment when this interaction worked, and it ends with an apology. This is what Whitey is talking about, things that happen all the time that you don't know are happening. It happened very quickly. He is challenging, I felt it might be overstepping, I told him about it and as a result of such a positive relationship, he comes and apologizes. We just draw lines and say it's not about me, it's about making sure it's a working relationship.”
This is a “not about him” phrase that Ridley repeats in disgust throughout the conversation . There are shades, admittedly that the referee protests too much, but Ridley is an ambitious referee who knows that in order to become one of the best referees, the goal is to be completely forgettable.
'Don' ;Don't be a rock star'
Despite making the right decisions, Ridley didn't enjoy being in the spotlight when Northampton went on to win at Sandy Park, kicking the ball off Joe Simmonds' Exeter jersey as he prepared for the winning conversion. , For example. Bad advertising in everyday life, perhaps, does not exist, but for judges it is the other way around: there is no good advertising.
💪 Simmonds prepares for his winning conversion
😨 Referee Christoph Ridley ruled that he has started the run
🏃♂️ Northampton gaining momentum
💥 Slateholme puts the ball into touch
🙅♂️ Ridley blows his whistle< br>🙌 Northampton win!
Madness in #EXEvNOR! 😵#GallagherPrem pic.twitter.com/yvrJo95ltj
— Rugby on BT Sport (@btsportrugby) February 20, 2021
“Last weekend when we arrived, TMO was talking about not chasing a rock star, the importance of not being talked about as a referee, and the goal for us at the end of the game was to not to be spoken. oh – that way we would know that we did a good job, ”says Ridley.
“So, don't be a rock star. We also talked about the importance of judging for the full 80 minutes. That experience in Exeter; this is often a problem with our role, but I could referee fantastically well for 85 minutes, and then I could make one wrong decision at the end of the game, a throw down, and that defined my game. Luckily I was right, but that's the problem.”
This is a scenario that whites can relate to. He faced his controversy at the 2007 Six Nations tournament, where he instructed Wales at the end of their loss to Italy that there would be enough time for a lineout “if they were fast” and then ended the game without a line. -out occurs.
“What Christoph is talking about falls under the basics of law and protocol, which I did,” White adds, pointing to his coaching template. “I went through the whole game and it has something to do with time! And you think, “That's not judging.”
After the session, we return to Ridley's unfinished business: a dilapidated house, which he is in the process of decapitation, gutting, expansion and repair – located in one of Cheltenham's posh suburbs. With a handshake and “see you tomorrow” we part ways. After a few moments, I check my phone. There is an email that says: “Link to complaint against [team A player] arising from his club’s match against [team B].
“[Player] allegedly grabbed [player team B] in a dangerous way contrary to Law 9.13.”
This means that the citation commissioner believed, unlike Ridley and White, that the collision that was the subject of debate during the Waterstones session deserved a red card. In a few days, this citation complaint will be resolved and the player will be banned for three weeks.
Come back on Wednesday to see how the judges evaluate his performances
Recent Comments