Tue, 09 Dec 2008 00:00
Two referees leant on the bar talking shop. Their conversation went like this.
Ref 1: How're you finding the ELVs.
Ref 2: OK.
Ref 1: I just worry that the TJs may not keep up.
Ref 2: ARs you mean.
Ref 1: TJs, ARs - same thing. I'm not sure the IRB needed to have made the change.
Ref 2: Yes. The whole ELV introduction has been a problem.
Ref 1: Why should there be a difference between what SANZAR does and what happens in the 6N and the HC and the GP? And then there've been variations to the ELVs - ELVs to ELVs.
Ref 2: Do you think the MRs and PRs have kept up?
Ref 1: No, I'm not. My MR last week pulled me up for giving a FK instead of a PK but I was able to show him that the FK was right in terms of the ELV.
Ref 2: I had something similar but the MR, a bit of an OAP, would not believe me but I got onto my RDO who spoke to the PR and got the MR's report changed.
Ref 1: One thing I wished is that the SANZAR idea of increasing the TMO's jurisdiction would happen.
Ref 2: Yes. Let them include foul play. The other day White 2 had a go at Red 7. I didn't see the start and nor did the ARs, nor did we see what actually happened. But the thing ended up at the DC after they'd looked at the TV. If we could've asked the TMO we could've taken action there and then.
Ref 1: Can't see the RFU going with that one. Why can't we use the 4 and the 5 a bit more?
Ref 2: Trouble is they're usually local men. Mind you the WRU and the FFR are always up for change. Why does SANZAR always take the lead?
Then the CEO joined them and they changed tack.
|South African news|
|» Smit: Bok pack to stand their ground|
|» Whiteley recalled by Springboks|
|» Preview: First Division, Round Six|
|» Now Wallabies target Bok scrums|
|» Wiese: Tighthead a big Bok concern|