Last week I attended the Hull v Luctonians game. The Hull report read that the game did not take shape for the first 30 minutes. It states that in that time Luctonians missed their opportunities by not making use of the numerous penalties given away by Hull. 

Then you turn to today's Rugby Paper and the Stourbridge report where the last 3 paragraphs just talk about Hull giving away 4 penalties in the final minutes which allowed Stourbridge to take the game by a narrow margin.

The loss gave Gary Pearce the Hull DOR the chance to state that the penalty count against them was absolutely ridiculous and the referee  gave Stourbridge 4 chances to win the game and he was disappointed with that (not his side giving away penalties). He states all he wants is consistency.

Gary for two weeks you have received consistency from your players. They have given away penalties. For two weeks the referees of each of those games have shown consistency by awarding penalties for infringements.

Look at your performance as a coach and look at the performance of your players. I wonder if you only have one poster on changing room door with one bold word printed on the poster.  Consistency

The Football Association would be looking at comments made about Officials and considering reprimand will the RFU do same

I had many questions about the decisions of the ref at Worthing. Slow resets yaaaawn and silly yellow cards at the end. But we won !!

Referees work very hard to improve their accuracy, and game awareness.  On review they also review each penalty for accuracy and whether or not they needed to be given etc. 

Yes they will make errors and yes they will also be unsighted at times.  On the whole their accuracy is much higher than many players.  DoRs should assess why their players are giving away penalties, after all if they didnt concede them they wouldnt need to be penalised would they?

Communication is also vital.  Provided players know why the pen has been given they they should alter and or amend their behaviours accordingly.  I do think however that the vantage points on the sidelines are often not ideally placed 30-40m away from the play when the referee is only 2-3metres?  Just a thought.

Elijah is perfectly correct in so much as the players might be better off listening to the reason why they have been penalised. They should then correct their wrong ways.

People on the touch line don't always see the offence from the correct angle and therefore miss the real offence.

Not straight in the scrum. Come on let's get the game flowing again we don't want to watch just the grunt and groan of the forwards let us see some flow from the backs although they could easily drop the odd pass and bring the whistle into play again

Then of course there are the DOR's who stand behind the posts berating the officials. What can they see from there, they can never coach players to avoid giving away penalties from that angle. The DOR named in my original posting is one of those DOR's operating from behind the sticks. I bet in his international playing days his coach never took up that position.

The DOR in question did take up the whistle for a short spell but he was often caught out behind play but became a good guesser. I think he might have stuck at being the man in the middle if he had been coached by Elijah and listened to Elijah

1. When I coached I asked my players to push the limits to see what they could get away with. Opensides push the offside line, backs push the offside line, forwards try to jump early in line-outs, etc. In many areas of the laws it is the referee's interpretation that enables them to apply the laws of the game.

2. At all home matches I have the benefit of listening to the ref mike, as a result I have always heard why a penalty is given and can then understand clearly what the referee has decided and why. Rarely do I disagree.

3. On the other hand, referees need to be more definitive in using the agreed signals for offences. Look at Owens, Barnes, et al and their decisions are clearly explained by their signals.

4. Referees are more concerned with safety than applying some laws due to directives from above. Feeding the ball in the scrum reduces the chances of the scrum collapsing because one or either hookers are on only one leg and thus potentially destabilising the scrum.

5. Scrums and Line-outs are methods for restarting play, how strict do we want to be on technicalities?

I was nearly with you until this crass statement, the scrum is not a means of restarting a game for girls to run around dropping the ball. It used to be a contest, a ball taken against the head was something knowledgeable crowds used to applaud. The game went to the dogs when too many backs were allowed to have an opinion.............................................(I might be joking, but then again I just might not.........)

O Ive missed all my educated friend :) We all stil love the fun of the game :) 

I will be routed to games in Yorkshire for the foreseeable. I am in recovery from Surgery and having to keep my travels fairly local

I was persuaded to make this post by a reformed poster who know has two eyes. The first still to his club and the second more towards the game as a whole

It would be good to get to some of the real clubs, although I must confess to being somewhat concerned as to the perilous position so many find themselves in.  In the mean time I will continue swanning around the high echelons where of course everything is so secure! 

It is therefore refreshing to read that one of the Hull players believes that they,  as players, must be more disiplined and, that 10 penalties in the first half alone, puts pressure on the team.

Player safety seems only to be an issue at elite level

If feeding is to be allowed, the IRB should rewrite the laws, not keep the law but tell referees not to enforce it.

If you want stability enforce a decent bind and immediately penalize any prop who binds on the arm or who starts with elbow down.