Video evidence and analysis of poor reffing in final

Thought this would be of interest. Certain posters are calling for evidence of the poor decisions costing France the game (U know who u are Offwhite spooky person) :-)

Here it is -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1XBqetaCfgo

What is more shocking about this video clip is how they are bemoaning the mistakes of Criag joubert becuase it is France who got done in.

If they did this with Sa vs Australia, that video clip would be ten times as long, but because it is south Africa, it is hard luck boys, you should have taken your chances.

Now that is double standards. How can you even give credibility to something like this.

It can't be wrong one day, and not the next. They choose to highlight the unfairness of France only, but in the SA vs OZ game it was "both sides"

Nonsense, it is biased and has no credibility.

Not gonna go either way with the above evidence- because to be sure we need to look at every decision made noit justa few. however i have seen the game and do agree that the reffing wasnt good

I found Craig Jouberts officiating through out the WC bizarre, particularly in the Ireland vs USA game, I could not understand why so many refs thought he was good, specifically at the breakdown where he doesnt really seem to have a clue.

How he managed to get the final I just dont understand, the conspiracy theorist in me says they wanted a SH ref and Joubert was the only one they could possibly justify given how bad Walsh, Kaplan and Lawrence all were.

Dont think Joubert should of been any where near this final personally, should of been Nigel Owens.

whats the percentage of the higher ranked team winning when jourbert reffs?

we know its very normal that the better team can get the 50/50's because the reffs are under so much pressure they crap themselves.

Artful_Dodger wrote:
Dont think Joubert should of been any where near this final personally, should of been Nigel Owens.

But Nigel Owens was just as bad in the Samoa v South Africa game. Coming into the final there were 10 refs. 2 of them (Walsh and Lawrence) were Kiwi. Poite couldn't ref it as a Frenchman and the IRB would have taken unnecessary risks putting Wayne Barnes in charge of the match after the debacle 4 years ago. 2 of them (Rolland and Owens) were good options but had massivly controversial games leading upto this which results in them getting labelled racists, bigots and getting death threats.

That left Joubert, Kaplan, Pearson and Clancy as the remainders - Joubert was the logical choice.

On the analysis I think they left out some better examples and some of the ones in the video - such as the offside decisions were in no way major blunders. Kaino incident was a big example. There was a much better Richie McCaw incident also.

Listened to Shane Byrne (only one supporting France), Victor Costelloe and Keith Wood yesterday....all commented that the ref was more than happy to give 50/50 decisions to the ABs.

Dont worry Bilton there are very few French on here so you do not have to lose your status as most agrieved person on the site...

Thanks DOD, but somehow that doesn't make me feel any less aggrieved, mostly astonished at the double standards being applied

And to think you`ll have to put up with this until we win the trophy again

biltongbek

This is post match analysis of the game no... not the RWC on a whole.

Perhaps they did the same in the SA vs. Aus match I don't know.

Either way... Joubert, Rolland, Laurence & Owens all had shocking matches during this RWC... notablly shocking.

This is a lot given usually its perhaps 1 match a tournament.

Fa, I am talking double standards from the posters, not the tv pundits.

Everyone is feeling sorry for France, I was told to suck it up.

biltongbek wrote:Fa, I am talking double standards from the posters, not the tv pundits.

Everyone is feeling sorry for France, I was told to suck it up.

That may have been because you weren't playing against NZ mate.

biltongbek

Comes with the territory dude... everyone loves and sympathises with the underdog, the nearly man.

You should take the near contempt as a compliment.... shows die bokke have actually achieved something.

Yep, achieved a QF exit

The more I watch that the more angry it makes me. There were actually many more examples and this is the 1st time in my life that I agree with that muppet Neil Francis.

I agree that SA were robbed too against Australia and said so at the time but that was even worse.

The whole thing is a farce and the blatantly one sided refereeing has completely devalued the RWC for me.

kits the same in the footy world cup. these things have allways happened mind- it just shows up more with action replay- various angles and hd.

the footy world cup last year was a disgrace and this may also be- tyhe sad truth is it hasnt got worse- its just we can see more.

my wife has been watching rugby for 10 years or so but has only in this world cup started to pay attention and enjoy it. (she has finally cracked under the pressure of my fanatical obsession)

in the bokkie aus game she was confused by some of the reffing decisions, it didnt seem to make sense to her, just as she thought she was getting an understanding for the game.

during france nz she knew something was wrong and asked me to explain a lot of the advantages, penalties etc. in order that she understood the laws i had to point out the ref was totally wrong on so many occations.

the final did nothing to improve understanding of the game for the fringe observers, new fans, or my wife.

Although I may agree with the points (and the videos are compelling), the simple fact it is presented by the two least reputable people involved with Rugby whom I have had the displeasure to ever see, makes it hard to accept as unbiased. In fact, with these two gents involved, I would expect they are not showing anything contrary to their point of view.

So, not sure I disagree with their conclusions, but the simple fact that they make points which I had thought already makes me challenge my own opinions. And since I am never wrong (just ask me) this gives me no end of confusion. Darn them.

I like your powers of reasoning doc, after all how can a million people be right and you wrong?

It defies logic.

biltongbek,
Exactly. I am glad you understand.

Well popular opinion has it that great minds think alike.

Sadly, I have also heard, fools never differ

Kiwireddevil wrote:

biltongbek wrote:Fa, I am talking double standards from the posters, not the tv pundits.

Everyone is feeling sorry for France, I was told to suck it up.

That may have been because you weren't playing against NZ mate.

This is very true too.
NZ and SA as potential winners at both events will get no sympathy when ref decisions go against them.

Something has to be done about the rules.

No ones ever happy with refs in crucial matches I've learned. I mean whats a 50/50 call? How do you define that? Whats 40/60 in that case?

I think its basically when no one really knows what the hecks going on.

Seems every breakdown has multiple reasons for penalising someone and the ref has to 'make a selection' of the smorgasbord they are offered.

"No ones ever happy with refs in crucial matches I've learned. I mean
whats a 50/50 call? How do you define that? Whats 40/60 in that case?"

there isnt a 40/60 call

its a good call or a bad call- nothing else.

i think in rugby when we talk about 50/50 calls its when a player from each side makes an infringement at the same time- the rules should be that whoever makes the infringement first should be penalised.

you dont get 50/50 calls in many other sports- in football you can and you would get a drop ball between two players, in rugbhy the ref just hands out to whoever he wants- or whoevber he has seen, or woever he deems to have made the worse infringment. but in fairness its to tough the way the rulkes are at present, and the fact they get no help , when us viewers see everything real time

In my opinion it's basically because so much of the laws of rugby are subject to interpretation. Those interpretations used to change with the will of the referee, now they are clearly defined.

Paddy o'Brien, a great referee in his day, has done a superb job in tying the referees of the NH and SH into interpreting the same game, marked improvements everywhere, but I believe that the laws of the game have to evolve season by season and you can't just re-interpret laws two years old to suit the inventiveness of those playing the game at the highest level.

Obviously itis a vicious job that rarely gets praise, people hardly ever comment on a referee doing a great job, because a great, fair and consistent job is what we all expect.

But I think the amount of interpretations of the laws are what confuse and cagoul situations, not the fact that the bloke with the whistle is with a) an idiot or b) biased.

The more you look, the worse it gets - I'm not looking any more

Speaking of infringing.....

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/5845375/Richie-McCaw-eye-gouged-in-final-Quinn

If true, despicable. I got a text from an Irish mate saying McCaw was a poor winner for not paying respect to France in his speech - I thought it was odd as McCaw is such a humble bloke and always gives credit to the opposition. His silence speaks volumes as far as I'm concerned. I don't think we've heard the last of this.

Kiwi commentator? Who exactly is this guy. He wouldn't just be bringing this up as a smokescreen over the ref or even the poor showing by the abs knowing they didnt really deserve to win the game

Keith Quinn, an extremely well respected commentator. Refused to join Sky when NZ rugby went to pay TV so it's not just anyone. No smoke without fire

Ha ha. Clearly a man of high morals.

Kiwireddevil wrote:

biltongbek wrote:Fa, I am talking double standards from the posters, not the tv pundits.

Everyone is feeling sorry for France, I was told to suck it up.

That may have been because you weren't playing against NZ mate.

Maybe a lot of people didn't see the SA Oz game. Wasn't on a Sunday at 6gmt? I know I was sound asleep. Only saw the highlights so have no idea if SA were robbed. I'm guessing a lot of posters missed the game.

the sa oz game was terribly reffed.

doctor_grey wrote:Although I may agree with the points (and the videos are compelling), the simple fact it is presented by the two least reputable people involved with Rugby whom I have had the displeasure to ever see, makes it hard to accept as unbiased. In fact, with these two gents involved, I would expect they are not showing anything contrary to their point of view.

So, not sure I disagree with their conclusions, but the simple fact that they make points which I had thought already makes me challenge my own opinions. And since I am never wrong (just ask me) this gives me no end of confusion. Darn them.

How are they not reputable? Neil Francis was a very good international player and Matt Williams has a very impressive cv. Head coach of the Waratahs, Leinster, Ireland A and Scotland. He has coached some great players like Campo, Kearns, Drico and Matt Burke.

Yeah they can both be biased but their analysis is good and supported with video evidence. Maybe you don't like them but they have both have a lot of rugby experience, contacts and inside knowledge.

Leinsterbaby,
Don't like them? No I love them. I'd love them more if they were banished to Devil's Island. No, wait, Devil's Island actually has a nice beach. How about St. Helena?

I do agree they both have a lot of Rugby experience. But, the problem is they are so biased and generally negative, they have zero credibility, at least with me. And I know they are only commentators, what the Americans refer to as 'talking heads', and therefore are not really important. I have seen Matt Williams speak live a few times, and each time his comments bordered on the senseless and self-aggrandising. Neil Francis is well known as the human counterpoint to Einstein.

Look mate, I almost never go off about anyone. But these gents are so biased that when they do have comments which might be accurate I find it hard to ever believe them.

I seem to remember a few people saying that the ABs had only themselves to blame in 2007 and that if they had taken all their chances that they could have negated the effect of Barnes' poor performance.

Seems to me that France had a few opportunities that they didn't take.

I don't think so really. France were tactically good they just couldn't get into drop goal range partially thanks to Joubert. In 07 NZ were tactically inept because they were camped on the France line a few times and failed to go for the drop goal.

This WC NZ were noticeably more "conservative" at times and it paid dividends.

Piri had a shocker and missed all his kicks. Who's to say Trinh-Duc wouldn't have? They didn't set up for too many dropkicks either.

Agree with doctor grey. They can't stand NZ and it seems Williams is on a mission. Funny how he's Australian and he didn't have a segment on Bryce Lawrence's terrible refereeing. Agree with not putting NZ on a pedestal but you just get sick of it.

Not only do Francis and Williams comment on it but also Keith Woods, Liam Toland, Tony Ward, Shane Byrne, Victor Costelloe etc etc. Just about everyone.
Leinster baby is correct no one looked at the Aus/SA game but nearly every report in Ireland commented on how Lawrence favoured Aus and it was a miracle that SA didnt win (thanks to Lawrence).

They were discussing the aftermath of the final not disecting refs performances in general.

Rugby wouldn't be rugby without a bit of controversy - often about the ref.

NZ has been the outstanding team for years and no one can really say they don't deserve to be world champions. Nothing to do with destiny - just the best team lifting the cup.

However, you'd have to be blind or a lier to contest that we have seen some truly strange decisions during this WC - most notably during the SA v Aussie match and the final. Who knows what was going through Joubert's mind when he failed to give a blatent penalty to the French 35m out?? To the neutral, Joubert's decisions may have spoilt the match, but it'll never matter to a Kiwi. Anyway the French could have stopped all this fuss by scoring two converted tries in the last 5 minutes.

Rugby is officiated by a bloke who is paid to interpret what he sees, I don't think at the top level there's ever an intention to cheat - but they do have some really bad days at the office.

I dont think we need to dissect the game to know Joubert had a poor game. Thats unfortunate and the pressure undoubtedly got to him but thats as far as it goes. His own reputation has been damaged and i think s thats all that needs said and lets move on.

offload wrote:Rugby is officiated by a bloke who is paid to interpret what he sees, I don't think at the top level there's ever an intention to cheat - but they do have some really bad days at the office.

Exactly.

As has been said, it's very easy to do selective analysis. I'd have liked him to point out the missed call which had the biggest impact on the scoreboard, Rougerie infringing at the ruck which led to the French try.

Either he hasn't joined the ruck correctly or he's offside when he kicks the ball from the back of the NZ ruck. Penalty NZ.

That's the only decision which can be said to have 100% influenced the scoreboard.

It seems to me that people are accusing the ref of being caught up in the occasion, but commentators and neutral fans have been too. Everyone wants to see the underdog do well, and when they have a sniff it's easy to want to see things in such a light that if they don't pull it off then evil forces must have been at play.

People need to watch the game again with the sound off.

goneagain wrote:
It seems to me that people are accusing the ref of being caught up in the occasion, but commentators and neutral fans have been too. Everyone wants to see the underdog do well, and when they have a sniff it's easy to want to see things in such a light that if they don't pull it off then evil forces must have been at play.

People need to watch the game again with the sound off.

Seems that everyone who is not NZ seemed to see it one way, and the NZ saw it an other. I have watched it with out the commentary (as it is mind blowingly bad) and I can say my initial impression of one sided reffing is still the same. I was wavering between supporting NZ (Scottish) and France (NH) so was really on teh fence, and I felt it was a terribly one sided afair.

You could tell the ref bottled it and could not take being booed laudly every time a decision went against the all blacks.

As I said before, the best team on the night lost, but the best team of the tournament won

I went through the match and do not agree that it was as bad as what people are making out.

I am a neutral and have seen much worse than this from referees.

I too have now watched the match and cant see what all the fuss is about.

Yes he was lenient but to both teams.

Smacks of Manchester Unitedism to me

No offence Risky, but you are kind of illustrating my point. You are '100% convinced' that Donald's kick didn't go through the posts.

You are only seeing the things you want to see.

First impressions are powerful, and most people's first impressions were formed while listening to emotional commentators.

Confirmation bias in action.

biltongbek wrote:I went through the match and do not agree that it was as bad as what people are making out.

I am a neutral and have seen much worse than this from referees.

I'm surprised at that Biltong. In nearly 20 years of watching rugby thats the most bias officiating I've ever seen....well outside of the magners league anyway...

I am also a neutral and was quite happy to see either side win however I still feel bitter that the competition has been totally devalued by Joubert turning the final into a non-contest. The SA-OZ match was the same, a total farce.

I don't blame the AB's and McCaw in particular for playing the referee but it simply wasn't a level playing field and France had no chance of winning.

Unless the IRB sort this inconsistant and bias refereeing out then there's no point playing another RWC. It's a total waste of everyone's feckin time.

goneagain wrote:No offence Risky, but you are kind of illustrating my point. You are '100% convinced' that Donald's kick didn't go through the posts.

You are only seeing the things you want to see.

First impressions are powerful, and most people's first impressions were formed while listening to emotional commentators.

Confirmation bias in action.

Well in the video I have seen, the ball goes behind the post. Maybe if there is a clearer video I will change my opinion, but as the video I see it shows the ball missing it is the only evidence I currently have. Show me something better and I will review it

Not bias, just what i see from the evidence I have been given. I did not 'want' to see that. My first impression was it was over. You try to work out my thought proces and make assumptions I want NZ to lose - you are mistaken I am afraid -

Sorry Risky, the last 3 lines of my post were actually referring to the whole match, and the later viewings of it.

The video on rugbydump.com is pretty clear for the kick.

The kick went through. Nevermind the video's or the assistant ref's putting their flags up.

The WHOLE French team turn and head to halfway without complaint. They all saw it go over. If they'd complained you'd have a point. As it stands now you're searching for UFO's

Rodders, the problem with any game where the two teams share the spoils when it comes to territory and possession, an odd decision here and there can be missed and frgiven.

The Oz and Sa match was a totally different scenario where one team had 75 percent of the spoils. Not wanting to get into another debate on what we should have done etc. but the fact is when teams are under pressure they have to resort to illegal tactics to stop the opposition, and in this cae that was my frustration.

I agree that in the second half France applied more pressure than Nz and the lasting impression of that game is that France could have won that match as they finished stronger.

To call that match a one eyed affair is however unfair on a referee who has by a long shot been consistent and credible during the whole tournament.

There is a difference between officiating the breakdown and letting the inconsequencial transgression not effect the match, to when a referee simply just doesn't officiate at all.

And in that lies the difference in these two matches.

What is more important to me though is the fact that after hearing Graham Henry and his cohorts being critical about the South african game plan for so long, to then use it to win a title. That smacks of hypocrisy to me more than anyhting else.

what happened to the "superior" abilities of their players and the "superior" gameplans? The same can be said for Australia to a degree as well.

So it steels me in my conviction that as of now their "superior" game plan is more flawed than "superior" otherwise they would have stuck to their guns to prove us all wrong.

How many articles did we read during the world cup that said this world cup must be won by a "running" team to prove the worth of rugby. Yeah well a running team did win, but just not by advertising what they promised.

False advertising I say.