Aussie Coach Slams Match Officials

"A 90 meter turn around with 7 points in the end if it" said Ewen McKenzie of twickenham match officials blatant blunder in Saturdays test. A decision which cost Australia the game that they lost by just that margin.

"You can't say these things don't have an impact on the game." Continued McKenzie.

The sporting Aussie gentleman wouldn't be drawn into further criticism if the officials over their dismissal of Dylan Hartley's clear obstruction that prevented a tackle on English fly half Farrell.

"I'd debate that point until I was blue in the face" he said in resignation "it's like the English knock ons and forward passes, there were dozens of those, but at the end what good does it do you? The officials make these decisions"

Although English stalwart Jeremy Guscott added his disbelief saying "I didnt think Farrell would score that try".

A shame that the game which offered little in terms of quality rugby was also over shadowed by such a disappointing display of adjudication, even by the standards expected from Clancy on past evidence.

A pity also that the ozzies played like rabbits stuck in the headlight, the real reason they lost.

One well taken but slightly lucky try and a couple of penalties does not often make for a winning score, just a wumming one

For a man who claims to despise journalists and sports journalists, I have to say you have all the tricks and attributes to make it as one yourself. Are you sure you aren't Stephen Jones?

Whinge whinge whinge.

GloriousEmpire wrote:"A 90 meter turn around with 7 points in the end if it" said Ewen McKenzie of twickenham match officials blatant blunder in Saturdays test. A decision which cost Australia the game that they lost by just that margin.

"You can't say these things don't have an impact on the game." Continued McKenzie.

The sporting Aussie gentleman wouldn't be drawn into further criticism if the officials over their dismissal of Dylan Hartley's clear obstruction that prevented a tackle on English fly half Farrell. Although English stalwart Jeremy Guscott added his disbelief saying "I didnt think Farrell would score that try".

A shame that the game which offered little in terms of quality rugby was also over shadowed by such a disappointing display of adjudication, even by the standards expected from Clancy on past evidence.

   

If Owen Farrall had kicked all those penalties. It would not have made a difference. The Wallabies would still have lost.

Maybe the mods should lock this one as it's just GE going over the same thing he's already ruined other threads with?

I think maybe TJ is right and we should just ignore him.

GloriousEmpire wrote:"A 90 meter turn around with 7 points in the end if it" said Ewen McKenzie of twickenham match officials blatant blunder in Saturdays test. A decision which cost Australia the game that they lost by just that margin.

"You can't say these things don't have an impact on the game." Continued McKenzie.

The sporting Aussie gentleman wouldn't be drawn into further criticism if the officials over their dismissal of Dylan Hartley's clear obstruction that prevented a tackle on English fly half Farrell.

"I'd debate that point until I was blue in the face" he said in resignation "it's like the English knock ons and forward passes, there were dozens of those, but at the end what good does it do you? The officials make these decisions"

Although English stalwart Jeremy Guscott added his disbelief saying "I didnt think Farrell would score that try".

A shame that the game which offered little in terms of quality rugby was also over shadowed by such a disappointing display of adjudication, even by the standards expected from Clancy on past evidence.

Have you got a link to the quotes. I mean I can find the first one and one about the Aussies giving us respect but I can't find anything on the forward passes. You haven't just made up quotes and attributed them to the Aus coach have you? That would be pretty low wouldn't it? And surely against the rules?

The Rugby Paper this morning. Issue 268. Front page and inside front leader article. Author Brendan Gallagher.

All quotes are genuine.

Just left of the Peter Jackson article claiming Joel Stransky has said Wales have a mental problem that prevents them beating a big three nation.

You're quoting McKenzie as saying "it's like the English knock ons and forward passes, there were dozens of those, but at the end what good does it do you? The officials make these decisions". I can't find that quote. Put a link up please because I think you're lying.

I've already quoted the source. Accusing me of "lying" is a serious thing to do... Once you've found the Article I presume you will apologise?

Page 7, paragraph 8. Just above the north stand comic...

I'll await my apology.

TBF the latest Rugby Paper isn't online yet so that would be why you probably can't find the source

Thanks CJ

Cry wolf enough times and you won't be believed in the end Ghost. If I see the quote I'll appologise but as it stands I can't find that. Would be much simpler to post a link.

All very well... but Ewen needs to zip it now, accept reality and get his players to focus on the Italy game... or else it will get worse. Last year's match there was a lucky escape when they were well up on the scoreboard at HT.

GloriousEmpire wrote:I've already quoted the source. Accusing me of "lying" is a serious thing to do... Once you've found the Article I presume you will apologise?

Page 7, paragraph 8. Just above the north stand comic...

I'll await my apology.

I accuse you of being the erstwhile Greyghost. Accuse me of slander......do it!

It's a newspaper. Looks like you have to pay to subscribe online and as you know...I have no internet at the moment. Just flakey 3G mobile.

I'll have to take your word for it then Ge....Sorry for accusing you of lying and misrepresenting someone.

Story is on planetrugby.com

Not the First time Mckenzie has complained about the ref this year. Me thinks he's trying to cover up more important issues like no second half points by Australia.

Irrespective of the result and which team won or lost.

The fact is official errors are marring the game of rugby.

Something needs to be done, all too often one team gets stuck with galringly obvious errors, doesn't matter whether it is one, or ten, it should not happen.

Rugby is a tough enough game to win as it is, I understand some events in rugby is open to interpretation, those you can argue till you get blue in the face, even referees don't agree with one another, it is the glaringly obvious errors that must be erradicated.

Give each captain two referrals per game, that will provide some format where a team can refer a decision they believe the officials got wrong.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'll have to take your word for it then Ge....Sorry for accusing you of lying and misrepresenting someone.

Class mate! Cheers. No problem.

Agree with you BT. Not sure how that would help the BdP kind of issue, or the obstruction call we saw on Saturday. To me those are a case of straight out incompetence.

Do you think the wallabies realised the ball was out? Or took the refs word for it being in? Nobody could've missed the knock ons though. They were glaringly obvious.

"And those forwards continue to be marched backwards, sideways and round in a circle at scrum time. Perhaps worst of all for the Wallabies, everyone realises they are struggling. Having spoken to those in the know, both the IRB and the referees are very aware of the Australian set-piece frailties.
Without wishing to cast any sort of doubt over the credibility or integrity of the men in the middle, it must be a damn sight easier to punish a scrum universally recognised as under pressure, and the visitors may have had cause to feel aggrieved with a couple of George Clancy's penalty awards."

This is the point I have been trying to make. Although this is far more eloquent than I have managed this far.

GE, the referral will help with the clear cut decisions, not incidents that are up to interpretation.

So the captain must choose his referrals wisely.

whingeing poms? methinks not. whingeing aussies.

1 good flat pass is not enough to win an international test match. blaming the adjudicators is always going to be the fallback position of a team that can't dominate and subsequently loses a narrow game. every team indulges in this behaviour.

Quins, there's a difference between complaining about an unsympathetic refereeing performance you just didn't like and the man sausage sure tub thumping ignorant gall of some English fans to arrogantly believe they have the right to boast on like a peacock on Viagra about a win handed to them by a string of absolute howlers from a set of officials not fit to oversee a kids weekend match.

And to sit there and claim the refereeing was fine and the win was all about how great England are is frankly pompous twaddle.

And frankly that sort of behaviour is why the rest of the world live to stuff England back in their box and hammer the lid closed.

Biltong wrote:Irrespective of the result and which team won or lost.

The fact is official errors are marring the game of rugby.

Something needs to be done, all too often one team gets stuck with galringly obvious errors, doesn't matter whether it is one, or ten, it should not happen.

Rugby is a tough enough game to win as it is, I understand some events in rugby is open to interpretation, those you can argue till you get blue in the face, even referees don't agree with one another, it is the glaringly obvious errors that must be erradicated.

Give each captain two referrals per game, that will provide some format where a team can refer a decision they believe the officials got wrong.

its an interesting suggestion that works ok in some (not many) other sports. but which i think would be an absolute disaster for rugby. would turn every player into a part-time referee while they are on the pitch...they will all be looking for the infringements to turn the match (provoking to get a yellow card which is then referred, looking for the obstruction or offside in defense).

i think the most important aspect of any sport form the spectators perspective is "play to the whistle". change that at all and the whole thing becomes a non-stop finger-pointing whinge-fest. just my opinion, but i would hate to see rugby go down this path.

Did McKenzie actually slam match officials. I haven't seen the post match interviews. But having read the quotes in the paper it looks like he said he felt a couple of calls had a bearing on the match (i.e. failure to call ball out and pretty obvious obstruction), but doesn't he also say that there's no point in dwelling on it and they need to move on?

I've had a quick view of the game. In general Australians complaining about the ref sends me to sleep (i.e. there media and coaches do it with regular monotony). However, having watched the game I find myself have some sympathy for them (I better check I'm not having a nightmare). This was a game where I felt the rub of the ref went against them. The style didn't suit them for a start. That's par for the course. Usually you expect to get the raw need of stick when playing away. There were a significant number of calls in my book that were particularly poor. My initial feeling is it's in the running for the poorest officiating in a major international for this calendar year.

However moving on. It doesn't hide the issue that the Wallabies are still struggling. I also have the feeling that England need to improve to be competitive later in the series. I have no doubt that both sides will improve. Both sides got better throughout the Autumn series last year.

GloriousEmpire wrote:Quins, there's a difference between complaining about an unsympathetic refereeing performance you just didn't like and the man sausage sure tub thumping ignorant gall of some English fans to arrogantly believe they have the right to boast on like a peacock on Viagra about a win handed to them by a string of absolute howlers from a set of officials not fit to oversee a kids weekend match.

And to sit there and claim the refereeing was fine and the win was all about how great England are is frankly pompous twaddle

did i do any of the above? sh1t happens. i havent seen any england fans on here who are getting carried away about beating a fairly poor australia in a fairly poor match, with fairly poor refereeing. not quite sure what you are so worked up about.

That's exactly what you did in the previous post.

Lots of whinging about it. I think they've a right to feel agreived about the second try. It was clear obstruction. England do like Clancy and no doubt he'll be seen plenty of more times in twickenham As the the missed lineout well little things like that are missed all the time. Get over it.

It'll be interesting to see the IRB response to some clear as day errors by the officials. They've been quick to leap in and penalise NZ and others when they thought England or other home nations have been aggrieved.

I expect deafening silence this time. I suspect I won't be disappointed.

The 'obstruction'. I dont think Hartley should have been there but he didnt stop Moore from seeing Farrell and he wasnt between where Moore was and where he wanted to be.

It did need looking at but it would be a tough call to say that Moore was prevented from making the tackle.

GloriousEmpire wrote:It'll be interesting to see the IRB response to some clear as day errors by the officials. They've been quick to leap in and penalise NZ and others when they thought England or other home nations have been aggrieved.

I expect deafening silence this time. I suspect I won't be disappointed.

Sounds like you already have been

GloriousEmpire wrote:It'll be interesting to see the IRB response to some clear as day errors by the officials. They've been quick to leap in and penalise NZ and others when they thought England or other home nations have been aggrieved.

I expect deafening silence this time. I suspect I won't be disappointed.

Well the last ref who angered England was Steve Walsh. He was punished which sent out a clear message to all other refs. The other home nations do not have that kind of power.

Exactly. Steve Walsh who was in fact trying to keep England to just the 15 players on the field at a time.

No wonder the poor guy was driven to drink.

profitius wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:It'll be interesting to see the IRB response to some clear as day errors by the officials. They've been quick to leap in and penalise NZ and others when they thought England or other home nations have been aggrieved.

I expect deafening silence this time. I suspect I won't be disappointed.

Well the last ref who angered England was Steve Walsh. He was punished which sent out a clear message to all other refs. The other home nations do not have that kind of power.

Luckily it had no effect on the W or on an inspired Welsh performance, but Walsh was truly awful that day.

lostinwales wrote:

profitius wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:It'll be interesting to see the IRB response to some clear as day errors by the officials. They've been quick to leap in and penalise NZ and others when they thought England or other home nations have been aggrieved.

I expect deafening silence this time. I suspect I won't be disappointed.

Well the last ref who angered England was Steve Walsh. He was punished which sent out a clear message to all other refs. The other home nations do not have that kind of power.

Luckily it had no effect on the W or on an inspired Welsh performance, but Walsh was truly awful that day.

I believe most England supporters tried to blame Walsh for their dire performance that day! Sorry sorry behaviour.

GloriousEmpire wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

profitius wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:It'll be interesting to see the IRB response to some clear as day errors by the officials. They've been quick to leap in and penalise NZ and others when they thought England or other home nations have been aggrieved.

I expect deafening silence this time. I suspect I won't be disappointed.

Well the last ref who angered England was Steve Walsh. He was punished which sent out a clear message to all other refs. The other home nations do not have that kind of power.

Luckily it had no effect on the W or on an inspired Welsh performance, but Walsh was truly awful that day.

I believe most England supporters tried to blame Walsh for their dire performance that day! Sorry sorry behaviour.

  

Its a well known fact that the WAL graphic on bbc tv that day actually stood for Walsh, not Wales. tis true.... 

GloriousEmpire wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

profitius wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:It'll be interesting to see the IRB response to some clear as day errors by the officials. They've been quick to leap in and penalise NZ and others when they thought England or other home nations have been aggrieved.

I expect deafening silence this time. I suspect I won't be disappointed.

Well the last ref who angered England was Steve Walsh. He was punished which sent out a clear message to all other refs. The other home nations do not have that kind of power.

Luckily it had no effect on the W or on an inspired Welsh performance, but Walsh was truly awful that day.

I believe most England supporters tried to blame Walsh for their dire performance that day! Sorry sorry behaviour.

No the win was all about Wales. One part of that was the way they played the referee - an important skill. When you read what Adam Jones had to say about what he did in the scrums you have to give a great deal of credit to the player and none at all to the referee.

Referrals work in other sports - done on the basis of not making a new decision but seeing if there is evidence to overturn the decision made. Using this as a yardstick then the foot in touch would have been reversed as there was a break in play to make the referral before the try was scored but the obstruction try would NOT have been reversed as there was not evidence to overturn the decision.

At least Walsh knew where the touch lines were.

What is it with NH referees not being able to spot a knock on or a forward pass? It seems off that an entire hemisphere seems to need remedial training on what "forward" means.

If you base winning and losing over one decision then you're never likely to win anyhow. Referees will make a number of mistakes throughout the game... sometime in your favour sometimes not?

GE - Can you tell me why AUS never had a man thrown in the bin for their continuous scrum infringements or at the breakdown???  They were lucky here, unlucky with the kick. Which is more important... personally I'd rather give away 1 try then have 10 mins with 14 men (especially if our pack is already inferior).

Did you go on this much when Bismarck was yellow carded for tackling Dan Carter?  That had a far bigger impact on the match then Browns big toe and Hartley's shadowing... (soemthing which is rife in the SH).

TJ wrote:Referrals work in other sports - done on the basis of not making a new decision but seeing if there is evidence to overturn the decision made. Using this as a yardstick then the foot in touch would have been reversed as there was a break in play to make the referral before the try was scored but the obstruction try would NOT have been reversed as there was not evidence to overturn the decision.  

I did wonder since the TMO is allowed to look at the build up, why he didn't then point out that the entire move was invalid. Since the ball had only gone out prior to seven knock ons and the foot in touch, that was just a couple of phases. Back for the line out to Australia and play on would've been the fair call.

As it was it ruined the game, invalidated the outcome and devalued the win.

fa0019 wrote:If you base winning and losing over one decision then you're never likely to win anyhow. Referees will make a number of mistakes throughout the game... sometime in your favour sometimes not?

GE - Can you tell me why AUS never had a man thrown in the bin for their continuous scrum infringements or at the breakdown???  They were lucky here, unlucky with the kick. Which is more important... personally I'd rather give away 1 try then have 10 mins with 14 men (especially if our pack is already inferior).

Did you go on this much when Bismarck was yellow carded for tackling Dan Carter?  That had a far bigger impact on the match then Browns big toe and Hartley's shadowing... (soemthing which is rife in the SH).

Possibly because Clancy knew he was just going to ping Australia at the scrum all day regardless of what was happening. Notice the way he only reset when England went down?

If anyone deserved a yellow it was Yarde for the late no no arms shoulder charge. We mad multiple yellows for that in the RC. Not sure why England are allowed to get away with that too. Looks like one rule for England and a different one for the rest of the world.

What about Wood being held in the ruck prior to the Aus try GE? I didn't think it stopped Wood getting there but going strictly by the rules that's a penalty isn't it?

GE, you're going to give yourself a hernia

Oh woe is

GloriousEmpire wrote:

fa0019 wrote:If you base winning and losing over one decision then you're never likely to win anyhow. Referees will make a number of mistakes throughout the game... sometime in your favour sometimes not?

GE - Can you tell me why AUS never had a man thrown in the bin for their continuous scrum infringements or at the breakdown???  They were lucky here, unlucky with the kick. Which is more important... personally I'd rather give away 1 try then have 10 mins with 14 men (especially if our pack is already inferior).

Did you go on this much when Bismarck was yellow carded for tackling Dan Carter?  That had a far bigger impact on the match then Browns big toe and Hartley's shadowing... (soemthing which is rife in the SH).

Possibly because Clancy knew he was just going to ping Australia at the scrum all day regardless of what was happening. Notice the way he only reset when England went down?

If anyone deserved a yellow it was Yarde for the late no no arms shoulder charge. We mad multiple yellows for that in the RC. Not sure why England are allowed to get away with that too. Looks like one rule for England and a different one for the rest of the world.

I see so half a dozen penalties at scrum time... no yellow card. 1 block on a player who wouldn't have got the ball anyhow... yellow card.

In the end you have a point of view but for Farrell's try... the ref referred it, got a decision from his TMO and even watched it on the big screen and still came to the same decision. It was legal.

Alex Cuthbert scored a try in the first lions test under similar conditions... its modern rugby.

and if you are still complainng... well the decoy runners taking out defenders originated in AUS in the early 00s so they can have few complaints.