Referees vs the All Blacks

First topic message reminder :

Gregor Paul in the NZ Herald notes that the All Blacks are drawing a lot of yellow cards, which is putting them under pressure in matches.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=11310240

He allows that this might simply reflect growing indiscipline in their play but he is also drawn to the theory referees have it in for them these days.

Dominant teams don't normally incur the wrath of officials: the benefit of the doubt usually sits with the side which has the momentum and control of the contest...[P]erhaps they could be justified in wondering whether they are victims of an unconscious refereeing conspiracy.

All Black coach Steve Hansen gave the impression after the 12-all draw in Sydney that he's not yet sure to which school of thought he subscribes. "The first thing you have to find out is whether they [yellow cards] are correct decisions and if they are not you can't do much about those ones," he said. "I know some of them weren't right because the referees have apologised for them."

This line of argument will not find many supporters outside New Zealand, where many hold the belief, rightly or wrongly, that All Black infringements have been overlooked for years. England would very much like to have seen referees with a penchant for carding New Zealanders during their three match series in June.

Gregor Paul is right that decisions often go with the team on top during a match. However, if you are going to judge whether the All Blacks are receiving undue focus, then you probably need a bigger sample size than the one he looks at. You also can't look at supposed unjust cards without considering offences which went unpunished. If the officials had spotted the offence, Andrew Hore would have seen red against Wales in 2012, which is perhaps the highest profile escape under Steve Hansen.

I don't know where the truth lies but, as England found in the early days of Martin Johnson's reign, when you get a reputation for infringing, referees police you more closely. Biltong has often made the same point about the Springboks, so I doubt he will have much sympathy here.

To be honest I dn't think Joubert is unique in that interpretation.

I have seen it happen when we played Scotland last year, Wales this year and Argentina on the past weekend.

Even though teams in legal terms are infringing, if the opposition isn't doing anything to stop it, then referees become more lenient.

It's a funny one though. You're almost throwing yourself into ruck situations you know you're going to lose because you want the ref to see that you're contesting and police the opposition more closely, but the numbers you commit mean that you're more vulnerable.

I mean you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Which begs the question would teams compete if the other team didn't infringe.

There's so much for a ref to watch, you have to be in tune with what he's coming down hard on and what he's letting pass by. Keeping feet is a common one let go so long as there's nobody standing over the ball competing for it. Get isolated and the players bury their way over the top and you'll be pinged. The kick through at the ball from the ruck. The more players, the less you're likely to get pinged as is the sly foot or hand on the ground stopping or disrupting the pass clearing from the base.

You'd have to have superpowers to spot everything. There's all sorts of mischief going on at the rucks. It's all about context the way a ref sees it.

I don't think that's true. New Zealand had a great record going into the 2011 tournament and went on to deliver the title. Whatever critics they had, they answered. Even those who cried foul about Joubert's refereeing had to acknowledge they were deserved winners.

^^^
This is a breat quote i'd say, despite thoroughly beleiving France were never going to win that final in a hundred years there really isn't a man on the planet debating wether or not NZ were the best team in the world. Infact France, as England did in 2007 limped the whole way to the final.

I do feel a bit for NZ (don't worry it won't keep me up at night) because they tend to dominate for the majority of the times, going on win streak after win streak to be confronted by the old addage that unless they do so at the RWC it's pointless. I think it's due to the models everyone use since Woodward, where clear and specific focus is put on the RWC, and a lot that happens in between is just prep.

To argue the opposite side of the coin however, the international season benefits the SH so they are bound to win plenty of games in between RWC's, there is an argument that the RWC is the only true level playing field (EXCEPT IF YOUR NOT A TIER ONE NATION, THEN YOU GET F####D)

Referees are not just there to administer the rules like a football referee, they are also there to maintain the flow of the game.
 
How many times do you here a referee vocally tell a player to get out the way, hands off etc. If they don't they could ping him 5 seconds later easy and give away a penalty but thats not their role, the other side is equally important especially given rucks have become so competitive in the modern era.

You'd see less of a push for a global season if there were that much of an advantage for the SH.

NZ have an average record at WCs, but since that is judged by NZ standards it's crap. Other countries judge NZ by NZ standards other than their own as it is a leveller. Basically the Cup is pretty much the only thing to give NZ stick about. Aside from that they're a pretty good rugby team historically. That's why Woodward gave NZ so much stick. His stats are great but his 70% isn't even par for the course over NZ's 120 odd years.

The difference between 2011 and 2007 was that in 2011 che champions were universally regarded as the best side in the world and the 2007 champions were not (hence the schadenfreude). So not sure what you mean there mate. Care to elaborate? (Not being @rsey I'm genuinely curious)

fa0019 wrote:Referees are not just there to administer the rules like a football referee, they are also there to maintain the flow of the game.
 
How many times do you here a referee vocally tell a player to get out the way, hands off etc. If they don't they could ping him 5 seconds later easy and give away a penalty but thats not their role, the other side is equally important especially given rucks have become so competitive in the modern era.

I think your right, but hiding behind 'by the letter of the law' excuses for match changing decisions isn't going to work if we recognise this. They can't have it both ways.

I generally think refs are very good, when I ref my favourite phrase is 'If you've never dropped a ball, missed a tackle, or been offside, please critique my performance'. Refs in generall make far less mistakes than players, despite having to make a thousand more decisions, with far less support.

I remember the furore after Warburtons red card, a lot of people were criticising Rolland for the decision, and the response from the IRB and apologists (generally the French and English who revelled in it lol) was that to the letter of the law he was correct, which is undeniably true, however it was the only letter of the law red card for that offense in the tournament, or in previous years. We saw similar, and the odd worse case get let go or yellow carded.

So we aren't just debating technicalities, or Refs responsibility, but a consistency not just between hemispheres, but between individuals. If so many individuals are seeing so many incidents different ways then there must be an issue in interpretation and training.

Its tricky when one minute the referee will give a player a warning and the next they ping him literally seconds after he hits the floor and doesn't let go.
 
The fairest method would be to give all players a warning or no warnings at all... but the flow of the game could be jepordised and to the IRB and the viewers at home paying their monthly satellite subscriptions, thats the most important aspect these days.

disneychilly wrote:You'd see less of a push for a global season if there were that much of an advantage for the SH.

NZ have an average record at WCs, but since that is judged by NZ standards it's crap. Other countries judge NZ by NZ standards other than their own as it is a leveller. Basically the Cup is pretty much the only thing to give NZ stick about. Aside from that they're a pretty good rugby team historically. That's why Woodward gave NZ so much stick. His stats are great but his 70% isn't even par for the course over NZ's 120 odd years.

The difference between 2011 and 2007 was that in 2011 che champions were universally regarded as the best side in the world and the 2007 champions were not (hence the schadenfreude). So not sure what you mean there mate. Care to elaborate? (Not being @rsey I'm genuinely curious)

I was comparing losing finalists, England limped to the final, having nearly gone out of the group stage to USA, and France shouldve gone out of the group stage also. Neither faced opposition who played very well, and neither were regarded anywhere near no. 2 in the world, however getting there was an acheivement for both. Obvious difference being France probably deserved better on the day, not that they deserved to be world champs but there is an argument for that I suppose.

The point about records, and not like i'm beating the global season drum, is that if NZ's record against all NH teams is 99% win rate, and their world cup record is average, then there would be an argument that NZ benefit from the international

Neutralee wrote:

disneychilly wrote:You'd see less of a push for a global season if there were that much of an advantage for the SH.

NZ have an average record at WCs, but since that is judged by NZ standards it's crap. Other countries judge NZ by NZ standards other than their own as it is a leveller. Basically the Cup is pretty much the only thing to give NZ stick about. Aside from that they're a pretty good rugby team historically. That's why Woodward gave NZ so much stick. His stats are great but his 70% isn't even par for the course over NZ's 120 odd years.

The difference between 2011 and 2007 was that in 2011 che champions were universally regarded as the best side in the world and the 2007 champions were not (hence the schadenfreude). So not sure what you mean there mate. Care to elaborate? (Not being @rsey I'm genuinely curious)

I was comparing losing finalists, England limped to the final, having nearly gone out of the group stage to USA, and France shouldve gone out of the group stage also. Neither faced opposition who played very well, and neither were regarded anywhere near no. 2 in the world, however getting there was an acheivement for both. Obvious difference being France probably deserved better on the day, not that they deserved to be world champs but there is an argument for that I suppose.

The point about records, and not like i'm beating the global season drum, is that if NZ's record against all NH teams is 99% win rate, and their world cup record is average, then there would be an argument that NZ benefit from the international

 
England beat Australia and France in 2007 who were ranked 2 & 4 in the world respectively at the start of the 2007 tournament with France playing a home semi-final to boot. Can't say they didn't deserve to get there via teams faced. For a team who was ranked below them both to come up trumps would suggest they did well and deserved their place in the final.
 
France. They faced England and Wales in 2011, ranked 4th and 7th respectively. Less of a challenge with England being a little poor for their 4th ranking place although Wales were far better than 7th suggests. But you can thank AUS for losing to IRE for upsetting the balance of the tournament.

Neutralee wrote:

To argue the opposite side of the coin however, the international season benefits the SH so they are bound to win plenty of games in between RWC's, there is an argument that the RWC is the only true level playing field (EXCEPT IF YOUR NOT A TIER ONE NATION, THEN YOU GET F####D)

Not so sure.

Australia have played 18 RWC matches against the traditional 5 Nations teams and has won 12/18
South Africa has played 7 RWC matches against the traditional 5 Nations teams and has won 6/7
New Zealand has played 18 RWC matches against the traditional 5 Nations teams and has won 16/18

France has beaten us twice in a RWC. The only other teams are Australia (2) and SA (1 and lost third and fourth playoff in 2007).

So far we've had 7 RWCs. That's not even a calendar year's worth of tests.

Beating NZ didn't get France the cup. Australia won in 91 but lost to England in their semi final victories against NZ.

I'd say looking at that, it's quite clear NZ's record in internationals overall is reflected in the RWC. 43 games. Won 37. 6 Lost. Points For 2012. Points against. 584. Winning percentage of 86%

The top teams who have beaten NZ are always in with a shout but apart from 3 sides, they are yet to be beaten by any other and only Australia has a better record against NZ in head to heads (and SA if you include the third and fourth playoff).

kiakahaaotearoa wrote: France has beaten us twice in a RWC. The only other teams are Australia (2) and SA (1 and lost third and fourth playoff in 2007).

So far we've had 7 RWCs. That's not even a calendar year's worth of tests.

Beating NZ didn't get France the cup. Australia won in 91 but lost to England in their semi final victories against NZ.

I'd say looking at that, it's quite clear NZ's record in internationals overall is reflected in the RWC. 43 games. Won 37. 6 Lost. Points For 2012. Points against. 584. Winning percentage of 86%

The top teams who have beaten NZ are always in with a shout but apart from 3 sides, they are yet to be beaten by any other and only Australia has a better record against NZ in head to heads (and SA if you include the third and fourth playoff).

Of course you must include the third and fourth play off, it is the only bragging rights we have left over you lot

Then it include it we shall.   

I'll even throw in the DVD of Invictus for you mate. Never got round to watching it...

Biltong wrote:

Neutralee wrote:

To argue the opposite side of the coin however, the international season benefits the SH so they are bound to win plenty of games in between RWC's, there is an argument that the RWC is the only true level playing field (EXCEPT IF YOUR NOT A TIER ONE NATION, THEN YOU GET F####D)

Not so sure.

Australia have played 18 RWC matches against the traditional 5 Nations teams and has won 12/18
South Africa has played 7 RWC matches against the traditional 5 Nations teams and has won 6/7
New Zealand has played 18 RWC matches against the traditional 5 Nations teams and has won 16/18

 
Yes but stats have a way of distorting figures. Wales, Ireland & Scotland are not likely to beat a 3N side during or between RWCs.
 
Only once has a final been between 2 SH teams (1995) and only once (1991) has a 6N side failed to beat a 3N team.

You're just distorting stats with other stats.   

ha.. true kia
 
But given the 3N dominance in the game its perhaps a little surprising that either ENG & FRA have almost always (86% of the time) have been in the top 2 sides of the tournament.

SANZA teams have 100 % been the top two sides of the tournament so my stats beat your stats.   

What the stats tend to suggest then is that England, France, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand are the sides most likely to do well at a RWC. Given that these sides have the biggest squads in terms of depth, this is hardly a revelation!!   

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:SANZA teams have 100 % been the top two sides of the tournament so my stats beat your stats.   

What the stats tend to suggest then is that England, France, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand are the sides most likely to do well at a RWC. Given that these sides have the biggest squads in terms of depth, this is hardly a revelation!!   

 
In 1991 though i thnk people don't realise how low down rugby was in AUS in terms of preference. Had barely over 10,000 registered players at the time. A remarkable achievement.

The Aussie sides in the early and late 90s were special in the players they had at their disposal. They've always punched above their weight in rugby in terms of their player pool. Just like when NZ have a record on the line.   

I hate that playoff. Scrap it. Not for that reason though Biltong!

 

fa0019 wrote:

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:SANZA teams have 100 % been the top two sides of the tournament so my stats beat your stats.   

What the stats tend to suggest then is that England, France, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand are the sides most likely to do well at a RWC. Given that these sides have the biggest squads in terms of depth, this is hardly a revelation!!   

 
In 1991 though i thnk people don't realise how low down rugby was in AUS in terms of preference. Had barely over 10,000 registered players at the time. A remarkable achievement.

Australia were playing an amature sport to a professional standard. I reckon the professionalism of league gave England and Australia a higher benchmark to aim for than other union playing countries. True or not?

fa0019 wrote:ha.. true kia
 
But given the 3N dominance in the game its perhaps a little surprising that either ENG & FRA have almost always (86% of the time) have been in the top 2 sides of the tournament.

Call me cynical. I'm not surprised at all. I'd be surprised if the final next year didn't involve a NH team.

Sorry not sure if its been mentioned earlier in the thread - Polite has the game (NZ v OZ) this saturday

http://www.planetrugby.co.uk/story/0,25883,3821_9359430,00.html

probably quite an important part of the game that. Hansen should pick Franks for this one.

Yeah pretty much all it takes is a QF with two of the big three and bang you're pretty much guaranteed a NH team in the final.

Well that is the thing with the RWC, the way the pools and how they cede the teams is wrong.

If you take any sport that has a knock out phase the seeds are set in a manner where in an ideal scenario the number 1 and 4 seeds meet in one semi final and number 2 and 3 in the other.

It doesn't work that way in RWC.

The other issue is that the ceding takes place far to soon.

It is fine to know who the qualifiers are way in advance, but the ceding should be done as close to the RWC as possible.

There should be a benefit for those teams performing over the preceding 4 years before a world cup.

We ceded you with Bryce Lawrence.   

I see Wayne Barnes is reffing the Ellis Park test. He sure ceded us.   

I wouldn't mind seeing a set up similar to the Cricket World Cup. Two big pools and everybody plays every other team in the pool. The top teams go to the knockout phase. Top teams get pool competition and you lessen the chance of anomalies. Of course, I would say that...   

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:We ceded you with Bryce Lawrence.   

I see Wayne Barnes is reffing the Ellis Park test. He sure ceded us.   

I wouldn't mind seeing a set up similar to the Cricket World Cup. Two big pools and everybody plays every other team in the pool. The top teams go to the knockout phase. Top teams get pool competition and you lessen the chance of anomalies. Of course, I would say that...   

Yep, I actually advocated that a while ago.

BUt you would need less teams then, and most have an issue with that as they believe the game will become even more elitist.

Currently you play 7 matches all the way to the final. SO you can't really have more than 6 teams per group, so that leaves you only the top 12 teams to participate.

Who is going to be that brave?

It will eliminate anomalies though.

There are calls for 24 teams in the RWC.

12 is always a good number to work with. The Super 12 had the best format. You could have something like sevens and have tournaments working in conjunction leading up to the final.

Top tier - 12 teams. 2 pools.
Going by current rankings

Pool A NZ, Australia, Ireland, France, Samoa, Fiji
Pool B SA, England, Wales, Scotland, Japan, Argentina

2nd tier Tonga, Georgia, Canada, Uruguay, Spain, Portugal
Italy, Romania, USA, Russia, Namibia, Hong Kong

Both tiers play and Pool A winner plays 4th place Pool B. 2nd place Pool A 3rd place Pool B. 3rd place Pool A 2nd place Pool B. 4th place Pool A Winner Pool B.

Semi finals: Game A winner vs Game D winner Game B winner vs Game C winner
Finals from the winners of the semis.

After the knockout round is decided, the eliminated teams go into a Plate Tournament.

All teams get a good amount of games and there are no big skill gaps. Second tier teams get an audience and are not pitted against teams that have a gulf in class. Of course you'd have to have a system where ranking points are fairly decided. It'll never happen but it doesn't stop me from thinking about it.   

Good call Kia
 
I think a lot of us for a long time have been calling for a plate competition to be added. The game is not strong enough and in 50 years time even with maximum exposure we still won't have any more names on the Webb Ellis cup bar perhaps France.
 
Although I would also have a playoff between 5th in tier 1 and first in tier 2 into deciding the make up of the next tournament.
 
Personally I can't see why we can't have 20 teams and teams 4 & 5 in groups go into an 8 team KO plate division with 3rd place getting automatic qualification.
 
You could do what France 07 did as well with ticketing.... to buy a cup QF pair you also need to buy a plate QF pair. It paid off with big numbers i.e. +30k turning up to the minnow matches.

Since I reckon the Ellis Park test will be a thriller I hope we get to hear the dialogue between McCaw and Barnes. McCaw has learned a lot since the debacle and it's the first huge game Barnes has had with NZ since.

disneychilly wrote:Yeah pretty much all it takes is a QF with two of the big three and bang you're pretty much guaranteed a NH team in the final.

No, that doesn't wash. Unless the remaining two sides play the semi, then why should a Northern side have a guaranteed run to the final?

Bearing in mind South Africa have only been back since 1995, we have five tournaments to look at, and three of those have been played in the south.

1995 - No big 3 SH quarter final match up and we did go on to have the only all-Southern final. However, Australia got knocked out by England at the QF stage, not by NZ or SA in the semis.

1999 - No big 3 SH quarter final match up. They all made it to the semis and then France beat New Zealand

2003 - Yes, a big 3 SH quarter final match up. But hang on, The big 3 SH weren't the World big 3. England would have been the top ranked side and France possibly ahead of South Africa in fourth, so there's nothing out of order about seeing the Boks in that position.

2007 - No big 3 SH quarter final match up here either. Didn't stop New Zealand and Australia both going out in that round, however.

2011 - Yes, a big 3 SH quarter final match up. Nothing odd here, though, since Ireland beat Australia. In fact, if the Welsh had got their kicks against South Africa, the original seeding plan would have been restored despite two of the big 3 SH sides dropping matches in the pool stages.

Just a note on some statistics of the past weekend.
New Zealand created 14 turn overs to the Wallabies' 4, yet the All Blacks conceded 17 penalties to 10.

If you look at that it does prove the All Blacks do contest the breakdown and tackle areas more and there for it stands to reason they would concede more penalties, case in point, they conceded 11 defensive penalties to the Aussies 3

I struggle to see your points Rugby Fan in that context-to me they're kind of irrelevant as they are differing circumstances in which NH teams have made the final (except 95). I said that if there is a big three QF a NH side is pretty much guaranteed a final berth. I didn't say that this was the only scenario.

disneychilly wrote:I struggle to see your points Rugby Fan....I said that if there is a big three QF a NH side is pretty much guaranteed a final berth. I didn't say that this was the only scenario.

Sorry, I took you to mean the most likely scenario to produce a North vs South final was for two of the Big 3 to meet in the quarters. Since you also mentioned being cynical about such matters [Edit: it wasn't you who said that, it was blackcanelion], I thought you were also hinting that the deck gets stacked that way. I set out to show that hasn't been the case.

If you are saying instead that there are lots of ways we can get a North vs South final, then I can only agree. Mainly, though, it has come about through England beating Australia and France beating New Zealand. Outside that, France beating Australia in 1987 and Ireland beating them in 2011 did the trick.

disneychilly wrote:I struggle to see your points Rugby Fan in that context-to me they're kind of irrelevant as they are differing circumstances in which NH teams have made the final (except 95). I said that if there is a big three QF a NH side is pretty much guaranteed a final berth. I didn't say that this was the only scenario.

 
I wouldn't say so completely.
 
In the 6 times that FRA or ENG have reached the final only twice have they done so without meeting SH opponents.
 
87 - FRA beat AUS.
91 - ENG lost to NZ lost to NZ in pools, didn't face another SH side until final.
95 - Didn't reach final.
99 - FRA beat NZ.
03 - ENG beat SA.
07 - ENG beat AUS.
11 - FRA lost to NZ in pools, didn't face another SH side until final.
 
Given the apparent dominance, more often then not a NH have beaten a 3N side to reach the final hence the point made.

Well you could equally point out that a SANZA side has made the World Cup final EVERY tournament. But I don't see the point of making that point either.   

Ha Kia

But as we mentioned earlier... FRA and ENG are seen historically and ranking wise as always a few notches behind that of the 3N sides. The dominance we often see is not so dominant in the RWC.

You would expect the 3N sides to win the world cup and dominate nearly every time which has been the case 6/7 but not just the winners... 2nd and 3rd place too.

With only three teams the chances of coming 1st, 2nd and 3rd are the same chances of Ayoub getting a TMO decision right.   

Kaplan wary of NZ negative tactics.....

http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,3551_9432640,00.html

ABs are probably more weary of incompetent refs.

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:Kaplan wary of NZ negative tactics.....

http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,3551_9432640,00.html

Yet in the same breath suggests that Peyper got it wrong with yellow carding Barrett, the ABs cant win, they get yellow carded when they are accused of marginal tactics and yellow carded when they dont.

Interesting to see how Peyper goes tomorrow night.

Polite is the ref tomorrow & Peyper is one of the assostants.

Auklandlaurie - Re Kaplan you could argue that he is being balanced by admitting Peyper got the Barrett call wrong but that refs are more aware of the ABs tactics when under pressure?
I guess it depends where you sit.....

Anyway looking forward to another encounter

The problem is that the rules are now so convoluted that at every breakdown,lineout,
scrum,and maul.Ref could ping either side for an offence at every one has to be a joke
and players acting to milk penalties doesn't help.
Every season the IRB tinkers around the edges instead of sitting down with all parties
and producing workable rules.

Rugby's laws are like religious doctrine. Open to interpretations so everyone can claim justification for doing whatever they bloody well like.

When I think about the laws of rugby I think about a piece of string, it is as long as you need it to be, problem is the purpose of your string does not always correspond with the purpose of the referees string.

Biltong I take it the purpose of your string is to choke said referee?

Well if his name is Bryce of course.

and he has a pair of scissors to alter the length of string on a whim.