Craig Joubert

First topic message reminder :

Well he feckin is !  lets make sure we do it boys ?

goneagain wrote:Pretty much agree bcl.
But we all know how this goes. When the underdog gets close or sneaks a win and emotion takes over it's standard practice to ignore any infringements by them, scream about all the injustices of 50/50 calls going against them then completely refuse to see any issues with calls going in their favour.
T'was ever thus.

I feel the same any close game lost, from kids games through to internationals. Human nature, why didn't the ref pic it up. I was rooting for Wales and Scotland (Selfishly worried about the AB's losing to South Africa or Australia). Pretty shallow I know. Should point out that most of my mates think Joubert got both decisions horribly wrong.

Mr Fishpaste wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

temporary21 wrote:Sorry but that looks like a scottish knock on... it was their fault for making such a terrible mess of their own line out.

It was initially a Scottish knock on but that isn't the point here, the last person who touched the ball however was Phipps and that is why it shouldn't have been a penalty.

Here is the law from the IRB website:

When a player knocks-on and an offside team-mate next plays the ball, the offside player is liable to sanction if playing the ball prevented an opponent from gaining an advantage.

It doesn't say anything about whether Phipps' contact with the ball (should it have indeed occurred) does or doesn't change it from being a penalty.

Sydney Morning Herald and NZ Times say that it does. Will try to find the reason for this.

goneagain wrote:Pretty much agree bcl.
But we all know how this goes. When the underdog gets close or sneaks a win and emotion takes over it's standard practice to ignore any infringements by them, scream about all the injustices of 50/50 calls going against them then completely refuse to see any issues with calls going in their favour.
T'was ever thus.

I don't think that many people share this rather strange view. If this had happened to any team, it would have been a talking point and it remains a valid one. Why don't you come onto the match thread and count the number of Scottish posters who are extremely magnanimous about this incident and the game in general. I'm not sure it's a particularly intelligent generalisation given how subjective the notion of 'underdog' is.

George Carlin wrote:

Mr Fishpaste wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

temporary21 wrote:Sorry but that looks like a scottish knock on... it was their fault for making such a terrible mess of their own line out.

It was initially a Scottish knock on but that isn't the point here, the last person who touched the ball however was Phipps and that is why it shouldn't have been a penalty.

Here is the law from the IRB website:

When a player knocks-on and an offside team-mate next plays the ball, the offside player is liable to sanction if playing the ball prevented an opponent from gaining an advantage.

It doesn't say anything about whether Phipps' contact with the ball (should it have indeed occurred) does or doesn't change it from being a penalty.

Sydney Morning Herald and NZ Times say that it does. Will try to find the reason for this.

It does change it. The key word in next plays it. The next player was not Scottish. Which like a touched kick puts them onside

Well NZers aren't immune from watching games with their hearts (and ears - so many people seem to think the commentators and pundits always get it right), we love a good underdog victory as much as the next man. I was a gutted as anyone when the Scots messed up the restart/clearance/lineout at the end, but doesn't mean I deserve a payoff for my emotional investment.

Scotland put themselves in a position to win the game. Then they put themselves in a position to lose it. Perhaps a poor decision sealed their fate, but the poor play in the 22 is why they didn't win.

Scotland's game against Australia was better than either England or Wales, at least they scored more try's, and took the game to the wire.

But like all NH teams they lost it in the last 2/3 minutes of the game, and i do think it is unfair to blame the referee. He made his decision on what (he saw) may be if he had gone to the TMO the out come might of been different.

With regard to the referee and the TMO. what are the reasons the referee can call upon the TMO for? apart from foul play,knock on, (deliberate ) or other wise. can the referee ask for offside, or players being played on side as in that last minute of play to be checked?

I only got to watch the first hour of this game (some of us have to get up and go to work), so I havent really seen this particular incident , or at least not on a big HD screen.

Where I do have sympathy with the Scotts was the yellow card against Sean Maitland, and Im not defending him merely because he's a Kiwi, the TMO was a Kiwi. We see many instances in a game where knock ons occur and they dont get treated as 'Intentional" merely because there is no evidence of an attempt being made to catch the ball, which was the quantum leap that Joubert made in his decision making.

A common example is knock ons that occur at kick offs, many players are just attempting to get the ball to go back, as in away from the competeing opposition. how many of those do go forward? zillions, yet there is absolutely no evidence to catch the ball its merely a knock on, nothing more, nothing less.

Where abouts on the field it occurs doesnt come into it, well not that I know of.

There was nothing to suggest in his movements that Maitland was trying to play the ball intentionally forward ie pushing the ball, my personal opinion was that he was trying to tap the ball across to his other hand and then secure it. to deem it an intentional knock on, solely on the absence of being satisfied that he was trying to catch it on the full is absurd.

But not as absurd as flashing a yellow card.

Two minutes later Australia scored a try right on the spot where Maitland would have been standing.

Irrespective of Scotland mucking up the last lineout and Joubert getting the subsequent decision wrong, for me the late tackle on Hogg was clear cut. Joubert should have gone to the TMO or the TMO should have called it (he was certainly quick to get involved with the Maitland call), a penalty there for Scotland would most probably have led to a different match result. That was simply poor officiating.

Barnes in 2007, Rolland in 2011 and now Joubert in 2015.

With TMOs and so many officials how is there still so much controversy.

I have never been a fan of Joubert as a ref. I think he is a a whistle happy inflexible moron. I don't often subscribe to the tin foil hat "the favourites go through no matter what" brigade but the evidence is compelling.

The challenge on Hogg should have been reviewed and I don't belive for one second that none of the 4 officials saw it.

Maitland's yellow was purely subjective, and he should have checked out that final Penalty.

It's no wonder the conspiracy theorists think Scotland were unwelcome in the last 4. After all Joubert's impression of The Flash at full time without shaking a single players hand should see him never referee an international again.

The next time something like this happens, I'd imagine the team captain is going to suggest to the ref that he check for foul play "I think there was a swinging fist" - or the ref will create that pretext for himself.

That let's the TMO into the picture. He can then be asked about the correct way to restart the game, which would let him offer an opinion on the true matter at hand.

It's a roundabout method, but I wouldn't be surprised to see it. World Rugby aren't going to broaden the remit of the TMO because they already got a ton of criticism for the way reviews were slowing the game down.

Last-minute game-changing moments deserve the right decisions. Logically speaking, or course, every moment deserves the right decision but there's always going to be a lot more invested in turning points at the death.

For my part, I think the TMO would have seen the ball come from Phipps and suggest a scrum restart to Australia. That's not certain, though. More than a few still see Strauss as the last man in contact. If the TMO wasn't certain, he could easily have gone with a version of "umpire's call", and suggested Joubert stick to his guns.

Joubert is not only a cheat but a cowardly rat in running off and not explaining to Laidlaw. Gavin Hastings and Matt Dawson, amongst many others, tweeting that it was an utter disgrace. Was he sprinting up the tunnel to collect his blood money ?

George Carlin wrote:

goneagain wrote:Pretty much agree bcl.
But we all know how this goes. When the underdog gets close or sneaks a win and emotion takes over it's standard practice to ignore any infringements by them, scream about all the injustices of 50/50 calls going against them then completely refuse to see any issues with calls going in their favour.
T'was ever thus.

I don't think that many people share this rather strange view. If this had happened to any team, it would have been a talking point and it remains a valid one. Why don't you come onto the match thread and count the number of Scottish posters who are extremely magnanimous about this incident and the game in general. I'm not sure it's a particularly intelligent generalisation given how subjective the notion of 'underdog' is.

It's neither here nor there whether many people share my view or not. It's a discussion forum, I was under the impression that one of the purposes is to present different views.
I'm sure it would be a talking point in any other circumstance, what's you point?
I have read the match thread, but this is the Craig Joubert thread, where there is pretty much universal condemnation of him, although I don't see too many objections to his many dubious scrum penalty decisions, wonder why that is?
I'm not sure where I was making any comment about the subjectivity of assigning underdog status in any particular match, but are you seriously suggesting Scotland were not underdogs going into this one?
I stand by that my claim that in close matches there is much more scrutiny and wailing and gnashing of teeth at the injustices, perceived and real, to have been visited upon the plucky outsider.
As for ad-hominem attacks questioning someone's intelligence for not joining the herd, well, says it all really.

I think it's more a case of pulling for 'your' team and most people going for the underdog if they're neutral. The 50:50 become 75:25. The 25:75 become 50:50. Etc. I guess I should be chuffed that England are rarely considered the underdog

For me it is relatively clear, a TMO cannot be used in these circumstances and I have yet to see a camera angle that shows Phipps was the last person to touch the ball. Joubert was stood no more than 2 metres away from the action looking directly at the ball, so had a clearer angle than any of us. Removing the emotion from the situation it was the correct call. Sadly Scotland were the masters of their own downfall, a poor lineout call followed by very poor execution cost them the game. Nevertheless it shouldn't take away from what was the game of the tournament and given how little chance Scotland were given prior to the match, their's was arguably the performance of the tournament.

goneagain wrote:

George Carlin wrote:

goneagain wrote:Pretty much agree bcl.
But we all know how this goes. When the underdog gets close or sneaks a win and emotion takes over it's standard practice to ignore any infringements by them, scream about all the injustices of 50/50 calls going against them then completely refuse to see any issues with calls going in their favour.
T'was ever thus.

I don't think that many people share this rather strange view. If this had happened to any team, it would have been a talking point and it remains a valid one. Why don't you come onto the match thread and count the number of Scottish posters who are extremely magnanimous about this incident and the game in general. I'm not sure it's a particularly intelligent generalisation given how subjective the notion of 'underdog' is.

It's neither here nor there whether many people share my view or not. It's a discussion forum, I was under the impression that one of the purposes is to present different views.
I'm sure it would be a talking point in any other circumstance, what's you point?
I have read the match thread, but this is the Craig Joubert thread, where there is pretty much universal condemnation of him, although I don't see too many objections to his many dubious scrum penalty decisions, wonder why that is?
I'm not sure where I was making any comment about the subjectivity of assigning underdog status in any particular match, but are you seriously suggesting Scotland were not underdogs going into this one?
I stand by that my claim that in close matches there is much more scrutiny and wailing and gnashing of teeth at the injustices, perceived and real, to have been visited upon the plucky outsider.
As for ad-hominem attacks questioning someone's intelligence for not joining the herd, well, says it all really.

Which of the above would you like me to answer first? Each is worth several paragraphs. Your prevailing point seems to be that any complaints about officiating or decision making derive mainly from a sense of unjustice given the perceived status of the two teams playing. My point is that this either intentionally or unintentionally does a disservice to the merits of what is actually being complained about. It's quite difficult to reply when you seem to be stating and responding to positions that I am not actually supporting.

HongKongCherry wrote:For me it is relatively clear, a TMO cannot be used in these circumstances and I have yet to see a camera angle that shows Phipps was the last person to touch the ball. Joubert was stood no more than 2 metres away from the action looking directly at the ball, so had a clearer angle than any of us. Removing the emotion from the situation it was the correct call. Sadly Scotland were the masters of their own downfall, a poor lineout call followed by very poor execution cost them the game. Nevertheless it shouldn't take away from what was the game of the tournament and given how little chance Scotland were given prior to the match, their's was arguably the performance of the tournament.

Well that was a load of nonsense!!

Here's that angle I hadn't seen... https://youtu.be/xSiYF793wUg

HongKongCherry wrote:For me it is relatively clear, a TMO cannot be used in these circumstances and I have yet to see a camera angle that shows Phipps was the last person to touch the ball. Joubert was stood no more than 2 metres away from the action looking directly at the ball, so had a clearer angle than any of us. Removing the emotion from the situation it was the correct call. Sadly Scotland were the masters of their own downfall, a poor lineout call followed by very poor execution cost them the game. Nevertheless it shouldn't take away from what was the game of the tournament and given how little chance Scotland were given prior to the match, their's was arguably the performance of the tournament.

Taking the emotion out of it I can't agree with you - from the replays it looks to me that Phipps was clearly the last man to play the ball.

You say Joubert was looking right at it but it is fairly optimistic to say that he had a feckin clue what had happened in real time. Decisions like that have to be 100% certain - I'd be very surprised if he was 100% certain. It has been commented on that he saw a replay of the decision on the big screen soon after - that may have prompted his sprint off the pitch.

HongKongCherry wrote:

HongKongCherry wrote:For me it is relatively clear, a TMO cannot be used in these circumstances and I have yet to see a camera angle that shows Phipps was the last person to touch the ball. Joubert was stood no more than 2 metres away from the action looking directly at the ball, so had a clearer angle than any of us. Removing the emotion from the situation it was the correct call. Sadly Scotland were the masters of their own downfall, a poor lineout call followed by very poor execution cost them the game. Nevertheless it shouldn't take away from what was the game of the tournament and given how little chance Scotland were given prior to the match, their's was arguably the performance of the tournament.

Well that was a load of nonsense!!  

Here's that angle I hadn't seen... https://youtu.be/xSiYF793wUg

That's more like it!

goneagain wrote:

George Carlin wrote:

goneagain wrote:Pretty much agree bcl.
But we all know how this goes. When the underdog gets close or sneaks a win and emotion takes over it's standard practice to ignore any infringements by them, scream about all the injustices of 50/50 calls going against them then completely refuse to see any issues with calls going in their favour.
T'was ever thus.

I don't think that many people share this rather strange view. If this had happened to any team, it would have been a talking point and it remains a valid one. Why don't you come onto the match thread and count the number of Scottish posters who are extremely magnanimous about this incident and the game in general. I'm not sure it's a particularly intelligent generalisation given how subjective the notion of 'underdog' is.

It's neither here nor there whether many people share my view or not. It's a discussion forum, I was under the impression that one of the purposes is to present different views.
I'm sure it would be a talking point in any other circumstance, what's you point?
I have read the match thread, but this is the Craig Joubert thread, where there is pretty much universal condemnation of him, although I don't see too many objections to his many dubious scrum penalty decisions, wonder why that is?
I'm not sure where I was making any comment about the subjectivity of assigning underdog status in any particular match, but are you seriously suggesting Scotland were not underdogs going into this one?
I stand by that my claim that in close matches there is much more scrutiny and wailing and gnashing of teeth at the injustices, perceived and real, to have been visited upon the plucky outsider.
As for ad-hominem attacks questioning someone's intelligence for not joining the herd, well, says it all really.

Do you really think this is limited to underdogs? There was plenty of carry on re the ABs being knocked out in 2007, surely more accurate to say either a) when teams miss out in a close one, there's always a bit of anger/finger pointing or b) when teams lose partly it seems as a result of bad ref decisions...

His argument isn't ad hominem, it is directed at the argument being made not the person.

21st Century Schizoid Man wrote:Joubert is not only a cheat but a cowardly rat in running off and not explaining to Laidlaw.  Gavin Hastings and Matt Dawson, amongst many others, tweeting that it was an utter disgrace. Was he sprinting up the tunnel to collect his blood money ?  

Stop assassinating the man's character, enough of that now.

You are implying the man got paid to give the win to Australia, unless you have irrefutable proof desist immediately.

If you are of the opinion he is incompetent, then fine, you don't need proof for that.

Not sure if any of you heard Ian Robertson on the Today Programme on R4 this morning. He was still furious!

The mistake is just one of those things. People will focus on it as it was so late but there's 80 plus mins in a game. He shouldn't have run away though; that's a bigger mistake and one I'm sure he's regretting.

Biltong wrote:

21st Century Schizoid Man wrote:Joubert is not only a cheat but a cowardly rat in running off and not explaining to Laidlaw.  Gavin Hastings and Matt Dawson, amongst many others, tweeting that it was an utter disgrace. Was he sprinting up the tunnel to collect his blood money ?  

Stop assassinating the man's character, enough of that now.

You are implying the man got paid to give the win to Australia, unless you have irrefutable proof desist immediately.

If you are of the opinion he is incompetent, then fine, you don't need proof for that.

According to NZ Stuff (the dominion post) he had things thrown at him from the crowd. That might explain why he ran to the tunnel.

GC, my original point stands, my reply to your reply seems straight forward enough to me.
Guess we'll leave it at that.

Hood, I don't think the level of vitriol that Joubert is receiving from all sides is comparable to the 2007 situation. Barnes copped it from NZers, but it was generally shrugged off as 'one of those things' by pretty much every one else. This game will be remembered as the one where Scotland were robbed by Joubert, that game is remembered for the great defensive effort of the French and the NZ choke. There's not the same level of outrage when the favourites get the rough end of the stick.
I think opinions contrary to mine are moronic.  

RDW_Scotland wrote:

HongKongCherry wrote:

HongKongCherry wrote:For me it is relatively clear, a TMO cannot be used in these circumstances and I have yet to see a camera angle that shows Phipps was the last person to touch the ball. Joubert was stood no more than 2 metres away from the action looking directly at the ball, so had a clearer angle than any of us. Removing the emotion from the situation it was the correct call. Sadly Scotland were the masters of their own downfall, a poor lineout call followed by very poor execution cost them the game. Nevertheless it shouldn't take away from what was the game of the tournament and given how little chance Scotland were given prior to the match, their's was arguably the performance of the tournament.

Well that was a load of nonsense!!  

Here's that angle I hadn't seen... https://youtu.be/xSiYF793wUg

That's more like it!

Split second ricochets. Neither the ref nor the Scots receiver knew who last touched the ball. What the receiver did know was that he was in front of the ball. Part of him knew he probably should not play it. His intensified instincts went for the catch when in front of the ball. Bit dicey. TMO  should have been used though. I really wanted Scotland to win that, but the lineout throw, the execution, and the 'offside' were all fruits of Scots brave but wonky labours.

What might be interesting is a wider angle of the line out. As I was sure the Scotland jumper was pulled down. Might be incorrect though

I think joubert did alright during the game.

I didn't agree with the yellow card at all and im annoyed that Hogg getting taken out didn't get pulled up, but those were both down to the tmo imo.

Either way I thought jourbert had an okay game. Of course the final call was technically wrong, but it was an impossible situation for him. The tmo should be usable in such circumstance if it's not, and if it is then I think refs should be encouraged to b absolutely sure for moments that decide the outcome of the game like that.


The only real criticism I have of joubert is that he fled the field... I know he may have had things thrown at him, but that can only have happened if he ran close enough to the crowd so he must've fled beforehand. I think that is a cowardly thing to do. He made the decision, he should stand and shake the hands of the players. It was a fantastic match regardless of how it ended(or perhaps also because from a neutral point of view!!) and he's let himself down as he clearly didn't want to face up to his own decision. That's not the sign of a confident ref in my opinion, and if the ref isn't confident in themselves they shouldn't be in charge of such a match!

blackcanelion wrote:

Biltong wrote:

21st Century Schizoid Man wrote:Joubert is not only a cheat but a cowardly rat in running off and not explaining to Laidlaw.  Gavin Hastings and Matt Dawson, amongst many others, tweeting that it was an utter disgrace. Was he sprinting up the tunnel to collect his blood money ?  

Stop assassinating the man's character, enough of that now.

You are implying the man got paid to give the win to Australia, unless you have irrefutable proof desist immediately.

If you are of the opinion he is incompetent, then fine, you don't need proof for that.

According to NZ Stuff (the dominion post) he had things thrown at him from the crowd. That might explain why he ran to the tunnel.

Very much rumours just now, but it was apparently as he fled up the tunnel - not on the pitch.

I don't like it when any referee gets labelled a cheat. I didn't like it when Graham Henry spoke of match-fixing with regard to that 2007 quarter final, and it's pretty unpleasant to see some similar attacks on Joubert.

I think he got that wrong but I don't believe it was more than a mistake. At worst, his decision-making process had unintentional biases but even that's a stretch.

Still, I don't think most people here take the OP's view on Joubert. I'm more keen to look at how such a mistake could have been avoided. I see a number of senior rugby figures have said that no-one would have objected if Joubert had involved the TMO, despite it not being part of the official protocol. It's easy to imagine Nigel Owens being more flexible in that regard.

I said in an earlier post that the TMO could even have been formally brought in,through the simple pretext of checking for foul play, and then advising on the how to restart.

For me, there's more at stake than "Boo hoo, we wuz robbed". The sport wouldn't want a final settled in such a manner, with the referee sprinting off the pitch at the end. It makes perfect sense to look at this in more detail.

RDW_Scotland wrote:

blackcanelion wrote:

Biltong wrote:

21st Century Schizoid Man wrote:Joubert is not only a cheat but a cowardly rat in running off and not explaining to Laidlaw.  Gavin Hastings and Matt Dawson, amongst many others, tweeting that it was an utter disgrace. Was he sprinting up the tunnel to collect his blood money ?  

Stop assassinating the man's character, enough of that now.

You are implying the man got paid to give the win to Australia, unless you have irrefutable proof desist immediately.

If you are of the opinion he is incompetent, then fine, you don't need proof for that.

According to NZ Stuff (the dominion post) he had things thrown at him from the crowd. That might explain why he ran to the tunnel.

Very much rumours just now, but it was apparently as he fled up the tunnel - not on the pitch.

Obviously no place whatsoever for fans throwing bottles etc in rugby but it would have taken Tessa Sanderson to have got anything anywhere near Joubert on the pitch, he was running away well before the alleged bottle throw.

At the time I hought the card was unfair, but when it happened I had a feeling it was going to be carded, what made it a surprise was that nothing suggested Joubert was ready to issue any cards.

The final penalty was just bad luck.

But I have learn't that sport doesn't guarantee fair results.

Teams cop penalties for all sorts of things that others seem to get away with.

In any sport where there is a referee there will be moments of misinterpretations or just ain wrong calls.

For me, sport has lost some of its credibility because of it, but then as Heyneke Meyer put it one day, you have to be 9 pointsbetter than your opponent if you want to guarantee a win, because referee blunders can cost you on average 9 points a match.

I think our sense of fairness needs to adjusted to the point where we realise we need to be good enough to beat an opponent even if the referees cost us points.

Hard to do I confess, but what is the alternative?

The referee could have used the TMO. To say he couldn't is just excuses. Referees see blatant penalties all the time. They give allowances i.e. a verbal warning even though its slowing down play and illegal. They use it for offsides, forward passes all the time.

If he wasn't sure he can use the TMO. In big moments its best to make sure and that was a big moment. The fact that he ran off seconds after suggests he knew he screwed up and he couldn't face up to it.

That's why he isn't suited to elite rugby.

Refs make mistakes but its the handling of mistakes and big moments which define whether a ref can control big games or not. If he held his hand up end of the game then fair enough... but he simply ran away. Either he's been pressurised by others or he's weak. Its not like he doesn't have form either...

One thing however is strange. Phipps has come under no scrutiny. How come.

First off it hit him last. He even acknowledged it... yet look at the video replay. Within seconds hes pointing to the player screaming at the ref to award an offside penalty. That's as bad a diving.

Perhaps the ref bought Phipps et al protests... either way if he's that easily swayed then he's not fit for elite rugby officiating.

Calling Joubert a cheat is stupid and undermines legitimate analysis of his performance. I think he made some poor decisions (a penalty for the knock on rather than a yellow card as an example).

I don't know if the laws permit the ref to go to the TMO in the case of the final penalty, but I'm prepared to accept that in real time, Joubert called it as he saw it. What is far more certain is that Scotland lost any composure and ballsed up the lineout when they were minutes from a semi-final. They put themselves in a position to lose.

I do think Joubert should be called to task for legging it. I've never seen that befote and find it unacceptable.

Amused by the Australia player ratings linked in this tweet.

https://twitter.com/Kieran_Hennigan/status/656013213495107584

"Craig Joubert - 9"

We should all take note of this tweet from a referee:

https://twitter.com/RugbyRefscom/status/656011914808459264

I would dare say that this day has probably reduced the amount of potential new refs. So when your team has no ref appointed, remember why.

He called it as he saw it and couldn't go to the TMO - Harsh but that's the way he and most of us saw it in real time. I hate the rule anyways, always have as its just instinct for a player to go for the ball. Some things need changing but Joubert's not to blame and this will haunt him more than the Scottish fans although the agony must be painful.

Rugby Fan wrote:Amused by the Australia player ratings linked in this tweet.

https://twitter.com/Kieran_Hennigan/status/656013213495107584

"Craig Joubert - 9"

Funny, but I suspect for many Sotts it a bit soon for humour.

The whole scenario that he was not allowed to use the TMO is nothing more than twaddle been spouted to try and deflect criticism, the TMO can be used anywhere foul play is suspected to check on the foul play, Joubert issued a penalty thereby he was stating an act of foul play had been commited, it doesn't take a barrister to work out that the TMO can then be used to check it in such game defining circumstances.

For me I was waiting for the penalty to be awarded for something once Scotland had scored their last try, it was inevitable with that man in the middle, he did not use the TMO as it suited his preferred outcome not to.

I would say that Laidlaw isn't the best communicator with refs. Quite aggressive compared to the passive, non threatening intelligent style of Warburton.  It makes a difference.

Warburton isn't a scummie though. Most good scrummies are a bit edgy.

fa0019 wrote:I would say that Laidlaw isn't the best communicator with refs. Quite aggressive compared to the passive, non threatening intelligent style of Warburton.  It makes a difference.

Guess that's the downside of having a Highland Terrier as captain, always going to bark a lot.

Rugby Fan wrote:Amused by the Australia player ratings linked in this tweet.

https://twitter.com/Kieran_Hennigan/status/656013213495107584

"Craig Joubert - 9"

We should all take note of this tweet from a referee:

https://twitter.com/RugbyRefscom/status/656011914808459264

I would dare say that this day has probably reduced the amount of potential new refs. So when your team has no ref appointed, remember why.

Well fair dues to that Aussie journo. Nit going to say that Joubert is a cheat but the guy has form. Four years ago it was as clear as day that Fra were never going to get a peno in the final despite any number of infringements (shown in detail by Matt Williams on Setamta Sport).

For me, apart from his cluelessness around the scrum/breakdown, there were three key decisions or lack of. Mainland card was ok, the guy was dumb to stick one hand when he was in the middle of a two on one situation. The late tackle on Hogg was a definite peno and a possible card, how it wasn't seen by the tmo I can't comprehend - and yes maybe Hogg was a victim of his rep for going to ground too easily, who knows. The peno at the end was where Joubert was too quick to blow up for a peno. Was he that certain that it was a Scot that knocked the ball forward, with the ball bouncing around like it was at best he should have given an accidental offside and a scrum to Aus. But then given the way the Aus had performed so far in the game.

And as to high tailing off the pitch without even shaking players hands, it either shows cowardice or guilt. Either way, hopefully that's the last we see of him. We accept in the likes of the Pro12 most of the refs are clowns, but at World Cup level were supposed to be usng the elite. So far in this World Cup only the French refs and Nigel have shown that they're at elite level

RubyGuby wrote:He called it as he saw it and couldn't go to the TMO - Harsh but that's the way he and most of us saw it in real time. I hate the rule anyways, always have as its just instinct for a player to go for the ball. Some things need changing but Joubert's not to blame and this will haunt him more than the Scottish fans although the agony must be painful.

Agree with you here, in real time I thought it was the right call, just a very harsh way to end a game, if this had been in 15 mins in it would have barely been mentioned. Whoever made that call for the long lineout should be the real target of the Scottish ire...

brennomac wrote:

Well fair dues to that Aussie journo.  Nit going to say that Joubert is a cheat but the guy has form.  Four years ago it was as clear as day that Fra were never going to get a peno in the final despite any number of infringements (shown in detail by Matt Williams on Setamta Sport).

France got more penalties than NZ did in the second half of that game. He didn't penalise France for any of their ruck infringements, all fans want is consistency from refs, That's what he gave in that game.
Williams is an idiot, even in one of his examples he completely gets his analysis wrong in relation to what the ref says and what is happening.

Horrible end to the game but I think the criticism of CJ is way over the top.

He had to make a call on that incident on one view in real time. He could not use the TMO (not his fault) and he must have felt the call he made was correct so he had no need to manufacture a reason to go the TMO.

I have seen lots of opinions about what happened in that line out from people who have had time to study it multiple times in Slomo from multiple angles and they still can not agree who touched the ball before Blue 18 takes it. But CJ had to make the call on one view in real time.

Horrible though it was I think he may well have got it correct.

Did the ball not come off the beardy guy's (blue 20) shoulder into Blue 18's hands?

If blue 18 had left it, it would have gone to a gold player so Pen was the right (though heart breaking) decision, no?

No bottles should ever be thrown, but maybe someone felt that Joubert had lost his and was just returning it?

goneagain wrote:GC, my original point stands, my reply to your reply seems straight forward enough to me.
Guess we'll leave it at that.

I'm afraid that it isn't up to you to tell posters whether or not they've understood what you've written.

However, if you have nothing else to contribute then that is, of course, absolutely all right.

Riskysports wrote:No bottles should ever be thrown, but maybe someone felt that Joubert had lost his and was just returning it?

My thoughts exactly

Another thing that's annoyed my about CJ performance is the way he fell for Genia throwing a pass into the back of Bennett one that could never have reached a wallaby hand.
Cynical play & the sort of thing Nigel Owens would've crucifed Genia for. Instead it's 3 points to the Oz