Why is nobody critical of the ref for the French try?

Why is nobody up in arms about the ref missing the Rougerie infringement at the ruck leading up to the French try?

As I see it one of two scenarios happened.

Either the ball was out and if he isn't part of the ruck he's offside before he toes it through.

Or he's part of the ruck (In fact Joubert calls 'through the middle', so we can assume he was) and is entitled to come through. But he doesn't join from behind the back foot and never, according to the letter of the law, joined correctly.

Either way, penalty NZ.

Why no outrage?

Because virtually no one who isn't a Kiwi cares.

As you say, Joubert had already ruled him 'through the middle' which meant the counter ruck was perfectly legal.

The French try that resulted from this move was magnificent and put NZ on the backfoot for the rest of the game, leaving the AB's to be saved by Joubert.

In the bigger scheme of things it didnt matter, We won the World cup and in the process beat France twice,please dont raise more issues or they"ll want to go best of five.

Metal Tiger wrote:leaving the AB's to be saved by Joubert.

Good to see you gracing the world of rugby forums with such insight

Metal Tiger wrote:Because virtually no one who isn't a Kiwi cares.

As you say, Joubert had already ruled him 'through the middle' which meant the counter ruck was perfectly legal.

The French try that resulted from this move was magnificent and put NZ on the backfoot for the rest of the game, leaving the AB's to be saved by Joubert.

True and I agree that the ref ruled this legitimate. But he also ruled everything else legitimate that there is much wailing and gnashing of teeth about. People are bemoaning the lack of consistency. I just seems ironic that the demanded level of consistency is somewhat inconsistent.

It was a good try, but I think Nonu has to hold his hand up. He was slow to get back into the defensive line and didn't come up with his fellow defenders. Leaving a nice hole for Dussatoir to expertly exploit.

aucklandlaurie wrote: In the bigger scheme of things it didnt matter, We won the World cup and in the process beat France twice,please dont raise more issues or they"ll want to go best of five.

I feel like I have been possesed by the ghost of the Ghost.

I dont think we are meant to talk about Casper.

The french can keep the try, I'll take the World Cup any day.....ie I'm not bothered

goneagain, i have mentioned it a number of times, but as you say nobody outside of NZ will acknowledge it.

"If we deny it, it didn't happen"

Yeah come on Biltong. This is totally against the theme of 'NZ should have lost Joubert was paid off France deserved the World Cup and I'm angry I can't call the All Blacks chokers' that has been going around the boards.

Maybe the ABs did a Louis Luyt with Joubert!!

goneagain wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote: In the bigger scheme of things it didnt matter, We won the World cup and in the process beat France twice,please dont raise more issues or they"ll want to go best of five.

I feel like I have been possesed by the ghost of the Ghost.

Apparantly if you say "Le Phantome Gris" 3 times whilst looking into a mirror in a candle-lit room he will reappear back on the forum. And eat your soul!

AFewTooManyKnocks wrote:

Metal Tiger wrote:leaving the AB's to be saved by Joubert.

Good to see you gracing the world of rugby forums with such insight

Thank you for joining the forum after your team won the world cup.

Why is nobody critical of the ref for the French try...Rougerie comes through the middle of the ruck and Joubert calls it as such...

If he didnt join from the hindmost foot then it must have been miniscule. However if it justifies the 20 other encroachments by the ABs during the game and the constant pinging of the French during the game and makes you feel morally justified to question the overall result then thats good for you. I am happy for you. Bilton agrees with you but he is still in misery after the QF.

goneagain wrote:
True and I agree that the ref ruled this legitimate. But he also ruled everything else legitimate that there is much wailing and gnashing of teeth about. People are bemoaning the lack of consistency. I just seems ironic that the demanded level of consistency is somewhat inconsistent.

Rougerie may have joined the ruck from a slight angle but this had no bearing on the play because he did join at the back. BUT when the French then counter rucked and the AB's lost control of the ball at the base, Rougerie forced his way through the centre of the breakdown and toe poked the ball. It would have been virtually impossible for a ref to have pulled him up for this.

What has got everyone so riled up is that not only did NZ appear to be getting "the rub of the green", they were also seen to be being given "the benefit of the doubt" in almost every 50/50 or grey area of the game.

There were repeated occasions in the last quarter where NZ infringed again and again (in very kickable positions for the French) that appeared to be missed by Joubert. Maybe the occasion, or the crowd got the better of him.

It left a very bad taste in the mouth for many neutrals.

So just enjoy the fact you have won.

Don't worry what anyone else thinks... I certainly didn't in 2003.

DOD wrote:Why is nobody critical of the ref for the French try...Rougerie comes through the middle of the ruck and Joubert calls it as such...

If he didnt join from the hindmost foot then it must have been miniscule. However if it justifies the 20 other encroachments by the ABs during the game and the constant pinging of the French during the game and makes you feel morally justified to question the overall result then thats good for you. I am happy for you. Bilton agrees with you but he is still in misery after the QF.

Actually I will concede he joined from behind his last team-mates foot. But he doesn't join properly.
As Law 16.2 states
(b) A player joining a ruck must bind on a team-mate or an opponent, using the whole arm. Sanction: Penalty kick
(c) Placing a hand on another player in the ruck does not constitute binding. Sanction: Penalty kick


It can be dressed up anyway you like, but it was an error by the ref just like many more. But it was the one with the biggest impact on the game.

20 other AB encroachments? What about French encroachments?

As for 'constant pinging of the French', that's laughable. NZ were awarded 4 penalties in the second half. The one Donald kicked in the first couple of minutes, 2 after the 79' minute mark. That leaves one penalty at about the 60' mark in 35 minutes of rugby.
Where was this 'constant pinging'?


As for bilton, he seems the most neutral of all the neutrals on here.

goneagain wrote:

DOD wrote:Why is nobody critical of the ref for the French try...Rougerie comes through the middle of the ruck and Joubert calls it as such...

If he didnt join from the hindmost foot then it must have been miniscule. However if it justifies the 20 other encroachments by the ABs during the game and the constant pinging of the French during the game and makes you feel morally justified to question the overall result then thats good for you. I am happy for you. Bilton agrees with you but he is still in misery after the QF.

Actually I will concede he joined from behind his last team-mates foot. But he doesn't join properly.
As Law 16.2 states
(b) A player joining a ruck must bind on a team-mate or an opponent, using the whole arm. Sanction: Penalty kick
(c) Placing a hand on another player in the ruck does not constitute binding. Sanction: Penalty kick


It can be dressed up anyway you like, but it was an error by the ref just like many more. But it was the one with the biggest impact on the game.

20 other AB encroachments? What about French encroachments?

As for 'constant pinging of the French', that's laughable. NZ were awarded 4 penalties in the second half. The one Donald kicked in the first couple of minutes, 2 after the 79' minute mark. That leaves one penalty at about the 60' mark in 35 minutes of rugby.
Where was this 'constant pinging'?


As for bilton, he seems the most neutral of all the neutrals on here.

Now I know I haven't got a wealth of posting history but I have 'lurked' on here and the old 606 for years, looking for views other than my own on this great game of ours and it sruck me reading this, that this particular style of writing seems very.............familiar!

....anyhow, it doesn't matter, done and dusted time for some good ol' fashioned NH club and cup stuff

I think you may have messed up your quoting here Ultra.


That's better.


And No. I am not he.

That's probably why I don't post so much...fixed now. Ta Gr.....Goneagain

yeah i cant see any kiwi caring about it- there won. its like being a child and getting a ps3 for christmass and complaing about your sister getting a game boy

goneagain wrote:I think you may have messed up your quoting here Ultra.


That's better.


And No. I am not he.

Shame. Beneath the anti-colonial ramblings of an isolated Kiwi ex-pat there was the odd word of wisdom to be found amongst the bitter barbs..

mystiroakey wrote:yeah i cant see any kiwi caring about it- there won. its like being a child and getting a ps3 for christmass and complaing about your sister getting a game boy

Read the thread on Rougerie's gouging and you'll find a couple of Kiwis who care.

i think they are just trying to even out the massively one sided deabte.(not saying it shouldnt be one sided or not- just saying!!)

I think the reason us 'neautrals' arnt talking much about it is because alot of us have this new found repect for france- which most of us lost before the final and then gained during there final performance. Its a very fickle world

Ha that's why we were telling everyone to shut up when they were saying to us that we were gonna stroll in!

its a part of life- you didnt really turn up but did enough. Well played - hopefully you wont have to justify your wc win in 2011 for the rest of your life- but strangely it could be the case especially on this interent forums!

Well carter and the next two 10s didnt turn up.
Mccaw couldnt train last two weeks but played on- everyone convinced the abs couldnt win without them so given that we did quite well.

The ref debate isnt even an issue anywhere other than these boards it seems so will disappear once everyones got used to abs winning it.

France score because Weepu kicked the ball to Trin Duc.

ABs worthy winners and undisputed best team in the world... but...

France were robbed in the final.

Cest la vie.... but all the talk of record scores for a WC final turned out to be rather arrogant and stupid.

Another ref and France would have won. Then again, another ref and maybe the Abs might have won in 2007.....

If my aunt were born with male genitalia she would be my uncle ect

"everyone convinced the abs couldnt win without them so given that we did quite well."

who was dat then?

Boyne wrote:France score because Weepu kicked the ball to Trin Duc.
...
Cest la vie.... but all the talk of record scores for a WC final turned out to be rather arrogant and stupid.

...

For what it's worth, there weren't that many Kiwis talking about record scores, that was mostly coming from the neutrals.

I thought Joubert was pretty terrible, consistently terrible though, and isnt that what we say is the only thing we ask for from our referees, to be consistent...

Comfort wrote:I thought Joubert was pretty terrible, consistently terrible though, and isnt that what we say is the only thing we ask for from our referees, to be consistent...

The problem is, I and most neturals, felt he was not consistent in the slightest

Not a lot wrong with Frances try. However for NZs try Reed clearly blocked Harinordiquy to create the gap. That is as big a talking point. Frances try came a few phases after the ruck in question anyway.

Metal Tiger wrote:

AFewTooManyKnocks wrote:

Metal Tiger wrote:leaving the AB's to be saved by Joubert.

Good to see you gracing the world of rugby forums with such insight

Thank you for joining the forum after your team won the world cup.

My team is Australia and they didn't win. What is your point?

Metal's point is that if you aren't rabidly anti AB you must be a Kiwi

AFewTooManyKnocks wrote:

Metal Tiger wrote:

AFewTooManyKnocks wrote:

Metal Tiger wrote:leaving the AB's to be saved by Joubert.

Good to see you gracing the world of rugby forums with such insight

Thank you for joining the forum after your team won the world cup.

My team is Australia and they didn't win. What is your point?

With no posting history or profile I took a stab at guessing you to be a kiwi. Swing and a miss. I apologise.

nganboy wrote:Metal's point is that if you aren't rabidly anti AB you must be a Kiwi

I'm not anti NZ in any way shape or form.

I admire and respect the AB's as the most consistent and greatest team in world rugby. They are the bench mark that every team judges themselves against and wants to be like.

But I do not think you were the best team on the day in the RWC final and did not deserve to win.

So your getting some stick from every one else. Live with it.

Metal Tiger wrote:

nganboy wrote:Metal's point is that if you aren't rabidly anti AB you must be a Kiwi

But I do not think you were the best team on the day in the RWC final and did not deserve to win.

So your getting some stick from every one else. Live with it.

Makes me laugh. If this is all we have to put up with for being world champions, a few keyboard warriors spouting whatever to make them happy, I'll take it. There is only one fact that matters and it is engraved on the trophy.

chewed_mintie wrote:

Metal Tiger wrote:

nganboy wrote:Metal's point is that if you aren't rabidly anti AB you must be a Kiwi

But I do not think you were the best team on the day in the RWC final and did not deserve to win.

So your getting some stick from every one else. Live with it.

Makes me laugh. If this is all we have to put up with for being world champions, a few keyboard warriors spouting whatever to make them happy, I'll take it. There is only one fact that matters and it is engraved on the trophy.

I particularly liked the way you edited out the bit where I praised the All Blacks. Nice touch.

Says more about you than I.

It wasn’t relevant to the point really MT, just being economical with space. You’re saying we’re getting stick as NZ supporters and we have to live with it. Well, we’ve got the WC so I and the many millions of AB supporters will do exactly that.

Now what does that say about me? I’m doing just what you want us to do am I not?

Enjoy it

I know I did in 2003

I didn't really care what anyone else thought so why should you.

Good on yer.