Right on the Money

Over the weekend, following NZ's disasterous 18-all draw with Australia I made two objective points about the game:

(1) Higganbotham needed to be made an example of with a long suspension
(2) Craig Joubert had a shocking game.

There was a lot of interesting debate following and ultimately I was shown a yellow card by the moderators because they felt I was just a WUM!

I feel somewhat vindicated then to see that both of these points are made in a national press by respected journalists:

(1) "Higganbotham Must Be Hit Hard" http://www.nzherald.co.nz/gregor-paul-on-rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=1502852&objectid=10841961

(2) "Ref Joined ABs in Poor Performance" http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=10842517

I can empathise with the difficult position referees find themselves in given the complexity of the laws, but if we ourselves as fans cannot even discuss this topic as civilized adults without descending into mindless bickering and bringing up old wounds, then is there any hope that this situation that currently soils our great sport can be resolved?

So two kiwi websites agreed with you then? Well that is a revelation!

AWOP your smart enought to know that its not what you do but the way you do it that counts.

i.e. A captain can say to a referee that he needs to keep an firmer eye on the breakdown and thats. But if he comes up and calls the ref a blind old funking wonker then he may get in trouble.

The points are sound ones. Joubert was poor (has slid down MASSIVELY since last year when he was the best in the world) and Higganbottom deserved a good long ban.

Thanks Stag! But my point is more about can this problem be remedied, or will complaints about referees always be seen as "a bitter rant" by those not affected by his performance?

How do we discuss the merits of a performance with rivals in an objective way? without getting into the tyt-for-tat descent that ensued over the weekend?

And if it is that hard for merely fans, how do coaches or teams go about it?

We saw how Graham Henry handled Barnes-gate in 2007 - silence and then a book after he had put wrong to right. But surely winning the rugby world cup just to have a pop at a poor refereeing display is stretching it a bit far?! And how would a team like Scotland or Italy ever get to complain when they have absolutely no chance of a RWC win to validate the claim?

I think one of the main points to think about when it comes to bias etc is when someone can acknowledge when they've had the rub of the green as well as been hard done by. There are plenty of people everywhere who are only too happy to have a go at the ref or cheating players etc but turn a blind eye to what they (or their team) get away. Without this it can come across as one eyed and clutching at straws.

AWOP,

There are channels for the unions and teams to complain about refs. Australia made an appeal to the IRB about the performance of Alan Lewis' game a few years ago. I know he was told he had a few issues in his game to address. We also saw Marius Jonker and Wayne Barnes get stood down after the IRB assessed their games and felt them not up to scratch. Barnes managed to change his style and climb back up the greasy pole.

On a forum like this it is hard to claim poor refereeing and not get labelled a wum or a whinger unfortunately.

You are never going to get away from criticism as a referee, every ruck or breakdown will be interpreted in a number of ways. I spoke to my son's coach earlier in the year, they all do referee courses through Lions rugby
union, and he said even with video tapes that is used as examples of correct decisions or incorrect decisions, they can't even always agree with one another in class.

We are all passionate about rugby and hence will sometimes feel hard done by referees it is inevitable.

But the IRB can do a hell of a lot more to ease the situation for referees and fans alike.

Simplify the laws. If you have a ruck where potentially 16 players can dive into and more than a dozen areas that the referee has to adjudicate or interpret it is always going to be a bone of contention.

Even if the referee decides to simply do nothing and allow a free for all.

It is about simpler laws that will ease the controversy, nothing else.

I just want to add, I think it is also about pressure.

You take a referee like Craig Joubert, when he hit form last year and were rated the best referee in the world the pressure mounted, now everyone expects him to have the perfect game which is impossible.

So the more people expect him to be perfect the harder it becomes.

It happens to every referee that is deemed the best, sooner or later he is going to have a bad game.

Red Stag I know you are or have Refereed and are also in this debate a Neutral.AWOP is and has been totally biased blaming the Ref.as are the NZ Media,myself thought Joubert had a reasonable game.
But may have tended early on to be harsher on NZ as a backlash to comments on his RWC performance.What do you think did he favour Australia?or did he get it more or less right.By that I mean was he consistent on his rulings to both sides?

We had a referee meeting yesterday of all the referees in Munster.

We had 17 different scenarios (not random once in a blue moon stuff but real rugby situations).

In a lot of these even after a bit of debate we could still not get a united consensus on how to approach the scenario.

red_stag wrote:We had a referee meeting yesterday of all the referees in Munster.

We had 17 different scenarios (not random once in a blue moon stuff but real rugby situations).

In a lot of these even after a bit of debate we could still not get a united consensus on how to approach the scenario.

Well there you have it from the proverbial "horses mouth"

Stag, why do the referees not implore to the IRB that ruck laws be simplified?

And if they already have, why is nothing happening?

emack2 wrote:Red Stag I know you are or have Refereed and are also in this debate a Neutral.AWOP is and has been totally biased blaming the Ref.as are the NZ Media,myself thought Joubert had a reasonable game.
But may have tended early on to be harsher on NZ as a backlash to comments on his RWC performance.What do you think did he favour Australia?or did he get it more or less right.By that I mean was he consistent on his rulings to both sides?

The one thing that jumped out for me was the lines of running by Australia. There was a fair bit of obstruction and I thought that at times the Kiwis got a bad rap at the breakdown. He has set himself high standards and didn't live up to them. He wasn't terrible - he was considerably worse in the RWC Final. Much much much worse and that article by the Kiwi Press linked by AWOP is over the top.

Biltong wrote:

red_stag wrote:We had a referee meeting yesterday of all the referees in Munster.

We had 17 different scenarios (not random once in a blue moon stuff but real rugby situations).

In a lot of these even after a bit of debate we could still not get a united consensus on how to approach the scenario.

Well there you have it from the proverbial "horses mouth"

Stag, why do the referees not implore to the IRB that ruck laws be simplified?

And if they already have, why is nothing happening?

The IRB seem to prefer putting directives in place in order to provide clarity.

The idea being that we are all singing from same hymn sheet.

I said before, when this eternal ref problem was being discussed, that if the alternative to poor reffing was a complete transfer of all powers from the human ref to a high-tech on-field and on-player sensor and computer controlled system of red lights and buzzers - you'd still have major debates on the decisions of the micro-second game management of the monitoring system. Some would say its perfect, other would say it's calibrated all wrong.

Yes, refs will always get it in the neck from disgruntled fans, players, coaches. He's human - he's part of the game. Coaches get it in the neck, players get it in the neck, refs get it in the neck. But looking for perfection in a ref when you don't expect it or ever get it in players or coaches...well, it's looking for too much - much too much.

red_stag wrote:

Biltong wrote:

red_stag wrote:We had a referee meeting yesterday of all the referees in Munster.

We had 17 different scenarios (not random once in a blue moon stuff but real rugby situations).

In a lot of these even after a bit of debate we could still not get a united consensus on how to approach the scenario.

Well there you have it from the proverbial "horses mouth"

Stag, why do the referees not implore to the IRB that ruck laws be simplified?

And if they already have, why is nothing happening?

The IRB seem to prefer putting directives in place in order to provide clarity.

The idea being that we are all singing from same hymn sheet.

But clearly it is not working, there must therefor be an alternative methodology to solving the ruck issues?

Anyone want to play:

Here was one of the more contentious ones.

Red are losing by 2 points. Time has expired. They are 30m out in front of the posts. The #10 slots into the pocket and attempts the drop goal. He is hit; VERY late by Blue #6.

The drop goal attempt is unsuccessful, sailing just past the post and goes straight into the terrace without bouncing at all.

What happens now?

a penalty kick? The very late hit took place during in-play time and should be punished by a penalty?

I'll have a stab.

Whilst the ball is deemed in play (ie. it hasn't been called dead yet) the referee will usually play advantage, in this case there is clearly no advantage as the ball is no longer in their possession, so in my view it should be a penalty.

In any other scenario where a team is on attack after the whistle and the ball hasn't been knocked, gone out or dead, the referee will give a penalty to the team who has been offended against.

Time is only called for a mistake but not a penalisable offence.

anotherworldofpain wrote:Over the weekend, following NZ's disasterous 18-all draw with Australia

Of all the disasters that have befallen us recently I don't think a drawn rugby match merits that much anguish...


I find a balanced expression of opinion is usually reciprocated.

Biltong wrote:I'll have a stab.

Whilst the ball is deemed in play (ie. it hasn't been called dead yet) the referee will usually play advantage, in this case there is clearly no advantage as the ball is no longer in their possession, so in my view it should be a penalty.

In any other scenario where a team is on attack after the whistle and the ball hasn't been knocked, gone out or dead, the referee will give a penalty to the team who has been offended against.

Time is only called for a mistake but not a penalisable offence.

The point being, where is the penalty awarded? Or am I wrong? Another interesting question for Mr Stag is that when Aaron Smith was hit late, a penalty was awarded and Joubert said something about "because it was a grubber kick". What was the exact ruling there?

It is Penalty but where is the penalty from?

This is the contentious issue.

Is it not from where he drop kicked?

You can't make the penalty from the 22 as you can't deem a ball that has gone into the stands as dead, otherwise if the ball has been deemed to go dead he wouldn't award a penalty?

Biltong,

One school of thought said penalty 5m from the goal line.

The other school of thought said from where he was tackled (i.e. 30m or so out).

anotherworldofpain wrote:

Biltong wrote:I'll have a stab.

Whilst the ball is deemed in play (ie. it hasn't been called dead yet) the referee will usually play advantage, in this case there is clearly no advantage as the ball is no longer in their possession, so in my view it should be a penalty.

In any other scenario where a team is on attack after the whistle and the ball hasn't been knocked, gone out or dead, the referee will give a penalty to the team who has been offended against.

Time is only called for a mistake but not a penalisable offence.

The point being, where is the penalty awarded? Or am I wrong? Another interesting question for Mr Stag is that when Aaron Smith was hit late, a penalty was awarded and Joubert said something about "because it was a grubber kick". What was the exact ruling there?

I dont remember that was Smith the kicker or a chaser?

Basically for a late tackle the team have a choice from where they want the penalty

- Where the tackle was made
- Where the ball bounced
- Where the ball was played

So obviously if you smash a kick 60m downfield and get late tackled its of more advantage than if you make a 5m grubber and get hit late.

Not sure if that answers it AWOP

red_stag wrote:Anyone want to play:

Here was one of the more contentious ones.

Red are losing by 2 points. Time has expired. They are 30m out in front of the posts. The #10 slots into the pocket and attempts the drop goal. He is hit; VERY late by Blue #6.

The drop goal attempt is unsuccessful, sailing just past the post and goes straight into the terrace without bouncing at all.

What happens now?

Penalty to Blue in fron of the posts as no advantage occurred. The nasty Toulouse blindside gets a red card to be dealt with by the citing officer and Sexton steps up to give Leinster their third HC in a row!!!

Something like that.

red_stag wrote:It is Penalty but where is the penalty from?

This is the contentious issue.

Did two referees disagree with each other? I know you'll probably say quite a number of them had different answers but the point of two disagreeing would be sufficient to lead to my question.

Why?

Why isn't the answer clear? Why should it be contenious with a rule book that should have the answer within its pages?

Secret, we had 70 referees disagreeing with each other.

There are no rules in rugby just laws which tend to be more of a guideline than anything.

We had another scenario - Lineout to Blue. Blue throw it in and Blue second row gets lifted up. Blue prop slips and ends up dropping his own man. No dangerous play by Red at all.

What happens now? Very divided this one.

red_stag wrote:Secret, we had 70 referees disagreeing with each other.

There are no rules in rugby just laws which tend to be more of a guideline than anything.

We had another scenario - Lineout to Blue. Blue throw it in and Blue second row gets lifted up. Blue prop slips and ends up dropping his own man. No dangerous play by Red at all.

What happens now? Very divided this one.

Yeah, but that's my point...guidelines for a humanbeing to act on. And yet observers want clinic adherance to certain aspects that they are certain should be reffed without interpretation but with clock-work precision based on rule absolutes.

In short, some people want refs to more freely interpret a game, so that it can move more freely, and yet some of those same people want certain intricacies to be ruled upon precisely. Interpretation (turning a certain blind eye to minute infringements) and Zero Tolerance - working in the one game, officiated by the same ref. That's what some people want.

red_stag wrote:Secret, we had 70 referees disagreeing with each other.

There are no rules in rugby just laws which tend to be more of a guideline than anything.

We had another scenario - Lineout to Blue. Blue throw it in and Blue second row gets lifted up. Blue prop slips and ends up dropping his own man. No dangerous play by Red at all.

What happens now? Very divided this one.

Is that play on unless play stops for injury?

red_stag wrote:Secret, we had 70 referees disagreeing with each other.

There are no rules in rugby just laws which tend to be more of a guideline than anything.

We had another scenario - Lineout to Blue. Blue throw it in and Blue second row gets lifted up. Blue prop slips and ends up dropping his own man. No dangerous play by Red at all.

What happens now? Very divided this one.

I would have thought play on unless the player who fell could be seriously hurt then stop play and see if he's alright.Restart with a scrum to the team in possession.

No clue if that's right or not just feels like that's what should happen.

The old adage about pleasing some of the people some of the time and all of the people all of the time.

Being honest I find when these intrinsic issues crop up in a match and players challenge things that seem weird I just ask them would they like to wager a pint that Im right. If they hesitate I add "mines a Guinness" for comedic effect.

Its funny how people view referee performances. I've seen games where referees were a bit trigger happy and some people claiming that referee was allowing a free for all. And a referee letting the teams get on with it deemed a "stickler" due to a weird issue cropping up.

Its a funny one.

offload wrote:

red_stag wrote:Secret, we had 70 referees disagreeing with each other.

There are no rules in rugby just laws which tend to be more of a guideline than anything.

We had another scenario - Lineout to Blue. Blue throw it in and Blue second row gets lifted up. Blue prop slips and ends up dropping his own man. No dangerous play by Red at all.

What happens now? Very divided this one.

Is that play on unless play stops for injury?

You'd assume so wouldn't you. However it is actually a freekick offense to fail to bring your own player safely back to ground if you lift him.

Some referees said feic the law play on unless he is hurt. Others said if he is putting his players in danger then give a penalty for dangerous play.

Others said do what the law says and give a freekick.

I can imagine:

Bryce Lawrence: play on.
Wayne Barnes: yellow card to Luke McAllistair and a penalty to France
Criag Joubert: penalty to Australia, unless it's a RWC final, in which case play on.
Nigel Owens: refers to the TMO and pretends to fiddle with his reflink on the sideline to catch his breath
Allan Rolland : penalty to france and a red card for the nearest Welshman
Steve Walsh : a severe telling off for the England captain and a quick straightener in the sheds at half time
Dave Pearson: Didn't spot it at all since it was either too far away or too close

red_stag wrote:

offload wrote:

red_stag wrote:Secret, we had 70 referees disagreeing with each other.

There are no rules in rugby just laws which tend to be more of a guideline than anything.

We had another scenario - Lineout to Blue. Blue throw it in and Blue second row gets lifted up. Blue prop slips and ends up dropping his own man. No dangerous play by Red at all.

What happens now? Very divided this one.

Is that play on unless play stops for injury?

You'd assume so wouldn't you. However it is actually a freekick offense to fail to bring your own player safely back to ground if you lift him.

Some referees said feic the law play on unless he is hurt. Others said if he is putting his players in danger then give a penalty for dangerous play.

Others said do what the law says and give a freekick.

OK Stag..I'll stick to providing my expert punditry and leave the efing refing to the refs

Stag, what's your thoughts about complaints the Australians utilised the "illegal" "flying wedge" on the weekend?

I didn't notice at the time, but there is a lot of chat on other forums about Australia having two or more bound men carrying the ball into contact. Firstly, is it illegal? and did you spot any example of it?

anotherworldofpain wrote:I can imagine:

Bryce Lawrence: play on.
Wayne Barnes: yellow card to Luke McAllistair and a penalty to France
Criag Joubert: penalty to Australia, unless it's a RWC final, in which case play on.
Nigel Owens: refers to the TMO and pretends to fiddle with his reflink on the sideline to catch his breath
Allan Rolland : penalty to france and a red card for the nearest Welshman
Steve Walsh : a severe telling off for the England captain and a quick straightener in the sheds at half time
Dave Pearson: Didn't spot it at all since it was either too far away or too close

Good one.

BUT......was any of them right? I particularly like Pearson's excuse.

anotherworldofpain wrote:
But being serious, Stag, what's your thoughts about complaints the Australians utilised the "illegal" "flying wedge" on the weekend?

I didn't notice at the time, but there is a lot of chat on other forums about Australia having two or more bound men carrying the ball into contact. Firstly, is it illegal? and did you spot any example of it?

I noticed it once. It kind of ties in what I was saying about them getting away with obstruction. I didnt notice it being prevelant throughout the whole match.

A flying wedge is illegal.

SecretFly wrote:

anotherworldofpain wrote:I can imagine:

Bryce Lawrence: play on.
Wayne Barnes: yellow card to Luke McAllistair and a penalty to France
Criag Joubert: penalty to Australia, unless it's a RWC final, in which case play on.
Nigel Owens: refers to the TMO and pretends to fiddle with his reflink on the sideline to catch his breath
Allan Rolland : penalty to france and a red card for the nearest Welshman
Steve Walsh : a severe telling off for the England captain and a quick straightener in the sheds at half time
Dave Pearson: Didn't spot it at all since it was either too far away or too close





Good one.

BUT......was any of them right? I particularly like Pearson's excuse.

From experience over the last year, it seems Bryce Lawrence.

anotherworldofpain wrote:Over the weekend, following NZ's disasterous 18-all draw with Australia I made two objective points about the game:

(1) Higganbotham needed to be made an example of with a long suspension
(2) Craig Joubert had a shocking game.

There was a lot of interesting debate following and ultimately I was shown a yellow card by the moderators because they felt I was just a WUM!

I feel somewhat vindicated then to see that both of these points are made in a national press by respected journalists:

(1) "Higganbotham Must Be Hit Hard" http://www.nzherald.co.nz/gregor-paul-on-rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=1502852&objectid=10841961

(2) "Ref Joined ABs in Poor Performance" http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=10842517

I can empathise with the difficult position referees find themselves in given the complexity of the laws, but if we ourselves as fans cannot even discuss this topic as civilized adults without descending into mindless bickering and bringing up old wounds, then is there any hope that this situation that currently soils our great sport can be resolved?

AWOP for your sheer prolificy of postings, your general knowledge of the game, often quite witty remarks and the longevity of the pigeon English speaking, Farawayistani rugby novice character you created, you could never be considered as just another WUM

You are an exceptional WUM. And I enjoy every new topic you contribute and most of your banter. However you can become a bit feral if things do not progress to your liking. Deep breaths and counting to ten before posting may help.

Pragmatic and useful individual advice Submachine and I duely take it on board.

But also what do you think of the point I was making? It takes two to bicker ( or four in the case given ) and while one person is taking a breath the other is just posting venom! So my point is about if this happens just here on a casual forum, what chance is there of resolving this issue in the greater sense for the good of the game?

None.

anotherworldofpain wrote:Pragmatic and useful individual advice Submachine and I duely take it on board.

But also what do you think of the point I was making? It takes two to bicker ( or four in the case given ) and while one person is taking a breath the other is just posting venom! So my point is about if this happens just here on a casual forum, what chance is there of resolving this issue in the greater sense for the good of the game?

It’s impossible to be objective when your own team is involved. It is even quite difficult to be objective when watching a game as a neutral.

I’ll suggest that in the Wales v France world cup semi your reaction to Warburton’s red card was influenced by you wanting Wales to win. This might be because you have an affinity for Wales or a dislike of France or like me you wanted the underdog to succeed. (Wales the underdog in this case despite GS as going for first final). However as an Irish man I am naturally inclined to defend Rolland’s decision as being correct in law and vindicated later by Warburton himself. If I was Welsh, I know I would still be berating him for it.

I don’t consider myself a petty person but I will usually support:
anyone against New Zealand as their opponents will always be underdogs
any NH team v SH team as I am very proud of my hemisphere
any Celtic team v any other NH team as I believe the befreckled should stick together
any other NH team v England because of Sky sports commentators

Everyone is prejudiced in their own way. The trick is to recognise that and try to also see things from the others perspective. Unfortunately even master Yoda could not bring balance to this debate.

Yoda was biased anyway. He favoured sackcloth over the lovely black get-up of Darth. What an idiot.

SecretFly wrote:Yoda was biased anyway. He favoured sackcloth over the lovely black get-up of Darth. What an idiot.

So he didn't have a sense of style. The bloke was 700 years old.

Oh, it is Master Yoda.

He was actually only 526 in Retun of the Jedi. Playing in the front row put years on him.
Something similar happened to Graham Rowntree. He looks like a fraggle now or the rock eater from The Never Ending Story. I believe it's called the Jim Henson effect.

No fake tan?