Steve Walsh dumped by IRB

No surprise here then!

Independent -

Steve Walsh, the controversial Australian official who frustrated England to within an inch of their lives during the Six Nations finale in Wales 11 days ago, is the heaviest faller in the latest round of refereeing appointments sanctioned by the International Rugby Board.

Walsh will not control any of the 30 Tests scheduled for early summer, although he has been awarded the opening British and Irish Lions tour match with the Barbarians in Hong Kong on 1 June.

ii think this is bad Walsh didnt do anything wrong there were worse refs like that one that was ref of wales scotland and that clancy, just takes away the fact wales were out standing and england coaches not accepting their to blame for the loss not walsh

Maybe just maybe the IRB are more independent Han either the English or Welsh fans. He clearly hasn't covered himself in glory though & I suspect rightly or wrongly will attract controversy whenever he refs.
The story shouldn't be about he officials but unfortunately with him it was always thus.

The England v Wales match was one of the better refereed matches of the competition. Walsh's personality is his biggest downfall.

Craig Joubert and Clownshoes Clancy are way, way worse referees !

but its not just him though clancy blows his whistle more than the song blow my whistle bitch, no game of rugby can be played. Rowland also is a bad ref not just because of the wales france game but he is poor and that south african who was ref of wales and england is shocking. these three refs take away a game of rugby.

Walsh is one of the better refs out there, can't understand this at all.

welshboii15 wrote:ii think this is bad Walsh didnt do anything wrong there were worse refs like that one that was ref of wales scotland and that clancy, just takes away the fact wales were out standing and england coaches not accepting their to blame for the loss not walsh

Do you honestly think the IRB would make this change based on one game?

He's been poor a fair few times, most recently in the Super 15 game where he pushed conrad smith - He did apologized straight after but he still pushed him. That's not something ref's should be doing.

Oh and it takes nothing away from the Wales win.

What was the result of England asking for clarification on his decisions anyway?
Will the result ever be made public?

Refereedom - New word - I like it

well i cant comment on the conrad smith push because i didnt know it happened then if its for that reason then he deserves this

pbuk0 wrote:What was the result of England asking for clarification on his decisions anyway?
Will the result ever be made public?

i very much doubt it. i would prefer things like that to remain private.

welshboii15 wrote:well i cant comment on the conrad smith push because i didnt know it happened then if its for that reason then he deserves this

You can make your own mind up, http://www.3news.co.nz/VIDEO-Mark-Hammett-critical-of-Steve-Walshs-performance/tabid/317/articleID/288901/Default.aspx

He did say sorry straight after, personally it doesn't look like an accident as he lifted his arms up. Personally i don't know the reason and i'm only guessing it's a number of things.

i understand he pushes him but even Smith said it was accident so thats not a big problem IMO but its still Wrong because refs shouldnt be aloud to put hands on a player same as players shouldnt refs.
simlar happened to walsh when AWJ pushes him flying to get to a tackle or ruck iver one it shouldnt happen

welshboii15 wrote:i understand he pushes him but even Smith said it was accident so thats not a big problem IMO but its still Wrong because refs shouldnt be aloud to put hands on a player same as players shouldnt refs.
simlar happened to walsh when AWJ pushes him flying to get to a tackle or ruck iver one it shouldnt happen

yeah true, only Walsh knows if it was an accident. Smith is a gent though so i think it's normal for him to play it down.

I did not know that the IRB had handed out this type of punishment. However i did hear that he got the Barberians v Lions game in hong kong.

May be the IRB have looked at the tape, over and over and have seen things that they do not agree with.

pbuk0 wrote:What was the result of England asking for clarification on his decisions anyway?
Will the result ever be made public?

30 points to 3
You can find it on many rugby archives.

Well irrespective of what we as supporters think, it seems Rowntree wasn't all that wrong?

Biltong wrote:Well irrespective of what we as supporters think, it seems Rowntree wasn't all that wrong?

Biltong you scoundrel - you know that to assume makes an ass of u and me together

offload wrote:

Biltong wrote:Well irrespective of what we as supporters think, it seems Rowntree wasn't all that wrong?

Biltong you scoundrel - you know that to assume makes an ass of u and me together

true, but if noone is around to see it, it hardly matters does it?

I wonder if this will have any bearing on how England will be reffed in the future, what ref now is going to risk the wrath of England should he not give them the favourable decisions they think they deserve, it is a sad day when outside influences decides the futures of others, for me this should have all been done on the quiet, if England thought they were short changed then they should have had a quiet word with the IRB not go crying to the media and anyone else who would listen, perhaps they should look from within before putting the blame elsewhere. I was glad to see Rowntree picked to coach the Lions, but now I am not sure about it, not sure at all, I hope he does not resort to this type of thing should the Lions lose to Australia, it all leaves a very bitter taste in the mouth, and it certainly screams of the term "Bad Losers"

Lordowlais, I think you are assuming things here.

I as a neutral observer questioned the manner in which Walsh officiated the scrums.

This is not about the English Rugby Union, this is about a referee.

Biltong wrote:Lordowlais, I think you are assuming things here.

I as a neutral observer questioned the manner in which Walsh officiated the scrums.

This is not about the English Rugby Union, this is about a referee.

Biltong wrote:Lordowlais, I think you are assuming things here.

I as a neutral observer questioned the manner in which Walsh officiated the scrums.

This is not about the English Rugby Union, this is about a referee.

Biltong, I have watched the game now about a dozen times, let's just say, there was only one team who wanted to scrummage that day, England were constantly trying it on, they were trying to avoid the hit and were out muscled as a result, as for the breakdowns, watch the game again, Wales hardley ever commited more than two players to the rucks, thus they could not be penalised as much, England at nearly every ruck had a player, sometimes two on the wrong side, ok most of the time they were not doing anything, but they were still there, and for people telling me that Rowntree and Lancaster were not complaining about Walsh and that they just wanted clarification on his decisions, that is a load of bull, we all know that this is just a clever way of them saying, it's not our fault, the ref cheated us. This all smacks of bad losing and I for one will now look at those two with a different with a different perspective, as it was not so long ago when I held them both in high regard for they way they turned team England around and went on to beat the All Blacks, and I could not have been happier to have Rowntree involved with the Lions, now I just do not want him there, because if we lose to the Aussies I do not want to have anything to do with his whinging about the refs.

I have little issue with the rucks, as I said after the game, Wales commited numbers to the rucks and England didn't as in the Super XV this year the team that commits the numbers and gains momentum has the benefit of the ruck decisions.

Even when they tend to go off their feet, it happens in every Super XV game.

I diagree with you on the scrums.

But irrespective of that, the decision to demote Walsh is not England's fault.

Walsh has been showing that same poor attitude in his. super XV games, he even shovwd Conrad Smith out of his way in a match a few weeks ago.

He has a poor attitude that isn't isolated to the England vs wales game, and therefor I disagree with you

Biltong wrote:I have little issue with the rucks, as I said after the game, Wales commited numbers to the rucks and England didn't as in the Super XV this year the team that commits the numbers and gains momentum has the benefit of the ruck decisions.

Even when they tend to go off their feet, it happens in every Super XV game.

I diagree with you on the scrums.

But irrespective of that, the decision to demote Walsh is not England's fault.

Walsh has been showing that same poor attitude in his. super XV games, he even shovwd Conrad Smith out of his way in a match a few weeks ago.

He has a poor attitude that isn't isolated to the England vs wales game, and therefor I disagree with you

Biltong, I am not on about Walsh getting demoted, I am going on about how team England went public with this, it just makes it all look a little "BITTER".

LordDowlais wrote:

Biltong wrote:I have little issue with the rucks, as I said after the game, Wales commited numbers to the rucks and England didn't as in the Super XV this year the team that commits the numbers and gains momentum has the benefit of the ruck decisions.

Even when they tend to go off their feet, it happens in every Super XV game.

I diagree with you on the scrums.

But irrespective of that, the decision to demote Walsh is not England's fault.

Walsh has been showing that same poor attitude in his. super XV games, he even shovwd Conrad Smith out of his way in a match a few weeks ago.

He has a poor attitude that isn't isolated to the England vs wales game, and therefor I disagree with you

Biltong, I am not on about Walsh getting demoted, I am going on about how team England went public with this, it just makes it all look a little "BITTER".

We will have to differ on that, Lancaster and his coaching staff knows fullwell England were blown out of that game by the Welsh performance, if it was a close game, you might have been correct, but not when the score is 30-3

I read this from a different perspective


TheEnglish coaching staff and in particular the forward coach was in shock, I don't think he would have ever bekeived his forwards being sominated like that. Hence his reaction.

Sure it cluld havebe. Handled better, but what role did the media play in blowing this up, the fact is he is searching for answer, and maybe he should search for the reasons closer to home. It just shows his state of mind. I don't think he believes what happened

Biltong wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Biltong wrote:I have little issue with the rucks, as I said after the game, Wales commited numbers to the rucks and England didn't as in the Super XV this year the team that commits the numbers and gains momentum has the benefit of the ruck decisions.

Even when they tend to go off their feet, it happens in every Super XV game.

I diagree with you on the scrums.

But irrespective of that, the decision to demote Walsh is not England's fault.

Walsh has been showing that same poor attitude in his. super XV games, he even shovwd Conrad Smith out of his way in a match a few weeks ago.

He has a poor attitude that isn't isolated to the England vs wales game, and therefor I disagree with you

Biltong, I am not on about Walsh getting demoted, I am going on about how team England went public with this, it just makes it all look a little "BITTER".

We will have to differ on that, Lancaster and his coaching staff knows fullwell England were blown out of that game by the Welsh performance, if it was a close game, you might have been correct, but not when the score is 30-3

I read this from a different perspective


TheEnglish coaching staff and in particular the forward coach was in shock, I don't think he would have ever bekeived his forwards being sominated like that. Hence his reaction.

Sure it cluld havebe. Handled better, but what role did the media play in blowing this up, the fact is he is searching for answer, and maybe he should search for the reasons closer to home. It just shows his state of mind. I don't think he believes what happened

And that is exactly that, it was all good when the media were building the likes of Dan Cole up as world beaters, and then Graham Rowntree and Stuart Lancaster as the best coaches around because they beat the All Blacks, instead of asking for "clarification" about the ref, perhaps they should look closer to home, oh and do not go public about it as well.

Biltong wrote:Well irrespective of what we as supporters think, it seems Rowntree wasn't all that wrong?

I think the IRB have taken this view. Clearly the "correct" interpretation of the IRB's stupid rules is that followed by the likes of Craig Joubert (i.e. pedantic decisions on engagement at the scrum which completely kill the game and tear the soul out of rugby).

That Walsh has been effectively demoted for at least attempting to allow a proper match of rugby to take place is a completely stupid decision, and one entirely becoming and expected from the IRB.

Joubert was comfortably the worst referee in the 6 Nations. Comfortably. I guess the French and the Scots didn't whine as effectively as England following the Joubert debacles at Twickenham and Murrayfield. The message the IRB have sent is that it's right to complain if an official shows any sign of initiative. The dire IRB edicts must be interpreted consistently, like Poopie smeared across the toilet bowl.

I've not commented on Steve Walsh since the Grand Slam decider, but I will break my silence now.

In relation to the match itself, in particular the scrum, I am not going to criticise Walsh. It is easy for us to sit and watch on tv with an excellent camera angle from slightly above, showing the whole scrum, and notice every potential offence. Human nature then dictates that our brain highlights to us the one that suits what we want to see the most.

The referee does not have this view. He sees from one side, albeit his assistant should be assisting him on the other. He will have in his head a set sequence for looking for offences. When I spoke to David Rose on twitter a while back, he said the first thing he looks for is the tighthead's bind. Walsh I would imagine has his own order he looks for things and penalises what he sees.

My issue with him as a referee is that he seems at times to be a little to full of his own importance. I notice him far too much in games, and for me that is not a good thing. The best referees in any sport, are the ones that you can't remember. The mere fact that there is so much discussion about him and this game indicates to me that he hasn't done his job quite right.


Are England right to request clarification from the IRB around where they went wrong and got pinged so heavily? Absolutely. They would not be doing their jobs properly were they not to do so.

Should they have been quite so clear about it with the press? Probably not. Far better to have said something along the lines of "we are looking at everything from the game and will be taking appropriate steps to address any issues that arise from that review."

That means looking at themselves and everything else, and people would still speculate that they weren't happy with Walsh, but it would be merely that, specualation.


Is it right that Walsh has been dropoped from the summer test matches? That is a matter for the IRB. If they beleive that he did not referee the game in the manner that they have instructed him to, then of course they should take action. It is no different to a coach telling his ten that we are playing territory and kicking for the corners and all the ten does all day is attack the gainline and get turned over. He'd be spending some time on the bench I would imagine.


In summary, I don't criticise Walsh's performance against England, but I criticise the man himself, and say he will always be at the centre of discussions like this until he relaises that the players are the stars of the show, and he is merely a supporting cast member.

Is this news? Best Aussie ref isn't asked to ref big tests involving Australia, or lots of Mickey Mouse tour matches...

Has any one got any proof that the IRB saught England's advice on who to demote or is everyone going to make things up like little kids to fit their agendas?

I think if anyone thinks that one angry forwards coach and a head coach complaining to the press is enough to get a ref demoted then they're a little silly. If that was the case then no two refs in the Jeff/Rabo/T14 would ever ref more then one game!

Grow up guys, Walsh was always been on thin ice and hasn't ever been on good terms with the IRBdue to his past failures.

Ozzy, I think you will find that Steve walsh has been dropped by Chris Hewett at the Independent, not by the IRB.

That may well be true laurie, but my feelings about Walsh are the same. Interested to hear your view of him from down under.

Ozzy. walsh is as good a "manager" of a rugby match as anyone on the International rugby panel, he takes the game of rugby very seriously and he sees his role as an opportunity to further advance and promote the game to being a spectacle and thus making it attractive for International television broadcasters.

Walsh does not impose himself on the game unless he has to, he has excellant empathy with the game, and recognises the efforts of coaches and players that try to actually play a game of rugby.

When walsh was living in Auckland (when he first was appointed to the International panel)he always gave resonable explanations to the rugby Journalists at the New Zealand, as to the workings and reasoning behind referess decisions and what they were trying to achieve.

Yes he has had personal troubles with alcohol and his split from melodie, but he has alweays tried to keep that separate from his refereeing.

What rugby needs is some more younger referees like Walsh. Maybe Glenn jackson?

FeS makes a good point - Craig Joubert was the worst official in the 6n; from his terrible "control" of the scrum against Wales to missing Michalak's blind side punch on Stuart Hogg when he was the TJ who was right next to the incident
I guess that Walsh's demotion must be the accumulation of a few misdemeanours on and/or off the pitch.
By the way, does he have a rude tattoo or something? I noticed when he signalled a scrum, the inner part of his forearm (can't remember which arm) looked like it had a big flesh coloured sticking plaster on it. Or was he cheating and used it to write the laws on in case he forgot them during the game?

Ozzy3213 wrote:I've not commented on Steve Walsh since the Grand Slam decider, but I will break my silence now.

In relation to the match itself, in particular the scrum, I am not going to criticise Walsh. It is easy for us to sit and watch on tv with an excellent camera angle from slightly above, showing the whole scrum, and notice every potential offence. Human nature then dictates that our brain highlights to us the one that suits what we want to see the most.

The referee does not have this view. He sees from one side, albeit his assistant should be assisting him on the other. He will have in his head a set sequence for looking for offences. When I spoke to David Rose on twitter a while back, he said the first thing he looks for is the tighthead's bind. Walsh I would imagine has his own order he looks for things and penalises what he sees.

My issue with him as a referee is that he seems at times to be a little to full of his own importance. I notice him far too much in games, and for me that is not a good thing. The best referees in any sport, are the ones that you can't remember. The mere fact that there is so much discussion about him and this game indicates to me that he hasn't done his job quite right.


Are England right to request clarification from the IRB around where they went wrong and got pinged so heavily? Absolutely. They would not be doing their jobs properly were they not to do so.

Should they have been quite so clear about it with the press? Probably not. Far better to have said something along the lines of "we are looking at everything from the game and will be taking appropriate steps to address any issues that arise from that review."

That means looking at themselves and everything else, and people would still speculate that they weren't happy with Walsh, but it would be merely that, specualation.


Is it right that Walsh has been dropoped from the summer test matches? That is a matter for the IRB. If they beleive that he did not referee the game in the manner that they have instructed him to, then of course they should take action. It is no different to a coach telling his ten that we are playing territory and kicking for the corners and all the ten does all day is attack the gainline and get turned over. He'd be spending some time on the bench I would imagine.


In summary, I don't criticise Walsh's performance against England, but I criticise the man himself, and say he will always be at the centre of discussions like this until he relaises that the players are the stars of the show, and he is merely a supporting cast member.

Good rounded and considered post Ozzy...!

I have highlighted where you mention the character of Walsh as a referee during the game and to be honest I used to think the same of him, though since we have seen referees like Clancy, Barnes, Garces, Poite and Joubert come to the fore, Walsh seems insignificant in comparison.

We have all seen the refs I mentioned absolutely butcher games with pedantry, self importance and ignorance. Clancy over riding Owens touch call assistance regarding Parisse not knocking on is a great example.

I thought scrum aside Walsh refereed clearly, consistently and let the game flow. As a spectator that is all I want.

Regarding the scrum, it was clearly stated the other day. The call of the referee is Crouch touch set, when he says set you engage, if you do not you are holding back. You are only engaging early if you move before he says set. Many previous refs, mentioned above were wrongfully awarding penalties for early engagement in previous matches. Scotland vs Wales was ridiculous.

I though on the whole Walsh had a great game. I would much rather see him referee any team than Clancy, Barnes, Garces, Poite and Joubert.

Laurie, I won't argue that he has an empathy with the game or that he sees his role as an opportunity to further enhance and promote the game as a spectacle. My issue is with him is how he goes about trying to achieve that aim.

The spectacle should be the players, but often when Walsh referees he becomes centre stage. Perhaps due to his personal issues we look out for him more and therefore by extension notice him more, but even so, I just get the impression that he is trying to hard to make an impression, and as a result can detract from the game.


With regard to Glenn Jackson, I have a lot of time for him as a referee. I've watched him a few times and as you might expect from a recently retired player he does have tremendous empathy with the game and I am yet to see him put in a poor performance.

Maes

As I said, I'm not going to get into criticising Walsh's performance at the scrum. I would imagine that before the game he spoke to both front rows and advised what he wanted, and as long as what he then did on the field was consistent with what he said to them, there isn't really an issue.

Of the referees you mention, the one who I see as the closest thing to Walsh in terms of wanting to be the star is Barnes. I have never seen massive issues with the others that you mention, and must confess to thinking highly of both Garces and Poite.

Overall I just think it's a shame that we as fans are spending an inordinate amount of time discussing referees, as actually I'd much prefer to be discussing a fantastic piece of play, or even a humourous moment from any particular game.

Ozzy3213 wrote:Maes

As I said, I'm not going to get into criticising Walsh's performance at the scrum. I would imagine that before the game he spoke to both front rows and advised what he wanted, and as long as what he then did on the field was consistent with what he said to them, there isn't really an issue.

Of the referees you mention, the one who I see as the closest thing to Walsh in terms of wanting to be the star is Barnes. I have never seen massive issues with the others that you mention, and must confess to thinking highly of both Garces and Poite.

Overall I just think it's a shame that we as fans are spending an inordinate amount of time discussing referees, as actually I'd much prefer to be discussing a fantastic piece of play, or even a humourous moment from any particular game.

Certainly could not agree more with you on your last point Ozzy.

RE the game, I listened to the Ref radio and Walsh was clear with both sets of players throughout the match. He gave excellent and clear instructions and debriefs of why they were penalised.

I don't listen to the ref radio every match, but i have a few times now. Walsh was fantastic by comparison to others. George Clancy in the Wales vs Italy game last year almost had the crowd about to invade the pitch and throttle him his decisions, arrogance, lack of clarity and inconsistency were so profound.

if Walsh was ever called to court to give evidence about an Englishman, or woman his testimony would not be allowed, and he would be unable to give evidence as he is PREJudicial towards England and the English.

Therefore he should not be officiating anywhere near an England game and is compromised, to say the very least and should retire gracefully from the game we all love.

The IRB and the rest of the jokers who appointed this clown to a game of this magnitude, should also fall on their sword, and Its about time England used some of their Clout, financial or otherwise to get rid of these type of people.

By the way Wales won fair and square, no complaints !!

I don't think I've ever seen Clancy referee a match after which I've thought "That was a good, open game". He's the classic ref who has never played in a pack in his life and has no applied knowledge of how the scrum and the breakdown work, he only knows the letter of the law.

Ozzie, that is a fair analysis. I think some fans may be reading too much into this article, the IRB haven't have their tuppenceworth on the matter as far as I know. When they do I find it highly unlikely that they would condemn Walsh. Another point id like to make is why did Lancaster and Rowntree do this after the game against Wales? After the losses to Aus and SA there could have been complaint or a request to look into some decisions in those past fixtures. I have my issues with certain refs (Joubert for example) but I would hope this isn't the precedent for the IRB when reviewing the elite panel in the future.

mikey

I'll take the Australia game that you mention. We got royally stuffed in the scrum. Ben Alexander spent the vast majority of the game shoving Joe Marler's head up his orse. I don't recall Lancaster or Rowntree questioning the scrum penalty decisions in that game. I can only presume that they understood the decisions and agreed that Marler got schooled.

I cannot even recall who the referee was that day, which for me is a good thing.

My understanding is that after every game the coaches of both teams have to submit a report on the referee and his performance is assessed by somebody on the elite referees panel. What I would hope is that the independant assessor's opinions carry far more weight than that of the coaches who have a vested interest in the particular match.

I agree with the point that I think you're making that the last thing we want is for it to become the norm for there to be a very public review of the referees performance after every game.

LordDowlais wrote:

Biltong wrote:Lordowlais, I think you are assuming things here.

I as a neutral observer questioned the manner in which Walsh officiated the scrums.

This is not about the English Rugby Union, this is about a referee.

Biltong, I have watched the game now about a dozen times, let's just say, there was only one team who wanted to scrummage that day, England were constantly trying it on, they were trying to avoid the hit and were out muscled as a result, as for the breakdowns, watch the game again, Wales hardley ever commited more than two players to the rucks, thus they could not be penalised as much, England at nearly every ruck had a player, sometimes two on the wrong side, ok most of the time they were not doing anything, but they were still there, and for people telling me that Rowntree and Lancaster were not complaining about Walsh and that they just wanted clarification on his decisions, that is a load of bull, we all know that this is just a clever way of them saying, it's not our fault, the ref cheated us. This all smacks of bad losing and I for one will now look at those two with a different with a different perspective, as it was not so long ago when I held them both in high regard for they way they turned team England around and went on to beat the All Blacks, and I could not have been happier to have Rowntree involved with the Lions, now I just do not want him there, because if we lose to the Aussies I do not want to have anything to do with his whinging about the refs.

That wouldn't be the team that admitted they deliberately dropped scrums to win penalties would it? As that does not sound like a team that wanted to scrummage, but of a side that planned on cheating the ref.

As for the rest I think you need to watch the game again paying particular attention to the number and position of the welsh players at the breakdown , as there was a lot more than two and the side of the ruck they were led.

Not a fan of ref bashing at all, Walsh had a few bad games, people tend to react ridiculously to referees (I've seen people blame the ref for England's loss when you lose by 20 points how you can blame a ref is beyond me). The laws are a bigger problem then referees.

Ozzy3213 wrote:I've not commented on Steve Walsh since the Grand Slam decider, but I will break my silence now.

In relation to the match itself, in particular the scrum, I am not going to criticise Walsh. It is easy for us to sit and watch on tv with an excellent camera angle from slightly above, showing the whole scrum, and notice every potential offence. Human nature then dictates that our brain highlights to us the one that suits what we want to see the most.

The referee does not have this view. He sees from one side, albeit his assistant should be assisting him on the other. He will have in his head a set sequence for looking for offences. When I spoke to David Rose on twitter a while back, he said the first thing he looks for is the tighthead's bind. Walsh I would imagine has his own order he looks for things and penalises what he sees.

My issue with him as a referee is that he seems at times to be a little to full of his own importance. I notice him far too much in games, and for me that is not a good thing. The best referees in any sport, are the ones that you can't remember. The mere fact that there is so much discussion about him and this game indicates to me that he hasn't done his job quite right.


Are England right to request clarification from the IRB around where they went wrong and got pinged so heavily? Absolutely. They would not be doing their jobs properly were they not to do so.

Should they have been quite so clear about it with the press? Probably not. Far better to have said something along the lines of "we are looking at everything from the game and will be taking appropriate steps to address any issues that arise from that review."

That means looking at themselves and everything else, and people would still speculate that they weren't happy with Walsh, but it would be merely that, specualation.


Is it right that Walsh has been dropoped from the summer test matches? That is a matter for the IRB. If they beleive that he did not referee the game in the manner that they have instructed him to, then of course they should take action. It is no different to a coach telling his ten that we are playing territory and kicking for the corners and all the ten does all day is attack the gainline and get turned over. He'd be spending some time on the bench I would imagine.


In summary, I don't criticise Walsh's performance against England, but I criticise the man himself, and say he will always be at the centre of discussions like this until he relaises that the players are the stars of the show, and he is merely a supporting cast member.

I felt quite sad reading this. We are all subjective. We all have our opinions. I for one think Walsh contributed to a great spectacle. He had no more influence in the result than any modern ref. It's not his fault that Tuilagi butchered your only two clear cut chances. Who knows had you taken those chances Wales may have got desperate on the back foot, a card and it's a different game.

I think this is a witch hunt against Walsh which is unedifying. We are all human, you can have a pop for all sorts of things BUT if he is hounded out of top flight rugby it will be the poorer for it, not only as he is a ref who is empathetic to the players (unlike Barnes, Clancy, Rolland and Joubert) but also how many interesting people with personalities will have been put off refereeing?

JmD wrote:I don't think I've ever seen Clancy referee a match after which I've thought "That was a good, open game". He's the classic ref who has never played in a pack in his life and has no applied knowledge of how the scrum and the breakdown work, he only knows the letter of the law.

You were going good there JMD until you got to the last comment, I remember the game where Clancy made up new TMO laws as the game went on, Pity was he didnt tell the players prior to his rulings what the new laws were.

Ozzy3213 wrote:mikey

I'll take the Australia game that you mention. We got royally stuffed in the scrum. Ben Alexander spent the vast majority of the game shoving Joe Marler's head up his orse. I don't recall Lancaster or Rowntree questioning the scrum penalty decisions in that game. I can only presume that they understood the decisions and agreed that Marler got schooled.

I cannot even recall who the referee was that day, which for me is a good thing.

My understanding is that after every game the coaches of both teams have to submit a report on the referee and his performance is assessed by somebody on the elite referees panel. What I would hope is that the independant assessor's opinions carry far more weight than that of the coaches who have a vested interest in the particular match.

I agree with the point that I think you're making that the last thing we want is for it to become the norm for there to be a very public review of the referees performance after every game.

Roman Poite

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/20347064

Glas a du wrote:

Ozzy3213 wrote:I've not commented on Steve Walsh since the Grand Slam decider, but I will break my silence now.

In relation to the match itself, in particular the scrum, I am not going to criticise Walsh. It is easy for us to sit and watch on tv with an excellent camera angle from slightly above, showing the whole scrum, and notice every potential offence. Human nature then dictates that our brain highlights to us the one that suits what we want to see the most.

The referee does not have this view. He sees from one side, albeit his assistant should be assisting him on the other. He will have in his head a set sequence for looking for offences. When I spoke to David Rose on twitter a while back, he said the first thing he looks for is the tighthead's bind. Walsh I would imagine has his own order he looks for things and penalises what he sees.

My issue with him as a referee is that he seems at times to be a little to full of his own importance. I notice him far too much in games, and for me that is not a good thing. The best referees in any sport, are the ones that you can't remember. The mere fact that there is so much discussion about him and this game indicates to me that he hasn't done his job quite right.


Are England right to request clarification from the IRB around where they went wrong and got pinged so heavily? Absolutely. They would not be doing their jobs properly were they not to do so.

Should they have been quite so clear about it with the press? Probably not. Far better to have said something along the lines of "we are looking at everything from the game and will be taking appropriate steps to address any issues that arise from that review."

That means looking at themselves and everything else, and people would still speculate that they weren't happy with Walsh, but it would be merely that, specualation.


Is it right that Walsh has been dropoped from the summer test matches? That is a matter for the IRB. If they beleive that he did not referee the game in the manner that they have instructed him to, then of course they should take action. It is no different to a coach telling his ten that we are playing territory and kicking for the corners and all the ten does all day is attack the gainline and get turned over. He'd be spending some time on the bench I would imagine.


In summary, I don't criticise Walsh's performance against England, but I criticise the man himself, and say he will always be at the centre of discussions like this until he relaises that the players are the stars of the show, and he is merely a supporting cast member.

I felt quite sad reading this. We are all subjective. We all have our opinions. I for one think Walsh contributed to a great spectacle. He had no more influence in the result than any modern ref. It's not his fault that Tuilagi butchered your only two clear cut chances. Who knows had you taken those chances Wales may have got desperate on the back foot, a card and it's a different game.

I think this is a witch hunt against Walsh which is unedifying. We are all human, you can have a pop for all sorts of things BUT if he is hounded out of top flight rugby it will be the poorer for it, not only as he is a ref who is empathetic to the players (unlike Barnes, Clancy, Rolland and Joubert) but also how many interesting people with personalities will have been put off refereeing?

Glas,

I've not indicated that I think he overly influenced the result. In fact I thought I was pretty clear that my comments about him were not directly related to the game but more my perception of him as a referee overall.