All Blacks frustrated by Joubert

Steve Hansen has expressed his frustration at Joubert's calling of the breakdown.

In a cleverly worded side swipe, Hansen said England's approach to the breakdown caused his side problems, saying the All Blacks need to adapt to what appears to be different laws that apply at Twickenham:

"From what I'm seeing, you can seal off the ball and go off your feet, whereas in the southern hemisphere that just gets smashed. You not allowed to do it. It's something that we have to adapt to.''

Hansen said England's approach to the breakdown caused his side problems, adding it was up to the All Blacks to adjust and that their discipline at times was "average".

"From what I'm seeing, you can seal off the ball and go off your feet, whereas in the southern hemisphere that just gets smashed. You not allowed to do it. It's something that we have to adapt to.''

McCaw added: "I was frustrated that we were giving away those penalties ... There's not point bitching and moaning. The key is we have to adapt ... it took us a while to do that today.''

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=11158568

It was mainly around the breakdown that they were being pinged - either refusing to release the tackled player or coming in from the side.

That's what pressure it does - it saps players, forces them to make mistakes in their desperation to stop the momentum and England are one of the great sides in world rugby at applying it. Kieran Read, in his urgency to turn the tide, was shown a yellow card. Had to go. There had been too many infringements and to be fair to England, they deserved something tangible for their dominance.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=11158521

It wasn't that long ago that you had Joubert as the best ref in the world...

It is a bit strange that New Zealand has never before complained about joubert.

Usually they get along swimmingly well with old Cragie.

I'm sure they complained as such. The journos (English and Kiwi) were asking pretty direct questions about AB's issues with interpretation at the breakdown. All Hansen said was referees in the Super 15 and RC have generally been harder on players lying over the ball. It's pretty obvious that England were going to play that way (I pointed it a couple of days ago). He also pointed out that they very slow to adjust and there was no point in whingeing about it. As I said on another post today they'll probably make their noises through the appropriate channels.

I think Joubert invites a free for all at the ruck and gives the benefit of the doubt to numbers. As NZ had few players committed at the ruck, England were often allowed to come in and players would either linger over the tackle area and not retreat or players would come in from the side and disrupt the ball. Perhaps the perception of having so few players there gives the illusion that England is winning the ruck.

We definitely didn't get the rub of the green in the middle part of the game. For example Parling taking out McCaw, Twelvetrees holding onto the ball for what seemed an eternity, a great shove from NZ at a scrum and the England scrum went down and they were allowed to clear the scrum with the front five down. I'm sure England could point to infringements that went unnoticed but I just got the feeling that there was a bit of anarchy at the breakdown area and it happened in Brisbane and in the RWC final.

So I think it's a case of sitting down with the ref and being very clear as to how he is going to adjudicate that area and then adpating if necessary sooner when the penalty count starts rising. I know many will think it's sour grapes and Hansen and the rest of NZ fans should just shut up and enjoy the win but there's nothing wrong with raising concerns and seeking clarification.

Kia, compared to some of the absolute bunnies weve had reffing at this level we shouldnt be too critical of Jourbert, I must admit he got me nervous when he fluffed around before blowing his whistle for the English being offside when Ashton took off. and some of the breakdown rulings but all up, hes still the best referee in the World.

We took too long to react. By the end of the game we were clearing out players and protecting the ball better but for much of that middle section of the game we couldn't get our hands on the ball. Part of that was England's commitment, part of that were errors like Piutau and the quick throw or poor kicking, and part of it was getting swamped at the breakdown and having our ball disrupted. It shouldn't have taken so long for us to adapt to his rulings. Before the Read yellow card it needed to happen.

Add to that things like Aaron Smith kicking directly into touch, and Julian Savea being nice to his opposite and sharing possession, I think the reason we may have taken time to react was that we were going to run these boys around a bit and that would make the breakdown easier, but when the opposition have the ball you are always going to be penalised more often.

Due to pressure... England had the front foot, something NZ rarely lose and when that happens your ruck work gets that much more difficult.

NZ aren't used to being second at the breakdown.

It wasn't a referee thing.. Usually they arrive with space to operate, yesterday the gate was 1-2 metres behind and it meant they were having to go in at the side to compete.

Are you sure Fa?

I agree with you Kia. One of the big issues is adapting to the ref and the other team. I think we adapted as the game wore on. One positive for me is it looks like we have retrained ourselves to go for the ball immediately after the tackle as per the NH teams.

I beg to differ Fa. I think several things were going on. England's big men were getting over the advantage line (agreed), the poms were flooding the rucks with players (agreed), but they were also sealing the ball a lot more than we're used to seeing in the SH (principally because it generally gets penalized). We even saw squeeze ball's (I'm not sure the last time I saw them in the the SH).

I respectfully disagree fa. Going to wait for the video on youtube and then look at examples.

Yeah Im going to have another look at a replay in the morning, I watched it at 3.30am then went and did a 12 hour work day, luckily day off tomorrow and sky are running heaps of replays.

It was a SH ref whose referees super rugby. He wasn't interpreting to a NH perspective... I even read in the herald online that England "won the breakdown battle", a stark statement if there ever was one.

I didn't thing Joubert had that bad a day in fact. I certainly don't think he was pro any one side. Look England kept things very tight and hardly ever spread it.... That's how they controlled it, had they spread it they would have lost ball as NZ are better over a more spread area.

They were not dominant as in NZ weren't in the match but after the initial 15 mins to the 65th min the score was 19-3 to England. It was like watching England in the dean Richards era. Not even ten man rugby... It was 8 man rugby.

I thought England played to their strengths though in mind of NZ's own strengths.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Yeah Im going to have another  look at a  replay in the morning, I watched it at 3.30am then went and did a 12 hour work day, luckily day off tomorrow and sky are running heaps of replays.

Nope Joubert was not as it his best i thought . England players where took longer to release the tackled player than the AB yet they still got penalised less for the offence . And this coming off your feet and not supporting your own weight while jackling for the ball is a major problem in the NH . Its so annoying when you go through 18 weeks of super rugby and 2 months of RC with refs clamping down on such ,then it comes to AIs and its a free for all. A Prime example is Leigh Halfpennys penalty vs SA last week. The Springboks where shouting to the ref expecting to be awarded a penalty instead its the other way around.Same as this game with countless white shirts going off their feet and attacking the ball at the ruck and Joubert was silent on the matter. There really needs to be one standard when it comes to refereeing .

Often NZ were getting to the isolated player and getting in good position and unable to get the ball because the player wouldn't release. Then half a dozen England players would arrive, dive straight on the ground and clean out the ruck. Joubert would have his hands in the air saying "clean contest" and then penalise NZ after the clean out for being off their feet. But he should've been quicker to ping the England carrier for not releasing prior to his support arriving.

McCaw and Read were just bewildered and bemused. Especially when Read was carded apparently because his ruck support was cleaned out which Joubert insisted meant that he was now "in from the side", it just made no sense whatsoever.

Isn't Joubert a SH referee?

Reality is NZ were under unaccustomed pressure from England forwards around and close to the ruck and conceded some uncharacteristic penalties as a result. Mealamu did three tackles where he didn't roll away in the space of 10 mins. Nonu was rather blatant too. And the NZ 3 also (franks?)

Seems to me it was a somewhat deliberate plan, which they would have stuck to had Joubert not blown repeatedly. Second half there were no repeats by NZ.

NZ are absolutely the best at adapting and playin to the referees interpretation. Great rugby brains and ability to tactically adapt.

Joubert was bizarrely lenient on England's constant holding on in attack and the flood of players arriving from
The side and ruck monkeying. Don't ask me why, he doesn't do that in the super rugby. My feeling is the overwhelming number of Englishmen at the ruck makes it hard for him to spot the numerous offences or something. It was truly bizarre to witness.

   

GE, I think you hit on the right word, but for your interpretation of events not the refs decisions; bizarre.

Joubert, is not and never has been a friend of England

Don't feed the troll

Not saying his a friend. Just that we do seem to see some odd performances by referees at twickenham.

   

Just relooking at the Launchbury try, don't see how anyone can complain about it. Robshaw's not offside, he's played on by the ricochet anyway, and he doesn't touch it anyway

Is he not blocking a tackler from an offside position? also the ball is kicked forward and he is never onside again after that? Not clear tho by any means nor obvious

Don't think Robshaw was blocking the tackler.. Neither did the ref. It was a try.

It was a try and tbh even if you want to argue that one- we scored a legitimate try that couldn't be validated seconds before

robshaw being there or not would have made no difference to the outcome.to be offside you must interfere with play!!

TBH I cant believe the NZ or other fans that want ti try and take the try of England. Its nonsense.

Aye - the held up one was the right decision but I would bet my mortgage he got it down. If the ref had asked " any reason not to awrd the try" it would have been given.

On the Launchbury one look at my post. Question marks mean I am asking questions not making statements. I think it could be aregued he was offside but on the day the ref did not think so.

BTW I thought the ref had a good game. consistant and fair. He did allow longer to compete in the rucks than some but thats something you have to adapt to

GloriousEmpire wrote:Joubert was bizarrely lenient on England's constant holding on in attack and the flood of players arriving from
The side and ruck monkeying. Don't ask me why, he doesn't do that in the super rugby. My feeling is the overwhelming number of Englishmen at the ruck makes it hard for him to spot the numerous offences or something. It was truly bizarre to witness.

In the end I think this was evened up by his lenience re AB players supporting themselves in rucks with their hands, as well as the tackler lying in the way of those trying to clear out, forcing them to leap over and occasionally go off their feet. Good reffing in the end.

Just realised that Cruden is actually Eminem in disguise

Thought he missed things both ways (some in England's favour as mentioned above but also McCaw diving off his feet when Brown tackled Franks for the 2nd try, and the knock on just before NZ's final penalty that clinched the game). Think he just wasn't letting them get away with some of the other things that they are used to being allowed to do (the block on Ashton that gave England their first 3 points being a prime example).

Oh dear..so NZ don't get entirely their own way, actually have to come from behind, don't dominate everything and find themselves under some pressure. Surely this can't mean that the opposition played well?

Is it not enough that they showed why they are the best team in the world by coming back and winning? No - failure to have their own way for 80 minutes can only be explained by poor refereeing. Hansen has let himself down here.

Its not good enough to just win is it Offload,

They have to get an excuse in if they dont humiliate a NH opposition, especially one that beat them last game

The feeling from in the stands was that Joubert was letting a lot go, (clearly there was some English bias there) but another referee could have blown up a lot, the offside line in particular seemed to be optional.

It was a SH ref whose referees super rugby. He wasn't interpreting to a NH perspective... I even read in the herald online that England "won the breakdown battle", a stark statement if there ever was one.

I didn't thing Joubert had that bad a day in fact. I certainly don't think he was pro any one side. Look England kept things very tight and hardly ever spread it.... That's how they controlled it, had they spread it they would have lost ball as NZ are better over a more spread area.

They were not dominant as in NZ weren't in the match but after the initial 15 mins to the 65th min the score was 19-3 to England. It was like watching England in the dean Richards era. Not even ten man rugby... It was 8 man rugby.

I thought England played to their strengths though in mind of NZ's own strengths.

I think that is a fair assumption

Just because we won doesn't mean we can't clarify things. Just because we point out areas of concern of the ref at the breakdown for example does not detract from the England effectiveness in this area. I have pointed out that it took too long for us to adapt to the ref's rulings. I am certainly not claiming we should've beaten England by more. Joubert missed a lot from both sides. The offside line as has been mentioned, the pulling down of the ruck by Mealamu for example, Parling holding back McCaw. Are we supposed to pretend the ref got it completely right and not point out areas of potential improvement. And they say Kiwis at sensitive souls.  

It did look like NZ were a little bemused at the decisions... but, I myself don't think it was because they were being unfairly judged. I just don't think a team has taken it to them in that manner for a long time thats all.
SA in NZ were playing a similar game when they had 15 on the park (although that was for only 30 odd mins).

Thought Read was unlucky to be pinged, he was the next man and NZ were warned. Nonu was caught numerous times in defence being on the wrong side etc.

Strange that Joubert has refereed them and SR all season.

NZ 'frustrated' at ref. I'm disappointed that the NZers appear to whine and whinge so much when things don't go all their own way. Very disappointed, I thought NZ people were stronger than that.

englandglory4ever wrote:NZ 'frustrated' at ref. I'm disappointed that the NZers appear to whine and whinge so much when things don't go all their own way. Very disappointed, I thought NZ people were stronger than that.

Unfortunately sometimes we're as week as our British cousins. 

englandglory4ever wrote:NZ 'frustrated' at ref. I'm disappointed that the NZers appear to whine and whinge so much when things don't go all their own way. Very disappointed, I thought NZ people were stronger than that.

We are but smell isnt everything.

What is it you All black fans want-

Are you demanding a 10pt moral victory or a 25 pt one?

lol - this made me laugh

Win and still complain

Well I suppose we could adapt the words slightly to get

"From what I'm seeing, you can seal off the ball flop down on the wrong side and go off stay there blocking the ballyour feet, whereas in the southern   Northern Hemisphere that just gets  rucked smashed. You not allowed to do it. It's something that we have to adapt to, but at least this ref helped them in the World Cup final, so they are happy to invite him round for tea.''

It sounds like Joubert has committed the cardinal sin of penalising Richie McCaw at the breakdown, thus the uproar from the ABs. Refs should know by now that they can't penalise Richie - that's enshrined somewhere in the IRB rules I think.

...must admit, thought someone had bumped a NZ/France WC final thread. Kiwis saying now more or less exactly what the French were saying then.

If true, it seems Joubert IS unduly affected by the Home crowd. Should he be allowed to officiate at this level? He clearly benefits the Home side in a biased and unfair manner.

I suppose if he's officiating in NZ this summer those matches can be written off now...

McCaw added: "I was frustrated that we were giving away those penalties ... There's not point bitching and moaning. The key is we have to adapt ... it took us a while to do that today.''
 
'There's no point bitching and moaning.'
 
It looked like that is all McCaw and others did all game if you ask me, running to Teacher (Joubert) at every chance they had.  
 
Fair play they won fair and square and had to adapt their game but only because England was causing them problems, not because of how the Ref was refereeing the game.

Fair play they won fair and square and had to adapt their game but only because England was causing them problems, not because of how the Ref was refereeing the game.

Oh, don't be ridiculous! This is the All Blacks! England only caused them problems because they were allowed to by Joubert - and that is NOT what refs are supposed to do!

How very odd. We were assured a day or so ago that GE style posting would be appreciated by the Kiwi supporters as a refreshing alternative viewpoint. I can only assume they haven't seen my posts in that style yet.

I thought the way the AB's arrived at the ruck was interesting - they very often arrived and were straight on their knees - kneeling on the playing on the ground, would begin competing for the ball, and then stand up. Clearly they weren't initially supporting their own weight, but it allowed them to reach furtherin before rising once they had hand on ball.
It's illegal surely, but a difficult one to police.

We can't very well lose and then complain this year because we haven't lost, which is usually the reason for complaining about the ref. Have you stopped to think why you are not complaining about the ref?

Besides, GE is no longer here. You're winding yourselves up all by yourselves. Do you deny Joubert missed things on both sides? Some of you may be fighting fire with fire but I suspect some are not.

Just as teams look back on performances and look at what they did wrong, so too are you allowed to question some decisions by the ref. Everyone knows how well both sides played. No one's dismissing the closeness of the match.