Wayne Barnes Slammed over Video Nasty

First topic message reminder :

The influential and respected retired South african referee Jonathan Kaplan, considered by many as the best referee ever to preside over the game of rugby has slammed Wayne Barnes for contemplating the home producer's video offering that led to the south African victory last weekend. In his "rate the ref" website.

the keenly observant Kaplan points out that a biased home TV producer should not be allowed to determine the outcome of a major test match by playing a clip "over and over" to incite the crowd to bring it to the attention of the match officials.

He also complains that Barnes is lazy "walks a lot" and is too lippy "talks a lot".

Nice to see a South African admitting the mistake finally, especially one as respected and influential as Kaplan.

He also mentions that South African fans shouldn't write this incident off by playing it off against perceived historical injustices.

For me the question is simple.

Did the broadcaster specifically seek out foul play incidents to influence the referee?

In my view, none more so than the sequence of plays that led to the set phase that was called.

But, due to the sensitive nature of referee calls over the past number of years, it was inevitable that at some point someone was going to make an issue of it.

The fact that it was between SA and New Zealand and in the final two minutes has higlighted the issue more.

Sadly it has happened in the one match South Africa beat NZ in during the last three years, which in a sense mars the celebrations South African fans should have been focusing on, rather than defending the manner of their victory.

I have a simple philosophy in life, give every team a fair shot at winning, unfortunately the nature of rugby and the complexity of the laws impedes the "fair play" mantra that should be the single most important aspect of rugby.

Do I feel bad about how this win is percieved by some? No not at all, does it anger me that there has been so much focus on the incident? No, but it does irritate me that for once a call has gone our way which influenced the result of this match and it gecomes a main focus whilst all and sundry have been telling me to suck of injudicious yellow cards, slack refereeing, subsequent red cards etc over the past number of years.

One things I have learnt through all of this. No team is immune to having calls go against them, some perhaps a little "luckier" than others, neither are their supporters immune to feeling "negative" about these incidents.

The fact is the IRB has a living entity (the laws) that is under constand threat due to not only the complexities of those laws, but also the external factors that constantly influence match situations, if enough people complain or there is evidence of these circumstances they will act upon those threats as they see fit.

Will these threats ever stip? No because external factors are unpredictable and internally teams always endeavour to find ways to circumvent the laws.

We as supporters are merely innocent bystanders with but the results as record of the existance of matces gone by.

We can get as upset as we want, we can hang onto ill feelings about results for as long as we want to, but the record books show we have lost, I for one will never accept our loss in the QF, but does it really matter? The Aussies brag about that win continuously, regardless of how it was achieved, I will never forget our loss on the highveldt against OZ when in the final minute they recieved a penalty whilst we were in possession whilst going for the pick and drive and were blown for "sealing off"

I will never forgive Paul Honiss for telling John Smith to talk to his players whilst allowing Ronan O'Gara to take a quick tap which gave Ireland the win.

Similarly the yellow card on Habana this year at Perth.

Those are four example of matches directly or indirectly (depends which side of the fence you sit on) were influenced by the referee.

What I have learnt from that is the best team doesn't have a right to feel they deserve the win, sport just doesn't work this way.

As some of the Kiwi supporters have mentioned on this thread, whenever there are issues influencing the outcome of a match, these supporters will be called up as sour losers.

Unfortunately that is a reality.

I say to them, if people want to call you sour losers then so be it.

I am a sour loser for losing the four matches I have mentioned here. Nothing will change that.

So embrace whatever you feel about the match or incident, it is your right to feel about it however you want.

Sorry but I have been rambling alot here.

Just one last comment, this thread was debated in a respectful tone by most, so congratulations for that.

yeah its more about what they do about it Biltong. On one hand its an incident missed so deserved a penalty. No qualms about that. So the right outcome, together with the right result regardless, due to the Boks being the better team on the night anyway.

If it had not come up on the screen due to the programmer thinking it is not his position to highlight it at the time, but then shown after the match, Bok fans would rightfully be aggrieved that the officials missed something that could have won the match. But that would either have been through either incompetence, or bad luck, the kind you are alluding to in the past. It wouldnt however be as a result of some deliberate decision to influence the match. So either way its not a good outcome for someone.

The point here is that the fact is that ratings go up when a home side loses, sorry...wins...more people tune in to replays etc. So from this, if its not dealt with, local programmers could think its open to all and could build in a process of having people look at the various camera angles they have access to real time, shove their hand up and get it on the screen.

And I don't think it mars the value of the win, looking back I wouldnt like to have won that match as we didnt deserve it. the Boks offered more, were pointing higher as a side, and simply outplayed the AB's across the 80 minutes.

I just think the win and the issue are separate entities and the precedent of selective moments, as we have been used to seeing them in the past, perhaps need to be regulated in a way in that at least fairness or neutrality is observed, hopefully without the IRB needing to intervene. For instance I'd hate to see a World cup final won because something no one but the programmer saw flashed up on the screen.

Though I can't see how that can happen easily.

No side has been robbed more frequently by ref howlers than the boks. No side had taken greater advantage of the grey areas in the laws than the ABs.

That the pendulum swings back was inevitable.

If ABs don't want to risk their foul play being shown on the big screen by home broadcasters, there is a simple answer...cut out the foul play. Beggars belief that no-one has mentioned that. Pretty obvious that all home broadcasters are going to make damned sure that they keep an eye out for missed infringements, especially against the ABs who everyone wants to beat, and who get away with more than anyone else (let's charitably say that is a result of "playing to the ref" plus the very fast pace that AB games are contested)

another 'ABs can't be that good so they must be cheating' envious post quins...good on you. You keep believing that.

Quite a telling insight there quins.

I said nothing of the sort. You are ridiculously over sensitive of any observations that don't kneel at the altar if AB worship.

I thought it better to move the discussion forwards rather than keep listening to you bleat on about how you were robbed by a mistake by the ref.

Even Hansen admits that the ABs "play to the ref". Technology, and other teams, are catching up. It's all good if it evens up the playing field.

The only fans who think the ABs are not cynical are AB fans.

To be honest. I still don't care. I will say though, that the citing system uses the self same "biased" feed. I dont understand why it's alright for players to be retrospectively punished, but we dare not influence the actual game.

In any case, as has been said this was not without precedent, but I doubt it will be the modus operandi moving forward. Zidanes red in the 2006 fifa world cup was a result of a TV replay, as everyone missed it. Eight years later, I don't think anyone can argue that this suddenly became the go to for decision making.

Yeah quins, we get it mate, no one likes the ABs because they are cynical cheats and because the fans are arrogant one eyed closed minded sour grapes poor losing cry baby ungracious winning w@nkers.

Wow. U need to be a bit more positive mate

Just saying what you want to say so I did you a favour there mate

Well, a thread which started like this:

LondonTiger wrote:

Richard wrote:The influential and respected retired South african referee Jonathan Kaplan, considered by many as the best referee ever to preside over the game of rugby

After such a hilarious start I was expecting comedy gold.
Was disappointed to find yet another fishing expedition with mouldy bait.C-

has turned to a good discussion (like the mouldy bait analogy!).  

In my opinion once the referee saw the infraction, he was duty bound to call it.  Whether he saw it live or on the screen unasked.  If he knows there was something wrong, especially as the match hung in the balance, I think he needed to make the call.  Prudent decision by 'one of the best referees in the world'.  Also a bit of a no win scenario for the referee.

I agree that the bigger discussion is about what can/should be shown on the big screen at the match.  When the preceding sequence of play is shown at a break in play, i have no issue.    If the TMO was searching for something, then that should not be shown.  I am not so sure this is really a big issue.  Was a terrific match, and this shouldn't take away from it.

Its all a bit shoot the messenger rather than focus on the actual offense here though?

ebop wrote:Yeah quins, we get it mate, no one likes the ABs because they are cynical cheats and because the fans are arrogant one eyed closed minded sour grapes poor losing cry baby ungracious winning w@nkers.

Spot on

ebop wrote:Just saying what you want to say so I did you a favour there mate

maybe its the anticipation of another match with the AB's ebop ...nothing like a bit of friction to get the blood boiling again ay?

Has anyone thought about what would have happened if Barnes ignored the infringement? Even after seeing it on the screen.

Would people have said, fine he didn't see it and it's up to the citing ref to clear it up.

Once a ref is made aware of something he should act.

He's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. Only a fool would say they would have said, well done barnesy or in this particular case, a kiwi given they would win or lose the match on the decision in the match.

I bet had the kick not gone over it wouldn't have been discussed.

fa0019 wrote:Has anyone thought about what would have happened if Barnes ignored the infringement? Even after seeing it on the screen.

Would people have said, fine he didn't see it and it's up to the citing ref to clear it up.

Once a ref is made aware of something he should act.

He's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. Only a fool would say they would have said, well done barnesy or in this particular case, a kiwi given they would win or lose the match on the decision in the match.

I bet had the kick not gone over it wouldn't have been discussed.

Agree.  Same point I was making.  Really difficult situation for a referee.  Ultimately, I think that once he knew there was an infraction he made the right decision.  It would have been easy to hide behind regulations and do nothing.  But also a bit shallow and cowardly in my opinion.  So good on Barnes.  And has nothing to do with how a few people have a bug up their bums about ABs fans (that is low class stuff).  

Shouldn't take away from a terrific match between two terrific teams.  And nothing was a given because that was a difficult kick.

Well there was one view that Barnes would not have made it to the airport if he didn't award that penalty such was the growing ferocity of the crowd with each blown up and slow mo view that hadnt previously been shown. So damned if he didn't might be more on the correct side. Its just whether he should have been put in that position. Its like saying...'you let the ABs have that final scrum barnsey but you deal with this first'. 'Cowardly' has a double meaning perhaps here Doc. Not dealing with it perhaps the tougher call.

But in the end the best team won and this is more about the next one. This sets somewhat of a precedent in rugby in that despite many saying its happened before none exists that effectively changed the result in the last minute. Fact is if it hadnt flashed up when it did the result would have been different, undeserved for two reasons- boks played better, and there was an undetected penalty. But it still made it different, meaning an outside influence - a human decision, was allowed to influence the game,

It is purely that decision that is in question...not the result.

Tman wrote:such was the growing ferocity of the crowd with each blown up and slow mo view that hadnt previously been shown

What are you on about?

Real time the view was from a distance- the full field shot so to speak. As soon as the play stopped up came the replay- in close up and in slow mo. This was a previously unseen view. That got the first large 'boooo' then JDV in then Barnes asking if there's something to look at.

More boos etc so effectively the pressure was on Barnes to act- the crowd was expecting a result as there looked to be an infringement.

One after match view- not mine, was that Barnes was under huge pressure to do something whether he wanted to or not.

If you followed the replay it was not only of the tackle, it was also of the ensuing ruck, how Read went in and secured the ball, all in slo mo.

Taylorman wrote:Well there was one view that Barnes would not have made it to the airport if he didn't award that penalty such was the growing ferocity of the crowd with each blown up and slow mo view that hadnt previously been shown. So damned if he didn't might be more on the correct side. Its just whether he should have been put in that position. Its like saying...'you let the ABs have that final scrum barnsey but you deal with this first'. 'Cowardly' has a double meaning perhaps here Doc. Not dealing with it perhaps the tougher call.

But in the end the best team won and this is more about the next one. This sets somewhat of a precedent in rugby in that despite many saying its happened before none exists that effectively changed the result in the last minute. Fact is if it hadnt flashed up when it did the result would have been different, undeserved for two reasons- boks played better, and there was an undetected penalty. But it still made it different, meaning an outside influence - a human decision, was allowed to influence the game,

It is purely that decision that is in question...not the result.

Got your point.  
I suppose the one point on which it is easy to agree is that was a tough spot for a referee.  Not sure how to handle the replays on the big screens.  I will try to find out how the NFL handles these things because it doesn't seem to be an issue in their games.

Yeah I'd just hate to see it happen again when we had the chance to rule on it. As it was the offence was 4-5 phases back and about 2-3 minutes earlier. What if it had been 20 phases and 10 minutes earlier? The boks took 29 phases to get the droppie versus Oz.

At what point does the ruling get to be too late, if ever? And should they have wound the clock back the 2 or 3 minutes?

In any case if you watch the replay Barnes himself was looking directly at the offence less than two meters away. You'd think he'd have picked it up then.

I don't think it would have been an issue of personal safety. In the end he chose to be a ref so it's not like he's used to winning popularity contests.

I think the backlash from not only the SA public but also the wider rugby community would have been huge and that goes for his IRB boss too.

He made the right decision.

Now the question lies on whether the tv people deliberately put up the hit. Firstly super sport is not state owned like the bbc for instance. It doesn't owe SARU and in fact if anything super sport pay top dollar for the rights and given SABC the state owned station has a minuscule budget in comparison so probably SARU is in super sports pocket not the other way round.

Yes they are South African but they probably have contracts with sanzar to make sure tv coverage is impartial given they are responsible for coverage of all matches in South Africa shown around the globe, as fox is for AUS home matches for instance.

It was right that it was shown.... If it was burger hitting messam however would it have been shown? Well there is no yes or no to that but it would be very unprofessional.

In 2009 the video coverage of burgers gouge in the 2nd lions test came from super sport, got him carded and an 8wk ban. Why didn't they give inconclusive evidence... It was shown before the card, the TMO????

Would those in NZ have hidden it? Well in 2005 the coverage was that bods spear was over exaggerated... Then on footage which came out after the citing time limit footage came out which the IRB publicly said.... Had it been seen within the 48hr limit both Kiwi players would have received long bans. Coincidence, perhaps as much a coincidence that the kiwi players got sick on the eve of the final.

Saying that didn't spurs suffer the same a few years back. All they had to do to get champions league football was to beat west ham in the last game of the season. Instead they got food poisoning and lost... And arch rivals arsenal leapfrogged over them... Costing spurs and giving arsenal millions of pounds.

General consensus is everything happened as it should have and thats fine. I think there is huge incentive for a local network to have a win as a result...ratings. ratings means money, people arent going to change channels immediately after a win so theres an immediate gain in a win for them.

Going forward what if networks were to spruce this process as a result- have specialised views and staff looking for such incidents? After all, there are financial advantages. Sure they might have a contract and need to be professional but if nothing results from this, the no accountability factor is a rubber stamping of the process, saying all good to go next time. Now everyone will be looking in the last few minutes for sudden pop ups.

Chances are its not going to be an issue for the AB's given they've had the latest turn but for whoever gets it next I sure hope there's no going to be any hypocrisy. The warnings are there now.

Richard wrote:The influential and respected retired South african referee Jonathan Kaplan, considered by many as the best referee ever to preside over the game of rugby has slammed Wayne Barnes for contemplating the home producer's video offering that led to the south African victory last weekend. In his "rate the ref" website.

"Respected"? He lost all respect by demonstrating his lack of knowledge of the Laws when he handed Wales THAT win over Ireland.

Big screen scrutiny of decisions in full view of the crowd is daft and just heaps more pressure on the officials.

greataukster wrote:Big screen scrutiny of decisions in full view of the crowd is daft and just heaps more pressure on the officials.

That is all good and fine, let's then make sure it is applied across the board at all venues.

The Great Aukster wrote:

Richard wrote:The influential and respected retired South african referee Jonathan Kaplan, considered by many as the best referee ever to preside over the game of rugby has slammed Wayne Barnes for contemplating the home producer's video offering that led to the south African victory last weekend. In his "rate the ref" website.

"Respected"? He lost all respect by demonstrating his lack of knowledge of the Laws when he handed Wales THAT win over Ireland.

Big screen scrutiny of decisions in full view of the crowd is daft and just heaps more pressure on the officials.

To be fair that was Shaun Davies fault. Kaplan specifically asked Davies if it was the same ball and he said "it's fine". The TMO couldn't be used for that sort of thing back then. So Kaplan got that spot on in my opinion. Davies is the one that cocked up and needed a slap.