Jerome Garces

Regardless of any result he's been involved in, I do not see the rationale in appointing this guy to lead the final.

He regularly refs one team out of the game, and can be random about breakdown and set piece decisions...

My favourite would've been Barnes, up there with the very best imo, however we know why that can't happen, however before Garces I'd have preferred...

Poite
Owens
Peyper
Or Gardner.

Hell, I've been very impressed with Berry in this tournament!

What do we think?

Nigel did the last one, Barnes can't so has got the third place game - I feel sorry for him because if the ABs had won he'd probably have got the final, Garces has it on "buggins turn".

Irish Londoner wrote:Nigel did the last one, Barnes can't so has got the third place game - I feel sorry for him because if the ABs had won he'd probably have got the final, Garces has it on "buggins turn".

And because he is one of the two highest ranked refs by the WR committee. He consistently gets high marks from the referee appraiser after each game.

Well, Owens didn’t even make a decision for himself last week. Not sure who I’d rather. Hopefully it doesn’t matter.

Owens was weak on Ben Youngs try, there was no clear evidence the try should have stood, world rugby /TMO was testing him and he failed on that one.

TightHEAD wrote:Owens was weak on Ben Youngs try, there was no clear evidence  the try should have stood, world rugby /TMO was testing him and he failed on that one.

No clear evidence the try should *not* have stood.... surely?

It was a poor call and now Owens is paying the price, plus us fans have to watch Garces destroy the final with his guess work and very random calls, and he gets in the way.

Mr Magoo as the TMO is a worry ... thought a pass that was at least 2 yards forwards was fine (maybe because it was a SH team throwing it?) - fortunately on that occasion the ref ignored him.

It was always going to be Garces.

He hasn't done too badly. Fans - and players, obviously - just need to accept he is what he is. He's going to let a lot go, there will be minimal fussiness at the breakdown, so expect lots of slowling the ball down to be acceptable, and it'll be a generally fair laissez-faire affair...

Definite trend of rugby treating refs like football does in this RWC. Did it happen 4 years ago? I don't think it did, not to this extent, and it's being pushed by the media and other gobby idiots like Andy Goode on twitter. Fair enough, when Craig Joubert did what he did to France and Scotland - that's such dreadful refereeing it cost the 'deserving' team the game. But Garces? Don't think he's done badly so far. The high tackles earlier this tournament? To the letter of the law - unless they mistakenly reduced them from reds to avoid controversy. The TMO being criticised? Stupid, pointless, and totally fair.

I've rewatched both English tries that were chalked off - and having thought the first one was ripped by the Boks, it wasn't, it's spilt forward in to an English player. Doesn't matter if George's arm was still on it, he'd lost control and it was spot on - an accidental offside. No try, good TMO work. The crossing? I'd say that's fine, personally, and that the interpretation of the law needs changing to be less rigid about the 'accepting the pass' situation, but, again, lettere of the law, fine. And the finally the Slade tackle on Reece - from the off, the TMO says 'let's just clear this one, big game, let's get it right'. Nothing wrong with that, and yet the ire he has poured on him...even on boards like this.

Not sure. This started off a decent RWC but it feels like a lot more people are 'into' rugby these days, and with that comes a general 'casual fan' culture, a media driven talking point agenda that really sullies the enjoyment of it.

Garces has been fine or even good this tournament. He lets the game flow in a different way to Nige. He also refuses to be played by the opposition - a trait not many of the refs actually have. With Nige getting 4 years ago, and this probably being both of their last tournaments, you can see the case to give it to Garces - he's not a million miles behind Nige as a ref, and if anything, is less prone to 'encouraging' the game to be played a certain way. Which will work in his favour when considering the neutrality of the referee.

It's cheap and easy to ridicule the refs but have a go yourself some time - it's a tough, tough job, and with the sudden increase in media pressre in the last 8 but specifically last few years, with the TMO checking 'everything' in theory...rough old job.

TightHEAD wrote:Owens was weak on Ben Youngs try, there was no clear evidence  the try should have stood, world rugby /TMO was testing him and he failed on that one.

This is wrong. He spills the bal forward. Knock on, accidental offiside.

Yeh right. lol

Yes. Personal blindness isn't an excuse for what everyone else can see.

miaow wrote:I've rewatched both English tries that were chalked off - and having thought the first one was ripped by the Boks, it wasn't, it's spilt forward in to an English player. Doesn't matter if George's arm was still on it, he'd lost control and it was spot on - an accidental offside. No try, good TMO work. The crossing? I'd say that's fine, personally, and that the interpretation of the law needs changing to be less rigid about the 'accepting the pass' situation, but, again, lettere of the law, fine. And the finally the Slade tackle on Reece - from the off, the TMO says 'let's just clear this one, big game, let's get it right'. Nothing wrong with that, and yet the ire he has poured on him...even on boards like this.

I think the objection to the Youngs try is the question of who's in control of the ball at what point. As far as I can see, George is the frontmost player in contact with the ball, trying to pass it back. That gets disrupted and he scrambles to get it back, but is the one who starts (and ends) in control. All of the other players who touch the ball are behind him (and if we're being cheeky, the initial motion of the ball out of the hands is definitely backward...).

Jonker's interpretation seems to be that the player receiving the ball is the one in control and that it goes forward into another player. But even some former refs have argued against it.

Good one, but you're wrong.

Hence why Owens didn't make the final.

keep the personal insults coming though, rather amusing.

miaow wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:Owens was weak on Ben Youngs try, there was no clear evidence  the try should have stood, world rugby /TMO was testing him and he failed on that one.

This is wrong. He spills the bal forward. Knock on, accidental offiside.

I have watched it a few times, and unless Jamie George has a third arm and hand, it looks quite clear to me that he loses control and contact, and then another arm gathers it against whoever's leg it is at the back of the maul (Curry?), and then George resumes contact.

| think they got that spot on tbh, its either offside or a forward pass

TightHEAD wrote:Good one, but you're wrong.

Hence why Owens didn't make the final.

keep the personal insults coming though, rather amusing.

Absolutely pathetic.

miaow wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:Owens was weak on Ben Youngs try, there was no clear evidence  the try should have stood, world rugby /TMO was testing him and he failed on that one.

This is wrong. He spills the bal forward. Knock on, accidental offiside.

Shouldn't have been looked at.

Afro wrote:

miaow wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:Owens was weak on Ben Youngs try, there was no clear evidence  the try should have stood, world rugby /TMO was testing him and he failed on that one.

This is wrong. He spills the bal forward. Knock on, accidental offiside.

I have watched it a few times, and unless Jamie George has a third arm and hand, it looks quite clear to me that he loses control and contact, and then another arm gathers it against whoever's leg it is at the back of the maul (Curry?), and then George resumes contact.

| think they got that spot on tbh, its either offside or a forward pass

Should add that at the time I was fuming and thought it wasn't clear and should have been given. Its only on taking another few looks yesterday that changed my mind

Poorfour wrote:

miaow wrote:I've rewatched both English tries that were chalked off - and having thought the first one was ripped by the Boks, it wasn't, it's spilt forward in to an English player. Doesn't matter if George's arm was still on it, he'd lost control and it was spot on - an accidental offside. No try, good TMO work. The crossing? I'd say that's fine, personally, and that the interpretation of the law needs changing to be less rigid about the 'accepting the pass' situation, but, again, lettere of the law, fine. And the finally the Slade tackle on Reece - from the off, the TMO says 'let's just clear this one, big game, let's get it right'. Nothing wrong with that, and yet the ire he has poured on him...even on boards like this.

I think the objection to the Youngs try is the question of who's in control of the ball at what point. As far as I can see, George is the frontmost player in contact with the ball, trying to pass it back. That gets disrupted and he scrambles to get it back, but is the one who starts (and ends) in control. All of the other players who touch the ball are behind him (and if we're being cheeky, the initial motion of the ball out of the hands is definitely backward...).

Jonker's interpretation seems to be that the player receiving the ball is the one in control and that it goes forward into another player. But even some former refs have argued against it.

Na, have to disagree here. I watched the extended highlights. Not only is it spilt forward - so control is lost, and it doesn't matter if it's ripped or not, he's lost the ball and has regained control via it landing against his own player - but it's also an English hand in there, so you could have: 1. forward pass 2. knock on 3. accidental offside. 3 offences, all fair and legal. Even if you take away the forward pass as it's hard to say it's solely an English arm dislodging the ball, and it doubt there is no NZ involvement ripping it - that's still enough to chalk it off.

George simply isn't in control. It's no different to juggling a ball in open play, it landing against your player as you regather it, and then trying to play on. It's accidental offside.

Like Afro, at the time, I thought it was fine - I thought it was ripped back, and said so on the thread. It was only yesterday when I watched the highlights on youtube that I realised it was the correct call.

Also at the time you can hear Owen's saying to Farrell what he has seen on the screen, not what the TMO has decided

Scottrf wrote:

miaow wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:Owens was weak on Ben Youngs try, there was no clear evidence  the try should have stood, world rugby /TMO was testing him and he failed on that one.

This is wrong. He spills the bal forward. Knock on, accidental offiside.

Shouldn't have been looked at.

Agreed, the standard has been set and the captain should be in the Refs face after every try demanding that it is reviewed.
It was a joke that the TMO was happy with all the NZ forward passes yet he zoomed in on a driving maul to check this. Rugby is turning into the NFL, might as well give coaches a challenge flag.

And again, the big problem with the TMO call was that it was only reviewed because England scored a try directly afterwards. If play had gone on for another 20 phases before Youngs crashed over, the try would have been given. Same with Underhill last year.

If roles are reversed and that happened to England to knock them out, you'd want it looked at. Why pretend otherwise?

TightHEAD wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

miaow wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:Owens was weak on Ben Youngs try, there was no clear evidence  the try should have stood, world rugby /TMO was testing him and he failed on that one.

This is wrong. He spills the bal forward. Knock on, accidental offiside.

Shouldn't have been looked at.

Agreed, the standard has been set and the captain should be in the Refs face after every try demanding that it is reviewed.
It was a joke that the TMO was happy with all the NZ forward passes yet he zoomed in on a driving maul to check this. Rugby is turning into the NFL, might as well give coaches a challenge flag.

That isn't what happened though. The try was given and Ford was getting ready for the conversion, the TMO saw the replay and then communicated to Owen's that they might want to take a look at it.

Surely that is what the TMO is for, to see things that the ref can't see because he only has one pair of eyes and can't be everywhere. IMO, with hindsight, the correct decision was made in the end and therefore justifies the TMO's involvement

miaow wrote:If roles are reversed and that happened to England to knock them out, you'd want it looked at. Why pretend otherwise?

Nah, I hate the overuse of the TMO. Spoils the spectacle. And it's completely inconsistent to be forensic about this but to ignore pretty much all in-play offenses. Everyone is off their feet at rucks for example.

No, the TMO is now free to abuse in to doing whatever fans/players/coaches want them to.

Blame Cheika and Hooper for that. They set the trend nicely and fans have gladly lapped it up. Talk about role models...

Duty281 wrote:And again, the big problem with the TMO call was that it was only reviewed because England scored a try directly afterwards. If play had gone on for another 20 phases before Youngs crashed over, the try would have been given. Same with Underhill last year.

Agreed - the flaw with the TMO system in general. How far back do you go to check for an infringement?

I think the TMO should have pulled it back to Farrells cheeky wink and overruled Manu's try for sportsmanship conduct. a 5 yard penalty will be added to the next play.

Its 3rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrdddddddddddd Down..............................

Afro wrote:

Duty281 wrote:And again, the big problem with the TMO call was that it was only reviewed because England scored a try directly afterwards. If play had gone on for another 20 phases before Youngs crashed over, the try would have been given. Same with Underhill last year.

Agreed - the flaw with the TMO system in general. How far back do you go to check for an infringement?

Three phases used to be the norm in that regard did it not?

Afro wrote:That isn't what happened though. The try was given and Ford was getting ready for the conversion, the TMO saw the replay and then communicated to Owen's that they might want to take a look at it.

Surely that is what the TMO is for, to see things that the ref can't see because he only has one pair of eyes and can't be everywhere. IMO, with hindsight, the correct decision was made in the end and therefore justifies the TMO's involvement

No, it's not what they are for. TMO can only bring up incidents relating to foul play without prompting. Outside that, the referee is responsible for managing the TMO process and should only get assistance when requested.

Scottrf wrote:

miaow wrote:If roles are reversed and that happened to England to knock them out, you'd want it looked at. Why pretend otherwise?

Nah, I hate the overuse of the TMO. Spoils the spectacle. And it's completely inconsistent to be forensic about this but to ignore pretty much all in-play offenses. Everyone is off their feet at rucks for example.

It is inconsistent, but that's one of the key refereeing points - 'referee what matters' or something similar, is what they call it.

It's obviously considerably different this happening in the act of scoring a try, within 2 phases, than it is 20 phases back. Can you complain about the inconsistency? Maybe. Is there a better solution? Other than wizardy from technology that spots everything instantaneously and the standards of rugby improve to adapt to this new AI refereeing - no, no there is not. Because we don't want TMOs no longer checking instances of foul play or infringements at all, just as we don't want to go back to how the TMOs were first used - which was every minor or possible knock on and forward pass sent through to the ref, to stop play and 'check' it, only to discover that, actually, it was a flat pass and the TMO has just ruined the game.

As I said, I don't believe that you would complain if England were the beneficiaries of this. Checking a try after the game has stopped is fine. Clearly. That's nothing new. It's just we can check before the tryline as well as after it now.

Take the emotion out and you'd accept that this type of call isn't ruining the game at all.

Afro wrote:

Duty281 wrote:And again, the big problem with the TMO call was that it was only reviewed because England scored a try directly afterwards. If play had gone on for another 20 phases before Youngs crashed over, the try would have been given. Same with Underhill last year.

Agreed - the flaw with the TMO system in general. How far back do you go to check for an infringement?

2 phases for a try unless the TMO has spotted something obvious 'live' and in the build up. Simple.

Ultimately, it comes down to deciding whether to use the TMO system or not.

If you decide to use it, then you set the rules and use it consistently, not pick and choose which moments you use it on.

With the TMO system, both the disallowed tried would have counted and I think most agree the first was correctly ruled out, whilst the second splits opinion, but you have to use it in both instances

The Underhill try last year should not have been reviewed nor should the Youngs try on Saturday, both marginal calls whereas the Underhill try on Saturday was the correct use of the system.

Soul Requiem wrote:The Underhill try last year should not have been reviewed nor should the Youngs try on Saturday, both marginal calls whereas the Underhill try on Saturday was the correct use of the system.

Agreed, Curry does just enough to bring the penalty, had he stopped before running into them it would have stood.

Interesting point on the NFL system. Each coach can throw a challenge flag, but given the stop start nature of the game it works because it can be thrown after a play - in rugby we'd have to define how soon after an incident it needs to be thrown

All scoring plays are automatically reviewed, but again it would need to be defined by how far back they can go, maybe an arbitrary number like 3 phases should be the maximum, if phases are defined by rucks

They also lose a timeout for every wrong challenge, so would need to be something preventing coaches from throwing endless challenges too

Soul Requiem wrote:The Underhill try last year should not have been reviewed nor should the Youngs try on Saturday, both marginal calls whereas the Underhill try on Saturday was the correct use of the system.

Why shouldn't it be used? The laws are quite clear it is correct to do so, so what is your opinion that it shouldn't be used?

TightHEAD wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:The Underhill try last year should not have been reviewed nor should the Youngs try on Saturday, both marginal calls whereas the Underhill try on Saturday was the correct use of the system.

Agreed, Curry does just enough to bring the penalty, had he stopped before running into them it would have stood.

Whitelock had already committed to tackling the man off the ball. One offense each.

If it had been ripped (not saying it was, but a point of law discussion) surely any England player could have regathered it as it wouldn't have been a knock on?

That's what I thought Heaf but it wasn't ripped.

Scottrf wrote:

Afro wrote:That isn't what happened though. The try was given and Ford was getting ready for the conversion, the TMO saw the replay and then communicated to Owen's that they might want to take a look at it.

Surely that is what the TMO is for, to see things that the ref can't see because he only has one pair of eyes and can't be everywhere. IMO, with hindsight, the correct decision was made in the end and therefore justifies the TMO's involvement

No, it's not what they are for. TMO can only bring up incidents relating to foul play without prompting. Outside that, the referee is responsible for managing the TMO process and should only get assistance when requested.

Incorrect. This is from the IRB website

Television match official / global law trial

15. A match organiser may appoint a television match official (TMO), who uses technological devices to clarify situations relating to:
a. The grounding of the ball in in-goal.
b. Touch or touch-in-goal in the act of grounding the ball or the ball being made dead.
c. Where there is doubt as to whether a kick at goal has been successful.
d. Where match officials believe an infringement may have occurred in the playing area leading to a try or preventing a try.
e. Foul play, including sanctions.
16. Any of the match officials, including the TMO, may recommend a review by the TMO. The reviews will take place in accordance with the TMO protocol which is available at:
https://laws.worldrugby.org/downloads/TMO_Trial_From_August_2019_EN.pdf

Okay Inconsistent but legal.

Scottrf wrote:Okay Inconsistent but legal.

Impossible to disagree with that. they did the right thing in this instance, but don't always.

miaow wrote:That's what I thought Heaf but it wasn't ripped.

Ah OK - must have misunderstood - thought you were saying it didn't matter if it was ripped or not ...

miaow wrote:

Afro wrote:

Duty281 wrote:And again, the big problem with the TMO call was that it was only reviewed because England scored a try directly afterwards. If play had gone on for another 20 phases before Youngs crashed over, the try would have been given. Same with Underhill last year.

Agreed - the flaw with the TMO system in general. How far back do you go to check for an infringement?

2 phases for a try unless the TMO has spotted something obvious 'live' and in the build up. Simple.

When looking on the IRB site for the TMO protocol, I saw something that suggested two phases in the lead up to a try and now I can't find it.

Correct me if I'm wrong but are they not the amended laws used during a pre world cup trial?

"Any relevant information taken into consideration must be CLEAR and OBVIOUS and in the
context of materiality"

If it requires multiple slow motion replays, surely this requirement isn't met?

Afro wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Afro wrote:That isn't what happened though. The try was given and Ford was getting ready for the conversion, the TMO saw the replay and then communicated to Owen's that they might want to take a look at it.

Surely that is what the TMO is for, to see things that the ref can't see because he only has one pair of eyes and can't be everywhere. IMO, with hindsight, the correct decision was made in the end and therefore justifies the TMO's involvement

No, it's not what they are for. TMO can only bring up incidents relating to foul play without prompting. Outside that, the referee is responsible for managing the TMO process and should only get assistance when requested.

Incorrect. This is from the IRB website

Television match official / global law trial

15. A match organiser may appoint a television match official (TMO), who uses technological devices to clarify situations relating to:
a. The grounding of the ball in in-goal.
b. Touch or touch-in-goal in the act of grounding the ball or the ball being made dead.
c. Where there is doubt as to whether a kick at goal has been successful.
d. Where match officials believe an infringement may have occurred in the playing area leading to a try or preventing a try.
e. Foul play, including sanctions.
16. Any of the match officials, including the TMO, may recommend a review by the TMO. The reviews will take place in accordance with the TMO protocol which is available at:
https://laws.worldrugby.org/downloads/TMO_Trial_From_August_2019_EN.pdf

This was brought in this year thought I think? - not sure they were right in 2018 when the TMO overruled the on-field decision after about 5 minutes and dozens of replays to see if Lawes was offside - wasn't it meant to be clear and obvious then, which clearly it wasn't?

Soul Requiem wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong but are they not the amended laws used during a pre world cup trial?

Its from here.

https://laws.worldrugby.org/?highlight=TMO&law=6

The additional link does refer to the trial, but this appears to be from the standard rules