England v NZ

[dave_clark]

Nigel's referee stocks really have fallen. Three completely incorrect decisions.

all going against NZ...

 

[Rushforth]

79m: The Penalty Try
The first scrum prior to the scrum at which the PT was awarded was legitimately turned through 90°. It should have been turnover and scrum feed to NZ. The scrum itself was also legitimately being turned by England through 90°. Again, this should have been a turnover.

From memory, NZ looked VERY much like they popped up to avoid the push-over try well before anything like 90 degrees was reached.

Additionally, the circumstances surrounding the YC to Coles was sheer comedy; a referee and a TMO both allegedly speaking English, and they could not understand each other.

You and I had the advantage of the TMO's clear voice, as recorded at the source. NO had the advantage of a capacity crowd and 'wireless' communications.

Do you feel the need to put down everybody in your personal life in the same way as you act online? I realise that I was an easy target, but now NO, his TMO, and an England side who could have been 17 points up after 10 minutes against the ABs if they'd finished a couple if moves?

 

[winchesterref]

Nigel's referee stocks really have fallen. Three completely incorrect decisions....
The score of 21-24 flattered England, they simply were not that good.

Hellllloooo black specs

 

[RobLev]

Nigel's referee stocks really have fallen. Three completely incorrect decisions.

54: The Non awarding of a try to Sam Whitelock,
The ball was on the line so Whitelock only required to apply ANY downwards pressure, which he did BEFORE the ball left his hand. This was a try all day long.

65m: The non-awarding of a penalty try to NZ
The offside by the white player was a clear and obvious cynical infringement which was intended to prevent a try being scored, and it did so. This should have been a PT and a YC against the offside player.

79m: The Penalty Try
The first scrum prior to the scrum at which the PT was awarded was legitimately turned through 90°. It should have been turnover and scrum feed to NZ. The scrum itself was also legitimately being turned by England through 90°. Again, this should have been a turnover.


...

You missed out:

15m: The award of a try to NZ.

The ball was initially grounded short of the line. The player then reached out and, eventually, managed to fumble it onto and over the line.

 

[Waspsfan]

There really is only one I in Ian.

 

[Ian_Cook]

all going against NZ...

Hellllloooo black specs

There really is only one I in Ian.

Just taking a leaf from the "British Media Textbook of Fair Comment" and making a completely and unashamedly biased assessment of the game. There are so many biased Pommies on this forum that there needs to be some biased Kiwis to give it some balance.

You missed out:

15m: The award of a try to NZ.

The ball was initially grounded short of the line. The player then reached out and, eventually, managed to fumble it onto and over the line.

1. He was still entitled to promote the ball so long as he did so immediately (and he did) even of it was grounded.

2. You have the wrong game. The word "fumble" is an American Football term. It does not appear in the Laws of our game.

3. There was never any separation between Cruden's hands and the ball as he placed the ball on the goal-line, so, there was no knock on.

Do you feel the need to put down everybody in your personal life in the same way as you act online? I realise that I was an easy target, but now NO, his TMO, and an England side who could have been 17 points up after 10 minutes against the ABs if they'd finished a couple if moves?

An oh so predicable comment that I will treat with the contempt it deserves. Try actually READING what I said before trying to be a keyboard hero

HINT: "Additionally, the circumstances surrounding the YC to Coles was sheer comedy; a referee and a TMO both allegedly speaking English, and they could not understand each other.

How you read this as a put down of Nigel is staggering. Perhaps you've spent so much time in Holland that your English language skills have atrophied?

 

[dave_clark]

Just taking a leaf from the "British Media Textbook of Fair Comment" and making a completely and unashamedly biased assessment of the game. There are so many biased Pommies on this forum that there needs to be some biased Kiwis to give it some balance.

in which case i apologise - hadn't realised your post was intended as a joke.

 

[Ian_Cook]

in which case i apologise - hadn't realised your post was intended as a joke.

It wasn't!

 

[Browner]

This thread isn't going the way I want, I wonder if I can unilaterally close it for no justifiable reason .....:sarc:


It cant be argued that the ALLBlocks weren't worth their Victory, it should've been a bigger margin really.

We gotta be clinical in taking points opportunities, if we do we are in with fighting chance, if not then ....... RWC 2019 looks promising!

 

[dave_clark]

It wasn't!

i know.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Gee whizz, it looks like much of the British media actually agree with me. Now there's a turn up for the books,

''In the end the two sides were separated by just three points ... but in reality the gulf was far greater as the All Blacks took control of the match after the interval,'' wrote Alex Lowe in his match report for The Times.

Gavin Mairs, writing in The Telegraph, agreed that England had been ''outclassed''.

''The late rally which resulted in a penalty try made the scoreline closer than New Zealand's second half dominance had in suffocating the life out of England, even when Steve Hansen's side were reduced to 14 men ...

The Daily Mail's headline screamed ''All Blacks show dominance as Stuart Lancaster's men are exposed and out-classed at Twickenham'', with writer Chris Foy noting England's fifth successive defeat to the All Blacks was a ''demoralising wash-out for Stuart Lancaster's national team''.

In his column for The Times, chief rugby writer Owen Slot said it would be easy for England fans to claim an injustice and the referee was against them ... ''but in truth, they had the early momentum and they failed to capitalise on it''. ''England did not lose here because of what could be argued was an aberration. Not at all. They came second best to the All Blacks because, for the fifth time running, they did not quite make it count, didn't quite take their chances and certainly did not control the game the way they needed to.

''The All Blacks' real success was the way they commanded the second half, when the rain was at its howling worst and England simply could not get into enemy territory. The visitors were smart, straightforward, pragmatic and very professional.

 

[winchesterref]

There isn't mention of your 3 choice wrong decisions there. I haven't read the full articles.

 

[FlipFlop]

A few strange decisions for me.

Not going to the TMO for the first AB try, but going for one of the later ones, which was clearly a try. Strange. The first one was close, and was expecting a "Any reason I can't award the try" question.

Then in the 2nd half - the "turnover" by Black 7, that ultimately lost England a lot of ground. He missed the first grab at the ball, then was clearly engaged in a ruck, and as he went to ground, scooped the ball out the side with his hand. NO was right there, and no PK for hands in the ruck? This decision resulted in the compete change in the territory the game was played in during the second half. Think it was a key decision. And possibly critical.

Second - the Whitelock "try". Either the ball on the line (so ruck over) so Try, or it wasn't on the line, so PK. Can't see that was a knock on. The hand went onto the top of the ball. Personally I called it a try. Again - critical error. NO didn't let the TMO say what he thought, so we don't know his view.

Don't agree with Ian about the NZ potential PT. Think NO got that right when he said too many defenders there for it to be probable. Ultimately they would have scored, but one or 2 phases later, and that is not "but for foul play" in my book.

And the PT at the end. the previous scrums - NO clearly said he PKed Black back row and second row for walking it round. It looked like that to me. Was surprised when NO went under the sticks thought. Thought he might have just PKed it - but White were going forward, and the try was likely. So probably right, but certainly not a clear cut PT.

Ultimately I think the ABs were too clinical in the 2nd half, and England played too much in the wrong areas. They should have been making the ABs attack from depth, play in the AB half. England kicked poorly, and paid the price in territory and that led to the score board. The score was close, but that was more down to the ABs kickers not being able to hit a barn door at 3 paces, than England. Think a 10pt margin would have been reflective.

But the REF-TMO interaction was laughable. A welshman talking to a scot, needing a translator (or so it seemed). NOs words of "I can't understand him" made me laugh/weep. Didn't instill any confidence in the decision making process.

So overall from me. NO made some big decisions, which I think were wrong, but ultimately the right team won, and it was by the right sort of margin (as ABs couldn't kick any points.)

 

[johnnied]

Interestingly in the Wales v Australia (BBC), and Ireland v SA game (Sky), the TMO side of the TMO/referee discussions wasn't broadcast. The explanation was essentially so that any difference of opinion was kept private. Apparently it was an IRB directive - clearly not received by Sky at Twickenham.

FlipFlop - the TMO at Twickenham was Simon McDowell who is Irish, not Scotish

 

[Rushforth]

How you read this as a put down of Nigel is staggering. Perhaps you've spent so much time in Holland that your English language skills have atrophied?

I don't do sarcasm online. I learned not to more than a decade ago. I don't pretend to have great literary skills in any language.

That said, I do have a sufficient level of reading comprehension in the English language to recognize the bias which you admitted to when I am told - by you - that the bias was deliberate.

In fact, I have a sufficient level to have realised that it was biased before you 'admitted' to it. As it happened, I called you out for being biased - before you 'admitted' it.

What you have not admitted - nor do I expect you to, based on your reputation - is that you were rude about both NO and his TMO. That you are rude about England - as a home country national rugby side or the Fleet Street press - doesn't bother me much.

What you did do is single out a number of events in a "Friendly" International match, and you targeted the Referee in charge not once, not twice, not just three times either. You had to then mock both Ref and TMO. Unless you think describing Match Officials as performing "sheer comedy" is constructive criticism, in a forum they do not frequent (I hope, now!)

----

The TMO felt, for whatever reason, that a YC was not warranted. NO disagreed once he'd seen the replays. Yes, he felt it was likely there was a YC there before he had the TMO opinion, from the way he spoke.

The NZ 2 lashing kick was pretty pathetic, and could have cost the ABs the game despite being rather harmless.

Is lashing out normal in NZ, Ian?

 

[Ian_Cook]

I don't do sarcasm online. I learned not to more than a decade ago. I don't pretend to have great literary skills in any language.

That said, I do have a sufficient level of reading comprehension in the English language to recognize the bias which you admitted to when I am told - by you - that the bias was deliberate.

In fact, I have a sufficient level to have realised that it was biased before you 'admitted' to it. As it happened, I called you out for being biased - before you 'admitted' it.

What you have not admitted - nor do I expect you to, based on your reputation - is that you were rude about both NO and his TMO. That you are rude about England - as a home country national rugby side or the Fleet Street press - doesn't bother me much.

What you did do is single out a number of events in a "Friendly" International match, and you targeted the Referee in charge not once, not twice, not just three times either. You had to then mock both Ref and TMO. Unless you think describing Match Officials as performing "sheer comedy" is constructive criticism, in a forum they do not frequent (I hope, now!)

----

The TMO felt, for whatever reason, that a YC was not warranted. NO disagreed once he'd seen the replays. Yes, he felt it was likely there was a YC there before he had the TMO opinion, from the way he spoke.

The NZ 2 lashing kick was pretty pathetic, and could have cost the ABs the game despite being rather harmless.

Is lashing out normal in NZ, Ian?

 

[leaguerefaus]

Of the two incidents I saw, the Whitelock "try" was an extremely bad call and once again shows why the person on the field really can't see what is going on, and then the TMO feels powerless to tell them they are wrong. It was either a try or offside, and it was hard enough to tell from my lounge room, 5 metres away from the TV, never mind Nigel standing much further away (albeit a much bigger screen).

The first NZ try was extremely tight and IMO all came down to whether you think he retained possession with his left hand the whole time. If he had gone to the TMO, it is hard to say which way that would have gone.

 

[menace]

I don't do sarcasm online. I learned not to more than a decade ago. I don't pretend to have great literary skills in any language.

That said, I do have a sufficient level of reading comprehension in the English language to recognize the bias which you admitted to when I am told - by you - that the bias was deliberate.

In fact, I have a sufficient level to have realised that it was biased before you 'admitted' to it. As it happened, I called you out for being biased - before you 'admitted' it.

What you have not admitted - nor do I expect you to, based on your reputation - is that you were rude about both NO and his TMO. That you are rude about England - as a home country national rugby side or the Fleet Street press - doesn't bother me much.

What you did do is single out a number of events in a "Friendly" International match, and you targeted the Referee in charge not once, not twice, not just three times either. You had to then mock both Ref and TMO. Unless you think describing Match Officials as performing "sheer comedy" is constructive criticism, in a forum they do not frequent (I hope, now!)

----

The TMO felt, for whatever reason, that a YC was not warranted. NO disagreed once he'd seen the replays. Yes, he felt it was likely there was a YC there before he had the TMO opinion, from the way he spoke.

The NZ 2 lashing kick was pretty pathetic, and could have cost the ABs the game despite being rather harmless.

Is lashing out normal in NZ, Ian?

From memory, NZ looked VERY much like they popped up to avoid the push-over try well before anything like 90 degrees was reached.



You and I had the advantage of the TMO's clear voice, as recorded at the source. NO had the advantage of a capacity crowd and 'wireless' communications.

Do you feel the need to put down everybody in your personal life in the same way as you act online? I realise that I was an easy target, but now NO, his TMO, and an England side who could have been 17 points up after 10 minutes against the ABs if they'd finished a couple if moves?

IMO, you started the pissing contest Rushforth from the highlight of your comment above. I think you're the one trolling for a reaction. This is supposed to be a forum about refereeing so referees can learn from other referees errors and good work. IMO Ian_c wasn't being rude, he was pointing out in his opinion what he saw as clear errors for discussion? And so what if they were all about NZ, and who cares they come across as biased. Ian is unashamedly NZ, why wouldn't he support his national side? (Goddamit, I can't believe I'm supporting a NZer again!).

If you think Ian's comments were rude and mocked others, then you should be careful not to be a hypocrite with some of your comments to incite a reaction.

 

[Pegleg]

Sadly in my short time on this board I detect an immediate assumption of bias if anybody posts that they feel a call against "their" team was wrong. I was hopping that referees were above the petty level of general supporters. After all, in some competitions the TMOs, Citing officers and on field Officials are from one of the countries involved. If we don't trust them to objective what point is there?

Of course on a first look (in the heat of battle) and with out our "ref's hat" on we will all see 50/50 calls out way. However, I would expect us all to be able to be more objective later in the day.

I hoped this forum would be a place where I could gain from other refs, many far more experienced than me. Sadly that is not the case with petty nationalism blurring the vision. I've already notice who the aggressive posters are (the internet bullies) and these are often some of those with "managerial" positions in the game: assessors / referee trainers and the like. There are the upstart posters too seek, it would seem, to troll and that too is a shame. I'm not sure who runs this site but I, with all due respect suggest that some posters need to take a look at their approach. Some of you would not last long in gentle West Wales if you use the same approach in real life as you do on here.

As I understand it parts of this forum are open to non referees ( although I do not see any "proof" being required before being considered a ref is is just a "trust" thing? Some of the stuff posted leads me to question the qualifications of some) what would these folk thing of some of us from some of the bombastic rantings on here?

I have deliberately not "named names" that is not the reason or this post. I'd just ask if we can we play the argument and not the man? Read the post before checking the flag. Some posters seem to be expats; there's a "Jones" in England, a L'irelandes in France and a few Scots spread far and wide (well you can't blame them for that can you!) So we don't know that a Netherlands based ref is actually Dutch so. Please can we discus the rugby and not resort to petty national bias arguments?

 

[The Fat]

Just watching the replay now.
Holy shit!!! Jonny May smokes 'em for that first try. Dagg will have given himself a mental note to only give May 3m and not 5m down the line in future.

Got to say that one of my pet hates is Cruden's kicking technique. First conversion attempt and NO has to signal to the England chargers to hold their position while he does his little walk on the spot what seems like an age after he settles.
James O'Connor had to alter his technique mid-way through the 2011 RWC. I know we've discussed this one to death before, but I think it's now time for the referees to tell NZ that the walk on the spot will be seen as starting his approach.
Saw teams right through the Rugby Championship this year consistently starting to charge when he does the shuffle.