RWC Aus vs Sco

[Darryl Godden]

in tennis if your appeal is sucesssful it doesn't count toward your limit. That's always seemed to me a good rule

Did you say three referrals? Because 6 per game could be quite a delay.

 

[Andy P]

Hopefully we will find out the circumstances of Joubert leaving the field in the review, but I don't think the 'I don't see people criticising the hooker' argument really holds up in this case, nor does the argument that 'personal' comments are unwarranted.

If Joubert did leave the field to avoid a confrontation with the Scotland players (rather than fleeing a hailstorm of plastic) then it is his integrity and respect for the game that is being questioned, not his competence as a referee. Therefore it is necessary that 'personal' comments may for part of the commentary, if we want to draw a comparison with players actions (and how they were treated in the media) then I think Huget's dive last year would be a good place to start.

As far as tens of thousands of irate fans goes? I'm sorry, but this isn't meant to be an easy job, it's expected for a referee to look both captains in the eye, deal with it.

And if for reasons not currently known they don't, we should destroy them without the facts?

Can everyone say that if a match went badly for them on a Saturday and the teams were somewhat unhappy with you, that you would not make your exit quickly. If Scottish players had vented at CJ, would you have been requesting bans for abusing a referee or would you just say he deserves it because he made a mistake. I suspect the later.

Fact is you don't know why he acted as he did and you will never know how you would react in his position because you aren't going to be refereeing in a World Cup.

 

[crossref]

Did you say three referrals? Because 6 per game could be quite a delay.

I don't have a thought-out proposal to offer.
I initially said just one (but if you turn out correct, you get another one.

But captain's referrals is only an idea, I am not wedded to it. Alternatively give referee discretion.

 

[Darryl Godden]

I don't have a thought-out proposal to offer.
I initially said just one (but if you turn out correct, you get another one.

But captain's referrals is only an idea, I am not wedded to it. Alternatively give referee discretion.

If it brought closure to these controversies, perhaps worth a look.

On another subject - has the Hogg hit been discussed? Strange how that wasn't penalised as it seemed very clear cut, has it even been cited?

 

[Phil E]

Can everyone say that if a match went badly for them on a Saturday and the teams were somewhat unhappy with you, that you would not make your exit quickly.

Yes I can say that.

Had a horrendous game once a few years ago, massive fight, game abandoned, coaches saying it was my fault for not stopping them, spectators hurling abuse (and joining in the fight). Made me feel sick.

But I didn't run off, I waited and clapped the players off (they didn't clap me, surprisingly).
Then I got changed and went to the bar for my meal and beer.

It was a bit lonely, but I felt much better than if I had just run off and jumped into my car....if I had done that, I might have never refereed again.

 

[Dixie]

Can everyone say that if a match went badly for them on a Saturday and the teams were somewhat unhappy with you, that you would not make your exit quickly.

Yes I can say that.

Me too. My first L.8 was a bump up on the day in question, so no time to prepare. It was an important league fixture between two sides competing for the title. I was trying too hard, and was less than impressive - particularly in the way I handled (or rather, didn't handle) the visiting hooker who was scrum leader but not captain. He was always in my ear, and making very clear his disagreement with a number of decisions. Nonetheless, his team was ahead until the last minute, when I (correctly) awarded a PK against bang on the halfway line - confident that it would not be a game changer as the home kicker had missed pretty much everything more than 35 yards out. They changed their kicker and the sodding winger put it over to take the game. Cue accusations of bias from the away side, and a refusal to shake hands.

Like Phil E, I refused to slink off with my tail between my legs and stayed for a lonely drink and meal in the clubhouse. Getting the paperwork done was a frosty affair, but fronting that up was a matter of honour for me, as it would have been in my playing days if my mistake had cost us the game.

 

[SimonSmith]

Yes I can say that.

Had a horrendous game once a few years ago, massive fight, game abandoned, coaches saying it was my fault for not stopping them, spectators hurling abuse (and joining in the fight). Made me feel sick.

But I didn't run off, I waited and clapped the players off (they didn't clap me, surprisingly).
Then I got changed and went to the bar for my meal and beer.

It was a bit lonely, but I felt much better than if I had just run off and jumped into my car....if I had done that, I might have never refereed again.

This ^^^

I've had more than one shocker. I've had the home crowd threaten me as I came off the pitch (hello March!). Fronted up each and every time, both in the tunnel and in the bar afterwards.

It's the right thing to do, you learn from it and you try to build bridges for the next time. You don't scuttle. Referees get a lot of privilege afforded them because of their position; fronting up is one of the responsibilities that goes along with the privilege.

 

[peperami]

I have a summary I think of what happened.

CJ made an honest decision based on what he saw. It may be wrong with 20/20 hind sight. It may well be that his assessor views it as a critical incident. If so he will not do the final or either semi final but unlikely to as SA are still in the tournament. So I suspect SF will be Garces and one of WB or NO and the final will be the one that doesnt do a semi.

He has left the field.

There are any number of reasons this may have occured. Including possibly an instruction from venue safety control. I believe they can speak directly to the referee. They may have asked him to leave the field of play. I suggest we wait until World Rugby issue some form of statement.

Ben

 

[didds]

So Didds and Pegleg, let me ask you to explore your explanation a little further:

You're standing 15-20m from the crowd, which starts to throw stuff, and you are miked up. Instead of continuing your normal post-game routine, which is to head infield out of harm's way and shake hands with the players - where you could quietly call in your predicament and ask for a few stewards to ensure your safe return - let me just confirm that your natural instinct would be to sprint towards the oncoming missiles in an effort to avoid them. Is that a fair summary?

tell you what - why not come down down to devizes and throw a bottle at me and lets see what I do out of flight, fright or fight?

I only suggested what i thought was logical for him to do at the time. Its conjecture. whatever.

But my offer still stands ;-)

diddds

 

[OB..]

Although grammatically it could mean either, there are two different logical ways to look at it.

The problem is that when you write something, you know what you mean and do not always appreciate that others may read it differently. With hindsight "poor refereeing decision" would have been unambiguous. But surely we've all been there?

I know you believe you understood what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize, that what you heard, is not what I meant

(attrib. Various)

 

[noblerotter]

NO, it cannot be interpreted "as you like" it can only be interpreted one way.

See that little black thing after the last "e" and before the "s". Its called an apostrophe, and it denotes ownership; in this case, the referee (noun) owns the decision (verb) and poor (adjective) can only refer to the decision, not the referee.

'Decision' is a noun. Grammatically your statement can be interpreted only one way.

 

[L'irlandais]

Hello noble rotter,
Welcome to the forums.

 

[Rushforth]

Hello noble rotter,
Welcome to the forums.

I thought it was nobler otter. Welcome all the same

 

[Andy P]

http://m.scotsman.com/sport/rugby/l...hought-for-rugby-refs-1-3567363#axzz3p2PUznxl

 

[The Fat]

I think the accusation here is that is suits Australia to say the crowd launched missiles at Joubert as it gives his egress a better reason than just running from a bad decision.

However, none of the TV footage appears to support this claim.

Not that any of this makes any difference to the game, other than to question CJ's reasons for buggering off so quickly.

Darryl,

This is the 2nd post where you talk about it suiting Australians to defend CJ action of leaving the field quickly. One twitter account post does not represent all or the majority of Australian rugby fans.
Michael Cheika was simply repeating something he had heard prior to his interview. His first response, (a question), is virtually asking people in the room if what he had been told or had heard was correct.
Your comments that it "suits Australia" is off the mark.
If I have misinterpreted your comments, maybe you need to clarify as to whether it is your opinion or if the "it suits Australia" comments are coming from elsewhere.

 

[Ian_Cook]

World Rugby admits Joubert got it wrong.

WR have admitted that CJ got it wrong..

http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/news/115761

On review of all available angles, it is clear that after the knock-on, the ball was touched by Australia’s Nick Phipps and Law 11.3(c) states that a player can be put on-side by an opponent who intentionally plays the ball.

It is important to clarify that, under the protocols, the referee could not refer to the television match official in this case and therefore had to rely on what he saw in real time. In this case, Law 11.3(c) should have been applied, putting Welsh onside. The appropriate decision, therefore, should have been a scrum to Australia for the original knock-on.

That settles it

End of


ETA:

If anyone is questioning whether Phipps played the ball intentionally, this leaves very little room for doubt

 

[crossref]

so worldrugby says it was a wrong decision
I think almost everyone on rugbyrefs.com concurs that, sadly, it was wrong.

yet rugbyrefs.com on twitter has spent 24 hours tweeting that the decision is correct .... (and that based on the loitering Law , an argument IMO so strained it hasn't even been discussed here

so what's the relationship between the twitter account, and the consensus view on the forum?
has the site lost a great deal of collective credibility as a result of the tweets?

 

[crossref]

I think worldrugby do CJ a real disservice.

That article should have included a commitment to review the TMO protocols so that NEVER AGAIN would a referee be put in that position.

 

[L'irlandais]

I thought it was nobler otter. Welcome all the same

wrong of me to assume.

At first I did wonder if was a French name, Nob le Rotter. :biggrin: Then I thought, Nah!

 

[Ian_Cook]

so worldrugby says it was a wrong decision
I think almost everyone on rugbyrefs.com concurs that, sadly, it was wrong.

yet rugbyrefs.com on twitter has spent 24 hours tweeting that the decision is correct .... (and that based on the loitering Law , an argument IMO so strained it hasn't even been discussed here

so what's the relationship between the twitter account, and the consensus view on the forum?
has the site lost a great deal of collective credibility as a result of the tweets?

Loitering? Really?

I don't have a twitter account (and probably never will) so I haven't seen any of that.

Who is making the twitter posts on our behalf, because who ever it is has got it completley wrong?