Craig Joubert's loss of form

RobLev

Rugby Club Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Messages
2,170
Post Likes
244
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
I thought his hands were clearly and obviously on the ball.

And I disagree; he clearly and obviously had his hands on the BC on the ground, but only at the very end, while being turned upside down did he have his hands on the ball.

CJ signalled side entry. It is a fact that no tackle was made (it is undeniable that the blue player went to ground without a hand being laid on him). No tackle means no gate, so where does the side entry come from?

IF he'd had his hands on the ball, you're right. But if not, he is stood alongside the ruck that forms between one player from each team just beyond him as we look at it. He is not bound into that ruck. He then joins that ruck from his position alongside it, without retiring behind the HMF of the ruck...

Also, if no player bound him into the ruck, who turned him upside down, the tooth fairy?

...and is then bound onto in turn by blue 18, whom ctrainor has identified as the tooth fairy. Blue 18 turns him upside down, and only at that point has McCaw got his clearly and obviously on the ball. So CJ could have pinged him for handling in the ruck as well...

What CJ could in any event have blown for was a red hand scooping the ball back into the immediately preceding ruck; pause at 4:08 and the ball is between the blue player's feet, and there's a red player kneeling on the ground (with a thigh bandage) below him. Red player has quite clearly got his left arm stuck out with his hand beyond the ball - that hand comes down on the ball and pulls it back into the ruck. PK?

While that may be true, two wrongs don't make a right.

True; but it does make any cries of injured innocence (not, I hasten to add, coming from you) less credible.

If a referee misses a PK for something, he can't just balance it by making up another PK out of whole cloth. Besides the earlier PK would have been marked a couple of metres further back, and possibly out of the kicker's range.

Maybe a meter and a half - and I wouldn't have thought that there was much difference between 45 and 46.5m. The kicker would have gone for it anyway.

I don't have a problem with losing the match, I just think the way the game was decided with a dodgy PK is not good enough at the top levels of the game. A player who does something according to the Laws of the Game should reasonably expect not to be penalised. An Elite referee ought to be able to tell the difference between a player going to ground of his own accord and one who is brought to ground by an opponent.

I will also reiterate AGAIN, in case you and others missed it, that the Crusaders had the winning of this game, leading with less than four minutes on the clock, but but they chose twice to kick away possession instead of holding onto the ball. They put themselves in a position where it became possible for a referee's clanger to take the game away from them. They only have themselves to blame for that.

All that noted and accepted. The difference between us is, I think, is simply that I don't see that McCaw got his hands on the ball until after he'd entered the ruck from the side. I he didn't, then CJ got it right, save only that he missed the earlier PK against the Crusaders.
 

leaguerefaus


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
1,000
Post Likes
226
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
The angrier Ian gets, the more my first post seems to be on the money...
 

Browner

Banned
Joined
Jan 20, 2012
Messages
6,000
Post Likes
270
The difference between us is, I think, is simply that I don't see that McCaw got his hands on the ball until after he'd entered the ruck from the side. I he didn't, then CJ got it right.........

BC ( having tripped over blue leg ) lands with ball under his chest .McCaws left hand is near BC left buttock & right hand is over left shoulder of BC which means he didn't have either hand on the ball, it may have looked like hands on the ball but it wasn't.

In effect his possession attempt was ' beaten' by the ruck forming alongside him ( although I accept that the BC used his ' unofficial but universally accepted ' presentation delay (!) To thwart McCaws steal attempt.

CJ angle may have seen daylight between RM and the bonafide Rucker's ....who knows, but it was unlucky on RM , all i can say is that by the time CJ computed "ruck formed" he must then have seen side-entry.

The irony is that RM has lived on the sharp edge of the margins with much success for the majority of his career.
 

chrismtl


Referees in Canada
Joined
Sep 14, 2013
Messages
202
Post Likes
35
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
There's a bunch of people posting that Richie never entered through the gate, but from this image, right before the ruck is starting, you can see that he is about 4 inches outside the gate. Don't forget that the gate is created by the tackled player and you can clearly see that his foot and Richie's foot are almost touching. I've seen this countless times go unpunished in the professional game.
View attachment 2954

The second image shows RM has his feet well inside the feet of the Waratahs #18, who in my opinion was much more at fault in this incident than RM. This is the point at which #18 joins the ruck, and he is well outside the gate.

View attachment 2955

The third image clearly shows him swinging around the outside of the ruck, a penalty CJ called a couple times earlier in the match. At this point, he's also lifting RM and driving him straight through the side of the ruck.

View attachment 2956

This last image shows #18 going straight into the side of the ruck. His intention is to tip RM and you can see from his elbow. An elbow pointing straight up always indicates an intent to tip as no player attempting to drive straight through will have his elbow pointing up.

View attachment 2957

The way I see it, is that breakdowns just like this happen every week and at the end of all this the ball was just sitting there for the tahs to use. Don't see why CJ decided to award the penalty since there was absolutely nothing there that was clear enough to make a game deciding call. If there was a Crusaders player lying all over the ball, or there were players offside, then make the call. In this situation, being pretty much the last play, the call should have been play on. RM will do the exact same thing again and not get penalized for it. I'd have much prefered to see Folau break the line and dive in for a try than have the match end on a penalty (yes, I know there were 30 seconds after, but nothing was ever going to happen). In a situation where both teams infringe on the ruck, and it has no effect on the ball being available, then a penalty should not be called against either team.
 

Browner

Banned
Joined
Jan 20, 2012
Messages
6,000
Post Likes
270
The 1st image from chrismtl purports to be " before the ruck is starting"
In actual fact, the ruck has already been created by the other two combatants.

RM has already missed his chance to gain possession, beaten by the ruck.

. Don't forget that the gate is created by the tackled player
There wasn't a tackled player.

Once the ruck had started RM only has one legal set of actions, join it & push . instead he chose to go after the ball from the side.

But it did all happen very quick, too quick for me to referee accurately. Well done CJ.
 

RobLev

Rugby Club Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Messages
2,170
Post Likes
244
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
There's a bunch of people posting that Richie never entered through the gate, but from this image, right before the ruck is starting, you can see that he is about 4 inches outside the gate.

...

Nobody is "posting that Richie never entered through the gate"; no tackle = no gate; The claim is that he didn't retreat behind the HMF of the ruck before entering it. Your first still is taken from after the ruck has begun. RM is clearly joining the ruck, which has already formed, from the side.

One other point:

In this situation, being pretty much the last play...

(i) There's nearly 2 minutes left on the clock and (ii) why should you referee differently because the game is nearly over?
 
Last edited:

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,652
Post Likes
1,718
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Nopbody is poting that Richie never entered through the gate; no tackle = no gate; The claim is that he didn't retreat behind the HMF of the ruck before entering it. Your first still is taken from well after the ruck has begun. RM is clearly joining the ruck, which has already formed, from the side.

This is the bit I completely disagree with.

McCaw1.png

McCaw is on his feet, square, and the only player over the prone ball carrier
and no-one else is in contact with him
. The Blue player immediately
behind the prone ball carrier is still on his knees from the previous breakdown
therefore, he cannot form or join the ruck until he regains his feet - 16.1 (b)
& 16.2 (d). There is NO ruck formed yet!

McCaw2.png

Now the ruck is formed by the Blue player previously on his knees, who gets
to his feet and comes in close contact with McCaw and another Red player
who also joins. The ruck was formed by McCaw and that Blue player.
Opponents came into close contact him over the ball to create a ruck. How
can you enter from the side of a ruck that formed on you and that you are
already part of?

The only player who came in from the side of that ruck was Blue 18, who then proceeded to lift McCaw up by the legs and invert him. That is a minimum YC offence. The iRB made it clear that the "tip tackle" memo applies in rucks too, not just tackles.

The angrier Ian gets, the more my first post seems to be on the money...

Me? Angry? I'm not angry. You wouldn't like me when I'm angry!

Now, if you have something positive about the match to contribute then do so, but if all you want to do is snipe and be a w@nker, then you're not welcome.
 
Last edited:

Browner

Banned
Joined
Jan 20, 2012
Messages
6,000
Post Likes
270
Roblev ,
Blue ruck participants right should is in contact with Red ruck participants right shoulder, McCaw isnt engaged in rucking - his hands aren't bound onto an opponent (who is on his feet over the ball) neither does any opponent has a grasp of McCaw.

Instead he's gone for the ball possession steal off the floor ( or maybe trying to extract a holding-on PK? ) , and this time it turned out to be the wrong choice, due to the slide rule brilliance ( on this occasion) of CJ.
 

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
13,544
Post Likes
1,725
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Richie seems to be OK with the decision:

Crusaders coach Todd Blackadder said Joubert’s decision to penalise McCaw was a 50-50 call, but McCaw said he should have known better in that situation.

“I guess that’s what pressure in those sort of moments come down to, being able to back your D, and perhaps I opened a door for the ref to make a decision,” McCaw said.

“Agree or disagree that’s the way it was and unfortunately he kicked the goal.”

McCaw admitted he was kicking himself after he conceded the penalty.

“Without a doubt, yeah, pretty annoyed, but can’t do much about it now. It’s just one of those things you have to live with.”

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...y-over-crusaders/story-e6frg7o6-1227011434552
 

RobLev

Rugby Club Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Messages
2,170
Post Likes
244
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
This is the bit I completely disagree with.

McCaw1.png

McCaw is on his feet, square, and the only player over the prone ball carrier
and no-one else is in contact with him
. The Blue player immediately
behind the prone ball carrier is still on his knees from the previous breakdown
therefore, he cannot form or join the ruck until he regains his feet - 16.1 (b)
& 16.2 (d). There is NO ruck formed yet!

Agreed

McCaw2.png

Now the ruck is formed by the Blue player previously on his knees, who gets
to his feet and comes in close contact with McCaw and another Red player
who also joins. The ruck was formed by McCaw and that Blue player.
Opponents came into close contact him over the ball to create a ruck. How
can you enter from the side of a ruck that formed on you and that you are
already part of?

I'm watching the linked video; which one are you watching?

No. Just no. He was not in contact with the players who formed the ruck when the ruck was formed.

The only player who came in from the side of that ruck was Blue 18,

The player who started the far side of Blue #12? He bound onto McCaw while level with his hindmost teammate: 16.5(c)

who then proceeded to lift McCaw up by the legs and invert him. That is a minimum YC offence. The iRB made it clear that the "tip tackle" memo applies in rucks too, not just tackles.

I'd say that at most it's a saddle-roll, but he took him the wrong way - if so not a tip tackle, but not legal either. But after McCaw entered from the side. And in Blue #18's defence, with McCaw crash-landing, rather than taking off (Law 16.3(e) - FK in itself, but PK when the reason is that he's handling in the ruck), binding onto and shoving him was guaranteed to lift his left leg off the ground.
 
Last edited:

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,652
Post Likes
1,718
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Roblev ,
Blue ruck participants right should is in contact with Red ruck participants right shoulder, McCaw isnt engaged in rucking - his hands aren't bound onto an opponent (who is on his feet over the ball) neither does any opponent has a grasp of McCaw.

[LAWS]16.1 FORMING A RUCK
(b) How can a ruck form. Players are on their feet. At least one player must be in physical
contact with an opponent.
The ball must be on the ground. If the ball is off the ground for
any reason, the ruck is not formed.[/LAWS]
Binding is not a requirement in Law for any player forming a ruck.

[LAWS]16.2 JOINING A RUCK
(b) A player joining a ruck must bind on a team-mate or an opponent, using the whole arm. The
bind must either precede, or be simultaneous with, contact with any other part of the body
of the player joining the ruck. [/LAWS]
Binding is only a requirement for players joining an existing ruck.

Since McCaw was one of the two players who formed the ruck initially, binding was not a requirement


Its doesn't say that at all, and it any case, it proves nothing. The All Black captain knows the politics of Rugby Administration well enough to know that he cannot publicly criticise a referee's decision without censure and a fine/punishment. Under those circumstances, he is not free to say what he really thinks.
 

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,652
Post Likes
1,718
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
No. Just no. He was not in contact with the players who formed the ruck when the ruck was formed.

NO! JUST....NO!!!

The Blue player is between and in physical contact with both McCaw and the other Red player

McCaw's right shoulder is in contact with the Blue player's right shoulder

The Blue player's left shoulder is in contact with the other Red player's left shoulder

All three all formed the ruck together.

I'm watching the linked video; which one are you watching?

I watched it on a Sony Bravia 60" plasma in HD. It is crystal clear on that screen!
 

RobLev

Rugby Club Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Messages
2,170
Post Likes
244
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
NO! JUST....NO!!!

The Blue player is between and in physical contact with both McCaw and the other Red player

McCaw's right shoulder is in contact with the Blue player's right shoulder

The Blue player's left shoulder is in contact with the other Red player's left shoulder

Really?

McC1cpr.jpg


All three all formed the ruck together.

I watched it on a Sony Bravia 60" plasma in HD. It is crystal clear on that screen!

I wish I had a screen that allowed me to see through a player's body to see a shoulder that isn't visible to other viewers.
 

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,652
Post Likes
1,718
Current Referee grade:
Level 2


Yes, really!

McCaw2.png


You don't know for certain that it is or isn't any more than you know whether the Blue player's shoulder is in contact with the other Red player, but I ask; since McCaw was already there, and the second red player didn't arrive and make contact until fractionally after the Blue player arrived, how could they not be.

Also, it doesn't have to be the shoulder, it can be any part of the player's body; the law just says physical contact. McCaw is right over the ball; how could the Blue player, also right over the ball not be in any physical contact with him.

The fact that there is clear disagreement between several referees (I'm not the only one here who doesn't think this was the right call) tells me that this does not meet the criteria of being C&O. I expect C&O as an absolute minimum before a game changing decision is made.
 

RobLev

Rugby Club Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Messages
2,170
Post Likes
244
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
Yes, really!

McCaw2.png


You don't know for certain that it is or isn't any more than you know whether the Blue player's shoulder is in contact with the other Red player, but I ask; since McCaw was already there, and the second red player didn't arrive and make contact until fractionally after the Blue player arrived, how could they not be.

Because, as my still shows, the other Red player and the Blue player were in contact right shoulder to right shoulder. It's just not physically possible for McCaw's right shoulder to be in contact with the Blue player's.

Also, it doesn't have to be the shoulder, it can be any part of the player's body; the law just says physical contact. McCaw is right over the ball; how could the Blue player, also right over the ball not be in any physical contact with him.

The reason McCaw is in an illegal position in the ruck (crash-landing) when he eventually joins it is because that is the position he was in before then - he's scrabbling for the ball on the ground to his right and ahead of himself. He's not right over the ball, which, it's clear when McCaw is upended, is actually below the arriving Blue player. The arriving Red player's left shoulder is between McCaw and the Blue player.

The fact that there is clear disagreement between several referees (I'm not the only one here who doesn't think this was the right call) tells me that this does not meet the criteria of being C&O. I expect C&O as an absolute minimum before a game changing decision is made.

The difference is that CJ was a few yards away and had a clear view live; what was C&O to him may well not be C&O to others, limited as we are to TV long-shots from a different angle and inferences from what appears later in the sequence of events.
 
Last edited:

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,652
Post Likes
1,718
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
We'll have to agree to differ
 

Greig

Rugby Club Member
Joined
May 29, 2012
Messages
49
Post Likes
0
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
The difference is that CJ was a few yards away and had a clear view live; what was C&O to him may well not be C&O to others, limited as we are to TV long-shots from a different angle and inferences from what appears later in the sequence of events.

This is important to note. CJ was much closer and had a better view. What nobody has identified in this thread is the location of the ball. I dare say CJ could see exactly where the ball was located from his viewpoint.

Now watch the replay again, observe the ocation of the ball, and consider this scenario. McCaw does not have his hands on the ball at any time (he is too far away from it), and that Blue 21 and Red 16 form a ruck over the ball, while McCaw is not in contact with either player when the ruck is formed. McCaw then persists at the side of this newly formed ruck, when his only legal option was to step back and cease contesting the ball, which he did not do.
 

menace


Referees in Australia
Joined
Nov 20, 2009
Messages
3,602
Post Likes
574
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
I don't really care that it was a 50/50 call....I like the fact that McCaw was PK and lost it for crusaders. :clap::clap::clap::pepper::pepper:Unfortunately it was to the horror-tahs. :chair::chair::chair::buttkick::wtf:

The fact that a few of you are pulling the decision apart with analysis to the minutia over still frames and arguing over 4inches AND STILL CANT AGREE, speaks volumes of that call, and BTW rugby isn't so static when you need to make a decision or non-decision. Isn't that the beauty of what we do?. Probably should not have been made either way...but to CJ something was clear and obvious (we all do it and realise until after that we probably made a 50/50). IMO at least it wasn't a clear and obvious f@ck up. Winners are grinner, losers will just have to suck it up.
 

Dixpat

Rugby Club Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2011
Messages
278
Post Likes
23
I don't really care that it was a 50/50 call....I like the fact that McCaw was PK and lost it for crusaders. :clap::clap::clap::pepper::pepper:Unfortunately it was to the horror-tahs. :chair::chair::chair::buttkick::wtf:

The fact that a few of you are pulling the decision apart with analysis to the minutia over still frames and arguing over 4inches AND STILL CANT AGREE, speaks volumes of that call, and BTW rugby isn't so static when you need to make a decision or non-decision. Isn't that the beauty of what we do?. Probably should not have been made either way...but to CJ something was clear and obvious (we all do it and realise until after that we probably made a 50/50). IMO at least it wasn't a clear and obvious f@ck up. Winners are grinner, losers will just have to suck it up.


I thought one of the purposes of the forum was to learn from the performances from refs at the top level.

One can only do that if decisions they make are analysed & that is what is occurring here

Might be getting tedious for some but others who follow the various points of view are upskilling themselves

It is immaterial who the player was, it is the circumstances presented and the decision that was made that is important
 

menace


Referees in Australia
Joined
Nov 20, 2009
Messages
3,602
Post Likes
574
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Yes..there is analysis for learning and upskilling...totally agree. But to this level displayed in this thread is IMO taking it too far into the minute detail and just ended in a p!ssing contest as to who could prove they were more right or less wrong.

Ps sorry if you can't appreciate a bit of humour in my lead in stab at McCaw.
 
Last edited:
Top