[Law] Eng Ireland 29 decisions in 28 minutes..

[Marc Wakeham]

Sorry but I simply do not agree with this threat Simon and think it's beyond your scope as a Mod.

Everyone has a right to raise whatever it is they want and even if it is an accusation of cheating or bias why cant they express that opinion? That in itself is not necessarily offensive or inappropriate.

Christ! a great many opinions from refs on here skate on the line of bias about a refs performance and it's only thinly veiled as something else.

I think we are all able to decipher those that are making accusations of bias without the need for a mod to 'cleanse' others opinions for us. We can all decide independently when to bin someones opinion.

Unfortunately some refs are cheats...we shouldnt hide from that fact. Im not saying that top tier refs are...but I dont think we have to close ranks when an every day punter wants to call it out that we shut them down or out without the benefit of having them 'prove it'. Let the discussion be had.

I think there is a big difference with the, human nature, tendency to see 50:50 calls as 65:35 and the OP's blatent rant against the referee. If you want to point out the referee was poor or yes biassed ecen. Look at an aspect of the game and point out the trends affecting both teams. You don't achive the same aim by pointing out the best art of thirty errors in half an hour that all went against your team.

I saw the Anscome try as a try partly because I wanted it to be a try. Even so my gripe was the haste with which the call was made by the TMO. Was it s try? I don't know I'd like to think yes but IF was English I'm sure I'd see it as a no. That is human and (pretty much) every poster will be guilty of that.

Subconsious bias will also be present for a ref in the middle. We expect to see an outcome so we see it. Is the OP saying that took place? No he is not. He's, for me, crossed the line.

ALMOST EVERY:

SH
feeds crookedly
Pushes the other 9
Obstructs the other 9

Kicker / 10
pinches a yard or two
Eases the angle.
come up infront of the 5 or 10 at scrum or LO

All tacklers /assists
Leave a had or three on the ball to slow down the feed


etc etc etc.

The ref (and To3) judges them all in context and act on what is seem according to his judgement. ARS call in what they see: "I've got X for you" nd the referee takes on board that information as part of his process.

Some refs are better at being ARs than others.


None of this makes wild accusations of bias acceptable. If you have evidence make your (supported)accusations. Preferably make them to World Rugby.

 

[DocY]

Unfortunately some refs are cheats...we shouldnt hide from that fact. Im not saying that top tier refs are...but I dont think we have to close ranks when an every day punter wants to call it out that we shut them down or out without the benefit of having them 'prove it'. Let the discussion be had.

In nearly 40 years of being involved with rugby, I've only come across two cases where I'd say the referee was biased (I've not seen the recent Spanish incident). And both of those cases were school games where the referee was one of the coaches.

 

[OB..]

Everyone has a right to raise whatever it is they want and even if it is an accusation of cheating or bias why cant they express that opinion? That in itself is not necessarily offensive or inappropriate.

Libel is a tort. Calling a referee a cheat is potentially libellous, and the site could be held responsible for publishing it.

Unfortunately some refs are cheats...we shouldnt hide from that fact. Im not saying that top tier refs are...but I dont think we have to close ranks when an every day punter wants to call it out that we shut them down or out without the benefit of having them 'prove it'. Let the discussion be had.

The term is usually just emotive rather than evidence based, which is part of the problem. It adds nothing to the discussion and is better avoided.

 

[menace]

Libel is a tort. Calling a referee a cheat is potentially libellous, and the site could be held responsible for publishing it.

The term is usually just emotive rather than evidence based, which is part of the problem. It adds nothing to the discussion and is better avoided.

I understand...but I dont agree.
The person becomes liable for the defamation...not the site.

But I'm also not legally trained and wouldn't test it looking for a precedence. :wink::Nerv:

 

[Swiss Ref]

I understand...but I dont agree.
The person becomes liable for the defamation...not the site.

But I'm also not legally trained and wouldn't test it looking for a precedence. :wink::Nerv:

Yes I wouldnt test it either!
In Libel both the author and publisher are in difficulties

 

[menace]

So if I write a defaming statement with a pen on paper is the paper company and Parker held liable for providing the medium to publish the defamation??

 

[Swiss Ref]

The Publisher (website, newspaper) are potentially perpetuating the libel (if it is indeed libel) to a wider audience.

I take it Parker is your pen not your Butler?

 

[Rich_NL]

No, but if someone else does and your publishing company prints ten thousand copies of it and distributes it worldwide, you might well be.

 

[Pedro]

Pedro, thank you for your reply. If 6 out of 12 are 'accurateish', that's not too bad. At no point was I saying that Gardner or the AR's were biased. Ireland were were the stand out team in the tournament and deserved to win. I was just baffled by many decisions made and wanted some clearance by more Senior Refs on here. For example, I have learnt that after a late hit, the PK is given on the 15m line if it bounces between there and the touchline. I thought it was where it landed unless it landed in touch and then you go 15m in. I have edited my post and have tried not to sound biased or bitter... there are a lot of genuine refereeing questions in there where I would like us to ignore the teams involved...

That was 6/28. Not sure where you got he 12 from?
And to say that at no point were you saying the referees were biased, distinctly attempts to ignore the strong theme of your post - which was, at least on my reading, about referee bias.

 

[ChrisR]

Bias exists in all of us. Often it gets expressed as pulling for the underdog. And when you're refereeing you'll be forgiving some minor errors made by the team getting hammered and be stricter with the team doing the hammering. Even the players understand that.

As a supporter of a second tier rugby nation I'm convinced that when we play the big boys we don't catch the breaks mentioned above and are more liable to get the short end of the stick. The truth is my team makes more mistakes, pure and simple. It's infuriating to watch and I find myself groaning "C'mon ref, give us a break!".

I do think that we can be victims of the smarter teams and I've commented here on more than one occasion how Martin Castrogiovanni has wangled PKs against us at scrum time.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

So if I write a defaming statement with a pen on paper is the paper company and Parker held liable for providing the medium to publish the defamation??

Huge difference between an identifialble website / tv company / newspaper etc and the make of a pen or pencil. Your point is nonsense (at best mischevious).

 

[menace]

Huge difference between an identifialble website / tv company / newspaper etc and the make of a pen or pencil. Your point is nonsense (at best mischevious).

Ok..you got me. I was being mischievous. Guilty as charged.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

OK let’s look at a some of your points:

I did have ref link so knew Nigel was in Gardner’s ear all game.

4:22. Daly catches ball 6 metres from touchline. Pen is given to Ireland 15m from touch giving better angle. Owens doesn’t say a word.

8:33. Penalty to England. Murray slows down the quick take. Not a word from Owens. Right in front of him.

11:15. Penalty against Itoje for offside. Not seen by ref, called by Owens watch his hand in his pocket. Fairly petty. Was it material? Just have a word. Highly pernickety by Owens. But he ignores all the other stuff.

21:40. Would love to know what useful gem Nigel is giving to Gardner.

25:06 Jaco Peyper overrules him. Watch him turn the mic on.

So, Nige was “in Gardener’s ear all game”. You then give 5 examples of the negative (towards only one side) To3 activity. One is not Owens. Of the 5 that are 3 are Owens NOT speaking (being in the ref’s ear) and 1 is Owens giving input. The other you say: “Would love to know what useful gem…”. Surely you heard on the ref radio? No? OK

I’m not sure (though I take Crossref’s point that Owens can ref from the touchline at times. That said, what input was requested by Gardener? Do you know? I guess not) that 1 interventions and a possible second is Owens reffing the game and being “in Gardener’s ear all game”. Especially as you seem to be complaining that he was not in Gardener’s ear on 3 occasions!

not sour grapes, the best team won. But the first try was a knock on, second forward pass, 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] possible knock on.

No sour grapes but Ireland “deservedly won” by 2 non-tries one questionable try and a Penalty (since we don’t have the benefit of your expert analysis, we don’t know if this too was a wrong call) to 3 perfectly executed tries. So, the score should have been (probably) England 15 V 3 Ireland (possibly 10 or even NIL!)

Nope no sour grapes there at all.

 

[davidlandy]

13:18. Farrell kicks into Haskell head. Gives attacking scrum to Ireland for accidental offside. This is correct, but Ireland would have probably preferred to play on as Daly had three players on him.
You are dead wrong on this and so was the referee to the detriment of the Irish and 7 points. See the thread on it and read the law.

I'm interested - where's the thread on the kick into Haskell's head? Thanks in advance.

 

[DocY]

I'm interested - where's the thread on the kick into Haskell's head? Thanks in advance.

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?20807-Accidental-offside

 

[Butters]

In reply to

That was 6/28. Not sure where you got he 12 from?
And to say that at no point were you saying the referees were biased, distinctly attempts to ignore the strong theme of your post - which was, at least on my reading, about referee bias.Pedro

I got the 6 out of 12 from where you said, and I quote,
"I've gone through a dozen of these with the replay on slow mo. There are about 6 points which seem to be accurate."

I'm not saying the team of 4 were deliberately biased, I just think they were bad. And for a game of that magnitude, handing it to Gardner, with Owens and Peyper as AR's was a bad decision. And I think the TMO was hurried, same as the decision in the England Wales game..

 

[crossref]

Gardner was a credible appointment , IMO, of course he is relatively inexperienced and this was a big game for him, but the next generation have to gain experience to replace the current

NO is definitely not the right AR for an inexperienced ref, that did indeed make it harder for him.

 

[Butters]

13:18. Farrell kicks into Haskell head. Gives attacking scrum to Ireland for accidental offside. This is correct, but Ireland would have probably preferred to play on as Daly had three players on him.
You are dead wrong on this and so was the referee to the detriment of the Irish and 7 points. See the thread on it and read the law.

Chris R - please explain how I am dead wrong. I am saying it would be a scrum to Ireland but he should have played advantage for a few more seconds to see what happened. I have read the other thread on this...

In my opinion, three outcomes:
1, Ireland strip him, play on, advantage over.
2, Daly is penalised for holding on, most likely outcome, in my opinion. Ireland get penalty 10 metres ahead of where they would have got a scrum.
3, Daly stays on his feet until help arrives, then you go back for the scrum to Ireland from the original accidental offside.

 

[leaguerefaus]

Nigel Owens is one example of why I don't particularly like WR's policy whereby all international referees are considered to be international AR's. These are two different roles and should be treated as such. I'm sure there's AR's who referee much lower grades of rugby that may actually be better AR's than those appointed to international matches.

 

[DocY]

NO is definitely not the right AR for an inexperienced ref, that did indeed make it harder for him.

He wasn't actually supposed to be ARing. Marius Van der Westhuizen down to do it, was withdrawn after attending an England training session in the week.