FRA v SA - A French Perspective

Volun-selected


Referees in America
Joined
Jun 11, 2018
Messages
596
Post Likes
351
Location
United States
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
i didn't quite understand that?

scenario -
So the kicker is standing there, addressing the ball, doing his little shuffle, using up his 60 seconds

and you notice that one of the defenders has his arms up.

Do you gesture - or call to him - to put his arms down ?

Or just do nothing, and - if the kick fails - do the whole 10m / second chance thing
Interesting scenario. I was thinking of the scenario as the arms going up as the kicker has commenced their run - that’s a do nothing until after the kick. (Still no idea why they have the hands rule in 8-Scoring but the picture in 20 Penalty.)

If the kicker is still getting settled and I’m close enough I’d probably yell “arms down” especially for a youth team. If they’re almost done and about to launch - back to the first version.

It comes down to can I yell at the defender without disturbing the kicker.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,824
Post Likes
3,161
I would do the same.
It's not as simple as 'you play how you like I apply the laws' (which was buds phrase I know)
 

shebeen

Avid Rugby Lover
Joined
Jul 29, 2015
Messages
202
Post Likes
61
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade

How do you say, "double standards" in French?
 

shebeen

Avid Rugby Lover
Joined
Jul 29, 2015
Messages
202
Post Likes
61
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
Just checking in, still no sanction for Prince Du Pont for slating the ref decisions at the official post match press conference? Can all captains do this now or still just him?

Would Rassie be allowed to say this without a ban?

Context:France rugby industrial conplex DISABLED the TMO in the nov 22 test match which allowed a non try, with no repercussions. Sacre bleu!
 

BikingBud


Referees in England
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
773
Post Likes
270
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
Just checking in, still no sanction for Prince Du Pont for slating the ref decisions at the official post match press conference? Can all captains do this now or still just him?

Would Rassie be allowed to say this without a ban?

Context:France rugby industrial conplex DISABLED the TMO in the nov 22 test match which allowed a non try, with no repercussions. Sacre bleu!

So re-telling what was said where a number of observations were raised, apparently including the following:
““We lost the quarterfinal for rugby reasons but also for refereeing decisions,” he said

Quite different to the click bait headline:

Galthie blames ref for France's World Cup loss to South Africa​


As reported:
"In a World Rugby committee, I therefore had the opportunity to speak with Ben O’Keeffe.

“At one point in the meeting, there was a discussion about the behaviour of the selectors.

“I took the floor and said that we had a major role as educators and that we must behave with respect towards the referees. This is fundamental.

“I told him that my players had been strongly impacted by questionable decisions.

“Everyone agreed on the fact that some decisions weren’t the right ones.

He wasn’t at all happy with his performance either.”

So that's Galthie's recollection.

Facts -
  • SA won the RWC 2023
  • SA won the RWC by the slimmest points margin in history.
  • A number of the games were won as a direct result of penalties late in the individual matches.
  • Despite efforts of partisan supporters to state otherwise, those penalties were not C+O and many could have/would have/should have been awarded against SA with a different referee on a different day.
My interpretation is not that Galthie has come out and slammed the referee but that during open and honest discussion in a forum (World Rugby Committee) where it would appear respect was mutual, a grown up and progressive discussion has taken place in order to learn from previous performance and scope clear areas for improvement.

Wholly different to Rassie's public assassination via forensic examination of selected events. Which at the end of the day seems to have the desired effect:confused:

Conflation alert with a conspiracy theory about a try that was allowed, where's the background, where's the evidence?
 

shebeen

Avid Rugby Lover
Joined
Jul 29, 2015
Messages
202
Post Likes
61
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
Conflation alert with a conspiracy theory about a try that was allowed, where's the background, where's the evidence?


To refresh your memory,
French TV director runs the TMO coms, and it conveniently turns off as a controversial try that will possibly decide the match outcome is being reviewed.

Do you need more evidence for it to be more of a conspiracy?

With it being a 1 point game, the decision by world rugby to have independant TV staff for the RWC probably cost them the match.
 

Phil E


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
16,136
Post Likes
2,409
Current Referee grade:
Level 8

Phil E


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
16,136
Post Likes
2,409
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
Médecins Sans Frontières :unsure:
Worked with them in Sierra Leone.

"Mandatory Space Filler", wouldn't let me delete my post without putting something in there.
 

Volun-selected


Referees in America
Joined
Jun 11, 2018
Messages
596
Post Likes
351
Location
United States
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
So one solution to avoid bias (perceived and otherwise) is that all video/sound feeds are fed to an independent system in parallel to the TV feeds.

The TV crews can then cherry pick what the show but all the feeds are being recorded separately onto a decent sized server array.

TMO and support can then select and review what they want at their leisure and can override the TV feed for the ref playback.

I’m assuming this happens with the Aussie bunker system so we just need a mobile version or similar.
 

BikingBud


Referees in England
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
773
Post Likes
270
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
To refresh your memory,
French TV director runs the TMO coms, and it conveniently turns off as a controversial try that will possibly decide the match outcome is being reviewed.

Do you need more evidence for it to be more of a conspiracy?

With it being a 1 point game, the decision by world rugby to have independant TV staff for the RWC probably cost them the match.
So a try that Nigel Owen would not directly admit to being illegal, despite plenty of time to review angles and consider all evidence was allowed on the pitch.

Your statement:
France rugby industrial conplex DISABLED the TMO in the nov 22 test match which allowed a non try, with no repercussions. Sacre bleu!
Don't see that in the two articles you have linked:
“Well, the TMO couldn’t come in because the communication system was down at that time so the referee couldn’t hear the TMO and the TMO couldn’t speak to the referee. Wayne Barnes was there on the spot and gives the decision and he sees it, so it is one of those really, really tough ones to make.”
Technical failures do occur unless you have a conspiracy theory and everything is against you!

And in the second article again it seems all correct judgments were achieved despite your assertion that crowd behaviour and TV director showing repeated replays affected the TMO.
piling huge pressure on Irish ref Frank Murphy to take action. He stood firm, correctly ruling that Fekitoa had tried to avoid contact and there was no foul play.
Again, Murphy stuck to his guns. Credit to him, as well as to the other referees who back their judgement
So I'm not sure what your theory is because if the outcome was always correct then you might want to reconsider what you postualte.

As to your final point, it is a little vague but am I correct in interpreting that France were only ejected from the RWC because of the presence of non-French officials and TV directors?
 

shebeen

Avid Rugby Lover
Joined
Jul 29, 2015
Messages
202
Post Likes
61
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
So a try that Nigel Owen would not directly admit to being illegal, despite plenty of time to review angles and consider all evidence was allowed on the pitch.

Your statement:

Don't see that in the two articles you have linked:

Technical failures do occur unless you have a conspiracy theory and everything is against you!

And in the second article again it seems all correct judgments were achieved despite your assertion that crowd behaviour and TV director showing repeated replays affected the TMO.


So I'm not sure what your theory is because if the outcome was always correct then you might want to reconsider what you postualte.

As to your final point, it is a little vague but am I correct in interpreting that France were only ejected from the RWC because of the presence of non-French officials and TV directors?
I'll run with this.
I used that link because it is "neutral" and was more linking to the point that the TMO comms went awol which was the backgorund you were asking for. That was probably an error on my part, as much as I enjoy seeing NO doing his pieces in the farm shed I very quickly learnt that they are not going to teach you much. He is very much scripted not to disagree with any referee decision, which sort of makes sense in that "whistle watch" is a World rugby production and not the forum for them to hang a ref out to dry. Just don't expect an objective opinion (but if he sits on the fence you can surmis the ref was probably in the error column!).

The fact I was looking at highlight was that the TMO comms run by the home union went down and the most unfortunate time. You can call it "le coincidence" all you want, but there seems to be history of this. (this bit is pure conjecture) I'm not sure if this is the first time that WR took over the production for the RWC, but the reputation of the french tv editor team might have forced their hand.

You seem to want the actual incident rehashed, sure here it is.


Looks fairly conclusive to me and a TMO would have reversed the decision of a try. I guess you're a neutral, so can make your own decision without bias. I can't tell you how many movements on the ground there are there by the ball carrier, but according to a reliable source:
count to three no more no less
Three shalt be the number thou shalt count
And the number of the counting shall be three
four shalt thou not count
Nor either count thou two
Excepting that thou then proceed to Three
five is right out
 

BikingBud


Referees in England
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
773
Post Likes
270
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
@shebeen Still not sure what your point of contention is and I believe you are still conflating issues.

NO said if you see something one way then you may decide it was an offence. A much better way to encourage effective analysis by referees than merely saying that he felt the officials on the day got it wright or wrong. He leads you via an assessment framework to develop your own judgment skills based upon the laws. We see it all the time in games where refs are questioned by captains, "wasn't that a forward pass?", "wasn't he obstructed?" "the loose head keeps folding in?" all met by the same response "Nope didn't see it that way" - Seems entirely appropriate to me.

The second, point irrespective of the comms being affected by someone pulling the plug so they could recharge their laptop or plug the kettle in or a solar storm taking out a satellite link or heaven forbid a deliberate intervention to limit the passage of information that may enhance the decision making, many people since consider the correct decision was made on the pitch with the support of a TMO under it appears some limitations of service and pressure at the time. So trying to link what appears to be a spurious outage -you use the phrase "la coincidence" and recognise that there is conjecture in your thought - to match fixing seems excessive.

I cannot see the linked video so can pass no comment upon if it was accurate, conclusive or even relevant but you are surmising that the TMO would have reversed the decision!

And this is the point you seem to miss, that SA progressed in 2023 RWC entirely due to those very types of decision, a different ref on a different day may have considered those charge down to prevent a kick or not-supporting weight at a ruck for a match winning penalty quite differently.

Count your self, and SA, lucky and stop being a conspiracy theorist.
 

BikingBud


Referees in England
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
773
Post Likes
270
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
@shebeen Toulouse v Racing TV pictures went off was that also to affect something downstream, you may wish to review it and ensure there is no conspiracy afoot.

Need to find out who keeps making coffee!
 

shebeen

Avid Rugby Lover
Joined
Jul 29, 2015
Messages
202
Post Likes
61
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
@shebeen Still not sure what your point of contention is and I believe you are still conflating issues.

The second, point irrespective of the comms being affected by someone pulling the plug so they could recharge their laptop or plug the kettle in or a solar storm taking out a satellite link or heaven forbid a deliberate intervention to limit the passage of information that may enhance the decision making, many people since consider the correct decision was made on the pitch with the support of a TMO under it appears some limitations of service and pressure at the time. So trying to link what appears to be a spurious outage -you use the phrase "la coincidence" and recognise that there is conjecture in your thought - to match fixing seems excessive.

I cannot see the linked video so can pass no comment upon if it was accurate, conclusive or even relevant but you are surmising that the TMO would have reversed the decision!
I was going to leave this one as clearly I can't prove that there was official intervention by TV production, so it can be labelled under "conspiracy theory" if you wish. And I'm fully aware that it smells like vintage bordeaux sour grapes on a game played 18 months ago now.


But since you can't see the video on youtube here is a very crude sequence of frameshots.
red arrow - tackle made, ball carrier short and on the ground. ball carrier has no forward momentum
yellow arrow - double movement attempt 1 to move forward (not trying to place ball).
green arrow - short of line (most likely, but could debate that), but arm moves forward for double movement #2
blue arrow - double movement attempt 2
purple - clearly grounded after 2 double movements to move forward.

No way that's a try, surely we can't disagree on that?
FravRsa.png
 

BikingBud


Referees in England
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
773
Post Likes
270
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
I was going to leave this one as clearly I can't prove that there was official intervention by TV production, so it can be labelled under "conspiracy theory" if you wish. And I'm fully aware that it smells like vintage bordeaux sour grapes on a game played 18 months ago now.


But since you can't see the video on youtube here is a very crude sequence of frameshots.
red arrow - tackle made, ball carrier short and on the ground. ball carrier has no forward momentum
yellow arrow - double movement attempt 1 to move forward (not trying to place ball).
green arrow - short of line (most likely, but could debate that), but arm moves forward for double movement #2
blue arrow - double movement attempt 2
purple - clearly grounded after 2 double movements to move forward.

No way that's a try, surely we can't disagree on that?
View attachment 4764
I would suggest that with perhaps a very squint and S African bias to your selected images that the try could be marginal.

Hand down, do you call it trigger or cannon arm, is not considered to be fully down, there is still bend in the legs, the knees are not down and he is still driving forward. Happens probably 80-100 times per game and consequently I see no issue

But as you presented a self-confessed crude series of screenshots I decided to look further, here are a few more for you to consider:

Screenshot 2024-04-12 at 20.42.42.jpgScreenshot 2024-04-12 at 20.43.04.jpgShot3.jpgPerhaps you could talk us though Green 13 position on the pitch, the location of his left hand relative to the offside line and the impact upon the action as France are still going forward. Some might say offside, deliberate, repetitive and cynical and if Green 13 had not tackled from that offside position a try was most likely.

As you might also notice the left arm of the referee is also important!

So taking into account the referee's position, lines of sight, already signalling and body language, compounded by a extended period of S Africa wilfully and repeatedly giving away penalties, and said referee playing advantage for an offside from a tackler, that may or may not depending upon the tint of your glasses lead to a penalty try and S Africa going down to 12 players, Mr Barnes esq considered that the try was sound.

Give it up mate, it's a lost cause!

ETA see here for law clarification raised by SA!
 
Last edited:

shebeen

Avid Rugby Lover
Joined
Jul 29, 2015
Messages
202
Post Likes
61
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
I would suggest that with perhaps a very squint and S African bias to your selected images that the try could be marginal.
Happy to admit to bias* but sometimes these things aren't grey area and we should be able to agree. Images were only selected because you couldn't see a YT video that I had already linked for you.

Hand down, do you call it trigger or cannon arm, is not considered to be fully down, there is still bend in the legs, the knees are not down and he is still driving forward. Happens probably 80-100 times per game and consequently I see no issue
incorrect. Head+ elbow is definitely on the ground (my screen shot from above, red arrow - you can at least see that, can't you?). Head is supporting much more of the body weight than legs and player is stopped so no forward momentum.

But as you presented a self-confessed crude series of screenshots I decided to look further, here are a few more for you to consider:

Perhaps you could talk us though Green 13 position on the pitch, the location of his left hand relative to the offside line and the impact upon the action as France are still going forward. Some might say offside, deliberate, repetitive and cynical and if Green 13 had not tackled from that offside position a try was most likely.
So are you saying that the ref and TMO would have awarded a penalty try if the comms was working?


As you might also notice the left arm of the referee is also important!

So taking into account the referee's position, lines of sight, already signalling and body language, compounded by a extended period of S Africa wilfully and repeatedly giving away penalties, and said referee playing advantage for an offside from a tackler, that may or may not depending upon the tint of your glasses lead to a penalty try and S Africa going down to 12 players, Mr Barnes esq considered that the try was sound.
If you listen to the ref comms, WB says to captain that they "will definitely check the try". It shows that he had enough doubt that he wanted the conversation with TMO, he never got line working.

Give it up mate, it's a lost cause!

ETA see here for law clarification raised by SA!
Not really, it's pretty clear for me to see that a player who is grounded can't do three movements to score. You've done nothing to prove to me that this was a valid try. Penalty try for offsides I'd be happy to debate further (I'd then have to bring up the YC that came from the previous movement, which from memory has pretty clear footage that it was the wrong call from WB).

It only really brings me back to bias as mentioned up top.

this thread tells me that
a)Fra captain and coach can call out officials with zero sanction.
b)There is bias on this forum against south africa. I take that with the pinch of salt it comes with.
 

BikingBud


Referees in England
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
773
Post Likes
270
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
Happy to admit to bias* but sometimes these things aren't grey area and we should be able to agree. Images were only selected because you couldn't see a YT video that I had already linked for you.
There will always be grey areas, even in the most simple decisions, humans interpret things differently according to our life exposure and the prejudice and bias we accumulate, it's a fact of life and what makes us interesting.
incorrect. Head+ elbow is definitely on the ground (my screen shot from above, red arrow - you can at least see that, can't you?). Head is supporting much more of the body weight than legs and player is stopped so no forward momentum.
And?

Tackle requires:
  1. For a tackle to occur, the ball-carrier is held and brought to ground by one or more opponents.
  2. Being brought to ground means that the ball-carrier is lying, sitting or has at least one knee on the ground or on another player who is on the ground.
  3. Being held means that a tackler must continue holding the ball-carrier until the ball-carrier is on the ground.
Don't see that test case being met.

You cannot see momentum from a still image.

I also offered that the position we see here occurs probably 80-100 times per game elsewhere on the pitch, ball carrier not held and continues to drive forward, tacklers trying to stop forward motion and lying on top do we penalise or allow it to play out? And I'm quite happy either way but we must be consistent. From the Principles of the Laws:

Law Application
The laws must be applied in such a way as to ensure that the game is played according to the principles of play. The match officials can achieve this through fairness, consistency, sensitivity and, when appropriate, management.

So applying a different lens here doesn't really work.
So are you saying that the ref and TMO would have awarded a penalty try if the comms was working?
No. I'm saying the ref had his arm out for advantage! And from the outcome, we can deduce he considered that advantage had been gained by scoring the try.

I consider that if they had disallowed the try because he was "tackled" and didn't comply with the immediate obligations of playing the ball, then the ref would have come back for no advantage and awarded the penalty. I also consider that if green 13 was not offside then blue would likely have scored and awarding a PT would have been a fair decision. (We should see more of these as goal line offside offences are endemic now).
If you listen to the ref comms, WB says to captain that they "will definitely check the try". It shows that he had enough doubt that he wanted the conversation with TMO, he never got line working.

Not really, it's pretty clear for me to see that a player who is grounded can't do three movements to score. You've done nothing to prove to me that this was a valid try. Penalty try for offsides I'd be happy to debate further (I'd then have to bring up the YC that came from the previous movement, which from memory has pretty clear footage that it was the wrong call from WB).
I don't need to prove anything the match officials decided it was a try. I personally see no reason to consider that decision incorrect. You have a feeling that SA are being persecuted and all of France have conspired in that.

Would you like to unpick it and see what options Mr Barnes had, if the comms was good and they decided that blue was brought to ground and held, and should therefore have released the ball? I would like to hear you logical and objective comments.

Please clarify what grounded means when applied to a player.
It only really brings me back to bias as mentioned up top.

this thread tells me that
a)Fra captain and coach can call out officials with zero sanction.
You want to restart that discussion that's fine but we are back to conflation of issues.
b)There is bias on this forum against south africa. I take that with the pinch of salt it comes with.
Nope just trying to remain objective, calling out negative rugby (be honest many teams international and club do not observe tackle gates, come in the side and kill rucks by flopping on, both SA and Ireland are very good at it) and wondering why showcase rugby continues to allow many negative aspects to mar the game.

I have sat in the crowd watching live international games, called out what the ref has seen to exclude a try and had to explain why the decision was correct, to supporters of both teams.

I think harsh but fair is the term commonly used not bias.
 

belladonna

Rugby Expert
Joined
Nov 14, 2018
Messages
449
Post Likes
119
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
a)Fra captain and coach can call out officials with zero sanction.
b)There is bias on this forum against south africa.

a) But Galthie did *not* criticise the officials after the game. He said: "I understand the players' frustrations, I really do, but I won't criticise the refereeing." https://www.reuters.com/sports/france-coach-galthie-has-no-regrets-dupont-slams-referee-2023-10-15/

Watch and learn, Rassie 🤣

b) No anti-SA bias from me whatsoever. I love SA and I lived there for 8 years once upon a time. And the Bokke are my second-favourite team. As a disinterested observer I would say your constant whinging about decisions that don't go your way and implicit (explicit?) criticisms of the officials, and allegations of conspiracy to defraud SA would put most people's backs up.

My exprience is that if you want to *understand* a decision, this forum is an excellent place to discuss and debate it. But as a place to drum up support for the view that the officials are inept, or worse, out to get you, it is a really really bad place.

For that, a supporters' forum would be a far better place, I'm sure there are plenty who'd agree with you.
 
Top