Iron_Lung
Referees in America
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2010
- Messages
- 256
- Post Likes
- 21
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 2
So I guess I must be missing something here. The world seems to be calling for change again...
http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/video-part-2-tri-nations-breakdowns/
Analysis by Green and Gold Rugby showing the issues at the breakdown caused by both the Wallabies and the All Blacks. To be fair I think it's actually a fairly well balanced and well reasoned presentation of the facts given the letter of the law. It shows that, for the most part, the issues are caused by all three teams in roughly the same proportion, and that the emphasis is placed on policing the defending team. I don't think there is anyone on the board who would have been surprised by those facts?
Overall though I thought that the analysis showed absolutely no understanding of material effect. I thought form this perspective that Craig Joubert had a fantastic game and blew penalties where they needed to be blown. He appropriately policed the breakdowns and was consistent and accurate in his refereeing of the T/R/M. I think the knock on shown in the video was borderline, but I have no issue with it not being blown up in this case, the playing it on the ground however is a different story, and one that should have led to a PK.
Overall I disagree with the analysis that the emphasis needs to change. I thought the refereeing was consistent and fair, and accurate for the most part. Based on that performance, I would not have any issues with Joubert reffing Aus v NZ in the final in October
If we change the emphasis away from the attacking team again then you lose the ball in hand running rugby that has been so prevalent in the Super 15 this year, and you go back to the kick and chase of 2007. Does anyone really want to go back to that?
http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/video-part-2-tri-nations-breakdowns/
Analysis by Green and Gold Rugby showing the issues at the breakdown caused by both the Wallabies and the All Blacks. To be fair I think it's actually a fairly well balanced and well reasoned presentation of the facts given the letter of the law. It shows that, for the most part, the issues are caused by all three teams in roughly the same proportion, and that the emphasis is placed on policing the defending team. I don't think there is anyone on the board who would have been surprised by those facts?
Overall though I thought that the analysis showed absolutely no understanding of material effect. I thought form this perspective that Craig Joubert had a fantastic game and blew penalties where they needed to be blown. He appropriately policed the breakdowns and was consistent and accurate in his refereeing of the T/R/M. I think the knock on shown in the video was borderline, but I have no issue with it not being blown up in this case, the playing it on the ground however is a different story, and one that should have led to a PK.
Overall I disagree with the analysis that the emphasis needs to change. I thought the refereeing was consistent and fair, and accurate for the most part. Based on that performance, I would not have any issues with Joubert reffing Aus v NZ in the final in October
If we change the emphasis away from the attacking team again then you lose the ball in hand running rugby that has been so prevalent in the Super 15 this year, and you go back to the kick and chase of 2007. Does anyone really want to go back to that?
