Nigel Owens loss of form

[menace]

Kaplan is my new favourite referee of all time! :biggrin:

I feel I'm in good company now that he agrees with me on Hooper!

I still think he's wrong on that one.

The logical consequence of Hooper's actions being legal would mean that all a player has to do to legally hit his opponent late and head-hight is to launch himself recklessly towards a kicker, and he's off the hook for whatever happens when he collides with the opponent's head. Can you imagine how players like Butch James, Troy Flavell or Corne Krige would use that sort of latitude?

My bold.
Yes, I agree with you Ian, when contact is high.

My comment was because I was unceremoniously lambasted as my initial thoughts were supposedly odd. Obviously not that odd when a recently retired elite referee had the same thought on it.

 

[OB..]

If a player leaps in the air to block a kick, he knows (i) roughly where he will land, and (ii) that the kicker will not be able to take evasive action. He is therefore responsible for NOT landing dangerously on the kicker. Arguing that he could not change course in midair is ridiculous.

If two players are jumping for the ball we have a quite different situation.

 

[RobLev]

My bold.
Yes, I agree with you Ian, when contact is high.

My comment was because I was unceremoniously lambasted as my initial thoughts were supposedly odd. Obviously not that odd when a recently retired elite referee had the same thought on it.

I suspect that the reaction to your initial thoughts was in part a reaction to the eloquent if terse terms in which you expressed those thoughts.

Since you agree with Ian "when contact is high", and Hooper's hips hit the kicker in the head, you presumably now accept that a YC for Hooper was not "bullshit"?

 

[Pegleg]

Exactly!

 

[menace]

I suspect that the reaction to your initial thoughts was in part a reaction to the eloquent if terse terms in which you expressed those thoughts.

Since you agree with Ian "when contact is high", and Hooper's hips hit the kicker in the head, you presumably now accept that a YC for Hooper was not "bullshit"?

Yes. I had already conceded in and post above that YC for repeated head contact was appropriate and confessed that initially I did not see the high contact to the head and therefore didn't think Hoopers offence warranted a PK for the jumping action. I'm happy to admit I was wrong.

Ps I'll transfer my "bullshit" comment for the Phibbs YC, and NOs overall performance! :wink::wink::biggrin:

 

[Browner]

Hooper's dad ??

http://www.rugbydump.com/2008/10/711/midweek-madness-the-human-hurdle-attempt#allcomments

 

[Browner]

Looks like he's back on form, ie delivering this quip

http://www.rugbydump.com/2014/10/39...l-owens-is-straighter-than-this-lineout-throw

 

[Dixpat]

Ok - I will start it off

His decision making in the England v AB game was well off the mark at the big moments [in my opinion]

Cruden's try - doubtful, though even in replay I was unsure whether it was or wasn't

Whitelock's disallowed try - ball stationary on ground, over line. As soon as pressed by Whitelock its a try - what happened after he touched it is immaterial A player grounds the ball when it is on the ground in the in-goal and the player presses down on it with a hand or hands, arm or arms, or the front of the player’s body from waist to neck inclusive

To be influenced by the crowd after he had awarded Faumuina's try showed a lack of confidence in his own decision making

Penalty try - a crock of shite - try probably scored? If he wanted to be consistent then the infringement after the SBW break when an England player interfered with the Franks pass while offside when the ABs had a try at their mercy was also a PT

 

[The Fat]

To be influenced by the crowd after he had awarded Faumuina's try showed a lack of confidence in his own decision making

The review was fair enough.
Expect the IRB to issue a memo that advertising, painted on grass in in-goal should not be within a certain distance of the goal line and not have a white line identical to the goal line as a border.

 

[Ian_Cook]

The review was fair enough.
Expect the IRB to issue a memo that advertising, painted on grass in in-goal should not be within a certain distance of the goal line and not have a white line identical to the goal line as a border.

There should be no advertising at all allowed in the in-goal

 

[Crucial]

I don't think the review was 'fair enough'. It isn't part of the game and never has been for a referee to change decisions already made except for foul play. If a referee can review his own decision well after he has made it why can't players request the same when they believe he has erred?
It's a bad path to be going down and although the TMO protocols don't state any time limit on review they do start with the premise that the TMO is there to help the ref make a decision. If he has already made one and no other authorised match official has raised a review within a reasonable time it looks damn stupid to start second guessing yourself.
NO was having a bad day at the office the other night and had obviously lost confidence in what he was seeing.

 

[Simon Thomas]

There should be no advertising at all allowed in the in-goal

The In goal areas are very valuable real-estate for our advertiser clients ! Their position is that I f the professional Game wants to take their money it has to accept that brand / corporate messages have to get maximum return and impact. Otherwise don't make the real-estate available and reduce their revenue expectations.

 

[Browner]

The In goal areas are very valuable real-estate for our advertiser clients ! Their position is that I f the professional Game wants to take their money it has to accept that brand / corporate messages have to get maximum return and impact. Otherwise don't make the real-estate available and reduce their revenue expectations.

Id expect that to be their position, however if their position was to expect referees to have logos painted on the forehead then I'd expect the RFU to say no thanks.

Adjust the real estate marketing rules accordingly, no advertising white lines near Critical pitch white lines .......end of.

 

[crossref]

I don't think the review was 'fair enough'. It isn't part of the game and never has been for a referee to change decisions already made except for foul play. If a referee can review his own decision well after he has made it why can't players request the same when they believe he has erred?
It's a bad path to be going down and although the TMO protocols don't state any time limit on review they do start with the premise that the TMO is there to help the ref make a decision. If he has already made one and no other authorised match official has raised a review within a reasonable time it looks damn stupid to start second guessing yourself.
NO was having a bad day at the office the other night and had obviously lost confidence in what he was seeing.

As a point of principle I disagree Have you never made a wrong decision, realised, and been able to correct yourself. ?
I once gave a try when a player scored on the 5m line. I think that when I realised what I had done, I was quite right to revoke the try, let's not be stupid about it.

 

[Crucial]

I somehow bet you didn't wait until the kicker was concentrating on his conversion to stop him and have a think about it though.

The whole big screen replay/ crowd reaction thing is getting out of hand and is placing far too much pressure on the ref.

I understand that FIFA don't allow replays of 'incidents' at grounds unless they have been ruled on. Could be an idea.

 

[Simon Thomas]

however if their position was to expect referees to have logos painted on the forehead then I'd expect the RFU to say no thanks.

Great innovation, now that is a good one. Amlin may go for it :biggrin: and as for the RFU - well I wonder if Commercial Director or a law sub-Committee carries more clout with Ian Ritchie ?

From experience RFU, European, RABO, other Unions and IRB are up for most suggestions that increases sponsorship and marketing revenues.

On a similar marketing topic, great to see the Sky ad break top & tail promotions for sponsor QBE - 2015 new coaches for 2015 built on RWC "fever". However there seems to be sod all centrally to help us in RFU Societies recruits, train, retain and develop suitably competent referees to officiate the matches these new coaches teams want to play !

 

[Ian_Cook]

The In goal areas are very valuable real-estate for our advertiser clients ! Their position is that I f the professional Game wants to take their money it has to accept that brand / corporate messages have to get maximum return and impact. Otherwise don't make the real-estate available and reduce their revenue expectations.

In that case make the whole of the in-goal an advertisement, either the logo/sign-writing takes up the entire area or not at all.

Alternately, butt the edge of the adverting right up against the official white line, be it the GL DBL or TiG.

Whatever they do, they should NOT have a second white line close to the goal-line.

 

[crossref]

I somehow bet you didn't wait until the kicker was concentrating on his conversion to stop him and have a think about it though.

The whole big screen replay/ crowd reaction thing is getting out of hand and is placing far too much pressure on the ref.

I understand that FIFA don't allow replays of 'incidents' at grounds unless they have been ruled on. Could be an idea.

I was talking about the prinicipal more than that one specific incdient -- your post said

It isn't part of the game and never has been for a referee to change decisions already made except for foul play.

I don't agree, If the ball is still dead and nothing else has happened then it is correct and sensible thing to change a decision that you realise was simply plain wrong.

 

[Simon Thomas]

In that case make the whole of the in-goal an advertisement, either the logo/sign-writing takes up the entire area or not at all.

Alternately, butt the edge of the adverting right up against the official white line, be it the GL DBL or TiG.

Whatever they do, they should NOT have a second white line close to the goal-line.

Whole in-goal sounds good to me - but held at the current isolated logo prices :biggrin:

Not sure how we deal with the camera angles to get the right perspectives but the technical guys can solve that.

As serious suggestion, creative partners have looked at technology that overlays brand messages on top of the transmitted content, either as a central feed for broadcast or from the set top box for Pay TV and through the broadband connection and browser / app for online services. Bit like the green screen CGI stuff used in films was the impression I got.

 

[Crucial]

I was talking about the prinicipal more than that one specific incdient -- your post said


I don't agree, If the ball is still dead and nothing else has happened then it is correct and sensible thing to change a decision that you realise was simply plain wrong.

I see your point and agree. I was referring more to general play incidents when refs will often make a call then realise they got it wrong as play is restarting but will apologise rather than reverse.