RWC Aus vs Sco

[Dixpat]

It seemed to me that CJ was influenced by the Australian players yelling at him for a PK

Immediately he saw a KO he signalled advantage appropriately then there was a "significant" delay before he awarded the PK and it was during that delay the yells were coming at him

I use the term significantly in a relative sense being relative to the time that it took for the pinball to conclude.

On the other hand it could be that he was using that time to run things over in his mind

 

[Pegleg]

I am not claiming to have an answer, just convinced that we have a problem. What happened to CJ should never have to happen again.

So I'm floating some options. The two obvious ones are to
- let the referee call for a review
- captain has a number of appeals
- TMO can simply come in, uninvited (as indeed they do for foul play)

Currently if an AR can see that the the referee has missed something, or is about to make a bad decision, he is able to come in discreetly on coms - uninvited - and put things right. Perhaps a TMO could have similar privilege.

Perhaps we should have two TMOs, one supervising, both eyes on the game, communicating with the ref, and directing the other TMO, who has his head buried in the screen watching replays.

Perhaps there are better ideas. I don't have the answers but we need some suggestions.
And yes we should trial any changes

And I totally agree with you! It is the right thing to do. We discuss the issues and we agree / disagree etc. You put an idea forward and we debate it. nothing wrong with that. Out of your three suggestions I think ther first and third are worth following up. The second is fraught with issues.

My comment was directed at Rushforth.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Ian you should get with the times! Trust me: Twitter is made for you, you'd love it there.

I've seen some of the crap that gets dished up there. No thanks. I barely tolerate Facebook as it is

Twitter is aptly named, a breeding ground for idiots

 

[crossref]

I've seen some of the crap that gets dished up there. No thanks. I barely tolerate Facebook as it is

Twitter is aptly named, a breeding ground for idiots

there you go, it's perfect for you, just trim a dozen or so characters and, right there, you have your first tweet :wink:

 

[Rawling]

Re. the Twitter feed, it was definitely our account - I was following it from the feed on the rugbyrefs.com homepage.

It started out insisting that the gold player had not deliberately played the ball, briefly segued into how they hadn't played it at all, and then went with 11.9 for the duration.

It's still all there, if you can scroll down past all the 11.9 references.

 

[rocco]

Do we think JC will be charged with bringing the game into disrepute for his after the whistle antics or will they duck the issue? One wonders what would happen to a player who runs away refusing to shake hands with the other team. For someone who has to be seen to apply the highest standards of the code of behaviour of the game, I think it has set a very poor and public example.

I am sure lots will defend him, and on a personal level that is good, but this is another big step away from the ethos of the game usually defended under the heading modern sport.

 

[Blackberry]

Re: World Rugby admits Joubert got it wrong.

WR have admitted that CJ got it wrong..

http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/news/115761

On review of all available angles, it is clear that after the knock-on, the ball was touched by Australia’s Nick Phipps and Law 11.3(c) states that a player can be put on-side by an opponent who intentionally plays the ball.

It is important to clarify that, under the protocols, the referee could not refer to the television match official in this case and therefore had to rely on what he saw in real time. In this case, Law 11.3(c) should have been applied, putting Welsh onside. The appropriate decision, therefore, should have been a scrum to Australia for the original knock-on.

That settles it

End of


ETA:

If anyone is questioning whether Phipps played the ball intentionally, this leaves very little room for doubt

As accurately predicted in post 3 of this thread.
Do we have a smug emoticom?

 

[Dixpat]

Re: World Rugby admits Joubert got it wrong.

As accurately predicted in post 3 of this thread.
Do we have a smug emoticom?

Blackberry - not sure how you get from the WR statement that the KO came from a yellow player as per your post 3

 

[The Fat]

Re: World Rugby admits Joubert got it wrong.

Blackberry - not sure how you get from the WR statement that the KO came from a yellow player as per your post 3

Happy to claim it in post #20 then even though if in CJ's position with one look at full pace I would have given the same PK decision

 

[4eyesbetter]

Re : Re: RWC Aus vs Sco

I've seen some of the crap that gets dished up there. No thanks. I barely tolerate Facebook as it is

Twitter is aptly named, a breeding ground for idiots

You get out of Twitter what you put into it. There's some great groups of people on there, and it can be extremely good for egalitarian discussion. I'm always surprised by the range of knowledgable people who are prepared to talk on equal terms with Joe Soap from the public bar, as long as Joe Soap isn't an obvious twerp.

 

[liversedge]

I'd suggest extending the 'check,check' protocol to include Penalties, if a kick at goal is called there will be time, if not, play on.

Additionally, let the referee use TV for ANY reason they deem fit, at all times.

I dislike the idea of a captain asking for a review since it undermines the referee.

 

[liversedge]

Re: Re : Re: RWC Aus vs Sco

You get out of Twitter what you put into it. There's some great groups of people on there, and it can be extremely good for egalitarian discussion. I'm always surprised by the range of knowledgable people who are prepared to talk on equal terms with Joe Soap from the public bar, as long as Joe Soap isn't an obvious twerp.

I recommend checking Brian Moore's timeline on Twitter. He certainly doesn't suffer fools and is excellent value.

 

[didds]

Risk and return. We do NOT want to see rugby becoming like American Football, where everything is slowed down at the elite level for the benefit of TV audiences (and advertisers).

The 'howler' - not the case here IMO - was the reason for the DRS in cricket being introduced. But in cricket the umpires CAN call for reviews from their 'TMO' when they aren't sure themselves.

... but we do see now that some aspects of play that are "always" covered by DRS and 3rd umpires are now just ignored by on field umpires. eg no-balls, which are seemingly only now called when need to over rule a dismissal.

or summat like that.

didds

 

[Ian_Cook]

Re: World Rugby admits Joubert got it wrong.

As accurately predicted in post 3 of this thread.
Do we have a smug emoticom?

How about this, sung to a two-tone sound similar to some police sirens...

NAH, NAH NANAH NAH!!

 

[winchesterref]

in tennis if your appeal is sucesssful it doesn't count toward your limit. That's always seemed to me a good rule

Tennis players now use these tactically to alow the game down at certain points and interrupt momentum. I dislike thenideas of challenges in rugby, and would prefer the TMO to widen the remit. Even more so I would prefer the referee to just be able to get on with it!

 

[menace]

NO, it cannot be interpreted "as you like" it can only be interpreted one way.

See that little black thing after the last "e" and before the "s". Its called an apostrophe, and it denotes ownership; in this case, the referee (noun) owns the decision (verb) and poor (adjective) can only refer to the decision, not the referee.

As I said I was having a bit of fun with the wording you used but obviously you took it as some sort of personal attack. I suspected that it was about the decisions but sometimes you never know with you and it could have been about the referee - it's not unlike you to say when you think a referee is poor. I didn't use emoticons as I didn't think they were needed. I must say I did enjoy how quickly you resorted to a patronizing response. It obviously doesn't take much to press your buttons. Browner must really have done a number on you?

You're the one geting upset sunshine. I pointed out that Ian (someone I personally dislike) did not say what you claimed. To suggest that post 64 make post 54 a bit of fun is interesting.

I'm not even able to work out what the second paragraph means.

I didn't think it was that cryptic? I was suggesting that as Ian was an avid AB fan and they ARE the 2015 RWC champs (let's not kid ourselves) that he should be a bit happier and not get all huffy about some grammar BS (nor worry about poor referees or poor decisions).


Oh - I'm not your f@cking sunshine. :biggrin:

No Ian, "a very poor referee's decision" has (should have) a different meaning from "a referee's very poor decision". Adjectives usually go before the noun that they modify.

In both contexts, decision is in NO way a verb - I decision, you decision?? In the first phrase there could be a compound noun ("referee's decision" - as opposed to any other sort of decision), but it is not common, so we expect the adjective to modify the possessive noun; in the second it is clear which noun the adjective is modifying.

But most of us (probably all in reality) understood what you meant. Some enjoyed the moment to leg pull.

Thank you chgb - especially for having a little foresight to see there was some leg pulling in a thread that was going to have too much heat on poor CJ.

Grammatically the adjective "poor" could either refer to the phrase "referee's decision" or to the noun "referee". The apostrophe does not preclude the former. "The South African referee's decision" will not usually be interpreted as meaning a South African type decision by the referee.

Thanks OB...another sensible interpretation from you. You should be an assessor/adviser as you show good empathy for referees! epper::biggrin:

 

[The Fat]

And here I was thinking the poor referee was just a little hard up for money and assets

 

[menace]

Or just down on their luck...

CJ will be both...unlucky that game and lighter in the pocket now that he won't get a semi or the final.

 

[Ian_Cook]

As I said I was having a bit of fun with the wording you used but obviously you took it as some sort of personal attack. I suspected that it was about the decisions but sometimes you never know with you and it could have been about the referee - it's not unlike you to say when you think a referee is poor.

menace, you know me by know. I say what I think, and I don't just call a spade, a spade, I call it an effing shovel.

I prefer it that way, then there is no ambiguity, no confusion and everyone knows exactly where I stand.

If I thought CJ was generally a poor referee (and I don't) I would have said exactly what I thought and you would have been left in no doubt.

I still consider CJ to be a top referee; one of the best in the elite group, but just as happens with players, he's a bit out of form at the moment, and that drop off in form has simply come at a bad time for him and for the game.

As we all know in this game, form is only temporary, class is permanent, and Craig is a class act when at his best.

 

[menace]

Nonsense. The statment was gramatically ambiguous. However, Contextually both via the thread and previous threads, it was pretty clear as to the meaning.

That's drawing the bow too far, even for you.

When Ian made that fateful sentence (as it seems...I wonder if this important and controversial issue is trending on Twitter too? Here's some emoticons to help you interpret this post :biggrin::Nerv::swet::sarc:) it was his very first posting on this thread and most of us know that Ian does not suffer fools and does not necessarily agree with what was posted by others. So I'm not sure how you can proclaim that the context of Ian's meaning was defined by other postings?

I do agree that I suspected what he meant but it, to me, was humourous that Ians (f@ck..where do I put the apostrophe??? I'll just leave it out.) normally careful and crafted argument was on that occasion....ambiguous.

So chill out...it's such a non-issue ( and for this reason I need to question why I'm even responding...f@ck it, I've just realized I'm in a p!ssing contest that serves no purpose AND I'm standing into a stiff breeze! *Puts d!ck away and zips up*)