RWC Aus vs Sco

[Crucial]

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.

I heard that he will be given the 3/4 playoff game so he can keep his newfound Australian fans happy again.

 

[Darryl Godden]

Not sure if it's useful, for those that don't tweet:

 

[davidlandy]

It may well be that his assessor views it as a critical incident.

Could you please expand on this for the benefit of us non-refs? What is a "critical incident", in this context? Someone was saying earlier a penalty in the 1st minute is the same as a penalty in the 79th minute, but is there an acceptance officially from the reffing POV that this isn't the case?

If so he will not do the final or either semi final but unlikely to as SA are still in the tournament. So I suspect SF will be Garces and one of WB or NO and the final will be the one that doesnt do a semi.

You were spot on about that

 

[Dickie E]

I heard that he will be given the 3/4 playoff game so he can keep his newfound Australian fans happy again.

But South Africa will be there too. Is a neutral ref required?

 

[davidlandy]

On another subject - has the Hogg hit been discussed? Strange how that wasn't penalised as it seemed very clear cut, has it even been cited?

I asked about this earlier and got a reply from "menace" (from Aus):

#69

On another note, I thought Aus were lucky to get away without YC for repeatedly collapsing the scrum (and the final two times they weren't even PK'd for it), and for getting away without sanction for the late shoulder charge on the Scot kicker (can't remember the name now) toward the end of the game. That could have been referred to the TMO, but wasn't. What do others think?

#71

To label that a 'Shoulder charge' is a bit rich, slightly a bit late, but in the 'marginal' basket for mine. Also lets not forget if the TMO sees foul play then he doesn't need to be invited to intervene (God knows Ayoub did it enough times!) so obviously you'd say the TMO thought AAC was committed to try and spoil the kick. Nothing in it. Move on.

I think you could argue Sio would have been right on the border of YC. The scrum where he did his shoulder (and left the ground) probably should have been a card which would have been his fourth PK. Had CJ gone to PK rather than play on from a collapsed scrum wtf then I think the card might have emerged? But who knows. I think CJ bailed on many scrum decisions - for both sides.

I agree it was in the marginal zone, but turning the shoulder in to hit with no arms made me think it was something else, kind of two marginals at the same time, if you know what I mean.

And I don't agree that AAC was so committed to the tackle that he couldn't avoid the contact... OTOH, it was a critical stage of the game and to call something marginal for a penalty... well we all know what can happen! Would be interesting to hear others' views...

Re collapsing the scrum, Sio was pinged three times in succession for collapsing the scrum, should this have been a YC?

Law 10.3(c):

Repeated infringements: standard applied by referee. When the referee decides how
many offences constitute repeated infringement, the referee must always apply a strict
standard in representative and senior matches. When a player offends three times the
referee must caution that player.
​

Does this mean a YC is mandatory after three offences - or the player must get warned after three offences? Everywhere else in this section the Laws say "cautioned and suspended" but here it just says "cautioned". I didn't see or hear CJ caution him after the 3rd...

And the last 3 scrums were collapse, pop-up, pop-up, all of which were ignored by CJ, who waved play on. My view FWIW was that it should have been a card for the 4th collapse, and a penalty for the two pop-ups - Aus didn't want to take the shove, simple as.

Law 8.3

(d) Collapsed scrum. Advantage must not be applied when a scrum collapses. The referee
must blow the whistle immediately.

(e) Player lifted in the air. Advantage must not be applied when a player in a scrum is lifted in
the air or forced upwards out of the scrum. The referee must blow the whistle immediately.
​

Not sure where any ambiguity would come from here :wtf:

 

[The Fat]

You may want to check the replay regarding Sio. I believe the 3rd offence you refer to wasn't actually against Sio.
I remember thinking when watching it live , thank god that wasn't Sio again

 

[davidlandy]

You may want to check the replay regarding Sio. I believe the 3rd offence you refer to wasn't actually against Sio.
I remember thinking when watching it live , thank god that wasn't Sio again

Ah OK, if so I stand corrected...

But then again, if it was the third scrum in a row which had been collapsed by Aus, wouldn't it fall into the same category, ie three repeats (by the team) and you are warned/YC?

 

[Pegleg]

I asked about this earlier and got a reply from "menace" (from Aus):

#69


#71


I agree it was in the marginal zone, but turning the shoulder in to hit with no arms made me think it was something else, kind of two marginals at the same time, if you know what I mean.

And I don't agree that AAC was so committed to the tackle that he couldn't avoid the contact... OTOH, it was a critical stage of the game and to call something marginal for a penalty... well we all know what can happen! Would be interesting to hear others' views...

Re collapsing the scrum, Sio was pinged three times in succession for collapsing the scrum, should this have been a YC?

Law 10.3(c):

Repeated infringements: standard applied by referee. When the referee decides how
many offences constitute repeated infringement, the referee must always apply a strict
standard in representative and senior matches. When a player offends three times the
referee must caution that player.
​

Does this mean a YC is mandatory after three offences - or the player must get warned after three offences? Everywhere else in this section the Laws say "cautioned and suspended" but here it just says "cautioned". I didn't see or hear CJ caution him after the 3rd...

And the last 3 scrums were collapse, pop-up, pop-up, all of which were ignored by CJ, who waved play on. My view FWIW was that it should have been a card for the 4th collapse, and a penalty for the two pop-ups - Aus didn't want to take the shove, simple as.

Law 8.3

(d) Collapsed scrum. Advantage must not be applied when a scrum collapses. The referee
must blow the whistle immediately.

(e) Player lifted in the air. Advantage must not be applied when a player in a scrum is lifted in
the air or forced upwards out of the scrum. The referee must blow the whistle immediately.
​

Not sure where any ambiguity would come from here :wtf:

(e) Player lifted in the air. Advantage must not be applied when a player in a scrum is lifted in
the air or forced upwards out of the scrum. The referee must blow the whistle immediately.


and not


(e) Player lifts himself in the air. Advantage must not be applied when a player in a scrum lifts himself into the air or forces himself upwards out of the scrum. The referee must blow the whistle immediately.


Try lifting yourself off the ground.

 

[Pegleg]

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.

EXACTLY even when you are talking bull you say it as you see it. There's a lot I will be critical, in your dealings with other posters and what I see as abuses of your mod position. But you are being missprepresented by our australian friend and that is wrong.

 

[menace]

Could you please expand on this for the benefit of us non-refs? What is a "critical incident", in this context? Someone was saying earlier a penalty in the 1st minute is the same as a penalty in the 79th minute, but is there an acceptance officially from the reffing POV that this isn't the case?



You were spot on about that

I can't speak for other referees but my objective is to be as consistent with my decisions as possible. So what I deem a material PK in the 1st minute I would want to apply the same threshold in the 79th minute, equally the field position does not dictate whether I award a PK or not - it's same/same. But what we deem as material will be affected by many variables, such as skill level and even fatigue and changing conditions during the game. It is not uncommmon for the referee to be very strict early in the game to set a high standard they want the players to abide during the game but at the end of the game some of the strictness may be 'loosened' (don't forget referees fatigue too and that effects decisions and judgment). For eg a player not rolling quick enough and slowing a ball early when player energy levels are high may be PK, but in the last 2 minutes with all players fatigued after slogging in the mud and the score is 100-0 may get away with the same slowing roll. A referees empathy is a big part of facilitating a game. Of course I'm talking community rugby too....elite levels such will have elite standards for the 80min (but we are still dealing with humans, not robots).

But I also realise I am human and I WILL make mistakes, so I want to make sure I reduce them and that any mistake is not a 'critical incident' such that it doesn't directly change the score or worse, affect the result! As a referee I do not want to dictate the result, I want the players to do that. No genuine referee goes out there wanting to affect the score or result. It's not in our psyche. This applies to decisions and non-decisions I make.

CJs error is what is called a 'critical incident' - as it was a decision that lead to a change in score and it dictated the result. IMO, his error was NOT the decision he made on what HE saw, his error is 'what he didn't see'. I'd imagine his assessor will be asking him, ' what did you see, and why is it you think you didn't you see the ball come off gold?', followed up by 'is there anything you can do different next time to avoid this??' I'm betting CJ would feel terrible about what happened and he doesn't need the haters on social media to make him feel bad.

Interestingly IMO there was not much crowd reaction to the PK at the time UNTIL the replays started on the big screen! I would say most of the crowd that had some idea offside rugby laws probably thought blue was offside and accepted it was a PK. Things changed when there were multiple slo mos at every angle. CJ had one look from one angle. He did his job. It's unfortunate it was an error.

 

[The Fat]

Ah OK, if so I stand corrected...

But then again, if it was the third scrum in a row which had been collapsed by Aus, wouldn't it fall into the same category, ie three repeats (by the team) and you are warned/YC?

CJ, IMHO, should have warned after the 2nd collapse by the same player that a further scrum infringement by that player would have consequences.
Three penalties in successive scrums should have been a team warning, minimum.

Having said that, I'm not convinced that Sio was guilty on both occasions he was penalised for collapsing. Will have to find a video.
Overall, I thought CJ's scrum management was about a 6/10.
By late in the 2nd half, he didn't want to penalise scrum collapses at all which means he wasn't consistent throughout the match.
I know he got a couple of calls from his ARs for scrum infringements and a couple were dodgy calls.

 

[menace]

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

EXACTLY even when you are talking bull you say it as you see it. There's a lot I will be critical, in your dealings with other posters and what I see as abuses of your mod position. But you are being missprepresented by our australian friend and that is wrong.

:wtf::shrug:

Yes I don't know how anyone could possibly have misrepresented an ambiguous statement.:biggrin::biggrin:

 

[Wedgie]

Supportive article in today's Telegraph by Will Greenwood, including a St. Nige-ism that I hadn't heard before....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ru...nd-you-are-attacking-the-spirit-of-rugby.html

 

[Ian_Cook]

I have no doubt that Sio was repsonsble for both the collapses he was PK for, especially the second one (TheFat is right, the third one wasn't him. I didn't get CJ's call but I thought the PK was on Kepu's side)

The Scots THP WP Nel spent the first 50 minutes handing Sio a scrummaging lession. Nel is a very, very powerful scrummager, and one of the best THP's playing the Super Rugby during his stint for the Free State Cheetahs before he was snaffled by Ediunburgh. He is one of the few THPs I have ever seen hand ‘the Beast’ his arse on a plate. It was in the Currie Cup final a few years back. The Wallaby scrum was shored up considerably when Slipper came on to replace Sio.

 

[Darryl Godden]

Interestingly IMO there was not much crowd reaction to the PK at the time UNTIL the replays started on the big screen! I would say most of the crowd that had some idea offside rugby laws probably thought blue was offside and accepted it was a PK. Things changed when there were multiple slo mos at every angle. CJ had one look from one angle. He did his job. It's unfortunate it was an error.

I appreciate your response, although I disagree with this comment. The advantage arm and simultaneous full penalty was roundly booed as soon as it was indicated. Although the possibility remains that people would just boo a penalty at such a critical moment, because it went against them. Whether it was justified or not.

 

[The Fat]

Supportive article in today's Telegraph by Will Greenwood, including a St. Nige-ism that I hadn't heard before....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ru...nd-you-are-attacking-the-spirit-of-rugby.html

Good article. Thanks for posting the link.
While on the subject of abuse by commentators and players, has there been any reaction to the BBC commentators? I think someone posted on here that some of what they said was outrageous.
Also, has anyone heard what Stuart Hogg (with his arm raised and pointing) was saying to CJ as he was jogging past Hogg at the end of the game? Hogg seemed to be giving CJ directions to, well let's just say, somewhere.

 

[crossref]

I appreciate your response, although I disagree with this comment. The advantage arm and simultaneous full penalty was roundly booed as soon as it was indicated. Although the possibility remains that people would just boo a penalty at such a critical moment, because it went against them. Whether it was justified or not.

It really DIDN'T help that, about ten minutes earlier, CJ had given a scrum for pretty much the same thing -- explaining several times to everyone who had reflink that the offside blue player on that occasion had caught the ball accidentally, so it was only a scrum.

Anyone unfamiliar with the Law, but paying attention, would surely expect another scrum, regardless of whether an Aussi hand had touched the ball.

 

[Darryl Godden]

What a strange day to wake up to.

I'm not 100% certain how I feel about the Word Rugby/CJ contrition. On one hand it's great to see openness and the ability to admit mistakes, we're all human and all that, but surely the statement just serves to create even more heartache/anger for the Scots?

I can't think of a previous incident where the score has been so resolutely affected by an incorrect on-field decision by an official and that decision has been admitted as being wrong. I'm sure someone can.

Does it debase Australia's right to be in the QF's? Will their game be constantly marred and commented upon that they shouldn't be there?

On a slightly different note, when was the last time a player stepped up and informed the referee that they had done something which would change the referees decision? From memory I think I remember a Leicester player doing it some years ago - touch prior to the ball going out, but not a match changing decision.

Bit of a ramble, apols.

 

[Darryl Godden]

Good article. Thanks for posting the link.
While on the subject of abuse by commentators and players, has there been any reaction to the BBC commentators? I think someone posted on here that some of what they said was outrageous.
Also, has anyone heard what Stuart Hogg (with his arm raised and pointing) was saying to CJ as he was jogging past Hogg at the end of the game? Hogg seemed to be giving CJ directions to, well let's just say, somewhere.

Strange editorial line up The Times have got there, a 'Devils advocate' piece from Will Greenwood, with a link to an article titled "Is Craig Joubert the Worst Referee at RWC 2015?"

I doubt it was Will's decision, but strange all the same.

 

[Camquin]

Darryl, you are obviously not a Quins supporter.

There was the famous line out given the wrong way from which Newcastle scored to win the Tetley Cup, which Steve Lander later admitted he got wrong.

Not that we are bitter or that we hold grudges - except against Wasps for beinga bunch of splitters.

Camquin