RWC Aus vs Sco

[Darryl Godden]

Ugo Monye said he saw the bottle incident.

https://twitter.com/ugomonye/status/656061811553357824

He seems fairly insistent, you'd have thought there'd be some coverage, as someone alluded to earlier - it's not as if the media don't like this sort of incident!

 

[Phil E]

"Someone threw a bottle at him, didn't they?" Cheika said. "I'd be racing off, too, if someone threw a bottle. I don't think that's funny. I think I saw a bottle go on the field - what is that?

So the first bit is a question, implying that he didn't see it himself.

The he says "if someone threw a bottle" and "I think I saw..."

So Cheika didn't actually see anything.


Ugo Monye says he saw it. But other people on that twitter thread say he was already down the tunnel before it happened, which doesn't make it right, but it negates it as a reason to run off the field.

 

[chbg]

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.

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.

 

[Dixie]

I have an issue with this. THe suggesting is coming through that he had bottles thrown at him. To get out from that environment is NOT an act of cowardice. The cowards are any "supporters" wh othrew anything onto the pitch.

When the dust settles and the truth emerges, then and only then can you make such a bold statement.

But i'd suggest it I was having stuiff thrown at me - I'd leg it. Even plastic bottles if full are a hefty vessel. I'm not sure i'd hang around thinking "its only a plastic bottle which maybe won't hurt me" !

So Didds and Pegleg, let me ask you to explore your explanation a little further:

You're standing 15-20m from the crowd, which starts to throw stuff, and you are miked up. Instead of continuing your normal post-game routine, which is to head infield out of harm's way and shake hands with the players - where you could quietly call in your predicament and ask for a few stewards to ensure your safe return - let me just confirm that your natural instinct would be to sprint towards the oncoming missiles in an effort to avoid them. Is that a fair summary?

 

[TimothyQ]

Hopefully we will find out the circumstances of Joubert leaving the field in the review, but I don't think the 'I don't see people criticising the hooker' argument really holds up in this case, nor does the argument that 'personal' comments are unwarranted.

If Joubert did leave the field to avoid a confrontation with the Scotland players (rather than fleeing a hailstorm of plastic) then it is his integrity and respect for the game that is being questioned, not his competence as a referee. Therefore it is necessary that 'personal' comments may for part of the commentary, if we want to draw a comparison with players actions (and how they were treated in the media) then I think Huget's dive last year would be a good place to start.

As far as tens of thousands of irate fans goes? I'm sorry, but this isn't meant to be an easy job, it's expected for a referee to look both captains in the eye, deal with it.

 

[Darryl Godden]

I think the accusation here is that is suits Australia to say the crowd launched missiles at Joubert as it gives his egress a better reason than just running from a bad decision.

However, none of the TV footage appears to support this claim.

Not that any of this makes any difference to the game, other than to question CJ's reasons for buggering off so quickly.

 

[OB..]

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.

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.

 

[crossref]

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.

while "the outrageous referee's decision" would not normally be taken to mean that the referee was wearing fancy dress.

English is very flexible, however IMO the adjective is nomally next to the noun that it qualifies, and the natural meaning of Ian's quote is that the referee was poor. But I accept that wasn't what was meant.

 

[OB..]

I was horrified by Hasting's insistence that he should never be allowed to referee again. I put it down to an excess of emotion - not good in a commentator.

I agree, however that Joubert leaving the field in a sprint/jog (depending on who you believe) looked bad.

 

[crossref]

I that Joubert leaving the field in a sprint/jog (depending on who you believe)

judge for yourself - it's here

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ru...tch-Twitter-reacts-Australia-vs-Scotland.html


I'd say: jog.

 

[OB..]

while "the outrageous referee's decision" would not normally be taken to mean that the referee was wearing fancy dress.

Agreed.

English is very flexible, however IMO the adjective is nomally next to the noun that it qualifies

No, it is context driven, as our contrasting examples show, and in this case it was ambiguous.

 

[Darryl Godden]

So Sam Bruce kindly got in touch on Twitter, here's his replies:

@DarrylGodden Hi Darryl. I saw two bottles fly onto the pitch as Joubert neared the tunnel. Not saying they were aimed at him, but ..certainly in the vicinity. Cheers.

I asked whether he was actually at the stadium:

@DarrylGodden Yes. Sitting in press area middle tier - so had a good view.

I guess that's two independent statements (Monye & this chap) which raises the bigger question - who's throwing stuff onto the pitch and are the police going to investigate?

 

[The umpire]

Monye says he saw it. But other people on that twitter thread say he was already down the tunnel before it happened, which doesn't make it right, but it negates it as a reason to run off the field.

But he didn't say it was out on the field causing him to run off, so not inconsistent with other reports e. g. The Times, that there was a bottle at the entrance to the tunnel, after he'd scuttled off.

 

[didds]

all I do know is that a friend who was at the game saw at least one item thrown.

that may of course have been the only item.

but it is clearly not a total fabrication.

That said Simon's point about waiting in the tunnel is a very valid one.

didds

 

[crossref]

reviewing the video, and the eyewitness accounts, I would surmise, on balance of probabilities, that
- CJ decided to leave the pitch of his own accord
- and then something was thrown as he neared the tunnel

 

[Rushforth]

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.

Although grammatically it could mean either, there are two different logical ways to look at it. Ian is of the mindset that "poor" clearly binds to "decision", because a poor referee wouldn't have a RWC QF in the first place. He could however have written "the referee's poor decision", which unlike "the referee's South African decision" would have made it 100% clear what he meant. Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana, and all that.

Having penalised twice for http://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=11.7 yesterday myself my instinctive reaction was that it would be a penalty against Blue. With the benefit of slow-motion replays and the letter of the law "next plays the ball" perhaps Scotland were unlucky, but to single out a decision at the end of the match isn't helpful.

If the protocol is to change, where there is a TMO available of course, then perhaps it should be on a basis similar to DRS in cricket. To prevent it being overused, allow a single review only per captain for technical calls outside the area currently under TMO protocol. Extend with a management team "citing" protocol if necessary (buzzer to TMO).

 

[crossref]

that's not a bad idea -- to allow a team captain to request one review per game (and if it is upheld to request another one)
or alternatively just give the referee discretion to refer anything he feels is match-critical, in his judgement.


I just think it's a horrible thing for a referee to give him one chance to make a vital decision, and then immediately humiliate him with videos played to the whole world that show he was wrong. Bad luck, old fellow, eh?

 

[Pegleg]

So Didds and Pegleg, let me ask you to explore your explanation a little further:

You're standing 15-20m from the crowd, which starts to throw stuff, and you are miked up. Instead of continuing your normal post-game routine, which is to head infield out of harm's way and shake hands with the players - where you could quietly call in your predicament and ask for a few stewards to ensure your safe return - let me just confirm that your natural instinct would be to sprint towards the oncoming missiles in an effort to avoid them. Is that a fair summary?

I have no idea how I would react. Neither do you, unless it has happened to you. I chose not to assume. It might be a good Idea for few others to do likewise.

 

[Pegleg]

With regard to the protocol. I can't see an issue where the ref blows for a scrum or PK in a situation like this a quick question up the line "PK or Scrum?" would add nuch time to the game. But it must be in the protocol or we have madness.

I don't like a limit to the number of appeals as it could still lead to a poor call at the end of the game going uncorrected because of a team havign used up their appeals. We do need to get it sorted but we need to sort it properly not with another botched sticking plaster solution.

 

[crossref]

I don't like a limit to the number of appeals as it could still lead to a poor call at the end of the game going uncorrected because of a team havign used up their appeals. We do need to get it sorted but we need to sort it properly not with another botched sticking plaster solution.

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