Scotland v Australia

[Rushforth]

Is the referee

1. completely and utterly incompetent?
2. completely and utterly incompetent, with regard to the scrum?
3. corrupt

Or perhaps he is just inventing new laws?

 

[Phil E]

I suspect he is better than you!

 

[Rushforth]

I suspect he is better than you!

I should hope so.

But his performance at the scrum suggests that he hasn't a clue about that.

Given the penalty count/balance in the last 20 minutes, I'm asking if option 2 - my opinion - is his problem. Because on the basis of the available evidence, options 1 and 3 are not unthinkable.

Oh, just to repeat, if you genuinely believe that this ref is "better than me" at reffing the scrum, I suggest you get a clue from somebody less clueless.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Is the referee

1. completely and utterly incompetent?
2. completely and utterly incompetent, with regard to the scrum?
3. corrupt

Or perhaps he is just inventing new laws?

Don't sit on the fence man! Tell us what you really think!

I also have a question

Were the forwards from both teams

1. completely and utterly incompetent?
2. completely and utterly incompetent, with regard to the scrum?
3. stupid

It takes two to tango. If the two packs weren't trying to illegally disrupt each other at every scrum, there would not have been as many problems.

Personally, I would like to have the referees given the power to simply declare the scrums to be uncontested if the two packs continually refuse to scrummage properly and within the Laws. Of course he could always achieve the same result by dishing out YC to intransigent front rowers until the two teams run out of STEs.

 

[Dixie]

perhaps Rolland had it right last week. You two - take 10 minutes off. Next!

 

[Rushforth]

If the two packs weren't trying to illegally disrupt each other at every scrum, there would not have been as many problems.

If the referee had told them to stand closer than they did last year, so that they could "crouch-bind-set", in accordance with recent briefings, it might have been easier to get a vaguely straight feed by the scrum-half.

We've just had a law clarification* that the "hit" is not actually the right interpretation, after 15 years of escalation, and the ref today seems to be oblivious.

*law clarification by IRB educators in a 2 hour meeting over consistent interpretation, as opposed to 3-minute youtube by some random intern.

 

[Account Deleted]

Is the referee

1. 
   [1]completely and utterly incompetent?
   [2]completely and utterly incompetent, with regard to the scrum?
   [3]corrupt

Or perhaps he is just inventing new laws?

1; Highly unlikely, considering he has got to that level. He may well have had a poor game.

2; See the answer to point 1.

3; A deeply offensive comment for one referee to make about another.

 

[menace]

3; A deeply offensive comment for one referee to make about another.

I'm starting think rushforth is not a referee, but a windup merchant! Of Chopperesque levels no less....but at least Chopper declared he wasn't a referee!

 

[Simon Thomas]

Personally, I would like to have the referees given the power to simply declare the scrums to be uncontested if the two packs continually refuse to scrummage properly and within the Laws..

which is exactly what my L5 Group referee threatened to do today, and thereafter got compliance after 3 PKs and a PT !

Long chat with both scrum coaches and DoRs in clubhouse who just did not get it - that they have to be legal !

 

[Simon Thomas]

Is the referee

1. completely and utterly incompetent?
2. completely and utterly incompetent, with regard to the scrum?
3. corrupt

Or perhaps he is just inventing new laws?

I am afraid that I have great difficulty taking you and your comments seriously. Your third comment is offensive and your fourth niaive about an internationally selected referee who has passed through a massive selection and quality assurance process. You do not seem to understand the technical complexity of rugby at elite levels.

 

[damo]

Is the referee

1. completely and utterly incompetent?
2. completely and utterly incompetent, with regard to the scrum?
3. corrupt

Or perhaps he is just inventing new laws?

:norc:

 

[menace]

I've yet to watch the entire game (PVR), but Jaco Peyper is a pretty good referee at this level (and a bloody nice guy, I've met and chatted to him when I've done no 5 for him at super XV). He may have had an indifferent game, but there is no questioning his integrity, knowledge or ability.

 

[The Fat]

Another example of that old discussion chestnut happened in this game and I am surprised that no Macs have pounced on it. Folau makes a try saving tackle in the corner and I think Ben Mowen lends a belated hand (all 3 players are on the ground). Both Wallabies hold onto the tackled player even though he looks to be still in the FoP (i.e. not actually held up in-goal)
Comments???

 

[Rushforth]

I am afraid that I have great difficulty taking you and your comments seriously. Your third comment is offensive and your fourth niaive about an internationally selected referee who has passed through a massive selection and quality assurance process. You do not seem to understand the technical complexity of rugby at elite levels.

I am afraid that I have great difficulty taking you and your comments seriously. You seem to be oblivious to the fact that I was asking two questions, the first of which was multiple choice, and the second an oblique reference to the fact that he seemed tobe unaware that there ARE new laws with regard to the scrum.

You do not seem to understand the technical complexity of rugby at elite levels.

I am indeed very niaive, apparently Australian and Scottish scrum-halves alike have spent so much time watching league and/or curling that they can't put the ball in straight. I always thought that there should be a fair contest. Niaive is me! Apparently the ball should be put straight into the second row, so as to get the big scary scrum over as quick as possible. I always thought that the whistle should be blown immediately if the scrum collapses, but hey, the technical complexity at elite levels is clearly too much for me to get my head around.

I'll take back any suggestion of corruption at a personal level, but perhaps the system is morally corrupt if what I saw is the result.

 

[Account Deleted]

I'm starting think rushforth is not a referee, but a windup merchant! Of Chopperesque levels no less....but at least Chopper declared he wasn't a referee!

I have tried to say that. I was shot down are the rude one. My comments from that thread stand.

 

[leaguerefaus]

Trolling on a referees' site would be one of the strangest things I have ever encountered, and would suggest that Rushforth has no social life whatsoever if that is the case.

Very strange indeed.

 

[Account Deleted]

I posed the question before and the thought police got very agitated. Be careful.

 

[Blackberry]

Rushworth's comments and style spoil this site for me. When most of us are struggling to analyse, interpret and debate often complex and important issues he is likely to fire a blunderbuss of vitriol or irrelevance which inevitably distracts and usually impedes learning. This aim of this site is to discuss, improve and educate.

Sorry Rushworth if in your real world you are a dog patting orphan saving eco worrior who has discovered a cure for most of the world' diseases, but on this site you come across as a (insert word here of choice here)

 

[didds]

51 minutes on the game clock... scots restart, aus catchers gets tackled into his own 22. ruck forms, two gold players appear at far side of the ruck and pull scots players away from it such that now there are no opbvious scots rucking (its still a ruck AIUI). these two gold players then take up pillar possitions uin effect between the Scots and the scots side of the ruck eremnants while the gold SH digs the ball out, the ball having been won.

1) how did the two gold players manage the clear aways without being offside?
2) how can they then take up pillar positions clearly attempting to block ant attempt to rejoin the ruck for (say) counter ruck purposes?

Not a dig at any refs etc etc etc... just trying to understand.

didds

 

[The Fat]

51 minutes on the game clock... scots restart, aus catchers gets tackled into his own 22. ruck forms, two gold players appear at far side of the ruck and pull scots players away from it such that now there are no opbvious scots rucking (its still a ruck AIUI). these two gold players then take up pillar possitions uin effect between the Scots and the scots side of the ruck eremnants while the gold SH digs the ball out, the ball having been won.

1) how did the two gold players manage the clear aways without being offside?
2) how can they then take up pillar positions clearly attempting to block ant attempt to rejoin the ruck for (say) counter ruck purposes?

Not a dig at any refs etc etc etc... just trying to understand.

didds

I remember the incident from the game and they are both offside and obstructing. Would not allow them to be there in my level games.
Here's a link to the game, Will have to check to see if I can understand JP's reasoning for playing on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGOYIhQpN4s


Just watched it keeping an eye on Jaco Peyper. He is motioning with his arms for Scotland to stay on side but he doesn't appear to take his eyes off Will Genia for the entire time even though the contest is clearly won by Australia. IMO he should have at least told the two pillars (gold 1 & 3) to get out of there.
Definitely a PK for me.