Waybe Barnes Yellow Card Sexton 10

[Ian_Cook]

Impossible to get out doesn't mean you don't need to make an effort.

If ever I see a player making no effort to roll away - whether they're trapped or not, or deliberately fell on the wrong side or not - I'm going to treat it as intentional offending. If you are genuinely stuck, make a big song and dance of trying to get unstuck - it'll still be a penalty, but it makes it far harder for the referee to say it's intentional.

THIS

It is then far harder to justify to himself the showing of a YC

 

[L'irlandais]

It's one thing to accuse a referee of getting something wrong. It's quite another to suggest bias. Can you clarify your statement?

GN lying on the wrong side of the ruck, hasn't released the bc and makes no effort to roll away in the red zone. WB doesn't even consider if a penalty offense, preferring to give advantage to Green against Red8 the tackle assist. If JS situation was so different, I don't see it. Perhaps rose tinted glasses affecting his view of things...

‪Here a report that goes some way to showing what I mean. It also conversely backs up your position. So just because you are right, it doesn't necessarily follow that I must be wrong.‬

Rugby presents a unique challenge in that the referee is required to make a specific decision about a contested tackle almost 200 times a match (once every 30 seconds), and this*decision is multi-dimensional, instantaneous and open to interpretation.‪..‬

Consider that a typical match has about 170 rucks (or contests for the ball in a tackle) , and you realize that there are probably 100 decisions (because not all are contested the same way) where the referee must interpret, in a split second, a dizzying array of laws, and where each decision has implications for what follows.

The first approach is to over-police the contest (the conservative). *The result is that the referee will appear to punish legitimate contesting for the ball, and will reward penalties frequently, forcing players to back right off, killing the contest for the ball. *This favors the team in possession. *Alternatively, the referee can under-police the breakdowns (liberal), and allow much more to go unpenalized.
Importantly, when this happens, the*result is that the defending team will usually be favoured,*because the referee will fail to prevent them from slowing the ball down, and slowing it down creates a disproportionate advantage

Source

 

[L'irlandais]

Compare unsanctioned Bradley Davies off the ball tip tackle on Donnacha Ryan. (Might might have been a Red card offense during Ireland v Wales 2012 6Nations game.)
Yet Wayne Barnes sin-binned Stephen Ferris in the final minute of that game for taking Ian Evans over the horizontal. At around 11 minutes into clip. Yellow is correct call, but no way earlier infringement should have gone unpunished.

Small margins win International matches, referees influence such games to no small extent.

 

[DocY]

but no way earlier infringement should have gone unpunished.

It didn't - he was given a yellow card. Yes, there's an argument it should have been a red, but if every referee who gave a yellow when it could have been a red was bias there wouldn't be many unbiased referees out there!

 

[SimonSmith]

GN lying on the wrong side of the ruck, hasn't released the bc and makes no effort to roll away in the red zone. WB doesn't even consider if a penalty offense, preferring to give advantage to Green against Red8 the tackle assist. If JS situation was so different, I don't see it. Perhaps rose tinted glasses affecting his view of things...

‪Here a report that goes some way to showing what I mean. It also conversely backs up your position. So just because you are right, it doesn't necessarily follow that I must be wrong.‬

Rugby presents a unique challenge in that the referee is required to make a specific decision about a contested tackle almost 200 times a match (once every 30 seconds), and this*decision is multi-dimensional, instantaneous and open to interpretation.‪..‬

Consider that a typical match has about 170 rucks (or contests for the ball in a tackle) , and you realize that there are probably 100 decisions (because not all are contested the same way) where the referee must interpret, in a split second, a dizzying array of laws, and where each decision has implications for what follows.

The first approach is to over-police the contest (the conservative). *The result is that the referee will appear to punish legitimate contesting for the ball, and will reward penalties frequently, forcing players to back right off, killing the contest for the ball. *This favors the team in possession. *Alternatively, the referee can under-police the breakdowns (liberal), and allow much more to go unpenalized.
Importantly, when this happens, the*result is that the defending team will usually be favoured,*because the referee will fail to prevent them from slowing the ball down, and slowing it down creates a disproportionate advantage

Source

Your post does nothing to substantiate your disgraceful allegation of bias. In any other realm of the rugby world, that would be cause for disciplinary action.

If there is data or video to show why a referee had a bad game, then that's a valid topic for conversation. Attacking a referee's integrity is over the line, and people have been banned from the site for it.

 

[L'irlandais]

Perhaps if you had taken the time to read it in its entirety, you might have seen the relevance of that scientific report. Fans who are only human can get carried away in the heat of the action, surely your are not suggesting WB has superhuman powers. He too can make subjective decisions in the heat of the action, consciously or otherwise.

Easy to say he just got it wrong, Irish fans are poor losers. When your team is more often than not on the receiving end of these poor calls it makes one wonder. Out of 14 games reff'd by Mr. Barnes Ireland have lost 10. The players have accepted the match official's decisions and always looked to the contrôlables for reasons why the game was lost. But you can see it in their faces, they are flabbergasted by some calls. Irish fans are entitled to feel that he has made more than a few contentious decisions. Another such WTF moment... this questionable scrum penalty in 2015 Six Nations round four match.

 

[didds]

we'll need a tinestamp to pick out your point L'irlandais... I don't really want to watch form the start in the hope I might find it

didds

 

[DocY]

As I explained in an earlier post - certain referees benefit or hinder different teams' ways of playing. In Ireland and Barnes' case, I believe his handling of mauls hinders them. This is not because he's bias, it's just the way he does things and it happens to affect Ireland's game plan more than other teams who don't try to force mauls.

It's not just Ireland who have been on the receiving end of this - just watch the Wales v. South Africa game from the world cup - and he's not the only referee who's quirks hinder a particular team.

A team with a very dominant scrum would be hindered by a referee who struggles in that area - again, not bias, but one team will benefit. A team who want to play an expansive game would benefit from a referee who's very strict in the breakdowns.

I've had to explain this to coaches when I've been refereeing. They've felt I've been bias by not picking up on a particular offence (in quite the way they want me to, anyway) that only the other team are committing. If they see me being 'liberal' in the tackle area (as I have a tendency to be), take advantage of that, don't just bitch that the other team are getting away with it.

 

[L'irlandais]

It didn't - he was given a yellow card. Yes, there's an argument it should have been a red, but if every referee who gave a yellow when it could have been a red was bias there wouldn't be many unbiased referees out there!

Looked pretty much like a Red card to me.

Unconscious biases are simply our natural preferences. Since all rugby referees are humans, we all have such personal preferences and they do affect our judgement, most especially when it come to make split second judgment calls in the heat of the game.

Sorry didds, I did attempt to start it at 4 minutes 39 seconds, for a Yellow card decision.
The Ferris card comes almost at the end of the highlights.

 

[L'irlandais]

As I explained in an earlier post - certain referees benefit or hinder different teams' ways of playing. In Ireland and Barnes' case, I believe his handling of mauls hinders them. This is not because he's bias, it's just the way he does things and it happens to affect Ireland's game plan more than other teams who don't try to force mauls.

It's not just Ireland who have been on the receiving end of this - just watch the Wales v. South Africa game from the world cup - and he's not the only referee who's quirks hinder a particular team.

A team with a very dominant scrum would be hindered by a referee who struggles in that area - again, not bias, but one team will benefit. A team who want to play an expansive game would benefit from a referee who's very strict in the breakdowns.

I've had to explain this to coaches when I've been refereeing. They've felt I've been bias by not picking up on a particular offence (in quite the way they want me to, anyway) that only the other team are committing. If they see me being 'liberal' in the tackle area (as I have a tendency to be), take advantage of that, don't just bitch that the other team are getting away with it.

Okay I accept your point, sorry I didn't spot it in your earlier post.

When Clermont beat Leinster in round 3 of the 2010/11 Heineken Cup.
Vern Cotter said afterwards his players were unhappy with the way Leinster were allowed to slow down ball.

May explain why he's loved in the premiership, his quirks don't rub against the grain of playing styles. Wasps are complaining WB has yet to be appointed to one of their games this season.

 

[Rich_NL]

... I thought the complaint was that he was too harsh on someone slowing down the ball?

I think it's clear you've made up your mind on him, and that it's not an opinion that's widely shared - it's actually one of the few 6N matches I've seen overwhelmingly positive comments about the ref. I'm not sure what there is to be gained from diagnosing an unconscious bias in someone that only you (or the supporters of one particular team) can see.

 

[L'irlandais]

The discussion developed from that point. I pointed out that while he YC an Irish player in the Red zone, he failed to RC a Welsh player earlier in the red zone.

Only Ireland? Not sure that's correct.

All Black fans will remember a no-try call from Mr. Barnes during the 2007 Rugby World Cup which played its part in knocking the All Blacks out of the tournament against France. Was Aaron Cruden's pass forward?

We tend to judge consistency of a referee based on whether he applies the same sanction for an offense irrespective of which team commits the offense. But as DocY says, WB's approach to refereeing only scuppers the game plans of certain teams. I do accept he's not alone in having a lenient approach to teams slowing ball down at the breakdown.

 

[crossref]

I think that citing a mistaken knock-on call from 2007 is really grasping at the thinnest of straws !

there is no doubt that in 2017 WB is one of the best referees in the world. On current form (over the last six months or so) possibly THE best (who would you put above him, on current form?)

of course he makes mistakes and no doubt he has some idiosyncracies like we all do.

 

[DocY]

who would you put above him, on current form?

At the risk of getting off topic: Garces?

It's a close-run thing, though. I can't see anyone other than one of those two getting the next world cup final. Unless it's England v France, of course.

 

[crossref]

yes, Graces is also reffing his A game recently. I wouldn't disagree with you.

sadly for WB I don't think he'll be getting a RWC final, as I expect England to be in it!

 

[L'irlandais]

With TMO there is no excuse for calling a momentum pass forward.

World Rugby Referee Award – Alhambra Nievas (Spain) and Rasta Rasivhenge (South Africa). Jaco Peyper and Jérôme Garcès were shortlisted. Mr. Barnes must be flying under WR's radar for now. Source

 

[Thunderhorse1986]

Is it only me noticing the screaming irony in L'irlandais talking about bias and decisions being made in the heat of the moment as something WB is guilty of, when clearly coming from that position himself vis-a-vis Ireland? Daniel Ariely (for one) wrote about this in his excellent book Predictably Irrational (think both his own experiments and reporting on others). Always worth bearing in mind our own unconscious biases especially when reporting bias in others!

 

[L'irlandais]

Exactly the point made by the author of report linked in my #62

And for rugby, the solution to me is that the performance of referees needs to be evaluated more transparently. A panel of independent officials could analyze matches, producing a report on the match. This report could analyze every single one of the 200 decisions a referee has to make in a match. How many of the 200 were incorrect? 20? 30? And of those 30, how many were clear, conclusive errors, and how many were interpretive calls? One has to build in this human interpretation element, because it would be wrong to think that one can accurately judge off TV when the referee is 5m away from the decision he is making

Nobody is accusing the man of match fixing!

Was it wrong of me to add to the discussion that it was not the first time poor calls from this particular ref have cost Ireland, then citing 5 compelling* examples.
* YMMV

 

[Ian_Cook]

As I explained in an earlier post - certain referees benefit or hinder different teams' ways of playing. In Ireland and Barnes' case, I believe his handling of mauls hinders them. This is not because he's bias, it's just the way he does things and it happens to affect Ireland's game plan more than other teams who don't try to force mauls.

Same for us. In our case, its way he handles the breakdown that hinders us.

NZ teams like really quick ball from the breakdown, and most referees are quite hot on tacklers and other players slowing the ball down. NZ referees tend to be especially ruthless on defenders who take too long to roll away, or who keep the hands on the ball/tackled player fractionally too long, or who constantly "run interference" by retiring around the back of the breakdown.

WB however, seems to take a hands off approach at the breakdown, and allows a lot of questionable slowing down tactics. The All Blacks have about a 90% winning record, but under WB its less that 56%, the lowest of any current referee. In recent years however, Hansen has figured out how to adapt the way his team plays when WB is the referee, and have adapted their style to his. For those of us who watch carefully and analyze the game, its clearly noticeable; they kick more, don't take the ball into contact as much, and contest more ferociously, knowing that WB will let them away with things that they otherwise might not get away with under referees like NO, Jaco or CJ.

None of this is bias however, its just his style and NZ have mostly adapted to it.

 

[SimonSmith]

Exactly the point made by the author of report linked in my #62

And for rugby, the solution to me is that the performance of referees needs to be evaluated more transparently. A panel of independent officials could analyze matches, producing a report on the match. This report could analyze every single one of the 200 decisions a referee has to make in a match. How many of the 200 were incorrect? 20? 30? And of those 30, how many were clear, conclusive errors, and how many were interpretive calls? One has to build in this human interpretation element, because it would be wrong to think that one can accurately judge off TV when the referee is 5m away from the decision he is making

Nobody is accusing the man of match fixing!

Was it wrong of me to add to the discussion that it was not the first time poor calls from this particular ref have cost Ireland, then citing 5 compelling* examples.
* YMMV

I think:
the normal accuracy rate is 70%

The way you framed it was entirely inappropriate. You suggested an Elite referee was biased against Ireland. That's unacceptable at any level of the game. In fact it's a ****ing scumbag move. There's been rebuttal to some of your points, but you steadfastly assert Wayne Barnes is biased against Ireland.

When we get a cuffing off a referee, I tend to blame players first, or in some circumstances (hello Bryce!) question the competence of the referee. I've never suggested bias on the part of any match official. The fact that you think it's OK to do so tells me all I need to know about you, and your values.

Ian Cook gave you the right answer, and the right way to approach it.