Wayne Barnes praised!!

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,981
Post Likes
1,838
Reading that article made me look again at the Will Genia non-try.

At the FK from a lineout just before, his tap kick looked remarkably like the Rugby League version. Wayne Barnes was behind him, so could not have seen it very clearly. I think he did maybe release the ball fractionally, but not enough for me. However a case for materiality, I think, and a word of warning at the next opportunity.

There was no next opportunity before he took another tap and went for the line. This time his back was to the camera but he was facing Barnes. Smit queried the tap, but Barnes said he was satisfied.

When Genia went over the line, Barnes blew the whistle, thinking he had scored (hence the question: "Is there any reason I cannot award the try?"). In fact Du Preez(?) had levered the ball out of Genia’s arms and the TMO correctly informed Barnes that it was no try. He also said that the ball was never touched down. It was, of course, dead because the whistle went.

Since the attacking team took the ball into in-goal, it could be a defending 5m scrum. Barnes put it to the TMO that the ball was held up, which was not in fact the case, but the TMO accepted it. However if Du Preez’ action was seen as a knock-on (ball went towards Australia’s goal line) then the actual 5m scrum was correct.

Who said refereeing was easy?!
 

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,981
Post Likes
1,838
There was also a classic error in the comment by byron, who claimed a knock-on in in-goal was a 22 drop out under the advantage law.
 

Phil E


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
16,073
Post Likes
2,346
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
From the story above.

Minute 25 - Heinrich Brüssow nudging the ball out of Will Genia's grasp with his boot at bottom of ruck - Correct as was professional foul

Am I missing something here?

Ball at the bottom of a ruck, man has his hands on the ball, other man uses his boot to move the ball?

What on earth is a professional foul in rugby?

Notice he doesnt say "dangerous play", so it wasn't that use of the boot he was penalised for:confused:
 

dave_clark


Referees in England
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
4,647
Post Likes
104
Current Referee grade:
Level 15 - 11
kicking the ball out of an opposition player's hands? i'm sure that's illegal, let me have a look.
 

dave_clark


Referees in England
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
4,647
Post Likes
104
Current Referee grade:
Level 15 - 11
hmm, maybe i was thinking about kicking the ball out of the hands of someone about to score a try.

was Brussow off his feet?
 

Phil E


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
16,073
Post Likes
2,346
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
hmm, maybe i was thinking about kicking the ball out of the hands of someone about to score a try.

was Brussow off his feet?

Its only illegal if the player is reaching out to score a try.
It could be deemed dangerous play, but the description given doesn't fit that.

I dont remember seeing it, I am just going by the quote from the report at post 1.
 

SimonSmith


Referees in Australia
Staff member
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
9,336
Post Likes
1,440
If I remember it correctly, the SA player was off his feet at the time.
 

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,680
Post Likes
1,760
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,16016_5544063,00.html

All too often we hear of a bad performance so it nice to hear something positive for once.

The only thing is, its on Planet Rugby. Oh well, never mind

It easy to praise someone when you cherry pick the things they get right, and conventiently forget the things they get wrong.

I could write a report showing Adolph Hitler to be a great humanitarian were I to cherry pick the facts and include only what suited me. Likewise, I could show Winston Churchill to be a genocidal war criminal.
 

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,981
Post Likes
1,838
Ian - if you want to disagree and make your own points, then by all means do so. We can discuss them. I am not impressed by insinuations.
 

Dixie


Referees in England
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
12,773
Post Likes
338
I could show Winston Churchill to be a genocidal war criminal.
I doubt that. Genocide involves the attempted extermination of an entire race of people, or a nationality. The only thing I can think of that comes close is the forced resettlement of pacific islanders to enable nuclear testing to take place - but that was a land grab, not a genocide.
 

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,680
Post Likes
1,760
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Ian - if you want to disagree and make your own points, then by all means do so. We can discuss them. I am not impressed by insinuations.

OK then....

1. Scrum management
I thought WB's scrum management was average at best. He could have got on top of things a lot earlier. He certainly is capable of setting his stall out early for offences in open play (e.g. binning Nick DeLuca at 3 minutes in NZ v Scotland for kicking the ball away on the ground) so I wonder why he seems reluctant to do so in set pieces.

2. Positioning

I am still not convinced that he positions himself well. He is certainly different in that regard from any other elite referee I watch. He seems to mostly set himself in position to watch everything the attack does at ruck and maul, often getting himself behind the attacking ruck. IMO this is no-mans land; not only is it impossible to see what the defence is doing, it doesn't allow him to quickly check either. Consequently, his focus is more on the attack, and he has a tendency to PK attacking sides for technical infringements, rather than pinging the more important stuff, the offsides around the fringes of the ruck & maul.

3. Speed around the park
By international standards, WB is a bit slow. I don't think that is necessarily down to fitness; some people, no matter how fit they are, simply don't have the leg speed. WB is often further behind the play that I would like. Anyway, he will be tested in this soon because he has been invited to referee an Air New Zealand Cup match later this month.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-pos...Wayne-Barnes-to-referee-Wellington-Lions-game

The game they have given him is Wellington v Southland. Both these teams have a reputation for running the ball from anywhere, so it will be interesting to see if WB can keep up, or whether he slows the game down.


And just off topic, that brings me to an interesting point made in the article;
"New Zealand Rugby Union (NZRU) high performance referee manager Lyndon Bray said Barnes' appearance in Wellington was a great opportunity to promote international co-operation in refereeing.

"This level of co-operation between countries will hopefully help leverage for New Zealand referees to have opportunities in England, and possibly see swaps between the European Cup and Super 14 within the foreseeable future," Bray said.

And to that I say.... ABOUT BLOODY TIME TOO!!!

The more they do that, the better the understanding will become of how the game is played and refereed in the two hemispheres, and surely, that can only be good for refereeing consistency in the long term.
 

Dixie


Referees in England
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
12,773
Post Likes
338
He did a pretty fair job on Dresden.
I think that is my point. Even if Dresden and 100% of its inhabitants were to have been wiped off the map, that is not genocide. To qualify for the term, it would have been necessary to try the same trick with all other German cities, and the rural bits as well. To the best of my knowledge, no such effort was made, so there was no genocide - attempted or otherwise.
 

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,680
Post Likes
1,760
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
I think that is my point. Even if Dresden and 100% of its inhabitants were to have been wiped off the map, that is not genocide. To qualify for the term, it would have been necessary to try the same trick with all other German cities, and the rural bits as well. To the best of my knowledge, no such effort was made, so there was no genocide - attempted or otherwise.

Pedantry, but if you insist, homicidal war criminal then.

The point was that you can make anyone look good or bad by selectively choosing the things they have done/not done, or have happened/not happened to reflect the view you want to reflect.

Take a look at today, its September 11, and the loony conspiracy theorists are out force. So far, in the eight years since, we have had the loony brigade cherry picking "facts" (and I use the term loosely) to prove, at various times, that the following were responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

CIA, FBI, NSA, FEMA, Mi5, Mi6, SIS, a Joint Operation of any two or more of the afroementioned, the US Government (a Bush-Chaney conspiracy), Colombian Drug Cartels, Mexican Drug Cartels, Big Oil, the Vatican, New York Jews, Mossad, The brother of Oklahoma bomber Timothy McVeigh (apparently he doesn't even have a brother but that doesn't seem to work the CT's). the brother of the UnaBomber, the brother of Vernon Wayne Howell (aka David Koresh, the wacko from Waco)... he has no brothers either. the Saudi Government, the British Royal Family, Reptilian shape-shifting aliens and Pakistani Foreign Ministry.

Many of these conspiracy theories make perfect sense if you choose to ignore other facts than those presented in the theory.

But I digress.

An article in Planet Rugby, of all places, extolling the virtues of any rugby referee can be taken with a dessert spoonful of salt.

I'm afraid I am a long way past even bothering to read the rubbish that tries to pass for journalism on PR. It shouldn't be called Planet Rugby anyway, it should be call ER - Euro Rugby, that's what its mostly about. The rest of the planet is lucky to get lip service.
 

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,981
Post Likes
1,838
The point was that you can make anyone look good or bad by selectively choosing the things they have done/not done, or have happened/not happened to reflect the view you want to reflect.
So your argument is that the article distorts what actually happened. Do you agree with the points the article makes? Are you claiming that it misses out serious errors?

An article in Planet Rugby, of all places, extolling the virtues of any rugby referee can be taken with a dessert spoonful of salt.
Statistically you are entitled to take the view that an article on PR is unlikely to be worth reading. However you cannot use that view to argue that a specific article is bad or wrong.
 

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,981
Post Likes
1,838

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,680
Post Likes
1,760
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
You do not point out specific errors by Barnes that the article missed. Examples?

OK, so I have just watched 10m of the game, from 50th to the 60th minute (that is the stage the game was at when I turned on the TV earlier)

50m: at a lineout.
AUS pinged for playing Matfield in the air. In fact Matfield jumped across the line into the AUS jumpers and lost his balance. They tried to do the right thing and let him down. This should have a a PK to Australia for Matfield crossing the the LoT -- Law 19.10 (b)

52m: at a tackle

Elsom is tackled a few metre out from SA goal line. A SA player on his feet attempts to take the ball. Elsom doesn't release, then SA are PK's for an undetermined ruck offence. This should have been a PK to SA for Elsom not releasing. -- Law 15.5 (e)

52m: at a PK
Genia takes a tap, but does not propel the ball out of his hands. This should have been a scrum to SA at the mark -- Law 21.4 (c)

54m: Poor positioning

Barnes gets in the way of attacking AUS players. Again he is positioned in the "chariot" position, where you are always at risk of getting in the way of attacking players. He does this a lot and I inferred earlier

58m: at a scrum
Scrum collapse by AUS prop and on third reset. Should have been a PK to SA -- Law 20.9 (a)

59m: at a tackle
Elsom is tackled and taken to ground. He places the ball iaw Law 15. Then a players foot (didn't see which team) bumps the ball and it starts rolling away. Elsom, while still lying on the ground, reaches out and grabs the ball and re-places it. This is a clear infringement, it happens right in front of Barnes, and he says and does nothing. Should have been a PK to SA -- Law 15.5 (b)


That's six incorrect decisions in ten minutes.

I don't think need to review any more.





You do not claim that any of the points made are wrong.

Thats because I have not claimed (and do not claim) than any of them are wrong. Please read what I have posted. I claim that the writer has chosen only those incidents that tend to support their view, and ignored others, some of which I have listed in this post.
 
Top