Wayne Barnes praised!!

[Phil E]

He did a pretty fair job on Dresden.

I didn't even know Wayne Barnes was in the RAF :wow:

Let alone that he was responsible for bombing Dresden

 

[SimonSmith]

Have to point out Ian, and I'm not arguing the validity of what you're saying, but the specifics you raise would seem to run counter to your "he penalizes the offences for trivial stuff" argument previously.

 

[OB..]

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)

I remember this one. My recollection is that the Australian grabbed Matfield in the air. I did not think Matfield had outjumped his supporters.

However I will review that and the others when I get the chance.

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.

I do read your posts. You started rather sourly:-

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.

As I said in my response, lots of innuendo. No facts, no analysis.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

the specifics you raise would seem to run counter to your "he penalizes the offences for trivial stuff" .

or not..."stupid hair cut. Have 10 minutes"

View attachment 901

 

[OB..]

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)

That is what the commentators said. I disagree. The replay clearly shows that Matfield goes straight up - no forward momentum. He reaches to his left to take the ball and is then grabbed round his waist by Gold #4. He loses his balance and the Australians drive underneath him. Correct decision.

There was another point of law here which you might have mentioned: can Matfield join the line from receiver this season? http://www.rugbyrefs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8156

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)

The Bok who first gets his hands to the ball is almost immediately hit and driven back by an Australian. If you can see what is happening to the ball in all this, you have X-ray eyes. Barnes signals PK for coming in at the side, so that would be the first offence.

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)

I raised this and discussed it earlier at #2. Genia has his back to the camera so I cannot see if he repeated the earlier trick, but Barnes could clearly be heard to tell Smit he was satisfied with it.

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

From the moment of the scrum until the ball is knocked-on, Barnes keeps moving, sometimes left, sometimes right, sometimes ahead. At no time does he dwell in the chariot position, and I do not see him getting in the way of any Australian attackers.

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

This was, of course, the far side of the scrum from Barnes. A voice (which appears to be the AR's) clearly says "Head and shoulders, Green 1". I presume this means he thought the Green player did not keep his head and shoulders up. I would agree. Barnes says "Far side" and then "Tell me if it happens again, mate". I do not see a penalty to SA.

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)

Brussouw drives Genia away as he tries to pick up the ball, leaving it still with Elsom, who does indeed play it again. Yes, that is illegal.

That's six incorrect decisions in ten minutes.
I don't think need to review any more.

We have to agree to differ on that.

 

[Ian_Cook]

He reaches to his left to take the ball and is then grabbed round his waist by Gold #4.

I completely disagree with your description of this. Matfield is still moving across the line and tipping over when he strikes Gold 4, who then grabs him. The impact was first, and it is blindingly obvious that if Gold 4 doesn't grab him, Matfield will crash to the ground.

The Bok who first gets his hands to the ball is almost immediately hit and driven back by an Australian

So you acknowledge that the Bok gets his hands on the ball. Ruling 4, 2009 says he can now keep them there, therefore Elsom must let him have it immediately, not half a second later, not three quarters of a second later, but immediately.

We will have to disagree on the Genia kick. There was no separation visible between the ball and Genia's hands.

From the moment of the scrum until the ball is knocked-on, Barnes keeps moving, sometimes left, sometimes right, sometimes ahead. At no time does he dwell in the chariot position, and I do not see him getting in the way of any Australian attackers.

But always behind the ruck. Elsom has to push him out of the way as he follows the ball. The fact that WB is close behind the ruck also hinders the dropped goal option. These are examples of good positioning in the attacking ruck situation;

WB's positioning was poor IMO, for example

If I positioned myself like that most of the game, I would get the "Positioning is Important" lecture from my assessors.

This was, of course, the far side of the scrum from Barnes. A voice (which appears to be the AR's) clearly says "Head and shoulders, Green 1". I presume this means he thought the Green player did not keep his head and shoulders up. I would agree. Barnes says "Far side" and then "Tell me if it happens again, mate". I do not see a penalty to SA.

On review it might be 50/50

 

[OB..]

I completely disagree with your description of this. Matfield is still moving across the line and tipping over when he strikes Gold 4, who then grabs him. The impact was first, and it is blindingly obvious that if Gold 4 doesn't grab him, Matfield will crash to the ground.

It almost sounds as if we have been watching different lineouts. I have two views - the original and a replay from the opposite direction. In both cases I checked Matfield's jump with a ruler against the screen. He goes up vertically and does not topple until the Australian contact. He reaches to his left for the ball, which with a reasonable throw means he was not across the line of touch.

I simply cannot match your description with what I see on the screen. It would be interesting to know what others see.

So you acknowledge that the Bok gets his hands on the ball. Ruling 4, 2009 says he can now keep them there, therefore Elsom must let him have it immediately, not half a second later, not three quarters of a second later, but immediately.

The player who got his hands on first was driven off "immediately" before he could do anything with the ball. Very tight timing either way.

We will have to disagree on the Genia kick. There was no separation visible between the ball and Genia's hands.

I don't know how you can see it. As I said, his back was to the camera in the only shot I saw.

But always behind the ruck.

No. He keeps moving, as is recommended, sometimes left, sometimes right and even round to the SA side. Obviously he passes through the chariot position, but he does not dwell there. He reads the game to keep out of the way.

Elsom has to push him out of the way as he follows the ball.

He is not on screen all the time, but I see no shot of Elsom or anybody else pushing him out of the way.

 

[olla]

This will be my only post on this site ever, but I waited a long time for it:

TODAY (28 YEARS TO THE DAY) AFTER BEING DONE IN BY THE WELSHMAN CLIVE NORLING IN SUCH PATHETIC MANNER IN 1981, THE SPRINGBOKS HAD TO SUFFER ENDLESS POOR, QUESTIONABLE AND DOWNRIGHT BIASED DECISIONS BY ANOTHER WELSHMAN NIGEL OWENS. DESPITE HIS "BEST BIASED EFFORTS" THE 'BOKS REMAINED RESOLUTE, DISCIPLINED AND SIMPLY OUTPLAYED THE ALL BLACKS AND THE REFEREE AND TRULY WON AGAINST 16 MEN ON THE DAY !!

I do not have it against the Welsh (they are a proud and likeable nation), but they, and other referees, must have hung their heads in shame today to observe such a poor display of refereeing!
We won, so I am not critisizing on the back off a loss, but surely such poor decisions cannot go unanswered. Nigel Owens today owe his profession an apology for the string of obvious bias, misinterpretation and downright stupid decisions.

I pray of all the other referees who may read this. Please do not use this persons skills in any school of any kind as it does not serve the game of rugby at all. Please stay the course and be just.

Nigel can go his own way!

 

[Taff]

.... THE 'BOKS REMAINED RESOLUTE, DISCIPLINED AND SIMPLY OUTPLAYED THE ALL BLACKS AND THE REFEREE AND TRULY WON AGAINST 16 MEN ON THE DAY!!

I missed it. What was the score?

 

[HANSON7379]

Fare 1 Ian i watched the game today after recording it and agree with what you have written about WB and that game.

 

[chopper15]

This will be my only post on this site ever, but I waited a long time for it:

TODAY (28 YEARS TO THE DAY) AFTER BEING DONE IN BY THE WELSHMAN CLIVE NORLING IN SUCH PATHETIC MANNER IN 1981, THE SPRINGBOKS HAD TO SUFFER ENDLESS POOR, QUESTIONABLE AND DOWNRIGHT BIASED DECISIONS BY ANOTHER WELSHMAN NIGEL OWENS. DESPITE HIS "BEST BIASED EFFORTS" THE 'BOKS REMAINED RESOLUTE, DISCIPLINED AND SIMPLY OUTPLAYED THE ALL BLACKS AND THE REFEREE AND TRULY WON AGAINST 16 MEN ON THE DAY !!

I do not have it against the Welsh (they are a proud and likeable nation), but they, and other referees, must have hung their heads in shame today to observe such a poor display of refereeing!
We won, so I am not critisizing on the back off a loss, but surely such poor decisions cannot go unanswered. Nigel Owens today owe his profession an apology for the string of obvious bias, misinterpretation and downright stupid decisions.

I pray of all the other referees who may read this. Please do not use this persons skills in any school of any kind as it does not serve the game of rugby at all. Please stay the course and be just.

Nigel can go his own way!

Olla beat me to it.

30mins into game; Habana was body checked late. Consultation Barnes/Owens. No warning, no card.

70mins: Nonu speared and bloodied. No action taken by Ref. or ARses . . . it was shown in slo-mo right after.

I stated foul play incidents last week. Disappointingly, had no comments.

70 min. OZ player felled by high tackle middle SA 22m line for all to see. Ball lost but advantage briefly played. Scrum called. No warning from ref.

The OZ player wasn't injured. Is that the reason why no warning/card was issued and adv. was played by ref.?

Also, in first 5min. Habana's try saving corner tackle was a body hit into touch with an attempted follow-up by the arms over the shoulder to 'convert' the hit into a tackle. As this was a TMO decision should it have been a try?

In the 2nd instance I'm not trying to be pedantic, but I'm still not clear about over-the-shoulder tackles and is there consideration given should it be 'harmless'?

 

[Davet]

Chopper

Olla is talking about SA vs NZ today, you are talking about last week's game. Try to keep up.

Olla, you're clearly drunk. Go play with your trainset. Owens had a generally good game, and your comments are as offensive as they are ignorant and stupid.

 

[ExHookah]

It almost sounds as if we have been watching different lineouts. I have two views - the original and a replay from the opposite direction. In both cases I checked Matfield's jump with a ruler against the screen. He goes up vertically and does not topple until the Australian contact. He reaches to his left for the ball, which with a reasonable throw means he was not across the line of touch.

I simply cannot match your description with what I see on the screen. It would be interesting to know what others see.

That one is interesting, because the two viewpoints give you a different impression of the play.

The shot from in front, which is the POV that the esteemed Mr Barnes had is one that appears to show Matfield enter the lineout and jump straight up.

I'll agree with Ian that the Gold players do appear to bring him down to ground in a controlled manner, but they definitely tackled him in the air.

I think the penalty is valid, but the viewing angles give differing points of view, and the commentators come across as very sure of their point of view which is always an influential factor to the viewing public.

 

[chopper15]

Chopper

Olla is talking about SA vs NZ today, you are talking about last week's game. Try to keep up.

Olla, you're clearly drunk. Go play with your trainset. Owens had a generally good game, and your comments are as offensive as they are ignorant and stupid.

My first two sentences referred to this a.m's game, Davet. I just couldn't understand why no card. Same for last, week which I went on to draw attention to. No explanation then either.

 

[SimonSmith]

Christ. I never thought be grateful for a (losing) Coach, but today I am.

Did the usual "any questions/feedback?" thing after the game.

"yes. you blew the call and it was pivotal"
"let me explain what I saw...."
"That's not how it looked from the touchline, and I still think you got it wrong. But fair enough, you gave what you saw and you were consistent. All I can ask for and we'll agree to disagree"

No heated voice or making the issue black and white. Acknowledgment hat different angles or views may lead to different outcomes. Healthy attitude.

 

[Ian_Cook]

I thought Owens was pretty good today. Only a few minor things to quibble about.

► In the action immediately leading to du Preez's try, Sivivatu fumbled a catch and was was taken out when trying to recover the ball. Fine if his feet were on the ground, but they weren't, they were in the air, so there should have been PK to NZ under Law 10.4 (e) or (h)

► Just after that, Muliana knocked on and when he tried to recover the ball he was grabbed around the neck and literally "thrown" out of the way. Should. have been a PK to NZ for a head-high tackle under Law 10.4 (e). Foul Play always takes precedence over a technical infringement.

► Late in the second half, at a ruck we clearly hear Owens shout "roll away 2". He must have been referring to the Green 2 because Hore wasn't anywhere near the ruck. The very next moment Green 2 gets to his feet in the middle of the ruck, having not rolled away as instructed and picks the ball out of the middle of the ruck, and Owens says "thats OK he's on his feet"

► At almost every scrum that du Preez fed late in the second half, he would feed the ball then not retire, staying next to the tunnel and obstructing Cowan from following the ball around to the number 8. Both duPreez's feet were in front of the ball. Cowan questioned this but was told there was nothing wrong with it.

Law 20.12 (b) Offside for scrum-halves. When a team has won the ball in a scrum, the scrum half of that team is offside if both feet are in front of the ball while it is still in the scrum. If the scrum half has only one foot in front of the ball, the scrum half is not offside.

 

[Davet]

Ian I would agree on point 4, though I dod not see it at nearly every scrum, perhaps a couple, but I did note it happen, and would suggest Owen needs to look at that.

Points 1 and 2 are, I think, in the category of things that happen, and would be dependant on what the ref saw.

Point 3 is interesting, I also saw green 2, who I felt was a tackler, get to his feet, and my judgement was that if a ruck had not formed then he was OK, the requirement is to move away or get to ones feet, the refs call of roll away is really shorthand for the mouthful that is law. If a ruck had formed then he was offside.

But I don't think I have ever seen a ref have a perfect game - the sport and the laws are not made that way, much is down to what is visible from different positions, and to interpretation. However, I did think that Owens had a good game, and the rant by Olla is simply stupidity combined with ignorance.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Ian I would agree on point 4, though I dod not see it at nearly every scrum, perhaps a couple, but I did note it happen, and would suggest Owen needs to look at that.

Points 1 and 2 are, I think, in the category of things that happen, and would be dependant on what the ref saw.

Point 3 is interesting, I also saw green 2, who I felt was a tackler, get to his feet, and my judgement was that if a ruck had not formed then he was OK, the requirement is to move away or get to ones feet, the refs call of roll away is really shorthand for the mouthful that is law. If a ruck had formed then he was offside.

But I don't think I have ever seen a ref have a perfect game - the sport and the laws are not made that way, much is down to what is visible from different positions, and to interpretation. However, I did think that Owens had a good game, and the rant by Olla is simply stupidity combined with ignorance.

As I said, I thought he had a pretty good game, and really the things I have brought up are minor.

However, he does need to rethink this business of the SH not retiring after the put-in. It is offside and obstruction to protect the No. 8 pickup.

Also, I should mention that the TO3 all missed the deliberate spear tackle on Nonu, and if I recall, a few here were saying "start with RC". In this case, Fourie lifted him by the legs, turned him over and drove him head first, and without the ball. That's a RC in my book, and the citing officer agrees.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Just heard that Fourie has copped a 4 week suspension for the spear tackle.

No doubt there will be another round of victimisation claims from PDV

 

[KML1]

Guys, I just read the 4 pages of this discussion and I'm not sure I'm much wiser about stuff - except that whatever Ian writes, seems to upset OB for starters (I seem to remember there's form in that relationship!) and then NH v SH eruptions. ;-)

Ian - thanks for the views on positioning. Something Im working on myself, so interested in assessors views. Think you could prob find some clips of WB in similar positions to the others if you really wanted to.

We could probably all watch every decision given and not given and make a case for the opposite result. That's the joy of what we do and the role we play in the sport we enjoy.

I like a bit of debate, but Olla needs removing from the forum for those remarks. No referee anywhere is biased. Accept that and move on!!