- Joined
- Jan 22, 2008
- Messages
- 16,105
- Post Likes
- 2,367
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 8
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
He did a pretty fair job on Dresden.
I remember this one. My recollection is that the Australian grabbed Matfield in the air. I did not think Matfield had outjumped his supporters.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 do read your posts. You started rather sourly:-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.
As I said in my response, lots of innuendo. No facts, no analysis.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.
the specifics you raise would seem to run counter to your "he penalizes the offences for trivial stuff" .
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.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)
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 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)
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.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)
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.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
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.58m: at a scrum
Scrum collapse by AUS prop and on third reset. Should have been a PK to SA -- Law 20.9 (a)
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.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)
We have to agree to differ on that.That's six incorrect decisions in ten minutes.
I don't think need to review any more.
He reaches to his left to take the ball and is then grabbed round his waist by Gold #4.
The Bok who first gets his hands to the ball is almost immediately hit and driven back by an Australian
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.
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.
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 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 player who got his hands on first was driven off "immediately" before he could do anything with the ball. Very tight timing either way.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.
I don't know how you can see it. As I said, his back was to the camera in the only shot I saw.We will have to disagree on the Genia kick. There was no separation visible between the ball and Genia's hands.
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.But always behind the ruck.
He is not on screen all the time, but I see no shot of Elsom or anybody else pushing him out of the way.Elsom has to push him out of the way as he follows the ball.
I missed it. What was the score?.... THE 'BOKS REMAINED RESOLUTE, DISCIPLINED AND SIMPLY OUTPLAYED THE ALL BLACKS AND THE REFEREE AND TRULY WON AGAINST 16 MEN ON THE DAY!!
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.