• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

RWC QF 4 AUS v SCO (Twickenham) 19th Oct 0200 AEDT

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dewald Nel

Dewald Nel

Cyril Towers (30)
Quick Hands said:
Or we could have received a penalty from the previous scrum in which the Scottish fron row appeared to stand-up under pressure - which has been ruthlessly penalised all RWC.
Click to expand...


Or they could have received a scrum penalty, kicked it out beyond halfway, thrown it in, and kicked it out to win. What would have happened is pure conjecture. What should have happened is, too. Not clear why you're so sure Aus would've won as they were still behind until an incorrect call was made that put them in the lead.
 
swingpass

swingpass

Peter Sullivan (51)
Dewald Nel said:
Who's talking about officials? Talking about exactly what swingpass said. If he can repeat that after losing the final in a suspect way, then all credit to him.
Click to expand...

i certainly hope i don't have too :D
but i do believe the technology bit has gone way too far, it was introduced to overcome egregiously bad decisions, not to disect every nuance of the game and blowtorch the refs. let them make the decision good and bad and just everyone get on with it.
 
Gnostic

Gnostic

Mark Ella (57)
As with Paddy Obrien visiting the NZ dressing room years ago and then being critical of Dickenson. Obrien might not have contravened any direct rules, but the perception of integrity is essential to the validity of the process.

In what world does the IRB think it is appropriate to have a system where John Jeffery compromises the perception of the integrity of the system and then this history making comments about the referee is made. I think it is a dangerous allegation to make that Jeffery consciously or unconsciously used his position to influence the outcome of this review and the statement without substantial evidence proving that to actually be the case. What I do think is the IRB has again failed to mainatain robust systems that ensure the probity and integrity in the disciplinary and review processes, that is where the real incompetence lies.
 
Highlander35

Highlander35

Andrew Slack (58)
Think we've probably reached the limits of reasonable discourse. People's opinions aren't going to shift because of posts. Mods, if it's not going to be locked, is there a functionality to put individual threads on ignore?
 
ACT Crusader

ACT Crusader

Jim Lenehan (48)
Cardiffblue said:
Do you reckon there is really any benefit in bringing him on? Having watched Cheika do it several times I can't see that he adds anything over Genia
Click to expand...

Of course there is. Phipps is a magician that has the new invisibility cloak. He tries to gather a ball it hits his body, then takes a swipe at the ball with his arm where he hits it back and like magic, Joubert and many others don't see it.

Excuse the pun but Phipps is worth his weight in gold..... :)
 
Quick Hands

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
Dewald Nel said:
Or they could have received a scrum penalty, kicked it out beyond halfway, thrown it in, and kicked it out to win. What would have happened is pure conjecture. What should have happened is, too. Not clear why you're so sure Aus would've won as they were still behind until an incorrect call was made that put them in the lead.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what would or could have happened. What I'm sure about is that the referee made what at worst was a 50/50 call - one of a few in the game that resulted in a penalty goal - like the Scottish scrum penalty at 32 minutes which was no less a 50/50 call and gave Scotland 3 points.

You can't just analyse decisions in the last couple of minutes, unless you are going to go through every call in the match and evaluate it's impact on the final result, looking at the last penalty is disengenuous to say the least.
 
ACT Crusader

ACT Crusader

Jim Lenehan (48)
Gnostic said:
As with Paddy Obrien visiting the NZ dressing room years ago and then being critical of Dickenson. Obrien might not have contravened any direct rules, but the perception of integrity is essential to the validity of the process.

In what world does the IRB think it is appropriate to have a system where John Jeffery compromises the perception of the integrity of the system and then this history making comments about the referee is made. I think it is a dangerous allegation to make that Jeffery consciously or unconsciously used his position to influence the outcome of this review and the statement without substantial evidence proving that to actually be the case. What I do think is the IRB has again failed to mainatain robust systems that ensure the probity and integrity in the disciplinary and review processes, that is where the real incompetence lies.
Click to expand...

It was a panel review and the statement would not have been released without consensus. It's not some rogue individual trying to seek some form of vindication for his countrymen.
 
Dewald Nel

Dewald Nel

Cyril Towers (30)
Quick Hands said:
I'm not sure what would or could have happened. What I'm sure about is that the referee made what at worst was a 50/50 call - one of a few in the game that resulted in a penalty goal - like the Scottish scrum penalty at 32 minutes which was no less a 50/50 call and gave Scotland 3 points.

You can't just analyse decisions in the last couple of minutes, unless you are going to go through every call in the match and evaluate it's impact on the final result, looking at the last penalty is disengenuous to say the least.
Click to expand...


Which is what I've said myself at least twice.
 
Quick Hands

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
ACT Crusader said:
It was a panel review and the statement would not have been released without consensus. It's not some rogue individual trying to seek some form of vindication for his countrymen.
Click to expand...

Well, someone decided to convene the panel to discuss one decision in one match out of the 44 played. A number of close decisions have decided some of the other matches, (ask the US or the Samoans), but there was no instant panel meeting and re-adjudication of the decision.
And of course, the person who convenes panel meetings is the chairman of the panel.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top