One hell of a whinge from our Kiwi compadres

[daz]

Sorry, but after much internal conflict I just have to reply to this quote in the article: "He also seems to find a lot more fault with Richie McCaw than other referees do".

Simple answer really. I guess that unlike the other IRB refs, Stuey reads G&GR....

 

[Bowside]

Pushing the rules is part of the Kiwi game plan, and they get away with it so often that when they don't they should cop it on the chin.

Rugby is meant to be played within the laws of the game. Breaking these rules should never be the advantageous option, if you do it often enough you deserve to lose because of it.

 

[drewprint]

Dickinson was screaming at him to stay out of it. He chose not to listen. He was penalised. The end.

 

[Gagger]

One of the things this episode highlights is the different ways countries see and value rugby - this goes for viewers, players refs and coaches.

For the breakdown, the Kiwis and Saffas go by Paarls maxim "It'll sort itself out" i.e. if you're able to stick your hands and head there without getting them broken by Bakkies or Brad, then fair's fair. The dominant side gets the benefit of the doubt - if you're counterrucking and end up on the wrong side, so what. It's all about the contest. IMO Mark and Bryce Lawrence ref to this.

The Aussie viewpoint - and I think Bob Dwyer is a great example of this thinking - is that there are rules around the breakdown that need to be observed if a game isn't going to fall apart and reward negative play. You can't just flop on the wrong side, even if you claim it's a counter-ruck. It was no accident you ended up curled around the ball and a ruck isn't over when you say so. IMO Stu Dickenson refs to this (as does Wayne Barnes, usually)

No wonder then that Ritchie's "borderline" behaviour ends up on the wrong side of Stu. Maybe also this isn't usually a big problem because Stu's not usually reffing him vs an Aussie team.

As an Australian rugby player and supporter, it's clear where my bias is on this topic (see my Avatar!). I don't think Richie - and in last sunday's game I though Whitelock was worse - is particularly subtle any more.

As for final incident, most importantly Stu had called hands off, the ball wasn't clearly out (see how long it took McCaw to wrestle with it) and Digby is still standing at the ruck, bound. Also, McCaw doesn't strictly even come through the gate, and Franks has gone off his feet (touch and go - in wrestle with Kev). As Bray said, it's not open and shut, but Stu was technically right.

Finally, one point I've always had to concede to our Kiwi bro's like Bullrush, is that you should be good enough to take the ref out of the equation, like the ABs have been and the Wallabies haven't. Looks like the Saders just weren't good enough to take Stu out of the equation.

 

[Riptide]

Finally, one point I've always had to concede to our Kiwi bro's like Bullrush, is that you should be good enough to take the ref out of the equation, like the ABs have been and the Wallabies haven't. Looks like the Saders just weren't good enough to take Stu out of the equation.

Good point. The losing side never is.. and when has the winning side ever complained about the ref?

Way too much is being made of the ref; I believe McCaw handled it perfectly in his post-match. As frustrated as he might have been, it didn't need to come down to that.

Also, I think McCaw has refined his breakdown technique further this year. It's early days yet but I see evidence he is being more careful; and not falling afoul in a way that will invite a Wayne Barnes to blow up.. Posters on this forum will always have a natural bias and l we altend to find story lines and images that suit our narrative and I catch myself doing it a lot with respect to some players. So, I think we will still see squealing about McCaw cheating etc. even though if we look closely, he really isnt doing it to quite the same extent as before. He is adjusting his game to meet the higher levels of scrutiny to which he is now subject and that as much as anything will keep McCaw right at the top of the game.

 

[qwerty51]

I side with Kiwis.

Dominant, aggressive breakdown work should be favoured. It's positive rugby.

 

[Toddy]

I'm not sure if it has been suggested but the easiest way to find if Stu was biased/useless would be to make a youtube video. The video could show all the calls he made, or didn't make that went against the Crusaders. You could have voice over pointing out all the mistakes as well. The key would be not to show any calls that went against the Reds. This would prove once and for all that Stu is a bad ref.

 

[Joe Blow]

I watched the game again this morning.
It was played for the most part at a lightening pace and Dickinson let the game flow pretty well.
There were a few obvious mistakes that neither Dickinson or his assistants picked up (decisions that aided both sides at various times).
The ABs were lucky not to be yellow carded for repeated indiscretions at the breakdown on more than a few occasions.
All in all it was not as bad as most are making out.

 

[disco]

IRB referees boss Paddy O’Brien was forced to make a public apology to the All Blacks over Dickinson’s performance, confessing in a moment of refreshing transparency that the Australian had got it badly wrong.

Yeah forced to make an apology.

 

[Victorian Reds Fan]

I side with Kiwis.

Dominant, aggressive breakdown work should be favoured. It's positive rugby.

Illegally slowing the ball down is as negative as it gets.

 

[MajorlyRagerly]

One of the things this episode highlights is the different ways countries see and value rugby - this goes for viewers, players refs and coaches.

For the breakdown, the Kiwis and Saffas go by Paarls maxim "It'll sort itself out" i.e. if you're able to stick your hands and head there without getting them broken by Bakkies or Brad, then fair's fair. The dominant side gets the benefit of the doubt - if you're counterrucking and end up on the wrong side, so what. It's all about the contest. IMO Mark and Bryce Lawrence ref to this.

The Aussie viewpoint - and I think Bob Dwyer is a great example of this thinking - is that there are rules around the breakdown that need to be observed if a game isn't going to fall apart and reward negative play. You can't just flop on the wrong side, even if you claim it's a counter-ruck. It was no accident you ended up curled around the ball and a ruck isn't over when you say so. IMO Stu Dickenson refs to this (as does Wayne Barnes, usually)

No wonder then that Ritchie's "borderline" behaviour ends up on the wrong side of Stu. Maybe also this isn't usually a big problem because Stu's not usually reffing him vs an Aussie team.

As an Australian rugby player and supporter, it's clear where my bias is on this topic (see my Avatar!). I don't think Richie - and in last sunday's game I though Whitelock was worse - is particularly subtle any more.

As for final incident, most importantly Stu had called hands off, the ball wasn't clearly out (see how long it took McCaw to wrestle with it) and Digby is still standing at the ruck, bound. Also, McCaw doesn't strictly even come through the gate, and Franks has gone off his feet (touch and go - in wrestle with Kev). As Bray said, it's not open and shut, but Stu was technically right.

Finally, one point I've always had to concede to our Kiwi bro's like Bullrush, is that you should be good enough to take the ref out of the equation, like the ABs have been and the Wallabies haven't. Looks like the Saders just weren't good enough to take Stu out of the equation.

In your eyes Gagger, were Robinson & Samo within the rules of the law the entire night & follling this Aussie mantra of playing by the rules 100% of the time?

I don't whinge about refs much/ever as I firmly believe your last line. But given the dubious nature of the last play, the fact the Reds first try was was scored after a blatant forward pass & there was a huge obvious knock on in the lead up to the last penalty, I certainly don't begrudge my comrades for having a bitch.

 

[RedsHappy]

One of the things this episode highlights is the different ways countries see and value rugby - this goes for viewers, players refs and coaches......Finally, one point I've always had to concede to our Kiwi bro's like Bullrush, is that you should be good enough to take the ref out of the equation, like the ABs have been and the Wallabies haven't. Looks like the Saders just weren't good enough to take Stu out of the equation.

Gagger, just to note: this applies to our dear Reds as well, of course, and they are just as 'guilty' of 'keeping Stu in the equation', as if QC (Quade Cooper) had merely achieved an average % place kick success rate for the kickable penalties granted the Reds, at that last scrum penalty point against the Cru, the Reds would likely have had enough points in hand to close out the game with no need for that final 3. The Reds' poor place kicking (and, I'd argue, Cooper's and Genia's way less than outstanding kicking from hand this match), damn near cost the Reds the game.

 

[Jay]

As for final incident, most importantly Stu had called hands off, the ball wasn't clearly out (see how long it took McCaw to wrestle with it) and Digby is still standing at the ruck, bound. Also, McCaw doesn't strictly even come through the gate, and Franks has gone off his feet (touch and go - in wrestle with Kev). As Bray said, it's not open and shut, but Stu was technically right.

I think you're trying a bit too hard to justify that decision there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c47OilYALzs

I can see the argument for Digby still being there, but who is he 'bound' to?

Secondly, what possible objection could there be to McCaw's entry?

Thirdly, McCaw picks the ball up pretty much immediately - there's no 'wrestling' for it, but even if there were, how often do you see a halfback having to dig the ball out? There's a pretty good argument that McCaw is merely acting as a halfback here.

The Franks thing isn't even close to touch and go. It's not actually illegal to merely go off your feet at a ruck, he doesn't do it over the ball or in such as way that would prevent any Reds forwards from contesting (other than Horwill who's just as responsible for the two of them going to ground).

Oh, and finally - 'Technically' Bray didn't actually say Dickinson was 'technically right'.

 

[Ash]

I don't want to buy into the argument too much, but I was at the game with Sports Ears. McCaw was told multiple times not to pick up the ball (which you didn't hear on the TV coverage), and when he did he sort of looked up guiltily at the ref. I know what that's like, you see it and just have to pick it up - it's human nature. Whether the ref was right or wrong, one thing Dickson did do is instruct/warn McCaw clearly, repeatedly and early not to pick up the ball, which McCaw did ignore. It was such a shame, though, that such a great game had to be decided by an each way call at the death.

 

[Jay]

I don't want to buy into the argument too much, but I was at the game with Sports Ears. McCaw was told multiple times not to pick up the ball (which you didn't hear on the TV coverage), and when he did he sort of looked up guiltily at the ref. I know what that's like, you see it and just have to pick it up - it's human nature. Whether the ref was right or wrong, one thing Dickson did do is instruct/warn McCaw clearly, repeatedly and early not to pick up the ball, which McCaw did ignore. It was such a shame, though, that such a great game had to be decided by an each way call at the death.

You can hear Dickinson on the tv broadcast - his warning "No, stay back, don't touch it" comes pretty much simultaneously. McCaw's already got the ball in his hands before Dickinson's even finished saying 'No'.

 

[TheTruth]

Jesus - what a bag full - told my kids - if your team is good enough to win then irrelevant about the ref - otherwise all throughout Australia and NZ, kids would be constantly whinging that the bad decisions of the ref that lost them the game - don't always agree with the middle man but just have to suck it up

 

[Ash]

You can hear Dickinson on the tv broadcast - his warning "No, stay back, don't touch it" comes pretty much simultaneously. McCaw's already got the ball in his hands before Dickinson's even finished saying 'No'.

You misunderstood me. I was at the game with Sports Ears, where you can hear the ref channel rather clearly. He did warn McCaw beforehand, which you did not hear on the TV coverage (you actually hear very little of what the ref says on the TV coverage). He gave McCaw repeated warnings, the last of which you heard on the TV coverage as he picked it up.

edit: Anyway, that's my two posts on the matter. Not going to go more into than that, other that yes, there was an audible warning prior to McCaw picking up the ball.

 

[spectator]

Gagger, just to note: this applies to our dear Reds as well, of course, and they are just as 'guilty' of 'keeping Stu in the equation', as if QC (Quade Cooper) had merely achieved an average % place kick success rate for the kickable penalties granted the Reds, at that last scrum penalty point against the Cru, the Reds would likely have had enough points in hand to close out the game with no need for that final 3. The Reds' poor place kicking (and, I'd argue, Cooper's and Genia's way less than outstanding kicking from hand this match), damn near cost the Reds the game.

Yeah RH, I think were stepping too far into the land of the hypothetical there. There are just too many 'what if's'. If Coopers boot had been on, what's to say Carter would not have gone for the penalty but the Saders instead went for a scrum? Could have been seven points rather than three.

 

[Top Bloke]

You misunderstood me. I was at the game with Sports Ears, where you can hear the ref channel rather clearly. He did warn McCaw beforehand, which you did not hear on the TV coverage (you actually hear very little of what the ref says on the TV coverage). He gave McCaw repeated warnings, the last of which you heard on the TV coverage as he picked it up.

edit: Anyway, that's my two posts on the matter. Not going to go more into than that, other that yes, there was an audible warning prior to McCaw picking up the ball.

-What would SD be warning RMC about?? He was at least 2-3 mtrs back before he took off for the ball?? SD does then say clearly "No Stay back dont touch it" but that is almost at the same time as he goes for the ball. Too late imho.
He blows the PK then signals that the ruck had formed, fair enough that is his call. Technically correct perhaps but we see similar situations not PK'd every week.
In any case perhaps the IRB need to change the Laws to allow anyone onside and on their feet to use their hands and pick up the ball in the ruck - would save a fair bit of whistle and who knows may even persuade players to stay on their feet.

 

[Rev Spooner]

All this moaning about the ref is inevitable. What I find amusing though is that the penalty awarded to the Crusaders from the scrum next to the posts has been lost in all this. THAT penalty was far more bewildering than the latter. Would anyone be able to clarify what it was for because I sure as hell don't have a clue ... and i suspect most of us would feel the same way.