• 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.

One hell of a whinge from our Kiwi compadres

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Richard D. James

Guest
I don't think the pass to Taps was that forward... If it got called back I would have understood (while being disappointed). Obviously there was a lot riding on this and therefore these decisions will be under a lot scrutiny, but "forwarder" passes have been let go without much discussion.
 

PaarlBok

Rod McCall (65)
Refs in Aus and NZ look like a die out specie. The Kiwi one in the Lions Highlanders game at least leave the rucks to the players to sort out but DickHeadSon was biased like hell.
 

Godfrey

Phil Hardcastle (33)
"dickheadson"? Seriously? You're not 12 mate. The Crusaders got pinged more than the Reds, true - but the vast majority of the penalties were absolutely fair enough. Like a lot of games the refereeing wasn't perfect but either team could easily have won that game so he couldn't have been too bad. I think it would be very unfair to insinuate the Reds only won that game because of biased refereeing throughout the course of the match.

I think a few would agree over time the unlucky/unfair calls even out - even when you take into account losing the big games. The Crusaders had ample opportunity to make sure the game didn't come down to a contentious call in the dying minutes - and likewise the Reds left 9 easy points on the field that would've been kicked most other days.
 

ACT Crusader

Jim Lenehan (48)
"dickheadson"? Seriously? You're not 12 mate. The Crusaders got pinged more than the Reds, true - but the vast majority of the penalties were absolutely fair enough. Like a lot of games the refereeing wasn't perfect but either team could easily have won that game so he couldn't have been too bad. I think it would be very unfair to insinuate the Reds only won that game because of biased refereeing throughout the course of the match.

I think a few would agree over time the unlucky/unfair calls even out - even when you take into account losing the big games. The Crusaders had ample opportunity to make sure the game didn't come down to a contentious call in the dying minutes - and likewise the Reds left 9 easy points on the field that would've been kicked most other days.

I understand your point but I don't agree this is the case for a lot of games. Some games are close just because that's what they are - close. Rugby games for the most part go through ebbs and flows and alot can happen in 5 minutes to change the course of or even the outcome of a game. Be it a big play or a dropped ball or a call by the ref. When games are so close on the scoreboard it has nothing to do with "missed opportunities" in the minutes previous, its about the here and now (crap I've got Deans speak :) ) and the incidents that change the game.

As a Crusaders fan, if McCaw was deemed legal by Dickenson and we won the TO and then went on to win, then I would be applauding Ben Franks and hs cleanout. In the context of the game, that would have been a huge play, a crunch moment that turned the game that was clearly hanging the balance. IMO ample opportunities sometimes mean nothing when its that one play that can win or lose you a game.
 

PaarlBok

Rod McCall (65)
"dickheadson"? Seriously? You're not 12 mate. The Crusaders got pinged more than the Reds, true - but the vast majority of the penalties were absolutely fair enough. Like a lot of games the refereeing wasn't perfect but either team could easily have won that game so he couldn't have been too bad. I think it would be very unfair to insinuate the Reds only won that game because of biased refereeing throughout the course of the match.

I think a few would agree over time the unlucky/unfair calls even out - even when you take into account losing the big games. The Crusaders had ample opportunity to make sure the game didn't come down to a contentious call in the dying minutes - and likewise the Reds left 9 easy points on the field that would've been kicked most other days.

I dont care who should or could have won. The Reds win actually helped the Stormers and we'll be hoping they keep on winning and ditching the closest teams on the log. DickHeadSon farked it at the breakdowns all game. Not even MCAwe who play the ref the best had any koekenclue what he is going to do. And that tells it all, players want at least consystency from the ref, not him he simply blow them off the park at the breakdowns. Its suppose to always be in the attacking teams favour, on sunday he only saw the Reds as the attacking team at the breakdowns.
 

Joe Mac

Arch Winning (36)
I would like the G&GR rugby experts to analyse the final call of the game and give us an un-biased opinion on the call and whether it was justified.

Dear G&GR; may we have this analysed?
 

waratahjesus

Greg Davis (50)
I would like the G&GR rugby experts to analyse the final call of the game and give us an un-biased opinion on the call and whether it was justified.

Dear G&GR; may we have this analysed?

i dont know why the 50/50 last call is getting so much air time when you could just complain about the clear knock on a couple of rucks before and be done with it.

that way you can also shift blame to the assistant so dickinson doesnt get rapped over the knuckles and everyone is happy........except the crusaders which gets us to where we were and isnt that whats important.
 

PaarlBok

Rod McCall (65)
I would like the G&GR rugby experts to analyse the final call of the game and give us an un-biased opinion on the call and whether it was justified.

Dear G&GR; may we have this analysed?

No matter what the outcome, the fact of the matter is that Marc Hinton is a rugby journalist, who gets paid by the Australian media to write articles and that is the most vile biased piece of shit i have ever read- I would love to see how much longer he would retain his paycheck after posting that on the Australian Rugby Heaven website. The Crusaders didn't lose because of the ref. They lost because of the Reds.

Suppose all your media lot would have been fired by now. :lmao: keo first. :lmao:
 

ACT Crusader

Jim Lenehan (48)
i dont know why the 50/50 last call is getting so much air time when you could just complain about the clear knock on a couple of rucks before and be done with it.

that way you can also shift blame to the assistant so dickinson doesnt get rapped over the knuckles and everyone is happy........except the crusaders which gets us to where we were and isnt that whats important.

Serious question and something I've been thinking about for some time (over the last couple of years mainly, watching all levels of rugby) but is it the Asst ref's call to make if there is a knock on? It appears to be so hit and miss during games and from game to game that I just don't know when or if an Asst Ref is going to get involved.
 

waratahjesus

Greg Davis (50)
Serious question and something I've been thinking about for some time (over the last couple of years mainly, watching all levels of rugby) but is it the Asst ref's call to make if there is a knock on? It appears to be so hit and miss during games and from game to game that I just don't know when or if an Asst Ref is going to get involved.

i say it was the ass.refs call cos he was in position while stu was infield, but i believe both are capable of making the call.
 

RedsHappy

Tony Shaw (54)
i dont know why the 50/50 last call is getting so much air time when you could just complain about the clear knock on a couple of rucks before and be done with it....that way you can also shift blame to the assistant so dickinson doesnt get rapped over the knuckles and everyone is happy........except the crusaders which gets us to where we were and isnt that whats important.

To have any value at all in terms of a genuine, proper refs and 'who benefits/who loses' analysis of these issues in a single game, a team of seasoned GAGR analysts - video, audio, rugby-law - would have to meticulously go through every single borderline or ambiguous ref-controlled or ref-influenced game event in slow-mo from minute 1 to 80 and carefully assess the correctness of all such decisions (or events missed, knock-ons, etc) reached, not just the media-grabbing ones. Then, that analysts team would also have to imagine, and speculate: if decision X in minute 7 had been instead given as decision Y, what change in the thus unfolding dynamic or the results of the ultimate full game might have emerged? This second-order task is, of course, next to impossible, but it's the only logical and proper means of 'righting wrongs' in a truly objective manner that reflects a game's total evolution, if such an attempt at righting wrongs is considered useful. OK, if that analysts team concluded that ref A had a (say) 50% error rate, or his decisions were very consistently erroneous in favour of one team on a statistically significant basis, then of course that overall analysis can be potentially very constructive and useful, but, again, it simply must be done for whole-of-game, and not just for the side (or country, or journalist) that screams loudest in complaint over its 'favourite' ref's error.

The idea of just analysing one seemingly decisive event that one side screams over and assesses as disadvantageous to them is emotionally understandable, but it's by no means rigorous enough as the total dynamic of the game will be affected by a complex interlocking of multiple ref's decisions impacting upon the ultimate result, not just one single outcome. For example, if the final penalty against the Cru is to be analysed in depth, so should the last scrum penalty awarded against the Reds (which some consider just as erroneous), and so on.
 

PaarlBok

Rod McCall (65)
Example, look like you already won the World Cup.

Two weeks ago the Reds beat the Blues in a Super Rugby match. On Sunday night they beat the Crusaders in Hong Kong part II.
Even the finish was the same. As the second most influential man in the game (Richie McCaw) stood glaring at the third most influential (Stu Dickinson), the most influential man (Will Genia) gave him a friendly tap on the chest. It exactly wasn't exactly Quade Cooper's boorish shove, but the message was the same. "Well done mate, you've had your days, but now history is on our side."
Put simply, when these young Wallabies - led by Genia and Cooper - play at their optimum, they no longer think that New Zealand's finest can beat them.
Queensland won the game because they reacted best to the adversity these sort of high-intensity games throw up. (And while this column will mention a few key refereeing decisions/non-decisions it won't be an exhaustive critique, as enough ink has already been spilt on something that is self-evident - that whistleblowers sometimes get things wrong).
They overcame the fact that their scrum was buckled from the first encounter to almost the last. They survived the fact that their lineout was inferior. They ignored their goalkicker's off night in front of the sticks. And they managed to win despite entering a kicking duel with the best No.10 in the world in the second half and coming off second best.
The championship minutes from the 75th minute onwards illustrated their immense self-belief - and fitness. From a lineout about 25 metres out from their own line, they quickly went wide with a Cooper long ball to Luke Morahan. Brent Ward came off his wing and hit the youngster so hard his mouthguard flew out, but he still managed to throw the ball backwards to support. Over the next five phases and 60 seconds the Crusaders tore into their defensive work, keeping the Reds on the advantage line and forcing the first missed knock-on in the movement from Rob Simmons, who lost the ball forward on the ground but quickly dragged it to the back of the ruck.
Digby Ioane and, crucially, Scott Higginbotham - who smashed doubts raised here last week about his Test-readiness - created some priceless momentum. Then, with another burst that led to the second knock on, Ioane began to expose some raggedness around the Crusaders fringes (more of this later in the New Zealand analysis) before Genia found the tireless Anthony Fainga'a (with a pass that was flat at best) for the crucial break.
From there, the Reds had support runners offering themselves everywhere, Ben Tapuai linking with James Slipper in the midfield before Slipper, again, set up the ruck that led to the matchwinning penalty.
Discard the controversy of that penalty for a moment, this was the vision that Robbie Deans had for Australia rugby - so expertly carried on at Super level by Ewen McKenzie - when he accepted the job three years ago. Opposition defences being stressed at different points by backs with pace and agility, forwards who can continue the movement with hard shoulders and soft hands - and all the while being conducted by the little general at the heart of it, a picture of calm in the cauldron.
If you can produce that formula, tries - and penalties of all descriptions - will come.
Deans had indicated last week at a function that there would be lessons from this game. And then some.
First, Fainga'a is offering himself as the hard-running, low-tackling midfielder to sit on Cooper's shoulder at Test level, when it is less likely Cooper will be allowed to float at No.15 in defence.
Second, Radike Samo is a genuine option at No.8 if Wycliff Palu's injuries fail to clear up.
Third, the ambitious game plan epitomised by Cooper's audacious touches and encouraged by Deans is the best way for the Wallabies to win the Cup.
Fourth, McKenzie offers a wealth of coaching knowledge and man management that might be too valuable to leave outside the circle come World Cup time. There would be obvious hurdles to overcome before that became even a possibility, but if you're putting Australia's best coaching minds in a room, McKenzie is at that meeting.
Fifth, Genia's inventiveness from the base of the scrum shows a beaten set-piece is not fatal.
Lastly, the Wallabies are right in this World Cup up to their necks - and have been for some time.
Aside from Sunday's spectacle and the Hong Kong thriller, it is valuable to remember that they had the winning of the Sydney Test against the All Blacks in September until a try from a contested scrum changed the momentum. The beneficiary that night was a certain R McCaw.
Far from the Suncorp buzz and with much less publicity than Dickinson and McCaw's disagreement, another well-known referee was taking a dim view of the technique of a highly regarded Test player, although on this occasion the news was less enjoyable for Wallabies fans.
On two crucial occasions at the scrum, Jonathan Kaplan penalised Benn Robinson for driving in at an angle, handing the Sharks momentum which at this stage of the season decides games. The confused look on Robinson's face said it all. It was possible to detect that he wasn't entirely square, but it wasn't Martin Castrogiovanni stuff.
If there are certain perceptions entertained by referees about the other Australian front rowers, Wallabies fans will be praying they don't spread to the Waratahs loose-head.
and Kaplan get his usual Waratah whinge. Do yourself a favour and google this story. Its not only in a rugby site, its all over Australia.
 

Zinzan

Herbert Moran (7)
I was more concerned about the missed forward passes and knock-ons than the last penalty. How Tapuai wasn't called back ........................

Not all Dickenson though, his assistants missed plenty.

100% agree with Fatprop.

Crystal ball reads: Reds to lose this weekend.
 

vidiot

John Solomon (38)
i dont know why the 50/50 last call is getting so much air time when you could just complain about the clear knock on a couple of rucks before and be done with it.

That call was inexplicable but it did occur when the reds had penalty advantage from crockett being clearly outside. Certainly helped them surge into crusaders territory, but....
 

Tangawizi

Peter Fenwicke (45)
Not all Kiwis are coming up with the same rubbish as Hinton.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/5081224/Referees-boss-comfortable-with-McCaw-penalty

Super Rugby referees' boss Lyndon Bray says he is "quite comfortable" with Stuart Dickinson's explanation of the penalty that ultimately cost the Crusaders their match against the Reds in Brisbane.

Aussie referee Dickinson penalised Crusaders skipper Richie McCaw for hands in a ruck in the last minute and the Reds kicked the goal for the crucial 17-16 win on Sunday.

Debate has raged ever since and Bray, after reviewing the incident and the entire performance of Dickinson and his refereeing team, was happy to front on the issue this afternoon.

"I'm loathe to criticise the actual decision. We have discussed what else you could have done with that particular scenario and I'm quite comfortable with Stuart's explanation from a technical view," Bray said.

While there may have been other options available the key was that Dickinson had made his position clear by warning the Crusaders not to touch the ball, leaving him with no alternative but to award a penalty when McCaw made his move.

"Stuart quite clearly says don't touch it. I know it is very, very tough for a player to hear that with the crowd going off. But he is earmarking that it is a ruck. By saying it, you are pretty clear where you are going to go."

Bray said the "other options" available to Dickinson would have been to "say scrum, unplayable - and you'd have to say that very quickly. Or you might even play on and we'd be debating if that was correct too".

Bray said the complexities of rugby were part of its beauty. The debate that was going on was also being made in refereeing circles.

"From a rugby point of view if you can back out of the emotion of it, it's quite a complex decision. It's not that easy to come out and say was it right or wrong.

"The issue that we have there is that clearly a ruck has formed and the question you have to ask when that ruck collapses is whether the ball was out and in a position where a player could pick it up and play with it? That's the debate we have had this morning. It's really hard to criticise the referee on a technical level."

Bray felt overall Dickinson had refereed the game "pretty well".

Bray watched the match on TV and knew the penalty was "a big call". But that was what the referees were there to do - make decisions. It was a decision the referee knew would come under review because of "the magnitude of it".

Bray said the review of the refereeing performance was taken on a "big picture" level and then in "more detail".

The big picture revealed a test match-like game with all the associated intensity. The players had done a good job of staying on their feet and the relatively low penalty count (12-4 in favour of the Reds) reflected that.

The detail suggested there were "four or five" decisions Dickinson and his assistants could have got "a bit better".

Bray said the leadup to the fateful final penalty revealed a knock-on back towards the halfway line that had been missed. Part of the blame with that lay with the assistant referee on that side of the field.

He believed the 73rd minute scrum decision that led to a Crusaders penalty goal was correct.

Bray said little should be read into Dickinson being an assistant referee this weekend. That appointment, along with those for the following two rounds, had been made before this review and hadn't been altered in the wash up to his controversial Brisbane performance.

"I think if you look at Stu's last three or four games he has actually refereed very, very well. This game I think he performed pretty well in the environment. I accept there was some inaccuracy with the detail and I think he would too. So I don't see any premise to drop him because of this performance. I think that would be very unfair."

The Reds remain top of the Australian conference and the overall table while the Crusaders still trail the Blues in the New Zealand conference and now have their chances of a home semifinal in jeopardy.

- Stuff
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top