• 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.

Refereeing decisions

Dismal Pillock

Dismal Pillock

Simon Poidevin (60)
afb69864-bb8c-4e0e-908d-c83489588420_zpsmlqv45bf.jpg
 
waiopehu oldboy

waiopehu oldboy

Stirling Mortlock (74)
Derpus said:
Individual instances of outrage are preferable to a stop start game that detracts from every single match.
Click to expand...

The problem with your theory is that said instances of outrage frequently lead to mid-season adjustments to refereeing directives, two recent examples being the relaxing of what constitutes dangerous contact in the air, in response to the Red carding of Faille; & the effective banning of the one-man lift in response to Folau's yellow v Ireland.
 
KOB1987

KOB1987

Rod McCall (65)
I don't have any problem with a decision on the fly to ban the one man lift as it was downright dangerous and shouldn't have ever got to the stage where it was even used to be banned. As for the other example, they can still go upstairs to look for foul play (was he playing the man in the air?) so in that instance he would have got off. As long as they don't take more than a minute to adjudicate I'm cool with that.
 
Derpus

Derpus

George Gregan (70)
waiopehu oldboy said:
The problem with your theory is that said instances of outrage frequently lead to mid-season adjustments to refereeing directives, two recent examples being the relaxing of what constitutes dangerous contact in the air, in response to the Red carding of Faille; & the effective banning of the one-man lift in response to Folau's yellow v Ireland.
Click to expand...
The one man lift decision seems fine......
 
PaarlBok

PaarlBok

Rod McCall (65)
The hottest topic after week 1 of the EYT matches was the tackle of Farrel on Esterhuizen right on the stroke of full time.


What are your thoughts on this?

Penalty, yellow or red or legal?
 
Derpus

Derpus

George Gregan (70)
It's 100% a penalty. Yellow? 50/50.

But i reckon if you have to rely on that decision going your way to win the match you havent done enough to win the match. Every match will have a call like that. We wouldn't even be talking about it if it didn't happen at the end.
 
waiopehu oldboy

waiopehu oldboy

Stirling Mortlock (74)
Defo penalty & strictly-by-the-book Yellow & shouldn't matter if it happens in the first or 81st minute, it's a YC and/ or penalty regardless. Result of match & potential impact of correct call being made also irrelevant IMO. Worst piece of ref & TMO decision-making since AB v B&IL3.
 
PaarlBok

PaarlBok

Rod McCall (65)
Can you imagen the explosion here if that call had to be made by Peyper if it was the Wallabies vs England?
 
Proud Pig

Proud Pig

Ted Thorn (20)
No attempt to wrap the arms it was shoulder all the way.
Penalty no question, should have been a yellow as well.
 
PaarlBok

PaarlBok

Rod McCall (65)
S24
The Boks were robbed blind on Saturday.
The decision from Australian referee Angus Gardner not to award a penalty after Owen Farrell's armless hit on Andre Esterhuizen was one of the more puzzling you could hope to see on a rugby field.

It was a shocker, and the penalty almost certainly would have been given had the incident happened at any other point in the contest. But in front of 80 000 vocal English supporters and with the hooter having sounded, Gardner dished up a choke that left the rugby world shaking its collective heads in bemusement.
The call was that bad, and the aftermath was understandable.
World Rugby immediately came into the spotlight with this the latest example of inconsistency in officiating at the highest level, especially given the emphasis on player safety in recent years.
It couldn't have been more clear-cut, and Bok coach Rassie Erasmus had every right to be seething at his post-match press conference.
Instead, the former loose forward opted for passive aggressive sarcasm, insisting that he was not upset at all and that the Boks would try and implement the technique used by Farrell moving forward.
It was an answer one would have expected from Eddie Jones. Erasmus, it seemed, was at least approaching it all with a tongue-in-cheek sense of humour.
That much was confirmed on Tuesday morning when video footage emerged (from where, we still don't know) of Erasmus and defence coach Jacques Nienaber showing Esterhuizen how to execute an armless, high tackle.
It was a clear stab at Gardner's decision and at World Rugby, but the smile on Esterhuizen's face at the end of the clip again suggested that it was done in jest.
The reaction to the video on social media was almost entirely positive, with most applauding Erasmus and the Boks for taking it all so well.
Then, on Tuesday, both assistant coach Mzwandile Stick and centre Damian de Allende insisted that the Boks were serious about using the Farrell tackle technique against France in Paris on Saturday.
That, surely, is a step too far.
World Rugby have distanced themselves from the incident, but their silence does not mean that they have endorsed the decision or the tackle. A post-match citing would only have been possible if the citing commissioner had seen a possible red card offence. The consensus was that Farrell deserved yellow at worst.
What the Boks have effectively done is state publicly that they are going into a Test match deliberately looking to tackle with no arms.
That is not okay.
They simply must be better in accepting that they were on the wrong end of an atrocious decision, and then they must move on. It is not the first time we have seen a poor call in rugby and it certainly won't be the last.
Gardner, for whatever reason, made the wrong call. Everybody involved knows that.
Against France, though, Nigel Owens will not be as incompetent and if the Boks come flying in the way Farrell did on Saturday, they will almost certainly be penalised.
This approach is not helping the Bok cause at all and, frankly, it is all becoming a little immature.
There were plenty of other areas throughout the 80 minutes that warrant more attention. Lineouts, handling, finishing, discipline ... these are the areas the Boks should be focusing on.
When pressed on the Farrell tackle this week, the Boks should no longer be biting. It is over and there are three opponents lying ahead that couldn't give two hoots about any injustices the Boks have faced.
There is so much to positive about in South African rugby currently, but they have lacked an element of class over the last couple of days.
Erasmus' answer at the press conference was amusing and the video was witty, but having members of the squad effectively saying that they are out to push the boundaries in terms of what is safe and what is not, is questionable.
For some reason, Erasmus is being praised for his pettiness.
As a colleague of mine Tweeted after the video broke: "Hell hath no passive fury like a Bok coach scorned ..."
Click to expand...
 
swingpass

swingpass

Peter Sullivan (51)
For mine he was offside - a bee’s dick in it. I have another question ? Earlier in the half McKenzie makes the break and Farrel knocks he ball out of his arms in the tackle, it travels backwards from the NZ point of view and Garces calls knock on. How is this a knock on ?
 
dru

dru

Tim Horan (67)
I don't think it was a bees dick. He was intentionally squeezing up trying it on, ended 1-2 boots too far forward. When you test this you take your chances.

The decision was sound.
 
swingpass

swingpass

Peter Sullivan (51)
dru said:
I don't think it was a bees dick. He was intentionally squeezing up trying it on, ended 1-2 boots too far forward. When you test this you take your chances.

The decision was sound.
Click to expand...

agree he was offside - we have well endowered bees in Victoria. :)

I believe the decision was close not his offside.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dru
PaarlBok

PaarlBok

Rod McCall (65)
France vs SA also deliver drama.Luckily we had Nigel Owens who had enough experience to handle the time situation level headed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dru
PaarlBok

PaarlBok

Rod McCall (65)
S24
Gardner admits he got Farrell call wrong in Bok Test

2018-11-28 06:48​
​
​
SHARE THIS
​
​
​
Cape Town - Australian referee Angus Gardner has admitted that he should have penalised England’s Owen Farrell for a controversial tackle on South Africa’s Andre Esterhuizen during a Test at Twickenham earlier this month.
Gardner opted not to award the Springboks a penalty after it appeared as though England flyhalf Farrell had executed a dangerous no-arms tackle on the Springbok centre.
"I think in hindsight now, having discussed it with some other referees... I think the general consensus would be that a penalty was probably the outcome there that should have been given," Gardner said on the Will Greenwood podcast, as quoted by Sky Sports.
Gardner made the comments shortly after he was named World Rugby’s Referee of the Year at a function in Monaco on Sunday night.

"I think we need to see a wrap with both arms, and I think in hindsight - although he got pinned - there wasn't a big enough wrap from both arms, really. There was a wrap with one arm, but there wasn't a wrap with the other arm."
Gardner did however explain why he made the decision at the time. He said the available angles on the screen at Twickenham made it appear as though Farrell had done enough to wrap his arm in the tackle.
"It was never high, and so all we were looking at was the tackle technique. The collision itself also kind of swayed my decision because it was a big rugby collision, and we see these hits in the game," Gardner added.
The incident occurred in the final move of the match which England subsequently won 12-11.
When probed on the incident in the post-match press conference, at the time Springbok coach Rassie Erasmus had an interesting view: "We should start tackling like that and execute it like that. Nothing upset me about the tackle we just have to latch on that if it is legal, it is effective. Tackle a guy like Andre and stop him in his tracks is some going. There is no sarcasm at all."
Despite saying he was not being sarcastic, it became obvious that Erasmus was incensed by the decision, as video footage emerged the following week showing Erasmus teaching Esterhuizen how to execute a tackle like Farrell did.
Farrell was not cited for the incident.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top