All Blacks vs Springboks, Wellington

[Thomond78]

ABs won because they played better. A LOT better. I doubt that a law 'interpretation' suits them more than another team, particularly when that slows the play down.

However, I completely disagree with having NH referees for the 3N. It doesn't really make any sense, and it is annoying that they aren't applying the laws the same way that the S14 refs did. The amount of time the tackler didn't release the player before having a go at the ball was astounding, and would have resulted in a penalty in the S14. In saying that the refs also got a bit lazy on this as the S14 went on.

Boys, with the greatest of respect; cry me a fucking river. We had SH refs coming up, in the middle of the 6N, applying, mid-tournament, not just a completely different interpretation at the breakdown but an entirely new ruling. We got on with it. You can. The alternative is not only completely different interpretations between the hemispheres and an even worse problem come tours/RWC, but also that you get Bryce Lawrence doing SA-Aus games for the rest of eternity; and are you sure you want that...?

But what I will agree with, alas, is that refs tend to get lazy on any crackdown. They're human (no, really, they are. Well, maybe not Barnes and McHugh, but the rest are...), and bitching from commentators about "pedantic" - i.e. correct and accurate - refereeing will have its effect on them as it would on anyone. It's why I like Garcés so much; he really could not give a shit what the commentators say, and will just ref away strong as the laws say. And more power to him.

 

[PaarlBok]

Well Boet to be honest, taste like kak when Naas and that Guppie soutie from Bobbejaansberg, Darren Scot sprouting shite about the ref. They should know better, that make me taste the kak display of Bok rugby even more bitter. Vokket just say the other team was better on the day and get over it. Pretty easy pie this.

 

[Thomond78]

McAwe only plays the ref and correctly so. Wish our lot will just get out there and do the same and stop whining, thats the basic rule from U6 to test level rugby. T78 I see we have another Irish one this weekend? George Clancy.

Ag, Oom, as I've said before; good luck to McAwe, he's doing his job and more power to him.

Clancy is new on the panel. Clearly being promoted and pushed, but young and inexperience. I'm not his biggest fan, to be honest. Has his moments, and a sound ref on the basics, but if you were to ask me one word to describe him at the moment, I'd say: nervous. Doesn't have real authority yet. I suspect it'll go one of two ways: he'll be a push-over, and there'll be carnage; or, he'll man up, crack down and it'll be quite a good game, as well as being the making of him. We'll see, but, at the moment, I'd reckon the back-rows and especially Rocky Elsom will be looking to push it all the way.

Elsom, CJ vd L and BJB are, so far as I know, the only guys on either side with experience of being reffed by Clancy.

 

[Blue]

Two observations:

1. NH, SH ref. Who cares. Hit the goddamn rucks.
2. Roland was absolutely ueber fucking useless. But it made little difference to the outcome.

 

[Gnostic]

Boys, with the greatest of respect; cry me a fucking river. We had SH refs coming up, in the middle of the 6N, applying, mid-tournament, not just a completely different interpretation at the breakdown but an entirely new ruling. We got on with it. You can. The alternative is not only completely different interpretations between the hemispheres and an even worse problem come tours/RWC, but also that you get Bryce Lawrence doing SA-Aus games for the rest of eternity; and are you sure you want that...?

But what I will agree with, alas, is that refs tend to get lazy on any crackdown. They're human (no, really, they are. Well, maybe not Barnes and McHugh, but the rest are...), and bitching from commentators about "pedantic" - i.e. correct and accurate - refereeing will have its effect on them as it would on anyone. It's why I like Garcés so much; he really could not give a shit what the commentators say, and will just ref away strong as the laws say. And more power to him.

And as you were told back then, that was the total stuff up by the organsiers of the 6N. It had nothing at all to do with the refs. They just did what they were told to. If the organisers didn't want the new interpretations introduced until post 6N they should have said. The 3N Unions alwasy take the IRB edicts and then institute them at a sensible least disruptive time. The introduction of the new (original) breakdown interpretation mid tournment was a huge mistake by the 6N unions.

 

[Thomond78]

And as you were told back then, that was the total stuff up by the organsiers of the 6N. It had nothing at all to do with the refs. They just did what they were told to. If the organisers didn't want the new interpretations introduced until post 6N they should have said. The 3N Unions alwasy take the IRB edicts and then institute them at a sensible least disruptive time. The introduction of the new (original) breakdown interpretation mid tournment was a huge mistake by the 6N unions.

Eh - wrong. It had nothing to do with the organisers of the 6N, still less the unions; the coaches, without exception, were fuming over it, and the unions were letting the press know left, right and centre up here that they didn't want it changed mid-tournament.

The refs were appointed, back in November or so, by the IRB. It was the IRB decided it would be a good idea to have them change the interpretation mid-way; and that was all Paddy O'Brien. He's in charge of the refs for internationals, not the organisers of the 6N; still less can the unions tell the IRB which laws they don't want.

It was O'Brien; you know, the man who decided, post-ELV debacle, to introduce his own little frolic of a law saying you were allowed keep your hands on the ball in a ruck once a ruck had formed, never mind what the laws actually say. So triumphant a success was that that it was less than six months before the new interpretation of hands-on had to be introduced to reverse what he did and sort out the damage caused by it.

O'Brien has been a disaster as chief ref. There's no two ways about it. The faster he's gone, and the faster we get someone competent like Watson in there running it quietly and not shooting his mouth off, the better.

 

[MajorlyRagerly]

By the way, the 12-5 figure you're so reliant on just proves my point. If a team commits two and half times as many penalties as the opposition, but doesn't get someone binned whereas the team who commit just five penalties does get someone binned, then there's clearly something off in the reffing.

Can't agree with that statement in it's simplicitiy. You commit defending in the red zone, your at risk. You commit attacking in the red zone, your not at risk. Do you think if you've been warned before when defending in the red zone, that if you subsequently get caught holding on when going for a try yourself, you should be binned?

And for the 4th time on this thread, I have stated that McCaw was lucky not to be binned. As Scorz says though, as a NZ supporter, I'm going to go looking to find out why he wasn't & justify it if possible.

 

[Thomond78]

Simple answer, MR: if you've been warned, you should go for your next offence, no matter where you are, no matter what you're doing. You've been told the next offence you commit will lead to you being sin-binned; so, if you choose to ignore that and offend again, the ref has to follow through and bin you.

Otherwise, not only does it mean you know the ref is too weak to actually carry out his threats and can then be ignored while you do what you want, but because he's not doing what the laws demand in black and white, you then have refs ignoring the laws and making their own ones up. When you get into that situation, it's so randomly subjective it does no-one any favours, whether during that game or long-term.

 

[Lee Grant]

There will be a few conspiracy theories around about why McCaw stayed on the park, but that's pulling a long bow.

A few years ago on the other forum I called him TIM all the time which annoyed a few Kiwis so much I kept doing it until I forgot to do it. TIM stood for The Invisible Man because as great a player as he was it was clear to me that he had a charmed life.

He did all the things an openside guy from any team did but the thing that used to get my goat was the tackle then sliding down on the opponents side of the tackle area so his body was between the ball and attackers when he got to the ground. In the last couple of years the refs started getting wise to him and he dropped it from his repertoire.

When the law crackdown occurred at the start of the Super14 I thought he was a less effective player, as were a lot of 7s. The hanky panky mentioned was a thing of the past not just for him but for everybody as referees started throwing their arms up and blowing their whistles for everything .

Then like the great player he is McCaw reinvented himself but with that came the return of TIM. I was flabbergasted that he stayed on the park at the Cake Tin. I don't think it's a conspiracy theory: I think that referees unintentionally treat the All Black captain differently to other players.

We see it in other sports . When they were in their pomp the Australian cricket team got lucky calls in test after test from the umpires and played in few test matches when it was the other way around. Even as recently as the summer before last the Indians were dudded in session after session in Sydney.

That is a team issue but in the sport of rugby I see a TIM issue from time to time.

.

 

[Top Bloke]

Although some stats showed that McCaw was pinged 5 times, He was in fact penalised 3 times. Of the other 2 pens recorded against him one should have been Muliaina, the other was Whitelock. The 3rd pen McCaw rec'd was later in the match when the ABs were on attack he was penalised for going off his feet. Rolland clealry says to McCaw "I know you were not at fault, you were pushed over but you must stay on your feet." I'm guessing because this was not in the "red zone" he did not get carded.

 

[Scotty]

I love PdV's conspiracy theory played on the rugby club last night, which went something like:

'Because the rugby world cup is in NZ next year, it was good (read it was rigged) that they win so that they'd sell more tickets'

He really is an embarrassment.

 

[JJJ]

He's really not taking it lying down:

http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,16024_6272547,00.html

South African Rugby Union are taking action into what they see as being recent bias against the Springboks, it was reported on Wednesday.

Their decision comes following centre-cum-wing Jean de Villiers being handed a two-week ban for his 'tip tackle' on New Zealand winger Rene Ranger during last Saturday's Tri-Nations defeat, their second negative in as many weeks.

Stormers back De Villiers was cited for the incident by Australia's Scott Nowland soon after the match, but the Springboks are still fuming over the aforementioned All Black's own alleged indiscretion when full-back Zane Kirchner was on the receiving end of a 'no arm' tackle. Ranger escaped punishment both on the field and off it.

The competition holders were also upset that home captain Richie McCaw was not handed a yellow card for what they view as being repeated offences in the tackle, which has led to Saru boss Oregan Hoskins instructing the Boks' representative on the Sanzar legal committee, Judge Lex Mpati, to 'take up' the matter.

"On the judicial side, I have asked Judge Mpati to take it up," Hoskins said, speaking to the Cape Times.

"A number of stakeholders have complained to me about the lack of consistency in the rulings of the judicial officials in rugby.

"I have stressed to Judge Mpati the seriousness of the matter, and he has promised that he will come back to me in writing hopefully by next week.

"I don't want to say too much further, as previously I have spoken about the issue in the media and nothing has been done about it."

I wonder if this will affect the reffing of the Wallabies vs Boks match in Brisbane?

 

[Thomond78]

Now, there's no question that there is monstrous inconsistency in suspensions and the disciplinary system in rugby. But first off, I'm not sure how a South African judge would have any seisin of something done in New Zealand by an Irish employee of an Irish company; and secondly, I'm not 100% sure that those with an openside who got eight weeks for the most appalling gouge on a test pitch that anyone can remember are in the best position to be chucking around stones.

 

[cyclopath]

Now, there's no question that there is monstrous inconsistency in suspensions and the disciplinary system in rugby. But first off, I'm not sure how a South African judge would have any seisin of something done in New Zealand by an Irish employee of an Irish company; and secondly, I'm not 100% sure that those with an openside who got eight weeks for the most appalling gouge on a test pitch that anyone can remember are in the best position to be chucking around stones.

Maybe they thought he should have got 10 weeks??
The brazen attempts to exert influence on the refereeing and judicial processes really shit me, but what most shits me is the IRB persisting with the flawed citing and judicial process it has.
FFS draw up a table of offences / gradings and prescribed suspensions, and some weighting system for repeat offenders. It's not as if other sports do not have examples they can use.

 

[MajorlyRagerly]

Maybe they thought he should have got 10 weeks??
The brazen attempts to exert influence on the refereeing and judicial processes really shit me, but what most shits me is the IRB persisting with the flawed citing and judicial process it has.
FFS draw up a table of offences / gradings and prescribed suspensions, and some weighting system for repeat offenders. It's not as if other sports do not have examples they can use.

Yes, 100% totally agreed. I think the scale should be exponential for repeat offenders. So say first offence is 2 weeks.. second is 4, third is 8.. right up to infinite.

 

[Lee Grant]

We talk about this quite a bit.

It wouldn't be too expensive using Skype or some such technology to link a SANZAR tribunal in a conference call and before that a citing panel.

The individuals could do it from home or their office depending on where they are at the time. The people involved should be retired judges or persons who have some legal training, and also played the game at a high level.

Every S15 city should have a location, probably in the local S15 HQ, where players could answer charges via Skype in a conference call. If players are on tour they could attend at the next destination.

There are a lot of details to be considered but it wouldn't be that hard to do and after a few boo-boos it should be a lot better than what we have now, and more consistent if there aren't too many people in the tribunal pool.

Gradually a backlog of precedents would be set and the procedures standardised.

Basically this is what the NRL judiciary does, except that it is done in person.

.

 

[daz]

I personally like the AFL tribunal system. The judiciary meets each Sunday to review the incidents (both reported at the time and after video replays) and the tribunal meets each Tuesday night to judge the players cited in person. Each offence is listed by severity on a points based matrix. Players accrue points and each susbsequent visit to the tribunal allows points to carry over, so that for a minor offense such as tripping (where the maximum penalty is 1 week), a previously clean player would only get the 1 week, where-as a repeat offender could actually receive 2-3 weeks based on offense history and points accrual.

Interestingly, the highest severity is against head contact and umpire contact/abuse. I particularly like the high priority on umpire abuse in the AFL and the standards they have set, given how the dive and mungo players set such a fine example of this to the kids....

 

[DPK]

Do it cricket style. Yellow card, dock 'em 15% of their match fee. Red card, 25%.

Wallabies lose a game, 50% and no supper.

 

[Blue]

Do it cricket style. Yellow card, dock 'em 15% of their match fee. Red card, 25%.

Wallabies lose a game, 50% no pussy and no supper.

Fuxed.

But seriously maybe teams need to start looking at that sort of scheme. You'll think twice if you're not going to get your match fee.

 

[Blue]

We talk about this quite a bit.

It wouldn't be too expensive using Skype or some such technology to link a SANZAR tribunal in a conference call and before that a citing panel.

The individuals could do it from home or their office depending on where they are at the time. The people involved should be retired judges or persons who have some legal training, and also played the game at a high level.

Every S15 city should have a location, probably in the local S15 HQ, where players could answer charges via Skype in a conference call. If players are on tour they could attend at the next destination.

There are a lot of details to be considered but it wouldn't be that hard to do and after a few boo-boos it should be a lot better than what we have now, and more consistent if there aren't too many people in the tribunal pool.

Gradually a backlog of precedents would be set and the procedures standardised.

Basically this is what the NRL judiciary does, except that it is done in person.

.

Nice to see you around again Lee.

The technology should be no barrier.

I have a UK client who has some amazing video conferencing technology.

I had to download a small app and every time I need to join a meeting I get given a code, start the software and I am instantly in the meeting. The signal is fantastic. We've had meetings across four continents with barely a delay.

I asked them about the costs and its apparently not at all expensive.

Surely with all the controversy you would think SANZAR would make fixing the judiciary a priority?

All they need to do is appoint one decent ex-ref to work with the refereeing body, set the standards and this person sets up the process. Really, politicians are more efficient than this lot and that's bad enough.