"I disagree" would have worked just as well and is less confrontational.
RWC 2011 - Bitch, moan and discuss - Referees and Law Discussions
- Thread starter Lee Grant
- Start date
- Status
Wasn't the role of the TMO extended in the Darkness vs The Saffers recent 3N outing? "That forward pass"
Clearly outside the commission of the TMO but the right call none the less.
The technology is there, why not use it, particularly if the Touchies are not able to position themselves correctly to make these adjudications.
The reality is the TV callers will stir up controversy and destroy Match Officials careers with their ability to review super slow motion replays regardless of what the TMO is allowed to advise the man in the middle on.
Clearly outside the commission of the TMO but the right call none the less.
The technology is there, why not use it, particularly if the Touchies are not able to position themselves correctly to make these adjudications.
The reality is the TV callers will stir up controversy and destroy Match Officials careers with their ability to review super slow motion replays regardless of what the TMO is allowed to advise the man in the middle on.
grievous
Charlie Fox (21)
RWC Reffing
Its not getting better is it?
Bad decisions swaying matches
Minnows still getting the short end of the stick
Too many personalities loving the sound of their voice, are these guys still all headmasters like in the amateur days?
Its always been a negative of our game the referee being able to ruin a match so well. Its been reported that an ex top referee has quoted some of the above.
How on earth did Owens miss a penalty kick going over when as touchy he was standing directy below.....its bloody poor.
Why after 6 WCs is there no ref from Arg, US, It, Fiji etc etc,
Its not getting better is it?
Bad decisions swaying matches
Minnows still getting the short end of the stick
Too many personalities loving the sound of their voice, are these guys still all headmasters like in the amateur days?
Its always been a negative of our game the referee being able to ruin a match so well. Its been reported that an ex top referee has quoted some of the above.
How on earth did Owens miss a penalty kick going over when as touchy he was standing directy below.....its bloody poor.
Why after 6 WCs is there no ref from Arg, US, It, Fiji etc etc,
A ref cannot ref his own nation at pool stage. Should he also be disqualified from reffing his own nations pool. Wales had a vested interest in Samoa losing. Was Owens incompetent or a cheat? I think incompetent but if a true neutral was involved the question would not arise.
T
Toby Lerone
Guest
It was a tough situation for Nigel to be put in, especially as the appointments could have been made so much easier.
10 referees and 40 pool matches means each referee gets 4 game.
Give each referee 1 match in each pool, and if their nation is in that pool, give them one of the 'lesser' games. The 10 referees at the World Cup are supposed to be the best, so making sure there is nothing to be gained for that referee's nation should be simple.
It's ridiculous that some teams have had the same referee twice in the pool stage, and there's not just one case of this.
Wayne Barnes - Wales (vs SAF, FIJ)
Craig Joubert - Ireland (vs USA, RUS)
Jonathan Kaplan - Canada (vs TON, JAP)
Bryce Lawrence - Australia (vs IRE, RUS)
Dave Pearson - Romania (vs SCO, GEO)
Steve Walsh - France (vs JAP, TON)
10 referees and 40 pool matches means each referee gets 4 game.
Give each referee 1 match in each pool, and if their nation is in that pool, give them one of the 'lesser' games. The 10 referees at the World Cup are supposed to be the best, so making sure there is nothing to be gained for that referee's nation should be simple.
It's ridiculous that some teams have had the same referee twice in the pool stage, and there's not just one case of this.
Wayne Barnes - Wales (vs SAF, FIJ)
Craig Joubert - Ireland (vs USA, RUS)
Jonathan Kaplan - Canada (vs TON, JAP)
Bryce Lawrence - Australia (vs IRE, RUS)
Dave Pearson - Romania (vs SCO, GEO)
Steve Walsh - France (vs JAP, TON)
Mank
Ted Thorn (20)
What I don't get is that you guys are calling him incompetent or worse, a cheat, implying he was in SAs favour when I just didn't see it that way. There were several knock-ons he missed from Samoa at crucial points, a couple of forward passes, some killing of the ball, and quite a bit of niggle. Not that I'm complaining about any of it, I prefer to try to take rugby as it comes, focus on the good parts, and enjoy the sport. Whereas you guys just seem to focus on what he missed or blew against the team you're favouring and you get so wound up about it you don't seem to enjoy the rugby. It's frustrating to read this.
Edit: Ok, I realise this is the ref bitch and moan forum, so fair play. But still, a little more even handedness wouldn't go amiss. There have been two games that people have made out that the ref basically cheated the opposition out of a win, both involving SA, whereas I just don't think it was the case. There were bad calls on both sides.
Bullrush
John Hipwell (52)
As a Manu fan, I think it's a bit harsh to blame Owens for the loss. He did stuff up some pretty big calls for us but I think he missed some less major calls for SA.
Williams was always gonna get carded for his shove to the face but I don't how the ass ref also missed Brussow practically punching Williams in the back of the head. If he had been doing it to his arms, as you usually see in this situation, then fair game but to the head is something else.
Williams was always gonna get carded for his shove to the face but I don't how the ass ref also missed Brussow practically punching Williams in the back of the head. If he had been doing it to his arms, as you usually see in this situation, then fair game but to the head is something else.
W
Worldcupnut
Guest
As long as you well meaning and long suffering observers keep giving referees the benefit of the doubt and the call of "merely incompetent" then nothing will change. I'm calling it. THE IRB IS CORRUPT! as betting is huge now in Rugby an independent non football overseer should rake Owens and Lawrence and who ever else officiates in this sick and sorry excuse of a game.
I haven't been able to watch a game since about 50mins into the Wallabies / Ireland game. I'm totally disgusted. I just watched the Manly Warriors game and it was a relief to watch a game where the standard of play was the major focus and note some p!ss weak excuse for a human being dictaing the result.
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Havent seen the game - I gather Williams was sent off for what turned out to be a push with an open hand: if Owens was solely responsible for that outcome then he is not fit to go further.
He seems to have a pathological need to prove how tough he is to the point of his losing any feel for a game.
J
Jay
Guest
It was on a recommendation by one of the assistant refs, who specified red.
The ref was Barnes.
The game was Fiji v Wales.
The situation was a Penalty Kick to Fiji about 15 metres out from the Welsh Line, 70+ minutes gone. Fiji behind by lots.
The guilty bugger was Fiji #9.
The offence was the Tap kick was not a tap kick. An Oz-Tag or Mungoball like lift the foot to touch the ball, before sprinting off.
The Pedant requires the ball in a penalty kick/tap kick to actually leave the hands after being touched by the foot.
Law 21.4(c) requires a clear kick to be taken. A clear kick is defined as "The kicker must kick the ball a visible distance. If the kicker is holding it, the ball must clearly leave the hands. If it is on the ground, it must clearly leave the mark."
The "clear kick" wasn't. End of Story.
Many referees allow this to happen at junior and school level. Do not often see a top level Professional referee let these go. Sends a poor message to kids watching.
Perhaps Barnsey took pity on the Fijians, cause whatever they were doing to try and score any points wasn't working.
With all the Penalties awarded to them, I reckon that Fiji still wouldn't have scored a point even if Barnsey had have kicked the goals for them. It just wasn't their day.
The game was Fiji v Wales.
The situation was a Penalty Kick to Fiji about 15 metres out from the Welsh Line, 70+ minutes gone. Fiji behind by lots.
The guilty bugger was Fiji #9.
The offence was the Tap kick was not a tap kick. An Oz-Tag or Mungoball like lift the foot to touch the ball, before sprinting off.
The Pedant requires the ball in a penalty kick/tap kick to actually leave the hands after being touched by the foot.
Law 21.4(c) requires a clear kick to be taken. A clear kick is defined as "The kicker must kick the ball a visible distance. If the kicker is holding it, the ball must clearly leave the hands. If it is on the ground, it must clearly leave the mark."
The "clear kick" wasn't. End of Story.
Many referees allow this to happen at junior and school level. Do not often see a top level Professional referee let these go. Sends a poor message to kids watching.
Perhaps Barnsey took pity on the Fijians, cause whatever they were doing to try and score any points wasn't working.
With all the Penalties awarded to them, I reckon that Fiji still wouldn't have scored a point even if Barnsey had have kicked the goals for them. It just wasn't their day.
thecow
Ward Prentice (10)
I'm just gonna put this out of here.
I want to ask any of you who write on this. Are any of you perfect?
Considering that none of you are, why is there an expectation on the 10 referees at the World Cup that they have to make the right call 100% of the time.
I know that the main complaint about the referees at this tournament is that they are consistently making poor decisions, or that they are incompetent. Well, to be fair, as an Australian, I don't see any of the other referees in Australia would do a better job than the 10 referees at this tournament. This is an ARU problem due to the huge step up between Premier Rugby (i.e. Shute Shield, Brisbane rugby, etc.) to Super 15. But looking at the IRB panel prior to this tournament besides probably Mark Lawrence in my opinion none of them should be there ahead of the 10 member panel.
However, there is light at the end of the tunnel. I was thinking about it the other day, and in my opinion out of the 10 referees at this world cup I think there will only be 3 at the 2015 tournament: that is Barnes, Joubert and Walsh. Luckily those are the best 3.
What I'm mainly trying to say is that referees are human, and unless it is a decision regarding a try they cannot use a replay, everything looks different when they are ON THE FIELD and not looking at a TV screen. And to be fair, there are bigger things in life than rugby that you should be concerning your time with.
I want to ask any of you who write on this. Are any of you perfect?
Considering that none of you are, why is there an expectation on the 10 referees at the World Cup that they have to make the right call 100% of the time.
I know that the main complaint about the referees at this tournament is that they are consistently making poor decisions, or that they are incompetent. Well, to be fair, as an Australian, I don't see any of the other referees in Australia would do a better job than the 10 referees at this tournament. This is an ARU problem due to the huge step up between Premier Rugby (i.e. Shute Shield, Brisbane rugby, etc.) to Super 15. But looking at the IRB panel prior to this tournament besides probably Mark Lawrence in my opinion none of them should be there ahead of the 10 member panel.
However, there is light at the end of the tunnel. I was thinking about it the other day, and in my opinion out of the 10 referees at this world cup I think there will only be 3 at the 2015 tournament: that is Barnes, Joubert and Walsh. Luckily those are the best 3.
What I'm mainly trying to say is that referees are human, and unless it is a decision regarding a try they cannot use a replay, everything looks different when they are ON THE FIELD and not looking at a TV screen. And to be fair, there are bigger things in life than rugby that you should be concerning your time with.
Bruwheresmycar
Nicholas Shehadie (39)
Oh no. This thread has been taken over by conspiracy theorists...
Just because some of you can't imagine yourselves reffing a game without favoring someone, doesn't mean other human beings are incapable of doing it.
I quoted Mark Lawrence earlier in the thread, talking about how refereeing is all about making the right decisions regardless of the circumstances. Some of you need to go outside, go and referee a game, go and meet some professional refs. Get some bloody perspective.
Whenever I am reffing my own club, I am tempted to be much harsher on them just so those dickheads watching don't accuse me of being bias. But I don't, because that would be letting the idiots win.
Just because some of you can't imagine yourselves reffing a game without favoring someone, doesn't mean other human beings are incapable of doing it.
I quoted Mark Lawrence earlier in the thread, talking about how refereeing is all about making the right decisions regardless of the circumstances. Some of you need to go outside, go and referee a game, go and meet some professional refs. Get some bloody perspective.
Whenever I am reffing my own club, I am tempted to be much harsher on them just so those dickheads watching don't accuse me of being bias. But I don't, because that would be letting the idiots win.
Thomond78
Colin Windon (37)
In my defence, Sully, I'd seen what was going on on Twitter by that stage. It's one thing moaning about a ref, but the attacks going on on him online have to be stamped out. That Samoan lad retweeting death threats has some serious explaining to do.
Meantime away from conspiracy we had a case wherein the excellent Tommy Bowe was tackled before the goal line and then endeavoured to put his hand on the ball over the goal line to score a try. Because he was inconvenienced by a premature tackle, he was unable to do so.
I forget the exact wording of Kaplan's question to the TMO but I think that he asked if a try had been scored, and also if an illegality had occurred. The TMO said no try had been scored and dead panned when he added that there was no illegality over the goal line. Nor was there - the illegality was before the goal line and was therefore an incident in an area in which the TMO was not permitted to comment on. Officially.
The Kiwi commentators brayed on not appreciating what the TMO had done: played a straight bat.
Kaplan must have been aware that something was amiss else he would not have asked the question he did. He should have asked the touchie nearest to the play if he saw anything untoward. Maybe he did and got a response that didn't help.
My point is that the TMO protocol doesn't cover this case. If Kaplan thought something may have been remiss but the incident may have been before the goal line, and the touchie was no help, he couldn't get the TMO to help him.
As one has mentioned half a dozen times France has dispensation to use the TMO in domestic rugby for an incident before the goal line, provided the ref has spotted it, or been advised about it, and asked the question - and it doesn't matter if it was 30 metres out, so long as it was in a movement in which a try had been scored, or was unable to be scored.
The automatic response to suggesting this be brought into all pro rugby, including test matches, would be that it would take too much time. It doesn't. You can watch heaps of Top14 games without realising that France has this dispensation.
I think Kaplan would have used the TMO and asked about the incident before, or after, the goal line, but he was constrained by the present protocol from asking about what happened before the goal line, as was the TMO from answering a question that was not asked.
Change the protocol IRB, or at least trial the French method just to see.
I forget the exact wording of Kaplan's question to the TMO but I think that he asked if a try had been scored, and also if an illegality had occurred. The TMO said no try had been scored and dead panned when he added that there was no illegality over the goal line. Nor was there - the illegality was before the goal line and was therefore an incident in an area in which the TMO was not permitted to comment on. Officially.
The Kiwi commentators brayed on not appreciating what the TMO had done: played a straight bat.
Kaplan must have been aware that something was amiss else he would not have asked the question he did. He should have asked the touchie nearest to the play if he saw anything untoward. Maybe he did and got a response that didn't help.
My point is that the TMO protocol doesn't cover this case. If Kaplan thought something may have been remiss but the incident may have been before the goal line, and the touchie was no help, he couldn't get the TMO to help him.
As one has mentioned half a dozen times France has dispensation to use the TMO in domestic rugby for an incident before the goal line, provided the ref has spotted it, or been advised about it, and asked the question - and it doesn't matter if it was 30 metres out, so long as it was in a movement in which a try had been scored, or was unable to be scored.
The automatic response to suggesting this be brought into all pro rugby, including test matches, would be that it would take too much time. It doesn't. You can watch heaps of Top14 games without realising that France has this dispensation.
I think Kaplan would have used the TMO and asked about the incident before, or after, the goal line, but he was constrained by the present protocol from asking about what happened before the goal line, as was the TMO from answering a question that was not asked.
Change the protocol IRB, or at least trial the French method just to see.
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
this isnt mere pedantry: if you want the advantage of tapping the ball from your hands you have to be able to catch an take the risk that you won't.
- Status