• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

[2015 RWC] Quarter Final 4: Australia vs. Scotland (18/10/2015)

celticc said:
Not sure what the point of that article is SANZAR. Whether WR published their review or not, it has already been widely accepted what the correct call would have been. Anyone who thinks whatever the Aussies accomplish this tourney is tainted are going to think that anyway. For what it's worth, I don't. It's not their fault what happened and who knows, maybe they would have gone on to score anyway, I'd like to think they wouldn't have but hey ho.
Click to expand...

Well the point of the article was that it was extremely poor form for World Rugby to selectively and publicly admit this mistake due simply to UK press pressure, given that numerous arguably just as important mistakes have been ignored. The blatant knock on by Laidlaw that Peyper missed in the lead up to their match winning try against Samoa is a case in point; everyone agrees that was a knock on, but Samoa don't have a media machine full of TV personalities to express their disgust and outrage, and also don't have representation at WR Referee committee like Scotland.

Again, the problem with the reaction is much like the problem with the rulings themselves; consistency.
 
One of the real problems when referees make mistakes, is the argument that other mistakes were made by the same ref that related to the opposition and/or other refs also made mistakes that affected play in other games involving different teams. This sort of response has the effect of suggesting, and it's probably the intention, ergo, it's fundamentally a level playing field and a swings and roundabout situation, as if all the referees' mistakes are basically the same. This is manifestly not the case, as was shown in this quarter final. Even the very time it occurred can be seen as having been more crucial than if the referee had awarded a penalty for exactly the same reason, only, say, with still 15 minutes to go. Rugby has come much further than football, thankfully, to allow video and recorded action, as well as another official's input, to influence and even change, decisions, and quite crucial ones at that, with penalties even being reversed and a player ending up being sin-binned. Both sports, in my view, should allow for such when it comes to really crucial and significant actions and decisions.
 
A lot of folk are forgetting that Joubert disallowed an Aussie try, Foley missed a swag of kicks and Cheiks rested Pocock ad Folau.
Scotland at their best still couldn't take down a depleted Wallabies team and the ref had bugger all to do with it.
 
sanzar said:
Well the point of the article was that it was extremely poor form for World Rugby to selectively and publicly admit this mistake due simply to UK press pressure, given that numerous arguably just as important mistakes have been ignored. The blatant knock on by Laidlaw that Peyper missed in the lead up to their match winning try against Samoa is a case in point; everyone agrees that was a knock on, but Samoa don't have a media machine full of TV personalities to express their disgust and outrage, and also don't have representation at WR Referee committee like Scotland.

Again, the problem with the reaction is much like the problem with the rulings themselves; consistency.
Click to expand...

I thought you were going to start yelling racists and such when you mentioned Samoa ala Eliota Sapolu. Dont know if anyones seen it but he was nutting off on the telly the other day again about how racist world rugby is yada yada.... He's probably right but for a lawyer he chooses a very poor way of putting himself out there about it.
 
Cliffyboy said:
One of the real problems when referees make mistakes, is the argument that other mistakes were made by the same ref that related to the opposition and/or other refs also made mistakes that affected play in other games involving different teams. This sort of response has the effect of suggesting, and it's probably the intention, ergo, it's fundamentally a level playing field and a swings and roundabout situation, as if all the referees' mistakes are basically the same. This is manifestly not the case, as was shown in this quarter final. Even the very time it occurred can be seen as having been more crucial than if the referee had awarded a penalty for exactly the same reason, only, say, with still 15 minutes to go. Rugby has come much further than football, thankfully, to allow video and recorded action, as well as another official's input, to influence and even change, decisions, and quite crucial ones at that, with penalties even being reversed and a player ending up being sin-binned. Both sports, in my view, should allow for such when it comes to really crucial and significant actions and decisions.
Click to expand...

I just don't think that's true. In the NRL over here they always talk about key decisions "changing the complexion of the game" - like an incorrect penalty in the first half that relieves pressure off one side who then go on to score, and how even though it was early was ultimately a key deciding factor in a game.

Such notions are ultimately always based on unknowable counterfactuals, but in truth this case is also one such instance. It wasn't the end of the game; there were two minutes on the clock when the penalty was given and Scotland still had a kick off, giving them a chance at re-contesting possession. As it went though, the Scots opted rather to kick long off the kick off, giving themselves no chance at redemption.
 
sanzar said:
I just don't think that's true. In the NRL over here they always talk about key decisions "changing the complexion of the game" - like an incorrect penalty in the first half that relieves pressure off one side who then go on to score, and how even though it was early was ultimately a key deciding factor in a game.

Such notions are ultimately always based on unknowable counterfactuals, but in truth this case is also one such instance. It wasn't the end of the game; there were two minutes on the clock when the penalty was given and Scotland still had a kick off, giving them a chance at re-contesting possession. As it went though, the Scots opted rather to kick long off the kick off, giving themselves no chance at redemption.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, because obviously a team and players can be negatively affected if a rough decision is made against them at any time during a game, sure, but I'd still argue that the penalty awarded against Scotland would have been more of a hammer-blow coming when it did, rather than, say, 15 minutes earlier. The main thing, anyway, is not necessarily the timing of an 'offence' or referee's decision, but the need to employ the technical advances we have now made and have in place, that can and should be used when it comes down to really crucial decisions and situations, like the one in question here. It just makes good sense, to my way of thinking. Rugby has made great strides in utilising such technology, and without any questioning and reduction in the position of the referee's authority. Seems to me there's no harm, or even point, in not including the kind of thing that happened in this match. At the very least, the referee wouldn't have been copping the kind of flak he is now.
 
After all this conjecture I am still not a fan of increasing the TMO input in the game.
It has happened to every team over all the years since the day William Webb Ellis picked up the ball.
The game unlike the other rugby is a contest for the ball at all phases of play. We don't need any more input that we have now.
I would think that the majority of true rugby supporters around the world would agree.
May be we need a poll on the subject, (increasing the use of the TMO.
Also in the other Rugby game (here on in I will call mini-league) the TMO's still manage to get decisions wrong.
 
Cliffyboy said:
Rugby has made great strides in utilising such technology, and without any questioning and reduction in the position of the referee's authority. .
Click to expand...

I think that has hugely lessened the authority of the ref in that I have never seen so much discussion and accusations of bias and bribery and, indeed, the consistent demanding by players of a TMO view, vocal or in sign language, of what they see as the wrong decision.

I think that this has led to players waving cards also........the refs are now more criticised than ever and part of that, of course, is social media such as this.

If we continue barracking and demanding nothing short of perfection from imperfect humans, then fewer people (particularly ex-players and intelligent people) will become refs and the game will suffer.
 
Tony Manx said:
I think that has hugely lessened the authority of the ref in that I have never seen so much discussion and accusations of bias and bribery and, indeed, the consistent demanding by players of a TMO view, vocal or in sign language, of what they see as the wrong decision.

I think that this has led to players waving cards also........the refs are now more criticised than ever and part of that, of course, is social media such as this.

If we continue barracking and demanding nothing short of perfection from imperfect humans, then fewer people (particularly ex-players and intelligent people) will become refs and the game will suffer.
Click to expand...

Nice post
 
Just a biased source. Seems like a desperate attempt to make light of a very serious situation.
 
KeyboardWorrier said:
Just a biased source. Seems like a desperate attempt to make light of a very serious situation.
Click to expand...

Lol mate you seriously need to lighten up! Syria's civil war is a "very serious situation." This is a bloody game we're talking about here.
 
Last edited:
Read that piece today. Probably the fairest and most balanced piece to come out about this whole thing to date.
 
Tony Manx said:
I think that has hugely lessened the authority of the ref in that I have never seen so much discussion and accusations of bias and bribery and, indeed, the consistent demanding by players of a TMO view, vocal or in sign language, of what they see as the wrong decision.

I think that this has led to players waving cards also........the refs are now more criticised than ever and part of that, of course, is social media such as this.

If we continue barracking and demanding nothing short of perfection from imperfect humans, then fewer people (particularly ex-players and intelligent people) will become refs and the game will suffer.
Click to expand...

Well, each to their own but I certainly don't sense that or agree, not at all, though I only watch the matches on T.V. But in terms of the other issues you raise, like the waving of cards, I would agree that referees should stamp that out but I don't see how that really relates to the use of video technology. You could end that tomorrow if it was ruled that only the captain is allowed to approach the referee.

Admittedly, referees do not seem to penalise a team as often as they used to, by moving the opposition forward a further ten metres, if a decision is directly questioned, and if that is related to this use, the authorities should be able to introduce a measure or two that would soon put a stop to it. There is no way rugby is going to discontinue the use of video technology - it has proved very beneficial in highlighting dangerous tackles and play that has been missed, as well as obviously helping to confirm whether or not a try has been scored. I see that as being wholly good.

- - - Updated - - -
 
sanzar said:
Read that piece today. Probably the fairest and most balanced piece to come out about this whole thing to date.
Click to expand...

I don't understand the article. People are concerned with dodgy ref calls, and rightly so it seems.
 
smartcooky said:
I imagine most of you NH folk won't know much about Scotty ""Sumo" Stevenson, but he is an all around good bloke; the most honest rugby journalist I know.

Well, he hits the nail right on the head here and he brings some perspective to this situation...

http://m.nzherald.co.nz/scotty-stevenson/news/article.cfm?a_id=815&objectid=11532289
Click to expand...
I think some of it is right....Joubert shouldn't be subjected to abuse at all, that's not to say his decision shouldn't be questioned and reviewed. There's a difference Hastings had just seen his team fail to make it to a SF of course he was incensed in the passion of the moment. I'm sure once he's calmed down he'll be a little silly for what he said.

He's a little unfair to Dawson who called Joubert a disgrace which whilst not very good language to use was referring to Joubert decision to leave the field immediately. Which wasn't exactly the best decision in the world and I agree was probably a little disrespectful to the players and management of Scotland. Especially if he knew he'd made a mistake at that point. I'd like to know why Joubert went off the field so quickly. Also the "Hakarena" wasn't disrespectful. Dawson is a *** though so it's east to see the bleed through.
 
sanzar said:
Lol mate you seriously need to lighten up! Syria's civil war is a "very serious situation." This is a bloody game we're talking about here.
Click to expand...

Syria Myria, who cares. What happens in Rugby Union is of far greater concern to me.
 

Similar threads

TRF_heineken
[2015 RWC] Quarter Final 3: Ireland vs. Argentina (18/10/2015)
28 29 30
Replies
581
Views
76K
Cliffyboy
C
M
[2015 RWC] Final: New Zealand vs. Australia (31/10/2015)
56 57 58
Replies
1K
Views
147K
Counties NZ
Counties NZ
TRF_heineken
[2015 RWC] Semi Final 2: Australia vs. Argentina (25/10/2015)
32 33 34
Replies
667
Views
69K
Bada-Bing!
Bada-Bing!
TRF_heineken
[2015 RWC] Quarter Final 2: New Zealand vs. France (17/10/2015)
28 29 30
Replies
582
Views
64K
ENZED-88
E
TRF_heineken
[2015 RWC] Quarter Final 1: South Africa vs. Wales (17/10/2015)
15 16 17
Replies
331
Views
38K
Bada-Bing!
Bada-Bing!

Latest posts

Top