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

[RugbyTackle91]

No its not a steps program

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

http://m.nzherald.co.nz/scotty-stevenson/news/article.cfm?a_id=815&objectid=11532289

I agree with two of his points: WR threw him under the bus and that was wrong, and that some people overreacted.

Having said that, the way he phrases things, the examples he picks and the ones he chooses to omit in order to make his points stink of bias.

 

[YoungScud]

Every reply and comment is subjective - it's not a bad piece but it still comes from an already entrenched position, like all sporting commentary. I've lived in Australia for nearly thirty years now and watched a lot of rugby union, and far and away the most biased commentators I've ever listened to, have been the Australian ones, well in advance of the New Zealanders, and light years away from the great Bill McLaren. Boy, do some of those babies go for the jugular if they think the referee has made an unfair decision against the Aussies. There's no pulling back there, let me give you the tip, and video technology doesn't come into it.

And like someone has said, it's only a game, for Christ's sake. But at least face facts: yeah, it was a bad decision, but hardly the end of the world, and if it hadn't been made, so Scotland had won, it would have been a great win but they'd not have made the final, let alone won the cup.[/QUOTE]



Interesting claim. What, like there was absolutely no chanve they'd beat Australia, you mean?

 

[RoosTah]

No, most Australians would concede the Wallabies are a very beatable and unpredictable side. I think the point was more what chance the Scots stood against the All Blacks, and given they couldn't beat an Australian side missing Pocock and Folau, it's probably fair that people consider the prospect of Scotland beating the most successful rugby side in history relatively low.

 

[BraidyBoy]

I believe that when all are fit we have the best squad in the NH so no to all 3 of your questions, I am not bitter regarding our injuries but it is safe to say had we been able to select Gats 1st choice players we would have made the final, as we would have done 4 years ago had we retained 15 players on the pitch in the semi, but what happened, happened, well done to all the Welsh heroes.

The weakness of Wales lies in their somewhat myopic view of other countries .

 

[gamine]

spear tackle

Well we knew that a long time ago. If they were, then their players would have copped 17 weeks for their spear tackle instead of getting off scot-free (pun) and the referee would have reviewed their knock on before the try .

Which spear tackle? Not the horrible one on O'Driscoll, because those two weren't sanctioned at all, were they? I think they were islanders, although they play for NZ, could that be why?

 

[ncurd]

The BOD tackle was before citing I belive so neither player was sanctioned. Anyway it directly led to changes in the rules and was 10 years ago now can we stop mentioning it?

- - - Updated - - -

My bad the citing comissioner did exist he decided there was no case to answer. A decision that's quite universally derided now.

 

[Cliffyboy]

Every reply and comment is subjective - it's not a bad piece but it still comes from an already entrenched position, like all sporting commentary. I've lived in Australia for nearly thirty years now and watched a lot of rugby union, and far and away the most biased commentators I've ever listened to, have been the Australian ones, well in advance of the New Zealanders, and light years away from the great Bill McLaren. Boy, do some of those babies go for the jugular if they think the referee has made an unfair decision against the Aussies. There's no pulling back there, let me give you the tip, and video technology doesn't come into it.

And like someone has said, it's only a game, for Christ's sake. But at least face facts: yeah, it was a bad decision, but hardly the end of the world, and if it hadn't been made, so Scotland had won, it would have been a great win but they'd not have made the final, let alone won the cup.[/QUOTE]





Interesting claim. What, like there was absolutely no chanve they'd beat Australia, you mean?

No, I think certain performances, where teams play above themselves, and I don't mean that disrespectfully towards Scotland, almost become the climax of their play, so that, in a way, they seem to ease off after them, a bit like with Japan and their great win against South Africa. I think Scotland would have shown that in their next game if they had gone through. I don't think it's being disrespectful towards Scotland to say that few people expected them to come so close to defeating Australia.

 

[Tony Conrad]

Scotland certainly played above themselves as nobody expected this. I was amazed when I thought Scotland had done it, until that last minute decision. I was as disappointed as the Scots who all the UK was behind at that stage.

But it was not to be. southern hemisphere yet again. No hard gripes. Well done Australia. The only underdog left is Argentina who have performed a similar fete unexpectedly. I wonder?

 

[KeyboardWorrier]

I wouldn't say Argentina's performance is unexpected.

 

[RoosTah]

I wonder about Argentina's underdog status... They beat the Springboks at home this year and have played brilliantly through the World Cup so far, so I reckon it's fair to say that they're pretty evenly matched with Australia at this point

 

[Shaggy]

I really like Scotty, he can even speak Afrikaans.

I have to say that I think he's quite correct in what he is saying, but I think the comparison between the referees and their faults shouldn't be drawn. For instance I would think that Joubert would be in the same boat as Wayne Barnes was in 2007, but I wouldn't put them in the same category as Bryce Lawrence or Romain Poite. And while many would say that it's because I'm South African and has been very vocal about this, I think there is a line to be drawn between a mistake or 2, and incompetence throughout a match. And here I will back Joubert 100%!

I watched Scott Hastings' interview yesterday on CNN, and he said that his frustration wasn't about the call Joubert made, but rather more that he left the field in a hurry and didn't stay and shook the players hands.

I honestly feel rather sorry for the Scottish public, because I know how they feel, I went through that disappointment in 2011, and yes, I was one of the guys who went on a tirade regarding the referee.

But like my father always say, This too shall pass.
@ImScotty, I have to also say that prior to this World Cup, I was of the opinion that Scotland was the worst of the 6 Nations teams, yes, even poorer than Italy. I thought that South Africa and Samoa would go through in our pool, and that Scotland and USA would fight it out for 3rd and 4th spot.

Scotland surprized me.

It's not about mistakes v incompetents of a referee though, it's about over the top reactions of aggrieved fans; bottle throwing isn't acceptable, Facebook hate pages are not acceptable, tweeting/other social media as a personal attack on a referee is not acceptable ... yes, mistakes are made, and Rugby as a whole should always be striving to negate errors, but, as SANZAR says, at the end of the day, it's still a game.

... Some people need to put aside their lynch mob mentality, take a couple of days, and do what they need to to get over their disappointment in other ways.

Just to clarify, my belief is its okay to complain about incorrect decisions/inconsistencies in decision making, but personal attacks whether they are physical, verbal, or via social media are poor form.

 

[smartcooky]

It's not about mistakes v incompetents of a referee though, it's about over the top reactions of aggrieved fans; bottle throwing isn't acceptable, Facebook hate pages are not acceptable, tweeting/other social media as a personal attack on a referee is not acceptable ... yes, mistakes are made, and Rugby as a whole should always be striving to negate errors, but, as SANZAR says, at the end of the day, it's still a game.

... Some people need to put aside their lynch mob mentality, take a couple of days, and do what they need to to get over their disappointment in other ways.

Just to clarify, my belief is its okay to complain about incorrect decisions/inconsistencies in decision making, but personal attacks whether they are physical, verbal, or via social media are poor form.

THIS^^^

Joubert made this mistake simply because he did not see the ball go back off Phipps. If you look at where he was positioned, you can understand why; his view was obstructed by players between him and Phipps. (I'm not saying his positioning was poor, only that he couldn't see it from where he was - there is no place you can stand on a rugby pitch and see everything!)

IMO, This was a Perfect Storm of circumstances

► very little time left on the clock
► poor execution at the line-out
► within kickable distance of the posts
► referee in a position where he could not see the ball touch a player

Take away any one of those circumstances, and it either doesn't happen or doesn't matter

Of a far deeper concern for me is that there was a much vaunted system in place called Hawkeye that was supposed to be able to prevent this sort of cock-up from taking place, but World Rugby chose, in its infinite wisdom, to cripple this system in such a way (by using a set of daft protocols) that it couldn't be used to prevent this mistake from happening.

Had the TMO been allowed to review the play, he would have been easily able to get this footage...

...which clearly and obviously shows the ball striking Phipps on the chest and bouncing onto his forearm where he subsequently bats the ball back towards his own side.

The TMO would then have told Joubert that he made a mistake, and Welsh was not offside.


And even worse, there is NOTHING to prevent this from happening again in a semi-final or final

 

[Cliffyboy]

THIS^^^

Joubert made this mistake simply because he did not see the ball go back off Phipps. If you look at where he was positioned, you can understand why; his view was obstructed by players between him and Phipps. (I'm not saying his positioning was poor, only that he couldn't see it from where he was - there is no place you can stand on a rugby pitch and see everything!)

IMO, This was a Perfect Storm of circumstances

► very little time left on the clock
► poor execution at the line-out
► within kickable distance of the posts
► referee in a position where he could not see the ball touch a player

Take away any one of those circumstances, and it either doesn't happen or doesn't matter

Of a far deeper concern for me is that there was a much vaunted system in place called Hawkeye that was supposed to be able to prevent this sort of cock-up from taking place, but World Rugby chose, in its infinite wisdom, to cripple this system in such a way (by using a set of daft protocols) that it couldn't be used to prevent this mistake from happening.

Had the TMO been allowed to review the play, he would have been easily able to get this footage...

...which clearly and obviously shows the ball striking Phipps on the chest and bouncing onto his forearm where he subsequently bats the ball back towards his own side.

The TMO would then have told Joubert that he made a mistake, and Welsh was not offside.

To me, this is a good post because it is not knocking the referee but simply accepting that the use of technology is as an aid, guide and help, nothing more. It doesn't undermine or usurp the referee's authority one bit, in my view, but should be seen as a positive thing in ensuring decisions are well-based, particularly when it comes down to crucial and important moments, like this one. Of course the referee should not be vilified and abused, and I find it hypocritical of World Rugby to have censured him for having made the wrong decision, if he was also unable to refer to the TMO in such circumstances as this one. There is a nonsense floated about regarding the referee on the pitch and he's only being human and so on, and his word is sacrosanct so that technology should not be applied, almost as if it's an either/or thing. I just think that's utter bollxxxx, actually. Anything that helps the right and fair decisions be made, should be the only criterion.

 

[RoosTah]

Question SC: just how much TMO involvement should there be? With the game already being held up unnecessarily over a tonne of decisions, I fear we'll degenerate into American Football and lose all flow if everything is checked all the time.

It's an interesting debate, because the NRL are actively exploring ways to REDUCE the TMO's impact by trialing things like captains challenges and then allowing more on field decisions to stand so the game's flow isn't destroyed.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

It's not about mistakes v incompetents of a referee though, it's about over the top reactions of aggrieved fans; bottle throwing isn't acceptable, Facebook hate pages are not acceptable, tweeting/other social media as a personal attack on a referee is not acceptable ... yes, mistakes are made, and Rugby as a whole should always be striving to negate errors, but, as SANZAR says, at the end of the day, it's still a game.

... Some people need to put aside their lynch mob mentality, take a couple of days, and do what they need to to get over their disappointment in other ways.

Just to clarify, my belief is its okay to complain about incorrect decisions/inconsistencies in decision making, but personal attacks whether they are physical, verbal, or via social media are poor form.

I agree the intentions behind your post, but i am not sure what your concrete proposals/solutions are. How to do implement that unaceptableness? Without any enforcement mechanism that is just a nice ideal, but that's it. Are you going to punish an entire national team because a fan threw an empty plastic 500 ml bottle to the pitch? Are you going to ban them because a pundit bashed the ref?

If you tell a hot headed fan who just got kicked out of the world cup that his behavior is unacceptable he'll tell you to **** off and continue with his rant. That is how (not most but) a LOT of people are. And unless the fans are breaking a local law (say threatening the ref) there is absolutely nothing you can do. The question is not how people react to these events but
a) How do you prevent them
b) Once they happen what is the containment plan

What you can do, and what i think WR should have done is to take the blame themselves (for not allowing Joubert to check with the TMO), apologize, mention something along the lines of "we are considering this and that option to prevent this from happening again" and then shut the hell up. Do not say another word.
People are not that stupid, they understand mistakes happen and it doesn't take a NASA engineer to realize this one was a very rare circumstance. People are venting.
When you make a mistake the standard course of action is a 4 step process

- Acknowledge
- Apologize
- Correct
- Amend to prevent from happening again

The third one is impossible in this case but WR should do the other 3. People will understand. The will still vent, but doing this will give them a sense of closure and will eliminate any conspiracy theories.

In a way your approach is more about how people should approach the game, and while i personally agree with that, from a practical point of view it is easier for the game to approach people, at least partially and in the short run.

 

[smartcooky]

Question SC: just how much TMO involvement should there be? With the game already being held up unnecessarily over a tonne of decisions, I fear we'll degenerate into American Football and lose all flow if everything is checked all the time.

It's an interesting debate, because the NRL are actively exploring ways to REDUCE the TMO's impact by trialing things like captains challenges and then allowing more on field decisions to stand so the game's flow isn't destroyed.

The TMO could deal with this type of incident without any interruption to the game if nothing is wrong, i.e. if the referee hasn't made a mistake.

I posted about this in another thread which I cannot find now, and at rugbyrefs, which I can find. This what I said there...

[TEXTAREA]The TMO keeps eyes the game as usual, and as soon as a the referee awards a PK, the TMO starts to review the play.

1. If the non-offending team opt not to kick at goal, the TMO stops looking.

2. If the non-offending team do opt to kick at goal, and the TMO finds nothing, he says nothing.

3. If the non-offending team do opt to kick at goal and the TMO finds something he wants to look at again, he calls "check-check" to the referee, and the referee calls time off. The TMO reviews the play and relays his decision to the referee, who will either continue as before, or cancel the penalty decision and give the correct one.

The game is then stopped anyway while the tee is brought on and the kicker prepares to kick, so why not utilise the time to look. [/TEXTAREA]

Doing it this way means the game is only held up if the referee makes an incorrect decision, and the TMO spots it.

My argument for restricting it only to penalties where the non-penalised team opts for poles is simple. If an incorrect penalty is given and the non-penalised team takes a scrum or kicks for touch, at least the wrongly-penalised team has chance to defend whatever happens next. However, if the referee commits a howler right in front of the posts 40m out, the wrongly-penalised team cannot defend the shot at goal.

I see this more as an extension to the AR system. Currently, either AR can call in at any time on this stuff, so why not accept that the TMO, an extra pair of eyes, can also call in? Change his name to the VAR, Video Assistant Referee since that would more accurately describe his role.

 

[Cliffyboy]

The TMO could deal with this type of incident without any interruption to the game if nothing is wrong, i.e. if the referee hasn't made a mistake.

I posted about this in another thread which I cannot find now, and at rugbyrefs, which I can find. This what I said there...

[TEXTAREA]The TMO keeps eyes the game as usual, and as soon as a the referee awards a PK, the TMO starts to review the play.

1. If the non-offending team opt not to kick at goal, the TMO stops looking.

2. If the non-offending team do opt to kick at goal, and the TMO finds nothing, he says nothing.

3. If the non-offending team do opt to kick at goal and the TMO finds something he wants to look at again, he calls "check-check" to the referee, and the referee calls time off. The TMO reviews the play and relays his decision to the referee, who will either continue as before, or cancel the penalty decision and give the correct one.

The game is then stopped anyway while the tee is brought on and the kicker prepares to kick, so why not utilise the time to look. [/TEXTAREA]

Doing it this way means the game is only held up if the referee makes an incorrect decision, and the TMO spots it.

My argument for restricting it only to penalties where the non-penalised team opts for poles is simple. If an incorrect penalty is given and the non-penalised team takes a scrum or kicks for touch, at least the wrongly-penalised team has chance to defend whatever happens next. However, if the referee commits a howler right in front of the posts 40m out, the wrongly-penalised team cannot defend the shot at goal.

I see this more as an extension to the AR system. Currently, either AR can call in at any time on this stuff, so why not accept that the TMO, an extra pair of eyes, can also call in? Change his name to the VAR, Video Assistant Referee since that would more accurately describe his role.

That is very well said by you, again. I hadn't thought of that but it's a great idea because it won't involve the referee on the pitch having to call on the TMO and facing accusations of interrupting the flow of the game, and there's plenty of time for it to occur before the kick at goal, anyway. While I don't personally agree in the first place that the use of technology has had a negative influence on the game, your idea, as with this incident, would ensure the correct decision had been made with the technology clearly aiding the referee, an extra pair of eyes, as you put it, for the ref?

 

[Naw mate]

No, most Australians would concede the Wallabies are a very beatable and unpredictable side. I think the point was more what chance the Scots stood against the All Blacks, and given they couldn't beat an Australian side missing Pocock and Folau, it's probably fair that people consider the prospect of Scotland beating the most successful rugby side in history relatively low.

Last time Scotland Played NZ Scotland lost by 8 points and were in the lead at 70minutes, last time Australia played NZ Australia lost by 14 points on the face of that, We'd have a better chance than you!

- - - Updated - - -

The TMO could deal with this type of incident without any interruption to the game if nothing is wrong, i.e. if the referee hasn't made a mistake.

I posted about this in another thread which I cannot find now, and at rugbyrefs, which I can find. This what I said there...

[TEXTAREA]The TMO keeps eyes the game as usual, and as soon as a the referee awards a PK, the TMO starts to review the play.

1. If the non-offending team opt not to kick at goal, the TMO stops looking.

2. If the non-offending team do opt to kick at goal, and the TMO finds nothing, he says nothing.

3. If the non-offending team do opt to kick at goal and the TMO finds something he wants to look at again, he calls "check-check" to the referee, and the referee calls time off. The TMO reviews the play and relays his decision to the referee, who will either continue as before, or cancel the penalty decision and give the correct one.

The game is then stopped anyway while the tee is brought on and the kicker prepares to kick, so why not utilise the time to look. [/TEXTAREA]

Doing it this way means the game is only held up if the referee makes an incorrect decision, and the TMO spots it.

My argument for restricting it only to penalties where the non-penalised team opts for poles is simple. If an incorrect penalty is given and the non-penalised team takes a scrum or kicks for touch, at least the wrongly-penalised team has chance to defend whatever happens next. However, if the referee commits a howler right in front of the posts 40m out, the wrongly-penalised team cannot defend the shot at goal.

I see this more as an extension to the AR system. Currently, either AR can call in at any time on this stuff, so why not accept that the TMO, an extra pair of eyes, can also call in? Change his name to the VAR, Video Assistant Referee since that would more accurately describe his role.

This is a well thought out fix , How do we get some weight behind it? Get the right calls with the least interruption , well done!

 

[Tony Conrad]

Argentina

I wouldn't say Argentina's performance is unexpected.

Just what I've watched I suppose where they always seem to lose.