Aviva Premiership Final - Tigers vs Saints

[j'nuh]

Bleh, he's got the easiest job of any coach in the league. Any half competent coach would do well with the Tigers with that money, facilities and hotbed. Tigers were good in the years before him, they'll be good after him too.

 

[smartcooky]

Today has made a mockery of the game.

Just going to drive players to play for the team that'll pay them the most tbh, if the price of passion is a red card, why bother???

If you want our game to turn into football, where the players, right from the lower grades upwards, totally disrespect the officials in the game; swearing at them, calling them cheats, screaming at them, pushing and and shoving them, and in some cases, assaulting them, then turning a blind eye to the actions of mouthy wankers like Hartley, is exactly the way to do it.

If he gets a ban under 10.4 (m) or 10.4(s) "Verbal abuse of match officials" then the entry level is 6 weeks, and it could cost him his Lions tour. If that happens, Hartley only has himself to blame.

 

[racingmetrofan]

Riiiighhht, not really a response to my point, is it? How is that related to playerss moving abroad due to harsh refereeing? On the Armitage point though, that Heineken Cup medal is no cure for being a mouthy ****.

I don't think the language Hartley used, in the context he used it, is anything to write home about. If anything that sort of language would be expected.

Essentially Armitage is quids in playing under a rich outspoken guy who has a very different sense of 'the done thing' than the old boy rugby mentality.

 

[racingmetrofan]

If you want our game to turn into football, where the players, right from the lower grades upwards, totally disrespect the officials in the game; swearing at them, calling them cheats, screaming at them, pushing and and shoving them, and in some cases, assaulting them, then turning a blind eye to the actions of mouthy wankers like Hartley, is exactly the way to do it.

If he gets a ban under 10.4 (m) or 10.4(s) "Verbal abuse of match officials" then the entry level is 6 weeks, and it could cost him his Lions tour. If that happens, Hartley only has himself to blame.

When a super experienced world cup winning coach gets sanctioned over his criticism of a referee I think that rugby is leaning too far the other way! See http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/...ham-Henry-officially-sanctioned-over-comments

Plenty of other sports have far less respect for the referee and are not like football. The fear that rugby will turn into football is rather old hat; and completely discredited by the fact that (apart from perhaps scrums) fouls are pretty obvious, and that at a professional level decisions can always be checked via tmo.

 

[smartcooky]

When a super experienced world cup winning coach gets sanctioned over his criticism of a referee I think that rugby is leaning too far the other way! See http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/...ham-Henry-officially-sanctioned-over-comments

Plenty of other sports have far less respect for the referee and are not like football. The fear that rugby will turn into football is rather old hat; and completely discredited by the fact that (apart from perhaps scrums) fouls are pretty obvious, and that at a professional level decisions can always be checked via tmo.

Well I support SANZAR's stand over Graham Henry's outburst. I can assure you that his comments as reported in that article are a sanitised version of what he actually said.

Just because he is a RWC winning coach does not put him above the Laws of the game. Personally, I would like to see a return to the way referees were treated in my playing and refereeing days; Firstly, only the captain was allowed to speak to the referee, no-one else, and secondly, any other player who spoke to, or verbally complained to the referee, was told to shut up, by both his captain and the referee.

I hope they throw the book at Hartley. It will send a clear and unambiguous message to all players that a zero tolerance approach will be taken with all verbal abuse of match officials. If they don't, then they will allow the thin end of the wedge in, and the trouble with wedges is that people have no real idea how wide the other end is.

 

[psychic duck]

When a super experienced world cup winning coach gets sanctioned over his criticism of a referee I think that rugby is leaning too far the other way! See http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/...ham-Henry-officially-sanctioned-over-comments

Plenty of other sports have far less respect for the referee and are not like football. The fear that rugby will turn into football is rather old hat; and completely discredited by the fact that (apart from perhaps scrums) fouls are pretty obvious, and that at a professional level decisions can always be checked via tmo.

This is certainly not true. Otherwise there wouldn't be the old is he cheat or not debate about McCaw.

 

[racingmetrofan]

Well I support SANZAR's stand over Graham Henry's outburst. I can assure you that his comments as reported in that article are a sanitised version of what he actually said.

Just because he is a RWC winning coach does not put him above the Laws of the game. Personally, I would like to see a return to the way referees were treated in my playing and refereeing days; Firstly, only the captain was allowed to speak to the referee, no-one else, and secondly, any other player who spoke to, or verbally complained to the referee, was told to shut up, by both his captain and the referee.

I hope they throw the book at Hartley. It will send a clear and unambiguous message to all players that a zero tolerance approach will be taken with all verbal abuse of match officials. If they don't, then they will allow the thin end of the wedge in, and the trouble with wedges is that people have no real idea how wide the other end is.

The laws of the game appear to me very much skewed towards referees. I cant remember the last time a professional ref was banned for a long period of time for making wrong calls...

'Back in the day' it was much harder to see when a ref cocked up than it is now. Also now rugby is a professional game, the result matters to more people than the 30 blokes on the pitch playing for lols.

It seems to me that the laws of the game with regard to referees are bureaucratic and outdated, the old tale of 'moral highground', 'do everything right and by the book or you put yourself in the wrong and have no right to complain'.

At the end of the day, the moral highground means nothing when losing a final loses your club shareholders lots of £, the players potential sponsorship deals etc. And thats why people express annoyance to the referee far more frequently - their decisions have far wider reaching consequences, and people do not feel that their grievances when expressed formally are addressed or sorted.

 

[ratsapprentice]

The "archaic" qualities you are complaining about are actually a fairly big part of Rugby's identity as a brand in the global sports market.
So it is in the interests of the businesses and governing bodies to protect it vigilantly.

 

[Groundhog]

The laws of the game appear to me very much skewed towards referees. I cant remember the last time a professional ref was banned for a long period of time for making wrong calls...

'Back in the day' it was much harder to see when a ref cocked up than it is now. Also now rugby is a professional game, the result matters to more people than the 30 blokes on the pitch playing for lols.

It seems to me that the laws of the game with regard to referees are bureaucratic and outdated, the old tale of 'moral highground', 'do everything right and by the book or you put yourself in the wrong and have no right to complain'.

At the end of the day, the moral highground means nothing when losing a final loses your club shareholders lots of £, the players potential sponsorship deals etc. And thats why people express annoyance to the referee far more frequently - their decisions have far wider reaching consequences, and people do not feel that their grievances when expressed formally are addressed or sorted.

So what's your suggestion? We let stuff like this fly. We, as you suggest sanction refs for making bad calls? Would you ban a player for playing badly? Then why ban a ref for reffing badly? They're only human, they can't see everything, and as the famous saying goes, if you had to complain about the ref, you weren't good enough. I was always told to respect the referee, and even though I haven't always done that I stand by their decision to pin me for it (in hindsight obviously). You don't like the football comment so I'll give you another example. There was a bad situation a few years ago when one or two referees had the **** kicked out of them in small GAA matches for making bad calls. I can't see that ever happening in rugby with a system that demands total respect for referees.
It's not about moral high ground, its about common sense. I don't know about the clubs losing money in finals, but I know I don't want to play rugby with a system like that.

 

[j'nuh]

The laws of the game appear to me very much skewed towards referees. I cant remember the last time a professional ref was banned for a long period of time for making wrong calls...

'Back in the day' it was much harder to see when a ref cocked up than it is now. Also now rugby is a professional game, the result matters to more people than the 30 blokes on the pitch playing for lols.

It seems to me that the laws of the game with regard to referees are bureaucratic and outdated, the old tale of 'moral highground', 'do everything right and by the book or you put yourself in the wrong and have no right to complain'.

At the end of the day, the moral highground means nothing when losing a final loses your club shareholders lots of £, the players potential sponsorship deals etc. And thats why people express annoyance to the referee far more frequently - their decisions have far wider reaching consequences, and people do not feel that their grievances when expressed formally are addressed or sorted.

Players aren't banned for making mistakes - they are banned for breaking the rules. The reason referees don't get banned is because they don't break any rules. The reason referees don't break the rules, is that they aren't playing to win so have no reason to break the rules. The exception is when referees are match fixing, and when that happens, it's a big scandal and can involve the police.

What does allowing players to whine and cause drama actually accomplish? Referees lose the control over the game if they can be bullied into reversing decisions and allowing players to officiate the game. Unlike football, there's a lot going on at once for a referee to concentrate on. They don't need to deal with the drama of players. If referees lose the control over the game, it becomes a lot less enjoyable for fans and players alike. And for what? So one or two players can strop and generally bring the game into disrepute? I mean, let's say we take your system on, what do you think we gain from it?

 

[smartcooky]

Players aren't banned for making mistakes - they are banned for breaking the rules. The reason referees don't get banned is because they don't break any rules. The reason referees don't break the rules, is that they aren't playing to win so have no reason to break the rules.

Yep.

Remember, that there are 31 people in the field of play, 30 players and one referee, and he is the only one who isn't trying to cheat!

 

[racingmetrofan]

So what's your suggestion? We let stuff like this fly. We, as you suggest sanction refs for making bad calls? Would you ban a player for playing badly? Then why ban a ref for reffing badly? They're only human, they can't see everything, and as the famous saying goes, if you had to complain about the ref, you weren't good enough. I was always told to respect the referee, and even though I haven't always done that I stand by their decision to pin me for it (in hindsight obviously). You don't like the football comment so I'll give you another example. There was a bad situation a few years ago when one or two referees had the **** kicked out of them in small GAA matches for making bad calls. I can't see that ever happening in rugby with a system that demands total respect for referees.
It's not about moral high ground, its about common sense. I don't know about the clubs losing money in finals, but I know I don't want to play rugby with a system like that.

Well if a player plays badly their clubs don't play them!

It doesn't actually demand total respect for the referee, it demands a player not articulating their frustration towards the ref. No one actually respects a ref that makes bad calls. No one. I remember one England player in the 2003 world final going up to the ref and saying 'thanks for nothing', that isn't respect, thats learning how to say **** off with a smile... And that attitude is consistent throughout any sport tbh.

I think its totally myopic that you assume respect for the ref is the sole arbiter in the different levels of violence between sports - to me a far more plausible explanation is a class based one...

If I was in a final I wouldn't expect to get a red card if I muttered swear words to the ref (or if he thought I did). And I genuinely don't understand how anyone could think sending someone off for it would be a good thing.

 

[Twebby]

Can't comment on the last 2 minutes of the first half as I was at the game and like most of the crowd had no idea what was going on. If Hartley is proven to have sworn at Barnes then he is a ***, but I would much rather people let his case be heard before suggesting he gets strung up.

From the stands I actually felt Barnes was inconsistent (leaving the main talking points aside). I could be wrong but thought his decision making was off at times, even when making similar decisions against the same team. One minute he penalised Lawes for an alleged late tackle (which I personally felt was ok) but then 2 minutes later lets an identical tackle, again by Lawes on Flood, go without punishment. Surely they are either both penalties or both fine?

It was the strangest feeling coming away from a final feeling like we had lost, but hadn't been beaten. It's hard to describe, but at 13-5 down it actually seemed like we had Leicester on the ropes. Both their fans and players seemed to start to feel the pressure. It felt like the equivalent of the heavyweight taking the first few rounds on points but then being hit with some heavy blows and starting to stagger. Our pack really seemed to get into Leicester's heads and I genuinely think that with 15 vs 15 the second half could have gone either way. As it was we just ran out of steam and numbers, despite playing some brilliant rugby even when a player down.

Can't fault Leicester, they put us away well at the end (although I think 20 points was a bit of a flattering margin), but I definitely would have liked to see this one go the distance. Unfortunately, realistically, it was over at half time.

 

[ratsapprentice]

I have a feeling it would have just been a yellow had Hartley sworn at him, the real offense was the apparent accusation of cheating.
You could see Barnes was really flustered by it.

I think the issue is that Hartley was indirectly talking to Barnes, trying to persuade him that Leicester were at fault in the scrum.
Barnes interpreted that as Hartley targeting the accusation at him, rather than Youngs.

 

[racingmetrofan]

Players aren't banned for making mistakes - they are banned for breaking the rules. The reason referees don't get banned is because they don't break any rules. The reason referees don't break the rules, is that they aren't playing to win so have no reason to break the rules. The exception is when referees are match fixing, and when that happens, it's a big scandal and can involve the police.

What does allowing players to whine and cause drama actually accomplish? Referees lose the control over the game if they can be bullied into reversing decisions and allowing players to officiate the game. Unlike football, there's a lot going on at once for a referee to concentrate on. They don't need to deal with the drama of players. If referees lose the control over the game, it becomes a lot less enjoyable for fans and players alike. And for what? So one or two players can strop and generally bring the game into disrepute? I mean, let's say we take your system on, what do you think we gain from it?

Refs are providing a service, if they don't provide it well, they should be replaced. The game gets better reffing.

Your linking two completely unconnected things. Hartley DID NOT ASKED FOR A DECISION TO BE REVERSED. He simply expressed his frustration. Thus its completely illogical to argue that Hartley would be officiating the game or whatever, because he wasn't!

What does it accomplish? A once a year final isn't ruined by a red card. I would have thought that would be pretty obvious.

The game is only brought into disrepute for 'stiff upper lip' rugby players, tbh anyone watching that final would have been most shocked on Lawes' two hits of Flood - the first clearly injuring him, and the second, no sooner had he got back up, hitting him hard in exactly the same place!

And ironically the only reason Hartley's language was shared to the 1000s of viewers is because Barnes red carded him for it!!!

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Refs are providing a service, if they don't provide it well, they should be replaced. The game gets better reffing.

All Referees are reviewed on their performance and ranked so if they don't perform well they are replaced!

Your linking two completely unconnected things. Hartley DID NOT ASKED FOR A DECISION TO BE REVERSED. He simply expressed his frustration. Thus its completely illogical to argue that Hartley would be officiating the game or whatever, because he wasn't!

He expressed his frustration by calling Wayne Barnes, who was officiating very well, a ****ing cheat. How disrespectful can you get? He was doing his job, it was his biggest game of the year and he was accused of cheating! Red card no questions asked.

What does it accomplish? A once a year final isn't ruined by a red card. I would have thought that would be pretty obvious.

A deserved red card, he let his team down.

The game is only brought into disrepute for 'stiff upper lip' rugby players, tbh anyone watching that final would have been most shocked on Lawes' two hits of Flood - the first clearly injuring him, and the second, no sooner had he got back up, hitting him hard in exactly the same place!

Lawes' first hit was a penalty offense, maybe a yellow card from some refs, they went to TMO didn't they it was the right call. Their was nothing wrong with the second hit, Flood should have been taken to the concussion bin but he wasn't and he ended up having the ball, not being fit and leaving himself very exposed, Leicester's coaching team are to blame for that one.

And ironically the only reason Hartley's language was shared to the 1000s of viewers is because Barnes red carded him for it!!!

A good message to send to good players and you're completely dismissing the fact that the red card in the current rules of rugby was deserved!

 

[ratsapprentice]

Both of Lawes' hits were perfect, both in terms of legality and technically.
Flood hit his head on Cole's flying knee and was concussed.
You've got to feel for Lawes, he is probably the greatest exponent of technical offensive tackling in the modern game, yet he is constantly abused for it.
The ball was barely out of Flood's hands when he was hit, let alone when Courtney committed himself.

 

[smartcooky]

Refs are providing a service, if they don't provide it well, they should be replaced. The game gets better reffing.

Oh, if only it was that simple

Your linking two completely unconnected things. Hartley DID NOT ASKED FOR A DECISION TO BE REVERSED. He simply expressed his frustration. Thus its completely illogical to argue that Hartley would be officiating the game or whatever, because he wasn't!

Expressing your frustration by calling the referee a fecking cheat is not acceptable on any rugby field anywhere in the world.

You say that to me, youre gone, final or not, captain or not.

What does it accomplish? A once a year final isn't ruined by a red card. I would have thought that would be pretty obvious.

The game is only brought into disrepute for 'stiff upper lip' rugby players, tbh anyone watching that final would have been most shocked on Lawes' two hits of Flood - the first clearly injuring him, and the second, no sooner had he got back up, hitting him hard in exactly the same place!

And ironically the only reason Hartley's language was shared to the 1000s of viewers is because Barnes red carded him for it!!!

Frankly, I think your attitude stinks. If yours was the general attitude of the majority of rugby players, what you would find is that the hundreds of thousands of VOLUNTEER referees who give up their weekends so that people like YOU can play, would have second thoughts about whether or not what they are doing is worthwhile.

People with your attitude do damage to the game!

EDIT: It should be noted that Hartley ought no be surprised. Two minutes before the red card, Hartley swore at Barnes, and Barnes warned him not to speak to him that way. That Hartley kept doing it shows me that he was either stupid or can't help himself. Whatever, he was the engineer of his own downfall!!

 

[smartcooky]

Both of Lawes' hits were perfect, both in terms of legality and technically.
Flood hit his head on Cole's flying knee and was concussed.
You've got to feel for Lawes, he is probably the greatest exponent of technical offensive tackling in the modern game, yet he is constantly abused for it.
The ball was barely out of Flood's hands when he was hit, let alone when Courtney committed himself.

Agree with this.

Neither of Lawes' tackles should have been penalised.

The tackles were not identical; the first one was slightly late, but Lawes was already committed to the tackle (head down); the second one was simultaneous with Flood's release of the ball.

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

I don't think Hartley was swearing at Barnes, with regards to the scrum penalty - as others have pointed out, it doesn't make much sense to call Barnes a cheat. Blind, maybe, or biased, but a cheat seems a bit odd. That being said, he was warned about swearing, so I think a yellow would be warranted for that. Obviously Barnes thought he was swearing at him, so you can't blame him for issuing the red card.