British and Irish Lions Tour: Referee Chat

[Caitlyn Jenner]

Glad that for once, everyone seems to agree that the ref had a great game.

lol

 

[ncurd]

That's a fair point.
If the TMO can't be called in for non-foul play, can they still use the replays to spot it? So say you thought there was a high tackle, so you brought in the TMO, but it shows no high tackle but there was a knock on, can you go back for that or are you not allowed?

you must be able to otherwise the entiore game would be made to look pretty foolish when and if it does happen.

 

[The Jones Boy]

Did they change the rule post-Joubert that you can refer an offside call to the TMO and that you can call it accidental and make it a scrum instead of a penalty?

That Sir is a VERY good question.

 

[The Jones Boy]

The TMO was for Read taking Williams out in the air.
Seen that given a million times, as well, he was very lucky not to get penalised. Made no attempt to get the ball, just jumped into Williams. Wasn't malicious or anything, he was just beaten to it, but I've still seen it given.

And yet no attention was paid to the third player in the air, a Lion, who was jumping to run interference on Kieran Read and he made no effort to get near the ball.
Thats obstruction in terms of shepherding and thats what the blokes in the pub thought the penalty was initially for...

 

[jackass11]

ABs have been shafted by two utterly appalling decisions.

First, you cannot refer a non foul play penalty to the TMO. That was a complete departure from TMO protocol.

Second. That was NOT accidental offside. The Lions player played at the ball. It is only accidental if the ball strikes the player.

This has been a sub-standard and frankly, disgraceful exhibition of refereeing from Poite

lol - i am delighted you are no where near officiating these games as there would only be one winner Leave it to the professionals who know what they are doing smartcooky

 

[Brigantine]

Meanwhile, it seems no one talks about the penalty wrongly awarded to the ABs at the start of the match. It was entirely kickable, he just missed.

Sure the ref made some mistakes, but they went both ways. The fact that the Lions kickers actually get the ball between the posts when given the chance... can't blame the ref for that!


[EDIT] I've never really even heard of this topic before... but several people have now suggested there might be match fixing going on. (Mainly from people who are soccer/cricket fans first, rugby fans second to be fair) It's worrying though. Even if there's absolutely no substance to it, if that perception grows things could get nasty.

 

[The Jones Boy]

I said it at the beginning of the tour, the Lions can kick from all over the park andat this level you have to get your kicks.
Trouble is, Crudens game has been off so BB had to be the first pick. Place kicking has been an add on for BB's game and it shows.
He either has to put in the kind of work that DC put in with his kicking practice or we have to find a new kicker.
Jordie kicks well but will he be fullback? Not if Ben Smith is fit and in form... Can Jordie play on the wing?
It wasn't just kicks we missed. The bombed tries, starting with the sitter Savea put down in the first ten minutes... we left a lot of points out there and we paid for it.

 

[die_mole]

Meanwhile, it seems no one talks about the penalty wrongly awarded to the ABs at the start of the match. It was entirely kickable, he just missed.

Sure the ref made some mistakes, but they went both ways. The fact that the Lions kickers actually get the ball between the posts when given the chance... can't blame the ref for that!


[EDIT] I've never really even heard of this topic before... but several people have now suggested there might be match fixing going on. (Mainly from people who are soccer/cricket fans first, rugby fans second to be fair) It's worrying though. Even if there's absolutely no substance to it, if that perception grows things could get nasty.

i will say this about the last game...

if calls go against you that is just how things work... rugby refereeing is something that can never be automated and assessors will disagree on a referee's performance even at the international level

the all blacks got screwed by a procedural error not a call going against them... that is something completely different

when it comes to judgement calls things tend to even out... i'd say new zealand probably has gotten more calls go there way just cause better teams seem to get the call in any sport

so both teams could feel hard done by on certain calls but i don't think either should feel they were screwed by referee's judgment... however new zealand was screwed by a procedural error

 

[Nubiwan]

I didn't see anything wrong with it. Davies was reaching out with his arm like he was going to get up to mischief with the ball and Davies is off his feet on the wrong side of the ruck.
Cane belted him back across the ruck.
I'd have done the same thing.
Both arms are used by Cane and he comes from the hindmost feet.
If there was a coser clearer view I might well have a different opinion but from that angle and distance it looks fine to me.

It's a pretty rank quality video, and to be honest, agree with Jonesy. Move on, nothing to see here. If we stopped games for clean outs like that we'd soon be playing football. More serious clean outs when players leave their feet and go in shoulder first could be cited than this apparent piffle. Honestly not sure how and why this was even brought up for question.

 

[Nubiwan]

But he had awarded a penalty to NZ and then after the TMO somehow changed that decision. Any review of Reid's behaviour should not have resulted in an attacking scrum.

I think Poite, like Joubert, has perhaps shown he should be kept away from "winner takes all" fixtures.

I'm usually very supportive of refs and am fine with subjective calls going against my team. But you should not be making up rules on the hoof (Poite) or inventing offence that weren't committed based on a hunch (Joubert).

Those are cardinal sins for me in refereeing.

Indeed. I would be interested to see Poites thought process between actually awarding the pen, then going to the TMO, having the TMO agree with the on field decision, walking to the point of the infraction, then deciding a scrum was a better for all concerned. Listening to Read explain the rules to him was rather priceless. Poite was entirely wrong. In my opinion, the right call is accidental offside, which is what Poite decided, the correct call was offside from a knock on - pen.

It has been suggested here that match has been fixed. I'd say that would be pretty conclusive evidence, if it went beyond speculation.

 

[Nubiwan]

And yet no attention was paid to the third player in the air, a Lion, who was jumping to run interference on Kieran Read and he made no effort to get near the ball.
Thats obstruction in terms of shepherding and thats what the blokes in the pub thought the penalty was initially for...

Now now Jonesy. If a lions player was called for interference on a kick off , in the 79th minute of the 3rd and deciding test, then that my friend, would be the irony to top all ironies. I've grown a new hole watching ABs run interference on kick chasers.

As it turned out, Poite just need a few minutes to consider exactly who it is signs his cheques

 

[die_mole]

Indeed. I would be interested to see Poites thought process between actually awarding the pen, then going to the TMO, having the TMO agree with the on field decision, walking to the point of the infraction, then deciding a scrum was a better for all concerned. Listening to Read explain the rules to him was rather priceless. Poite was entirely wrong. In my opinion, the right call is accidental offside, which is what Poite decided, the correct call was offside from a knock on - pen.

It has been suggested here that match has been fixed. I'd say that would be pretty conclusive evidence, if it went beyond speculation.

Suggesting that match was fixed is very reckless and most likely someone upset over losing. Until reports come up that there were odd betting patterns I think it best to stay away from match fixing.

Besides, if the match was fixed poite did a terrible job of doing so... you don't wait til the last minutes to fix it.

 

[Nubiwan]

Suggesting that match was fixed is very reckless and most likely someone upset over losing. Until reports come up that there were odd betting patterns I think it best to stay away from match fixing.

Besides, if the match was fixed poite did a terrible job of doing so... you don't wait til the last minutes to fix it.

Well, my post was to explore reasons that altered Poites thought processes between actually awarding the pen, having TMO agreeing with him, then doing a 180 to award a scrum. I can suggest he buckled and decided accidental offside was better for all concerned. I personally agree with the decision he made, but still think him wrong. What he did was right, in the spirit of the game, but wrong by law.

At the end of the day, only Poite wil know where his bread is buttered.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

ABs have been shafted by two utterly appalling decisions.

First, you cannot refer a non foul play penalty to the TMO. That was a complete departure from TMO protocol.

Second. That was NOT accidental offside. The Lions player played at the ball. It is only accidental if the ball strikes the player.

This has been a sub-standard and frankly, disgraceful exhibition of refereeing from Poite

Last week you were deeply unhappy about the final penalty which decided the game on the grounds that in such scenarios there is virtually nothing the tackler could have done differently. Although you agreed that in law the decision was correct your emphasis was on the need to change a rule punishing a player where they could have done little differently.

Surely this incident yesterday is pretty similar in the sense that Owens would have needed superhuman reactions - like Faumuina in the second test - in order to have avoided catching the ball falling towards him. He even released his arms within half a second of catching the ball to show there was no intent there. The way this law is officiated often sees players penalised in even more ludicrous scenarios when the ball is knocked and hits a player in front of him.

Isn't the logical conclusion from your arguments last week that referees should have the option to not penalise a player if they think there was not enough scope for reactions to do anything differently? I understand that these are very different scenarios but I would argue it would be unfair for a series to be decided on the basis of a penalty where no player on the pitch would have reacted differently. You seemed to be arguing last week that referees need more scope to not HAVE to penalise such scenarios, so to be honest I don't really understand the disconnect between your feelings last week and this week.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

Suggesting that match was fixed is very reckless and most likely someone upset over losing. Until reports come up that there were odd betting patterns I think it best to stay away from match fixing.

Besides, if the match was fixed poite did a terrible job of doing so... you don't wait til the last minutes to fix it.

I imagine the people originating such speculation are just hangers on who cannot accept that the All-Blacks didn't win.

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

Hansen with some pretty measured remarks on the matter.

http://www.planetrugby.com/news/hansen-wants-rules-to-be-simplified/

 

[Nubiwan]

Last week you were deeply unhappy about the final penalty which decided the game on the grounds that in such scenarios there is virtually nothing the tackler could have done differently. Although you agreed that in law the decision was correct your emphasis was on the need to change a rule punishing a player where they could have done little differently.

Surely this incident yesterday is pretty similar in the sense that Owens would have needed superhuman reactions - like Faumuina in the second test - in order to have avoided catching the ball falling towards him. He even released his arms within half a second of catching the ball to show there was no intent there. The way this law is officiated often sees players penalised in even more ludicrous scenarios when the ball is knocked and hits a player in front of him.

Isn't the logical conclusion from your arguments last week that referees should have the option to not penalise a player if they think there was not enough scope for reactions to do anything differently? I understand that these are very different scenarios but I would argue it would be unfair for a series to be decided on the basis of a penalty where no player on the pitch would have reacted differently. You seemed to be arguing last week that referees need more scope to not HAVE to penalise such scenarios, so to be honest I don't really understand the disconnect between your feelings last week and this week.

If I were a neutral, then the right thing last week was to say, "look, that's accidental by the tackler, we'll continue with a scrum or free kick". The ref got the law right, and gave the pen. This week, the ref did the right thing, in my opinion, by calling a scrum for accidental offside, but essentially got it wrong. His first instinct, was a pen, and that is what we all expected. In both circumstances, the same team was on the wrong end of the decision. In both cases, they have a right to feel hard done by.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

I have to say that as always there's convenient silence from certain posters about the decisions which went in the all-blacks favour.
On 60 minutes for example Laumape makes a clear and deliberate knock on when the lions would have been away with a clear 2 on 1 overlap through Davies and Daly outside him. No attempt to catch the ball, in fact he was never in a position to catch it at all. That could have been another yellow card giving the lions a man advantage at the most crucial 12 - 12 stage of the game. It didn't happen, New Zealand got away with it big time.

 

[Nubiwan]

I have to say that as always there's convenient silence from certain posters about the decisions which went in the all-blacks favour.
On 60 minutes for example Laumape makes a clear and deliberate knock on when the lions would have been away with a clear 2 on 1 overlap through Davies and Daly outside him. No attempt to catch the ball, in fact he was never in a position to catch it at all. That could have been another yellow card giving the lions a man advantage at the most crucial 12 - 12 stage of the game. It didn't happen, New Zealand got away with it big time.

Well spotted. Cheating ABs . There was a similar incident in the 1st or 2nd test went un-penalized. I still think the response has been reasonably "who gives a crap" from most quarters. Entirely disappointing we ended with a hung series.

 

[The Jones Boy]

I have to say that as always there's convenient silence from certain posters about the decisions which went in the all-blacks favour.
On 60 minutes for example Laumape makes a clear and deliberate knock on when the lions would have been away with a clear 2 on 1 overlap through Davies and Daly outside him. No attempt to catch the ball, in fact he was never in a position to catch it at all. That could have been another yellow card giving the lions a man advantage at the most crucial 12 - 12 stage of the game. It didn't happen, New Zealand got away with it big time.

Silence is golden sometimes and the Lions fans are just as culpable as anyone else in that regard.
Nobody has raised the point from the Lions camp that there was direct interference on Kieran Read by Ben Te'o on his approach to the leap in the final penalty/not penalty call.
Ben Te'o was never anywhere near the ball, it was a Lion whose sole mission was to impede Read's access to the ball.
That was what the blokes in the pub thought the penalty was for, not an accidental offside. They were shouting "interference" and "Shepherding".
Poite , as for so many other things in the game that could have gone either way, chose to ignore it.
C'est la vie for the AB's.
We'll get over it.
Then he sauntered off for cafe au lait and croissant, did he even blow the final whistle?
Lassez faire?
Thats the way the baguette crumbles.

Maybe he was concerned about giving a decision that would have settled the contest?
I don't know.
I don't care, I'm ok with the outcome.
I like the Lions as a concept and this time they got it pretty well right.
They were strong, proud and fierce.
One more point in the final test and they would have got it damn near perfect.
The Lions MUST be competitive if they are to garner the collective feelings of support they must have from the 4 different nations they come from.

To argue a position about refereeing decisions taking the game away from you is churlish, regardless of which side you were on.
Referee's have a tough job and French referees are ambiguous and random at the best of times.
It tends to even out.
Just like the series.