British and Irish Lions Tour: Referee Chat

[ncurd]

Ummm you've still not fixed your baseless accusations that protocol was breched. So yes the sore losers tags is completely viable.

 

[The Jones Boy]

Alright mate, you have it your way, I'm out.

 

[Which Tyler]

Luckily, none of that TMO stuff happened though, phew

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

Luckily, none of that TMO stuff happened though, phew

Are you guys seriously suggesting that Poite's decision to change the penalty to an attacking scrum was not influenced by the replays on a giant screen that included said infringement that he watched repeatedly with his touch judge?

Even when in watching the replay, and after establishing that it was a fair challenge, Poite then repeatedly views the offside infringement and clearly states "player in an offside position"; thereby, 100% showing with absolute irrefutable clarity that he was considering the offside whilst reviewing the replay?

The link is below for those who think the interpretation of Which Tyler and Ncurd holds any weight whatsoever and you can judge with your own eyes. Note that there is no sign whatsoever of the touch judge providing an input that might have made Poite revise his opinion.



It was an unfortunate set of refereeing circumstances:

i) blowing early when NZ had a clear shot at a try - thereby failing to play the clearest of advantages.
ii) clearly and repeatedly reviewing and commenting on TMO pictures for a non-referrable offence that occured after the collision that was being reviewed (if the accidental offside had happened before the challenge in the air by Reid then it would have been impossible to avoid watching it and I'd have been more sympathetic to the ref) .
iii) adjudging catching a ball, travelling half a metre with it and then dropping it is "accidental"
iv) changing his decision not based on any consultation with the touch judge (as the microphone clearly picks up).

Phew indeed that some posters here aren't referees!

 

[Five Meters Out]

For mine it was the sequence of events that I found a bit hard to swallow. I'd never seen it before. It was like someone had snatched away the Xmas presents just as we were sitting around starting to open them.
Ref sees prop catch and drop ball - Gut feeling says penalty and he blows a penalty (forgetting to play the advantage law).
Ref reviews, looking at Reid's challenge on Williams. - Sees nothing wrong; then we hear him review events with TMO and end this conversation by saying "so Penalty Black." TMO replies in the affirmative. - From this point on, in no other game I can recall, have I ever seen a Ref change his mind - Never before.
Then, during the walk back to the mark, Ref Poite changes his mind, "Scrum to Black."

If anyone has an example (that we can You Tube and view) of a Ref changing his mind such as Poite did, can we please hear from them. It will put my mind at rest.

 

[Nubiwan]

If there was ever a reason not to take your posts, this is it.
What are you hoping to achieve by making these kind of slanderous venal invective?
Really?
I've seen you make worthwhile posts in the past but this, this is definitely not your finest hour.

I'm happy with the result.
I'm good with the Lions having their stock increased by getting a positive draw in the Kiwi series. They deserved it.
We were diminished and we learned a lot from the series, about our own team and what happens to our midfield when SBW and Crotty are not at home.

However, if you can stick to the topic we might get somewhere... if the ref is going to break protocol and start to use the TMO for whatever he feels like, and in this case it was clearly for more than foul play, then he is setting an ugly precedent for allowing the TMO to start to make much more invasive, time consuming, interventions that will slow the game down and reduce the action.
No thanks.
I don't want to see that.
I don't like American grid iron with its three teams for each franchise and commercial breaks constantly throughout proceedings, if you like that, cool, but not in rugby union please.

Read my signature viz those resorting to such measures Jonesy. That's all you need to know. The only thing worse than a sore loser, is a poor winner. Or is that draw-er?

I am a Lions Fan, and while I am happy with the tour performance, and results as they stand, I still feel a little robbed by the ultimate draw in the 3rd test. Not just Poite's deluxe cock up, but the overall caliber of rugby in the last test let us all down, I think. Even in defeat in the 3rd test, I could still have found plenty of positives from overall Lions performance. The ABs seemed as far away from their 48-18 and 38-19 2005 results than I have ever seen them over 3 tests. So our rugby is clearly progressing.

As for the last minute decision. Poite correctly awarded a pen. It was offside from a knock on, and even Owens realized such, as he quickly dropped the ball (all too late). I knew it was a pen (and said "ah crap!"), Owens knew it was a pen (and said "ah crap!"), 20,000 Lions fans inside Eden park said "ah crap!". If I never knew better, Poite was saying "ah merde" to himself, "how can I wrangle out of this?"

It is a penalty awarded around the world in every similar case. I want to see an example of otherwise on video, if such a thing exists. The damage was done, and NZ should have been awarded a pen, and we would get to see how much bottle "the Worlds best player" (Barrett) had from 30 metres. There was every chance he'd miss.

To say I was gobsmacked that Poite changed his mind (with no apparent coercion from TMO or the TJ) is understating things. I felt like going out and buying a Lottery ticket. Terrible terrible call, and cannot believe anyone would defend it. Preposterous.

Cue Valley and my 29th personal dislike ......

 

[Nubiwan]

Ummm you've still not fixed your baseless accusations that protocol was breched. So yes the sore losers tags is completely viable.

Protocol shmotocol. You are just mincing with words. When Poite called offside, did you think he got it right or wrong?

If the original decision had stood, then it would have been correct. There is no precedent against it. Plenty of precedent for Barrett to miss from 30 metres in front

TMO and protocol arguments are inconsequential, and merely smoke to cloud an already poor piece of reffing, that just happened to favour the Lions.

 

[Five Meters Out]

Protocol shmotocol. You are just mincing with words. When Poite called offside, did you think he got it right or wrong?

If the original decision had stood, then it would have been correct. There is no precedent against it. Plenty of precedent for Barrett to miss from 30 metres in front

TMO and protocol arguments are inconsequential, and merely smoke to cloud an already poor piece of reffing, that just happened to favour the Lions.

I reckon there's a good chance Barrett would have missed that kick. Now that would have been a finish.

 

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

I reckon there's a good chance Barrett would have missed that kick. Now that would have been a finish.

haha would have been fantastic

 

[ncurd]

Protocol shmotocol. You are just mincing with words. When Poite called offside, did you think he got it right or wrong?

If the original decision had stood, then it would have been correct. There is no precedent against it. Plenty of precedent for Barrett to miss from 30 metres in front

TMO and protocol arguments are inconsequential, and merely smoke to cloud an already poor piece of reffing, that just happened to favour the Lions.

I suggest reading the whole analysis which tyler posted a few pages back.
http://rugbyreferee.net/2017/07/09/...that-incident-and-why-the-law-needs-changing/

Come back to me when your done, because frankly unless you hard evidence any of that is wrong, well your assumption that Poite got the correct decision in the first place is wrong. Therefore you simply arguing that the incorrect decision should of stood despite at the point he reversed his decision no play had occured. And that stinks of sour grapes regardless.

Jones Boy only defence has been protocol was breeched for a while now and I want to see the damn protocol was breeched rather than just the assumption it was.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

Read was well ahead of BB at the kick-off anyway

 

[Penne Rara]

Read was well ahead of BB at the kick-off anyway

Somehow, he wasn't.

http://rugbyreferee.net/2017/07/09/...that-incident-and-why-the-law-needs-changing/

 

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

Read was well ahead of BB at the kick-off anyway

yeah... i'll admit I am normally about as biased as they come, but he was defo not

 

[Which Tyler]

Are you guys seriously suggesting that Poite's decision to change the penalty to an attacking scrum was not influenced by the replays on a giant screen that included said infringement that he watched repeatedly with his touch judge?

Have you actually read the thread?
No-one is suggesting that "Poite's decision to change the penalty to an attacking scrum was not influenced by the replays on a giant screen that included said infringement that he watched repeatedly with his touch judge" We're suggesting that he's allowed to do exactly that.
Until someone comes up with a protocol that says he isn't, then he hasn't broken any protocols.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

Somehow, he wasn't.

http://rugbyreferee.net/2017/07/09/...that-incident-and-why-the-law-needs-changing/

To be honest, prior to posting that I had opened up the game and screen grabbed several images from the vital seconds and concluded that he was probably onside. This said, from memory the camera only cut to the kickoff half a second after BB kicked it, leaving us to extrapolate backwards and work it out rather than getting a frame from the moment he made contact.

I was just trying to sabotage the ongoing argument here by making it irrelevant

In any case, I maintain that this was at least as important a moment in the game:

 

[die_mole]

I suggest reading the whole analysis which tyler posted a few pages back.
http://rugbyreferee.net/2017/07/09/...that-incident-and-why-the-law-needs-changing/

Come back to me when your done, because frankly unless you hard evidence any of that is wrong, well your assumption that Poite got the correct decision in the first place is wrong. Therefore you simply arguing that the incorrect decision should of stood despite at the point he reversed his decision no play had occured. And that stinks of sour grapes regardless.

Jones Boy only defence has been protocol was breeched for a while now and I want to see the damn protocol was breeched rather than just the assumption it was.

That article has a couple of mistakes.

First of all, kurt weaver, who does tier 2 international games has said that it was a knock on. You measure a knock on from whether or not it comes forward off the player not if it moves forward from the spot it was touched by the player.

Secondly, there are more than two laws in play in this scenario. Just cause it wasn't a knock on (as they wrongly claim) doesn't mean it's automatically 11.6. Accidental offside can also apply to knock ons as well (11.7 is a redundant law). 11.1 is applicable in this situation and him grabbing the ball means it should be the law applied.

 

[Nubiwan]

I suggest reading the whole analysis which tyler posted a few pages back.
http://rugbyreferee.net/2017/07/09/...that-incident-and-why-the-law-needs-changing/

Come back to me when your done, because frankly unless you hard evidence any of that is wrong, well your assumption that Poite got the correct decision in the first place is wrong. Therefore you simply arguing that the incorrect decision should of stood despite at the point he reversed his decision no play had occured. And that stinks of sour grapes regardless.

Jones Boy only defence has been protocol was breeched for a while now and I want to see the damn protocol was breeched rather than just the assumption it was.

Answer my first question. When he gave the pen, did you think it was right or wrong? Yet to meet anyone that did not think he cocked it up. Only ones are those unable to bring themsleves to admit it's the case and searching for precedents that don't exist. The pen was given correctly, the rest was all a sham.

 

[Nubiwan]

To be honest, prior to posting that I had opened up the game and screen grabbed several images from the vital seconds and concluded that he was probably onside. This said, from memory the camera only cut to the kickoff half a second after BB kicked it, leaving us to extrapolate backwards and work it out rather than getting a frame from the moment he made contact.

I was just trying to sabotage the ongoing argument here by making it irrelevant

In any case, I maintain that this was at least as important a moment in the game:

View attachment 5356

Totally agree, and wrongly officiated, as with many things on this tour, and rugby in general, fair to say. This incident will be handily forgotten because it never happened in front of the posts with 2 minutes on the clock.

Not sure why all the fuss over the ref getting it all wrong, when the outcome for the Lions was reasonable, despite all these gaffs. What gets 'unusual' is those among us going to lengths to suggest the ref was actually correct, and everything that transpired was somehow 'normal'.

 

[Nubiwan]

Have you actually read the thread?
No-one is suggesting that "Poite's decision to change the penalty to an attacking scrum was not influenced by the replays on a giant screen that included said infringement that he watched repeatedly with his touch judge" We're suggesting that he's allowed to do exactly that.
Until someone comes up with a protocol that says he isn't, then he hasn't broken any protocols.

Perhaps he was being rhetorical? Consider that.

History will show we tied the NZ test series in 2017. What we all think of Poits brain fart in the last 2 minutes, and other incidents by refs throughout the series, will be of little import. What's left is now meaningless banter by one side in shock over what transpired, and another trying to suggest it normal. I mean, let's just talk about the impact of Umaga & co. upending BOD in 2005. Result will not change.

 

[ncurd]

Answer my first question. When he gave the pen, did you think it was right or wrong?

I didn't think one way or the other unless a penalty is obviously wrong like the Warburton one at the start I try not to get overly critical of a referee making a decision. It's irrelevant to this discussion though it doesn't matter whether anyone thought it was right or wrong (and I know I'm probably less right on something than international referee in fact I'd dare to suggest everyone is less right than an international referee) the 'play' was reviewed in accordance to laws and procedures set out. The referee and AR decided their original decision was incorrect and changed it in accordance to the laws and procedures.