Craig Joubert on the Scotland Australia decision

[saulan]

It seems that World Rugby feel a bit bad for throwing him under the bus. Gives a bit of perspective though. I am sure there are many Scots who will always hate him, but that was clearly an honest mistake and the crucifixion I felt was always unwarranted and due to high emotions.

 

[Maverick1987]

Don't worry it's only Scotland ...... They are used to being crap haha

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

We are lucky to have dedicated refs who try their best to officiate what is probably the hardest sport I can think of to referee as so many calls are subjective judgement. But I'd like to think there are systems in place where a ref makes an absolute howler they are less likely to get the next big game. It is a fact in sport that on average the big mistakes fall in favour of the big teams, as with Joubert and the lad who failed to show Le Roux the red card last weekend. That shows to me a mental fragility and refs that show that trait should be kept away from the biggest/most decisive fixtures - Joubert included.

 

[smartcooky]

We are lucky to have dedicated refs who try their best to officiate what is probably the hardest sport I can think of to referee as so many calls are subjective judgement. But I'd like to think there are systems in place where a ref makes an absolute howler they are less likely to get the next big game. It is a fact in sport that on average the big mistakes fall in favour of the big teams, as with Joubert and the lad who failed to show Le Roux the red card last weekend. That shows to me a mental fragility and refs that show that trait should be kept away from the biggest/most decisive fixtures - Joubert included.

The thing is though, that was only an absolute howler with the benefit of hindsight, and many replays from multiple angles, At full speed and first look, he got the decision right, it looked a clear cut offside (I thought he was right at the time until I saw the replays). I certainly do NOT count Craig Joubert among "mentally fragile" referees. If you want absolute howlers and mentally fragile, look no further than Wayne Barnes, who made a clear and obvious mistake in the first NZ v Wales game, where, even with the benefit of multiple replays, he still made a blunder, overruling his TMO, and both ARs to do so. Right there is a referee who is not fit to referee International Rugby.


There are three things here that I would change, a Law Definition, a Law and a TMO Protocol.

Law Definition of "Played"
IMO, we should be going down the route taken by RL where, if the ball touches a player (rather than the player touching the ball) then it is regarded as "not played at"....

[TEXTAREA]Section 11: Tackle and Play the Ball
Opponent “touches†ball ; ‘Touching’ the ball is intentionally playing it with any part of the person when it is not held by an opposing player. A ricochet or rebound does not count as a ‘touch’.[/TEXTAREA]

Change the definition of played, from

[TEXTAREA]Law Definition
Played: The ball is played when it is touched by a player.[/TEXTAREA]
to

[TEXTAREA]Law Definition
Played: The ball is played when it is intentionally touched by a player.[/TEXTAREA]


Law of Accidental Offside
Add (c) to Law 11.6

[TEXTAREA]11.6 ACCIDENTAL OFFSIDE
(c) When an offside player play a ball that was touched but not played by a team-mate. A scrum is formed with the opposing team throwing in the ball[/TEXTAREA]

TMO Protocol
The TMO "Check, check" protocol should be extended to allow him to intervene off his own bat (without being asked as they do now for foul play) when there has been a clear and obvious mistake by the referee. This would apply only to general aspects of play, such as passes, touches, kicks etc but not to areas of subjective judgement such as mauls, rucks and scrums. Had something like this been in place, the TMO could have called Joubert with a "Check check" call, and told him that the last touch was by Phipps and the penalty needs to be voided.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

We are lucky to have dedicated refs who try their best to officiate what is probably the hardest sport I can think of to referee as so many calls are subjective judgement. But I'd like to think there are systems in place where a ref makes an absolute howler they are less likely to get the next big game. It is a fact in sport that on average the big mistakes fall in favour of the big teams, as with Joubert and the lad who failed to show Le Roux the red card last weekend. That shows to me a mental fragility and refs that show that trait should be kept away from the biggest/most decisive fixtures - Joubert included.

Agree with the overall concept, but fully disagree with the two examples you used.

 

[TRF_heineken]

There are three things here that I would change, a Law Definition, a Law and a TMO Protocol.

Law Definition of "Played"
IMO, we should be going down the route taken by RL where, if the ball touches a player (rather than the player touching the ball) then it is regarded as "not played at"....

[TEXTAREA]Section 11: Tackle and Play the Ball
Opponent "touches" ball ; 'Touching' the ball is intentionally playing it with any part of the person when it is not held by an opposing player. A ricochet or rebound does not count as a 'touch'.[/TEXTAREA]

Change the definition of played, from

[TEXTAREA]Law Definition
Played: The ball is played when it is touched by a player.[/TEXTAREA]
to

[TEXTAREA]Law Definition
Played: The ball is played when it is intentionally touched by a player.[/TEXTAREA]

It's certainly an interesting idea, but it will bring in a lot of problems with guys sticking out their arms when making tackles and then preventing the ball from going to the receiving player. Even on certain replays, it's not always clear if that arm was intentionally or accidentally in the way, and it could lead to more incidents where players will be more attent to stick out an arm.

For me personally, when the ball touches a player above the hips and the ball goes forward from there, it should be ruled as a knock-on, plain and simple. There is no need to make the laws more complicated than it is already. whether it's touching his hands, shoulder or even his head (Falcon!!), it should be rules as a knock-on.

Law of Accidental Offside
Add (c) to Law 11.6

[TEXTAREA]11.6 ACCIDENTAL OFFSIDE
(c) When an offside player play a ball that was touched but not played by a team-mate. A scrum is formed with the opposing team throwing in the ball[/TEXTAREA]

I agree here with you. Accidental offside is something that the referees don't all rule the same. Some give penalties and others give scrums. make it all scrums and keep the game more of a contest. It's damn frustrating to see teams getting penalties awarded for something that wasn't deliberate.

TMO Protocol
The TMO "Check, check" protocol should be extended to allow him to intervene off his own bat (without being asked as they do now for foul play) when there has been a clear and obvious mistake by the referee. This would apply only to general aspects of play, such as passes, touches, kicks etc but not to areas of subjective judgement such as mauls, rucks and scrums. Had something like this been in place, the TMO could have called Joubert with a "Check check" call, and told him that the last touch was by Phipps and the penalty needs to be voided.

Agree here too. And that check check should also be used by more referees. While the check check call is done, play usually continues, so there isn't as much delays as in the past.

 

[AzaMatt]

its the same situation with 'intercept attempts' though. some are clearly just players sticking their hand out and they are still given as knock ons. ref's have been getting better at penalising them but it should be a yellow card and in some cases pentalty tries if there is no attempt to actually catch the ball

 

[smartcooky]

Heineken

As regards "not played at" I was thinking more of ricochets when the ball strikes a player who has made no attempt to play at the ball. This would not apply if a player sticks his hand out. If he does that, he's playing at the ball. Even if he is trying to charge the ball down and the ball strikes him on the head or chest, he was still playing at it.

Where I felt it might apply is, for example (Blue v Gold)

1. Blue clearing kick strikes a retiring Gold player on the back and then bounces forward where an offside Gold player plays it.

2. Blue clearing kick is charged down by Gold and bounces forward into the back of an offside Gold player

In both these cases, its currently a penalty for offside, but IMO they should both be Accidental Offside and scrum feed to Blue


Rugby League seem to manage such situations very well, and even in Soccer where hand-ball is a penalty/direct free kick, "ball strikes hand" is not.

[TEXTAREA]LAW 12: Fouls and Misconduct
Direct free kick

{snip}<snip><snip>

A direct free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any
of the following three offences:
• holds an opponent
• spits at an opponent
• handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own
penalty area)[/TEXTAREA]</snip></snip>

 

[TRF_heineken]

Heineken

As regards "not played at" I was thinking more of ricochets when the ball strikes a player who has made no attempt to play at the ball. This would not apply if a player sticks his hand out. If he does that, he's playing at the ball. Even if he is trying to charge the ball down and the ball strikes him on the head or chest, he was still playing at it.

Where I felt it might apply is, for example (Blue v Gold)

1. Blue clearing kick strikes a retiring Gold player on the back and then bounces forward where an offside Gold player plays it.

2. Blue clearing kick is charged down by Gold and bounces forward into the back of an offside Gold player

In both these cases, its currently a penalty for offside, but IMO they should both be Accidental Offside and scrum feed to Blue


Rugby League seem to manage such situations very well, and even in Soccer where hand-ball is a penalty/direct free kick, "ball strikes hand" is not.

[TEXTAREA]LAW 12: Fouls and Misconduct
Direct free kick

{snip}<snip><snip>

A direct free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any
of the following three offences:
• holds an opponent
• spits at an opponent
• handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own
penalty area)[/TEXTAREA]</snip></snip>

I get that, but that's part of the first principles you learn when playing rugby "The unknown bounce of a rugby ball". It adds to the excitement when the ball perfectly bounce into a chaser's hands or when it bounces uncontrollably and causes a knock-on and then a gain in territory for the opposition. It feels to me like we are losing the fundamentals of Rugby Union, and while I agree with you that it could work, it seems like adding more laws is not the way to go about it.