• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Referee decisions during World Cup

Which Tyler

International
TRF Legend
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Messages
5,201
Reaction score
1,877
Country Flag

England

Club or Nation

Bath

Mate, read the context.
Mate, read the post.
I am one of 3 people who downvoted you.
As it happens, I know precisely why I downvoted you. This isn't Brexit, I know the reasons for my own actions, you don't get to tell me my reasoning after the event.

It was absolutely and entirely because of your "everyone is biased against the all blacks" attitude that you explicitly stated in that post (and shines through in many of your posts).
I downvoted that 1 post, not any of the others, and not whatever "context" you want to pretend existed.

As for Farrell. If you don't think we're defending him because we idolise him, then why say that you do? And remember, I'm one of his biggest critics who most certainly doesn't "idolise" him.

Ultimately, you were downvoted for the words you used. If you meant different things by them, then you should have used different words.
 
Last edited:

scotty507

First XV
TRF Legend
Joined
Jun 14, 2016
Messages
2,633
Reaction score
591
Club or Nation

Exeter

He pushed him in the face.
Penalty, whether opposing player hurt or not.
I don't think refs can solely call it on how hard he was pushed, because it is classed as dangerous play regardless. Hand in face means fingers near eyes, which is dangerous.

And yes Farrell made a meal of it but I don't think that would affect the decision.
Exactly, pen all day long. Glad no exaggeration from the ref and looking at cards. If it were harder it would have been a card but was a push in the face off the ball. Delt with perfectly not sure what any debait is about?

Faz has every right to hold his face when pushed to the ground by it.
 

Cruz_del_Sur

First XV
TRF Legend
Joined
Sep 12, 2011
Messages
2,808
Reaction score
644
Country Flag

Argentina

Club or Nation

CASI

“Put it to you” means to introduce or suggest something for your consideration. Read this post in the context. It was claimed that I only saw Farrell doing something wrong because I am biased, whereas others didn’t have this bias. I suggested they consider the opposite before throwing around such accusations.
Well, it was claimed that only you saw that and it was claimed that it was because you were biased. True.
Now, I did not see anyone claiming they haven't been biased themselves.

I am well aware of what putting it to you means, thank you. I am sure that is not what you did. You did more than that. It might have been your intention but it is not how you came across.

I've been in this forum for a while. I've never seen a Scottish, a Welsh, an Irish, an Argentine, a French, an English a South African, an Australian or an Italian claim something along the lines of "the world is out to get us". Maybe i missed it.
I've seen several New Zelanders do that. I can actually point out two just in the last month.

If that is what you intended to say, fair enough. Again, it is definitely not how you came across, and i believe the responses suggest i am not the only one who interpreted that way.

We all have biases. Some people embrace them, I personally hate them, probably influenced by my education, so i have this tendency to overcompensate (i'm sure a poster will point an example of the contrary, hence the word "tendency").
I can't watch Argentine rugby through Argentine tv channels, it just ruins it for me, and it's the same reason i read/post here and not an Argentine/Spanish speaking forum.

I enjoy your posts most of the times. They are generally well thought an add value. I think you missed the mark this time.
 

Cruz_del_Sur

First XV
TRF Legend
Joined
Sep 12, 2011
Messages
2,808
Reaction score
644
Country Flag

Argentina

Club or Nation

CASI

I said the words “I put it to you”. How can that not be what I did, what I intended, or how I came across. I said I put it to you that maybe others are biased against nz, in response to the claim that I was biased toward nz. It’s not my fault if that came across any way other than intended. The English is all there.

This is seriously all beyond baffling. Mob mentality Is a bias too.
So you argument, if i understand correctly, is that an Argentine is biassed towards the English, favouring a NH team over a SH one, correct?
That's a new one and baffling indeed.
Let's agree to disagree on this one.
 

Which Tyler

International
TRF Legend
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Messages
5,201
Reaction score
1,877
Country Flag

England

Club or Nation

Bath

I put it to you that everyone outside New Zealand is so anti New Zealand that they can’t see this straight. The force was nothing, therefore it is not possible to claim it wasn’t a dive. You can’t get hurt from that push. He pretended he was hurt when he wasn’t. That’s the definition of a dive.
Nah, you're right, you totally didn't say that everyone outside of New Zealand is anti New Zealand - we all just don't understand English to interpret it that way.
Man so much hate. Hollywood’s are a disgrace in this part of the world. I can understand not agreeing if Hollywood’s are ok where you are from , but actively disagreeing (hence disliking) only makes sense if you think Hollywood’s are a positive thing.

Or you idolise Farrell hence saying anything bad about him is automatically an affront to you.
Nah, you're right, you totally didn't say that the only options are that we think Hollywood's are ok or we idolise Farrell and get offended at any criticism of him - we all just don't understand English in order to interpret your words that way.


Now I will absolutely say, that your team lost, your absolutely allowed to be pissed off, and to look at ref decisions with biased eyes and feel salty about things. You absolutely get that leeway for a week or so - as do all fans of losing sides.
Had it been just that, you probably wouldn't have got as far as the posts above, and wouldn't have had any downvotes. But you took it beyond that, you kept the conversation going and objected to people failing to understand English, because it's perfectly clear that you didn't mean what people are taking you to have meant.

Personally, I'm moving on now. Feel free to give me another downvote for engaging with you. Feel free to have the final wor and tell me that I still don't understand the English language, and that those quotes from you still don't mean what they say because... "Context". Feel free to call me a snowflake if you wish, for explaining the reasons that I had thought self-explanatory.
I for one, am done with this conversation, it gives me no joy, or catharsis. It's beginning to feel like I'm kicking a man whilst he's down, and that's really not my intention.
 

RedruthRFC

First XV
TRF Legend
Joined
Nov 29, 2011
Messages
1,853
Reaction score
240
Country Flag

England

Club or Nation

England

So basically if Farrell had been tough and just got on with it then Retallick would have got away with it and NZ would have had a penalty instead or England.

Having gone back and watched the incident, I take that back, Nige obviously saw what Whitelock did, so he may well have reviewed it with the TMO even if Farrell hadn't given him the time to do so.

I agree that it's not great to look at, but just don't see any controversy here. For me personally Retallick was the git for pushing Farrell in the face when he was already falling backwards. It was completely uncalled for and the sign of a frustrated player losing and taking it out on the opposition.

As has already been established, it wasn't simulation to con the referee a la Andy Haden so there's no controversy in that. If you're really going out of your way to find something to fall out with, I guess you could argue that if he was Hollywooding, it violates some sort of "spirit of the game" law.

Was it Hollywooding though? It appears to me that after Whitelock's open handed strike (you have to already be in contact with something in order to push it), TJ Perenara takes it upon himself to dive on Farrell and one of his hands appears to make contact with Farrell's face.
 

Umaga's Witness

First XV
TRF Legend
Joined
Dec 3, 2012
Messages
1,451
Reaction score
600
Country Flag

New Zealand

Club or Nation

Hurricanes

Sorry all for contributing to some negative discussion. Particularly for coming across as accusing people of being biased. I was just offended at being called biased and receiving dislikes for responding to Someone who was asking me to consider if I might be biased, by suggesting they consider that maybe those on the other side of the argument are the ones who are biased.

To put my view in perspective, Hollywood’s are a pet peeve of mine and I will often point it out in games that don’t involve the all blacks. I was particularly harsh on Scotland in the last World Cup for instance.

to me, I was being rational, albeit with a harsher view on Hollywood’s than most. I do think people’s views on Hollywood’s are largely a cultural thing. But I didn’t think I was seeing this incident differently because of my nz bias.

I haven’t changed my opinion on the actual incident. There is a very real possibility that we have seen different coverage. I saw a very light glance on the forehead with the palm from a pushing action as Farrell was falling to the ground. Others have suggested he was pushed to the ground by the face. That wasn’t in my coverage. Or that he was hit or struck, possibly they are referring to something that happened before the incident I saw. I apologise here if you saw the same coverage and so I am insinuating that you haven’t seen this rationally. I accept the subjectivity in how the incident could be defined and wouldn’t judge anyone for being irrational in the aftermath of a match, if that actually was the case.

.
So basically if Farrell had been tough and just got on with it then Retallick would have got away with it and NZ would have had a penalty instead or England. I agree that it's not great to look at, but just don't see any controversy here. For me personally Retallick was the git for pushing Farrell in the face when he was already falling backwards. It was completely uncalled for and the sign of a frustrated player losing and taking it out on the opposition.
I would be happy if whitelock had been penalised for being a git, I can just see whitelock complaining to nige about the penalty and nige saying “Sam, saaaaaam, you were being a git”.

you appear to have seen the same coverage as me too. Whitelock was a git to do that for sure. I just didn’t think the impact was much. impact doesn’t actually matter, technically, as it was contact to the face, so I can see people’s point that it should be a penalty. But contact to the face happens all the time without force in rucks and rightly in my opinion no one is penalised for it. The intention of the law is to prevent eye injuries. The eyes don’t get injured unless there is some force, less force is required compared to hitting someone’s arm, sure, but still there needs to be some force. Certainly, from what I saw, I wouldn’t define this as a hit or strike.
Having gone back and watched the incident, I take that back, Nige obviously saw what Whitelock did, so he may well have reviewed it with the TMO even if Farrell hadn't given him the time to do so.



As has already been established, it wasn't simulation to con the referee a la Andy Haden so there's no controversy in that. If you're really going out of your way to find something to fall out with, I guess you could argue that if he was Hollywooding, it violates some sort of "spirit of the game" law.

Was it Hollywooding though? It appears to me that after Whitelock's open handed strike (you have to already be in contact with something in order to push it), TJ Perenara takes it upon himself to dive on Farrell and one of his hands appears to make contact with Farrell's face.
Thanks for a reasoned contribution, it makes me feel less attacked.

It is certainly a sportsmanship law I am appealing to. In saying that, the interpretation of the other law by the mole I think is incorrect, there doesn’t have to be no infringement, so there is no difference between an out and out dive and an embellishment. Similarly players shouldn’t be bringing attention to infringements verbally, as they often do. So there is nothing especially worse, according to that law, about what Farrell did if you believe there was an infringement in the first place. I don’t though.

I can see the rationale for It being a strike, based on your description, as I had thought that through as well. Problem is, are you touching someone right now? If not, by your definition, you can never push them, unless they have initiated contact by striking you first. To me, you can push if you first make contact with negligible force, ie something that doesn’t hurt.

Ill have to watch the Perenara thing too.
 

sigesige00

Bench Player
Joined
Jun 2, 2010
Messages
805
Reaction score
62
I watched Japan v RSA QF again. When Tendi Mtawarira (RSA number 1) committed a serious foul, refree immediately showed a yellow card (9:48). However, if the refree checked video, he would have changed yellow to red. (The score was Japan 0-5 RSA at that time.) If Mtawarira had had been sent off, the game result could be different?
 

Primary

The Rugby Forum Assistant
Here are some related products that The Rugby Forum members are talking about. Clicking on a product will take you to The Rugby Forum’s partner, Primary, where you can find links to The Rugby Forum discussions about these products.

 
 
Top