Referee decisions during World Cup

Discussion in 'Rugby World Cup 2019' started by Umaga's Witness, Sep 23, 2019.

  1. Which Tyler

    Which Tyler First XV

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2015
    Messages:
    4,175
    Location:
    Tewkesbury
    Country Flag:

    England

    Club or Nation:

    Bath

    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.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2019
  2. Forum Ad Advertisement

  3. scotty507

    scotty507 First XV

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2016
    Messages:
    2,054
    Club or Nation:

    Exeter

    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.
     
  4. Cruz_del_Sur

    Cruz_del_Sur First XV

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2011
    Messages:
    2,613
    Location:
    Yurop
    Country Flag:

    Argentina

    Club or Nation:

    CASI

    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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Cruz_del_Sur

    Cruz_del_Sur First XV

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2011
    Messages:
    2,613
    Location:
    Yurop
    Country Flag:

    Argentina

    Club or Nation:

    CASI

    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.
     
  6. Which Tyler

    Which Tyler First XV

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2015
    Messages:
    4,175
    Location:
    Tewkesbury
    Country Flag:

    England

    Club or Nation:

    Bath

    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.
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Nudger

    Nudger Bench Player

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2017
    Messages:
    520
    I have several times and if whitelocks fist had been closed it would have been a straight red
     
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2019
  8. Leinster Fan

    Leinster Fan First XV

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2017
    Messages:
    2,116
    Location:
    Dublin
    Country Flag:

    Ireland

    Club or Nation:

    Leinster

    @Umaga's Witness

    I like you, but if you could give the relentless condescension a rest it'd be great.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  9. Cruz_del_Sur

    Cruz_del_Sur First XV

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2011
    Messages:
    2,613
    Location:
    Yurop
    Country Flag:

    Argentina

    Club or Nation:

    CASI

    I dont have a problem with you.
    It's not that people misinterpret you. It's that people disagree with you.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  10. RedruthRFC

    RedruthRFC First XV

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2011
    Messages:
    1,651
    Country Flag:

    England

    Club or Nation:

    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.

    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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Umaga's Witness

    Umaga's Witness First XV

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2012
    Messages:
    1,073
    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.

    .
    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.
    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.
     
Enjoyed this thread? Register to post your reply - click here!

Share This Page