Referee decisions during World Cup

[die_mole]

Not sure what you mean. I never claimed it had anything to do with the result in the match.

Right. Well it's the definition of cynical play then. It's poor sportsmanship of the highest degree.

Nah. Poor sportsmanship is palming a guy in the face cause your getting your ass handed to you.

drawing attention to it is smart gamesmanship. I'll start worrying about getting rid of embellishment when bullshit like whitelock throwing a fit is gone from the game.

 

[Every Time Ref]

Farrell receiving the lightest of light pushes in the face.

Pretty insane that anyone could consider that worse than pretending to be hurt to milk a penalty. One act was, well, it was nothing. The other was cold and calcualated cynical play

Mate, I've seen you post and I know you're a rational human being. But we're all prone to bias towards our own team, it's no criticism of you personally, but do you think maybe that's what's going on here...? Whitelock hit someone in the face, that is a clear penalty within the laws, there really isn't any argument about that.

Whether Farrell milked it is another question, but there is no law or precedent for overturning a foul play penalty because the victim milked it.

No but considering the other decisions on here there is no comparison and it wasn't even the worst decision in game.

A player from Team A hit a player from Team B in the face. Team B were awarded a penalty.

"Not the worst decision in the game" is a bit of an understatement!

 

[die_mole]

Mate, I've seen you post and I know you're a rational human being. But we're all prone to bias towards our own team, it's no criticism of you personally, but do you think maybe that's what's going on here...? Whitelock hit someone in the face, that is a clear penalty within the laws, there really isn't any argument about that.

Whether Farrell milked it is another question, but there is no law or precedent for overturning a foul play penalty because the victim milked it.

this is important. It's illegal to pretend an act happened when it didn't but not illegal to make something of an act that did happen.

Law 9.7c
UNFAIR PLAY

Do anything that may lead the match officials 
to consider that an opponent has committed 
an infringement

 

[Every Time Ref]

I don't think so, but I'll let you know tomorrow.

Fair play mate, sleep well

 

[Rinkadink]

Would like to see incident again as not sure if headbutt or similar was involved or not and TV coverage only showed the one brief replay for some reason.

Would be surprised if it was Farrell milking it to be honest so perhaps more than we've seen. If it turns out he did ham it up to unreasonable levels then I will condemn it for sure.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Only gripes from an England perspective was how many penalties the ABs conceded before getting an official warning and how the official warning wasn't then followed through when the ABs continued to infringe. Also how many forward passes did the ABs get away with? Not even 50/50 calls but really obvious ones.

 

[Which Tyler]

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.

As far as I can see, the only downvotes you got were for the "everybody is biased against New Zealand" act.
As for the thought that this board idolises Farrell - that comment can only be made by someone who hasn't read anything written in any England thread in the last 6 years

 

[RedruthRFC]

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.

This is a valid point that has got lost in the weasel words. I think it's unedifying, but given the way that the teams of four have performed in this World Cup, I had made my peace with the fact that you're a fool if you don't do it. As things stand, the unwillingness or inability of the team of four to spot foul play without having it highlighted to them and being given a breather in which to do so is positively encouraging players to provide them with this opportunity.

It's a lose lose situation. If Farrell shrugged it off any played on, I'm fairly sure nothing would have come of the incident. That was avoided, but it took some unedifying conduct to ensure that justice was done. Maybe we should have a referral system in place to discourage this.

 

[Scotty]

Underhills disallowed try. Right decision technically but for me whitelock did bite in on him, if he didnt bite in and attempt the hit and stood off him he would have been in a position to make the tackle. So my question is what are the rules on crossing? I wasnt annoyed it was dissallowed and im not now im just curious on the interpritation in this case.

 

[Nudger]

Youngs disallowed try was knocked on by rattalic or what ever his name is

 

[ncurd]

Underhills disallowed try. Right decision technically but for me whitelock did bite in on him, if he didnt bite in and attempt the hit and stood off him he would have been in a position to make the tackle. So my question is what are the rules on crossing? I wasnt annoyed it was dissallowed and im not now im just curious on the interpritation in this case.

I don't know exactly but Owens did say he wanted to know if it made a difference. So if you don't think he'd have made it the try should standm

With my extreme bias I think Whitelock bit the dummy before the cross so I think it should of stood on those grounds.

 

[Reiser99]

This is a valid point that has got lost in the weasel words. I think it's unedifying, but given the way that the teams of four have performed in this World Cup, I had made my peace with the fact that you're a fool if you don't do it. As things stand, the unwillingness or inability of the team of four to spot foul play without having it highlighted to them and being given a breather in which to do so is positively encouraging players to provide them with this opportunity.

It's a lose lose situation. If Farrell shrugged it off any played on, I'm fairly sure nothing would have come of the incident. That was avoided, but it took some unedifying conduct to ensure that justice was done. Maybe we should have a referral system in place to discourage this.

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.

 

[Yoshimitsu]

I've watched the game back in full. For a paragon of non-Hollywood action Whitelock spends an awful lot of the game waving his arms about and shouting "ref" whenever he feels the need to. I suspect that his actions are almost 100% attributable to an incident just after half time when Whitelock is an a good position holding a player up and Farrell supermans him knocking him off his feet. Whitelock then does the age old trick of regaining his feet by putting all of his weight through the one arm that he has firmly planted on Farrell's neck. He's looking for an excuse, finds one and Farrell takes advantage. Stupid play and I reckon why he was hooked immediately after.

 

[Scotty]

I don't know exactly but Owens did say he wanted to know if it made a difference. So if you don't think he'd have made it the try should standm

With my extreme bias I think Whitelock bit the dummy before the cross so I think it should of stood on those grounds.

My bias opinion too great dummy line, whitelock wraps up curry(chose to make the tackle) resd the play and he goes for sinks. Try should stand IMVBO (very biased).

Even if we had lost this game and that had been disallowed is have come to the same conclusion but also do also understand why it was disallowed tbh.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

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.

You are smarter, way smarter than that.
Pls don't join the tinfoil hat club.

 

[Every Time Ref]

My bias opinion too great dummy line, whitelock wraps up curry(chose to make the tackle) resd the play and he goes for sinks. Try should stand IMVBO (very biased).

Even if we had lost this game and that had been disallowed is have come to the same conclusion but also do also understand why it was disallowed tbh.

I thought it was absolutely the right decision to disallow because he was in front of the play, which makes him offside, which makes anything he does which impacts the game illegal. I think a lot of those you get away with, but I'd rather see them given.

Another key thing to note though is that if Sinckler had given the pass instead of going himself, you take that out the game. I think that was the wrong decision from him

 

[Reiser99]

Ok, so I agree that I don't want to see people exaggerating things to get others in trouble and I hope that Farrell doesn't make it a habit. However where I disagree is that it belongs on this thread. It was unsporting, but it was a penalty to England as you can't just shove your hand in someone's face and push them over, regardless of how they act after. Yes play acting has no place, but at no point does it excuse or cancel the original incident and the ref called it right.

 

[Pom in Exile]

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.

Whitelock in this instance.

 

[stormmaster1]

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.

 

[Nudger]

Well I'm glad whitelock didnt do that to me