South Africa director of rugby Rassie Erasmus to face misconduct hearing

[ChicagoKid]

The timing of this is horrible, Does World Rugby want to punish us against England by announcing it just before the England game in the middle of preparations? Drop this decision in the player psyche just before a huge match? World Rugby is out for revenge and it's appalling. You have to wonder if former RFU president and now World Rugby b oss Bill Beaumont has had a big say in 1. The decision and 2. The timing of the decision to best support his home nation.

I guess these Boks at least know how to deal with adversity. First the world rugby player of the year snub now this clear attack on the whole team. Pure Politics in World Rugby

I see it completely opposite. The pre-game speech has written itself. "It's us against the world boys. First, they punished the team by not including us in the wards, now they are trying to ban me from rugby, and worst of all, they tried to punish Siya after he spoke out. Let's eff them up physically."

Us against the world is one of the best motivators in sport.

 

[Becca]

He's already appealed and will be on the field on Saturday.

He’s appealing the ban but I don’t think he’s on the field this Saturday.

 

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

The timing of this is horrible, Does World Rugby want to punish us against England by announcing it just before the England game in the middle of preparations? Drop this decision in the player psyche just before a huge match? World Rugby is out for revenge and it's appalling. You have to wonder if former RFU president and now World Rugby b oss Bill Beaumont has had a big say in 1. The decision and 2. The timing of the decision to best support his home nation.

I guess these Boks at least know how to deal with adversity. First the world rugby player of the year snub now this clear attack on the whole team. Pure Politics in World Rugby

The hearings were literally a couple of weeks ago - obvs the decision was gonna be soon.

It's not some big conspiracy, if rassie hadn't been a *** this wouldn't have happened

 

[ChicagoKid]

The hearings were literally a couple of weeks ago - obvs the decision was gonna be soon.

It's not some big conspiracy, if rassie hadn't been a *** this wouldn't have happened

What's interesting is how Gatland got off without punishment. His comments about a South African TMO started this nonsense.

In American sports, any commentary on the officials is fined. And not $20,000 like SARU got, but 6-figure checks required. Why rugby tolerates whinging through the press and other methods is a farce.

 

[ncurd]

What's interesting is how Gatland got off without punishment. His comments about a South African TMO started this nonsense.

In American sports, any commentary on the officials is fined. And not $20,000 like SARU got, but 6-figure checks required. Why rugby tolerates whinging through the press and other methods is a farce.

Simple answer the TMO broke the "neutrality" of officials by nationality. Something which is pretty much set as tenant of all international sport. To comment on that and complain World Rugby should of had of never let it happen isn't really breaking the rules because World Rugby broke theirs.

Basically when the neutrality of officials is written in the code of your sport and they no longer are you have every right to complain.

 

[ncurd]

This is not to suggest Gatland wasn't playing games because he was.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Nic Berry's personal statement in the report is pretty depressing reading, he and his family have copped a lot as a result of Rassies rant, and his career and reputation have taken a big hit


The more you read the report the more ridiculous it is - Rassie tried citing the European Human Rights convention

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Lol I love how they systematically break down the lies

Rassie: it was a private video only meant for the refereeing panel and for coaching purposes

World rugby: here's all the occasions where you specifically address Supersport


He actually emailed Nic Berry and said the Boks were going to pressure the referees in the press....and then claims he didn't release the video lol

 

[ncurd]

Did Erasmus get actual lawyers involved or read a freeman of the land website?

Because I can't see the appeal going well even if he goes to the Court of Arbitration for Sport of he doesn't.

 

[OllyM97]

I don’t see how he can appeal that when everyone knows he’s guilty apart from some stupid, conspiracy believing SA supporters. No World Rugby award nominations for the Boks = they hate us. Rassie verdict announced before England game = designed to distract us. There’s more examples, honestly it’s pathetic. Get a grip. There’s no conspiracy against SA at all, people who believe that are thick. Rassie totally deserves the punishment he got, and in fact, I think it should have been harsher. He should have been permanently banned from being in the stadium on a Springbok match-day.

 

[mdaclarke]

I think South Africa will be secretly pleased with the outcome. I predict that although there is a lot of noise about appealing, the appeal papers will never actually be filed.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

The whole thing is a bit of a farce really. Everything. The B&I Lions tour, the refereeing in that game, the comments in the press from both camps, the citing, the penalties, Just everything. Fair enough Rassie cops it as he is the one that went too over the line. But TBH I don't actually blame him as I can fully understand the frustration with both Berry and WR. Literally the only thing from Rassie I have gripes with is I think he could've gone less personal on Berry and kept it ONLY on the on field performance- which was dire.

My hope was that maybe the whole ... show could lead to some semblance of introspection from WR but it doesn't look to be the case and I can't say I'm suprised.

From a SA POV it'll just be fuel to the fire and might just be the little bit of extra motivation we need to get us over the last line and thoughts focussed on the job at hand rather than straying to the beautiful SA summer back home.

 

[ncurd]

Still don't understand the Erasmus way went over the line but he had a point line. Nobody has actually given any decent suggestions to what World Rugby is supposed to correct whatever his point was. Other than he was acting like any forum poster throwing their toys out the pram.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

Still don't understand the Erasmus way went over the line but he had a point line. Nobody has actually given any decent suggestions to what World Rugby is supposed to correct whatever his point was. Other than he was acting like any forum poster throwing their toys out the pram.

I think it was quite clear that the main gripe was inconsistency in implementation IE both teams not given the same length of rope.

What actually needs to be done? At the very least be open and transparent in post match assessment. I think Rassie was just beside himself with anger and frustration as it appears that indications Berry gave prior to the game went out the window. OTT from Rassie. Certainly and he has copped his penalty. But no other knuckles being rapped is just as ridiculous IMO.

As for Berry complaining. Suck it up. You did a poor job. You shat the carpet. If someone rubs your nose in it then that's just on par with any other profession in the world. Maybe if WR had any sort of transparent assessment system the counter-reaction wouldn't be OTT.

Long term though I don't know what specifically can be done WRT the laws. I mean you don't want to eliminate the competition for the ball. One would've thought that TMO's would go a long way to eliminate those one off shockers but no. So I suppose its either accept RU for what it is or pick up another hobby. The same goes the other way though, there'll always be rants. Accept it, ignore it, take it if you have the energy and sanction if its from officials/players etc if its over "the line".

 

[ncurd]

I think it was quite clear that the main gripe was inconsistency in implementation IE both teams not given the same length of rope.

What actually needs to be done? At the very least be open and transparent in post match assessment. I think Rassie was just beside himself with anger and frustration as it appears that indications Berry gave prior to the game went out the window. OTT from Rassie. Certainly and he has copped his penalty. But no other knuckles being rapped is just as ridiculous IMO.

As for Berry complaining. Suck it up. You did a poor job. You shat the carpet. If someone rubs your nose in it then that's just on par with any other profession in the world. Maybe if WR had any sort of transparent assessment system the counter-reaction wouldn't be OTT.

Long term though I don't know what specifically can be done WRT the laws. I mean you don't want to eliminate the competition for the ball. One would've thought that TMO's would go a long way to eliminate those one off shockers but no. So I suppose its either accept RU for what it is or pick up another hobby. The same goes the other way though, there'll always be rants. Accept it, ignore it, take it if you have the energy and sanction if its from officials/players etc if its over "the line".

I don't think Berry's performance was that exceptionally bad it certainly wasn't Gaüzère at Wales V England or Steve Walsh at the same fixture. Nothing Erasmus pointed out is uncommon in any game of rugby I've watched.

Also sorry your attitude to Berry sucks and if you think that acceptable what Erasmus did is acceptable to happen anyone in any profession I count myself lucky I don't have to work you on a professional capacity because if any chewed me out that way or rubbed my nose in it I'd be marching to HR to make a complaint and be immediately looking to work elsewhere. Anyone who think its acceptable to chew people out, rub noses in mistakes is a bully and sucks.

TMO's went some way but people got pissy with them scratching off try's during the world cup in England and since then they can involved far less and only for actual foul play.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Still don't understand the Erasmus way went over the line but he had a point line. Nobody has actually given any decent suggestions to what World Rugby is supposed to correct whatever his point was. Other than he was acting like any forum poster throwing their toys out the pram.

Agreed,
Rassie actually got what he wanted (Berry sent him explanations to the 36 clips Rassie sent him)

Rassie still spat his dummy out - this has never been about world rugby's processes or anything similar, it was solely about pressuring the referees to favour them in the second test, which Rassie literally said to Berry

It's worth at least skimming over the report just to see how much the truth differs from Rassies version of events

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Also there is the often cited WR agreed with 23 of the 26 incident being incorrectly reffed or whatever the number is. That is just a figure in isolation. I recon most games you could find quite a few instances that went against you depending on how small you are going to go. It also doesn't say how many went in South Africa's favour. If 40 decisions went in their favour incorrectly and 26 went against then it would mean they likely actually benefitted rather than losing out, although it would still point to a poor reffing performance.

Ultimately though it's still about finding ways to actually improve it and I never see anyone putting forward realistic suggestions (the idea that refs should have their feet held to the fire basically after every game is ridiculous, unless you want to pay them much more for the added stress). Being a ref is a thankless task as it is already.

TBH something along the lines of what they did in explaining how players get the sanctions they do might go some way to at least improving transparency but it will likely do nothing to actually reduce the number of incorrect decisions. The other is a system like cricket or tennis where the captains have a number of appeals they can use and they keep the appeal if it is overturned. However it gets into a murky area of challenging every single ruck and breakdown decision as many could be 50/50 and one side will still leave aggrieved, so it might need to be limited in use and have a "clear and obvious" case to overturn a ref's decision. Many 50/50s may still pass but having the clear and obvious as a criteria might at least make it easier to accept.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

I don't think Berry's performance was that exceptionally bad it certainly wasn't Gaüzère at Wales V England or Steve Walsh at the same fixture. Nothing Erasmus pointed out is uncommon in any game of rugby I've watched.

Also sorry your attitude to Berry sucks and if you think that acceptable what Erasmus did is acceptable to happen anyone in any profession I count myself lucky I don't have to work you on a professional capacity because if any chewed me out that way or rubbed my nose in it I'd be marching to HR to make a complaint and be immediately looking to work elsewhere. Anyone who think its acceptable to chew people out, rub noses in mistakes is a bully and sucks.

TMO's went some way but people got pissy with them scratching off try's during the world cup in England and since then they can involved far less and only for actual foul play.

I probably put it a bit hard LOL. But it was a very poorly refereed game. Not the worst sure but not up to anything I would myself call acceptable. I suppose that line of what is acceptable will differ person to person as it certainly is highly subjective and open to bias like little else. My point is that there should be a consequence. If there is it certainly isn't public and I feel a lot of pressure would released if it were. Maybe in such an environment Rassie's head wouldn't have exploded. I don't believe sweeping mistakes under rugs helps anyone even the person who made a mistake. If you are construing my post as me saying every time a referee has a poor day Rassie should come with personal attacks you are missing my point or perhaps I am just putting it poorly.

End of the day is I think being an international referee is not quite the thankless, poorly paying job people are painting it as being. And the decisions made on the field affect the careers of the players playing the sport and not just ITO whether they W/L but their actual health and safety. That level of authority invariably comes with intense scrutiny.

Agreed,
Rassie actually got what he wanted (Berry sent him explanations to the 36 clips Rassie sent him)

Rassie still spat his dummy out - this has never been about world rugby's processes or anything similar, it was solely about pressuring the referees to favour them in the second test, which Rassie literally said to Berry

It's worth at least skimming over the report just to see how much the truth differs from Rassies version of events

TBF I probably should do this prior to commenting on the matter any further.

 

[ncurd]

TBH something along the lines of what they did in explaining how players get the sanctions they do might go some way to at least improving transparency but it will likely do nothing to actually reduce the number of incorrect decisions. The other is a system like cricket or tennis where the captains have a number of appeals they can use and they keep the appeal if it is overturned. However it gets into a murky area of challenging every single ruck and breakdown decision as many could be 50/50 and one side will still leave aggrieved, so it might need to be limited in use and have a "clear and obvious" case to overturn a ref's decision. Many 50/50s may still pass but having the clear and obvious as a criteria might at least make it easier to accept.

I know some people have suggested this, I have no idea how this actually works in theory. The breakdown is just too complex with so much going on and left to interpretation I can't see anything other than it backing the ref except for the most egregious of decisions. What do you do if its phase 6 of a 13 phase passage? Wouldn't you rather save it for potential yellow/red card offences potentially missed by the TMO? (TMO's are way better at this these days but they still miss stuff hence citing officers still having a job)

Its just one of those things I can see a use in Rugby (for stopping amazingly stupid decisions) but it won't stop poor refereeing or inconsistent reffing. Something I think fans/coaches think happens more than it actually does, Walsh is the only guy in one game I ever felt was reffing teams differently and that's mainly from the Tom Youngs finding his mark incident.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

I know some people have suggested this, I have no idea how this actually works in theory. The breakdown is just too complex with so much going on and left to interpretation I can't see anything other than it backing the ref except for the most egregious of decisions. What do you do if its phase 6 of a 13 phase passage? Wouldn't you rather save it for potential yellow/red card offences potentially missed by the TMO? (TMO's are way better at this these days but they still miss stuff hence citing officers still having a job)

Its just one of those things I can see a use in Rugby (for stopping amazingly stupid decisions) but it won't stop poor refereeing or inconsistent reffing. Something I think fans/coaches think happens more than it actually does, Walsh is the only guy in one game I ever felt was reffing teams differently and that's mainly from the Tom Youngs finding his mark incident.

I know it lends itself to abuse and making the game even more tedious and nit picky, which is why I feel certain restrictions need to be in place for it to have any hope.
- The infringement must be deemed clear and obvious to overturn the status quo, like the criteria now with forward passes or when looking at finding reason to award / not award a try.
- There must be a time limit in the decision making. If a decision cannot be reached in that time, it is deemed not clear and obvious. Say 1 minute max?
- The number of appeals will be low, maybe 3 or less. It should make a captain less inclined to use it on something relatively trivial
- Some decisions will be beyond appeal, for example if a player is carded for foul play
- If a ref deems an appeal to be ridiculous, ie a it is extremely obvious they have nothing to appeal and are just abusing the system, they could potentially lose another available appeal or some low-level sanction if they already had none left (not sure what would be suitable. Marched back 10m or forfeiting the restart if for a try decision).

The issue remains of how many phases do you allow an appeal to go back? Eg when Wales scored against England mid-HIA so we had 2 players off the field, a few phases of constant play passed between the decision to restart (which would have been appealed) and the try.

There is no easy way to fix the issue of reffing because ultimately there is just too much going on for the officials to keep an eye on. Until we have ultra smart AI able to analyse the game in real time and prompt the ref of illegal play in an impartial manner, I don't see any way to fully eliminate it. TBH the consensus seems to be less about getting everything right but about consistency. People care less if a ref is "wrong" as long as he is "wrong" in the same way through the game to both sides.

 

[dullonien]

They tried the 'captains challenge' thing in the Rainbow Cup. It was an absolute disaster! It may work it it were given time to settle (after all many new law variations, or directives are a mess for a while until players/coaches/refs get used to them), but I'm not sure challenges like in Tennis work in a sport where there's potentially tiny law violations at every ruck, and there's room for interpretation in many of the laws.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

They tried the 'captains challenge' thing in the Rainbow Cup. It was an absolute disaster! It may work it it were given time to settle (after all many new law variations, or directives are a mess for a while until players/coaches/refs get used to them), but I'm not sure challenges like in Tennis work in a sport where there's potentially tiny law violations at every ruck, and there's room for interpretation in many of the laws.

Were they allowed to just challenge anything with no limits or criteria?

 

[Eleutherarch]

With regards to consistency, how often do the cadre of international-level referees actually meet with WR to discuss the discrepancies in decision-making on the field? Mistakes in officiating can and will happen but, in my opinion, we should never be in a position where we can say "Ref X is a stickler for offence Y".

At this point, the Laws seem to be not unlike British Constitutional Law, inasmuch as they are augmented by convention (crooked feeds, No. 9 with hands in the ruck etc). It's not pure, but it is what we have. As long as the refs keep the same conventions, there should be less moaning (although I doubt it in practice).

 

[ncurd]

With regards to consistency, how often do the cadre of international-level referees actually meet with WR to discuss the discrepancies in decision-making on the field? Mistakes in officiating can and will happen but, in my opinion, we should never be in a position where we can say "Ref X is a stickler for offence Y".

At this point, the Laws seem to be not unlike British Constitutional Law, inasmuch as they are augmented by convention (crooked feeds, No. 9 with hands in the ruck etc). It's not pure, but it is what we have. As long as the refs keep the same conventions, there should be less moaning (although I doubt it in practice).

Don't the refs collaborate and assess their performances after every match?

I think I said earlier this thread that most of X ref is sticker for Y comes from the fact they've been trained by different countries with different people and different sensibilities. That natural variation is far more pronounced at international level. For example if I watch an English premiership game the consistency is quite high and you know what to expect because most the ref have been trained in the exact same way. Stamping out that variation at international level is incredibly difficult.

 

[Umaga's Witness]

What's interesting is how Gatland got off without punishment. His comments about a South African TMO started this nonsense.

In American sports, any commentary on the officials is fined. And not $20,000 like SARU got, but 6-figure checks required. Why rugby tolerates whinging through the press and other methods is a farce.

To be fair, 20000 is prob a similar proportion of rassies income as the 6 figure fine is of an American sports coaches income. NFL players make over 30 million on average. That’s like 30 time the highest paid rugby player or 50 times the average tier one test player.

 

[dullonien]

Were they allowed to just challenge anything with no limits or criteria?

There was limits, just struggling to remember exactly what they were now. Think it was foul play + anything in a run up to a try. Kinda like the TMO limitations.

 

[MikeTheNative]

They had to point to a specific incident but it could be any infringement, knock on, foul play, foot in touch etc.
It really slowed the game down as teams were just using it for the sake of it in the hope the try got overturn. Most of the time the TMO was wasting his time looking at a nothing decision.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

There was no limit on the number of uses? I don't know enough about it but I would have thought putting enough limits on it would go a long way to limiting potential abuse and slowing the game.

 

[MikeTheNative]

There was no limit on the number of uses? I don't know enough about it but I would have thought putting enough limits on it would go a long way to limiting potential abuse and slowing the game.

I think it was only once or twice they were allowed to use it and it wasn't like in Cricket either, a correctly overturned decision did not give you your review back.

 

[Eleutherarch]

Don't the refs collaborate and assess their performances after every match?

I think I said earlier this thread that most of X ref is sticker for Y comes from the fact they've been trained by different countries with different people and different sensibilities. That natural variation is far more pronounced at international level. For example if I watch an English premiership game the consistency is quite high and you know what to expect because most the ref have been trained in the exact same way. Stamping out that variation at international level is incredibly difficult.

Indeed, you did make reference to this. I guess the only other solution is to make prospective referees renounce titles and possessions, take a vow of celibacy, and live as acolytes at the (as of yet unconstructed) International Refereeing Monastery. All shalt roll away from the cafeteria line in good time lest they be flogged.