The refereeing of the 2010 Tri Nations

[woodward]

There is a relationship between yellow cards and penalties but it is not a direct one as Ranger said there are many more variables. Therefore the argument using the card to penalty ratio as its premise for its conclusion of unfair refereeing is not valid. Basic logic, but I guess that's beyond the type to whinge about this stuff anyway

 

[squirrel]

scrums are a massive element of the game with referees having different interpretations,last year in auckland al baxter was targeted from opening whistle which probaly cost them victory,and the fact is that the all black scrum coach is the irb scrum advisor is crazy, now no one can argue that it isnt a conflict of interest, its not about his nationality either its the fact that he is employed by the all blacks as a scrum coach so its an unfair advantage

 

[nickdnz]

There is a relationship between yellow cards and penalties but it is not a direct one as Ranger said there are many more variables. Therefore the argument using the card to penalty ratio as its premise for its conclusion of unfair refereeing is not valid. Basic logic, but I guess that's beyond the type to whinge about this stuff anyway

Well, the argument is valid, it's just not sound.

An argument is valid if and only if the truth of the premise would guarentee the truth of the outcome-

A.) Cards are issued for repeated infringments
B.) New Zealand has many infringments
C.) Therefore, New Zealand should be issued cards
Therefore the argument is valid.

Because you are challenging the premise of the argument, you are challenging whether the argument is sound or not. It's important to remember the most basic rule of argument analysis. An argument is sound if and only if it-
a.) It is valid (its premise establishes its conclusion)
b.) All of its premise are true.

Do you see the subtle difference? Maybe it's not just basic logic huh?

As for the comment "No one wants an intellegent debate", that is rubbish. I'm just sick and tired of hearing about it. Since the fist match in Auckland I've been hearing complaining about referees and so on. I've made fair arguments, but I've gotten tired of them. People have attributed the loss of SA to refereeing, but when they've realized they are low on support, they concede the AB's were the better team. Regardless, I just would appreciate constructive comments on the upcoming game. Everyone knows the Springboks are a good side. Last year they were the best. If New Zealander's keep talking up their team, they're going to be in for an embarissment sooner or later. I personally think the reffing has been a reflection on how far NZ have been able to adapt and learn the limits of referees, something which Australia improved on last game but SA still needing the work. Everyones opinions have been expressed now though, and it's clear that there will be no agreement, so may discussion please move to other aspects of the game.

As for New Zealanders (I wont single out names), please grow the **** up. We don't need to talk ourselves up or rubbish other countries and teams. It makes us look bad, and it will come back and bite us, especially with the RWC in New Zealand coming up.

 

[ranger]

scrums are a massive element of the game with referees having different interpretations,last year in auckland al baxter was targeted from opening whistle which probaly cost them victory,and the fact is that the all black scrum coach is the irb scrum advisor is crazy, now no one can argue that it isnt a conflict of interest, its not about his nationality either its the fact that he is employed by the all blacks as a scrum coach so its an unfair advantage

I honestly don't see the problem.. conflict of interest? what possible advantage do you see?

 

[Sparty]

You can't break down penalties per yellow card into a statistic that just doesnt work, there are just far too many variables.
Like in the instance of not rolling away fast enough, if you do it on the halfway then its not a huge deal, if you do it on your own goal line then thats yellow territory. The All Blacks are smarter in that when they commit penalties, they do it in areas and at times where a yellow card wont be warranted. Bakkies Botha and BJ Botha slowed the game down on their own line, thats criminal and they got yellow carded for it.
Another thing that skews this data is that the All Blacks simply haven't been tackling dangerously or getting thuggish, i can only think of two possible occasions. Jaque Fourie, Quade Cooper, Danie Russuow all got sent off for ill disipline, the All Blacks havent been speartackling anyone and you decide to hold it against them? How about looking at your own team and their stupid tactics instead of whinging about all the worlds top referees (including those from your own country) being unfair.
The referees are obviously trying to stamp out speartackling and thuggishness, the ABs took note and refrained from doing it, the other two teams didnt. Whose fault is that?
I find this funny that at first the big whinge was "They arent penalising the All Blacks enough! they never get penalised" now its "The All Blacks get penalised sooo much and they dont get many yellow cards!" make up your mind.

Erm yes Bakkies and BJ did that , but so did the ABS , I suggest you veiw the tape , fact is they got a team warning for infringing on their 22 in one game.

Also if you can please point out where I say the above highlighted then I will gladly respond. Thanks

There is a relationship between yellow cards and penalties but it is not a direct one as Ranger said there are many more variables. Therefore the argument using the card to penalty ratio as its premise for its conclusion of unfair refereeing is not valid. Basic logic, but I guess that's beyond the type to whinge about this stuff anyway

I agree , there are many variables but could it explain the 6/1 and 7/1 ratio for SA and the Aussie while a 27/1 for the ABS ? Again I might be waaay wrong on the stats so apologies if I am , does anyone have the correct ones ? Mine are sucked from memory but I am not sure. Appreciate the responses , very interesting some of the more mature views , others views just confirms that like SA , NZ also have arrogant a$$holes.

I agree , there are many variables but could it explain the 6/1 and 7/1 ratio for SA and the Aussie while a 27/1 for the ABS ? Again I might be waaay wrong on the stats so apologies if I am , does anyone have the correct ones ? Mine are sucked from memory but I am not sure. Appreciate the responses , very interesting some of the more mature views , others views just confirms that like SA , NZ also have arrogant a$$holes.

Ok , its 6/1 for the Boks , 7/1 for the Aussies and 43/1 for the ABS, I think there might be some sort of concern re that stats ? Lets say SA is justified cos of our dirty play , how then explain the Aussies ? And is there enough variables to justify a 43/1 ratio ? That would mean that the ABS transgresses diffently at almost every penalty.

PS - I got the stats off another site and for me it looks waaaay incorrect , anyone else maybe have a more accurate one ? Surely it cannot be 43/1 ? I thought it was mid 20/1 ?????????????????????????????????

Ok it is 43/1 which is mind boggling , one thing though , I just realized that this does not necessary mean the ABS concede more penalties per game , that would also be interesting to see , are they more diciplined ? or do they play the ref better ? or in fact are Refs somehow blinded to their indiscretions ? interesting

some say reading anything into the number of yellow cards per penalty is bizarre. Sin-bins are determined by the type of offence, not a running tally of penalties.

If you are committing acts of foul play or transgressing after a team warning you are more likely to snare the yellow than a side that doesn’t indulge in such counter-productive acts. Bigs ups to the ABs. They’ve concentrated on playing footy and left the ****le and ill discipline to their frustrated opponents.

But you have to ask the question , a team get a team warning for continuous transgression of the laws ie a conceding penalties , the question thus is why was the ABS not warned after 43 penalties and if they were why were they not carded ?

Ok , Think I said enough about this anyway , look forward to the responses but thats it from my side. This sat cant come quick enough , gonna be Epic , huge crowd expected at soccer city !! What a atmosphere it will be

 

[smartcooky]

The stats on penalties per yellow card mean absolutely nothing. False conclusions are being drawn for a number of reasons

1. the sample is far too small to be useful.
If you calculate the margin for error in such a small sample (1:43 v 3:21 v 4:24) its around 92%. That makes the stats very unreliable.
e.g. Country "A" (say Fiji) has sent 1 boxer to the Olympic games in their entire history, and he won a Gold Medal.. strike rate 100%, Country "B" (say USA) has sent 372 boxers the the Olympic games and 31 of them have won Gold Medals, strike rate 8.3%. Does that make Fiji 12 times better at Olympic Boxing than the USA?

2. the items being compared are not equal
Free-kicks are being lumped in with penalites, and not all penalties attract the same punishments. e.g. Team A could give away penalty kicks for four offsides, two crooked feeds, two lineout baulks, two collapsed scrums, two ruck infringements, two not releasing, two detaching early from scrums, two outside arm penealites at lineout, a total of 18 penalties and not get a single yellow card. Team B commits two head high tackles, two shoulder charges, three tip tackles and two late tackles, a total of 9 penalties and end up getting four yellow cards.

3. The conclusions are meaningless without the raw data
This relates to the two above. Without knowing what the penalties are for, and where on the field they were, any conclusions you draw mean nothing. The people who put out this crap, i.e. the **** stirring wankers at green and gold rugby, know exactly what they are doing and they know they are drawing false conclusions from sub-standard raw data. They are VERY careful not publish anything other than their false conclusions.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Sparty - Edit your posts! Or just write one when you've thought of all of your points, posting 5 times in a row is unneccesary.

 

[woodward]

Well, the argument is valid, it's just not sound.

An argument is valid if and only if the truth of the premise would guarentee the truth of the outcome-

A.) Cards are issued for repeated infringments
B.) New Zealand has many infringments
C.) Therefore, New Zealand should be issued cards
Therefore the argument is valid.

Because you are challenging the premise of the argument, you are challenging whether the argument is sound or not. It's important to remember the most basic rule of argument analysis. An argument is sound if and only if it-
a.) It is valid (its premise establishes its conclusion)
b.) All of its premise are true.

Do you see the subtle difference? Maybe it's not just basic logic huh?

No because people were presenting it differently to that. The All Blacks have a higher penalty per card therefore they have received favouritism. You could say the premise was suppressed but even if it was it still fails logically as cards are not only given for repeated infringements

 

[nickdnz]

No because people were presenting it differently to that. The All Blacks have a higher penalty per card therefore they have received favouritism. You could say the premise was suppressed but even if it was it still fails logically as cards are not only given for repeated infringements

Once again, it makes the argument unsound not invalid -

A.) Higher penalty counts without cards is favouritism
B.) The All Blacks have a high penalty count, but have not received many cards
C.) Therefore the All Blacks are receiving favouritism.

Your problem was with the premise, as you disagree that the number of penalties against a team, is the determining factor to cards issued (which I agree with), however it makes the argument unsound no invalid. They way you just presented the argument is-
a.) Cards are issued to teams with high penalty counts, unless the referee is bias
b.) The All Blacks have a high penalty count but are unpunished
c.) Therefore the referee is biased.
Your issue is that the argument is wrong, as premise a.) is false. Providing it was true, the argument would be correct. Because your problem isn't with the structure of the argument, but the initial premise, it makes it unsound, not invalid...I'm repeating myself I know. I'm doing a 300 level Philosophy paper this year, it's pretty obvious that this is a valid but unsound argument.

 

[woodward]

I'm glad we've stumbled onto another topic also of interest to you, my issue with what your saying though is that you've inserted a suppressed premise that I'm not 100% sure was inferred. At least not by Sparty and you have also changed the premise from your first to second posts. I'm working from a 100 paper and I only showed up to a handful of lectures so I'll be more than happy to admit I'm wrong here if you care to get it through my thick skull. Is it expected to interpret their argument charitably almost to the point of correction the way it seems to me you have done? Or am I just plain wrong, it sounded to me as though there was only one premise and that was the All Blacks have received far more cards per penalty

 

[nickdnz]

I'm glad we've stumbled onto another topic also of interest to you, my issue with what your saying though is that you've inserted a suppressed premise that I'm not 100% sure was inferred. At least not by Sparty and you have also changed the premise from your first to second posts. I'm working from a 100 paper and I only showed up to a handful of lectures so I'll be more than happy to admit I'm wrong here if you care to get it through my thick skull. Is it expected to interpret their argument charitably almost to the point of correction the way it seems to me you have done? Or am I just plain wrong, it sounded to me as though there was only one premise and that was the All Blacks have received far more cards per penalty

Maybe this may help, using my format, these posts are in order. You cannot draw any conclusions from one premise. You need at least two (obviously, otherwise it's not an argument).
Quotes from Sparty in order:

A penalty can also be given for prefessional fouls like hands in the ruck , offside play , truck and trailer , obstructioon etc etc and if a player should be say offside once he will in most cases get away with it but if he does it again the ref will caution him cos now it seems as if its not accidental and against the spirit of the game. A 2nd or 3rd trangression would normally mean a official warning and then a YC , so again penalty to YC is valid.

This points out that a large number of infringments deserves a yellow card.

the penalty ratio is something like 7/1 for the boks and Aussies while 27/1 for the ABS (note that this stats is thumbsuck and I mildly recall reading it somewhere so apologies if I am way off which I dont believe I am).

This messily points out the AB's keep infringing. His stats vary, which could be used as further evidence to doubt his premis, and therefore is invalid.

the question thus is why was the ABS not warned after 43 penalties and if they were why were they not carded ?

This sums up that the All Blacks should have been carded for consistant infringments

So-
A.) Yellow Cards ought to be issued for infringments
B.) The All Blacks consistantly infringe.
C.) Therefore the All Blacks ought to be given a yellow card.

The referee's being bias have applied to other posters, but that equasion is valid as well.


Apply that to any of the equasions I've used. It's messy, because I'm trying to pick bits and bobs, but his argument as you can see, is more or less valid (though his facts and references vary dramatically, which he admits), it just isn't sound, as it does not take in every variable to why you get a yellow card, and because I doubt his facts (not being nasty, it's just they are very inconsistant, regardless, false facts come under wrong premesis). Does that help at all? It is messy, but that's because no one hear can structure their posts other than Cooky.

 

[Jer1cho]

The general consensus, in my opinion, is that the referee's have been tougher on Aus and SA than they have on the All Blacks. Simple as that. Where we should have been carded (the incidents the refs did see) we were carded. Where the All Blacks should have been carded (Also professional fouls that were seen) they were not carded.

 

[Sam Owen]

The general consensus, in my opinion, is that the referee's have been tougher on Aus and SA than they have on the All Blacks. Simple as that. Where we should have been carded (the incidents the refs did see) we were carded. Where the All Blacks should have been carded (Also professional fouls that were seen) they were not carded.

Yea after all Ive red about the matter I have to agree with you Jerry. It seems to be the case but one thing we have to remember is that its NOT the All Blacks fault. Its the reffs they show the cards only they can give you one, I'd be ****** off if it was McCaw giving out the cards but thats not the case.

One question...was one of those card givers (reffs) kiwis?

 

[Shaggy]

zzzzzzzzzzzzz ... sorry, I dosed off for a bit ... right ...

1/ What has Mike Cron got to do with the Refereeing of the Tri-nations in 2010?

2/ Is anyone going to analyse the tapes of ALL of the penalties and free kicks, determine where they were given, what for, on a per game basis,and factor in how much possession or defending a team has been doing (this affects the number of penalties given) to determine if a particular Ref has been biased against a particular team in a particular game.

3/ Is anyone going to query the motives or impartiality of the people releasing the data ... i've done some statistics before and I know that you can just about skew them to support any argument you like.

4/ Is the Tri-nations over? ... lets see what the penalty count etc is when it's all done and dusted.

Here's what the stats are really saying South Africa are receiving more Yellow cards, Australia are receiving more Red cards, New Zealand are getting penalised more ... I guess I could use this data to imply that the Refs are being biased and penalising the All Blacks too much, or I could conclude that the Refs are doing a good job and are penalising their infringements ... maybe the latter, it's not the refs doing the foul play or infringing is it ... I'm pretty sure this is the way that the coaches look at it too, they will want their players to cut down on the number of penalties etc that they're giving away.

Great, what's next thats unfair ... perhaps it's time we complained about the Haka again

 

[Jer1cho]

It seems to be the case but one thing we have to remember is that its NOT the All Blacks fault. Its the reffs they show the cards only they can give you one, I'd be ****** off if it was McCaw giving out the cards but thats not the case.

Ah exactly man. All NZ did was play great rugby. It's not their fault the referees are dodgy.

 

[Sam Owen]

Ah exactly man. All NZ did was play great rugby. It's not their fault the referees are dodgy.

Ahhhh lol Im just saying you know it seems everyone is hating the poor All Blacks for getting away with stuff. The fact is if were talking about cards then we know whos responsible (funny how you chose to leave out my question thats in that quote above hmmm???) its the reffs not the ABs yes they might cheat but whos responsible for policing that?...

Thank you.

 

[Jer1cho]

Lol I'm agreeing with you, not being sarcastic. The All Blacks are in no way at fault. It's solely the refs man.

 

[User1245]

I'm getting too old for this ****..

The stats on penalties per yellow card mean absolutely nothing. False conclusions are being drawn for a number of reasons

1. the sample is far too small to be useful.
If you calculate the margin for error in such a small sample (1:43 v 3:21 v 4:24) its around 92%. That makes the stats very unreliable.
e.g. Country "A" (say Fiji) has sent 1 boxer to the Olympic games in their entire history, and he won a Gold Medal.. strike rate 100%, Country "B" (say USA) has sent 372 boxers the the Olympic games and 31 of them have won Gold Medals, strike rate 8.3%. Does that make Fiji 12 times better at Olympic Boxing than the USA?

Not sure how this supports your argument? :huh: I would say it counts against it.

2. the items being compared are not equal
Free-kicks are being lumped in with penalites, and not all penalties attract the same punishments. e.g. Team A could give away penalty kicks for four offsides, two crooked feeds, two lineout baulks, two collapsed scrums, two ruck infringements, two not releasing, two detaching early from scrums, two outside arm penealites at lineout, a total of 18 penalties and not get a single yellow card. Team B commits two head high tackles, two shoulder charges, three tip tackles and two late tackles, a total of 9 penalties and end up getting four yellow cards.

Simply not true, penalties are counted seperately. Free kicks are noted under the set piece where they were conceded.

3. The conclusions are meaningless without the raw data
This relates to the two above. Without knowing what the penalties are for, and where on the field they were, any conclusions you draw mean nothing. The people who put out this crap, i.e. the **** stirring wankers at green and gold rugby, know exactly what they are doing and they know they are drawing false conclusions from sub-standard raw data. They are VERY careful not publish anything other than their false conclusions.

Damn your type! Wants facts and figures and all the BS. Anyway...

ROUND 1:

Total number of penalties: 17

New Zealand: 12
South Africa: 5

The reasons for the penalties were as follows:

* = points conceded

New Zealand:
Tackle/ruck/maul: 6 (Thorn, Mealamu, Jane, Kaino*, Donnelly, Ben Franks)
Offside: 4 (McCaw*, Cowan, Donnelly*, Ben Franks*)
Discipline: 2 (Read - air tackle; Muliaina - kicking ball away in touch)

South Africa:
Tackle/ruck/maul: 3 (Matfield, Bakkies Botha*, Januarie)
Scrum: 2 (Du Plessis*, BJ Botha)

---------------------

ROUND 2:

Total number of penalties: 18

New Zealand: 9
South Africa: 9

The reasons for the penalties were as follows:

* = points conceded

New Zealand:
Tackle/ruck/maul: 7 (McCaw* 5, Nonu, Read)
Offside: 1 (Messam)
Discipline: 1 (Ranger - armless tackle)

Five penalties against one player at the tackle is an inordinate number.

South Africa:
Tackle/ruck/maul: 7 (Louw* 2, Burger, Kirchner* 2, BJ Botha, Smit)
Discipline: 2 (Rossouw - kick; Pienaar - deliberate knock-on)

-----------------------------

ROUND 3:

Penalties conceded

In this section we record the times a team was penalised.

Australia vs South Africa

Total number of penalties: 17

Australia: 7
South Africa: 10

The reasons for the penalties were as follows:

* = points conceded

Australia:
Tackle/ruck/maul: 4 (Ma'afu*, Pocock 3)
Offside: 1 (Sharpe)
Scrum: 1 (Robinson)
Discipline: 1 (Cooper - dangerous tackle)

South Africa:
Tackle/ruck/maul: 5 (Habana*, Olivier, Kankowski*, Botha*, Burger)
Off-side: 3 (Burger*, Habana*, Pienaar*)
Discipline: 2 (Fourie - dangerous tackle; De Jongh - man without ball)

----------------------------------

ROUND 4:

Penalties conceded

In this section we record the times a team was penalised.

Australia vs New Zealand

Total number of penalties: 24

Australia: 11
New Zealand: 13

The reasons for the penalties were as follows:

* = points conceded

Australia:
Tackle/ruck/maul: 7 (Moore* 2, Giteau, Elsom 2, Horne, Brown)
Discipline: 4 (Mitchell - late, no arms; Elsom* -dissent; Genia - +10; Mitchell - knocking ball away in touch)

New Zealand:
Tackle/ruck/maul: 5 (Owen Franks*, McCaw 2, Nonu, Mealamu)
Off-side: 3 (Woodcock*, 'whole backline', Sam Whitelock)
Scrum: 2 (Woodcock 2)
Discipline: 3 (Owen Franks - shoulder charge; Muliaina* - + 10; Sam Whitelock - dangerous tackle)

-----------------------------------------

ROUND 5:

Penalties conceded

In this section we record the times a team was penalised.

New Zealand vs Australia

Total number of penalties: 17

New Zealand: 11
Australia: 6

The reasons for the penalties were as follows:

* = points conceded

New Zealand:
Tackle/ruck/maul: 7 (Owen Franks 2, Thorn, Woodcock, Smith, McCaw, Sam Whitelock)
Offside: 2 (Nonu & Owen Franks*, Mathewson)
Scrum: 1 (Owen Franks)
Discipline: 1 (Woodcock - man without ball)

Australia:
Tackle/ruck/maul: 6 (Genia* 2, Elsom, Pocock 2, Hodgson*)

Australia conceded just one penalty in the first half.

-------------------------------------------------
SOURCE: http://www.sareferees.co.za
-------------------------------------------------

TOTALS PENALTIES:

Tackle/ruck/maul:
NZ - 25
AU - 17
SA - 15

Noted how McCaw pick up 5 penalties by himself in the round 2 game

Offside:
NZ - 10
AU - 1
SA - 3

Discipline:
NZ - 7
AU - 5
SA - 4

I'm not gonna count the scrum penalties, different story that. But as you can see NZ are not only top the TN for most wins but most everything!

Two stats which stuck out to me was McCaw conceding 5 penalties at the tackle/ruck/maul area in one game. Now that is just ridiculous by anybody's judgement. Simply not justifiable.
The other being NZ's offside count. Playing the game offside is cynical. Offside = out of the play. Which therefore means interference with no intention letting the play flow. Which means they were trying to disadvantage a team or players ILLEGALLY. Hopefully that's cleared up.

 

[Shaggy]

I'm getting too old for this ****..



Not sure how this supports your argument? :huh: I would say it counts against it.



Simply not true, penalties are counted seperately. Free kicks are noted under the set piece where they were conceded.



Damn your type! Wants facts and figures and all the BS. Anyway...

ROUND 1:

Total number of penalties: 17

New Zealand: 12
South Africa: 5

The reasons for the penalties were as follows:

* = points conceded

New Zealand:
Tackle/ruck/maul: 6 (Thorn, Mealamu, Jane, Kaino*, Donnelly, Ben Franks)
Offside: 4 (McCaw*, Cowan, Donnelly*, Ben Franks*)
Discipline: 2 (Read - air tackle; Muliaina - kicking ball away in touch)

South Africa:
Tackle/ruck/maul: 3 (Matfield, Bakkies Botha*, Januarie)
Scrum: 2 (Du Plessis*, BJ Botha)

---------------------

ROUND 2:

Total number of penalties: 18

New Zealand: 9
South Africa: 9

The reasons for the penalties were as follows:

* = points conceded

New Zealand:
Tackle/ruck/maul: 7 (McCaw* 5, Nonu, Read)
Offside: 1 (Messam)
Discipline: 1 (Ranger - armless tackle)

Five penalties against one player at the tackle is an inordinate number.

South Africa:
Tackle/ruck/maul: 7 (Louw* 2, Burger, Kirchner* 2, BJ Botha, Smit)
Discipline: 2 (Rossouw - kick; Pienaar - deliberate knock-on)

-----------------------------

ROUND 3:

Penalties conceded

In this section we record the times a team was penalised.

Australia vs South Africa

Total number of penalties: 17

Australia: 7
South Africa: 10

The reasons for the penalties were as follows:

* = points conceded

Australia:
Tackle/ruck/maul: 4 (Ma'afu*, Pocock 3)
Offside: 1 (Sharpe)
Scrum: 1 (Robinson)
Discipline: 1 (Cooper - dangerous tackle)

South Africa:
Tackle/ruck/maul: 5 (Habana*, Olivier, Kankowski*, Botha*, Burger)
Off-side: 3 (Burger*, Habana*, Pienaar*)
Discipline: 2 (Fourie - dangerous tackle; De Jongh - man without ball)

----------------------------------

ROUND 4:

Penalties conceded

In this section we record the times a team was penalised.

Australia vs New Zealand

Total number of penalties: 24

Australia: 11
New Zealand: 13

The reasons for the penalties were as follows:

* = points conceded

Australia:
Tackle/ruck/maul: 7 (Moore* 2, Giteau, Elsom 2, Horne, Brown)
Discipline: 4 (Mitchell - late, no arms; Elsom* -dissent; Genia - +10; Mitchell - knocking ball away in touch)

New Zealand:
Tackle/ruck/maul: 5 (Owen Franks*, McCaw 2, Nonu, Mealamu)
Off-side: 3 (Woodcock*, 'whole backline', Sam Whitelock)
Scrum: 2 (Woodcock 2)
Discipline: 3 (Owen Franks - shoulder charge; Muliaina* - + 10; Sam Whitelock - dangerous tackle)

-----------------------------------------

ROUND 5:

Penalties conceded

In this section we record the times a team was penalised.

New Zealand vs Australia

Total number of penalties: 17

New Zealand: 11
Australia: 6

The reasons for the penalties were as follows:

* = points conceded

New Zealand:
Tackle/ruck/maul: 7 (Owen Franks 2, Thorn, Woodcock, Smith, McCaw, Sam Whitelock)
Offside: 2 (Nonu & Owen Franks*, Mathewson)
Scrum: 1 (Owen Franks)
Discipline: 1 (Woodcock - man without ball)

Australia:
Tackle/ruck/maul: 6 (Genia* 2, Elsom, Pocock 2, Hodgson*)

Australia conceded just one penalty in the first half.

-------------------------------------------------
SOURCE: http://www.sareferees.co.za
-------------------------------------------------

TOTALS PENALTIES:

Tackle/ruck/maul:
NZ - 25
AU - 17
SA - 15

Noted how McCaw pick up 5 penalties by himself in the round 2 game

Offside:
NZ - 10
AU - 1
SA - 3

Discipline:
NZ - 7
AU - 5
SA - 4

I'm not gonna count the scrum penalties, different story that. But as you can see NZ are not only top the TN for most wins but most everything!

Two stats which stuck out to me was McCaw conceding 5 penalties at the tackle/ruck/maul area in one game. Now that is just ridiculous by anybody's judgement. Simply not justifiable.
The other being NZ's offside count. Playing the game offside is cynical. Offside = out of the play. Which therefore means interference with no intention letting the play flow. Which means they were trying to disadvantage a team or players ILLEGALLY. Hopefully that's cleared up.

I assume the point is that NZ is not getting carded for carded for repeat offending, and not that they ARE getting penalised for THEIR offside play ... if so, fine, who has been carded for repeat offenses?

No one? ... then where is the bias?

 

[User1245]

I assume the point is that NZ is not getting carded for carded for repeat offending, and not that they ARE getting penalised for THEIR offside play ... if so, fine, who has been carded for repeat offenses?

No one? ... then where is the bias?

That's all you took from that whole post? Really? :huh:

Your assumption is way off by the way