Forum Rugby Club

quote:

Even a cursory knowledge of the rules of the game shows that Barnes was way off most of the time.

What utter cod. A detailed look at any of the games will betray forward passes, offsides and knock-ons that went unnoticed. NZ have benefitted as much as any side in the past, from the odd error.

In other games such as the 03 final, a scrum being outplayed was granted numerous favours with England (on that occasion) being penalised for out-scrummaging their opponents.

NZ were outplayed on the day, Joe. It was certainly not the referee's fault.


Steve

Rico,

Which bit do you not understand? I'm not a white supremacist or a bigot. These remarks are spiteful and insulting. If you read my post carefully you’ll surely realise that I’ve suggested that the AB have displayed arrogance of the highest order over the last three years, under the grand impression that they only had to turn up to win. However, they talked the talk but could not walk the walk!!! It may well be that they have not played enough tough games or as I suggested that the players which are born outside of NZ and recruited and this is the important thing here so I will repeat it for you RECRUITED may not give their all when the chips are really down for their adopted country. Understand that, their adopted country. Watching Tonga, Fiji and Samoa you can clearly see that the players have the commitment, determination and all the qualities required to play outstanding Rugby. Are they ultimately a paid mercenary for the AB? And here is the rub, so get ready; I don’t know, which is why I suggested it is an area which may need to be addressed if you are to ever win the World Cup again. I have never suggested that the AB should be:

“First generation okay? Second generation? Where would you draw the line? Or would there have to be clearly demonstrable links to the first boats in, or the indeginous tribes on the nation or colony in question”

This is pure rot and you know it. I have suggested nothing of the sort. If a person is born in the country or qualifies through parents or grand parents or any other qualification method then they can play for that country and I welcome that. This in no way makes me a white supremacist or a bigot. Two accusations which I find extremely insulting, hurtful and even libelous. Which is why I asked for an apology and you retract the comments. If you actually knew my occupation and my contributions to society, here in the UK and abroad then you would realise why the remarks are so inflammatory and insulting.

Actually I think it’s you that needs the luck thank you very much!!!

I am not a rubgy follower, so I have no comment on the game itself...but it strikes me that the ref is viewing things from a totally different perspective at ground level and is under pressure to make decisions quickly to maintain the flow of the game.

Camera angles & perspectives can give a very skewed image of what is actually going on.

It is, retrospectively, easy to blame the ref, coach or players after the fact for all manner of things - especially when things don't go the way we wanted them to go...

I always find it difficult to understand why the coach is the first to be sacked when the team doesn't perform on the day...even if he has managed to get his team very close to the pinnacle of their sport...only one team can be the overall winner, does that mean all the other coaches should get the sack ?

quote:

Originally posted by joe90:
However, NZ did enough to win 18-13.

No you didn't, you played badly enough to loose 20-18.

quote:

The FACTS are the refereeing was utterly dreadful. Even a cursory knowledge of the rules of the game shows that Barnes was way off most of the time.

Pure bollox. From another place ...

Paddy O'Brien, the New Zealander who heads the International Rugby Board referee's panel, told TV3 that the loss could not be blamed on refereeing.

"We've got to remember that France played very, very well, and as a country I think we have got to grow up."

Says it all really.

I'm absolutely NOT surprised that the head of the selection panel of referees should defend his decision...

The touch judge was in line with the forward pass, the laws should allow the touch judge to bring the attention of the ref to the infringement, as can football assistant refs (linesmen).

The bottom line, rugby refs are sub standard.

Why should any team in any sport lose a game due to such poor reffing?

Don't tell me that reffing doesn't have the power to make or break a game. I've changed an entire season's results due to one call in football. It was the correct call btw.

What you are suggesting is that the rules are of none effect, and the 'better' the team, the less the requirement of a referee to interpret and apply them correctly.

'Oh we won't penalise the French today cause it's the All Blacks and they don't need the rules cause they never lose. We only apply the rules to second-rate teams, cause they need the extra help.'

'We won't send off the New Zealanders for punching in football because the Brazillians should know how to wallop the All Whites, even though half their team has been injured and two players were sent off for stuff they didn't really do'.

Like I said, the ABs looked pretty average that day, but there is no excuse for such below average reffing.

The mnore you defend the reffing performance, the more your arguments suggest that the rules need not apply to NZ, South Africa, or Australia.

Are you admitting they're the best teams and everyone else is second or third string?

The All Blacks had plenty of chances to win the game late on, and didn't seem to have much imagination. On the day, only Williams and McAlister played anywhere near their best.

Stop whining about the referee. The call to sin-bin McAlister was, in my view, correct. The pass to Michalak for Jauzion's try was forward. Such mistakes happen in every game.

By that stage, France were the only team that looked like scoring, so who knows if they'd have got another try if they had to.

New Zealand choked again. Yes, the best team in the world loses when it matters most. Please don't blame the ref, France deserved their win.

Four more years.

Seeing as Rugby is such a gladiatorial sport maybe we should dispense with the rules and just let them sort out the winner with a bit of fisty cuffs...

After all, who has the ball and what they do with it seems to have little bearing on the result (from what I have read here).

Even then, I suspect we would still have a plethora of armchair critics commenting on the sad state of affairs that lead to their team losing...

quote:

The All Blacks had plenty of chances to win the game late on, and didn't seem to have much imagination. On the day, only Williams and McAlister played anywhere near their best.

Stop whining about the referee. The call to sin-bin McAlister was, in my view, correct. The pass to Michalak for Jauzion's try was forward. Such mistakes happen in every game.

By that stage, France were the only team that looked like scoring, so who knows if they'd have got another try if they had to.

New Zealand choked again. Yes, the best team in the world loses when it matters most. Please don't blame the ref, France deserved their win.

Interesting argument. It seems predicated on the belief that the ref only made two mistakes. He made many, many mistakes, and the last one he made cost New Zealand the game. A shocking decision, considering the touch judge was in line with the pass, and it certainly wasn't 'borderline', but clearly forward. Yes it was a mistake by the French. And the laws state that there is a suitable punishment. But as for the ref, he decided that there was to be no punishment.

In the dying stages there was clearly hands in the ruck in full view of the touch judge.Why was that not penalised?

McAlister's drop goal attempt was made with the ref's arm out signalling AB advantage. Why did the ref not go back and play it?

You do not 'deserve' a win by breaking the laws of a game.

As Macker has rightly pointed out, you all seem to think that the laws don't matter.

If you are from France, it's very clear to see that's the case.

Once again, the English win the Battle of France.

quote:

Originally posted by joe90:
As Macker has rightly pointed out, you all seem to think that the laws don't matter.

I was actually taking the piss....if you expect the ref to be perfect then you must also expect the same of the players...clearly neither are.

It's an imperfect game in an imperfect world....with all participants contributing to the imperfectness of it all.

I've always assumed that players are pretty tolerant of the fact that refereeing is imperfect (unlike some fans) but that they want one thing above all-consistency. They also seem to require clarity of communication when an offence is committed, and (perhaps uniquely in RU) when an offence is about to be committed.

The NZ vs France referee (and please let us not call him the English referee and make the inference he was somehow biased against NZ) seemed to lack authority on the pitch. Some of his decisions appeared to confuse the players and he did not seem consistent to me. He seemed to give less 'warnings' at ruck and maul to prevent penalties too. He seemed very intolerant of infringments at the scrum without giving a 'second chance'.

I think his errors are less well tolerated when all that is the case. I'd have to say the key decision was the sin-bin as it switched the whole flow of the game-and I think that was correct where in other games similar events seem to have been leniently handled.

One other refereeing item, Argentina (and France to a degree) seem to be in the vanguard of an unpleasant trend of looking for decisions rather dramatically (and appealing for them too) which is wandering towards the disgusting 'simulation' in Football. This needs rapid action by the referees as it is a very slippery slope.

Bruce

quote:

It's an imperfect game in an imperfect world....with all participants contributing to the imperfectness of it all.

I've got it.

Joe's real gripe is that the ref uses non-Naim speaker cable.

The Kiwis I know are not unhappy with the ref, they know we all get that from time to time. They were below par. You could see the belief disappear.

Steve

I can't believe the degree of sour grapes against the referee. The yellow card was fully justified. He took the man out cynically. The players need to look in the mirror of reflection and come up with some serious conclusions: they choked big time. Again. Never mind criticising the referee the AB have only themselves to blame. The AB made far too many mistakes, wrong game plan and too much arrogance including the management policies (which even now AB greats including Colin Meads are questioning). Get over it. At least you'll be home before the postcards.

A great team will overcome adversity and poor referee and win. You are not a great team, merely a team of flat track bullies. Indeed you are now suggesting that the next World Cup in NZ should only have 16 teams. This is a rubbish idea. Most probably because you don’t have the infrastructure or sufficient high quality stadiums to accommodate 20 teams and all their travelling supporters.

quote:

I've always assumed that players are pretty tolerant of the fact that refereeing is imperfect

I know I am tolerant of the odd mistake.

What Barnes did was not the 'odd' mistake however. It was just substandard.

What's interesting is how much whining, moaning and screaming went on over Maradonna's 'Hand of God' incident at the soccer World Cup.

Awwww c'mon guys, it wasn't poor refereeing, it was just that England is a shite football team!

How about a little consistency?

quote:

A great team will overcome adversity and poor referee and win.

What truly underlies your argument is that you're glad to see the ABs shat on, cause you know that England scraped through by a gnat's nut, and the ABs would certainly have lifted their game to trounce the English again, like even their club rugby did to the Lions last time.

Hi,

OK, OK, OK, Yes the AB are brilliant, it is a travesty of justice, the referee is a cheat, it,s a conspiracy against the greatest team in the world who should now be awarded the Cup. Happy.
I'm out of this discussion. I'll not argue with idiots as you bring me down to your level and beat me with your experience.

Joe90,

A question: there were actually two forward passes in the second French try, yet you only mention the one. Could it be that you didn't spot the second ( from Michalak)?

ITV drew a line on the pitch where Michelak popped the ball out apparently backwards and another where Jauzion caught it. It travelled forwards two metres ....

My point is if you didn't see the second forward pass what made you think the ref saw the first? Human error ... not conspiracy.

quote:

What truly underlies your argument is that you're glad to see the ABs shat on, cause you know that England scraped through by a gnat's nut, and the ABs would certainly have lifted their game to trounce the English again, like even their club rugby did to the Lions last time.

Therein lies the attitude that, if shared by the team, just may have contributed to another RWC failure.

Bruce

quote:

What truly underlies your argument is that you're glad to see the ABs shat on, cause you know that England scraped through by a gnat's nut, and the ABs would certainly have lifted their game to trounce the English again, like even their club rugby did to the Lions last time.

Scraped through we did. Scrape through you didn't. Those grapes shure sound sour from where I'm sitting.

"New Zealand choked again. Yes, the best team in the world loses when it matters most. Please don't blame the ref, France deserved their win."

quick question everyone - How long are people going to keep calling the AB's the best team in the world when , by the next time, 24 years will have passed since they last lifted the trophy. Talk about basking in past glories. Similar to england with 1966.

France deserved and wanted their win more than the AB's. So to did England who tore Australia's front row apart.

Bye bye and thanks for coming.

quote:

Originally posted by joe90:
McAlister's drop goal attempt was made with the ref's arm out signalling AB advantage. Why did the ref not go back and play it?

As someone happy to point out the ref's supposed mistakes, I presume you know the laws yourself? Law 8: ref sole judge of advantage etc.? The advantage you refer to was for a knock on, not a full penalty. For the former you have gained that advantage if you punt to touch, (attempt to) drop kick a goal or make some yardage past the gain line in most refs interpretations. For a full penalty you would be called back.

Just to switch away from this thread being too adversarial....

....does anyone wonder if the rules should be switched with regard to drop goal attempts?

Seems to me that a 22 dropout is still quite tough on the defensive side, posession is still in the balance on the restart when the attacker should really be forfeiting posession after kicking it away. How about a scrum from the kickers position with defensive side having the put-in?

Might make the drop goal less of an 'easy option'?


Bruce

Bruce - an excellent idea.

Duncan - I meant to write, Michalak's pass.

Anyway, where were we? Oh yeah...

Dame Kiri Te Kanawa, Peter Jackson, Neil Finn, Sir Edmund Hillary, Jonah Lomu - the English ref has beaten them all! Helen Clark, can you hear me? Your boys took one hell of a beating! Your boys took one hell of a beating!

quote:

Originally posted by joe90:
McAlister's drop goal attempt was made with the ref's arm out signalling AB advantage. Why did the ref not go back and play it?

Because a clear pop at goal, and points, represents the fulfilment of the advantage, because from it thay made a genuine scoring attempt with a realistic chance of being successful. That the guy fluffed it is not pertinent.

Joe, perhaps what you're asking for is for Rugby Union to adopt the similar kind of 'panel' and 'video replay' approach to refereeing as American Fottball, that well-known fast and free-flowing exciting game (not).

And compared with the appalling behaviour of soccer 'players' who mob the ref at every turn, and frequently insult and sometimes threaten him, I am delighted that we still have a sport where the referee has authority and commands respect.

Having a ref on the ground is part of the essence of the game, which allows RU to be the game dynamic game it is. Human error will, inevitably, be a part of the refereeing (as it is the playing). But unless you are making an accusation of deliberate bias by the referee (a very serious accusation) then in the overall balance, things work out. Those who play are man enough to accept the terms and conditions under which they play the game.

Chirpa:

Most of the NZ groans I read here and in other places concern the forward pass to Michalak that started his break. That certainly seemed to be in line of sight for the TJ to call.

The forward pass that completed the move from Michalak was an impossibility for all but the TV pundits to call IMHO. Even then it needed special effects to make it clear. There were 33 players and officals on the pitch but 28 of them were about 10 yards behind the play. There's no way they could have called it.

Bruce:

Not sure about changing the restart after DG, but I do think there needs to be some consistency on "warning". Personally I go with the view of say nothing and punish if there's an offence. A few kickable penalties will soon focus the players minds. The constant warnings that some referees give allows the players to push the boundaries of illegality knowing that they will be pulled up short just before they cross the line.

The other law changes that annoys me is the "crouch, touch, pause, hug, kiss, engage, get married" bollox. Ironically enough introduced at the behest of the Aussies. Something to do with insurance liabilities AFAICR. It didn't do much to protect their jellyfish front row from a good rogering on Saturday!

Duncan

Copy from "Wales v New Zealand - Nov. 2003" report


69 mins: Howlett crosses in the corner after a neat blindside move, TV referee is called into action to determine if Howlett received a forward pass. Despite images that indicate a forward pass, the try is given... WALES 37 NEW ZEALAND 43

Guess these things ebb and flow...

quote:

The other law changes that annoys me is the "crouch, touch, pause, hug, kiss, engage, get married" bollox. Ironically enough introduced at the behest of the Aussies. Something to do with insurance liabilities AFAICR. It didn't do much to protect their jellyfish front row from a good rogering on Saturday!

The introduction of scrummaging rule-changes was done to reduce the number of serious neck injuries, largely below elite level. Some literature on this subject can be found here and here.

The 'phased engagement' was designed to make sure the front rows were stable, close and poperly aligned before the scrum engaged.

Some have even suggested removing the 'hit' altogether, making a scrum a 'shoving contest'.

It is a sobering thought that approx 1 or 2 people had permanently disabling spinal injuries from scrummaging in NZ every year until the RugbySmart scheme (which has a number of facets not just scrummaging changes) started-although how much is due to that scheme is open to discussion.


Bruce