*rich* Referees Just Don't Get It

A deliberate professional acknowledged foul as Juan pulls the jersey of Francis Saili, who otherwise was chasing a lose ball in his own and would obviously have scored a vital fourth try.

No yellow card.

But we have twenty minutes of advantage played after ever single scrum.

FFS. The IRB need to sort out the consistency. The game shouldn't be about 80 minutes of set pieces and penalties.

Another game killed by the officials. But this time he has managed to influence the entire tournament.

Siding with whinging Justin M are you? Black arm bands tomorrow Richie has a little injury aw bless.

Keep on focus to the thread thanks. If you want to start a thread about your personal issues with the legend of McCaw then you are welcome but this thread is about the incompetent *rich* referee who seemed to want to spend 80 minutes adjudicating scrums rather than have empathy for the conditions and punish the cynicism of the pumas.

English refs, French refs, aw boo hoo Grey Ghosty in whinging mode.

Mate are you a 13 year old girl? Or do you just post like one? 

Please make a valid point about anything because at the moment you are just humiliating yourself.

Little like the Op GG

Rainbow added to "foes" list. Aka "children's table". Calmness restored.

Where was Bryce from?  

Well if the all blacks hadn't made so many handling errors he would of had less scrums to worry about?

Any chance this can get locked before it turns into a wum fest

GloriousEmpire wrote:Rainbow added to "foes" list. Aka "children's table". Calmness restored.

 

Knackeredknees wrote:Well if the all blacks hadn't made so many handling errors he would of had less scrums to worry about?

Any chance this can get locked before it turns into a wum fest

Its not a WUM to point out when the referee makes a glaring mistake. The laws of our fair game specify a yellow card in that scenario. Juan even admitted he did it...yet the ref didnt hand out the yellow. He was just wrong. Spending too much time studying pedantic scrum laws and not enough time developing empathy for the open game. Poor form and I'm right to point it out.

Knackeredknees wrote:Well if the all blacks hadn't made so many handling errors he would of had less scrums to worry about?

Any chance this can get locked before it turns into a wum fest

True. 16 handling errors, 7 I think in the Argentine 22.

GloriousEmpire wrote:

Knackeredknees wrote:Well if the all blacks hadn't made so many handling errors he would of had less scrums to worry about?

Any chance this can get locked before it turns into a wum fest

Its not a WUM to point out when the referee makes a glaring mistake. The laws of our fair game specify a yellow card in that scenario. Juan even admitted he did it...yet the ref didnt hand out the yellow. He was just wrong. Spending too much time studying pedantic scrum laws and not enough time developing empathy for the open game. Poor form and I'm right to point it out.

What like smiths try? No contact with ball when it hits the line......glaring error there

I'm more interested in Juan's handling error. And *rich* referees handling of the game.

They were filthy conditions and the All Blacks played with ambition and  were rewarded with three fine tries. 

However they deserved a fourth - their handling was immense and a fine kick through deserved the pending try. Spoiled by Juan's deliberate foul play and a *rich* referee who just doesn't understand the value if snatched moments of genius in such poor conditions.

I wouldn't call hacking on a loose ball a moment of genius!

Two fine try's and one non try

And I'm pretty sure most of the players are*richer* than the ref

GloriousEmpire wrote:I'm more interested in Juan's handling error. And *rich* referees handling of the game.

They were filthy conditions and the All Blacks played with ambition and  were rewarded with three fine tries. 

However they deserved a fourth - their handling was immense and a fine kick through deserved the pending try. Spoiled by Juan's deliberate foul play and a *rich* referee who just doesn't understand the value if snatched moments of genius in such poor conditions.

2 tries, Argentina were cheated out of the third, so moaning about having a 4th is childish.

Knackeredknees wrote:I wouldn't call hacking on a loose ball a moment of genius!

Two fine try's and one non try

And I'm pretty sure most of the players are*richer* than the ref

Nothing wrong with the smith try mate.

GloriousEmpire wrote:

Knackeredknees wrote:I wouldn't call hacking on a loose ball a moment of genius!

Two fine try's and one non try

And I'm pretty sure most of the players are*richer* than the ref

Nothing wrong with the smith try mate.

Plenty wrong with it...no try.

GloriousEmpire wrote:

Knackeredknees wrote:I wouldn't call hacking on a loose ball a moment of genius!

Two fine try's and one non try

And I'm pretty sure most of the players are*richer* than the ref

Nothing wrong with the smith try mate.

Apart from not having contact with the ball when it hit the ground?

But that doesn't suit your viewpoint that its only the all blacks were robbed

The try was fine mate. Check the video again. 

If you want a thread about it, start one.

This is About the incompetent referee who robbed NZ of a fourth try by not penalising the deliberate professional foul of Juan.

GloriousEmpire wrote:The try was fine mate. Check the video again. 

If you want a thread about it, start one.

This is About the incompetent referee who robbed NZ of a fourth try by not penalising the deliberate professional foul of Juan.

How can you have a 4th try when one of the tries scored was in reality not scored?

GloriousEmpire wrote:The try was fine mate. Check the video again. 

If you want a thread about it, start one.

This is About the incompetent referee who robbed NZ of a fourth try by not penalising the deliberate professional foul of Juan.

I did mate, no try

But it was given and is now in the past
The yellow wasn't given and is now in the past


Time to build a bridge and get over it

Mate I've told you time and time again. Keep on topic.

I guess you can't argue with my point and have to resort to propping up straw men.

Non-try? You guys are blind. Too many subs on cost us the forth try, the game fell apart when DC went off. Shag may regret his decisions. Argie did well enough. Thought the ref did ok but bad call on lobbe.

Nice edit to change your reply.

If you could actually tell me what you rant initially was?
Was it NH refs?
The no yellow?
Or the fact that it was with out a shadow of a doubt going to be a try?

I was always taught never to argue with an idiot...........they will drag you down to their level and they have more experience there

So I'm out of here, keep the tin foil hat on so the nasty anti NZ lot in the IRB don't get you

Knackered that is the fastest reverse I've ever seen! Too warm in the kitchen? It just realised how tenuous your argument wAs?

ebop wrote:Non-try? You guys are blind. Too many subs on cost us the forth try, the game fell apart when DC went off. Shag may regret his decisions. Argie did well enough. Thought the ref did ok but bad call on lobbe.

I'm with you. One of those calls. Happens. I think our biggest issue is adapting to differing breakdown management by refs. I think it's still a bit of an issue for us. To some degree I think the Argies were on damage limitation and by large they were controlled by the AB pack. I think it's a potential issue for us against the Boks, who bought in European technical advice, and later in the year, particularly against France and England. The obvious answer is commit more players to the ruck, but that has flow effects to our running game. It'll be interesting to see what they do. I suspect they'll leave it with the potential reward outways the risk.

So let me get this straight, 'rich' ref makes one glaring mistake for NZ, and one glaring mistake for Argentina and he is your villain, but the even 'richer' NZ players make 16 mistakes through handling alone and theyre robbed?

I think we should hand victory to NZ upon kick off, if for nothing else to shut the moron GG up!

Apologies moron was harsh, I have had no coffee and my milk is bad!

I think the OP is just bitter that SA are top....and is possibly slightly worried.

To be honest I thought that the video ref made an interesting call for the boks 1st try. Oosthuizen's. Looked inconclusive. You couldn't see grounding and only a hint of it being held up.
Was surprised that it was given anyhow.

Thought Clancy did a half decent job, card on Alberts was right, pinged Flip for not releasing the carrier when he wasn't even the tackler though.

fa0019 wrote:To be honest I thought that the video ref made an interesting call for the boks 1st try. Oosthuizen's. Looked inconclusive. You couldn't see grounding and only a hint of it being held up.
Was surprised that it was given anyhow.

What was the referee's question? If he asked "is there any reason why I can't award the try" then the TMO doesn't need to see a grounding.

I do take issue that in wet weather some people would like to see knock ons downgraded as it ruins the game in such bad conditions.
A good team players what they are given. It took a little time to change but the did change and got rewarded.

Refs make mistakes but so do teams. In rugby there must be atleast 10 things that affect the game that are read wrong by the ref but we the supporter usually say that it balances out over the game.

That's not what I am saying. At all.

I'm saying that in such conditions, running rugby is at a premium. When one team executes perfectly, we need the referee to be switched on to what is happening.

In a usual dry game, there might be 20 chances to run it and create a scoring opportunity. If the opposition cynically close down 10 of them - a referee will get fed up and award a yellow card.

But if the conditions are so poor that only 5 chances can be manufactured, then an opposition should not be allowed to cynically shut down all five and get away with it.

That's called having empathy for the conditions. It's not about ignoring knock ons.

South Africa played in dry conditions and had the chance to score a try bonus point.

NZ manufactured 4 tries in Apalling conditions and were denied the fourth by a calculated and cynically foul by Juan. The referee had no empathy for the situation. He was too busy being a pedant about scrum engagements and playing 20 minutes of advantage from every possible technical infringement. 

His focus was in the wrong area.

GloriousEmpire wrote:That's not what I am saying. At all.

I'm saying that in such conditions, running rugby is at a premium. When one team executes perfectly, we need the referee to be switched on to what is happening.

In a usual dry game, there might be 20 chances to run it and create a scoring opportunity. If the opposition cynically close down 10 of them - a referee will get fed up and award a yellow card.

But if the conditions are so poor that only 5 chances can be manufactured, then an opposition should not be allowed to cynically shut down all five and get away with it.

That's called having empathy for the conditions. It's not about ignoring knock ons.

South Africa played in dry conditions and had the chance to score a try bonus point.

NZ manufactured 4 tries in Apalling conditions and were denied the fourth by a calculated and cynically foul by Juan. The referee had no empathy for the situation. He was too busy being a pedant about scrum engagements and playing 20 minutes of advantage from every possible technical infringement. 

His focus was in the wrong area.

Only scored 2 legal tries to say a 4th was on the cards is silly.

So GE what you are saying is that in dry weather the choice that the ref made in regards to Juan's tackle would havd been fine but as it was wet the rules should become more strict on a player. If NZ had a problem with wet weather the 4N would be played in a drier time. They don't and the rules dont change.

No I'm saying it should have been a yellow either way. However the ref  was applying a cumulative empathy based on dry weather when he let him away with it.

GloriousEmpire wrote:
In a usual dry game, there might be 20 chances to run it and create a scoring opportunity. If the opposition cynically close down 10 of them - a referee will get fed up and award a yellow card.

But if the conditions are so poor that only 5 chances can be manufactured, then an opposition should not be allowed to cynically shut down all five and get away with it.


His focus was in the wrong area.

The ref can't be just while being merciful to the running team who is trying to ignore the weather.

I'm not asking him to be merciful to the running team.

I'm saying that in the circumstances, Juan's indiscretion was much more cynical because he knew he was shutting down one of only very few opportunities to run and score a try. 

The analogy is that referees have no problem in asserting that a foul committed close to the line is punished more harshly than the same foul committed on the opponent's 22. 

Hence we hear phrases like "red zone" being used. 

What I am saying is that the referee failed to take into account that Juan was not shutting down, illegally, one of 30 potential attacking moves in a game they had already lost; but rather illegally shutting down one of only a few chances to score a fourth try in terrible conditions.

His foul was that much more cynical because of the context and his calculation was due to the context he was more likely to get away with it.

The referee came across as naiive and lacking empathy for the situation - exactly as referees who allow foul play on the defending goal line do.

I don't think it's a hard or controversial point to grasp.

Just out of curiosity where does rich come into it or are you a follower of rich people can't be trusted because they have money. On that theme maybe that is why the poor Argies can't get anything.

"It's interesting how some posters believe it is valid to criticise a referee  when the outcome doesn't suit them, and how vehemently they oppose slagging referees when it does."

ring any bells GE?

Brendan wrote:Just out of curiosity where does rich come into it or are you a follower of rich people can't be trusted because they have money.  On that theme maybe that is why the poor Argies can't get anything.

"Rich" is a euphemism used in South Park. 

I wasn't allowed to say northern hemisphere so I stole the euphemism.

In South Park they use it to deal with racism in the episode "here comes the neighbourhood".

I'd like to point out, I'm not using it in the same context.

Whistle. Is it time for "I told you so"?

Not really no. All refs make mistakes. Heck all people make mistakes. Even ones from the Southern Hemisphere.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Not really no. All refs make mistakes. Heck all people make mistakes. Even ones from the Southern Hemisphere.

I don't think Bok suporters care for Bryce Lawrence and few French fans have fond memories of Craig Joubert. England won a World Cup largely in spite of Andre Watson while the Irish have little time for Jonathan Kaplan. The last occasion I saw a referee regret a decision was Chris Pollock, who admitted some of his breakdown calls were "tough or wrong" in the Lions first Test.

Steve Walsh, Romain Poite, Alain Rolland, Wayne Barnes, Bryce Lawrence, Paddy O'Brien, Stu Dickenson, Derek Bevan, Craig Joubert, Paul Honiss, Nigel Owens, Dave Pearson, ...

I can't think of a top referee who isn't a result of "controversy" google searches.

Is the game too hard to call? Do we expect too much? Is the IRB inadequate in training and selection? 

Something needs to be done.

Like you say there's no top ref without 'controversy'; we expect too much (sometimes). At others there's just some awful errors. It happens, they're human, whether they're 'rich' or 'poor'.

To avoid spoiling other threads: Who's on your shortlist GE from NZ to replace Rolland as an elite ref?

Tana Umaga. He recently had to correct a refereeing performance so clearly he'd be champing at the bit to get out there and put things right in the big stage.

So let me get this straight. NZ have done a lot to bring on refs of ethnic minorities (for want of a better term) and the only name you've come up with is that of a coach?