The Nigel Owens incident

Just wondered what opinions there are on this matter. For me it was clear Foley obstructed Farrell as the replay proved conclusively. What game was Owens watching? I think he clearly has a problem with Farrell and perhaps England in general. On the whole not a bad referee at all but perhaps allows personal prejudices to impinge his judgement particularly when the old enemy are involved?

This is probably a WUM, but I'll respond anyway

From the touchline, Owens wouldn't have had the perspective to be able to see who was running across who - all he saw was the contact

He called it out to the referee who used the TMO to make the right (if possibly slightly generous to England) decision

No, I think Owens did exactly the right thing. Remember, he is side on to Farrell and Foley, and what he sees is contact between them and Foley going down. The presumption has to be that - all other things being equal - Farrell has barged into Foley rather than go round him, which would be a penalty to Aus.

What the replay showed was what he couldn't easily have seen - that Foley adjusted his line (quite subtly) to impede Farrell. All was therefore not equal: Foley had committed the first offence. Penalty reversed.

I thought it was a bit harsh on Foley, they said he didn't run a straight line but given were he was and the ball was going it was a straight line

Farrells actions were aggressive too so to Owens probably seemed like a shoulder charge but all in all I thought it was two guys going for the ball

Also, shoulder to shoulder contact is not (i don't think) illegal.

Generous to Owens, I think even from the touch line it was clear who changed direction. Anyway it was all a bit of nothing, certainly not a penalty either way so to stop the game was puzzling to say the least.

It was funny. Love the angle showing Foley changing direction to run into Farrell and then bounce off.

Given that play was stopped it was a sensible result but it was a bit of nothing really.

Joubert did have a good game overall. (I would say that though). Letting the scrums go down without blowing for penalties when he could because of the pitch was the right thing to do. And he stopped things from boiling over even if a lot of the match was pretty close to doing so. He also did not force Australia to kick for the corner when they could have gone for points.

Well, the fact that four of us don't agree on whether Foley changed his angle is a pretty clear indication that Nige may not have been able to see it clearly!

From my perspective, it was only clear to me that Foley had changed his line from the overhead camera, which Owens couldn't have seen. But he definitely did change his line - not least because from the angle he'd started if he'd only gone straight for the ball he wouldn't have collided with Farrell.

The other view that was revealing (and again only available on replay to any of the reffing team) was the front-on view, which showed Farrell focused completely on the ball until Foley crossed into his space, at which point there was a brief flicker of attention and he carried on going. He definitely wasn't anticipating contact until it was almost too late, which is further evidence that Foley changed his line.

I see no problem at all with what Owens did. His job is to help the referee make the correct decisions. He thought he saw an England player target the Aussie playmaker off the ball and advised the use of the TMO. Nothing wrong with that at all, of he'd advised no TMO and a card I'd have had an issue but his advice led to the correct decision being made instead of Australia clearing the ball up field.

I think that he was also correct earlier in the game to point out Robshaw's high tackle when attempting to hold up Foley.

Nigel Owens is the best referee in the Northern Hemisphere, followed a long way back by daylight.

I agree with Sam. I can't see anything wrong with what Owens did at all. He saw something that he thought deserved a second look, and it just so happens he got his split-second judgement incorrect. Absolutely no indictment on his refereeing skills- just a poor view from on the sideline when you're on the same level as the players and looking at something near the centre of the pitch.

Certainly don't think you can accuse Nigel of being at all prejudice against 'the old enemy'.

Bar Wayne Barnes. Think he's neck and neck at the mo laurie. Liked the look of the young Kiwi guy in the SA game.

formerly known as Sam wrote:I see no problem at all with what Owens did. His job is to help the referee make the correct decisions. He thought he saw an England player target the Aussie playmaker off the ball and advised the use of the TMO. Nothing wrong with that at all, of he'd advised no TMO and a card I'd have had an issue but his advice led to the correct decision being made instead of Australia clearing the ball up field.

I think that he was also correct earlier in the game to point out Robshaw's high tackle when  attempting to hold up Foley.

What was pleasing about this incident was the officials willingness to turn 180 degrees when it became apparent thats what should happen.

aucklandlaurie wrote:
Nigel Owens is the best referee in the Northern Hemisphere, followed a long way back by daylight.

How far back are SH refs. They are appalling atm.

One angle certainly supported Owen's call. Others made it look like fair from both players. The overhead view showedbFoley clearly change direction and dip the shoulder. Thought penalty against Foley a touch harsh, but Joubert seemed to fqvour us a little.

Owen's did nothing wrong.

I wouldn't go trying to get Owens involved in the usual tribal stuff between England and wales. He's a damn fine ref.

LondonTiger wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:
Nigel Owens is the best referee in the Northern Hemisphere, followed a long way back by daylight.

How far back are SH refs. They are appalling atm.

I think Angus Gardiner seems like he has the makings of a top ref, seem him ref at the RWC and again at Ellis Park on Saturday and thought he did a good job

No 7&1/2 wrote:Bar Wayne Barnes. Think he's neck and neck at the mo laurie. Liked the look of the young Kiwi guy in the SA game.

yes but Barnes missed a forward pass about nine years ago, so that rules him out...

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Bar Wayne Barnes. Think he's neck and neck at the mo laurie. Liked the look of the young Kiwi guy in the SA game.

yes but Barnes missed a forward pass about nine years ago, so that rules him out...

and he speaks with a whiny voice, shouldn't be allowed to speak in range of a microphone. Plus he is............................................................







exceeding short and thus should stick to kids rugby

...plus he still has all his baby hair - he should have grown out of that long ago.

Notch wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:I see no problem at all with what Owens did. His job is to help the referee make the correct decisions. He thought he saw an England player target the Aussie playmaker off the ball and advised the use of the TMO. Nothing wrong with that at all, of he'd advised no TMO and a card I'd have had an issue but his advice led to the correct decision being made instead of Australia clearing the ball up field.

I think that he was also correct earlier in the game to point out Robshaw's high tackle when  attempting to hold up Foley.

What was pleasing about this incident was the officials willingness to turn 180 degrees when it became apparent thats what should happen.

Have to agree on all points.  Owens pointed out a possible offense, one of the jobs of the Assistant Referee.  The TMO looked at it and changed his opinion.

I think this is a little funny.  I thought if Farrell was involved, he very likely did run into Foley on purpose.  Then the TMO replay was shown and I was surprised to see he actually was fine.  How shocking was that?

Correct call by Owens to take a look. Don't actually think it should have been a penalty either way, outcome was a bit harsh on Foley.

As for the OP, I think Ed you should Presume a little less, you don't seem very good at it.

I don't think it was harsh on Foley. If you run across the line of the ball in no attempt to support the player catching it then you can't moan if you get pushed over or pinged. Admittedly 9 times out of 10 he'll get away with that and it made sense to do it but still he knew if he got caught he'd get pinged.

We all usually complain that the assistant refs don't get involved enough, I'm more then happy for them to question potential foul play and have it referred.

Perhaps they should be able to go straight to the tmo and ask him to check though rather then stop play. But otherwise I would like more of this for squint throws/put-ins and for offside at rucks and lineouts.

I think it was a tactic of Australia on the night, I can't recall which player but when an England player was chasing the ball and Aussie player was running back looking over his shoulder and weaving trying to block the runner.

Clearly shows his attempt to block and not actually run back

No 7&1/2 wrote:Bar Wayne Barnes. Think he's neck and neck at the mo laurie. Liked the look of the young Kiwi guy in the SA game.

Wasn't Barnes called an effin cheat by the current England Captain. Surely an England Captain couldn't be wrong?

The Great Aukster wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Bar Wayne Barnes. Think he's neck and neck at the mo laurie. Liked the look of the young Kiwi guy in the SA game.

Wasn't Barnes called an effin cheat by the current England Captain. Surely an England Captain couldn't be wrong?

I heard he was a kiwi.

I do not think Owens is biased. My problem with the whole incident is that it was something and nothing and not worth stopping the game for. I cannot see how Owens can have see anything serious because nothing serious happened.

Once the game had stopped then the ref had to give England a penalty but it would have been better if the game had just carried on.

I do not like having referees running the line. They are too keen to get involved and be the centre of attention. There are enough stoppages as it is.

Too often now we stop the game to see if an offence might have been committed. The golden rule for refereeing should be "If in doubt, play on".

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Bar Wayne Barnes. Think he's neck and neck at the mo laurie. Liked the look of the young Kiwi guy in the SA game.

yes but Barnes missed a forward pass about nine years ago, so that rules him out...

He made up for that by "finding" one two Saturdays ago.

Ah, the 11th commandment, thou shalt not rule against the All Blacks.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Ah, the 11th commandment, thou shalt not rule against the All Blacks.

Well they are the best team in the world so any decision against them is probably wrong. I am always confused as to how the country that is so devoted to rugby, only country where it is the national sport and continually produces such good players can also continuously produce the worst referees.

LondonTiger wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Ah, the 11th commandment, thou shalt not rule against the All Blacks.

Well they are the best team in the world so any decision against them is probably wrong. I am always confused as to how the country that is so devoted to rugby, only country where it is the national sport and continually produces such good players can also continuously produce the worst referees.

Perhaps they've been trained by Richie McCaw?

How are people bigging up Wayne Barnes' refereeing skills.

He's never made a decision. Applaud his TMO. The one time he made a decision recently was ruling out a try when the pass clearly wasn't forward.

Anyone have a link to a clip of the incident that started this discussion? I can't find one.

As for the OP - Owens as touch judge sees something he thinks could be foul play, waits till a break in play, discusses with the ref, ref and TMO check the replay, they see an offence albeit not the one Owens thought he saw. Correct decision is made. Isn't that how its supposed to work? One other wee point - after review its not always a penalty. I have seen incidents reviewed often and a no pen decision made.

On Owens. a damn fine refereee but not without his faults. I prefer a ref that is stricter at the breakdown and gives a couple of early pens setting the standard so teams are careful at the breakdown for the rest of the game allowing for a game of quick ball thereafter. I think ( despite the fact he robbed us with a poor decision recently) Mitrea is fast getting to be one of the best. I like his style. always willing to consult, strict at the breakdown, makes few mistakes.

TJ wrote:Anyone have a link to a clip of the incident that started this discussion?  I can't find one.

As for the OP - Owens as touch judge sees something he thinks could be foul play, waits till a break in play, discusses with the ref, ref and TMO check the replay, they see an offence albeit not the one Owens thought he saw.  Correct decision is made.  Isn't that how its supposed to work?  One other wee point - after review its not always a penalty.  I have seen incidents reviewed often and a no pen decision made.

On Owens.  a damn fine refereee but not without his faults.  I prefer a ref that is stricter at the breakdown and gives a couple of early pens setting the standard so teams are careful at the breakdown for the rest of the game allowing for a game of quick ball thereafter.  I think ( despite the fact he robbed us with a poor decision recently)  Mitrea is fast getting to be one of the best.  I like his style.  always willing to consult, strict at the breakdown, makes few mistakes.

The bold bit is wrong IIRC. Play was stopped after Aus had kicked downfield, but ball was still in play. Play was stopped because Owens flagged. Having said that I don't have a problem, Owens saw something he thought should be looked at (Farrell putting his shoulder into Foley), turned out he was wrong and Foley was at fault, so penalty given to England. Nothing wrong with what Owens did at all.

Yes, there was no reason to stop the game, certainly not on Farrell's account. Ludicrous! There was a sense of schadenfreude with the reversal of the decision.

Presuming Ed wrote:Yes, there was no reason to stop the game, certainly not on Farrell's account. Ludicrous! There was a sense of schadenfreude with the reversal of the decision.

Strictly, the decision to stop the game was Joubert's rather than Owens'. Owens just indicated that there was something he wanted Joubert to look at. Joubert could have opted to play on but clearly felt that if Owens was flagging it in live play it merited a review there and then. If no penalty had been awarded it would probably have gone to a scrum where the ball landed or was last played, with put in to the side in possession.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

TJ wrote:Anyone have a link to a clip of the incident that started this discussion?  I can't find one.

As for the OP - Owens as touch judge sees something he thinks could be foul play, waits till a break in play, discusses with the ref, ref and TMO check the replay, they see an offence albeit not the one Owens thought he saw.  Correct decision is made.  Isn't that how its supposed to work?  One other wee point - after review its not always a penalty.  I have seen incidents reviewed often and a no pen decision made.

On Owens.  a damn fine refereee but not without his faults.  I prefer a ref that is stricter at the breakdown and gives a couple of early pens setting the standard so teams are careful at the breakdown for the rest of the game allowing for a game of quick ball thereafter.  I think ( despite the fact he robbed us with a poor decision recently)  Mitrea is fast getting to be one of the best.  I like his style.  always willing to consult, strict at the breakdown, makes few mistakes.

The bold bit is wrong IIRC. Play was stopped after Aus had kicked downfield, but ball was still in play. Play was stopped because Owens flagged. Having said that I don't have a problem, Owens saw something he thought should be looked at (Farrell putting his shoulder into Foley), turned out he was wrong and Foley was at fault, so penalty given to England. Nothing wrong with what Owens did at all.

sorry - I thought the ball was out of play.

Poorfour wrote:

Presuming Ed wrote:Yes, there was no reason to stop the game, certainly not on Farrell's account. Ludicrous! There was a sense of schadenfreude with the reversal of the decision.

Strictly, the decision to stop the game was Joubert's rather than Owens'. Owens just indicated that there was something he wanted Joubert to look at. Joubert could have opted to play on but clearly felt that if Owens was flagging it in live play it merited a review there and then. If no penalty had been awarded it would probably have gone to a scrum where the ball landed or was last played, with put in to the side in possession.

Yes, but my point is, is that clearly Joubert thought there must have been some serious foul play for Owens to have flagged. There wasn't, not from any angle and not from either of the two players involved, at most a bit of obstruction from Foley that could have been reviewed at the next break in play particularly as England had field advantage from the play. But EVEN if, somehow Owens thought the obstruction came from Farrell, he couldn't have been sure of that as there wasn't any (as proven subsequently), so to flag knowing that this would stop the game and impede England while in an attacking position was puzzling. I do believe that Owens allows the "Farrell" factor and to a lesser extent the "England" factor affect his judgement as I have noted this in previous matches. As I said before I believe him to be an adequate ref but certainly over-rated but usually fair, albeit with a slight weakness when it comes to some old rivalries and the preconceived conceptions surrounding some players.

England were in their own half and he thought there was foul play. Top quality ref.

Myself and a few others have been very impressed with Angus Gardner so far, only 31 but looks to have the makings of the one of the best. Already looks better than certain international refs out there.

What Owens saw was Farrell's shoulder going into Foley, no arms, and Foley going down - i.e. a shoulder barge. If that had been all that happened then it would have been fairly serious foul play, maybe enough to merit a card, maybe not, but enough to merit a talking to. That justifies the flag.

What the TMO revealed was that it was Foley's fault for moving into Farrell's path. The correct decision, once that was clear was a penalty.

Based on the information available to them, the refereeing team made the right decisions. It's a pretty textbook example of how to do it.

No 7&1/2 wrote:England were in their own half and he thought there was foul play. Top quality ref.

It happens, 7&1/2

No 7&1/2 wrote:England were in their own half and he thought there was foul play. Top quality ref.

No they weren't.

Presuming Ed wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:England were in their own half and he thought there was foul play. Top quality ref.

No they weren't.

Oh typical arrogant England, think they own both ends of the pitch.

Presuming Ed wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:England were in their own half and he thought there was foul play. Top quality ref.

No they weren't.

They were. 100%

Gooseberry wrote:

Presuming Ed wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:England were in their own half and he thought there was foul play. Top quality ref.

No they weren't.

Oh typical arrogant England, think they own both ends of the pitch.

No wonder you're winning. You can score over either tryline in any half!

Unless I'm going senile, Foley made contact with Farrell near the Australian 10 meter line if not a bit beyond and the ball even further in to the Australian half. Can anyone else vouch for my sanity?

Presuming Ed wrote:Unless I'm going senile, Foley made contact with Farrell near the Australian 10 meter line if not a bit beyond. Can anyone else vouch for my sanity?

Sounds about right to me