Rugby World Cup 2019: 'Officiating not good enough' - World Rugby

First topic message reminder :

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/49810476

Well, do we all agree with world rugby ?

I have noticed in particular, that the French refs seem below par, they do not ref the scrums or breakdown properly, have they been advised to let things flow ? I noticed this when both Poite and Garces reffed the Wales V Ireland warm up games.

Is this world rugby giving the officials a kick up the rear before things get worse ? I think it's not very professional coming out with into the public domain.

What do you all think ?

TightHEAD wrote:Won't do Wales any favours if they get a SH ref who won't allow them to hold onto the ball and be offside all game

Australia sealed off, cleared players out around the neck, and took them beyond the ruck/off the ball repeatedly. Pick your infringement.

Bad refs are bad for both sides. Defnitely didn't see Poite as favouring either team today.

Just shows who you wanted to win.

The Oracle wrote:Noticed Australia seemed to run a lot of blockers today. That ‘swarm’ attack puts a lot of players in the way of our defenders and seemed to go unpunished. Smart play by Aus.

Australia excel at this. Their 'work' off the ball is brilliant - better than the ABs even - but it far too often veers in to being illegal.

Aus were infringing all day too. One of their line outs was thrown so squint that the Aussie jumper had to take it with his outside hand!

It countered the time where Owens took three steps to the side before putting a ball right into the gut of his jumper.

Refs are either missing these or they’ve been told to ignore it to “let the game flow”

We’re getting to a stage where matches are being decided by which team hides cheating the best or what infringements the ref is choosing to miss.

The only way to fix it will be to go back to pinging everyone for everything. Sure it will stop the flow of the game but that’s not the refs fault, that’s the infringing teams’s fault.

Must be a nightmare to ref a match like today's though. Very fast pace plenty happening both teams trying to get away with whatever they can. I'd personally go back to having the tmo and assistants helping the ref out more particularly the tmo with a set list of what they should be checking. He did well to point out the instance of leading with the forearm but then seemingly no one checks the no arm tackle from biggar leading to his hia. You'd think there would be more focus having a quick check. Seems to be used pretty fast and loose to me.

Weird interpretation of getting your head the wrong side in a tackle. Very weird.

It must be a mandate from world rugby for the assistants not to get that involved.

A prime example is the offside. That’s one area where the assistants on the side lies should be helping the ref.

Likewise squint throw ins. They are right behind the ball so can see when it’s squint. The throw today from the Oz hooker was squint by a metre at least so was surely noticeable

You have to use 2 arms miaow. Or at least you used to before today and the tmo in yesterday's game!

There is a view tiger that when officials are pinging a lot of pens that they're not doing very well in letting the game flow. Maybe world rugby are looking to not be too pedantic. Can be frustrating to watch a lot of pens and scrums etc but rules are rules.

Watch it again 7.5. He used 'two arms'.

Can't see any use of the left arm. Is hard to tell as there is only the 1 angle of it from the initial wide view. For me it's a carbon copy of yesterday. I'm surprised it wasnt looked at more closely.

I think they might need to look at the tackle laws again. Maybe make it law that you can only tackle below the chest. A clever attacking player can now run around the field and just dot any part of his head down on the shoulder of an tackling player, even a little brush with his nose or chin, and he gets a penalty at least and perhaps even a yellow or red card for the opposition. If you look at the Josh Adams tackle and penalty today, for me Adams’ arms goes down and across the shoulder of the Ozzie player and his nose I think brushes Adams’ bicep. Very easy for an attacking player to make that happen in the tackle area (not saying the Ozzie did that here). If it was me and I was a naughty boy I could run into contact, stick my chin about a bit and down onto the defenders arm and voila...... advantage us!

The tried that Oracle. Had to stop the trial law early as it led to an increase in head injuries, unsurprisingly.

I think refs are mostly decent when players are trying to con the opposition. Mitigating circumstances would potentially cover all of that to the point of play on, or even penalty against the carrier.

Also, harder to do than you'd think, at pace, in a test match.

For the life if me I can't figure out how to copy the link on the guardian site however heres some quotes from Kerevi. Could of things spring to mind. How on earth does he not know you cant lead with the forearm not holding the ball; at least while held away from the body? Remember a few years ago Du Plessis being sent out for a 2nd yellow doing it against NZ. How on earth is the ref telling him he can do so if hes lower?

"When the incident was reviewed, some of the boys thought it was Rhys Patchell’s challenge that was being reviewed,” said Kerevi. “I could not see why because it was not high and I felt fine. Then I realised they were looking at me and I was shocked. It was the first time I had been reviewed for running with the ball.

“I just hoped I was not going to get a card. Michael Hooper [Australia’s captain] was asking how I was meant to run when I next had the ball. The referee said I could lead with my arms but not go for the neck, but that is what I had done. It just looked worse in slow motion. All I did was continue my stride. There is no way I would put my arm in someone’s face, I know the rules.

“I respect the referee’s decision and I understand the pressure they are under, and not just from the media. But is there a ruling on the way we are meant to run? Players understand that rugby is a collision sport and all we want is consistency. You would think that players would be involved in drawing up these rules and you have to understand it from our point of view.

“You have a split second in which to react. I want to be physical because rugby is a tough sport. We put our bodies on the line. We know there are things you cannot do and that safety is important, but I really do not know what else I could have done in that challenge on Sunday. I might just as well avoid the contact, but that is not my game and I do not want it to become soft.”

No 7&1/2 wrote:For the life if me I can't figure out how to copy the link on the guardian site however heres some quotes from Kerevi. Could of things spring to mind. How on earth does he not know you cant lead with the forearm not holding the ball; at least while held away from the body? Remember a few years ago Du Plessis being sent out for a 2nd yellow doing it against NZ. How on earth is the ref telling him he can do so if hes lower?

"When the incident was reviewed, some of the boys thought it was Rhys Patchell’s challenge that was being reviewed,” said Kerevi. “I could not see why because it was not high and I felt fine. Then I realised they were looking at me and I was shocked. It was the first time I had been reviewed for running with the ball.

“I just hoped I was not going to get a card. Michael Hooper [Australia’s captain] was asking how I was meant to run when I next had the ball. The referee said I could lead with my arms but not go for the neck, but that is what I had done. It just looked worse in slow motion. All I did was continue my stride. There is no way I would put my arm in someone’s face, I know the rules.

“I respect the referee’s decision and I understand the pressure they are under, and not just from the media. But is there a ruling on the way we are meant to run? Players understand that rugby is a collision sport and all we want is consistency. You would think that players would be involved in drawing up these rules and you have to understand it from our point of view.

“You have a split second in which to react. I want to be physical because rugby is a tough sport. We put our bodies on the line. We know there are things you cannot do and that safety is important, but I really do not know what else I could have done in that challenge on Sunday. I might just as well avoid the contact, but that is not my game and I do not want it to become soft.”

You can understand his view from a player’s perspective. The problem is his intention was not to hit the neck throat area, and one never knows what the resultant effect is, in this case it slid up to the throat of Patchell.

World rugby need to clearly state what type of fends are legal, many ballcarriers fend with the fore arm, it isn’t unique to Kerevi. Tough to fend with the hand when it is a head on collision.

I cant understand how he doesn't know the rules though. Leading with the forearm is a penalty.

This came up in discussion when Kerevi barrelled Barrett, who went low on the tackle and Kerevi plunged his shoulder straight into Barrett’s head which was waiting for the hit. Kerevi had the ball in the same hand but he’d clearly targeted Barrett’s head. It was dismissed at the time understandably but obviously seems to have encouraged him, and likewise, seems to have encouraged Skeen to pull it up.
If they’d dealt with it properly then perhaps it might not have repeated.

That doesn't sound against the rules from what you've described Taylor.

Taylorman wrote:This came up in discussion when Kerevi barrelled Barrett, who went low on the tackle and Kerevi plunged his shoulder straight into Barrett’s head which was waiting for the hit. Kerevi had the ball in the same hand but he’d clearly targeted Barrett’s head. It was dismissed at the time understandably but obviously seems to have encouraged him, and likewise, seems to have encouraged Skeen to pull it up.
If they’d dealt with it properly then perhaps it might not have repeated.

Leading with the fore-arm that is carrying the ball is not specifically illegal. There could be provision within the laws under the coverall of "other dangerous play".

It is not something I like. We see it a lot from Manu, both ball carrying and non-carrying. It does seem to be primarily a thing from those with PI heritage looking to make a dominant collision and something we have seen from a lot of guys in a lot of teams (incl NZ).

LondonTiger wrote:It is not something I like. We see it a lot from Manu, both ball carrying and non-carrying. It does seem to be primarily a thing from those with PI heritage looking to make a dominant collision and something we have seen from a lot of guys in a lot of teams (incl NZ).

Ben Teo is a master of it as well, he actually puts extra padding on his forearm.

Manu, Billy, Te'o have all done it. As has Faletau. We also have similar from non PI heritage players. The Georgians often lead with a forearm and Jonny May did something similar against Ireland (ball carrying arm).

May one not even considered at the time. Or cited. Was it the ball carrying arm. Not sure it was.

The Aussie press seems to have gone into meltdown over the officiating, I know it WOL and most of you do not like it, but here is a link, and a snippet:-

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/rugby-world-cup-latest-news-17003200

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/wales-v-australia-media-reaction-17002934

Wallabies blast ‘disgraceful’ refereeing'

Some members of the Australian media have not taken Wales’ victory too well. Former World Cup winner Phil Kearns and pundit Stephen Hoiles described the refereeing performance during Sunday’s match as “disgraceful”.

In particular the pair have claimed that Gareth Davies was offside when Will Genia threw the pass he intercepted for Wales’ decisive second try.

Kearns said it was an “embarrassment” while Hoiles went even further.

He said: If you’re going to waste five minutes of the game checking a ball carry, you’ve got to check for an offside.

We haven’t seen enough replays to prove that it was an offside but that there looks to me … The fact that we can go back and check a ball carry, and Michael Hooper made a very good point what is the ball carrier meant to do.

All of this came on the back of the terrible decision on the back of Samu Kerevi’s ball carry, it’s a huge momentum swing back to Wales.

This is what happens when World Rugby make a weak statement after week one and say they’re not happy with the refereeing, you make referees paranoid, TMO’s become paranoid and you get a 55-minute first 40 minutes.”

Davies was 2 yards at least on side. They missed a pen try from Biggars no arm tackle though.

No 7&1/2 wrote:May one not even considered at the time. Or cited. Was it the ball carrying arm. Not sure it was.

I thought he went into contact with the ball sort of in both hands, transferring to just his left as he pushed Murray away. Bearing in mind the forearm smashes we have seen before, M ays was so mild I was not surprised it was not picked up. Kerevi was far more violent in intent yesterday.

The whinging from down under has been unbelievable to say the least. You can allude to Patchell going in too high all you want, it doesn't change the fact that Kerevi lead/struck with his forearm. If you like Cheika, Hooper and Kerevi don't understand that, get out the law book and have someone read it with you before bed every night.

I'm still left wondering why there isn't any whinging about Aus' first two tries. Cover defender Tipuric was taking out off the ball and the centre run into the area exposed. When a tackle was made the Crossfield kick then happened.
The next try Genia made a forward pass which enabled Aus to gain ground and expose gaps in our defence. Both should've been looked at.

Wales are certainly getting the shorthand before and during the world cup with FRENCH ref's.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Davies was 2 yards at least on side. They missed a pen try from Biggars no arm tackle though.

Much of the Aussie whinging is not grounded in fact. There was indeed though a case for a Penalty Try for the Biggar challenge. If closer to the line (it was about 10m out?) maybe it would have been looked at, but the precedent set when Lavanini was not punished (and Poite seeming to be the least strict ref on these things) suggests it would not have been punished.

LondonTiger wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Davies was 2 yards at least on side. They missed a pen try from Biggars no arm tackle though.

Much of the Aussie whinging is not grounded in fact. There was indeed though a case for a Penalty Try for the Biggar challenge. If closer to the line (it was about 10m out?) maybe it would have been looked at, but the precedent set when Lavanini was not punished (and Poite seeming to be the least strict ref on these things) suggests it would not have been punished.

Problem with Poite is his inconsistency, it is very challenging to read him from one match to another. I often feel his cards come out of the blue, and then other times he ignores infringements.

mikey_dragon wrote:The whinging from down under has been unbelievable to say the least. You can allude to Patchell going in too high all you want, it doesn't change the fact that Kerevi lead/struck with his forearm. If you like Cheika, Hooper and Kerevi don't understand that, get out the law book and have someone read it with you before bed every night.

I'm still left wondering why there isn't any whinging about Aus' first two tries. Cover defender Tipuric was taking out off the ball and the centre run into the area exposed. When a tackle was made the Crossfield kick then happened.  
The next try Genia made a forward pass which enabled Aus to gain ground and expose gaps in our defence. Both should've been looked at.

Wales are certainly getting the shorthand before and during the world cup with FRENCH ref's.

I would say the whinging has been pathetic by Cheika, Kerevi, Hooper and their press. 

Whinging yourself though is not a good look.

Whinging? I'd say it was a valid complaint, and I've always been able to post irrefutable evidence - none of it has been refuted so far unless someone wants to try? This thread here is even claiming the officiating isn't good enough - do you think world rugby are whinging too?

i think the whole thing is ass-backwards. i think kerevi (or anyone) should be able to fend with a stationary arm, or hand, because if he doesnt, the risk of a nasty head on head collision into a tackler who is recklessly upright (patchell in this instance), goes up.

i think lifting the arm or swinging it violently is different.

but if an arm is held as a fend, i think its better that this arm hits another player who is standing too upright and making a dumb tackle, rather than a head on head collision.

i know thats not the laws. but as they are currently being interpreted, preventing fends is going to increase the risk of head injuries.

Some really crud refereeing from Pascal in the Scotland Samoa game here. Free for all.

quinsforever wrote:i think the whole thing is ass-backwards. i think kerevi (or anyone) should be able to fend with a stationary arm, or hand, because if he doesnt, the risk of a nasty head on head collision into a tackler who is recklessly upright (patchell in this instance), goes up.

i think lifting the arm or swinging it violently is different.

but if an arm is held as a fend, i think its better that this arm hits another player who is standing too upright and making a dumb tackle, rather than a head on head collision.

i know thats not the laws. but as they are currently being interpreted, preventing fends is going to increase the risk of head injuries.

Completely agree with that.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Davies was 2 yards at least on side. They missed a pen try from Biggars no arm tackle though.

Nope.

Just to confirm:

https://youtu.be/aEubPTA1-cw?t=320

There's a function on YouTube that allows you to slow it down to 0.25 speed.

I highly suggest you do so.

However, failing that, I've uploaded a key screenshot for you.

You'll see his left arm poking out underneath his knee:



That frame is when contact occurs.

Quite clearly, the left arm is an open shoulder, the right arm is wrapping, and he tackles him with his body/head. For it to be a penalty, and therefore penalty try and a card, that left arm would need to be closed, braced across the body, and therefore not open and visible beneath his knee.

Fair tackle. Poor technique, but totally legal.

Happy to admit you're wrong, 7.5, and move on?

Yeah I've seen it. No wrapping of the left arm. Indeed its down by his side. He may well have attempted to had he not knocked himself into next week but that's moot. You can actually clearly see where biggars arm is earlier in that video as he hits him.
And davies definitely was onside.

As LT says we've actually seen a pretty consistent approach to this tackle in the world cup however. I just dont seem to agree with the refs!

I think we all agree Davies was onside.

What about Maitland today

Okay...bloody offsides are really the rage this WC.  Teams PLUS fans trying to stop their team being closed down obviously

Anyway, in the meantime, have refs stopped policing straight throws to the lineout?   Have there been whistles used by the refs there?  I haven't seen all games, but have seen a good few and seen some very 'biased' throws happening.  No penalty.

Just wondering.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yeah I've seen it. No wrapping of the left arm. Indeed its down by his side. He may well have attempted to had he not knocked himself into next week but that's moot. You can actually clearly see where biggars arm is earlier in that video as he hits him.
And davies definitely was onside.

No you can't. It's obscured by Kerevi.

He doesn't wrap his open left arm because he gets smashed in teh tackle. Fortunately, that's not the law. It's an attempt to wrap. Open arm there v shoulder charge and closed arm. It's cut and dry, 7.5. Stop doubling down on the fact you're wrong. It's genuinely ok to just accept what you wanted to happen didn't actually happen.

No admission you're wrong - didn't expect it tbh - but let's just move on and not have you mention it again as de facto truth that the ref missed a glaring penalty try to Australia. Fake news is in vogue, and Cheika's bringing it to rugby, but let's keep it off the forum. Clearly nothing illegal about the tackle.

The offside issue is probably picked up on because of the Lawes charge down and Underhill try that wasn't. I think most teams would be happy with a bit of creeping back up to the hindmost foot as it used to be if there hadn't been a game-defining decision involving the correct application of the law. It's hard to argue that England were hard done by considering the way it's being judged so far, but I dont think Wales are particularly bad for being offside whatsoever. It's always a case of what you're looking out for - non-Welsh posters on this site are probably willing the other team to smash Wales every time they play, so are hoping for tries, looking for Welsh infringements as if their own team were playing them. If you look at it through that lens, you'll always see Wales as offside and maybe neglect to see it elsewhere, where there's a more neutral game, for instance.

No really you can miaow. I didn't think you could at first hence my original comment of having to judge for the wider view from the near touchline. You can if you go through slow mo or frame by frame see biggars arm in the other view. Honest take a look. I'm not wrong in this one and indeed dou le checked before I posted again today as I appreciate you get entrenched. Seeing as you believe that biggars arm is never visible I can tell you haven't done so yourself. I'm fine if you then still argue your point of view but it proves I've actually looked again.

The lawes thing. Arghh. A millimetre or 2 in it. Personally I thought when the tmo came in the argument was that if you're having to look that long let's favour the attacker but that's gone by the wayside.

No, 7.5. You see his arm as he's approaching. You don't see it making contact. As ever, though, go for the most trivial, pointless part of the 'debate' when you're wrong, eh?

No 7&1/2 wrote: seemingly no one checks the no arm tackle from biggar leading to his hia. You'd think there would be more focus having a quick check.

(same advice for you haha!)

No 7&1/2 wrote:You have to use 2 arms miaow. Or at least you used to before today and the tmo in yesterday's game!

No 7&1/2 wrote:Can't see any use of the left arm. Is hard to tell as there is only the 1 angle of it from the initial wide view. For me it's a carbon copy of yesterday. I'm surprised it wasnt looked at more closely.

As I said, it's ok to admit what you wanted to happen, didn't happen. It's ok. Genuinely. No-one 'wins' on here. It's just boring reading things which are clearly 'wrong' which are possibly repeated despite evidence in order to WUM. No-one 'wins' points or anything here - there are only losers for having crud arguments.

So, now it's pretty clear you were wrong - and, again, what you wanted to happen didn't happen - let's just move on. Cheers.

It's just a point of debate in regards to the reffing and lack of consistency in approach from the tmos in terms of when they are getting involved and then the lack of list of things they should be going through imo. Too much variation in that. I think we could learn something from league in terms of their ABC of the use. You may see it as trivial but I'd go for pedantic! Fair enough if you think theres an attempt to wrap there. I dont.

Oh and apparently accusing someone of wumming is a personal attack according to 1 of the mods. Just a heads up.

Lawes was a good 2 yards offside. Hence the wider discussion about how the back foot law(es) had changed.

Bad interpretation of that ruck I'm afraid miaow. But not too important as it was run through in the AIs comprehensively enough.

I agree about the TMO use. Rugby still hasn't got it right. It was like VAR when first trialled in Britain; too slow, too frequent, too obsure for fans. But I think there's a good equilibrium that's been found now in letting marginal calls go in order to check them at the next stoppage, stopping asap for clear foul play, and the TMO not overstepping the mark by butting in and getting it wrong for things that are marginal or petty. We can all find 5+ fouls at each ruck, after all.

The issue is the SH uses the TMO differently. France too. Less technical. You see they're up in arms about the idea the TMO brought attention to the ref. They dislike the fact he's using that authority but also that it breaks up the pace of the game - a valid point considering how SH sides use pressure under fatigue to score points in a way the NH teams don't. NH teams are more technical - so will appreciate TMO interventions - where the SH just see it as trivial to the main aspects of deciding a game, which is pressure and dominance. Considering Australia scored points that way, they maybe have a point - not for the TMO use but for Poite's resetting of the scrum and taking minutes to do so. It took from the 73rd to the 76th minute to complete a scrum on Australia's 22. Can see why they were upset.

The other issue for the RWC is they want to make it a spectacle, so the TMOs and assistants are apparently being too laissez faire. That leads to missed red/yellow card incidents in the first week; that leads to citings and WR's public criticism; that leads to more pressure, more mistakes from refs. Not ideal. There's no standardised use of TMOs across Europe, let alone the world. When you have SH TMOs and NH refs, it's a weird combo, and they got it wrong yesterday. Not hugely wrong, but Hooper was a clear yellow card and Kerevi could have been red - should have been a card once spotted it was a straight arm to the chin.

But that has nothing to do with Biggar's tackle, which was poor in a technical sense, dedicated and vital in a rugby sense, and totally fine in a legal sense.

Ignoring the fact you can't practice what you preach! Linked to the other thread on commentary there is something to be said for commentators who are swots on the laws. The only time I get to listen to sh commentary is the rugby championship and the odd super rugby game. Too many times they're up at arms moaning about decisions etc without actually listening to the ref or even seeing what his decisions is. No surprise when you see that then parroted.

Not too many issues today, but I will say...

Andrew Brace is an atrocious touch judge. Several times he would basicaly award a lineout where the player caught it, despite being 5m over the touchline. Think he's a poor ref, and, weirdly, was noticeably bad as an assistant as well.

Another rough performance by Gauzere unfortunately. All Blacks getting an armchair ride.

How can an Argentinian Lock hit a Back on the head with his shoulder and get a Red...
and a Japanese Lock hit a Back on the head with his shoulder and it only be a penalty?

World Rugby aren't good enough never mind the officiating.