Did Joubert feel the pressure?

[Dam0]

I don't think there is any doubt out there that Joubert let the All Blacks get away with murder in the final, and that the French should have won.

...

I think having Joubert referee both the Semi Final and Final was also a huge mistake

a) I doubt it.

b) No-one was saying before the final that it was a mistake. In fact he was roundly praised as being clearly the best referee of the tournament.

Also, I would add that he refereed this game basically the same way he has reffed his whole career, the French took advantage of this fact just as much as the All Blacks did. Anyone who says different did not watch the game closely enough, or is not familiar with Joubert's style (or is stirring).

 

[saderista]

Wow! what a great thread, I have been lurking on this site for quite some time and the bleating and whining from the anti All Black brigade is astounding.

Must say I find it very entertaining and the lengths some people will go to perpetuate the myth of the cheating All Blacks is comical.

Perhaps if you guys could be a bit more objective when making videos, you might be taken a bit more seriously, as it is you come across as bitter and sour.

Carry on chaps,

 

[Dam0]

Wow! what a great thread, I have been lurking on this site for quite some time and the bleating and whining from the anti All Black brigade is astounding.

Must say I find it very entertaining and the lengths some people will go to perpetuate the myth of the cheating All Blacks is comical.

Perhaps if you guys could be a bit more objective when making videos, you might be taken a bit more seriously, as it is you come across as bitter and sour.

Carry on chaps,

Actually to be fair it is mostly people who have just joined up that are doing most of the whinging, not the guy who made the videos.

Although I take your point, I must say it is a fantastic thread.

 

[cyclopath]

Actually to be fair it is mostly people who have just joined up that are doing most of the trolling, not the guy who made the videos.

Although I take your point, I must say it is a fantastic thread.

Fixed it for you.
And Fantastic is the word, in its truest sense.

 

[Mank]

Must say I find it very entertaining and the lengths some people will go to perpetuate the myth of the cheating All Blacks is comical.

The reason people go on about it can be found in your words above. That the All Blacks cheat is absolutely not a myth, evidence is available in every game. Every side cheats, but Kiwis will not hear anything of it when talking about their side, who are, to a man, straight as an arrow. Or if really pushed then maybe they play to the ref a little, but no more, right.

 

[Drexl]

he refereed this game basically the same way he has reffed his whole career, the French took advantage of this fact just as much as the All Blacks did.

The problem is that he did not referee both sides evenly. If he did that his whole career then he is a bad referee.

Example:

After play had been allowed to continue for nearly two minutes while the outhalf Morgan Parra was receiving treatment for a head injury by McCaw of New Zealand, Joubert called a halt while Aaron Cruden received lengthy treatment after twisting a knee.

 

[Muttonbird]

The problem is that he did not referee both sides evenly. If he did that his whole career then he is a bad referee.

Example:

After play had been allowed to continue for nearly two minutes while the outhalf Morgan Parra was receiving treatment for a head injury by McCaw of New Zealand, Joubert called a halt while Aaron Cruden received lengthy treatment after twisting a knee.

I'm sure we've been throught this and settled it long ago but maybe it was another forum.

Parra was injured while tackling Nonu before the false McCaw kneeing incident. I think if you actually looked at the ruck passage of play you'd admit that the alledged McCaw hand/knee contact was not in any way forceful enough to do any damage. Then re-look at the Parra tackle on Nonu a phase or more before (unsure about the exact timing) where Parra's head bears the brunt of the rampaging Nonu's tucked-in arm in a classic example of how not to tackle. This was a smashing and Parra will not be the same again I'm afraid.

It's not uncommon for play to continue when there is an injury, especially one that does not involve assistance from the field or is not directly interfering with the immediate play - just like Parra's. The Cruden injury was clearly a serious leg injury from the start so he was certain to require assistance from the field.

Joubert was even and as has been said already followed normal procedure in a game as big as this - namely he put away the whistle at ruck time at about 65 mins. France certainly realised this otherwise they would not have tried to blind the greatest player of all time at 77 mins nor tried multiple ruck interference infringements by stepping over the ruck as a last resort. That was particularly painful to watch - it showed the French frustration as they realised they were not going to be good enough.

And that's just it. France's famed "A" game, the game of a lifetime was simply not good enough to beat a severely out-of-sorts AB team playing their fourth pick #10. Could you even name France's fourth pick #10? This highlighted to me how far France had fallen from the AB-beating titans of 2007.

 

[Bullrush]

I'm sure we've been throught this and settled it long ago but maybe it was another forum.

Parra was injured while tackling Nonu before the false McCaw kneeing incident. I think if you actually looked at the ruck passage of play you'd admit that the alledged McCaw hand/knee contact was not in any way forceful enough to do any damage. Then re-look at the Parra tackle on Nonu a phase or more before (unsure about the exact timing) where Parra's head bears the brunt of the rampaging Nonu's tucked-in arm in a classic example of how not to tackle. This was a smashing and Parra will not be the same again I'm afraid.

It's not uncommon for play to continue when there is an injury, especially one that does not involve assistance from the field or is not directly interfering with the immediate play - just like Parra's. The Cruden injury was clearly a serious leg injury from the start so he was certain to require assistance from the field.

Joubert was even and as has been said already followed normal procedure in a game as big as this - namely he put away the whistle at ruck time at about 65 mins. France certainly realised this otherwise they would not have tried to blind the greatest player of all time at 77 mins nor tried multiple ruck interference infringements by stepping over the ruck as a last resort. That was particularly painful to watch - it showed the French frustration as they realised they were not going to be good enough.

And that's just it. France's famed "A" game, the game of a lifetime was simply not good enough to beat a severely out-of-sorts AB team playing their fourth pick #10. Could you even name France's fourth pick #10? This highlighted to me how far France had fallen from the AB-beating titans of 2007.

LOL....someone has finally pointed this out....

 

[Dam0]

The problem is that he did not referee both sides evenly. If he did that his whole career then he is a bad referee.

Example:

After play had been allowed to continue for nearly two minutes while the outhalf Morgan Parra was receiving treatment for a head injury by McCaw of New Zealand, Joubert called a halt while Aaron Cruden received lengthy treatment after twisting a knee.

That is simply nonsense. For a start, the Cruden injury occurred very close to where play was about to restart (not simply carry on like for Parra), and also, a decision to replace Cruden was made very early on after the injury occurred. Most of the holdup was him being safely taken off the field.

 

[Scarfman]

Joubert was even and as has been said already followed normal procedure in a game as big as this - namely he put away the whistle at ruck time at about 65 mins. France certainly realised this otherwise they would not have tried to blind the greatest player of all time at 77 mins nor tried multiple ruck interference infringements by stepping over the ruck as a last resort. That was particularly painful to watch - it showed the French frustration as they realised they were not going to be good enough.

And that's just it. France's famed "A" game, the game of a lifetime was simply not good enough to beat a severely out-of-sorts AB team playing their fourth pick #10. Could you even name France's fourth pick #10? This highlighted to me how far France had fallen from the AB-beating titans of 2007.

In correctly defending Joubert you have proven yourself to be the pea-hearted keyboard warrior we all suspected. The team you support very nearly lost that game, mate. France played fantastic rugby and probably deserved to win. The All Blacks have the cup, but no need to talk their opponents down.

 

[Muttonbird]

In correctly defending Joubert you have proven yourself to be the pea-hearted keyboard warrior we all suspected. The team you support very nearly lost that game, mate. France played fantastic rugby and probably deserved to win. The All Blacks have the cup, but no need to talk their opponents down.

And you'd rather talk the ABs, winners of the match, and World Champs down at any and every opportunity. I can understand the bitterness but it's tiresome.

Can we be clear here that France under no circumstances deserved to win that match nor the trophy. France played committed rugby but the ABs were more committed. The result proves that. Are you saying they deserved to win because they were nearly good enough? Doesn't make sense.

There was little about that match that was fantastic apart from the lead up to and scoring of the Woodcock try, which was the stuff of legend and something all true rugby fans would celebrate.

 

[Schadenfreude]

There was little about that match that was fantastic apart from the lead up to and scoring of the Woodcock try, which was the stuff of legend and something all true rugby fans would celebrate.

I thought it was obstruction - which I'm not sure is very legendary.

Edit: I've just watched it again and I'm sure of it, 5 and 8 in front of woodcock, blocking defenders.

 

[Sully]

Time to lighten up guys.

 

[Sully]

You see it all the time nearly every try from that type of lineout has similar issues. It's a try in the record books and nothing will change that.

 

[tragic]

Interesting article on refereeing written by a couple of sports scientists who happen to be strength and conditioning coaches for the saffer sevens side.
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/10/rugby-world-cup-ref-debate.html
The site is more focussed on running and has great analysis of the tour de france, but there is the occasional rugby pearl....

 

[Scarfman]

OK, one last time for the muttonbrain.

And you'd rather talk the ABs, winners of the match, and World Champs down at any and every opportunity. I can understand the bitterness but it's tiresome.

No I haven't. As much as I was hoping for the ABs to lose, they were absolutely the best team at the tournament.

Can we be clear here that France under no circumstances deserved to win that match nor the trophy. France played committed rugby but the ABs were more committed. The result proves that. Are you saying they deserved to win because they were nearly good enough? Doesn't make sense.

I think either side could have won that game. One more successful kick and the you would be a hell of a lot less smug. I think Joubert's refereeing gave the ABs a significant advantage. A couple of decisions going the way they should have gone and the ABs lose.

There was little about that match that was fantastic apart from the lead up to and scoring of the Woodcock try, which was the stuff of legend and something all true rugby fans would celebrate.

You are insane. The whole game was sensational. The two teams who most deserved to be in the final stepped up the physicality to once-every-four-years level. Nothing particularly special about the Woodcock try, unless you are a one-eyed Kiwi.

To conclude: I only re-entered this thread to calm down Drexl, and those would get themselves banned arguing with him. France were a bit unlucky with Joubert, but that shit happens.

My opinion of you and others like you remains the same. New Zealand is an awesome place, with awesome people, up to and not including the rugby, where they are the most insular, one-eyed, irrational rugby fans on the planet. They showed themselves to be very poor hosts of the RWC, with their little-man resentment of Australia. Rugby is such a great sport because not many bogan idiots follow the code. In New Zealand, unfortunately, that's not the case.

 

[cyclopath]

Scarfy and Muttonbird in particular, maybe take a step back and a breath, as it is getting a bit personal.

 

[Schadenfreude]

You see it all the time nearly every try from that type of lineout has similar issues. It's a try in the record books and nothing will change that.

Oh yeah - I'm not surprised they got away with it. I'm just saying it doesn't really qualify to be legendary if you ... Erm ... Professionally enhance your chances by not playing within the laws of the game.

 

[Dam0]

forget it

 

[Hawko]

Interesting article on refereeing written by a couple of sports scientists who happen to be strength and conditioning coaches for the saffer sevens side.
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/10/rugby-world-cup-ref-debate.html
The site is more focussed on running and has great analysis of the tour de france, but there is the occasional rugby pearl....

I guess because the writer is involved in high level rugby coaching this article was written with a lot of detailed knowledge and a huge amount of rugby commonsense. I commend it to everyone on the thread. If he's still involved in the Sevens he would make a great candidate for a podcast guest around the time of the Gold Coast event.