• Welcome to the forums of Green & Gold Rugby.
    We have recently made some changes to the amount of discussions boards on the forum.
    Over the coming months we will continue to make more changes to make the forum more user friendly for all to use.
    Thanks, Admin.

Highlanders v Waratahs - Saturday 27 May - 5.30pm

Status
Not open for further replies.

RedsHappy

Tony Shaw (54)
I agree QH but I also believe we (the fans) should be able to call out poor refereeing performances. Not all criticism is warranted of course, as a lot of it is simply a matter of the fan(s) being a sore loser.

Newton's law of the Rate of Ref Attacks After Australian Pro Rugby Games:

The rate at which posts accumulate (and their ultimate quantity) on rugby blogs attacking refs' performances and/or blaming losses on refs' 'awful calls' is solely correlated with one observable fact:

Whether the team concerned has won or lost the game.

Which oddly enough is an outcome phenomenon that has no correlation over time with the actual quality of a ref's performance.
 

The torpedo

Peter Fenwicke (45)
Newton's law of the Rate of Ref Attacks After Australian Pro Rugby Games:

The rate at which posts accumulate (and their ultimate quantity) on rugby blogs attacking refs' performances and/or blaming losses on refs' 'awful calls' is solely correlated with one observable fact:

Whether the team concerned has won or lost the game.

Which oddly enough is an outcome phenomenon that has no correlation over time with the actual quality of a ref's performance.

I agree and disagree RH - While people blame the refs too much (although most of that occurs during or immediately after the match, where rational and objective thought are not generally the main priority of posters), and poor officiating is not the main reason for a loss (unless it is obvious - Lions v Reds 2014), poor officiating and calls should be appropriately called out by people.

TL;DR refs aren't the main reason for losses most of the time, but losses are down to a combination of poor play of the losers, good play of the victors, questionable reffing calls and luck.

I also think you should name it Shiggins' law
 

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
I agree QH but I also believe we (the fans) should be able to call out poor refereeing performances. Not all criticism is warranted of course, as a lot of it is simply a matter of the fan(s) being a sore loser.

Absolutely, as KOB has done where he provided a specific example and applied the laws to that example.

Unfortunately what we are increasingly seeing is losses put down to the referee as a matter of course, often without substance.
 

Gnostic

Mark Ella (57)
I don't believe in the "calling out of the "poor" decisions of the referee's. There is much implied in that "calling out" statement. Sure discuss the actual interpretation and application of the Laws as appropriate, but "calling out" no.

Case in point is Mumm's lifting clean out. It was seen in a few other games this weekend and only Mumm's was penalised and I think in fact it is probably the least objectionable example by the strict application of the laws and the fact it led to a Yellow card could be discussed as being harsh, in fact the NZ commentators thought so. That is a discussion of the law and application, saying the referee influenced the result with the decision and bemoaning the yellow card in isolation is what results of the "calling out" approach.

AND if one wishes to discuss the application of the Laws we also have to discuss the decision making that gives rise to the opportunity for the referee to make the decision in question. As Cyclo said it was shear stupidity to lift the player in that fashion (and one that was repeated in other games as I said) and given the pedantic (if correct) interpretations the referee had been applying in other areas the result of such lifting should have been clearly obvious to the players. So to conclude the discussion examining those facts, was the referee responsible in any way for the card....... no, it was consistent with the application of the Laws as he had done throughout the game, and whilst one can argue about the strict legality of the player landing and the tipping motion, it is within the scope of the law for the benefit of the doubt to reside with the endangered player and strict culpability with the "tackler".
 

Dan54

David Wilson (68)
The issue is that that TMO probably supports a Supe team and that team is probably the Highlanders. He should not have been given that job. And because the evidence is that he made the wrong decision in both instances it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Do you know KOB it was a quite sensible post until you added the above. To say the TMO probably supports the Clan is just stirring for the sake of it.
Just out of interest I thought the try from the Buckman try was not as I thought he was offside, but to be honest I couldn't say with certainty from the shown angles that he was and unfortunately the ref said he thought it was a try so the TMO then has to know with certainty he was in front, I pretty convinced if the ref said on field no try it would not of been awarded!
 

Hawko

Tony Shaw (54)
OK I've cooled down now. I'll concede that while the illegality of Mumm's lifting cleanout was questionable, it was probably it's recklessness and general ill-discipline of the Tahs that led to his yellow card. So I'm OK with it.

With regards to the dodgy TMO decisions - firstly, I subscribe to the sliding doors theory. So even if the consensus is that both decisions were wrong I don't just simply deduct 14 points from the Highlanders score and say that should have been the result. My feeling is that the Clan were the better team and even if both of those decisions had been reversed they still would have found a way to win. I thought the Waratahs played OK but the better team won, and I don't have a problem with the result.

The issue is that that TMO probably supports a Supe team and that team is probably the Highlanders. He should not have been given that job. And because the evidence is that he made the wrong decision in both instances it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.


I've sort of cooled down too but in retrospect I still feel the Waratahs are right to be aggrieved. One of those two TMO decisions we could have withstood but the double blow was just a bridge too far. Each time the decisions pushed the momentum back to the Highlanders. In a game as evenly poised, that gain of momentum was decisive.

Mumm was always going to get a yellow card. I haven't checked the protocols to see whether the positioning of his knees below his hips neutralises the lifting above the horizontal, but referees are humans too and emotion overrules fact in that situation because there was some contact of the ground with his head. Such a pity that contact with the head during tackles wasn't emotionally an automatic yellow, there have been some horrendous let-offs this year, coupled with some pedantic over-reactions, including one in this game.

The sliding doors theory has to apply totally. That means after the first TMO decision, you cannot tell anything about what the outcome would be if the decision was different because everything changes after a sliding door moment. No Izzy try, no Mumm YC, everything changes. Technically the sliding doors moment was the first penalty against Latu where the ball was out and he was entitled to go for it. Everything after that would have been different. Fun to speculate, but ultimately pointless.

I thought the match was very evenly balanced. For most of the game the Tahs played good disciplined rugby and countered the Highlanders "kick everything and chase" strategy pretty well. We usually get suckered out when we play them. Had this game been round 3 I would have been very happy. Enough good play to develop going forward with the occasional loss of concentration to work on. But it was round 14. Gibson has got his team to a reasonable round 3 level of play two months too late with the competition virtually over and the Tahs will almost certainly miss the finals unless the Brumbies implode. That's pretty galling because I would argue the Tahs are now playing like the best Aussie team two months too late. We did last year too, before the international break.

No doubt lots of Tahs players will end up on the EOYT. Next year the head coach should play NONE of them till round 3 while they get their conditioning up to scratch and their ballwork. For some reason the Tahs wallaby players take longer than most to get back to Super level, so we need to make adjustments. That will be good reward for the dirt-trackers too and sharpen competition for spots.
 

KOB1987

John Eales (66)
Do you know KOB it was a quite sensible post until you added the above. To say the TMO probably supports the Clan is just stirring for the sake of it.
Just out of interest I thought the try from the Buckman try was not as I thought he was offside, but to be honest I couldn't say with certainty from the shown angles that he was and unfortunately the ref said he thought it was a try so the TMO then has to know with certainty he was in front, I pretty convinced if the ref said on field no try it would not of been awarded!

SHANE MCDERMOTT

Shane is Commercial Business Manager with BNZ and a qualified Chartered Accountant. He took up refereeing on retiring from playing rugby due to an injury. He wanted to stay involved in the game and refereeing was the logical choice for him after talking with a local Referee Coach.

His favourite venue is Rugby Park in Invercargill as it is his 'home' ground and has had many great moments there as a player and referee.

Shane keeps fit by running, cycling, gym work and pyramids and his advice to aspiring referees is "control the controllable and be patient! Remember that the next opportunity can happen at any time!"

http://www.allblacks.com/Player/Referees?id=1810
 

Brumby Runner

Jason Little (69)
I don't believe in the "calling out of the "poor" decisions of the referee's. There is much implied in that "calling out" statement. Sure discuss the actual interpretation and application of the Laws as appropriate, but "calling out" no.

Case in point is Mumm's lifting clean out.

Gnostic, my reference to "calling out" was meant to mean simply that fans have a right to question on these threads any decisions they have a problem with. Mumm's YC is one such example. To me, that was a YC offence every day - Mumm lifted Dixon's (?) legs well above his head level and not only dropped him from a height but actually assisted with the downwards drive. It was only the good fortune that Taovau or whomever was at the other end held his head from being driven with more force to the ground. In my eyes, that was a clear offence warranting a YC. But it is only right that others who thought differently should be able to air their views of the incident and for discussion to take place.

And in respect of KOB's comments, it is true that his after thoughts were a lot more balanced but his immediate posts during the game were very much on the emotional side and very much aimed at placing the whole blame for the Tahs' loss at the Ref's feet. The ref didn't have a particularly good game, but to my impartial eyes, he favoured neither of the sides over the other.
 

KOB1987

John Eales (66)
And in respect of KOB's comments, it is true that his after thoughts were a lot more balanced but his immediate posts during the game were very much on the emotional side and very much aimed at placing the whole blame for the Tahs' loss at the Ref's feet. The ref didn't have a particularly good game, but to my impartial eyes, he favoured neither of the sides over the other.

Ummmm. No.

For a start I didn't post anything during the game. I was driving back from Sydney while the game was on, I was recording it and watched it when I got home, by the time I had got to full time it was probably 90 minutes behind live time. That was when I first visited the forum.

My only comment was at this time after reading everyone else's comments and realising that the TMO was a local. I didn't accuse him of being biased or incompetent, only that he shouldn't have been given this gig. If I was having a dig at anything it was the integrity of the Supe comp.

I did mention the ref, in that he missed a few offsides and I thought that Mumm's lifting cleanout wasn't illegal. Which it wasn't technically but I since (almost immediately in fact in response to a reply from Cyclo) retracted my comment because I realised it wasn't the technical aspects of the action that he got binned for. I also mentioned that the ref had a good game otherwise.

My sole post on the matter was admittedly driven by emotion, but never did I lay the blame of the loss on the ref.
 

Brumby Runner

Jason Little (69)
Sorry KOB, I have clearly misrepresented you, and tarred you with the brush meant for some others who repeatedly posted from their emotions during the game. Apologies.
 

KOB1987

John Eales (66)
All good BR, as I have since said, I do think some wrong calls were made but at the end of the day the Highlanders were the better team.

Hopefully the Tahs can restore a bit of credibility with a few good games to close out the season.
 

fatprop

George Gregan (70)
Staff member
All good BR, as I have since said, I do think some wrong calls were made but at the end of the day the Highlanders were the better team.

Hopefully the Tahs can restore a bit of credibility with a few good games to close out the season.

They didn't play crap, the clan just lifted, especially in defense and we couldn't lift to match their intensity.

I do wonder why we went to the bench so early
 

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
The Highlanders certainly got the rub of the green with the refereeing decisions in that match but I don't think anything was too out of place.

Let's look at the major ones.

1st Highlanders' Try: firstly, the referee has to stand somewhere. He should probably be on the blind side instead of the open side because
the ball is less likely to go that way. If Phipps had run into him or passed the ball into him play would have stopped for a Tahs scrum but that isn't what happened. Phipps waited until it was clear to pass giving the Highlanders time to rush up.

On the replay, the Buckman's leg was in front of the man making him offside from a technical viewpoint, but you could certainly say the rest of his body was in line. In previous seasons with a try/no try TMO protocol I would say this results in no try. In 2017 with the referee making a decision first, I think the referee's decision can reasonably stand. There was nothing clear and obvious to overturn the on field decision.

Highlander's late try under the posts: this one fits into pretty much the same situation as the first one. I do think Hammington propelled the ball forward because the reverse angle showed the ball moving forward from when he first touched it. It wasn't super clear that he'd knocked it on though so the on field decision standing largely makes sense.

Dean Mumm yellow card: I think this is always going to be a yellow card. As soon as any player is lifted that high off the ground and dropped there will most likely be a card even if they are only right around the horizontal. The Clan player was obviously safer because he was landing on his front and could protect himself with his arms but that would have looked very nasty if he was dropped on his back that way and no one would be complaining about the card. The cleanout went wrong because Mumm and Ryan were both lifting and Mumm had his hand between the Highlanders' player's legs which is prone to cause that sort of lift. Mumm on his own probably wouldn't have caused an issue but having the second person in there is where it goes wrong.

The Tahs fell apart a bit in the second half and really got punished when they were down a man. The first half was probably the best they have played all season so there were some positives there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top