Last Appointment: All Blacks in Hamilton

[PaarlBok]

Watched a replay of this last night. Two instances:

• Buggered if I could see an infringement from the kickoff. I took it back and rewatched it in slo-slo-mo and still couldn't see anything. At the time I wasn't surprised a Welsh referee wouldn't want to check his whistle was working, that's the only reason I can deduce for this penalty.
• There's a reasonable suspicion McCaw was offside when Carter kicked the ball for that last try. There's no across-the-field shot but the bloke next to McCaw looked to be just onside as he ran upfield; when St RtI came into shot he was in front of that man and stationary. I looked at it a few times and can't work out how Richie got to where he caught the pill without being offside.

Maybe the ABs were lucky to get close.

Add the penalty in front of the stick when Spies was half a field from where the ball alnds in their half. That one take me by surprise and if you want to blow like that you'd get penalties all over the show.

The shockers on Habana ? I see now Jac Fourie are going to appeal.

 

[Lindommer]

I'm with you on that one, PB, that was very, very bad refereeing. We all see that every week in every match: players somehow get themselves in offside positions and a sensible referee lets them know he wants them back onside. Why didn't Owens call out to the Saffer forwards to "hold still, you're offside" and let play continue.

Another incident I should've raised earlier was the penalty against Smit for slipping during a scrum set; that was appalling and completely over the top. No way did Smit intentionally or otherwise take that scrum down.

This disclipinary attitude at all times, rather than managing a game to give a penalty only when absolutely necessary, is what we in the SH deplore about NH referees. Owens indicated to me he has a poor understanding of the game of rugby, unfortunately allied with an encyclopaedic knowledge of the Laws.

I hope there was an Australian doing the marking for the iRB and judged his performance to be a shocker.

 

[Lee Grant]

When I watched the replay I couldn't find a reason why the Boks were penalised on the opening kick-off. It wasn't surprising because I didn't notice one watching it live.

Then after FdP scores his try Carter kicks off and McCaw is a good metre in front of him but easy to spot because he's right next to Carter. No big deal - but McCaw continues over towards the general direction of the landing zone and lo and behold it is the Boks who are penalised for an alleged coming in from the side which I can't see.

So; instead of 3 points to Frans Steyn from the kickoff point, it is 3 points to the Blacks.

The above represents a 9 point turnaround, but it gets worse - or better.

From a 2nd half scrum Spies has trouble picking up the ball with Cowan being a pain for him. His pass to FdP, who has gone back bounces and he has trouble picking up the pill. McCaw is on him like a seagull on a chip and the All Blacks get a penalty - but he had clearly detached from the scrum and got an illegal flying start.

Big deal? Yeah. From the Cowan tap the ball goes wide, Toeava breaks and Sivi scores - 7 points.

No doubt an All Black fan could go through the Boks scoring efforts and point out similar transgressions by the Boks prior to the changes to the scoreboard, but these 3 items total 16 points differential if one assumes Frans Steyn had kicked a 50 metre penalty (a sitter for him on Saturday night's form) when McCaw was offside at the kickoff.

I wasn't really looking for any such incidents from the wicked All Blacks: they just jumped out at me.

 

[Scotty]

Add the penalty in front of the stick when Spies was half a field from where the ball alnds in their half. That one take me by surprise and if you want to blow like that you'd get penalties all over the show.

That Spies one was a complete joke. Pedantic refereeing at its best, and something that you have criticized me for complaining about, Paarl.

 

[PaarlBok]

Add the penalty in front of the stick when Spies was half a field from where the ball alnds in their half. That one take me by surprise and if you want to blow like that you'd get penalties all over the show.

That Spies one was a complete joke. Pedantic refereeing at its best, and something that you have criticized me for complaining about, Paarl.

Differense is the Bokke won in the end , so I can make statements now.

Lee point out most of them. Also thought Barnes had a bad night as flagman to assist the ref. Not sure but can remember one when Rok touch the ball right in front of him and gave the lineout to the All Blacks and was either a knock on or Bok ball. Mind you their lineouts was in such a state it did not matter. The two late or shoulder charges on Habana he should have recommended cards and fail. Think Owens ask him just that.

That McCaw try my Mrs excatly point out at the time. So I'll give her credit for that one. Myself always went in a total mental state when the Bokke plays it aint even is true. Have to week 3 days to post when I get normal to a emotional grade.

Anyway just want to point out that I do see the refs mistakes but leave them out normally specially when my team loses. It just show the real mettle of the Bok team , because of all this refs fuckups they still came out on top. Thats the important part winning or losing.

 

[Scotty]

I don't have the same hang ups you do about pointing out the refereeing mistakes. However, when I am talking about pointing out pedantic refereeing, like I did after the first Aus vs SA game, then I pointed it out both ways. The refereeing did not affect that result at all, the Boks played awesome rugby and deserved to win. I just don't like pedantic refereeing, it has no place in sport and destroys the spectacle.

 

[PaarlBok]

I don't have the same hang ups you do about pointing out the refereeing mistakes. However, when I am talking about pointing out pedantic refereeing, like I did after the first Aus vs SA game, then I pointed it out both ways. The refereeing did not affect that result at all, the Boks played awesome rugby and deserved to win. I just don't like pedantic refereeing, it has no place in sport and destroys the spectacle.

Boet then you will always have a problem. Its like the umps in cricket, they are human and make mistakes. My point I try to make is if the team is good enough they will win regarding ref mistakes and some tend to use the ref excuse and lose focus on the ball and the real reason why their team lost. Some on those place try to use the ref excuse even BEFORE the test is played.

Like I said "try to maon about the ref only when my team wins" and you'll get a new experiense of rugby.

 

[Thomond78]

I don't have the same hang ups you do about pointing out the refereeing mistakes. However, when I am talking about pointing out pedantic refereeing, like I did after the first Aus vs SA game, then I pointed it out both ways. The refereeing did not affect that result at all, the Boks played awesome rugby and deserved to win. I just don't like pedantic refereeing, it has no place in sport and destroys the spectacle.

Pedantic refereeing just means applying the laws as they are written. It means actually blowing up for the offences committed.

Frankly, it's far the better option. Firstly, if the ref blows as it's written, then all refs will blow the same way; it's not just down to their idea of what's good or bad, so the subjective element is taken out. Secondly, it means refs are consistent, so players can adapt to it - a good thing. Thirdly, it shift the onus from being on the ref to keep things going - which is not the referees job as an impartial umpire - to where it should be, onto the players with the responsibility on them to stop offending or face the consequences. Fourthly, it means refs aren't making up laws as they go along on the pitch, merely enforcing them, and that lawmaking is left to those supposed to do it.

Better a pedantic ref than one who decides on whim to simply ignore the laws of the game because he feels like it.

 

[PaarlBok]

Better a pedantic ref than one who decides on whim to simply ignore the laws of the game because he feels like it.

In the perfect world all the players (cricket or rugby) wants consistency. Problem is the supporters or the ref crictics is more unconsistant as the refs. Specially some of them on this forum(not all of them) and thats why I think a very good one is to critizie ONLY when your team wins. That cut all the ref kak out, mostly and at the end of the day it make the opposition team posters (from the winning team) feel they are just a bunch of sour losers. But I disgress (ne Lee! )

 

[Scarfman]

OK guys - I have stood back on this argument but now I want us to move on. Some people want Paarl to admit that he applies his rule selectively, Paarl wants some people to admit that they blamed the ref for a Wallaby loss.

Neither is going to happen, so I'm going to have to show you a card.

This one:

 

[rugbywhisperer]

There is nothing in the laws or the referee bulletins that says areferee should disregard some ruling and favour others.
"The referee is the sole judge of fact and of Law during a match. The referee must apply
fairly all the Laws of the Game in every match".
DEFINITIONS
The Law of advantage takes precedence over most other Laws and its purpose is
to make play more continuous with fewer stoppages for infringements. Players
are encouraged to play to the whistle despite infringements by their opponents.
When the result of an infringement by one team is that their opposing team may
gain an advantage, the referee does not whistle immediately for the infringement.

8.1 (a) The referee is sole judge of whether or not a team has gained an advantage. The referee
has wide discretion when making decisions.

 

[Epi]

Pedantic refereeing just means applying the laws as they are written. It means actually blowing up for the offences committed.

You are kidding. A ref could blow the whistle at every breakdown - probably two or three times and still not get all the 'infringements'....

Pedantic refs kill the game as a spectical. I'd rather watch a second rate game of AFL than a game reffed by Chris White or one of those other Northern Hemisphere clowns who seem sure that 80 thousand people stumped up to watch them blow the pea out of their whistle all night.

BBBBBBBBOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRRRIIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG..........

 

[PaarlBok]

Pedantic refereeing just means applying the laws as they are written. It means actually blowing up for the offences committed.

You are kidding. A ref could blow the whistle at every breakdown - probably two or three times and still not get all the 'infringements'....

Pedantic refs kill the game as a spectical. I'd rather watch a second rate game of AFL than a game reffed by Chris White or one of those other Northern Hemisphere clowns who seem sure that 80 thousand people stumped up to watch them blow the pea out of their whistle all night.

BBBBBBBBOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRRRIIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG..........

I spot a very generalize one in this refs qoute , one question where do the Aus refs fit? You honestly think there is a better Aus refs then White (thats the only specific name I can get in your qoute and you probable pick the wrong one) feel free to give me the name?

 

[Epi]

Pedantic refereeing just means applying the laws as they are written. It means actually blowing up for the offences committed.

You are kidding. A ref could blow the whistle at every breakdown - probably two or three times and still not get all the 'infringements'....

Pedantic refs kill the game as a spectical. I'd rather watch a second rate game of AFL than a game reffed by Chris White or one of those other Northern Hemisphere clowns who seem sure that 80 thousand people stumped up to watch them blow the pea out of their whistle all night.

BBBBBBBBOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRRRIIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG..........

I spot a very generalize one in this refs qoute , one question where do the Aus refs fit? You honestly think there is a better Aus refs then White (thats the only specific name I can get in your qoute and you probable pick the wrong one) feel free to give me the name?

Stuart Dickinson

 

[the gambler]

OK guys - I have stood back on this argument but now I want us to move on. Some people want Paarl to admit that he applies his rule selectively, Paarl wants some people to admit that they blamed the ref for a Wallaby loss.

Neither is going to happen, so I'm going to have to show you a card.

This one:

Thats a rubbish decision ref. Did you get your refs badge out of the cornflakes packet? Ive seen better decisions made by pregnant 12yr olds.

(I"m allowed to criticise because I won my earlier argument )

 

[PaarlBok]

Pedantic refereeing just means applying the laws as they are written. It means actually blowing up for the offences committed.

You are kidding. A ref could blow the whistle at every breakdown - probably two or three times and still not get all the 'infringements'....

Pedantic refs kill the game as a spectical. I'd rather watch a second rate game of AFL than a game reffed by Chris White or one of those other Northern Hemisphere clowns who seem sure that 80 thousand people stumped up to watch them blow the pea out of their whistle all night.

BBBBBBBBOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRRRIIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG..........

I spot a very generalize one in this refs qoute , one question where do the Aus refs fit? You honestly think there is a better Aus refs then White (thats the only specific name I can get in your qoute and you probable pick the wrong one) feel free to give me the name?

Stuart Dickinson

Thats a very low blow, you mean DickHeadSon, now you hit both me & Thomo below the belt with one shot. We call it "Twee vliee met een hou" :lmao: