New Zealand vs Australia - Bledisloe 2, 24th August 2013

[cyclopath]

Do you actually read what other posters write? Serious question because I've read your last 5 posts and they either have very little relevance or coherence.

Let me spell it out for you, I was in the crowd, which means I wasn't playing. Eddie Jones said well done because I got the call right. The point being is that two people can see the same incident and there is disagreement on a call. And that disagreement stems from the fact that the ref has discretion - a discussion that Inside Shoulder and I were having.

I'm not sure your original post really needed explaining to many people.

 

[Beefcake]

There is a problem with your logic.

Take your time. You'll get there.

Although it isnt limit to, I actually like my logic... yet you have a problem with it, I'll leave you to console and address your problem...lol

p.s I'll never get there

 

[The Rock]

The myth of the mungoball tackle - one on one: no, two on one (upper body): yes they can bring the player to the ground.
A mungoballer rarely tackles around the legs.

No there are a lot of wingers who do the one on one and around the legs. Something unfortunately some Union players need to muster as tackling is not their Forte and in the case of the Wallabies catching the ball on the full.

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

ACT, Dan, Damo, etc... Don't bother guys, you don't need to justify yourselves to the test referee experts left in this thread.

Those of us without such paranoia towards every referee performance seem to enjoy the rugby much more than those who spend all 80 minutes, and the proceeding week whining about match officials.

It also appears that those of us (not of the opinion that peyper was obviously unfair and lost the wallabies any decent chance if winning) are doing a hell of a lot more to improve officiating standards within the sport of rugby than anyone else in this thread. Not that it will ever matter, nor are we doing it for the reasons the "test rugby is in an officiating crisis, richie's hands are always in the ruck" brigade probably think.

 

[Dan54]

Good point Bru, I had actually pointed out something in an answer then saw your post and deleted mine, it's not worth the argument.
And you make the most valid point of the whole thing, we seem to enjoy rugby a lot more without getting hung up on refs. It is something I have said so many times I even bore myself saying it, if the refs are so bad or biased etc, I wouldn't bother watching the game.

 

[Lee Grant]

Some folks might know that I spend a bit of time in the Schoolboys forum and have to do a bit of moderating.

Some of the schools rugby threads used to deteriorate because people talked about scholarships or other nefarious recruitment practices of some schools. People got emotional about the subject because the "playing field" was no longer level for the schools not participating in the arms race - and yarda, yarda.

I hit upon a good idea. We created a scholarships thread for discussion on such matters, but the topic was banned from other schools rugby threads. We just zapped the posts if the topic crept in. Things improved.

Now we are caught up in discussing refereeing decisions in test rugby match threads as though they were the most important considerations in our performance in the two Bledisloe matches to date.

We are getting to be so earnest about a non-core subject that maybe we should be forced to use the Refereeing Decisions thread so that significant rugby matters can be discussed free of excuses or deflections.

We are getting as bad as the Kiwis, who are still blaming a referee for being dudded in their 2007 RWC quarter-final: something which they had no control over. They should be blaming something they could have had control over: having a drop kick strategy in their playbook.

They didn't – just ask Richie McCaw.

Mind you: they are still moaning about a decision in a test lost in Cardiff in 1905; so it's in their DNA.

But we Aussies should not be harping on about referees when there are more significant things to address.

Our players are not hard enough for long enough - we lack brutes, and when the bench comes on they are even softer.

They aren't quick enough either - I'm not talking about their feet, but between the ears: they are slow responders to signals of danger and even to opportunity. In a Darwinian rugby world our race would be prone to extinction.

And our tools are inferior to the other tribes who are in competition with us for survival. Comparing the passing and catching skills of our backline in Bledisloe One and that of the South Africans a few hours later, was like looking at chalk and cheese.

The bloody South Africans - it was like watching cows playing the piano better than we could.

I could go on and on talking about about how much our players are unsuited to the cruel realities of big test match rugby for survival, and how it has been confirmed in our last three test matches, but the main thing is that we have to improve the breed by improving our structures and processing our players though them.

These are things we have control over.

Whingeing about referees is like pissing in the wind.

There's a song in that somewhere.
.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

We have reached the level of the Fox Sports Commentary team with the Jaco Payper whingefest.

Not sure that this is something to be proud of.

Lee Grant, as well as the forward pass, and the Card for McAllister in RWC2007, and Dingo's great uncle in 1905, you forgot about Suzie the Waitress at RWC1996. It isn't always about the Referees.

Then there is the link between the Christchurch Earthquake and the 'Saders Silver medal in Super title.

 

[Scoey]

ACT, Dan, Damo, etc. Don't bother guys, you don't need to justify yourselves to the test referee experts left in this thread.

Those of us without such paranoia towards every referee performance seem to enjoy the rugby much more than those who spend all 80 minutes, and the proceeding week whining about match officials.

It also appears that those of us (not of the opinion that peyper was obviously unfair and lost the wallabies any decent chance if winning) are doing a hell of a lot more to improve officiating standards within the sport of rugby than anyone else in this thread. Not that it will ever matter, nor are we doing it for the reasons the "test rugby is in an officiating crisis, richie's hands are always in the ruck" brigade probably think.

Probably they key frustration from what I recall of this thread was Peyper's decision not to refer Moore's try/non-try and his subsequent lack of explanation.
Most have agreed that it was worth the referral and/or had he given a reason not to refer, the outrage would have been dramatically lessened.
What is curious to me now, is how being on one side of the argument makes one a whinger and some sort if self proclaimed expert armchair referee that shouldn't bother watching the game but somehow being on the other side makes one some sort of noble, somehow better Rugby fan that is working on improving officiating standards. That is a bit rich to say the least.

We have experienced in the most recent pages an increase in the AUS posters that have liked to claim that it was in actual fact a try, that the ref was paid and that the ABs cheat excessively. This is the noisy minority. We have had the usual Kiwi trolls also that we always seem to get after a NZ team win. Again, a noisy minority.

I guess what I'm saying is that people of both sides have been arguing. People on both sides have been quoting laws, people on both sides have come across as a bit of a douche with some fairly ridiculous statements at times. The mantle of armchair expert does not exclusively belong to one side.
So forgive me for being a bit galled at you trying to put yourself up on a pedestal just because you or anyone else is on one side of an argument and not the other.
This was a game dominated by an almost universally agreed, fairly poor refereeing performance. It's no great surprise that it is being discussed at length. If you grow tired of it, stop participating by all means but seriously, if you could do so without the self indulgent rant next time, I'm sure many would appreciate it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[FrankLind]

I have been on this forum a few years now and virtually EVERY game of the Wallabies vs the ABs there has been a contingent of whiners convinced they are the victims of a ref' conspiracy, or that the reason the Wallabies lost is because the ABs are better cheats. It is f'kin boring.

 

[Scrubber2050]

Ah ACT Crusader - all you are really saying that decisions are all very subjective AND the subjectivity of the one with the whistle wins.

 

[ACT Crusader]

Ah ACT Crusader - all you are really saying that decisions are all very subjective AND the subjectivity of the one with the whistle wins.

Indeed mate. The human element brings subjectivity no matter how 'objective' they attempt to be. And I don't think bias or gold watches have anything to do with it either. It's just that a ref will consider a situation based on his knowledge, training and past experience - that's all very subjective to the individual.

After all is said and done what the ref rules is final and all sides of the argument have to live with it. I personally don't mind a bit of (sensible) discussion about decisions, but the 'gotcha' posts and calls of cheating by one side or the other are unnecessary and don't really add to discussions in my view.

 

[Braveheart81]

It seems to me that it is no more logical to question whether the referee is cheating or accuse them of being on the take than it is to do the same to a player when they have a poor game.

Referees, like everyone else make mistakes and as these things normally go, when a referee has a bad game it will often involve lots of mistakes. It is rare for a player or referee to have the game of their life but make one massive howler.

 

[MajorlyRagerly]

We have reached the level of the Fox Sports Commentary team with the Jaco Payper whingefest.

Not sure that this is something to be proud of.

Lee Grant, as well as the forward pass, and the Card for McAllister in RWC2007, and Dingo's great uncle in 1905, you forgot about Suzie the Waitress at RWC1996. It isn't always about the Referees.

Then there is the link between the Christchurch Earthquake and the 'Saders Silver medal in Super title.

So, a thread full of whinging, whining, moaning, tin foil hat bullshit about referees from 100% Australian fans has ended up turning into "at least we're not as bad as the kiwis" sort of thing... Despite a whole thread full of proof that ... you are.

I'm with Bru. This is beyond pathetic.

 

[Scoey]

I have been on this forum a few years now and virtually EVERY game of the Wallabies vs the ABs there has been a contingent of whiners convinced they are the victims of a ref' conspiracy, or that the reason the Wallabies lost is because the ABs are better cheats. It is f'kin boring.

To be fair though, the Wallabies have only beaten your lot once since you've been a member. ;-) If I recall correctly, the match thread for our solitary win was full of Kiwi fans almost denying the very occurrence of the match. No one likes to admit that the oppo was actually better but it is something that a few of us are getting better at.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Scoey]

So, a thread full of whinging, whining, moaning, tin foil hat bullshit about referees from 100% Australian fans has ended up turning into "at least we're not as bad as the kiwis" sort of thing. Despite a whole thread full of proof that . you are.

I'm with Bru. This is beyond pathetic.

I agree with the sentiment MR but I don't think the reality is that bad.
The majority of the comments on here have said the ref had a shocker. This has come from both sides.
The majority have acknowledged that the ref didn't cause us to lose, we did.
There has been a handful of posters wearing tinfoil hats that have proven themselves to be nothing short of demented but please don't lump the rest of us in with them.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bullrush]

I agree with Scoey. Most reasonable fans on both side of the ditch would agree that the ref had some pretty debatable calls or missed calls both ways. I can understand where the Wallaby fans feel hard done by and if we had lost that game, there'd probably be a few calls Kiwi fans would be questioning pretty loudly.

What pisses me off in these discussions is the implication - or the straight out-and-out accusation - that the All Blacks cheat as part of a systematic and carefully practiced plan to win. It's just utter bullshit.

What some here call cynical and cheating, we call competing and contesting for possession - something these people don't mind Hooper or George Smith or David Pocock doing but can't stand seeing from anyone in black.

 

[Richo]

There is a huge difference between discussing whether a call was poor, particularly one to do with a try, and having a massive whine that the ref is a biased SOB. One can be interesting and even lead to new knowledge about the laws. The other is boring as batshit.

 

[fatprop]

I agree with Scoey. Most reasonable fans on both side of the ditch would agree that the ref had some pretty debatable calls or missed calls both ways. I can understand where the Wallaby fans feel hard done by and if we had lost that game, there'd probably be a few calls Kiwi fans would be questioning pretty loudly.

What pisses me off in these discussions is the implication - or the straight out-and-out accusation - that the All Blacks cheat as part of a systematic and carefully practiced plan to win. It's just utter bullshit.

What some here call cynical and cheating, we call competing and contesting for possession - something these people don't mind Hooper or George Smith or David Pocock doing but can't stand seeing from anyone in black.

Yeah the Wobs are just as likely to give away a penalty in the red zone and they did, the big difference at the moment is that the AB's can score tries in the red zone after getting their advantage called and Aus gets a penalty shot after dropping the ball or getting turned over

 

[It is what it is]

Is Steve Hansen the Kiwi's version of David Campese?
Campo - "I've never been one to predict the future and I never will"
Hansen -" Ewen can do what he wants, I guess, but I could sit here and pick holes about how often they took us out, held on to us after the ball was played and obstructed us in the midfield. I could do all of that, but I'm not going to."

 

[Pfitzy]

Of course you won't Shag - you're winning. When you're warm and happy in a pile of shit, keep your mouth shut