Refereeing decisions

[John S]

Grim reading of Berry's statement, pathetic man Rassie is.

Peyper doesn't cover himself with any glory in this situation. Knowing Berry won't be Reffing a SA again, I hope we extend the same olive branch to SA and Peyper being excluded from Super and TRC games.

What's the go with Peyper on this? Maybe I missed something?

 

[Ignoto]

What's the go with Peyper on this? Maybe I missed something?

So, WR (World Rugby) found that Rassie 'recruited' Peyper in this shit show.

Rassie and Berry Spoke on the phone, here's the summary of the call;

Mr Berry said:
- Mr Erasmus said that “because Mr Berry was unwilling to meet immediately, he would put the footage online to go
‘viral’“.
Mr Erasmus told him that “the media pressure put on by the Lions the previous week had an affect on us and he
intends to do the same”.
- He told Mr Erasmus that what he is asking (meeting the day after the game) is completely unusual but still agreed to
look at his clips as he said they were “general in nature” and Mr Erasmus said they would affect his team selection.
- Mr Erasmus agreed to send through the clips.

Mr Erasmus says:
- He questioned why Mr Berry no longer wanted to discuss the clips.
- Mr Berry advised that he had not yet received the clips.
- He told Mr Berry he would receive it soon.
- Mr Berry said he did not have permission from Mr Jutge to discuss the clips.
- He explained to Mr Berry the need to get clarity on his decisions for team selection purposes.
- Mr Berry told him that his request to meet the day after the match was completely unusual, which Mr Erasmus says is
not the case.
It became clear to him that despite genuine requests, Mr Berry “was totally uninterested”.
Mr Erasmus was upset with Mr Berry’s attitude and told him that the only option will be to follow Mr Gatland’s example
and address the clips in the media, “because clearly that had the desired effect”

After Rassie and Berry talked, Berry and Peyper had a phone call and this is their recollections of the call;

Mr Berry says that: “ I’m able to get Jaco on the phone. We speak for 10mins. He tells me that Rassie has called him and
wants him to comment on the clips. Jaco refuses and said that it is unprofessional and out of protocol. He says that Rassie is
putting AJ Jacobs under pressure to comment on the clips as he is in camp with the SA team.
We discuss the fact that Rassie has threatened to leak footage on social media. I ask Jaco for his advice and he suggests that I
should try and get ahead of it and respond to Rassie’s clips.”


Mr Peyper says:

“Mr Berry did not indicate to me that Rassie threatened to leak footage on social media. He only asked for my advice whether he
should provide answers to the video clips received from the Springbok management team and I recommended that from
experience he should do so, as that often defuses the media reporting the next day as teams now engage with the referee and
not the mainstream rugby media.”

“My view, as expressed to Mr Berry during the telephonic conversation, was that it would be preferable for him to engage with
the Springbok management team rather than to ignore the request, as in my experience, providing a response has had the effect
of diffusing tensions between coaches and referees. This in turn leads to fewer comments in the media about refereeing decisions
from previous matches and an increased focus on preparations for upcoming matches.”

O'Keefe and Berry also spoke after Berry spoke to Rassie. O'Keefe didn't refute anything about the call.

WR (World Rugby) found Berry's evidence to be credible throughout their investigation, but somehow Peyper disagrees with what Berry recalls of the call with Rassie even if O'Keefe recalls Berry saying the same thing?

 

[Eyes and Ears]

Peyper used to work with / for Rassie at the Cheetahs (before he was a Super Rugby referee)

 

[Derpus]

His punishment is no match-day involved against England and the next RC and a 37k fine for 6 offences one of which was 'threatening a match official'. Pretty pathetic really.

If he was convicted of similar offences in the real world there is a good chance he'd be going to prison.

 

[John S]

Yeah, it does seem like hitting him with a wet lettuce leaf, given what Nic Berry and his family have been through, and what he did - you can't argue that there was no forethought or intent in what he did. Surely all Refs deserve better.

 

[Dctarget]

His punishment is no match-day involved against England and the next RC and a 37k fine for 6 offences one of which was 'threatening a match official'. Pretty pathetic really.

If he was convicted of similar offences in the real world there is a good chance he'd be going to prison.

thought he had no match day involvements involvement till September next year

 

[Brumby Jack]

Nic Berry committed the heinous crime of not accepting the Boks WhatsApp group invite..

Mr Erasmus sent an invitation to Messrs Berry, Jutge and Schmidt to join a WhatsApp group with South Africa management team, which invitations were not accepted

 

[Dan54]

It's all ended up a shit show really. We will never know who is recalling correctly between Berry and Peyper, I know in here it will be seen that Berry is right (he's Aussie) and Peyper is perhaps lying (he's not Aussie) , but I not sure what a discussion between these 2 has got much to do with it, basically I would of thought the press release was all that was needed. I thought the sanction may of been a bit harder, but I was guessing (hoping?) and there isn't any precedent I can recall.
On the Peyper and Berry comments, unfair to call Peyper any names, as if he was asked and spoke the truth, that is what he should do.

 

[Adam84]

it's not about 'Berry being right', its about not allowing a precedent of coaches of international teams to publicly attack the integrity and character of a referee in hour long videos released on twitter, its not in the spirit of the game and its fucken pathetic.

Yes coaches/players can have disagreements with a referee, but what rassie did was not the correct way of addressing the issue

 

[Pfitzy]

Rugby World Champions

Victim World Champions

 

[Dan54]

it's not about 'Berry being right', its about not allowing a precedent of coaches of international teams to publicly attack the integrity and character of a referee in hour long videos released on twitter, its not in the spirit of the game and its fucken pathetic.

Yes coaches/players can have disagreements with a referee, but what rassie did was not the correct way of addressing the issue

x 100! Couldn't agree more! We should all discourage any quetion of bias or integrity of refs from anywhere!

 

[Adam84]

x 100! Couldn't agree more! We should all discourage any quetion of bias or integrity of refs from anywhere!

Referees need to be held to account and performances measured, but not through a trial by social media instigated by a coach going on a hour long rant and character assassination.

World Rugby are at fault in this issue as well, for firstly not acting at the time and telling Rassie to pull his head in, but by also not firing back at what happened with their own process of measuring performance.

if a referee performs poorly, World Rugby should have their own metrics and appraisal process which takes place. It’s not on the coaches to do that.

 

[Dan54]

Referees need to be held to account and performances measured, but not through a trial by social media instigated by a coach going on a hour long rant and character assassination.

World Rugby are at fault in this issue as well, for firstly not acting at the time and telling Rassie to pull his head in, but by also not firing back at what happened with their own process of measuring performance.

if a referee performs poorly, World Rugby should have their own metrics and appraisal process which takes place. It’s not on the coaches to do that.

Actuall I believe WR (World Rugby) does have metrics, but I think the results are kept inhouse, and rightfully so, the refs are emplyed by WR (World Rugby) and as with any employee/employer relationship, any records of how employee is performing should be kept between the parties.

 

[Sully]

Berry's style of refereeing is not to my liking but I'd take him in under a second if my only other choice was Egon Seconds.

 

[Derpus]

Berry's style of refereeing is not to my liking but I'd take him in under a second if my only other choice was Egon Seconds.

I dunno - I quite like it when the ref joins the ruck. Point of difference.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Berry's style of refereeing is not to my liking but I'd take him in under a second if my only other choice was Egon Seconds.

Egon Seconds should be retired poste haste and never allowed near an officiating position in rugby again. Beyond that, I reckon WR (World Rugby) or whomever should never pair a Saffa on field referee with a Saffa TMO ever. The combination is poison.

I am not a fan of Nick Berry. I think he makes too many mistakes in a match. I acknowledge that the laws of rugby are often too complicated and leave too much to interpretation which I think is the real reason there can be so much controversy among fans and supporters after a game. But even in matches involving teams I have no connection with, I am more likely to find fault with numerous decisions by Berry than I am with most other referees.

I think that the current crop of NZ referees is technically about the poorest I've seen in many decades, but they generally have a better feel for the game and rule against obvious errors rather than being overly pedantic with the whistle. Many times we'll see marginal forward passes or possible knock-ons be allowed to play on in the interests of keeping the game flowing. That doesn't seem to be a course that Aussie and some other referees take for preference.

Maybe surprisingly, one of the best referee performances imo this year was by Poite in the Scotland game. He made a howler in allowing the Scottish try off the lineout, but otherwise the poor decisions seemed to come mainly from the TMO. I am all for limiting the involvement of TMOs to foul play only unless asked by the on-field ref for some input.

In summary, I think there is too little proper public accountability of referees generally. In other walks in life some of those errors we see almost weekly would end that particular person's future involvement, but clearly not in rugby. Yes sir, no sir, three bags full sir.

 

[formerflanker]

Rassie's criticism of Berry has started an avalanche of on-field arguments by every Tom, Dick and Harry playing in Tests. It should be skipper only, otherwise we encourage on-field dissent plus add another 30 minutes to the game.
Although there might have been a spate of arm waving at the refs and words/glares at the ARs before Rassie's unprofessional outburst.

 

[Eyes and Ears]

In summary, I think there is too little proper public accountability of referees generally. In other walks in life some of those errors we see almost weekly would end that particular person's future involvement, but clearly not in rugby. Yes sir, no sir, three bags full sir.

I am always surpised by this view.
Firstly referees face incredible public accountability from commentators, the media, the general public and keyboard warriors. Secondly, I believe it depends on what standard you are holding these referees to. My view is that referees are held to very high standards; possibly higher than the players. I feel some criticism of referees is the equivalent of ending a player's career if he missed 10 tackles or had 10 bad lineout throws in a season. Thirdly there is also significant movement of referee squads from season to season when referees don't perform to the standard required. However like players they operate in a squad for a period of time (possibly on a 2 year contract, sound familiar?) and there isn't an endless production of referees waiting in the wings.
Finally I believe that "Yes, sir/ No, sir" is a different issue. It's an issue of culture and respect, not lack of accountability. It plays a critical role in the recruitment and retention of referees. Most referees in community rugby are volunteers who are paid far less than officials in other sports. Treatment of referees at the community level could still significantly improve but imagine how bad it would be if the elite level was like soccer.

 

[Dan54]

I agree with Eyes and Ears so much. It's the thing that get's me, a player can miss a couple of tackles, not do work in ruck etc and may get a passing mention, a referee makes a what is seen as a few mistakes and internet forums absolutely get into them.
We can use excuses that we are entitled to views etc, but in my opinion the public harping at refs we get is surely doing the same even if at a much lesser degree then what Rassie did, why I won't get into it.
As an example we a pretty good it seemed examination of why the ref was wrong (in decisions against Wallabies only) on here a couple of weeks ago, and they may have been correct in some ways (apart from the very important one about the ref being the sole judge of the laws), but this is also a [ublic forum and if any of us were upcoming refs etc, do you think that kind of public examination of your job is going to encourage you to carry on? Just a thought for mine!
Also saying a ref should be retired poste haste is no different to what Rassie did, just when Rassie did it it's picked up by media, and with all due respect to all posters in here noone else is really interested in our opinions, but regardless we perhaps shouldn't point finger if it carrying a bit of muck on it, we are a public forum too!
I know I old and repeat it a lot, but respect for the ref is or should the first thing taught to young players, it certainly was to every team I coached!

 

[Pfitzy]

My view is that referees are held to very high standards; possibly higher than the players.

One of the comments I make sure to put in my pre-game chat with other teams: "If you do your best to avoid making a mistake, I'll do the same"