Refereeing decisions

[fatprop]

It's not completely out of their arse, there was a PT & YC incident in the Chiefs v Canes final round match and it was a much much lower probability of a try being scored in that one (more obvious penalty though).

As for consistency, the best you can hope for is the same ref being consistent in the same match and sometimes not even that (see Buckman v Phipps).

Agreed, but more about seeing something in a semi that hasn't been seen all season, or the season before.

As for consistency, the biggest one is competing in the air, that is an absolute f*ckin lottery

 

[Grant NZ]

I

Agreed, but more about seeing something in a semi that hasn't been seen all season, or the season before.

It has been seen though - Chiefs v Canes. Have a look at the 36:00 minute mark.

On the initial review, they're just checking the try. Then they notice it's a no arms tackle that prevents the try (which is pretty dubious IMO as Savea had already bobbled the ball. Certainly less probable than Osborne getting 1 inch closer). End result, penalty try & yellow card.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Barrett indulges in some fairly soft rucking to a Brum lying on the ball. Would have been let go but for the fact that it was close to the line and the ref checked if Goodes had scored a try.

Thats just another one that can be put down a bad bit of refereeing. If Jackson needed a replay to see that then I hope they let his Labrador into England for the RWC.
What Barrett did is (wrongly, IMO) against the laws of the game. It wasn't accidental: it was intentional. It was so far removed from the ball that it probably failed the test when rucking was permitted. It should have been a much deeper shade of yellow than Jacpots.
So all I am whingeing about is the consistency of refereeing and wondering why Joubert chose that game to have one of the few nightmare games Ive seen him have. Luckily it made no difference to the outcome.

 

[ACT Crusader]

Thats just another one that can be put down a bad bit of refereeing. If Jackson needed a replay to see that then I hope they let his Labrador into England for the RWC.
What Barrett did is (wrongly, IMO) against the laws of the game. It wasn't accidental: it was intentional. It was so far removed from the ball that it probably failed the test when rucking was permitted. It should have been a much deeper shade of yellow than Jacpots.
So all I am whingeing about is the consistency of refereeing and wondering why Joubert chose that game to have one of the few nightmare games Ive seen him have. Luckily it made no difference to the outcome.

That would have been laughed at during the time rucking was legal. It was soft and ineffectual. However the Brumbies player was lying on the Canes side when the Canes we're going forward. That sort of tactic would have always earned you a few on the back or leg back in the day.

 

[Grant NZ]

Thats just another one that can be put down a bad bit of refereeing. If Jackson needed a replay to see that then I hope they let his Labrador into England for the RWC.
What Barrett did is (wrongly, IMO) against the laws of the game. It wasn't accidental: it was intentional. It was so far removed from the ball that it probably failed the test when rucking was permitted. It should have been a much deeper shade of yellow than Jacpots.
So all I am whingeing about is the consistency of refereeing and wondering why Joubert chose that game to have one of the few nightmare games Ive seen him have. Luckily it made no difference to the outcome.

Barrett was on the other side of the ruck from Jackson, from memory. Could be wrong. Disagree with it being a yellow, but then - like I've said - the Pie Eater one wouldn't have been a yellow without the penalty try element.

 

[Grant NZ]

That would have been laughed at during the time rucking was legal. It was soft and ineffectual. However the Brumbies player was lying on the Canes side when the Canes we're going forward. That sort of tactic would have always earned you a few on the back or leg back in the day.

Back in the day that forward (can't remember who it was) would have bragged about how he killed the ball and only got a soft touch up from a back. He'd have been shouted a pint for it.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

In NZ perhaps - unless the forward was Australian in which case there would have been a diplomatic incident over any australian forward being prepared to run the gauntlet of the kiwi slipper.

Barrett was on the other side of the ruck from Jackson, from memory. Could be wrong. Disagree with it being a yellow, but then - like I've said - the Pie Eater one wouldn't have been a yellow without the penalty try element.

Jackson's the bloke in pink - wouldn't be 1m between them

and how could he anywhere near the ball given that the issue was whether a try had been scored.

 

[fatprop]

Back in the day that forward (can't remember who it was) would have bragged about how he killed the ball and only got a soft touch up from a back. He'd have been shouted a pint for it.

Yep, 20 years ago, he would have been spat out the back and thought fair enough, I shouldn't have been there

 

[fatprop]

I

It has been seen though - Chiefs v Canes. Have a look at the 36:00 minute mark.

On the initial review, they're just checking the try. Then they notice it's a no arms tackle that prevents the try (which is pretty dubious IMO as Savea had already bobbled the ball. Certainly less probable than Osborne getting 1 inch closer). End result, penalty try & yellow card.

Fair enough, it wasn't isolated, me wrong

 

[Grant NZ]

In NZ perhaps - unless the forward was Australian in which case there would have been a diplomatic incident over any australian forward being prepared to run the gauntlet of the kiwi slipper.


Jackson's the bloke in pink - wouldn't be 1m between them

and how could he anywhere near the ball given that the issue was whether a try had been scored.

Jackson's looking down at the line to see the ball, it'd be easy to miss that in his peripheral vision.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Jackson's looking down at the line to see the ball, it'd be easy to miss that in his peripheral vision.

Come on. He blows the whistle and is looking straight at him while he continues to ruck.
But where was the AR.
You're turning this into another famous Kiwi stitch up when it started out a mere incompetence on the part of Jackson.

 

[Grant NZ]

Come on. He blows the whistle and is looking straight at him while he continues to ruck.
But where was the AR.
You're turning this into another famous Kiwi stitch up when it started out a mere incompetence on the part of Jackson.

Here's a screenshot just as Barrett performs the last of the two rucking motions in that video. You reckon Jackson is looking straight at him there?

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I think he is looking straight at him by the tail end of that and during it he has already decided there's no try so whatever excuse there was for not catching it in his peripheral vision has gone (by the way: there was no excuse).
Im not sure what you're arguing here. That must be worse than Potgeiter's effort on any reasonable view of the world, including NZ. But you don't even need to resort to comparability with Potgeiter.
Its deliberate, its dangerous and its foul play. On no view could Bogan have been going for the ball.
Minimum Yellow

 

[Bullrush]

Do you really think a bit of a ruck in the back is as bad as a swinging arm to the head?

 

[Braveheart81]

Do you really think a bit of a ruck in the back is as bad as a swinging arm to the head?

Potgieter was trying to make a tackle.

Barrett was trying to do something which is foul/dangerous play.

 

[Grant NZ]

I think he is looking straight at him by the tail end of that and during it he has already decided there's no try so whatever excuse there was for not catching it in his peripheral vision has gone (by the way: there was no excuse).
Im not sure what you're arguing here. That must be worse than Potgeiter's effort on any reasonable view of the world, including NZ. But you don't even need to resort to comparability with Potgeiter.
Its deliberate, its dangerous and its foul play. On no view could Bogan have been going for the ball.
Minimum Yellow

Well, my original point was that there are situations when illegalities are spotted on review even when unrelated to the thing being reviewed. You then went off on a tangent saying Jackson must have seen it, which I disagree with and the evidence is in my favour on that front.

As for a minimum yellow, I wouldn't have complained had he been given one but I don't think it's 'minimum'. It is deliberate but it's not remotely dangerous.

And as for a comparison with Potgeiter's tackle, it's completely irrelevant. There is a specific provision that says a player who commits a foul that results in a penalty try MUST be cautioned and given a card. This provision (obviously) does not apply in Barrett's case.

 

[Scrubber2050]

Potgieter was trying to make a tackle.

Barrett was trying to do something which is foul/dangerous play.

Bullshit - Jackpot deserved what he got. The Ref was 100% correct. Lucky not to get a red

 

[Braveheart81]

That is completely irrelevant to what I was saying but anyway...

Sent from my HTC_PN071 using Tapatalk

 

[Brendan Hume]

Dragging a tackled player into touch - happened in the Tahs game, happens often. Penalty offence? I can't understand why it's allowed to happen - sure some of the boys might see it in league but that's not the sport we're playing


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Grant NZ]

Dragging a tackled player into touch - happened in the Tahs game, happens often. Penalty offence? I can't understand why it's allowed to happen - sure some of the boys might see it in league but that's not the sport we're playing


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Technically it'd be not releasing the tackled player, I'd say. Penalty.