Round 13!!!!!, Crusaders v Waratahs

[cyclopath]

BR - Yeah, but a few knock-ons here and there get missed in pretty much every game. Chasers in front of kick-offs. Flat / forward passes. Nothing will be picked up 100% of the time. A player elbowing another in the neck, taking him out of the defensive line, then using that act to score a try is a red card offence, and really just should not be missed by 4 officials. Same with the tip tackle at the end. It is the focus of the play in both cases, all eyes should / would have been on that narrow area of play, and it beggars belief they can't see them. I think that's what most people are pissed off about. Not so much the routine to and fro minutiae that gets let go.
In any event, as you say, the Tahs could have won, maybe they should have anyway. If their focus, skills and decision making were all better. But, it was the Crusaders in Christchurch, so not so easy, apparently.

 

[Up the Guts]

This may come as a shock to you, but bad decisions are not only due to incompetence.

Referees are biased.

It's simply human nature, and a whole field of study. Bias—and in particular, national bias—is well established in multiple studies across many sports, including rugby.

One should always be careful not to overreach in understanding what being biased means. It doesn't mean being bent or on the take. However it does mean that referee selection policies are important because it can impact significantly on the results of competition.

Neutral referees, for instance, are not just for show. There's a statistically measurable difference.

I said ‘consciously favours’ for a reason and am well aware of the existence of sub-conscious bias. I don’t believe O’Keefe consciously made his decisions with the thought in mind “oh I need to orchestrate this so it is a favourable outcome for the Crusaders,” whether or not he was making decisions based on sub-conscious bias towards the Crusaders is another matter. Of course I’m in favour of neutral referees as they can remove this sort of bias to an extent but it doesn’t mean you get a perfect outcome either, how many times have we seen Nigel Owens make generous decisions in favour of NZ?

 

[kiap]

I said ‘consciously favours’ for a reason and am well aware of the existence of sub-conscious bias. I don’t believe O’Keefe consciously made his decisions with the thought in mind “oh I need to orchestrate this so it is a favourable outcome for the Crusaders,”

Quite right.

whether or not he was making decisions based on sub-conscious bias towards the Crusaders is another matter.

It's interesting how they analyse these sorts of questions.

Do you know some of the measures used?

Of course I’m in favour of neutral referees as they can remove this sort of bias to an extent but it doesn’t mean you get a perfect outcome either, how many times have we seen Nigel Owens make generous decisions in favour of NZ?

Yep, perfection is always elusive but the aim should be to remove the obvious contentions in these appointments.

 

[Up the Guts]

Quite right.


It's interesting how they analyse these sorts of questions.

Do you know some of the measures used?


Yep, perfection is always elusive but the aim should be to remove the obvious contentions in these appointments.

No I am unaware of the specifics of measuring unconscious bias but my own amateur observations of human psychology tell me that people tend to take be a bit more attentive when there are repercussions for poor performance. I would suggest we have harsher penalties for poor refereeing but I doubt we’d have too many referees left if we started doing that.

 

[kiap]

No I am unaware of the specifics of measuring unconscious bias but my own amateur observations of human psychology tell me that people tend to take be a bit more attentive when there are repercussions for poor performance.

All good. I won't bore everyone further because this is a match thread.

Suffice it to say there tends to be consistent measurable differences to calls that are made for the two teams when looking at decent sample sizes.

One of the basic parameters they can look at is decision time. This can even be done on video review.



(Click pic for embiggened view)

To be clear, I'm not suggesting anyone try it in this case. It's merely to add info on findings that are out there.

I would suggest we have harsher penalties for poor refereeing but I doubt we’d have too many referees left if we started doing that.

I wouldn't suggest that either. For one thing, it's unlikely to work. Appointments are about the extent of it.

Anyway, I'm out. Happy match threading.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Now that I've seen the highlights I agree the first crusaders try should've been scratched just for the fact Mo'Unga vaults Beale who's clearly been taken out by Moody. Couldn't isolate the contact so not sure about Red card/ Yellow card/ penalty only but if it was a Card offence presumably Moody will be cited. Obviously doesn't excuse the match officials who all missed it, there should be consequences.

Can find a replay of the potential tip/ lifting tackle at the end but I do recall thinking "they'll look at that" & being surprised when O'Keefe said something like "no tip tackle there". If anyone has a gif of it I'd like to see it.

I see Gibson isn't happy with the officiating but by the sounds of it even Hoiles, Kafer & co. weren't blaming that so much as the penalty count & huge number of missed tackles.

 

[Dan54]

I must admit like I said earlier, I was watching this with mates at the Pig and Whistle in Brisbane, with no sound, and they were all Aussies, and we didn't notice the said offences, but neither were we looking for them. I will say I wasn't worried who won, I a kiwi but the Crusaders will make finals anyway, and the Canes would stay top of the table if the Crusaders had lost, so I felt surprisingly neutral. Im saying that I was astounded how the Tahs just seemed to stop playing at 29-0, it was almost like they either didn't believe they could win, or thought they would hold on to the lead. It has been a while since I have seen the Crusaders drop as many balls as they did in first 20-30 minutes, almost like they were not concentrating or a bit confident.

 

[Brumby Jack]

Joe Moody has been cited

 

[Dan54]

I just looked at the incident , should not have allowed the try definitely, but the tip tackle I doubt anything should of been different, someone was another Crusaders player was actually holding his upper body , and he pretty well landed flat I thought. Anyway I suspect if the Moody try had been disallowed the Crusaders would of still won, because like I said earlier post it looked like the Tahs froze when they got up 29-0. Still wish it had been seen though.

 

[KOB1987]

Now that I've seen the highlights I agree the first crusaders try should've been scratched just for the fact Mo'Unga vaults Beale who's clearly been taken out by Moody. Couldn't isolate the contact so not sure about Red card/ Yellow card/ penalty only but if it was a Card offence presumably Moody will be cited. Obviously doesn't excuse the match officials who all missed it, there should be consequences.

Can find a replay of the potential tip/ lifting tackle at the end but I do recall thinking "they'll look at that" & being surprised when O'Keefe said something like "no tip tackle there". If anyone has a gif of it I'd like to see it.

I see Gibson isn't happy with the officiating but by the sounds of it even Hoiles, Kafer & co. weren't blaming that so much as the penalty count & huge number of missed tackles.

It appears at the bottom of this article. 50/50 but it definitely deserved a look

http://www.news.com.au/sport/refere...s/news-story/ae4a469f8f10d0c5ec2e28fcfc029502

 

[KOB1987]

I just looked at the incident , should not have allowed the try definitely, but the tip tackle I doubt anything should of been different, someone was another Crusaders player was actually holding his upper body , and he pretty well landed flat I thought. Anyway I suspect if the Moody try had been disallowed the Crusaders would of still won, because like I said earlier post it looked like the Tahs froze when they got up 29-0. Still wish it had been seen though.

The whole nature of the game would have changed, the crusaders would have had 14 men

 

[fatprop]

Pretty good effort by the Tahs

The Tahs took their opportunities early as the saders continually screwed up. (the didn't against the Lions) And then the saders held the ball instead of dropping it and that pressure led us to play 20 minutes of the game trying to hold on with 14 men.

There wasn't a moment in that game where I thought they weren't going to come back at us and we still had chances to get back in front.

14 men for 20 of the last 50 minutes and our forward bench isn't there at the moment, none of them kept to the same standard as the players they replaced (except maybe Roach)

 

[KOB1987]

Joe Moody has been cited

Good. Won’t change the scoreboard though, however I doubt the result will affect the setup of the finals series, Waratahs should still top the conference and the cheatsaders will still top theirs.

 

[Dan54]

Good. Won’t change the scoreboard though, however I doubt the result will affect the setup of the finals series, Waratahs should still top the conference and the cheatsaders will still top theirs.

Yep it makes no difference if the Tahs had won they would be on 30 points, but with the way the table works they would still be in 3rd spot ahead of the Crusaders(who would of dropped behind canes)Chiefs and Clan. Still I would personally of liked the streak broken, as a kiwi I think I am sick of hearing and reading about it.

The other thing was it just us, or did anyone else notice Sekope's shot to Bateman's(I think) head? Was just something that came up as we watched it, and will look out for it if I get around to watching replay.

 

[KOB1987]

Yep it makes no difference if the Tahs had won they would be on 30 points, but with the way the table works they would still be in 3rd spot ahead of the Crusaders(who would of dropped behind canes)Chiefs and Clan. Still I would personally of liked the streak broken, as a kiwi I think I am sick of hearing and reading about it.

I see yes, my mistake, hurricanes would now be ahead of the cru, effectively they still are as they have a game in hand. And I couldn’t agree more!

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Moody is a cheap grub: he should get 8 weeks for that and the nitwit commentator who merely said he took care of Beale should get 10.

 

[Willin1]

Oops!

 

[Inside Shoulder]

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby...-joe-moody-cited-for-contact-on-kurtley-beale

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Quite right.


It's interesting how they analyse these sorts of questions.

Do you know some of the measures used?


Yep, perfection is always elusive but the aim should be to remove the obvious contentions in these appointments.

Freakanomics have/has (?) a number of podcasts on sub conscious bias - I think they’ve done one on baseball umps. It’s a fascinating insight into human frailty.
Edit: http://freakonomics.com/2011/07/01/...ess-racial-bias-in-calling-balls-and-strikes/

 

[Willin1]

I can't understand why Tah supporters are so vitriolic towards their own team when they were one poor decision away from a win.
Not sure O'keefe's inept officiating favoured either side (apart from Moody's elbow). How did they all miss that?
I blame Beale for not writhing on the ground clutching his throat then Crusaders would have been down to 14 and -7 points.