RWC 2011 - Bitch, moan and discuss - Referees and Law Discussions

[Toddy]

The Wallabies are going to have to learn to keep their feet. I look forward to the Wales v South Africa game this evening to see how Barnes policies it.

Agree about Barnes. Rolland and Lawrence were strict on players keeping their feet but Barnes in the last Bledisloe let both teams dive in from everywhere. Especially the attacking team. Wonder if he'll keep it up or toe the line.

 

[Scarfman]

Of all people (since I usually don't rate him) Bryce Lawrence had a superb game. He gave the attacking team every chance to get clean ball at the breakdown and consistently pinged transgressors right until the end of the game.

Not so sure. He was great in the first 15 minutes - cracked down on offside at the ruck and it paid off. but then he went a bit random, as usual.

Rolland is cracking down on the breakdown as at oranges v. Italy, as all the others have done. Keep it going .

Cracking down on what exactly? The ruck was a mess. He blew lots of penalties, but not in a systematic way that actually discouraged anyone. Plus, he made a huge number of errors.

But so far the refereeing has been pretty strict at the breakdown and I think it will make for a better tournament, for sure.

 

[cyclopath]

Joubert is allowing the old "fly through the breakdown and drag defenders out of the game" routine for Ireland against USA so far.

 

[antipodean]

Most of your criticism is pretty sound. But the expectations seem a little high considering rugby is just a game that can only be reffed subjectively.

[...]

I don't like the whole "inconsistent" argument, I don't think it holds much weight. Rugby was created to play for fun, it was never meant to be played professionally. If you want a game that is perfectly officiated, look at Chess. The rules can be objectively measured and it was intended that way.

Different argument. Now that the game is professional, the laws require adjusting to compensate. What worked for amateurs doesn't work in the modern environment; an environment marked by wages, sponsorship, television revenue, etc. Now this isn't to pretend that the IRB haven't made serious efforts in this regard lately, but the referees need to work on their positioning, materiality and basic knowledge.

It's fine to criticize refs. But there will always be stuff to criticize them for, offences occur all the time.

Of course they will. I don't pretend otherwise. My grievance, my primary complaint is that referees are missing/ ignoring the obvious, and concentrating on elements that really don't matter; where the penalty is not proportional to the offence. Or consistently ignoring elements that ruin the game both as a competition and a spectacle.

The refereeing was top drawer on Friday and Saturday. Like the players they looked in top form for the tournament.

Of all people (since I usually don't rate him) Bryce Lawrence had a superb game. He gave the attacking team every chance to get clean ball at the breakdown and consistently pinged transgressors right until the end of the game.

+1

I was all prepared to apologise to those in attendance at Queen St wharf but Bryce was, to my slightly inebriated eye, spot on and as invisible as the players would permit.

Steve Walsh was very sharp in the France game and didn't talk too much

I didn't have that impression at the ground. It's interesting the disparity between atmosphere and different points of view/ close ups.

 

[Lee Grant]

On the matter of the penalty kick at the Cake Tin (Boks v. Wales) and referee Barnes:

Whether Barnes shoulda, coulda, was going to but didn't, ask the TMO about the kick going over, it would have been an interesting process.

Had I been the TMO and been asked about the kick I would have looked first at the side view to judge at what point of the curve of the kick the ball passed the plane of the posts (Point P). Then I would have compared that with the highest part of the kick (Point H). I then would have judged whether Point H was before or after Point P, and by how much.

Then, looking at the head on view I could work out Point H again, roughly, then, by reference to my earlier comparison, I could work out where Point P was head on, and compare that to the position of the upright.

If I could not work out where Point P was on the head on shot with any clarity, or if I thought that any part of the ball could have touched the upright if it were higher, I would have to report that I could not overrule the ARs.

The thing is that there is no protocol for adjudicating on kicks - as far as I know. The question should be: "The Assistant Referees have ruled an unsuccessful kick - can you see any reason why the ruling should be changed?" - or, vice versa. The underlying assumption would be that certainty would be needed to overrule.

The disappointing thing is that it was known that the goal posts at the Cake Tin were relatively short and, IIRR, that the success of kicks has been queried in the past. There should have been an expectation that there was a 1% chance of the need for intervention, and this should have been part of the officials' preparation for the game.

Not good enough for a RWC guys. Not good enough.
.

 

[Dan54]

I think with all the point Hs and point Ps he probably decided it was too complicated lol. In all seriousness, noone is in better position the ARs to judge, I can't see anything in replays to make me think they wrong. Looks like it swung back in after passing posts.

 

[Lee Grant]

This is from the RWC Organisers:

"Rugby World Cup Limited has clarified the status of the television match official protocol following the Pool D match between South Africa and Wales. Under protocol, the referee may consult the assistant referees or the television match official if he is unsure as to whether a penalty kick, drop-goal or conversion has been successful.

"During the match in question, the match official team felt at the time that there was no need to consult the TMO following a Wales penalty kick, as they were confident that the kick was not successful. Correct protocol was therefore followed. The IRB (International Rugby Board) will not be making further comment."

 

[Scarfman]

SHould have checked it. At the time it looked like Barnes was gesturing to the sideline something like "am I allowed to check kicks at goal?".

 

[MajorlyRagerly]

SHould have checked it. At the time it looked like Barnes was gesturing to the sideline something like "am I allowed to check kicks at goal?".

Seen a few vids of this today. I back the linesmen completely. If I had to make a call on the videos I'd probably say yes, it's in, but come on.. one guy on the planet as the only perfectly clear view and he called it out.

Whats the issue?

 

[antipodean]

It's not like either assistant referee equivocated. They were certain and if the referee is unsure at that point, he should call for review. Simple.

Thankfully the Welsh have some pool matches to play.

 

[Jay]

SHould have checked it. At the time it looked like Barnes was gesturing to the sideline something like "am I allowed to check kicks at goal?".

He was asking for a new ball.

 

[chief]

Wayne Barnes isn't to blame. The Assistants are. They should have said let's go and check. Still I have absolutely no idea if it went over, even after looking at countless replays.

Barnes had a good game aside from that I thought. I like his leniency allowing players to leave their feet, at least you know where he stands. Look at all the other games this weekend, you saw them pin each infringement however it was inconsistently refereed. I'd rather consistency over inconsistency.

 

[Nusadan]

He was asking for a new ball.

As the old ball in the centre of the controversy was kept as evidence.

 

[MajorlyRagerly]

Wayne Barnes isn't to blame. The Assistants are. They should have said let's go and check. Still I have absolutely no idea if it went over, even after looking at countless replays.

But if they are sure it missed, why do they need to recheck? They have the best view on the planet.

 

[Jnor]

I actually thought it would have hit a taller upright, so the call sits pretty well with me.

The Welsh had opportunities to sew the game up even after that and didn't. The Boks were too good.

 

[Jumpers]

Paddy O'Brien is the man responsible for the referee appointments but some of those named on the list are a joke, way out of their depth!
Mr. Barnes ref the England/Wales game OK but I agree Mr. Walsh should not be there and yes Mark Lawerence should be there for sure!!
I predict there's going to be contraversey involving a critical refs or TMO call before this WC is over and will have a Massive impact on the team/s involved!!! Watch this space!

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

I predict there's going to be contraversey involving a critical refs or TMO call before this WC is over and will have a Massive impact on the team/s involved!!! Watch this space!

I predict it wont snow in Perth tomorrow...

People can find a controversy in anything. If Wales had been given that penalty goal, other people would be saying that the ball would have hit the post. And that we need a TMO review...

No doubt there will be more borderline calls the refs need to make. No matter which way the decision goes, a large number of people will be angry. The difference between good teams and bad teams is their ability to bounce back from any external disadvantage. If Wales had been given that goal, I still think SA would have won that by a close margin, because that is how they win a lot of their games (by just edging out the other team).

 

[Brumbies Guy]

Wayne Barnes isn't to blame. The Assistants are.

Blame for what? They made the right call..

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

The only way to solve this problem is probably with hawk-eye or some form of laser technology. Even with camera angles we can't get a definitive answer.

 

[Lee Grant]

It's not a problem as a few people have stated just a perceived problem by a few punters and the Wales connections,

My earlier comment was on how a TMO should act if asked.

My thoughts watching it live were were that I was unsure because I had no idea where the ball was when it appeared to be inside the line of the upright, but I haven't seen it since.

The 3 officials had the best view as others have said but it is interesting that Frans Steyn said that he thought it went over, though I don't know where he was standing,