RWC - New Zealand v France - 24th September

[whatty]

Yea Waugh is spot on, I call it my referee time and balance interpretation.

The time the referee gives the fetcher before he shouts release or blows hands in, and the balance he give the fetcher leaning on a player or on his feet. Richie had to exceed both before he found the sweet spots for each reffere so had to get caught to find it and playing so close to the edge he got it wrong sometimes. Cheating no, irritating, hell yea.

I feel he has not played this fetcher role as prominently lately, something is different?
But then I just feel the way the game is been refereed this WC has reduced the fetcher role slightly.

 

[Dan54]

This is a sad indictment on our game, the same way it was suggested earlier that NZ have a better chance of winning when Rolland is officiating. The destructive controversy will not stop unless the reasons for these sorts of hope and fears are eradicated.

Broken Rugby.

Actually that not broken rugby, that's broken supporters.

 

[Bowside]

This is a sad indictment on our game, the same way it was suggested earlier that NZ have a better chance of winning when Rolland is officiating. The destructive controversy will not stop unless the reasons for these sorts of hope and fears are eradicated.

Broken Rugby.

I agree, rugby is broken when the refs style impacts the outcome. I just want to see teams win because they played better rugby, not because they played the ref better. And thats not at all a crack at kiwi's because most of the time they do play better rugby

 

[Jnor]

So we just pretend that everything is bang on with officating standards and there is no room for improvement?

 

[Blob]

I agree, rugby is broken when the refs style impacts the outcome. I just want to see teams win because they played better rugby, not because they played the ref better. And thats not at all a crack at kiwi's because most of the time they do play better rugby

If you're a good team the ref's style has very little impact. If your entire game plan requires a certain set of ref interpretations I suggest your game plan is not very good.

 

[Blob]

So we just pretend that everything is bang on with officating standards and there is no room for improvement?

No, but contrary to popular belief on this forum, improvement isn't defined by whether or not the officiating aids the Wallabies.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

No, but contrary to popular belief on this forum, improvement isn't defined by whether or not the officiating aids the Wallabies.

The problem with the idea that the ref doesn't make any difference is that by the time you get to the semis, if not earlier, both teams are good teams. It becomes a game of inches.

 

[teach]

I feel he has not played this fetcher role as prominently lately, something is different?
But then I just feel the way the game is been refereed this WC has reduced the fetcher role slightly.

Or maybe he is just not pushing the envelope so much at this tournament and trying to make sure he gives no penalties away at all.
I think fetchers who are effective at their job because they play the ball illegally are getting caught easier now that there are often less bodies flying into the ruck=greater visibility.
I think it is more important now to try and clean out the opposition or prevent a counter ruck. Just an opinion, no real evidence to back it up, but that has never stopped anyone posting on forums before.

 

[Lee Grant]

teach

Spot on. As one has written about the crackdown on certain laws before the 2010 S14, the specialist fetcher would be marginalised and counter rucking would have greater currency.

Before the crackdown the role of specialist fetcher was magnified more and more as referees ignored the breakdown laws as they were written; who knows why? Maybe because they wanted to "let the game flow" more and appear modern.

Whatever, they nearly ruined the game; such was the licence given about some breakdown laws, e.g.being allowed to tackle the ball carrier, get to feet and rip the ball out, all without releasing the player tackled. Attacking teams were shit scared to retain their own ball in their own half. No wonder the virus of ping pong rugby invaded the game.

So the specialist fetcher who had nothing much more to his game withered on the vine but the good ones prevailed. Some teams like South Africa, scarcely had more than 2 or 3 fetchers in the professional era and kept on bashing people off the ball.

McCaw was never just a fetcher, he was an all rounder and master of the sly play, which he has evolved in the crackdown environment especially with blocking lines and judicious loitering. Like George Smith he was always a good linker and if one of the other two backrowers had some attribute missing, he would provide it.


And you are right teach: lack of evidence has never stopped anybody posting on rugby forums. There is a certain tyranny about evidence; there should be less of it.
.

 

[Bowside]

If your entire game plan requires a certain set of ref interpretations I suggest your game plan is not very good.

That bit of your post highlights everything that is wrong. Of course your game plan should require a certain set of ref interpretations, because there should only be one set of interpretations. Winning should not be about trying to guess which rules are going to be enforced this game and which are not.

I agree with the first sentence but not the second.

 

[ACT Crusader]

That bit of your post highlights everything that is wrong. Of course your game plan should require a certain set of ref interpretations, because there should only be one set of interpretations. Winning should not be about trying to guess which rules are going to be enforced this game and which are not.

I agree with the first sentence but not the second.

"Interpretations" as in how and when a ref calls for example that a ruck is over, or when a ref calls to a halfback to "use it" when a maul is stagnant, or when a player needs to release.

The way the ref interprets on the day is all that matters, not what the same ref did last week, last month or last year. Timing of calls is everything and every ref is different. So playing to the ref is extremely important in rugby because of the design of the laws and their reliance on ref (human) interpretation.

I remember a few years ago watching Chris White officiate an international game and commented to my brother that he is very quick to blow the whistle tonight for holding on in the tackle. A couple of weeks later I recall he was reffing another test and in a conversation with a player after he blew a penalty for holding on, he said to the penalised player that he had to release straight away as the player was on his feet. He made it clear from the outset what he was looking for (rightly or wrongly).

Other refs of that same period simply did not interpret like that and had their own ways, some allowed a fraction more time for the ball to be placed rather than just "released", some seemed to allow an eternity, etc.

 

[Blob]

That bit of your post highlights everything that is wrong. Of course your game plan should require a certain set of ref interpretations, because there should only be one set of interpretations. Winning should not be about trying to guess which rules are going to be enforced this game and which are not.

I agree with the first sentence but not the second.

Yeah, I don't think you understand the difference between interpretations and rules. The rules are the rules. They do not vary. Interpretations are individual decisions, about how long to let advantage run, about when a ruck is over etc. Interpretations are a natural function of having humans involved in rugby. Having a single set is impossible. Adapting to the interpretations is the only way to play.

 

[potogold]

Wow! Give credit much.
You say France played well????
Did you look at the scoreboard?
They were munched.

france turned off when those first two tries went in. it was so obvious. if new zealand were to face the strongest french team, actually concentrating, it would be close, real close.

 

[Bowside]

Yeah, I don't think you understand the difference between interpretations and rules. The rules are the rules. They do not vary. Interpretations are individual decisions, about how long to let advantage run, about when a ruck is over etc. Interpretations are a natural function of having humans involved in rugby. Having a single set is impossible. Adapting to the interpretations is the only way to play.

I understand quite clearly what interpretations are, but the point I was trying to make is that the interpretations differ wildly between refs. What Muttonbird originally said about the game being 'broken', came about because certain rules are not enforced 'the same way' in certain situations depending on who the referee is. I think you can say with a fair amount of confidence that when the referee impacts the game, rather than just enforcing the rules, than something needs to be done.

While we like to bags refs, I don't blame them in some cases because the rules of rugby are so ambiguous and complicated that they are bound to get it wrong. Aside from obvious mistakes like missing knock-ons and forward passes, no referee would ever get complained about if every other referee applied the laws of the game in the same way. But the fact is they dont, because in their current state the laws of the game are flawed in places and generally open to too much interpretation.

Dont take this as me suggesting that we dumb down the game and turn it into league. The breakdown and scrum just need to be cleaned up.

 

[Langthorne]

The ABs were very good and rightful winners.
The French had their moments of brilliance and disaster.
There were a ridiculous number of high tackles (and tackles in the air) missed. New Zealand were very lucky in this regard.

As a general aside, I hate it that the high tackle laws are not enforced when the player being tackled is in the act of scoring a try.

As for AB supporters being cool with refs - Barnes 07

 

[Blob]

I understand quite clearly what interpretations are, but the point I was trying to make is that the interpretations differ wildly between refs. What Muttonbird originally said about the game being 'broken', came about because certain rules are not enforced 'the same way' in certain situations depending on who the referee is. I think you can say with a fair amount of confidence that when the referee impacts the game, rather than just enforcing the rules, than something needs to be done.

While we like to bags refs, I don't blame them in some cases because the rules of rugby are so ambiguous and complicated that they are bound to get it wrong. Aside from obvious mistakes like missing knock-ons and forward passes, no referee would ever get complained about if every other referee applied the laws of the game in the same way. But the fact is they dont, because in their current state the laws of the game are flawed in places and generally open to too much interpretation.

Dont take this as me suggesting that we dumb down the game and turn it into league. The breakdown and scrum just need to be cleaned up.

Well you make a lot of unsubstantiated claims in that post, none of which I will accept without evidence.

The notion of materiality means that refs always have the discretion to to enforce or not enforce a given law in a given situation. Materiality necessarily requires interpretation. The only alternative to materiality is to penalise every single transgression, which would make the game unplayable. The fact is that rugby is based on a contest for possession. Allowing for that contest will always leave space for a fair degree of chaos, in scrums, mauls and rucks. It is inevitable. Removing the contest will remove the chaos and turn the game into league. That's all there is to it.

 

[Bowside]

Well you make a lot of unsubstantiated claims in that post, none of which I will accept without evidence.

The notion of materiality means that refs always have the discretion to to enforce or not enforce a given law in a given situation. Materiality necessarily requires interpretation. The only alternative to materiality is to penalise every single transgression, which would make the game unplayable. The fact is that rugby is based on a contest for possession. Allowing for that contest will always leave space for a fair degree of chaos, in scrums, mauls and rucks. It is inevitable. Removing the contest will remove the chaos and turn the game into league. That's all there is to it.

There are ways to control the chaos though - Carding multiple offenders and reintroducing rucking?

This is probably not the thread to discuss this in, I dont want to sound like I'm trying to take away from the all blacks win.

 

[Dan54]

Going back to game one of highlights for me was Jock Hobbs presenting Richie with cap, I thought it great choice of person to do it, I still regard Hobbs as the man who saved NZ (and possibly Aus) rugby in the professinal circus in '95. He has done an incredible amount for NZ rugby, and although not as highly regarded in playing terms as a many ex ABs, he has incredible mana in NZ rugby circles.

 

[antipodean]

Was looking forward to this and it didn't disappoint. The French fans turned up in good numbers and even greater voice. The noise coming from Gate E (South-East corner) was fantastic, often drowning out the All Black supporters.

Absolutely marvellous game to be at. A large proportion of the crowd stayed around for Richie to be awarded his cap. My wife drily observed it was missing a propeller. Fantastic to have Jock award it.

On Trinh-Duc's try, well played by Yachvili. Lesson for the All Blacks; always be set in defence.

 

[Bon]

Exactly,keep your eye on the ball.