RWC QF 4 AUS v SCO (Twickenham) 19th Oct 0200 AEDT

[Dewald Nel]

Or we could have received a penalty from the previous scrum in which the Scottish fron row appeared to stand-up under pressure - which has been ruthlessly penalised all RWC.

Or they could have received a scrum penalty, kicked it out beyond halfway, thrown it in, and kicked it out to win. What would have happened is pure conjecture. What should have happened is, too. Not clear why you're so sure Aus would've won as they were still behind until an incorrect call was made that put them in the lead.

 

[Dewald Nel]

Surely you can find your own refereeing decision to defend/attack instead of relying on one of ours.

What a stupid response. This forum is for everyone, last I checked.

 

[swingpass]

Who's talking about officials? Talking about exactly what swingpass said. If he can repeat that after losing the final in a suspect way, then all credit to him.

i certainly hope i don't have too
but i do believe the technology bit has gone way too far, it was introduced to overcome egregiously bad decisions, not to disect every nuance of the game and blowtorch the refs. let them make the decision good and bad and just everyone get on with it.

 

[Gnostic]

As with Paddy Obrien visiting the NZ dressing room years ago and then being critical of Dickenson. Obrien might not have contravened any direct rules, but the perception of integrity is essential to the validity of the process.

In what world does the IRB think it is appropriate to have a system where John Jeffery compromises the perception of the integrity of the system and then this history making comments about the referee is made. I think it is a dangerous allegation to make that Jeffery consciously or unconsciously used his position to influence the outcome of this review and the statement without substantial evidence proving that to actually be the case. What I do think is the IRB has again failed to mainatain robust systems that ensure the probity and integrity in the disciplinary and review processes, that is where the real incompetence lies.

 

[Highlander35]

Think we've probably reached the limits of reasonable discourse. People's opinions aren't going to shift because of posts. Mods, if it's not going to be locked, is there a functionality to put individual threads on ignore?

 

[cyclopath]

No.

 

[Highlander35]

I'll just unsubscribe and hope it doesn't pop up much more then.

 

[ACT Crusader]

Do you reckon there is really any benefit in bringing him on? Having watched Cheika do it several times I can't see that he adds anything over Genia

Of course there is. Phipps is a magician that has the new invisibility cloak. He tries to gather a ball it hits his body, then takes a swipe at the ball with his arm where he hits it back and like magic, Joubert and many others don't see it.

Excuse the pun but Phipps is worth his weight in gold.....

 

[Quick Hands]

Or they could have received a scrum penalty, kicked it out beyond halfway, thrown it in, and kicked it out to win. What would have happened is pure conjecture. What should have happened is, too. Not clear why you're so sure Aus would've won as they were still behind until an incorrect call was made that put them in the lead.

I'm not sure what would or could have happened. What I'm sure about is that the referee made what at worst was a 50/50 call - one of a few in the game that resulted in a penalty goal - like the Scottish scrum penalty at 32 minutes which was no less a 50/50 call and gave Scotland 3 points.

You can't just analyse decisions in the last couple of minutes, unless you are going to go through every call in the match and evaluate it's impact on the final result, looking at the last penalty is disengenuous to say the least.

 

[ACT Crusader]

As with Paddy Obrien visiting the NZ dressing room years ago and then being critical of Dickenson. Obrien might not have contravened any direct rules, but the perception of integrity is essential to the validity of the process.

In what world does the IRB think it is appropriate to have a system where John Jeffery compromises the perception of the integrity of the system and then this history making comments about the referee is made. I think it is a dangerous allegation to make that Jeffery consciously or unconsciously used his position to influence the outcome of this review and the statement without substantial evidence proving that to actually be the case. What I do think is the IRB has again failed to mainatain robust systems that ensure the probity and integrity in the disciplinary and review processes, that is where the real incompetence lies.

It was a panel review and the statement would not have been released without consensus. It's not some rogue individual trying to seek some form of vindication for his countrymen.

 

[Dewald Nel]

I'm not sure what would or could have happened. What I'm sure about is that the referee made what at worst was a 50/50 call - one of a few in the game that resulted in a penalty goal - like the Scottish scrum penalty at 32 minutes which was no less a 50/50 call and gave Scotland 3 points.

You can't just analyse decisions in the last couple of minutes, unless you are going to go through every call in the match and evaluate it's impact on the final result, looking at the last penalty is disengenuous to say the least.

Which is what I've said myself at least twice.

 

[Quick Hands]

Which is what I've said myself at least twice.

Which means that we agree after all that.

 

[Quick Hands]

It was a panel review and the statement would not have been released without consensus. It's not some rogue individual trying to seek some form of vindication for his countrymen.

Well, someone decided to convene the panel to discuss one decision in one match out of the 44 played. A number of close decisions have decided some of the other matches, (ask the US or the Samoans), but there was no instant panel meeting and re-adjudication of the decision.
And of course, the person who convenes panel meetings is the chairman of the panel.

 

[Pfitzy]

Head of that review board was a Scot.

 

[Dewald Nel]

Which means that we agree after all that.

Yep It's just about rule clarifications really. Need to make certain of "grey areas" before the semi-finals. Which World Rugby did.

 

[Brumby Runner]

OK guys, the biometric leg-lifting sub-thread is way off the topic of this thread, and I think had an airing somewhere else (RWC 2015 thread???) so can we keep it to match stuff?

And at the judiciary hearing if I'm not mistaken.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

What a stupid response. This forum is for everyone, last I checked.

See that smiley face - you need to get a sense of humour and sarcasm because otherwise the internet, and particularly an Australian based rugby forum, is no place for you.

 

[Dewald Nel]

See that smiley face - you need to get a sense of humour and sarcasm because otherwise the internet, and particularly an Australian based rugby forum, is no place for you.

Maybe the entire internet is not for you.

The defensiveness in this thread is hilarious.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Maybe the entire internet is not for you.

The defensiveness in this thread is hilarious.

You still don't get it.

 

[cyclopath]

Maybe the entire internet is not for you.

The defensiveness in this thread is hilarious.

As is the borderline trolling by a few.