All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3
-
Refs, like players will never be immune to criticism (nor should they) the media however do have alot to answer for though, not just sports, they just stoke the fires from whichever 'side' they decide to take, often ignoring facts and without being professional about what they are supposed to be doing (case in point the 'Ritchity Grub' and the 'clown' as a couple of recent ones)
-
While refs not making big calls may be a 'blight on the game', I'd argue it's because of a far bigger blight on the game - the carry on by media and fans after a ref gets it wrong. Craig Joubert is a prime example. He made a huge call in the 2015 QF, and while it was incorrect it was not a howler. The outcry from commentators, journalists and ex-players was frankly appalling. The bloke became a pariah and he hasn't been seen in big international matches since.
So now you see a risk averse approach in the big moments. After seeing what happened to Joubert, can you blame them?
@barbarian True observations but the refs (and all authorities in the modern day) do have a "shield" to protect themselves.
And that's to follow the protocols and processes the lawmakers initiate
"Just following orders" is what most reasonable people attributed to the Joubert case.
But Poite (and Garces) dropped his shield and using a break in play to chat and change an onfield decision is squarely on them.
As mentioned above, that's not the process in rugby. You can't do that regardless of the fairness of the call.
It's the hidden figures behind WR refs and the lack of info coming out from them that adds to the discontent. Why not spend some time educating us stakeholders what the refs get up to. Doco type info on Training sessions, reviews, new law introductions etc would surely help soften the public perception.
Communicate with and inform the people who pay for this game
-
While refs not making big calls may be a 'blight on the game', I'd argue it's because of a far bigger blight on the game - the carry on by media and fans after a ref gets it wrong. Craig Joubert is a prime example. He made a huge call in the 2015 QF, and while it was incorrect it was not a howler. The outcry from commentators, journalists and ex-players was frankly appalling. The bloke became a pariah and he hasn't been seen in big international matches since.
So now you see a risk averse approach in the big moments. After seeing what happened to Joubert, can you blame them?
@barbarian said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
While refs not making big calls may be a 'blight on the game', I'd argue it's because of a far bigger blight on the game - the carry on by media and fans after a ref gets it wrong. Craig Joubert is a prime example. He made a huge call in the 2015 QF, and while it was incorrect it was not a howler. The outcry from commentators, journalists and ex-players was frankly appalling. The bloke became a pariah and he hasn't been seen in big international matches since.
So now you see a risk averse approach in the big moments. After seeing what happened to Joubert, can you blame them?
Absolutely bang on point.
-
@Catogrande said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@Bones Thanks
Edit: Bugger. The sarky comment I left earlier got lost. I meant to say Thanks. Mutter under breath, condescending bastard.
I disagree.
@Bones said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@Catogrande said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@Bones Thanks
Edit: Bugger. The sarky comment I left earlier got lost. I meant to say Thanks. Mutter under breath, condescending bastard.
I disagree.
A poor response. A better one would have been "Condescending? My dear Cato, how clever of you to notice".
-
While refs not making big calls may be a 'blight on the game', I'd argue it's because of a far bigger blight on the game - the carry on by media and fans after a ref gets it wrong. Craig Joubert is a prime example. He made a huge call in the 2015 QF, and while it was incorrect it was not a howler. The outcry from commentators, journalists and ex-players was frankly appalling. The bloke became a pariah and he hasn't been seen in big international matches since.
So now you see a risk averse approach in the big moments. After seeing what happened to Joubert, can you blame them?
@barbarian said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
While refs not making big calls may be a 'blight on the game', I'd argue it's because of a far bigger blight on the game - the carry on by media and fans after a ref gets it wrong. Craig Joubert is a prime example. He made a huge call in the 2015 QF, and while it was incorrect it was not a howler. The outcry from commentators, journalists and ex-players was frankly appalling. The bloke became a pariah and he hasn't been seen in big international matches since.
So now you see a risk averse approach in the big moments. After seeing what happened to Joubert, can you blame them?
Yes. I rank the treatment of Joubert in 2015 as the most depressing and disgusting of all the RWC 'ref-storms'. Because, as you say, it wasn't even a howler, and there was no recourse to change it. The carry on was pathetic.
However, I disagree with your point that ref's not making big calls is due to examples like Joubert '15. As the other major examples from the RWC which all pre-date 2015 RWC; Barnes 07, B Lawrence '11, and even Joubert '11 were examples of refs swallowing their whistle.
Poite managed to combine the two examples in a single decision/non-decision. But the stakes were much lower, so not that much of a shitstorm.
They are dammed if they do, damned if they don't.
-
I haven't bothered reading back through the thread and basically ignored everything once the final whistle blew as I was on holiday and wanted to enjoy myself.
I have a question though. Poite's turn of phrase when he spoke to Read and Warburton after the muted conversation with Garces was odd. Could have just been his use of english but he says 'we have a deal....' in a tone that implies to me like he was reminded by Garces of something previously agreed.
When does a ref strike 'a deal'?
Was it a deal with the coaches pre series to not end a match on a debatable call? Not going by the second test. Was it a deal between the ref team after the second test to avoid a marginal deciding call? Strange that Poite, Peyper and Ayoub all forgot about it then.
Was it a deal just between Poite and Garces? What was the other side of the deal.
Forget all the rights and wrongs of what the players did for a moment. I find the strangest part of the whole thing to be the 'missing conversation' and the terminology used afterward.
Also comparisons to Joubert are probably what is keeping WR silent on the matter. They copped a lot of criticism for throwing the blame in his direction when he did nothing wrong. He made the correct call based on what he saw and was not able to use the TMO to notice the extra touch that put everyone onside.
In this case three of the team of four conferred and came to the same conclusion with the benefit of replays after a potential foul play check. A 'deal' was then struck with the worst placed official to change the decision. Just weird.
I'm sure the ABs asked for an explanation in the post match report but I doubt it will be made public by them. -
I just want refs to be able to call the clear and obvious, but it appears that offside is a difficult concept to grasp.
-
I just want refs to be able to call the clear and obvious, but it appears that offside is a difficult concept to grasp.
@antipodean what is most surprising, is that Itoje isnt the most offside there!
I guess the AR couldnt see what was going on because the hooker was in the way.
-
I just want refs to be able to call the clear and obvious, but it appears that offside is a difficult concept to grasp.
@antipodean said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
I just want refs to be able to call the clear and obvious, but it appears that offside is a difficult concept to grasp.
Too busy looking for spurious acts of foul play. No wonder I don't recall us winning any of their lineouts
-
@antipodean what is most surprising, is that Itoje isnt the most offside there!
I guess the AR couldnt see what was going on because the hooker was in the way.
@taniwharugby said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@antipodean what is most surprising, is that Itoje isnt the most offside there!
I guess the AR couldnt see what was going on because the hooker was in the way.
Making excuses for a professional. Poite could have called it too
-
I just want refs to be able to call the clear and obvious, but it appears that offside is a difficult concept to grasp.
@antipodean I don't see what you're getting at - can you draw a line on that pic to demonstrate what we're doing wrong?
-
@antipodean said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
I just want refs to be able to call the clear and obvious, but it appears that offside is a difficult concept to grasp.
Too busy looking for spurious acts of foul play. No wonder I don't recall us winning any of their lineouts
@canefan said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@antipodean said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
I just want refs to be able to call the clear and obvious, but it appears that offside is a difficult concept to grasp.
Too busy looking for spurious acts of foul play. No wonder I don't recall us winning any of their lineouts
I think he was considering a scrum. Looks accidental.
-
@taniwharugby said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@antipodean what is most surprising, is that Itoje isnt the most offside there!
I guess the AR couldnt see what was going on because the hooker was in the way.
Making excuses for a professional. Poite could have called it too
@canefan said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@taniwharugby said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@antipodean what is most surprising, is that Itoje isnt the most offside there!
I guess the AR couldnt see what was going on because the hooker was in the way.
Making excuses for a professional. Poite could have called it too
Blind fucking freddy could have called that!
I was really surprised how the ref team let this go they whole way through like it wasn't even identified in the post match reviews
-
@canefan said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@taniwharugby said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@antipodean what is most surprising, is that Itoje isnt the most offside there!
I guess the AR couldnt see what was going on because the hooker was in the way.
Making excuses for a professional. Poite could have called it too
Blind fucking freddy could have called that!
I was really surprised how the ref team let this go they whole way through like it wasn't even identified in the post match reviews
@Crucial I know. It's like these bloody players will try to get away with all sorts of ignoring orders if you let them!
Still remember how effective a 10 yard march was for keeping us young'uns from being dicks on the field.
"Penalty black. I've warned you about closing the gap. Go away. Back 10!"
"Penalty! you are not the captain and you do not speak to me like that!"
Wonder if that would work????
'course it fucken does!
Large number of issues solved right there
-
I haven't bothered reading back through the thread and basically ignored everything once the final whistle blew as I was on holiday and wanted to enjoy myself.
I have a question though. Poite's turn of phrase when he spoke to Read and Warburton after the muted conversation with Garces was odd. Could have just been his use of english but he says 'we have a deal....' in a tone that implies to me like he was reminded by Garces of something previously agreed.
When does a ref strike 'a deal'?
Was it a deal with the coaches pre series to not end a match on a debatable call? Not going by the second test. Was it a deal between the ref team after the second test to avoid a marginal deciding call? Strange that Poite, Peyper and Ayoub all forgot about it then.
Was it a deal just between Poite and Garces? What was the other side of the deal.
Forget all the rights and wrongs of what the players did for a moment. I find the strangest part of the whole thing to be the 'missing conversation' and the terminology used afterward.
Also comparisons to Joubert are probably what is keeping WR silent on the matter. They copped a lot of criticism for throwing the blame in his direction when he did nothing wrong. He made the correct call based on what he saw and was not able to use the TMO to notice the extra touch that put everyone onside.
In this case three of the team of four conferred and came to the same conclusion with the benefit of replays after a potential foul play check. A 'deal' was then struck with the worst placed official to change the decision. Just weird.
I'm sure the ABs asked for an explanation in the post match report but I doubt it will be made public by them.@Crucial said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
I haven't bothered reading back through the thread and basically ignored everything once the final whistle blew as I was on holiday and wanted to enjoy myself.
I have a question though. Poite's turn of phrase when he spoke to Read and Warburton after the muted conversation with Garces was odd. Could have just been his use of english but he says 'we have a deal....' in a tone that implies to me like he was reminded by Garces of something previously agreed.
When does a ref strike 'a deal'?
Was it a deal with the coaches pre series to not end a match on a debatable call? Not going by the second test. Was it a deal between the ref team after the second test to avoid a marginal deciding call? Strange that Poite, Peyper and Ayoub all forgot about it then.
Was it a deal just between Poite and Garces? What was the other side of the deal.
Forget all the rights and wrongs of what the players did for a moment. I find the strangest part of the whole thing to be the 'missing conversation' and the terminology used afterward.
Also comparisons to Joubert are probably what is keeping WR silent on the matter. They copped a lot of criticism for throwing the blame in his direction when he did nothing wrong. He made the correct call based on what he saw and was not able to use the TMO to notice the extra touch that put everyone onside.
In this case three of the team of four conferred and came to the same conclusion with the benefit of replays after a potential foul play check. A 'deal' was then struck with the worst placed official to change the decision. Just weird.
I'm sure the ABs asked for an explanation in the post match report but I doubt it will be made public by them.Deal means Agreement. A deal is 'un accord'. To be in agreement is 'etre en accord'.
Given Ayoub agreed with Poite that it was a knock-on with 'the second touch by Red' and that it was a fair contest and that it was a penalty kick against Red for being offside in front, then Garces has to have said something to Poite about the circumstances applying to Accidental Offside and the sanction that should be applied. Either Poite had forgotten about the sanction for this Law and assumed it was a penalty no matter what offside circumstances there were or he didn't know about the AO circumstances.
In other words, the officials thought it was an unavoidable/accidental offside and believed that a penalty was the correct sanction. Garces then intervenes and says the correct sanction is a scrum to black.
I don't buy this notion that Poite bottled the decision since he had already made it, and it looked like both captains were going to accept it, since Warburton told his players to get ready for a quick tap in front of Poite. So the easy decision was to simply say, fair contest and allow penalty to proceed. The tougher decision was to change his mind.
-
@Crucial said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
I haven't bothered reading back through the thread and basically ignored everything once the final whistle blew as I was on holiday and wanted to enjoy myself.
I have a question though. Poite's turn of phrase when he spoke to Read and Warburton after the muted conversation with Garces was odd. Could have just been his use of english but he says 'we have a deal....' in a tone that implies to me like he was reminded by Garces of something previously agreed.
When does a ref strike 'a deal'?
Was it a deal with the coaches pre series to not end a match on a debatable call? Not going by the second test. Was it a deal between the ref team after the second test to avoid a marginal deciding call? Strange that Poite, Peyper and Ayoub all forgot about it then.
Was it a deal just between Poite and Garces? What was the other side of the deal.
Forget all the rights and wrongs of what the players did for a moment. I find the strangest part of the whole thing to be the 'missing conversation' and the terminology used afterward.
Also comparisons to Joubert are probably what is keeping WR silent on the matter. They copped a lot of criticism for throwing the blame in his direction when he did nothing wrong. He made the correct call based on what he saw and was not able to use the TMO to notice the extra touch that put everyone onside.
In this case three of the team of four conferred and came to the same conclusion with the benefit of replays after a potential foul play check. A 'deal' was then struck with the worst placed official to change the decision. Just weird.
I'm sure the ABs asked for an explanation in the post match report but I doubt it will be made public by them.Deal means Agreement. A deal is 'un accord'. To be in agreement is 'etre en accord'.
Given Ayoub agreed with Poite that it was a knock-on with 'the second touch by Red' and that it was a fair contest and that it was a penalty kick against Red for being offside in front, then Garces has to have said something to Poite about the circumstances applying to Accidental Offside and the sanction that should be applied. Either Poite had forgotten about the sanction for this Law and assumed it was a penalty no matter what offside circumstances there were or he didn't know about the AO circumstances.
In other words, the officials thought it was an unavoidable/accidental offside and believed that a penalty was the correct sanction. Garces then intervenes and says the correct sanction is a scrum to black.
I don't buy this notion that Poite bottled the decision since he had already made it, and it looked like both captains were going to accept it, since Warburton told his players to get ready for a quick tap in front of Poite. So the easy decision was to simply say, fair contest and allow penalty to proceed. The tougher decision was to change his mind.
-
@Crucial said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
I haven't bothered reading back through the thread and basically ignored everything once the final whistle blew as I was on holiday and wanted to enjoy myself.
I have a question though. Poite's turn of phrase when he spoke to Read and Warburton after the muted conversation with Garces was odd. Could have just been his use of english but he says 'we have a deal....' in a tone that implies to me like he was reminded by Garces of something previously agreed.
When does a ref strike 'a deal'?
Was it a deal with the coaches pre series to not end a match on a debatable call? Not going by the second test. Was it a deal between the ref team after the second test to avoid a marginal deciding call? Strange that Poite, Peyper and Ayoub all forgot about it then.
Was it a deal just between Poite and Garces? What was the other side of the deal.
Forget all the rights and wrongs of what the players did for a moment. I find the strangest part of the whole thing to be the 'missing conversation' and the terminology used afterward.
Also comparisons to Joubert are probably what is keeping WR silent on the matter. They copped a lot of criticism for throwing the blame in his direction when he did nothing wrong. He made the correct call based on what he saw and was not able to use the TMO to notice the extra touch that put everyone onside.
In this case three of the team of four conferred and came to the same conclusion with the benefit of replays after a potential foul play check. A 'deal' was then struck with the worst placed official to change the decision. Just weird.
I'm sure the ABs asked for an explanation in the post match report but I doubt it will be made public by them.Deal means Agreement. A deal is 'un accord'. To be in agreement is 'etre en accord'.
Given Ayoub agreed with Poite that it was a knock-on with 'the second touch by Red' and that it was a fair contest and that it was a penalty kick against Red for being offside in front, then Garces has to have said something to Poite about the circumstances applying to Accidental Offside and the sanction that should be applied. Either Poite had forgotten about the sanction for this Law and assumed it was a penalty no matter what offside circumstances there were or he didn't know about the AO circumstances.
In other words, the officials thought it was an unavoidable/accidental offside and believed that a penalty was the correct sanction. Garces then intervenes and says the correct sanction is a scrum to black.
I don't buy this notion that Poite bottled the decision since he had already made it, and it looked like both captains were going to accept it, since Warburton told his players to get ready for a quick tap in front of Poite. So the easy decision was to simply say, fair contest and allow penalty to proceed. The tougher decision was to change his mind.
@Pot-Hale said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@Crucial said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
I haven't bothered reading back through the thread and basically ignored everything once the final whistle blew as I was on holiday and wanted to enjoy myself.
I have a question though. Poite's turn of phrase when he spoke to Read and Warburton after the muted conversation with Garces was odd. Could have just been his use of english but he says 'we have a deal....' in a tone that implies to me like he was reminded by Garces of something previously agreed.
When does a ref strike 'a deal'?
Was it a deal with the coaches pre series to not end a match on a debatable call? Not going by the second test. Was it a deal between the ref team after the second test to avoid a marginal deciding call? Strange that Poite, Peyper and Ayoub all forgot about it then.
Was it a deal just between Poite and Garces? What was the other side of the deal.
Forget all the rights and wrongs of what the players did for a moment. I find the strangest part of the whole thing to be the 'missing conversation' and the terminology used afterward.
Also comparisons to Joubert are probably what is keeping WR silent on the matter. They copped a lot of criticism for throwing the blame in his direction when he did nothing wrong. He made the correct call based on what he saw and was not able to use the TMO to notice the extra touch that put everyone onside.
In this case three of the team of four conferred and came to the same conclusion with the benefit of replays after a potential foul play check. A 'deal' was then struck with the worst placed official to change the decision. Just weird.
I'm sure the ABs asked for an explanation in the post match report but I doubt it will be made public by them.Deal means Agreement. A deal is 'un accord'. To be in agreement is 'etre en accord'.
Given Ayoub agreed with Poite that it was a knock-on with 'the second touch by Red' and that it was a fair contest and that it was a penalty kick against Red for being offside in front, then Garces has to have said something to Poite about the circumstances applying to Accidental Offside and the sanction that should be applied. Either Poite had forgotten about the sanction for this Law and assumed it was a penalty no matter what offside circumstances there were or he didn't know about the AO circumstances.
In other words, the officials thought it was an unavoidable/accidental offside and believed that a penalty was the correct sanction. Garces then intervenes and says the correct sanction is a scrum to black.
I don't buy this notion that Poite bottled the decision since he had already made it, and it looked like both captains were going to accept it, since Warburton told his players to get ready for a quick tap in front of Poite. So the easy decision was to simply say, fair contest and allow penalty to proceed. The tougher decision was to change his mind.
Umm. The officials originally had the call correct. They didn't deem that the offence was accidental as the player played the ball. For Garces to change Poites mind he would have had to convince him that 11.7 didn't apply (ie the player played the ball which stopped the opposition being able to take advantage of the knock on) and that 11.6(a) applied instead (When an offside player cannot avoid being touched by the ball).
If you catch the ball and drop it you have 'played the ball'. I think everyone agrees that in this case it would be a correct call with a harsh outcome as the player was probably unable to avoid it is well and if he had held his hands out of the way it would be accidental. However, he didn't.
By catching and dropping the ball there were two offences in a row which meant advantage wasn't played for the knock on.
By changing to a call of accidental, Poite overruled himself twice. First for blowing the whistle after ALB had the ball and was attacking under advantage, secondly after consulting with two other refs.
He went from a 3-1 decision to a 2-2 with the decider going the other way.
It was a shambles and a poor look for the WR refs dept. WR could help a lot more by clarifying this situation. Maybe they have already done so in one of their mystery refs directives, but by the law book 'playing the ball' is fairly well understood and in all other instances instinctive actions are judged the same as deliberate ones -
@Crucial said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
I haven't bothered reading back through the thread and basically ignored everything once the final whistle blew as I was on holiday and wanted to enjoy myself.
I have a question though. Poite's turn of phrase when he spoke to Read and Warburton after the muted conversation with Garces was odd. Could have just been his use of english but he says 'we have a deal....' in a tone that implies to me like he was reminded by Garces of something previously agreed.
When does a ref strike 'a deal'?
Was it a deal with the coaches pre series to not end a match on a debatable call? Not going by the second test. Was it a deal between the ref team after the second test to avoid a marginal deciding call? Strange that Poite, Peyper and Ayoub all forgot about it then.
Was it a deal just between Poite and Garces? What was the other side of the deal.
Forget all the rights and wrongs of what the players did for a moment. I find the strangest part of the whole thing to be the 'missing conversation' and the terminology used afterward.
Also comparisons to Joubert are probably what is keeping WR silent on the matter. They copped a lot of criticism for throwing the blame in his direction when he did nothing wrong. He made the correct call based on what he saw and was not able to use the TMO to notice the extra touch that put everyone onside.
In this case three of the team of four conferred and came to the same conclusion with the benefit of replays after a potential foul play check. A 'deal' was then struck with the worst placed official to change the decision. Just weird.
I'm sure the ABs asked for an explanation in the post match report but I doubt it will be made public by them.Deal means Agreement. A deal is 'un accord'. To be in agreement is 'etre en accord'.
Given Ayoub agreed with Poite that it was a knock-on with 'the second touch by Red' and that it was a fair contest and that it was a penalty kick against Red for being offside in front, then Garces has to have said something to Poite about the circumstances applying to Accidental Offside and the sanction that should be applied. Either Poite had forgotten about the sanction for this Law and assumed it was a penalty no matter what offside circumstances there were or he didn't know about the AO circumstances.
In other words, the officials thought it was an unavoidable/accidental offside and believed that a penalty was the correct sanction. Garces then intervenes and says the correct sanction is a scrum to black.
I don't buy this notion that Poite bottled the decision since he had already made it, and it looked like both captains were going to accept it, since Warburton told his players to get ready for a quick tap in front of Poite. So the easy decision was to simply say, fair contest and allow penalty to proceed. The tougher decision was to change his mind.
@Pot-Hale said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
In other words, the officials thought it was an unavoidable/accidental offside and believed that a penalty was the correct sanction. Garces then intervenes and says the correct sanction is a scrum to black.
You'd have to be Helen Keller to think Owens has been accidentally hit by the ball here; he reaches for the fucking thing:
