RWC'15 QF: Australia V Scotland. 16:00 Sunday, 18 Oct, Twickenham

chief orman

thebaz wrote: »

but he did make the wrong decision, and then ran of the pitch - hardly the actions of a professional referee , he basically robbed Scotland with his poor decision making.

The last WC final was a disgrace where he refused to give France a half dozen kickable penalties.

errlloyd

The wrong call was the offside. That was pretty forgivable.

The potentially biased / major bottle of a call was giving a penalty not a free kick. Easy way out would have been a free.

Tigerandahalf

Can people clear up the exact incident. I have viewed it on the world rugby site on youtube. Not surprisingly they don't show several replays of it. It appears to come off Strauss' shoulder/arm/back, then Phipps touches it and then the Scottish 18 grabs it.
So why is a penalty awarded? Is it because the 18 stops the advantage (after Strauss knocks on) Australia could have had?
But did Phipps not knock it on before that and thus 2 knockons and you go back for the first knock on.
Or is it that 18 is offside once Phipps touches it?
I probably have the details wrong.

ThisRegard

I don't think there was any bottling.

People complained over the NZ-France game last time when they whinged there was no penalty given against NZ to allow France take the lead, that the ref bottled. Now when there was a penalty given to allow the other team to take the win, that decision was bottled. There's no winning.

Maybe it's part of the World Rugby conspiracy that only Australia, South Africa and NZ are allowed to win?

vienne86

ThisRegard wrote: »

I don't think there was any bottling.

People complained over the NZ-France game last time when they whinged there was no penalty given against NZ to allow France take the lead, that the ref bottled. Now when there was a penalty given to allow the other team to take the win, that decision was bottled. There's no winning.

Maybe it's part of the World Rugby conspiracy that only Australia, South Africa and NZ are allowed to win?

Same ref for those two games though.

ThisRegard

I know. He didn't give a penalty, he "bottled" {I hate that phrase, jaysus, a team gets beaten by a better team but the losing team are "bottlers" ffs}, he did award a penalty, he "bottled".

dfx-

Just listened to Hastings and Dawson and the immediate post match 'reaction' on BBC. Extremely harsh stuff, even for an immediate reaction. Same with World Rugby's statement.

I'm all for the referee deciding the game and making his own decision either way, could do with a lot more of it tbh. I wouldn't criticise this decision, I would however still have huge issue with the yellow card he gave.

Why could he go to TMO to look at the yellow card and not the offside, aren't both foul play.....

Tigerandahalf

dfx- wrote: »

Just listened to Hastings and Dawson and the immediate post match 'reaction' on BBC. Extremely harsh stuff, even for an immediate reaction. Same with World Rugby's statement.

I'm all for the referee deciding the game and making his own decision either way, could do with a lot more of it tbh. I wouldn't criticise this decision, I would however still have huge issue with the yellow card he gave.

Why could he go to TMO to look at the yellow card and not the offside, aren't both foul play.....

No the offside would be a technical foul I would think. Foul play would be an act on another player such as striking or dangerous play.
A lot of Aussies on forums are very annoyed with the scrummaging and say if the TMO had been used Scottish boring on Sio in the scrum would have been picked up.
Also they say Joubert wrongly gave a scrum to Aus (instead of a penalty) on 56 mins when the Scottish no 10 was offside after gathering a blocked kick.
EDIT
I looked at youtube for that incident on 56 mins and Joubert made the correct decision. The Aus player kicked the ball. It hit a Scottish player's body and the Scottish 10 then gathered ahead of the block. But it was accidental and Joubert correctly gave a scrum to Australia and not a penalty

Interested Observer

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

Can people clear up the exact incident. I have viewed it on the world rugby site on youtube. Not surprisingly they don't show several replays of it. It appears to come off Strauss' shoulder/arm/back, then Phipps touches it and then the Scottish 18 grabs it.
So why is a penalty awarded? Is it because the 18 stops the advantage (after Strauss knocks on) Australia could have had?
But did Phipps not knock it on before that and thus 2 knockons and you go back for the first knock on.
Or is it that 18 is offside once Phipps touches it?
I probably have the details wrong.

The penalty is awarded for offside, not for stopping any advantage.

Phipps did not knock the ball on, he hits it back towards his own line.

Once Phipps touches the ball intentionally the 18 is onside.

The reason the penalty was given is the ref must have felt a Scottish player knocked it on rather than Phipps knocking it backwards.

Tigerandahalf

Interested Observer wrote: »

The penalty is awarded for offside, not for stopping any advantage.

Phipps did not knock the ball on, he hits it back towards his own line.

Once Phipps touches the ball intentionally the 18 is onside.

The reason the penalty was given is the ref must have felt a Scottish player knocked it on rather than Phipps knocking it backwards.

I have read this. It clarifies somethings but confuses me on others.
http://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=11&language=EN

It seems 'waiting to play the ball' has a big influence in offside calls. If there was no knock on and Phipps touched the ball back the Scottish 18 would be deemed onside as Phipps wasn't waiting to play the ball, i.e. he wasn't at the base of a ruck waiting to play the ball.

Anjobe

dfx- wrote: »

Why could he go to TMO to look at the yellow card and not the offside, aren't both foul play.....

This is an interesting point I feel and one that hasn't attracted much (any?) comment. Is an intentional knock on foul play? Joubert didn't go to the TMO for that incident, he decided in real time it was just a knock on and the TMO intervened to tell him it was intentional. Should the TMO have been allowed to intervene in this case, which was neither foul play nor an act of scoring?

thebaz

Lucy8080 wrote: »

Yes, he made the wrong decision. But, it took a few replays to be certain either way, which where not available to him at the time, because of the rules.

As Ducky says look at the last WC final - thats 2 big games he has ruined , maybe not intentionally - but he is a professional, on good money, he has access to TMO and touch judge , no excuse for such bad decision making , if he is a supposed top referee

sydthebeat

Anjobe wrote: »

This is an interesting point I feel and one that hasn't attracted much (any?) comment. Is an intentional knock on foul play? Joubert didn't go to the TMO for that incident, he decided in real time it was just a knock on and the TMO intervened to tell him it was intentional. Should the TMO have been allowed to intervene in this case, which was neither foul play nor an act of scoring?

"foul play" is dangerous play

jmayo

awec wrote: »

Can't see Joubert getting any more games.

He shouldn't have been a ref for the last four years after his disgraceful performance in Eden Park.
And only reffing one team is not bad reffing or unintentional reffing.
It is blatant favouritism.

Craig has somewhat of a gift at cutting down the number of countries that he can holiday in.

chief orman wrote: »

The last WC final was a disgrace where he refused to give France a half dozen kickable penalties.

Karma is a bitch.

The pity is he ruined two games and screwed over two teams in very important matches.

Now he was hung out to dry in a manner I haven't seen before in almost any sport.
People in power should do well to remember that it is not always a good idea to screw over some people who know where the skeletons are buried.
I would love to see him write his memoirs, warts and all.

And the laugh is he was hung out to dry for one bad decision whereas four years ago he made a litany of them and there wasn't a peep out of anyone in power.

If only Paddy was still in charge he would be getting to ref NZ in the semi. :rolleyes:

ThisRegard

thebaz wrote: »

As Ducky says look at the last WC final - thats 2 big games he has ruined , maybe not intentionally - but he is a professional, on good money, he has access to TMO and touch judge , no excuse for such bad decision making , if he is a supposed top referee

You can't ask the TMO to take a look at every little thing you have to make a decision in.

Colonialboy

Now if only someone had ever raised an eye about Jouberts performance in Southern versus Northern hemisphere matches... aka NZ v France WC 2011

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057090419

I feel gutted for Scotland, but some satisfaction that finally the general rugby populace might have woken up to some questionable refereeing performances favouring southern hemisphere teams.
How Richie McCall wasnt yellow carded in the first half on Friday night for persistent infringments is also a joke... etc etc

ThisRegard

Colonialboy wrote: »

Now if only someone had ever raised an eye about Jouberts performance in Southern versus Northern hemisphere matches... aka NZ v France WC 2011

There was a couple of hundred thousand eye brows raised at the time.

Colonialboy

ThisRegard wrote: »

There was a couple of hundred thousand eye brows raised at the time.

ThisRegard wrote: »

I don't think there was any bottling.

I wont get involved in your discussion, sounds like your having a grand argument with yourself.

thebaz

ThisRegard wrote: »

You can't ask the TMO to take a look at every little thing you have to make a decision in.

I agree with what you say , in fact I think far too much time has been wasted on going upstairs, for obvious decisions that seam to take an age - but when a WC QF is on the line - you should most definitely go upstairs if the decision is unclear

aimee1

Colonialboy wrote: »

How Richie McCall wasnt yellow carded in the first half on Friday night for persistent infringments is also a joke... etc etc

Speaking of Mr Offside, the tv3 lads were discussing the picamoles incident and said they thought mccaw should have been binned for holding onto the ball. Its one area that needs to be addressed. Its much the same as what Genia did the week before.

ThisRegard

Colonialboy wrote: »

I wont get involved in your discussion, sounds like your having a grand argument with yourself.

How are you confusing bottling with raising eye brows over a decision?

If I walk out in front of a car, I didn't bottle walking across the road, I just made a very stupid mistake.

The Rape of Lucretia

duckysauce wrote: »

Have a look at the last WC final he has history of massive cock ups , George Clancy must be crapping his pants now . I think its great will wake alot of dire Refs up .

The Scotland case was no cock up. They have no cause for complaint. The decision made was well within the margin of error acceptable for refereeing a rugby match.

Some people have impossibly high unrealistic expectations from refs.

Joubert's decision on Sunday was perfectly fine. Incorrect. But perfectly acceptable.

CatFromHue

Interested Observer wrote: »

That isn't what happens. World Rugby have clearly stated it wasn't a penalty.

https://twitter.com/Twickdebs/status/655824028410736640

Even if you take it that Phipps knocked it back, Denton knocks it on before Welsh catches it from an offside position in relation to Denton.

Either way it's a fairly hard call to make

dfx-

Anjobe wrote: »

This is an interesting point I feel and one that hasn't attracted much (any?) comment. Is an intentional knock on foul play? Joubert didn't go to the TMO for that incident, he decided in real time it was just a knock on and the TMO intervened to tell him it was intentional. Should the TMO have been allowed to intervene in this case, which was neither foul play nor an act of scoring?

He made his own decision for the yellow card, but at the very least he 'used' the TMO to give himself another look, he requested a wide angle on it as well.

I'm not sure the TMO told him it was deliberate, I remember him going "what I'm seeing is deliberate" and issuing the card. Either way, he bought himself thinking time with the TMO and another look, may have changed his mind or not on the last penalty.

But I think as a sad consequence of this, the two semifinals and final are going to take about 3 days to finish with every single decision going to TMO. When you see this backlash for making your own decision, why wouldn't you go to video...

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

See, this is the problem with the World Rugby statement. Even now there's still debate among knowledgeable people about whether it was or wan't a penalty. But because World Rugby have come out and definitively stated it was a wrong decision that is what will go down in history and that is what makes Joubert's position as a referee pretty much impossible now. You can argue that he should have been sacked off years ago if you want but what they have effectively done is publicly shame him and make it impossible for him to continue. It's really bad from from World Rugby and completely unnecessary. As Cheika pointed out should they now go back and publicly point out all the other glaring mistakes that were made and undermine all their referees?

As for Scotland maybe they should have had a better line out with 1 minute left in the QF of a WC? None of this would have happened. Much like England's last one against Wales.

Anjobe

dfx- wrote: »

He made his own decision for the yellow card, but at the very least he 'used' the TMO to give himself another look, he requested a wide angle on it as well.

I'm not sure the TMO told him it was deliberate, I remember him going "what I'm seeing is deliberate" and issuing the card. Either way, he bought himself thinking time with the TMO and another look, may have changed his mind or not on the last penalty.

But I think as a sad consequence of this, the two semifinals and final are going to take about 3 days to finish with every single decision going to TMO. When you see this backlash for making your own decision, why wouldn't you go to video...

Well, World Rugby have stated that Joubert couldn't use the TMO for the offside at the end as the TMO can only review acts of foul play and the legitimacy of scores. So, the question is why the TMO intervened in the earlier case which didn't fall within his remit by that definition either (IIRC from the match, he informed Joubert that they needed to review the intentional knock on). It may have seemed reasonable for Joubert to use the TMO in that case but it shouldn't have been allowed, its the inconsistency that really frustrates.

I think use of the TMO further highights the difference between the best referees and the others. The way that Owens for example asks for things to be reviewed while the game goes on and tells the TMO (politely) to butt out when he doesn't need him means that the game is not held up unnecessarily for excessive reviews.

Tigerandahalf

CatFromHue wrote: »

https://twitter.com/Twickdebs/status/655824028410736640

Even if you take it that Phipps knocked it back, Denton knocks it on before Welsh catches it from an offside position in relation to Denton.

Either way it's a fairly hard call to make

The key thing is whether Denton touched it or not. It is very hard to see in the replays. His hand goes towards the ball but it is hard to know if he touches it.

CatFromHue

Looks to me like he touches it, if you watch on full screen it becomes abit more apparent.

pickarooney

This pseudo forensic bull**** is the bane of rugby. Slow motion replays that take days to analyse frame by frame. It's a game of rugby, not a crime scene. If there's no blatant infringement just benefit the attacking side and be done with it.

CatFromHue

pickarooney wrote: »

This pseudo forensic bull**** is the bane of rugby. Slow motion replays that take days to analyse frame by frame. It's a game of rugby, not a crime scene. If there's no blatant infringement just benefit the attacking side and be done with it.

Well the point I was trying to make is that the ref was ultimately right, even though World Rugby said he was wrong.