Refereeing of France - NZ final

peterako

:eek:


Alternative ref jersey????

daveharnett

jmayo wrote: »

Ahh FFS.
What part of NZ are you from again ?
50-50 decisons ?
They were incidents which were cast iron penalties yet were not given

No argument here. As I said, the video illustrates some clear penalty infringements which were missed. There were also some which, depending on the circumstances, could reasonably be let go.

My point was that selective editing can tell any story you want. I have no doubt that you could make a video illustrating Joubert's French bias too.

The reality is less exciting; he is a competent ref who knows that controversy of any kind (like awarding a 'winning' penalty either way in the last 10) is bad for his career. The very fact that he, rather than Rolland was in the middle illustrated that point pretty well.

jmayo wrote: »

I would love to know the opinions of the other two officials and if they were happy with what went on.

There are 30 players on the pitch; the assistants are busy watching everyone that the ref isn't. Even if they could comment, they wouldn't be well placed to.

This is why you almost never see a forward-pass call from the touchline; the ref is watching the pass, the assistants are watching for the late tackle, obstruction off the ball, foul play as the previous ruck breaks up etc...

BoarHunter

daveharnett wrote: »

No argument here. As I said, the video illustrates some clear penalty infringements which were missed. There were also some which, depending on the circumstances, could reasonably be let go.

My point was that selective editing can tell any story you want. I have no doubt that you could make a video illustrating Joubert's French bias too.

The reality is less exciting; he is a competent ref who knows that controversy of any kind (like awarding a 'winning' penalty either way in the last 10) is bad for his career. The very fact that he, rather than Rolland was in the middle illustrated that point pretty well.


There are 30 players on the pitch; the assistants are busy watching everyone that the ref isn't. Even if they could comment, they wouldn't be well placed to.

This is why you almost never see a forward-pass call from the touchline; the ref is watching the pass, the assistants are watching for the late tackle, obstruction off the ball, foul play as the previous ruck breaks up etc...

a 2 seconds video when he shakes Dusautoir hand before kick off !

and we knew well ahead of the competition that NZL wouldn't be reffed by a north ref. That was always meant to be South rules with diving competition in the rucks and blind eye in the scrums ...

C'est la vie but I'll never watch NZL the same way from now on. It might be a great economic and ego boost in NZL but it damaged the image of the sport and the country abroad IMO.

For me The all blacks are truely the best team in the world but they are not champions of the game. Still think the French are better than them in Knock out rugby situation. Forget about test rugby there it's world cup.

jmayo

daveharnett wrote: »

My point was that selective editing can tell any story you want. I have no doubt that you could make a video illustrating Joubert's French bias too.

I think we would all love to see that video. :rolleyes:
Selective editing yeah right.
Maybe Peter Jackons could come up with one.

Brendan97

Richie McCaw was on the wrong side of the ruck more than on the right side.
He was also entering rucks from the side & was off his feet on numerous occasions. What was worse than that was that the penalties were awarded to NZ after them cheating in the rucks

profitius

New Zealand pile in and always end up on the ground, at a 90 degree angle, blocking the opposition ruckers and getting in the way of the opposition scrum half to get quick possession. Its beyond a joke at this stage.

Ardillaun

For Joubert, calling McCaw 'Richie' didn't look great. He should have known that would feed suspicions.

BrianOFlanagan

For me the most significant point for me is that Paddy O'Brien the IRB referee manager, the guy who chose which ref got which game is a New Zealander.

The game was sown up before it even started.

CatFromHue

BrianOFlanagan wrote: »

For me the most significant point for me is that Paddy O'Brien the IRB referee manager, the guy who chose which ref got which game is a New Zealander.

The game was sown up before it even started.

Who would you have as a head of Referees then? An Angolan who knows nothing about rugby and so can't be accused of bias!

BrianOFlanagan

CatFromHue wrote: »

Who would you have as a head of Referees then? An Angolan who knows nothing about rugby and so can't be accused of bias!

A five person panel, 1 each from the America's, Europe, Africa, Asia+Russia and NZ+Australia. That would be fair.

Or how about a stupid answer? An Angolan roving deathbot computer that chooses the ref by murdering the others? Sound good?

CatFromHue

Well as I posted somewhere earlier we really do need to develop a cyborg that can assimilate all tv angles at once as well as their own viewpoint to give a proper reffing performance.

According to the link below Joubert was selected by a committee. I've no idea how many people are on it though.

http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,3818_7246903,00.html

duckysauce

CatFromHue wrote: »

Well as I posted somewhere earlier we really do need to develop a cyborg that can assimilate all tv angles at once as well as their own viewpoint to give a proper reffing performance.

According to the link below Joubert was selected by a committee. I've no idea how many people are on it though.

http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,3818_7246903,00.html

Great that he was selected for the semi-final as well for the kiwis. The committee must think he is very good at reffing NZ games , so good you pick him twice. :mad:

CatFromHue

duckysauce wrote: »

Great that he was selected for the semi-final as well for the kiwis. The committee must think he is very good at reffing NZ games , so good you pick him twice. :mad:

Joubert reffed our Quarter so it's very feasible that if we had beaten the Welsh we would have had him for our Semi and then the final. The Refs selected for the Semi's were Rollaind, who we can't have, and Joubert. I presume to ref the final you would have had to ref a Semi.

I still don't see any conspiracy in getting Joubert in place for the final.

cython

CatFromHue wrote: »

Joubert reffed our Quarter so it's very feasible that if we had beaten the Welsh we would have had him for our Semi and then the final. The Refs selected for the Semi's were Rollaind, who we can't have, and Joubert. I presume to ref the final you would have had to ref a Semi.

I still don't see any conspiracy in getting Joubert in place for the final.

As has been pointed out already somewhere on this forum, the last time that the final ref had also reffed a semi in the same year was 1987, for the first RWC, so it would seem to be the exception rather than the rule that the ref for the final is selected from the semi final refs

CatFromHue

cython wrote: »

As has been pointed out already somewhere on this forum, the last time that the final ref had also reffed a semi in the same year was 1987, for the first RWC, so it would seem to be the exception rather than the rule that the ref for the final is selected from the semi final refs

I didn't know that.

Just checking in 2007 though, Rollaind reffed England in their Quarter as well as the Final.

Did you see anything untoward in Jouberts reffing of the Nz v Oz Semi this year?

Gelio

CatFromHue wrote: »

I still don't see any conspiracy in getting Joubert in place for the final.

I don't think he was expected to be biased but he is famously weak at refing the breakdown and this suited NZ down to the ground. Could very well have been chance, but who knows for sure?

Rookster

I really cannot think of the AB's as world champs. It is highly qualified in that France to me are the desrving champs. The 2011 title will be forever tainted unfortunately for NZ.
Roll of honour should read:
Aus 2
Sth Africa 2
NZ 1 (plus 1 dodgy one)
Eng 1

SuprSi

CatFromHue wrote: »

I didn't know that.

Just checking in 2007 though, Rollaind reffed England in their Quarter as well as the Final.

Did you see anything untoward in Jouberts reffing of the Nz v Oz Semi this year?

I did. I sat and watched the game with my Dad and on multiple occassions had to rewind the game to see why Joubert had or hadn't blown his whistle, mostly in favour of the AB's. I thought he was terribly biased in that game so when I heard he had been picked for the final I didn't hold out much hope.

CatFromHue

Rookster wrote: »

I really cannot think of the AB's as world champs. It is highly qualified in that France to me are the desrving champs. The 2011 title will be forever tainted unfortunately for NZ.
Roll of honour should read:
Aus 2
Sth Africa 2
NZ 1 (plus 1 dodgy one)
Eng 1

Why is this one so dodgy? Because Kaino wasn't penalised at the end?

If you're going to be like that then the Roll of Honour should be:

Oz 2 titles. 1 from 1991. In 1999 they played Ben Tune who had failed drugs tests for steriods but the ARU said it was ok. He scored a try in the final so the final is now awarded to France. The 2003 title is retrospectively given to OZ as England played with 16 men in one of their games and have now been kicked out.
France 1 title from 1999
SA 1 title from 2007
NZ 3 titles. 1 in 1987. In 1995 they were "posioned" before the final so this has now been taken from SA and given to NZ. The 2011 final is awarded to them as Rougerie gouged McCaw and so should have been sent off. This would have left a huge hole in defence that Conrad Smith would have slithered through to score a winning try.

OldRio

I can see why most people understand the Joubert had a mare.
I cannot understand why anyone would defend his actions or inactions. LOL at post above.

The laws in the final seem to be different for one team.

Anyhoots it was nice for us to feck the IRB up in regard to the final pairing.

iroced

CatFromHue wrote: »

Why is this one so dodgy? Because Kaino wasn't penalised at the end?

If you're going to be like that then the Roll of Honour should be:

Oz 2 titles. 1 from 1991. In 1999 they played Ben Tune who had failed drugs tests for steroids but the ARU said it was ok. He scored a try in the final so the final is now awarded to France. The 2003 title is retrospectively given to OZ as England played with 16 men in one of their games and have now been kicked out.
France 1 title from 1999
SA 1 title from 2007
NZ 3 titles. 1 in 1987. In 1995 they were "poisoned" before the final so this has now been taken from SA and given to NZ. The 2011 final is awarded to them as Rougerie gouged McCaw and so should have been sent off. This would have left a huge hole in defense that Conrad Smith would have slithered through to score a winning try.

I have a better Roll of Honumour :

1987: France, just on the basis of our magnificent victory (and late winning try) against Australia in Australia in the semi.
1991: France. England deliberately knocked Blanco out.
1995: France. Robbed in the semi against SA.
1999: France then after Australia doping case.
2003: Australia then.
2007: NZ.
2011: France then.

Sounds about right =>

JustinDee

Rookster wrote: »

The 2011 title will be forever tainted unfortunately for NZ

No, it won't.
They won the flippin' tournament. Get over it.

Can shove their throat-slit where the sun don't shine but thats a different matter and a different thread altogether.

swordofislam

Joubert bottled it right at the end but 'we' that is the rugby supporting public don't like to 'see the ref decide the game' . In my opinion France should have behaved as if they knew that (I know that the penalty count favoured NZ but don' know how reasonable / unreasonable that was) and looked for for the DG instead of as I feel they did look for the penalty.

Should they have got a penalty in the last 5 minutes? Yes.
Were they ever going to get a penalty in the last 5 minutes? No.

At the top level athletes have to allow for THIS TYPE of refereeing bias.
By which I mean interpretational variations, the reluctance to decide the game, the ability of one team or another to play beyond the letter of the law.

After all Rougerie could have been off in the last five minutes. Joubert bottled that too.

I was up for France by the way because I resented the feeling I had since before this world cup that this was a coronation rather than a competition.

jmayo

CatFromHue wrote: »

Joubert reffed our Quarter so it's very feasible that if we had beaten the Welsh we would have had him for our Semi and then the final. The Refs selected for the Semi's were Rollaind, who we can't have, and Joubert. I presume to ref the final you would have had to ref a Semi.

I still don't see any conspiracy in getting Joubert in place for the final.

New Zealand won the WC.

Not alone did France lose the Final, the game of rugby lost.
In fact the game of rugby had lost long before the final.
It had lost the day that they decided the schedule of matches when the little guys (note Scotland is now down in that group) were sacrificed and treated as fillers in.

The IRB continue to aspire to knock FIFA off it's pedestal as biggest joke of a world sports governing body.
After the final they are getting close.

decisions

funky penguin wrote: »

Good man Gerry.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sport/2011/1025/1224306445492.html

He wrote an entire article without mentioning his man love :eek: Me thinks he deserves a round of applause for that alone. :pac: