General Rugby Discussion

Jacovs

Thought id give the refs a bit of exposure.

International referees in action this weekend:

Canada vs Namibia at Parc Eiras, Colwyn Bay, Wales
Referee:Stuart Berry (South Africa)
Assistant referees: Neil Paterson (Scotland), Martyn Lewis (Wales)

England vs New Zealand Twickenham, England
Referee: Nigel Owens (Wales)
Assistant referees: Jérôme Garcès (France), Dudley Phillips (Ireland)
Television match official: Simon McDowell (Ireland)

Ireland vs South Africa at Aviva Stadium, Dublin, Ireland
Referee: Romain Poite (France)
Assistant referees: Mathieu Raynal (France), Alexandre Ruiz (France)
Television match official: Jim Yuille (Scotland)

Scotland vs Argentina at Murrayfield, Edinburgh, Scotland
Referee: Wayne Barnes (England)
Assistant referees: George Clancy (Ireland), Marius Mitrea (Italy)
Television match official: Eric Gauzins (France)

Wales vs Australia at Millennium Stadium, Cardiff, Wales
Referee: Craig Joubert (South Africa)
Assistant referees:Jaco Peyper (South Africa), JP Doyle (England)
Television match official: Graham Hughes (England)

France vs Fiji at Le Nouveau Stade Vélodrome, Marseille, France
Referee: Glen Jackson (New Zealand)
Assistant referees: Mike Fraser (New Zealand), Federico Anselmi (Argentina)
Television match official: Stefano Pennè (Italy)

Georgia vs Tonga at Mikheil Meshki Stadium, Tbilisi, Georgia
Referee: Pascal Gauzère (France)
Assistant referees: Andrew McMenemy (Scotland), Vlad Iordachescu (Romania)
Television match official: Carlo Damasco (Italy)

Italy vs Samoa at Stadio Cino e Lilio Del Duca, Ascoli Piceno, Italy
Referee: Steve Walsh (Australia)
Assistant referees: Johnny Lacey (Ireland), Greg Garner (England)
Television match official: Gareth Simmonds (Wales)

Romania vs USA at Stadionul National Arcul de Triumf, Bucharest, Romania
Referee: Leighton Hodges (Wales)
Assistant referees: Ian Davies (Wales), Neil Hennessy (Wales)
Television match official: Marshall Kilgore (Ireland)

Japan vs Maori All Blacks at Prince Chichibu Memorial Rugby Ground, Tokyo, Japan
Referee: Angus Gardner (Australia)
Assistant referees: Luke Pearce (England), James Leckie (Australia)
Television match official: George Ayoub (Australia)

Hong Kong vs Russia at Hong Kong Football Club, Hong Kong
Referee: Akihisa Aso (Japan)
Assistant referees: Shuhei Kubo (Japan), Takashi Harada (Japan)

Molester Stallone II

Eat My Point wrote: »

No Spinal Tap fans on this thread?:(

You'd need to turn that ref up to 11

"Johnny" Lacey is it now? Oooh lah di dah :pac:

Jacovs

Western Province vs Saracens on saturday in London. Joost van der Westhuizen attending.

former legend

Eat My Point wrote: »

No Spinal Tap fans on this thread?:(

Sorry, I was out on lunch, trying to get these really tiny slices of bread to fold properly and time just got away from me.

Eat My Point

former legend wrote: »

Sorry, I was out on lunch, trying to get these really tiny slices of bread to fold properly and time just got away from me.

Ha ha! I'm sure you could have figured it out sooner if you weren't under such heavy sedation

Morf

My review of this thread:

S**t Sandwich.

Taco Corp

[Deleted User] wrote: »

"Johnny" Lacey is it now? Oooh lah di dah :pac:

Aka "The Guard"

Isn't Paddy O'Brien in charge of the referees these days?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cirUVt3dCKQ

Deano7788

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Isn't Paddy O'Brien in charge of the referees these days?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cirUVt3dCKQ

Nope. Stood down in 2012.

irishbucsfan

Deleted User wrote: »

Isn't Paddy O'Brien in charge of the referees these days?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cirUVt3dCKQ

Joel Jutge replaced him.

Swiwi.

Deleted User wrote: »

Isn't Paddy O'Brien in charge of the referees these days?

Deano7788 wrote: »

Nope. Stood down in 2012.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Joel Jutge replaced him.

In fairness to Paddy he 100% acknowledged he had a shocker that day. Still doesn't prevent ongoing vitriol coming his way. He was actually a very good ref, but he did have a stinker which cost Fiji an unlikely victory. I don't think he was "stood down" which makes it sound like he was reprimanded, I think he moved on to another role with the IRB/"World Rugby" for a while there. Paddy was always on a hiding to nothing: a Kiwi in charge of rugby refs...not too long after Barnes in 2007 (regardless of how you judge that performance, which wasn't that bad), the British media never let up, his appointment was always viewed with deep suspicion.

Swiwi.

Speaking of refs, I think we unfortunately had this development over the weekend: home crowds compelling a ref to use the TMO. If you think home town crowds are impartial, you've never been to NZ at least.

The background is that the in-goal in Twickenham had 2 white lines: the goal-line, and about a foot further in, a 2nd advertising white line. NZ score a clear try which Owens awards immediately. Barrett lines up the conversion. At that moment the replay screen starts showing multiple times the NZ player grounding the ball before the white line. Only it's the white line of the advertisement. The crowd start booing raucously at each replay. Owens decides to stop Barrett and let's go to the TMO. The proper replay shows try clearly scored, and game goes on.

Now, no-one cares for the moment, it's only NZ, they usually win anyway, they-re a bunch of friggin whingers, wouldn't Hansen just shut up etc (google the newspapers and you'll get the idea).

But it might be a different story if say Ireland gets selective replays shown by the TV match producer at the Millenium, or Cardiff, or Paris.

My point is, I think it's a very very slippery slope if international refs rely on crowd signals for the use of the TMO. For example, the crowd was (predictably, it would happen anywhere) shouting blue murder at Whitelock for being horribly off-side...when in fact he knew the law book perfectly (there is no off-side in the in-goal area), and just about nicked the perfect try.

Edit:or another example. Liam Messam (correctly) penalised for a high tackle in NZ's loss to SA at Ellis Park recently. Lambie kicks the penalty. Only problem is how this was arrived at: refs + touch judges + tmo missed the incident, but tv producer noticed it and replayed ad nauseum on big screen until Barnes was forced to go to TMO. Now let's reverse situation - SA leading NZ by 2 points at Ellis Park heading for historic victory with time up on clock. Bakkies Botha has late swinging arm, which official miss. Does Mr Jappies Oosthuizen, the TV producer, play it on the big screen (guaranteeing he will need police protection) or just quietly let it slip by...

I'd be interested in rationale discussion on this, but if you just want an anti-NZ rant, feel free, but I won't be engaging. I realise the majority won't care if such decisions eliminate NZ from the RWC next year, but this forum would be a very very bitter place should such interference cost Ireland an historic RWC final appearance with defeat to England at Twickenham in a semi final.

I think it's an issue that should be sorted before the tournament.

English Lurker

I completely agree it is an unacceptable situation and it needs a solution - if no better one can be found, the banning of replays within a stadium - but as far as I can tell from the dialogue, it seems to be the TMO who raises taking a second look at that try, not Nigel Owens. From what I've heard the TMO is in a completely soundproof room (at every stadium) and doesn't have a clue what the crowd think. Don't know whether the TMO sees replays, or how many, or whether that's out of the ordinary, but I am fairly sure the ref himself is not directly affected by the replays or home crowd in this case. Could be wrong mind, the first audible piece of dialogue is Owens saying "You want to check, yeah?" - not conclusive.

In general, rugby needs to improve how it uses replays though, and the possibility of such things as this is one thing that needs to be nailed.

Deano7788

Swiwi. wrote: »

In fairness to Paddy he 100% acknowledged he had a shocker that day. Still doesn't prevent ongoing vitriol coming his way. He was actually a very good ref, but he did have a stinker which cost Fiji an unlikely victory. I don't think he was "stood down" which makes it sound like he was reprimanded, I think he moved on to another role with the IRB/"World Rugby" for a while there. Paddy was always on a hiding to nothing: a Kiwi in charge of rugby refs...not too long after Barnes in 2007 (regardless of how you judge that performance, which wasn't that bad), the British media never let up, his appointment was always viewed with deep suspicion.

Just to point out I meant he stepped down from the role rather than stood down by the IRB. I didn't mean to imply he was reprimanded at all.

Otacon

During the Ireland/SA game, I heard one of the commentators mention that they did not have access to the ref mic anymore, due to an IRB directive.

Firstly, is that true? Secondly, does anyone know why?

former legend

Swiwi. wrote: »

I'd be interested in rationale discussion on this, but if you just want an anti-NZ rant, feel free, but I won't be engaging. I realise the majority won't care if such decisions eliminate NZ from the RWC next year, but this forum would be a very very bitter place should such interference cost Ireland an historic RWC final appearance with defeat to England at Twickenham in a semi final.

I think it's an issue that should be sorted before the tournament.

You've nailed it there. We all want judicious use of the TMO until it's our team who is wronged. Then, every minor indiscretion by our opponents must be detected and brutally punished. See the comments on Poite in the thread from Saturday's game; awful reading.

I'm sure the refs would much rather be allowed control the game as they see fit but they know that they are expected to see everything and if they don't, they'll be crucified for it by the coaches, media and supporters, then relegated from test duty for a few months. So of course they're going to review everything.

So the IRB have two choices: either do away with the current experimental protocols and go back to the old TMO system, or come down hard on coaches who abuse the refs. They don't have the balls for the latter so it has to be the former.

postitnote

Otacon wrote: »

During the Ireland/SA game, I heard one of the commentators mention that they did not have access to the ref mic anymore, due to an IRB directive.

Firstly, is that true? Secondly, does anyone know why?

It was certainly true for the Ireland-SA game at the weekend, but not the Eng-NZ. As I recall Nigel Owens and the Irish TMO having a disagreement over a yellow card incident.

Swiwi.

postitnote wrote: »

It was certainly true for the Ireland-SA game at the weekend, but not the Eng-NZ. As I recall Nigel Owens and the Irish TMO having a disagreement over a yellow card incident.

I think it is deserve a YC. But it was a bit weird having the TMO say twice (?3 times) penalty only and then Owens giving a yellow. I dunno I like the use of technology but I would be in favour of wheeling it back a bit. If foul play is missed on field there is always the citing commissioner after all.

postitnote

Agreed it was a yellow card. You can't go about kicking people, especially the wrong person.

As for having a sponsor's logo in the in goal area looking a lot like the try line, what goes through people's heads doing this in the first place?

In NFL, I'm nearly sure that TV replays for challenges are only seen by the TV audience and the Main Umpire(?!)

Or is it just part of the sport? Home team bias gets you more favourable replays on the big screen?

Jacovs

Swiwi. wrote: »

If foul play is missed on field there is always the citing commissioner after all.

Im not too in favour of this, but if its missed, its missed, cant turn back time.
But the idea that a player is banned from his next 2 or 3 games, for something he did against a different team, that affected that particular game, not right to me, but idk what else can be done.

To give an example, in the RC Richie is playing SA and does something worthy of a yellow card, but its missed. After the game he is cited, and gets a 2 match ban. Now perhaps NZ are playing Aus and Argentina the next 2 games, and do so against a NZ without their captain and one of their best players. (NZ would probably still win both those games). Then they play SA again and he is back, and the team he wronged didnt benefit from the punishment, but other 2 teams who had nothing to do with the incident got an advantage.

Deano7788

He'd only get cited if it's deemed a red card offence so there would have possibly been a suspension anyway.

Jacovs

True, something like that doesnt often go missed on field, but it could happen, think it has too.
This is all hypothetical of course.

Deano7788

Jacovs wrote: »

True, something like that doesnt often go missed on field, but it could happen, think it has too.
This is all hypothetical of course.

Oh no it can definitely be missed. I don't really think there's a better method than the citing process that could be applied consistently though.

sydthebeat

in the majority of cases ive seen of these citings, they tend to be dirty things in a ruck like a stamp, gouge, etc ... things that are hard to pick up by the ref.

i agree that it doesnt seem fair that the team fouled against doesnt seem to get any justice, and often actually loose out because of injury... but i think theres a bigger picture here, that these kinds of fouls have to be exposed and dealt with significantly to send out the message that it wont be tolerated.

Swiwi.

Swiwi. wrote: »

Speaking of refs, I think we unfortunately had this development over the weekend: home crowds compelling a ref to use the TMO. If you think home town crowds are impartial, you've never been to NZ at least.

The background is that the in-goal in Twickenham had 2 white lines: the goal-line, and about a foot further in, a 2nd advertising white line. NZ score a clear try which Owens awards immediately. Barrett lines up the conversion. At that moment the replay screen starts showing multiple times the NZ player grounding the ball before the white line. Only it's the white line of the advertisement. The crowd start booing raucously at each replay. Owens decides to stop Barrett and let's go to the TMO. The proper replay shows try clearly scored, and game goes on.

Now, no-one cares for the moment, it's only NZ, they usually win anyway, they-re a bunch of friggin whingers, wouldn't Hansen just shut up etc (google the newspapers and you'll get the idea).

But it might be a different story if say Ireland gets selective replays shown by the TV match producer at the Millenium, or Cardiff, or Paris.

My point is, I think it's a very very slippery slope if international refs rely on crowd signals for the use of the TMO. For example, the crowd was (predictably, it would happen anywhere) shouting blue murder at Whitelock for being horribly off-side...when in fact he knew the law book perfectly (there is no off-side in the in-goal area), and just about nicked the perfect try.

Edit:or another example. Liam Messam (correctly) penalised for a high tackle in NZ's loss to SA at Ellis Park recently. Lambie kicks the penalty. Only problem is how this was arrived at: refs + touch judges + tmo missed the incident, but tv producer noticed it and replayed ad nauseum on big screen until Barnes was forced to go to TMO. Now let's reverse situation - SA leading NZ by 2 points at Ellis Park heading for historic victory with time up on clock. Bakkies Botha has late swinging arm, which official miss. Does Mr Jappies Oosthuizen, the TV producer, play it on the big screen (guaranteeing he will need police protection) or just quietly let it slip by...

I'd be interested in rationale discussion on this, but if you just want an anti-NZ rant, feel free, but I won't be engaging. I realise the majority won't care if such decisions eliminate NZ from the RWC next year, but this forum would be a very very bitter place should such interference cost Ireland an historic RWC final appearance with defeat to England at Twickenham in a semi final.

I think it's an issue that should be sorted before the tournament.

I got the impression that Nigel caught the replay himself and made the same mistake that the crowd (and myself) made. I thought it was very brave to call it back, and that's why he's the best ref in the world. Get the decision right no matter what. I think your adding your own anti-NZ narrative to this one example.

CatFromHue

The Big Screen Producer is going to make a mess for everyone if that keeps up.

It wasn't that long ago when no incidents where repeated on the big screen at games and it was a right pain. I wouldn't want to go back to that again.

It is interference and should not be allowed.

Hagz

I don't see what the big deal is. The producer can show whatever clip he wants over and over again, but he can't manipulate the images. Ultimately the ref will make the correct decision.

CatFromHue

I see the problem in that you're giving power to someone who doesn't deserve it and shouldn't have it. Also the big screen operator is most definitely a home teamer.

The big screen is for re showing the main bits of the game and not isolating certain instances in a multi phase play.

Nip this in the bud I say before it grows into a problem, which it will eventually.

Swiwi.

CatFromHue wrote: »

I see the problem in that you're giving power to someone who doesn't deserve it and shouldn't have it. Also the big screen operator is most definitely a home teamer.

The big screen is for re showing the main bits of the game and not isolating certain instances in a multi phase play.

Nip this in the bud I say before it grows into a problem, which it will eventually.

I think you've said what I was trying to say: effectively, the big screen was brought out for replays of tries being scored etc. If you have a "home teamer" producer selectively using it to show isolated instances that paint something the away team did in a different light, it's kind of a form of match manipulation.

Anyway, I read that the RWC will have neutral TV producers for all matches, so that's half way to resolving the issue.

Swiwi.

Hagz wrote: »

I don't see what the big deal is. The producer can show whatever clip he wants over and over again, but he can't manipulate the images. Ultimately the ref will make the correct decision.

As long as it's applied even-handedly, which currently their is no directive in place to ensure. If you have a home producer selectively choosing what is and isn't showed, it's just asking for bias etc. At the base, rugby is 15 v 15 + a ref, no we've added touch judges, a TMO, and a citing commisioner. I don't want the home town TV producer as part of the mix. Anyway, if a hometown Welsh TV producer costs Ireland a grand slam by showing say a late high hit from say POM that the refs missed, but doesn't show Mike Phillips stamping on Sexton's hand (leading to 4 weeks from the game with injury) that the refs also missed, I'm sure the issue will gain more traction.

English Lurker

Hagz wrote: »

I don't see what the big deal is. The producer can show whatever clip he wants over and over again, but he can't manipulate the images. Ultimately the ref will make the correct decision.

The deal is the ref will not be making those decisions in a consistent manner. He will have more information about the wrongdoings of the away team than he does the home team. That leads to the home team gaining an unfair advantage.

I think that either the producer has to be neutral, or there has to be strictly set limits on what they can replay and how much they can replay it in the ground. I accept that's a massive pain but the alternative is adding a de facto fifth match official who can be utterly biased.

sydthebeat

I personally don't think any replays should be shown between the awarding of a try and the kick been taken.

Swiwi.

Conversations between the referee and the TMO are set to be conducted in private, as part of a full protocol review. At present, the dialogue between the two officials forms part of the broadcast, but in an attempt to allow the TMO to take control of the review process with greater independence from the referee, this is set to change. It is also understood that the November internationals were originally chosen to trial the new process.

Apparently this is on it's way.

errlloyd

Swiwi. wrote: »

Conversations between the referee and the TMO are set to be conducted in private, as part of a full protocol review. At present, the dialogue between the two officials forms part of the broadcast, but in an attempt to allow the TMO to take control of the review process with greater independence from the referee, this is set to change. It is also understood that the November internationals were originally chosen to trial the new process.

Apparently this is on it's way.

So are they saying the current problem is that TMOs don't want to contradict referees.

sydthebeat

errlloyd wrote: »

So are they saying the current problem is that TMOs don't want to contradict referees.

Surely the ref has the final say either way. ..... So maybe contradiction is the wrong word, just a different recommendation ..

.ak

I don't really understand the point of it not being broadcast?

Anyway, on the subject of refs, I see Nigel Owens was the subject of some homophobic abuse by a minority of fans at the English game. Real pity that sort of stuff is allowed in the game.

sydthebeat

.ak wrote: »

I don't really understand the point of it not being broadcast?

Anyway, on the subject of refs, I see Nigel Owens was the subject of some homophobic abuse by a minority of fans at the English game. Real pity that sort of stuff is allowed in the game.

Well to be fair it's not allowed.
And I'm delighted it was fellow English fans that have reported this. ....

Eat My Point

According to the sky commentator during IRLvRSA not hearing the TMO was an IRA directive!!:eek:

.ak

sydthebeat wrote: »

Well to be fair it's not allowed.
And I'm delighted it was fellow English fans that have reported this. ....

True, but I do wonder what benefit there is in saying it after the incident. Surely a word to the person saying it or to the stewards would make more of an example and show people around them it's not cool or okay.

My worry would be younger fans being nearby, hearing it, and getting a bit of a giggle out of it and thinking that's okay to shout at a ref like that. A lot of these guys won't be reading the Times the next day, least of all letters to the editor.

Yeah_Right

Eat My Point wrote: »

According to the sky commentator during IRLvRSA not hearing the TMO was an IRA directive!!:eek:

I didn't realise they had such an interest/influence in rugby

former legend

.ak wrote: »

I don't really understand the point of it not being broadcast?

I think it's a good idea to be honest; hearing all the thoughts of the TMO undermines the referee a bit.

Take the Strauss yellow-card at the weekend.

Imagine the TMO says "my advice is a straight red" and the referee decides (after seeing the replay himself) that a yellow is sufficient and then South Africa go on to win the game - Irish fans would be up in arms, saying the ref bottled it, if he'd given a red like the TMO wanted we'd have won etc etc.
Conversely, if the TMO says, "no card needed", but the ref gives a yellow anyway, the SA fans would go mental saying the ref was influenced by the home crowd, the clear advice was no card but he bottled it etc.

It was different when all the TMO said was "try" or "no try" and the ref had no access to the pictures, but that's not the case any more.

Larbre34

Yeah_Right wrote: »

I didn't realise they had such an interest/influence in rugby

Long before the International Rugby Board, came the Irish Republican Brotherhood. Comrade.

So really rugby is being run by the Continuity IRB

Eat My Point

Yeah_Right wrote: »

I didn't realise they had such an interest/influence in rugby

To be fair to him he quickly corrected himself and said IRB but it was still pretty funny

Larbre34

Anyone at the Off The Ball live roadshow in Ballsbridge Hotel last night?

It dragged on a lot because of the length of the show, but some good chats and bants from Keith Wood, BOD, Ferris, Denis Hickie. Thornley was there too, at one point he said something which seemed to p1ss off Wood and O'Driscoll but I couldnt catch it as the sound was very low.

Long interlude chat with Niall Quinn and Alan McLoughlin too which was a yawn fest.

Funkstard

Larbre34 wrote: »

Anyone at the Off The Ball live roadshow in Ballsbridge Hotel last night?

It dragged on a lot because of the length of the show, but some good chats and bants from Keith Wood, BOD, Ferris, Denis Hickie. Thornley was there too, at one point he said something which seemed to p1ss off Wood and O'Driscoll but I couldnt catch it as the sound was very low.

Long interlude chat with Niall Quinn and Alan McLoughlin too which was a yawn fest.

I listened back to it as a podcast there and it was interesting enough.

Thornley said BOD and Wood should be 'embarrassed' not to have progressed further than a quarter final in the WC. He meant it in a positive way but it came across pretty bad and he spent about the next three minutes babbling on trying to dig himself out of the situation. BOD in general kind of sounded like he didn't want to be there, did anyone else get that?

Also, BOD stated his one regret in retiring was not going to a WC with Joe. He was quite honest about it and it makes you wonder how he feels watching the team do so well last week, and the comments from Matfield where he said he was very surprised to see BOD retire so close to a WC.

BOD was also very emphatic in stating that Ireland should be getting to a semi next year. He says it's much different to Ireland teams of past with high expectations because of Joe and he really seems to believe in their ability. Probably the first time I've heard such a rational belief in the expectations of the squad.

.ak

I wonder if BOD should've just taken a sabbatical. Then I suppose there's no guarantee he'd be able to get the body back in shape for it in time.

Teferi

I'll say this in a whisper: BOD wouldn't be chosen for the WC squad even if he was still playing or on a sabbatical this season in prep for next September.

thomond2006

.ak wrote: »

I wonder if BOD should've just taken a sabbatical. Then I suppose there's no guarantee he'd be able to get the body back in shape for it in time.

Last season seemed to be a struggle to get through for BOD. He was done and he said himself he was very close to being done after the shoulder op in late 2011.

Tox56

Teferi wrote: »

I'll say this in a whisper: BOD wouldn't be chosen for the WC squad even if he was still playing or on a sabbatical this season in prep for next September.

He made it clear he simply wasn't capable of going to the WC, so while that point is true it kind of explains itself, if he was capable of going to the WC he would have, and he would have been picked, but he isn't able to, and he won't