[2014 EOYT] England vs New Zealand

[austingtir]

Jeez if Dagg and Cruden werent playing we'd of won by 20+ imo.

Dagg is such a waste of a position in this team its ridiculous. Its honestly almost unbelievable how ineffective he is with ball in hand. When was the last fullback we had that was as one dimensional as Dagg.... all he's got is a good punt thats it.

I thought although england won the first half on the scoreboard I thought SBW, Kaino and a few of the other big boys had done the damage in first half. Tiupolotou coming on in the second half was to much for this England team.

I was perfectly happy with SBW. His physical presence was immense. I saw two or three England players struggling to get up after contact with him.

 

[nzlizard]

Key things to take away from me.

The English just aren't good enough, even with a one man advantage they are just not good enough.

The ref was poor and made lots of bads calls, reffed some areas really consistently but too many errors, England got the run of the ref.

Again I have major concerns on showing replays of play in stoppage that change the outcome of the game.

Coles need to learn to show restraint, sure he felt frustrated but the good of team is more important.

Our loosies were awesome, our set piece not so much.

SBW had impact and looked good, sure made a couple of mistakes but pretty damn good for a guy only playing his 2nd test in as many years.

Cruden is a great first five, not such a great kicker.

Again Dagg missed an easy tackle that let in a try.

Ben Smith is just Ben Smith.

Great play by the AB's, weathered the English storm, just need to sharpen up that finishing a fraction.

 

[William18]

Read what wrote again...

What am I missing here?

The TMO asked Owens to check after the replay was shown on the big screen and the crowd booed. I don't think this is fair to away teams or a good precedent to set.

I'm not sure what in your last post I missed or didn't understand?

 

[Mikel92]

Yup. The tackled player gets one chance to place the ball forward over the goal-line if he does so immediately.

What is often misunderstood is that even if the ball touches the ground when the tackled player is brought to ground, he can still place the ball over the goal-line, provided that he does not promote his own body forward in order to reach the line.

For sure. I guess why the try is dubious to me is because it wasn't a clean reach, it crawled and crawled along the ground and to me....at what point do you say "no, that's enough". I admit though that it was a marginal call, and I am being a hawk here. In fact, the grounding is a way more contentious point than the one I am making.

But to suggest double movement isn't a thing in Union is plainly wrong. Yeah it doesn't explicitly say in the rules, but it's clearly implied. Just like certain words aren't used in the Scrum laws....doesn't magically mean you can do them. There are broad frameworks, but the implications are specific.

 

[austingtir]

Jesus the Coles Yellow was ridiculous. Nigel owens is such a piece of #@%!!!!


This should be Owens last international game this was honestly a disgraceful performance.

The last try NZ scored like a minute after awarding it he went to the video ref to check it? WTF is this ****??



I loved the look on the England coaches face after we scored that last one. He looked well beaten.

No matter what anyone says beating England 4 times in a row before the WC tournment next year is a good enough effort for me.

 

[j'nuh]

I'm afraid you're just creating your own rules. The rules allow the player to immediately reach out and ground the ball on or over the goal line ... that isn't an invitation to take as many stabs at it as possible. Even if it is immediately. How is that fair to the defending team? You have to view the rules collectively, not just view one subsection in isolation to everything else. The tackled player must also release the ball, the tackled player must do that in a direction that isn't forward. Just because a tackled player is close to the goal line does not make his other obligations null and void. You do not get a free reign, if you are short, to go again quick.

http://www.irblaws.com/content/video_popup_ver6.php?v=laws/2245-reach-out-try ... take a look at this video. It is a video by IRD that exemplifies subsection G. See what the tackled player does, he stretches out immediately over the line. That's good ... thats what Subsection G is all about. He doesn't end up short, then quickly try again. That is NOT what subsection G is telling you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=my0yiL3troM .. or have a look at this video. Fast forward to 1:13 and watch that sequence. Going by your logic, DEFINITELY less than 10 seconds, and looks pretty immediate to me. Inital attempt was fine ... not 3 attempts, like the referee indicates. Also, if you watch the full game on youtube, even the commentators side with the fact that you are allowed one movement, not multiple goes.

The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. You're claiming that you are not allowed repeated goes at placing the ball. It is for you to prove. The rules do not anywhere refer to the number of attempts a player is allowed to place the ball, so I conclude there isn't a rule governing this.

The video you highlight, the player is pinged for a completely different reason. As per 15.5(g), you can specifically reach out to score a try. The player does not do this, he tries to repeatedly move forward after the tackle is made, contradicting 15.5(b). This is not the same situation that we are talking about, as 15.5(g) does not make exception to allow a player to move forward after being tackled to try and score the try. Hence a penalty conceded.

When you talk about looking at the Laws as a collective, the law that (g) must consist with is (a), which as you say, requires players to make the ball immediately available. If, in trying to place the ball forwards two/three times, the player is unable to release the ball immediately, the player then breaks 15.5(a). If the player immediately grounds the ball forward on the second/third time, then this is not an issue because his action has been immediate. If in trying to place the ball forward two or three times, the player is unable to score a try, and the time spent trying to do this means that the player cannot make the ball available immediately, then that's when it would break 15.5(a). At this point it would be a penalty.

Remember that this is what we are talking about: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_Q9DeEsQMQ&t=25m49s

Cruden hits the floor then has a second go at placing for the line. This is okay because it is done immediately as per 15.5(g). He does not move forward to do this.

For sure. I guess why the try is dubious to me is because it wasn't a clean reach, it crawled and crawled along the ground and to me....at what point do you say "no, that's enough". I admit though that it was a marginal call, and I am being a hawk here. In fact, the grounding is a way more contentious point than the one I am making.

But to suggest double movement isn't a thing in Union is plainly wrong. Yeah it doesn't explicitly say in the rules, but it's clearly implied. Just like certain words aren't used in the Scrum laws....doesn't magically mean you can do them. There are broad frameworks, but the implications are specific.

"Double movement" is refereeing/commentary parlance, not a law. It's an easy way of trying to describe 15.5(b), but it is NOT a law in itself. The main issue with using the words "double movement" is that it comes with the baggage that it is a well-defined term in rugby league, which specifically prohibits trying to place the ball forwards towards the try line after a tackle has been made. A lot of people confuse the two due to this.

See this discussion and in particular, this post: http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?16335-Double-movement&p=241082&viewfull=1#post241082

 

[Mikel92]

The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. You're claiming that you are not allowed repeated goes at placing the ball. It is for you to prove. The rules do not anywhere refer to the number of attempts a player is allowed to place the ball, so I conclude there isn't a rule governing this.

The video you highlight, the player is pinged for a completely different reason. As per 15.5(g), you can specifically reach out to score a try. The player does not do this, he tries to repeatedly move forward after the tackle is made, contradicting 15.5(b). This is not the same situation that we are talking about, as 15.5(g) does not make exception to allow a player to move forward after being tackled to try and score the try. Hence a penalty conceded.

When you talk about looking at the Laws as a collective, the law that (g) must consist with is (a), which as you say, requires players to make the ball immediately available. If, in trying to place the ball forwards two/three times, the player is unable to release the ball immediately, the player then breaks 15.5(a). If the player immediately grounds the ball forward on the second/third time, then this is not an issue because his action has been immediate. If in trying to place the ball forward two or three times, the player is unable to score a try, and the time spent trying to do this means that the player cannot make the ball available immediately, then that's when it would break 15.5(a). At this point it would be a penalty.

Remember that this is what we are talking about: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_Q9DeEsQMQ&t=25m49s

Cruden hits the floor then has a second go at placing for the line. This is okay because it is done immediately as per 15.5(g). He does not move forward to do this.


"Double movement" is refereeing/commentary parlance, not a law. It's an easy way of trying to describe 15.5(b), but it is NOT a law in itself. The main issue with using the words "double movement" is that it comes with the baggage that it is a well-defined term in rugby league, which specifically prohibits trying to place the ball forwards towards the try line after a tackle has been made. A lot of people confuse the two due to this.

See this discussion and in particular, this post: http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?16335-Double-movement&p=241082&viewfull=1#post241082

Note the language in the law. "Stretch out" .... "placement". There are no plurals, incisions or caveats to have limitless attempts, which under your theory would be possible. There is no 10 seconds, and you do not get some sort of license just because it's convenient for you. If a player's stretch (big or small) is made (which is their right) and they fail, then as the tackled player their next obligation must surely be to RELEASE the ball. They've enacted their placement, and they didn't get it. It doesn't explicitly say they can't have another go, but it doesn't say they can either. What it DOES say, is they can make a placement. An invitation for an attempt basically. No plurals, no brackets, but an implied attempt. That's it.

I noticed you didn't really respond to the first video of how the IRB shows you what you CAN do. That video is a direct example. If there were other instances where it might, sorta, kinda be okay - they would show it. They have videos for many subsections. In that video the guy falls short of the line. But you know what he does absolutely correctly? He makes a placement immediately. PlaceMENT. Not placements. He gets one crack, and he makes good on his opportunity. Again, there are no "oh well, if he tries once and comes up short, then as long as he tries again quickly then thats fine".

As for double movement .. I'm under no illusions personally. I know players are entitled to stretch out. That was never my argument, and anybody arguing that is clearly wrong. But you're cutting a law open and seeing what kind of mileage you can get out of it. Trust me, if they intended for you to get any more mileage from what's there....they would say.

I guess at the end of the day we are just going to disagree. And referees do this all the time, we saw it on the weekend. I would just personally give it a different interpretation than you. I've seen MANY instances similar to Cruden's in New Zealand grass roots rugby where it was disallowed. If you are within arms reach of the line, you have your rights. But if you're initial stretch isn't good enough, then the other laws should work alongside of subsection G. I.e: Release the ball immediately. The rules should come to together and make sense, we shouldn't hone in on one subsection and see how far we can stretch it.

Also if we are accepting that, going by the link you sent, the second movement that isn't allowed is propelling the body forward .. then sorry, but Cruden stretched his hands out. Then stretched them out again. If limbs don't count as the "body" then we have a problem.

 

[RoosTah]

Wow... the claims and counter claims over this decision is almost ridiculous - it reminds me of the amount of crap that went on over at League Unlimited when Hall didn't get award that "try" he clearly didn't score when his finger brushed the side of the ball.

The decision probably could have gone either way if you slowed it down and spent time analysing it, but in real time it looked fine and it got awarded. Time to move on surely boys?

 

[austingtir]

What about the whitelock try that was disallowed because of knock on? Looked pretty dubious to me. Iv see plenty of tries awarded with just a light touch down and then the ball goes flying forward??

And more on Nigel and video replays.... The thing for me is this is nothing new its been going on all year especially in the southern hemisphere.... The IRB better get onto this quick smart as every game is going to be ruined like this one over these decisions.

Already the AB's are unbeatable at home. With this kind of support for home games nobody's ever going to beat us at home....

http://tvnz.co.nz/sport-news/hansen-shows-red-card-tv-producers-6125847

 

[Mikel92]

Wow... the claims and counter claims over this decision is almost ridiculous - it reminds me of the amount of crap that went on over at League Unlimited when Hall didn't get award that "try" he clearly didn't score when his finger brushed the side of the ball.

The decision probably could have gone either way if you slowed it down and spent time analysing it, but in real time it looked fine and it got awarded. Time to move on surely boys?

Yep, it was marginal. But as a general statement about the rules, I'm tryna help the guy haha.

 

[William18]

Wow... the claims and counter claims over this decision is almost ridiculous - it reminds me of the amount of crap that went on over at League Unlimited when Hall didn't get award that "try" he clearly didn't score when his finger brushed the side of the ball.

The decision probably could have gone either way if you slowed it down and spent time analysing it, but in real time it looked fine and it got awarded. Time to move on surely boys?

From what I can tell of their argument they basically agree with each other on everything including that the try was the correct decision.

Mikel92 just thinks that when a player is tackled and propels his body forward again that is called a double movement. J'nuh also thinks this is a penalty but is called something else.

Mikel92 also thinks the laws of the game enables a player to reach out only once, J'nuh thinks it enables you to reach out multiple times as long as those multiple times are done immediately. As it is basically impossible to reach out multiple times immediately they essentially agree on this also.

It's one of those arguments which is better to have in real life where you can understand each other better.

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

My thoughts on the match:

▶ Nigel Owens' reffereeing was average. It was not terrible, I thought in general he was far more consistent than someone like Joubert. There were, of course, a few dicey moments.
▶ I thought Cruden's try may have deserved a second look - it certainly wasn't a double movement, but it may have been a knock on. In real time Owens had the best view, so I imagine he was fairly confident it was a try.
▶ Whitelock's 'knock on' should have been a try.
▶ I think Coles was hard done by. Regardless of whether or not Owens has the right to overrule the TMO (which he does), I feel it was a harsh call. I thought NZ should have received a penalty for Hartley being a complete prick.

On the All Blacks:

▶ The set pieces were poor. Faumuina looked good around the field when he came on and Coles also made some great gains with ball in hand. The rest of the front rowers were pretty average.
▶ Retallick had possibly his worst game in an All Blacks jersey. I know he went off with an injury at half time, but to be honest it was probably a decent tactical substitution regardless. Tuipulotu made some good hits and certainly did not look out of place.
▶ McCaw was good. Very good. Read and Kaino spent a fair bit of time in the wider channels which worked at times, but we probably only need one loose forward hanging out on the wing at any one time
▶ Smith had a very strong game, I don't really remember him making any mistakes. Perenara was secure when he came on also, it's good to see the reserve halfback getting a bit more game time than in the past. I wouldn't really want Pulu on trying to close out a test match like that.
▶ Cruden made some good plays, but it wasn't a particularly good game for him (his goal kicking obviously being the main factor). Barrett didn't really offer anything extra when he came on.
▶ SBW was a mixed bag. He did somepositive things but often made little errors afterwards which undid his good work. With a few more games under his belt he will be fine. Smith didn't have a great game in the midfield and I thought Crotty looked good when he came on.

On England:

▶ The midfield (and the defensive line in general) were much more assured than they were at the start of the year. Eastmond looked quick on attack and didn't make any obvious blunders.
▶ What's the point in having a good offensive back three if they never get any ball on attack? May had what, one touch (which was electric)? Did Rokoduguni have any?
▶ A lot of people talk about Corbisiero's absence, but how much game time has he actually had since the Lions tour? Perhaps a match fit Corbs would be an asset, but I think at this point in time he'd be down the pecking order.

And overall:

▶ It's good to see NZ come away with the win, even with a relatively poor performance. It is, however, getting tiresome saying that after every match. I expect the All Blacks to pummel Scotland and Wales now as they will need to take some good performances into the World Cup. This year they've looked strong in maybe three matches - I think the team may need an injection of youth, or something to get them fired up a bit.
▶ Will Carter start the remaining two matches? You'd have to think that if he comes through against Scotland unscathed he would start against Wales too, the question then becomes who will be his back up?

 

[goodNumber10]

What am I missing here?

The TMO asked Owens to check after the replay was shown on the big screen and the crowd booed. I don't think this is fair to away teams or a good precedent to set.

I'm not sure what in your last post I missed or didn't understand?

What you're clearly, missing or not understanding, is the fact TMO called it, not the referee.

The TMO is in a soundproof booth and has no interaction with the stadium outside of that. so the crowd shouting and jeering has no bearing on his request to "check it again", the TMO like most other people saw the white line of the advertising and rightly thought "hang on a minute".

Ergo the crowd had no or very little impact on the ref, who did not ask to look at it again, it was the TMO, and the outcome was the same - he even apologised to BB after to say sorry the TMO had to have a look.

So you can keep whining about the ref interfering, and the fact the crowd had a bit of a shout but the TMO who is in a soundproof booth can neither see the big screen nor hear the crowd made the call and was right to.

If you want to complain complain about the advertising having a white border so close to the goal line, or you could just enjoy the fact you won?

My thoughts on the match:

▶ Nigel Owens' reffereeing was average. It was not terrible, I thought in general he was far more consistent than someone like Joubert. There were, of course, a few dicey moments.

Yep, he continually missed Richie McCaw laying off side, handling the ball in the ruck and from the side, standing up in the way of the England scrum half and other numerous New Zealand infringements that impacted on England on their own goal line. He should be struck off.

▶ Whitelock's 'knock on' should have been a try.

I've not watched the game again yet, but I honestly felt it wasn't on the line and thus still in the ruck - so he was offside. The line is white not green.

▶ I think Coles was hard done by. Regardless of whether or not Owens has the right to overrule the TMO (which he does), I feel it was a harsh call. I thought NZ should have received a penalty for Hartley being a complete prick.

Holding a shirt vs kicking someone blindly in rage and potentially causing serious harm? I don't think either is really comparable and the simple fact is don't react - if you do make sure it isn't in a way that is worse than the original offence. If he'd struck someones face he'd have been looking at a red, and a lengthy stand down.

▶ A lot of people talk about Corbisiero's absence, but how much game time has he actually had since the Lions tour? Perhaps a match fit Corbs would be an asset, but I think at this point in time he'd be down the pecking order.

He's been playing since the start of the season, and was in excellent form, he would have made a difference even just coming off the bench - lets not forget he literally won the lions tour for us 12 months ago.

▶ It's good to see NZ come away with the win, even with a relatively poor performance. It is, however, getting tiresome saying that after every match. I expect the All Blacks to pummel Scotland and Wales now as they will need to take some good performances into the World Cup. This year they've looked strong in maybe three matches - I think the team may need an injection of youth, or something to get them fired up a bit.

Agreed mate, people talk about the AB's dominating but for all that they are only just squeaking home against the other top countries - but importantly they are squeaking through. They are the best team int eh world for a reason and they are going to click into gear soon and destroy someone important.

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

What you're clearly, missing or not understanding, is the fact TMO called it, not the referee.

The TMO is in a soundproof booth and has no interaction with the stadium outside of that. so the crowd shouting and jeering has no bearing on his request to "check it again", the TMO like most other people saw the white line of the advertising and rightly thought "hang on a minute".

Ergo the crowd had no or very little impact on the ref, who did not ask to look at it again, it was the TMO, and the outcome was the same - he even apologised to BB after to say sorry the TMO had to have a look.

So you can keep whining about the ref interfering, and the fact the crowd had a bit of a shout but the TMO who is in a soundproof booth can neither see the big screen nor hear the crowd made the call and was right to.

If you want to complain complain about the advertising having a white border so close to the goal line.

Or you could just enjoy the fact you won?

To be honest, even if the crowd does have an effect on what is looked at by the refs, I don't think that should really matter. As long as once the ref looks at the replay they make an impartial decision I'm OK with it. At the end of the day the fact that the crowd alerts the ref to some misdemeanor is irrelevant, providing they don't influence the fairness of the punishment.

 

[kovana]

The ref was poor and made lots of bads calls, reffed some areas really consistently but too many errors, England got the run of the ref.

Are you serious?

 

[Ninja]

What about the whitelock try that was disallowed because of knock on? Looked pretty dubious to me. Iv see plenty of tries awarded with just a light touch down and then the ball goes flying forward??

You could even say, the English player carried the ball back in goal from the field of play and then forced the ball on the line. As going by the slow mo replay, before Whitelock dives in, the English players fingers lightly press down on the ball, not intentionally, but he did do it. So should of been 5m scrum to NZ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=DzDHOhVQMsw#t=3636

 

[Peat]

▶ I think Coles was hard done by. Regardless of whether or not Owens has the right to overrule the TMO (which he does), I feel it was a harsh call. I thought NZ should have received a penalty for Hartley being a complete prick.

They should have received a penalty for what Hartley did - and then that should have been reversed for retaliation, which is what happened.

It seems that refs up here are being told to go harsh on off the ball stuff and safety issues. I don't like it, but I'm beginning to accept it as normal.

▶ McCaw was good. Very good. Read and Kaino spent a fair bit of time in the wider channels which worked at times, but we probably only need one loose forward hanging out on the wing at any one time

It seemed like your tactic was to get the ball wide the moment it looked remotely on (until it start coming down and you sensibly switched to possession rugby), makes sense to have forwards out wide in that situation. In any case, I remember seeing Kaino making hard yards in the middle a lot.

▶ What's the point in having a good offensive back three if they never get any ball on attack? May had what, one touch (which was electric)? Did Rokoduguni have any?

Nope! We pretty much gave our wingers nuffink.

▶ A lot of people talk about Corbisiero's absence, but how much game time has he actually had since the Lions tour? Perhaps a match fit Corbs would be an asset, but I think at this point in time he'd be down the pecking order.

As noted, Corbs has had a bit of game time and looked his usual self in it. For me, he is so far ahead of what any of our other looseheads offer that he starts when fit regardless. Would he have made a difference? Impossible to say, but he's a better scrummager and a bigger hitter in the loose than either Marler or Mullan, while giving away nothing in terms of mobility.

▶ It's good to see NZ come away with the win, even with a relatively poor performance. It is, however, getting tiresome saying that after every match. I expect the All Blacks to pummel Scotland and Wales now as they will need to take some good performances into the World Cup. This year they've looked strong in maybe three matches - I think the team may need an injection of youth, or something to get them fired up a bit.

If that was poor, it was very relatively so. If your kicking and set-piece had been on song, that would have been a clear 10-12 point victory easily. Ok, having read back that sentence, a performance where your goal kicking and set-piece malfunction is always de facto not good, but pretty much everything else was there.

 

[William18]

What you're clearly, missing or not understanding, is the fact TMO called it, not the referee.

The TMO is in a soundproof booth and has no interaction with the stadium outside of that. so the crowd shouting and jeering has no bearing on his request to "check it again", the TMO like most other people saw the white line of the advertising and rightly thought "hang on a minute".

Ergo the crowd had no or very little impact on the ref, who did not ask to look at it again, it was the TMO, and the outcome was the same - he even apologised to BB after to say sorry the TMO had to have a look.

So you can keep whining about the ref interfering, and the fact the crowd had a bit of a shout but the TMO who is in a soundproof booth can neither see the big screen nor hear the crowd made the call and was right to.

If you want to complain complain about the advertising having a white border so close to the goal line, or you could just enjoy the fact you won?




Yep, he continually missed Richie McCaw laying off side, handling the ball in the ruck and from the side, standing up in the way of the England scrum half and other numerous New Zealand infringements that impacted on England on their own goal line. He should be struck off.



I've not watched the game again yet, but I honestly felt it wasn't on the line and thus still in the ruck - so he was offside. The line is white not green.



Holding a shirt vs kicking someone blindly in rage and potentially causing serious harm? I don't think either is really comparable and the simple fact is don't react - if you do make sure it isn't in a way that is worse than the original offence. If he'd struck someones face he'd have been looking at a red, and a lengthy stand down.



He's been playing since the start of the season, and was in excellent form, he would have made a difference even just coming off the bench - lets not forget he literally won the lions tour for us 12 months ago.



Agreed mate, people talk about the AB's dominating but for all that they are only just squeaking home against the other top countries - but importantly they are squeaking through. They are the best team int eh world for a reason and they are going to click into gear soon and destroy someone important.

I'm not whinging. Either way the producer can choose to show or withhold replays for the benefit of his home town team. I really don't see why this should be allowed or even encouraged. Most football stadiums deliberately have replays of controversial refereeing incidents blacked out for this very reason and they do not even have a review system It's something which has come up in repeated test matches. The absolutely disgraceful decision to red card Du Plessis at Eden Park was a shocking home town call. I also saw the same thing happen many times in Super Rugby.

I don't think it is whinging to say that we should create an environment whereby match officials are best enabled to referee impartially. I mean in Super Rugby in one game where the Highlanders complained about a try being scored and checked with the TMO because of it, he was officially censured.

As for the Whitelock try that was really the only decision the match officials bottled. It's either a try or a penalty for offside. I'm happy with whatever call they make but it is never a knock on.

 

[William18]

To be honest, even if the crowd does have an effect on what is looked at by the refs, I don't think that should really matter. As long as once the ref looks at the replay they make an impartial decision I'm OK with it. At the end of the day the fact that the crowd alerts the ref to some misdemeanor is irrelevant, providing they don't influence the fairness of the punishment.

Yes but it's an advantage for the home team because the crowd doesn't alert the referee to any of the home team's infringements. Therefore only away teams have infringements reviewed in this way.

 

[goodNumber10]

I'm not whinging. Either way the producer can choose to show or withhold replays for the benefit of his home town team. I really don't see why this should be allowed or even encouraged. Most football stadiums deliberately have replays of controversial refereeing incidents blacked out for this very reason and they do not even have a review system It's something which has come up in repeated test matches. The absolutely disgraceful decision to red card Du Plessis at Eden Park was a shocking home town call. I also saw the same thing happen many times in Super Rugby.

I don't think it is whinging to say that we should create an environment whereby match officials are best enabled to referee impartially. I mean in Super Rugby in one game where the Highlanders complained about a try being scored and checked with the TMO because of it, he was officially censured.

As for the Whitelock try that was really the only decision the match officials bottled. It's either a try or a penalty for offside. I'm happy with whatever call they make but it is never a knock on.

you're right, all sport should be played in a sterile emotionless environment for fear of upsetting the new zealander's apple cart.

So which is it? the crowd or the producer? Earlier it was the crowd getting on the back of the ref, but now it's the TV producer fault for influencing the TMO?

oh, no, wait!

Yes but it's an advantage for the home team because the crowd doesn't alert the referee to any of the home team's infringements. Therefore only away teams have infringements reviewed in this way.

We're back to it being the crowd again.

If you don't want home advantage play every test match in a neutral venue.