I dont like using the ref as an excuse, moreover when Jaguares committed many mistakes that cost us the game, like losing that very last scrum. But its undeniable that the ref cost us at least 16 points.
On this video there are images and comments on each play, so no further comment is needed:
http://www.espn.com.ar/video/clip/_/id/2677269
Even If the second try of Jaguares had not been awarded, with those 16 points it would have been enough to win.
I Agree with Cruz that espn journalysts (some are former pumas) have a close relstionship with some jaguares players to be critical enough, however in this case the proofs are too obvius to overseen them.
What I mean is that in most of the 50-50 calls, refs go against us probably because we are the new boys, our federation is the weakest and least influential, and probably the poorest of Sanzaar.
This is not too different from what many SA and OZ fans say about NZ.
Dont get me wrong, i think that noone here denies how much Jaguares need to improve, and that our current management probably wont have the answer to our problems. Refs are not to blame If we easily lose the ball in contact or If we dont have a reliable kicker apart from Nico Sánchez. But I have the feeling that we need to defend one or two steps behind the offside line to avoid penalties, and that we have 2 or 3 seconds less than the rest, which is an advantage we cannot afford to give. I could be wrong, and may be I just cannot take so many frustations, game After game, but I cant help feeling like that.
1) According to the video you posted, it were 9-12 points, not 16. That's biased
2) The biggest proof of bias in the video is that Albanese fine combs all the decisions against us but none of the ones against the sharks. In order to claim bias (as opposed to bad refereeing) you need to see both sides of the coin. Otherwise it'd be biased by definition. Just out of the top of my head:
- Second try
- It took us 3 off sides till the referee spoke to creevy and told him he needed to stop that. They never gave the sharks such a warning and it cost the sharks a yellow card.
3) in the first play of the video, it is clearly a mistake from the ref, but one that, given his position on the field, it is easy to understand. This is my point, mistakes aren't necessarily a sign of bias.
4) I am 100% sure that if a south african crew fine combed the video and cherry picked, they could make the exact opposite argument.
I love the sport and support jaguares, but i am also a huge fan of serious and objective analysis of the game. First by chance and later by choice i stopped watching ESPN. What is out there is far from perfect, but it is light years ahead of what we have. ESPN commentators aren't analysts, they are fans. It'd be like judging the Argentina's performance over the last 12 years just by watching 678.
What I mean is that in most of the 50-50 calls, refs go against us probably because we are the new boys, our federation is the weakest and least influential, and probably the poorest of Sanzaar.
A good exercise to judge bias is the following: disregard what sharks' and jaguares' fans are saying and pay close attention to what the rest of the people are saying. I do not see those people screaming bias. In fact, after post 49 two stormers' fans correctly pointed out a mistake (Stormers would have benefited form a shark's defeat).
The only ones claiming bias on this thread are jaguares fans. When i see all the people from one team claiming bias from the ref, either the evidence is overwhelming or they are being biased themselves. I do not see overwhelming evidence on this case.
I must admit thou, i sometimes tend to overcompensate towards the other team in order to correct for my own (and sometimes unconscious) bias. I will give you that.
and may be I just cannot take so many frustations, game After game, but I cant help feeling like that.
This i can empathize with.
And one more time, i agree with you that the ref was bad, but he was bad against both sides.
The first element to solving a problem (other than acknowledging there is a problem) is a good diagnosis. A bad referee and a biased referee are not quite the same thing.
Again, the ref was pretty bad (the longest advantage for a knock on i've seen in a long time), but people biased against you don't give away free tries.
One last thing. Some people will claim "he is south african and therefore he will help the south african team". It was in the stormers, the lions and the bulls best interest for the sharks to lose.
