An open letter to World Rugby.

[Dirty Ape]

A very good post, Sanzar, and I also agree with Smartcooky's analysis. I'd part company with you on the 'intrinsically negative' issue, but you are bang on the money in relation to the referee's potential influence on a soccer game's result. One game I will always remember is when my team, Spurs, were away at Manchester United and one of our players, Mendes, tried a long and somewhat hopeful shot at goal but it actually went into the net - the ball must have been at least one metre over the line so it was clearly a 'goal', and the cheating goalkeeper scooped it back into play. The referee 'missed it' and the assistant linesman also did not flag for a goal. The game ended in a draw, with both teams awarded one point, although Spurs clearly scored a winning goal.

I can't think of any remotely comparable refereeing mistake I've ever seen in rugby.

Hah - I remember that. How can you call the keeper a cheat though - he did his best to keep the ball out, failed, and got a lucky decision. Are you suggesting the keeper should have somehow "conceded" the goal to the ref on behalf of his team? Or maybe he shouldn't have even tried to stop it in the first place? Or maybe you are just a bitter? I meet plenty of Spurs fans and the bitterness does tend to run deep. Heh.

 

[Superalexmarket]

I assume you were not complaining that this try should have been banned?

Ohh...!! that was a fully disgrace for France, I almost cry when this happened...

 

[Fard]

A very good post, Sanzar, and I also agree with Smartcooky's analysis. I'd part company with you on the 'intrinsically negative' issue, but you are bang on the money in relation to the referee's potential influence on a soccer game's result. One game I will always remember is when my team, Spurs, were away at Manchester United and one of our players, Mendes, tried a long and somewhat hopeful shot at goal but it actually went into the net - the ball must have been at least one metre over the line so it was clearly a 'goal', and the cheating goalkeeper scooped it back into play. The referee 'missed it' and the assistant linesman also did not flag for a goal. The game ended in a draw, with both teams awarded one point, although Spurs clearly scored a winning goal.

I can't think of any remotely comparable refereeing mistake I've ever seen in rugby.

I can remember John Eales getting lifted under the goal posts and tapping back a kick towards the kicker to stop the conversion. Similar deal. The ref got this wrong and the goal should gave stood as it had passed over the bar. Also John should have been given a card for a deliberate knock on. Any it did happen.

 

[Cliffyboy]

Hah - I remember that. How can you call the keeper a cheat though - he did his best to keep the ball out, failed, and got a lucky decision. Are you suggesting the keeper should have somehow "conceded" the goal to the ref on behalf of his team? Or maybe he shouldn't have even tried to stop it in the first place? Or maybe you are just a bitter? I meet plenty of Spurs fans and the bitterness does tend to run deep. Heh.

His name is Roy Carroll and he is a cheat, and I call him that because that is what he is. It has got nothing to do with his efforts in trying to save it but what he did after he failed to do so.

If he's happy with what he sees in the mirror each day, so be it.

I can also assure you that I am not a bitter Spurs fan and fail to see what bearing the opponents and their supporters have on the matter. I also hold exactly the same view of Maradona and his so-called 'hand of god' 'goal'.

These players play at a level I could only dream of, but I envy them not one iota, and with Maradona's self-inflated justification for his cheating, I'm proud to be an atheist.

- - - Updated - - -

I can remember John Eales getting lifted under the goal posts and tapping back a kick towards the kicker to stop the conversion. Similar deal. The ref got this wrong and the goal should gave stood as it had passed over the bar. Also John should have been given a card for a deliberate knock on. Any it did happen.

I've never heard, nor seen footage, of this incident. Can you give chapter and verse to it, as in the opponents, and the final score and outcome of the game in question? Do you mean that the conversion should have stood, as in a further two points, and not a 'goal'?

You term it 'Similar deal'. Does that mean John Eales' team won or drew a match they would otherwise have lost? Don't forget that I also said 'comparable refereeing mistake I've ever seen in rugby.'

 

[Dirty Ape]

Remind me, what did Caroll do after the "save" that was so bad?

I agree with you about Maradona but don't see why you would compare the two situations.

As for the bitter Spurs fan thing - I take that back, that wasn't fair. But I said it because I genuinely have met multiple bitter Spurs fans - they know they are bitter and they wear it with pride. That self-deprecating humour is just one of the many things I love about this country.

 

[Fard]

I think it was against Waikato, the game was at Ballymore in Brisbane (I think super 12 days). I was at the game and it was in the late 90's. The rules were changed on the back of this. Can't remember what effect it had on the score as was probably by this stage had far too much to drink. But do remember seeing this and it caused a large amount of debate that the time.

 

[Cliffyboy]

Remind me, what did Caroll do after the "save" that was so bad?

I agree with you about Maradona but don't see why you would compare the two situations.

As for the bitter Spurs fan thing - I take that back, that wasn't fair. But I said it because I genuinely have met multiple bitter Spurs fans - they know they are bitter and they wear it with pride. That self-deprecating humour is just one of the many things I love about this country.

That's a nice reply. If you go onto Youtube, as I've just done, and type in 'Carrol blunder', you will see the incident in question, in all its reprehensible glory. Carroll spills the ball and it goes into the goal, but so well over the line, that the referee and his linesman would have to be blind not to have seen it. Carroll then immediately scoops the ball back into play when it is at least a metre into the net, and play continues. If you cannot see the connection with Maradona's incident, watch carefully as play continues, when the camera goes onto Carroll, because he sneaks a quick sideways look to his left, checking to see if the linesman had flagged for a goal, but in reality admitting what he had just done. His sideways, sneaky look, is the non-verbal equivalent of Maradona's gross nonsense about 'hand of god'.

You will also hear the two commentators say 'unbelievable decision' (not to award a goal) and 'travesty'. They also make a couple of other comments regarding this, which connects with Sanzar's original comment comparing unfavourably Soccer refereeing mistakes with Rugby Union's, with which I agree.

- - - Updated - - -

I think it was against Waikato, the game was at Ballymore in Brisbane (I think super 12 days). I was at the game and it was in the late 90's. The rules were changed on the back of this. Can't remember what effect it had on the score as was probably by this stage had far too much to drink. But do remember seeing this and it caused a large amount of debate that the time.

Well, thanks, Fard, but I wouldn't really call that giving chapter and verse to your reference.

 

[Dirty Ape]

Here it is:


A blunder indeed. A travesty of a decision.

But that's not cheating, that's just very poor officiating. Maradona cheated in the "hand of god" incident. Carroll did not cheat here.

 

[Cliffyboy]

Here it is:


A blunder indeed. A travesty of a decision.

But that's not cheating, that's just very poor officiating. Maradona cheated in the "hand of god" incident. Carroll did not cheat here.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that, then, because the poor officiating only occurred as a result of his cheating.

Would Roy Carroll be proud of showing what he did to his two children? And if that's too strong, why, then, does he say about his time at United that the Spurs game is the one he'd rather forget about? Since he 'saved' United two points, why shouldn't he be proud of what he did?

Mind you, I also see his manager, Alex Ferguson, as not having the integrity to come out after the game and say Spurs rightly should have been given the win. If you ever needed evidence for how rotten the English system of awarding honours is, the fact that he received a knighthood should be high up on the list.

 

[Dirty Ape]

We'll have to agree to disagree on that

Yeah I think so.

 

[smartcooky]

His name is Roy Carroll and he is a cheat, and I call him that because that is what he is. It has got nothing to do with his efforts in trying to save it but what he did after he failed to do so.

Mate, that's not cheating, that's diabolical work on the part of the linesman

What do you suggest Carroll should have done... go up to the referee and admit it was a goal? If he does that, he's out of a job... Alex Ferguson would have subbed him immediately, and then fired his arse as he crossed the chalk!

 

[Fard]

Can we move on from this woeful brand of football and get back to Rugby!
The whole lot are corrupt from the head down!

 

[smartcooky]

OK, let's leave this one, it must be confusing for anyone not in the inner circle. What the hell does, 'relative to his own frame of reference ', mean? I think that the ABs have got this one sorted!

mate, reference frames are easy

You're driving down the road in your car (which is a convertible; the reason for this will be obvious later)

Well... your car is your reference frame, and it is moving with respect to the road, which is also a reference frame but a stationary one

"Forward" for you is towards where you are going, and "backwards" is toward where you have been, however for the driver coming towards you on the other side of the road (sitting in his own reference frame) the directions are reversed. Forwards for you is backwards for him and vice-versa.

There is also a helicopter hovering above the road, looking down at you. He is not moving so he is in the same stationary reference frame as the road

If you toss a drink can across to your passenger, it appears to move straight across to the passenger from your point of view sitting in your moving reference frame, however, from the helicopter (in the stationary reference frame), it will appear to go forward because the car (your reference frame) is moving forward.

Understand that? OK, now substitute;

1. you become the player passing the ball instead of being in your car.
2. the road becomes the Rugby Field.
3. the helicopter becomes the TV audience.
4. the drink can becomes the rugby ball.

You pass the ball straight across (laterally, with respect to your reference frame) but the TV audience sees the ball travel forwards because your reference frame is moving.

Clear now?

 

[Cliffyboy]

Mate, that's not cheating, that's diabolical work on the part of the linesman

What do you suggest Carroll should have done... go up to the referee and admit it was a goal? If he does that, he's out of a job... Alex Ferguson would have subbed him immediately, and then fired his arse as he crossed the chalk!

Yes, I do, since the referee and his linesman hadn't spotted it, and, as a matter of fact, it is cheating. Roy Carroll cheated, which is why he quickly and sneakily glanced at the linesman. Seeing as he saved United two points, why is it the one game during his career at United that he'd like to forget? That's not a rhetorical question, either.

I also reckon if the 'great' Ferguson had reacted as you suggest, with Carroll being immediately subbed and sacked, and him now out of a job, as you put it, basically for being honest, that would have come back with a vengeance to haunt Ferguson, and been one hell of a burden for him to carry for the rest of his life. What, sack a man for being honest? I wouldn't want that on my C.V.; would you want it on yours?

I venture to say Ferguson would not have the 'Sir' in front of his name now, if he had reacted as you suggest.

Referees and linesmen missing something that it can be argued that they should not have missed, be it football or rugby, or any other sport, for that matter, does not make them responsible for what they have missed happening. Maradona's 'hand of god' 'goal', proves him to be a cheat, but let's not forget that the referee and linesman of that game, also missed it. Is their incompetence not greater than those at Old Trafford, since it led to a goal actually being given, yet I've never heard of their being criticised, or the referee and linesman who failed to see the disgracefully cowardly tackle on O'Driscoll by the two All Blacks? Each day those two 'men' wake, they should thank their lucky stars they didn't put him in a wheelchair for the rest of his life.

Although we can criticise the referee and his linesmen for their failings, that's a viewpoint that can be leveled at the officials of any sport on the planet, but unless you can prove corruption at that officiating level, the officials can't and shouldn't be held responsible for what the actual players and participants do.

 

[gamine]

mate, reference frames are easy

You're driving down the road in your car (which is a convertible; the reason for this will be obvious later)

Well... your car is your reference frame, and it is moving with respect to the road, which is also a reference frame but a stationary one

"Forward" for you is towards where you are going, and "backwards" is toward where you have been, however for the driver coming towards you on the other side of the road (sitting in his own reference frame) the directions are reversed. Forwards for you is backwards for him and vice-versa.

There is also a helicopter hovering above the road, looking down at you. He is not moving so he is in the same stationary reference frame as the road

If you toss a drink can across to your passenger, it appears to move straight across to the passenger from your point of view sitting in your moving reference frame, however, from the helicopter (in the stationary reference frame), it will appear to go forward because the car (your reference frame) is moving forward.

Understand that? OK, now substitute;

1. you become the player passing the ball instead of being in your car.
2. the road becomes the Rugby Field.
3. the helicopter becomes the TV audience.
4. the drink can becomes the rugby ball.

You pass the ball straight across (laterally, with respect to your reference frame) but the TV audience sees the ball travel forwards because your reference frame is moving.

Clear now?

Having discussed this matter with my husband, ex-rugby player and PhD, Nuclear Physics, he assures me that this is all nonsense, and what we see as a forward pass is, in fact, a forward pass!

 

[ncurd]

Having discussed this matter with my husband, ex-rugby player and PhD, Nuclear Physics, he assures me that this is all nonsense, and what we see as a forward pass is, in fact, a forward pass!

Your husband probably doesn't understand the laws of rugby then. That or you're on a massive wind up.

 

[RedruthRFC]

Having discussed this matter with my husband, ex-rugby player and PhD, Nuclear Physics, he assures me that this is all nonsense, and what we see as a forward pass is, in fact, a forward pass!

Eh. Perhaps your husband could explain why this is "all nonsense". Everything that smartcooky and others have patiently and eloquently explained is in line with everything I have ever read from rugby authorities.

 

[Bo Jandals]

Having discussed this matter with my husband, ex-rugby player and PhD, Nuclear Physics, he assures me that this is all nonsense, and what we see as a forward pass is, in fact, a forward pass!

Excuse my interjection Mam, what forward pass are you talking about? Which game and what leg are you standing on?

No offence BUT proof is in the obligatory pooding as ONE says.

On ya bike reff/Geoffry boycott.

 

[gamine]

Your husband probably doesn't understand the laws of rugby then. That or you're on a massive wind up.

No, no wind up, I can assure you! He played second row, skippered his team - a good local junior team, who got to the semi-finals of the then Middlesex Cup, pushing some senior teams pretty close - coached, initiated mini-rugby and ended his rugby career as president. He worked as a university lecturer for 45years, and does indeed hold a PhD in Physics, and worked for the IAEA in England and abroad. I don't think you can accuse him of not understanding rugby or physics!

- - - Updated - - -

Excuse my interjection Mam, what forward pass are you talking about? Which game and what leg are you standing on?

No offence BUT proof is in the obligatory pooding as ONE says.

On ya bike reff/Geoffry boycott.

I don't really think that your interjection, so poorly expressed, deserves a response, but let me put it this way, if it looks like a forward pass, if it appears to be a forward pass, if everyone can see it's a forward pass, then it probably is a forward pass!

 

[Bo Jandals]

No, no wind up, I can assure you! He played second row, skippered his team - a good local junior team, who got to the semi-finals of the then Middlesex Cup, pushing some senior teams pretty close - coached, initiated mini-rugby and ended his rugby career as president. He worked as a university lecturer for 45years, and does indeed hold a PhD in Physics, and worked for the IAEA in England and abroad. I don't think you can accuse him of not understanding rugby or physics!

Gamine.....the laws of physics? uhhhhmm OK? Have you ever heard of Earnest Rutherford?

Ask your late husband a simple fact............is it possible to pass a ball in motion whilst running forwards or backwards. Rather simple question really considering physics