British and Irish Lions Tour: Referee Chat

[Nubiwan]

Ok that's like a pinball machine version of - what the hell should I call here to look fair to everyone. Where is the knock on? My volume is not on. From the rebound off the post? Looked sideways. Not sure it's comparable as a knock on into the hands of a team mate. your standard knock on is rather what we are after.

 

[Nubiwan]

Ok that's like a pinball machine version of - what the hell should I call here to look fair to everyone. Where is the knock on? My volume is down, so can't hears any chatter. From the rebound off the post? Looked sideways. Not sure it's comparable as a knock on into the hands of a team mate. your standard knock on is rather what we are after.

 

[Nubiwan]

Here is a better example.. look who the Cru captain is. Talk about irony.

Now - someone tell me what is the difference..... Where is the consistency in what Poite did at Eden park. No difference. Brumby player knew he was offside and dropped ball. Same thing Owens did. To bad. Offside mate.

Thing is, there are numerous examples of this in the past 5 years, whether the player accidentally plays it, or not.

 

[Nubiwan]

Here is another. Very similar.

This too could be considered accidental offside but, in either case I produced, refs didn't give a ****

My personal opinion is that a penalty is too harsh. Free kick or scrum is adequate.

 

[Nubiwan]

And for Bruce ma goose, here is the mother of them all...

The point again here is Joubert adjudged the ball off a Scotland player, so was compelled to call offside and pen. Which would have been correct, had it ever hit a Scotland player.

Only subsequent video, which he had no ability to call on, as far as I know, proved he had made a mistake. Similar to the lions decision, the immediate reaction watching on tv was knock on, pen. Only slowmo replay showed how wrong we all were......

 

[TRF_heineken]

I'm beginning to become very annoyed with that happened now that I have some information gleaned from other referees higher up the chain than me

Firstly, an Australian referee acquaintance of mine had a guest speaker at their referee meeting in Sydney this week. The speaker is a current Super Rugby referee and test AR, and he said that the word from WR was that the decision was wrong; advantage should have been played and then if no advantage it and should have been a PK under 11.7 (their opinion is that it was a knock on).

Secondly, the transcript of what the officials said to each other tells me that not only did they make a complete pig's breakfast, of the decision, it was actually Jerome Garces who convinced Poite to change his mind.

After Poite went to the TMO...

TMO: "Romain, they are all the angles."

Poite "Are you happy for the knock-on? Is the challenge in the air fair? And a penalty kick against 16 red for being in front?"

TMO: "Yes I am."

...at this stage, Poite is going to award a penalty to NZ for offside, but Poite gets a call from Jerome Garces.

Poite: "Oui, Jerome."

...and they converse in French (more about this later) after which Poite walks back to Read and Warburton.

Poite: "We have a deal, we have a deal for the offside from 16. He didn't play deliberately at the ball, okay? It was an accidental offside."

So, what did Garces say to Poite? We know that Poite changed his mind after speaking to Garces, and not everything they said was heard, but one thing was, and it is damning..

"Vous savez ce qui est arrivé à Craig. Ne faites pas cela à votre sujet." (You know what happened to Craig. Don't make it about you)

If that translation is correct, then that is very unprofessional of Garces. He has brought in something from another game, totally unrelated to this game, in order to convince another official to change his decision. Both these referees need to be called to account for that.

Thanx Cooky, again for the informative post with your connection to the Referees panels and what goes on there.

My question is what will happen now to both Poite and Garces? This is the umpteenth time that Poite has transgressed, yet, he's still on the elite panel. And he's also in charge of games in the upcoming Rugby Championship.

 

[ncurd]

The quote whilst damning doesn't have the full context of the conversation so without knowing that it's hard to adjudge why Garces said it. Poite may have agreed with him he got it wrong initially but didn't want to change his mind. In that case Garces is politely telling him to not be a dick.

Also being against someone saying something like that means were falling for the usually fallacy of thinking people should live a vacuum in their judgement where it's.almost impossible to that.

 

[TRF_heineken]

The quote whilst damning doesn't have the full context of the conversation so without knowing that it's hard to adjudge why Garces said it. Poite may have agreed with him he got it wrong initially but didn't want to change his mind. In that case Garces is politely telling him to not be a dick.

Also being against someone saying something like that means were falling for the usually fallacy of thinking people should live a vacuum in their judgement where it's.almost impossible to that.

Is it really that hard to adjudge why Garces said it? Every rugby lover, who watched the RWC and knows the Joubert incident came to the same conclusion that this is a similar incident, let's see if Poite also makes a screw-up. I thought that as soon as Poite asked for the TMO.

And purely because Garces said what he said and that Poite shouldn't make it about him, by changing the call, he made it about him. So instead of helping his french buddy, he basically threw him under the bus, and implicated himself in the process.

I think the more information comes out and what was said, and what World Rugby says and does, the more people will realise that yet again, a team got screwed over by a terrible call. Yet, it seems that the authorities doesn't have the backbone to take proper action, and get rid of this scourge plaguing the game we love.

 

[ncurd]

I don't think this was a 'terrible call' in that it wasn't completely demontrably wrong there are some schools of thought it was correct there are some that say the Lions should got a pently for Reed's inteference. A terrible call is like the one Warburton got early in the game.

Also I don't like inferring why people said things without full contect of what was being said at the time.

It is ironic though that by saying that they have gone down that route.

Honestly though I feel sorry for any ref having to make a complex decision at the end of a big game its going to be scrutinised to the nth degree and your just trying to do what you think is right.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

To reiterate, I find it untenable to bemoan the decision whilst also claiming that what happened at the end of the second test was unjust and that the law needs to be changed. You either believe that referees need more scope to use discretion or apply the adjunct of 'accidental' for situations where reaction time was small, or you don't. You can't pick and choose scenarios when it suits you.

What DOES worry me as it has for a while now is some of the referee-assistant and referee-TMO interactions. It's an absolute cluster **** a lot of the time, a frustrating mixture of assistants over stepping their authority and also conversely of TMOs not being able to provide useful input because they don't feel like they can directly challenge a decision.

This incident provides more damming evidence, however to be honest I would want to see the original transcript in french myself rather than relying on heresay.

 

[Nubiwan]

I don't think this was a 'terrible call' in that it wasn't completely demontrably wrong there are some schools of thought it was correct there are some that say the Lions should got a pently for Reed's inteference. A terrible call is like the one Warburton got early in the game.

Also I don't like inferring why people said things without full contect of what was being said at the time.

It is ironic though that by saying that they have gone down that route.

Honestly though I feel sorry for any ref having to make a complex decision at the end of a big game its going to be scrutinised to the nth degree and your just trying to do what you think is right.

That's all Fair enough, and to be honest, I think this situation should be considered accidental offside. It used to be, when I played. Fella's can't help catching a ball coming at them. At most, a free kick and turn over possession. But it's not, and has not been for some time. It's a pen.

The point of all the insanity is that Poite called the pen correctly when it happened. Then for reasons unknown to me, changed his mind. Almost like he just wasn't happy his decision in the matter, or a pen, would settle the series.

The entire incident, in the context of the laws as they have been interpreted in the recent past, was 'unusual'. Wrong is a better word.

 

[smartcooky]

And for Bruce ma goose, here is the mother of them all...

The point again here is Joubert adjudged the ball off a Scotland player, so was compelled to call offside and pen. Which would have been correct, had it ever hit a Scotland player.

Only subsequent video, which he had no ability to call on, as far as I know, proved he had made a mistake. Similar to the lions decision, the immediate reaction watching on tv was knock on, pen. Only slowmo replay showed how wrong we all were......

It did come off a Scottish player, but it was like pinball. It bounced off Blue 7's head into the right shoulder of Blue 20, then into Gold 21's chest, glanced off Blue 20's shoulder again, and immediately brushed Gold 21's left forearm, and that last touch put all the Scottish players onside. I thought CJ was unfairly pilloried over this. He could not have seen the last touch by Phipps and didn't have the benefit of TMO oversight.

However, this incident is not at all like the Lions one, because here we have a touch of the ball that put all the opponents onside, and which went undetected by the referee. In the Lions match, there was no such touch; the ball came forward off Williams' hand and was caught by Owens while retiring and in an offside position. If the ball had simply hit him then I would agree that it was accidental, but that isn't what happened.

Owens looked, saw the ball coming, and had enough time to bring his arms up from his sides, reach out and catch the ball.... That has always been a penalty kick until now. Poite bottled it, muddied the waters and has made a rod for all referee's backs. If this precedent stands then a loophole in the Laws will have been created, and frankly I have no doubt whatsoever that elite players and coaches will exploit it ruthlessly. Coaches will tell their players to make sure they get a hand on the ball in these situations and to claim innocence.

And players? "Sorry ref, it was just an instinctive reaction, I didn't mean to catch the ball"

 

[mania]

Here is a better example.. look who the Cru captain is. Talk about irony.

irony is it was jaco, who was touchie in that test

 

[Nubiwan]

irony is it was jaco, who was touchie in that test

Yeah that too, but I don't think Poite mentioned reversing his decision in their pow wow. He just made his own mind up.

 

[mania]

Yeah that too, but I don't think Poite mentioned reversing his decision in their pow wow.

was apparently when he spoke to garces on the other side that he went totally against what he was discussing with jaco and the TMO. weird.
but after watching the game again, this time from a lions supporter perspective, I have to say that rReads challenge was pretty hopeful at best and could've been deemed interfering in the air.
lots was missed in this game and poite was no where near the standard I expect from him.
I'm still questioning why he felt he had to question the ABs first try and he went back to inspect a knock on. WTF? no one even mentioned a knockon and at no time was there any suspicion that one occurred yet he still went to the TMO to look at it. sure enough there wasn't any evidence to even suggest a likely knockon. as an ABs supporter this pretty much set up poites attitude towards the ABs for the rest of the game .

 

[Nubiwan]

was apparently when he spoke to garces on the other side that he went totally against what he was discussing with jaco and the TMO. weird.
but after watching the game again, this time from a lions supporter perspective, I have to say that rReads challenge was pretty hopeful at best and could've been deemed interfering in the air.
lots was missed in this game and poite was no where near the standard I expect from him.
I'm still questioning why he felt he had to question the ABs first try and he went back to inspect a knock on. WTF? no one even mentioned a knockon and at no time was there any suspicion that one occurred yet he still went to the TMO to look at it. sure enough there wasn't any evidence to even suggest a likely knockon. as an ABs supporter this pretty much set up poites attitude towards the ABs for the rest of the game .

Pretty rubbish game in the end, capped by a pretty average bit of refereeing. The all square series was perhaps just about right in the end, but the 3rd test was a bit of a let down all around. I am off to moan about the Lions getting a free pass to the final in Super Rugby At least on paper, and at home.

 

[Five Meters Out]

Thanks for providing that Brumbies clip Mole. I asked and you delivered. It put my mind at ease for a brief time, before Nubiwan began posting his examples of how such "offences" are ruled the vast majority of times. The Crusaders example in particular appears almost a dead set carbon copy of the Owens catch. Ruled a penalty by Jacko without any thought of ruling it differently.
To my mind it again comes back to Poite having "overthought" this incident.
It's a real blight on the game that such incidents can't be ruled consistently.

 

[mania]

The all square series was perhaps just about right in the end, but the 3rd test was a bit of a let down all around.

it was the rugby gods. to save the tours the rugby gods intervened and drew the series.
not the first time this has happened.
1995 for the good of SA, the rugby gods food poisoned the ABs
2011 NZ'rs were getting too cocky so WC was only won by a single point.
and now the drawn 2017 Lions series

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

Thanks for providing that Brumbies clip Mole. I asked and you delivered. It put my mind at ease for a brief time, before Nubiwan began posting his examples of how such "offences" are ruled the vast majority of times. The Crusaders example in particular appears almost a dead set carbon copy of the Owens catch. Ruled a penalty by Jacko without any thought of ruling it differently.
To my mind it again comes back to Poite having "overthought" this incident.
It's a real blight on the game that such incidents can't be ruled consistently.

The inconsistency is very annoying. After I saw that Walsh clip I went and rewatched the lions clip.
That time it seemed like Owens had less time to react than what I remembered from watching the game live.

I do think that based on precedent both times were wrong, but i think penalizing players in these situations is harsh. The mantra is supposed to be clear and obvious. I don't think that it in those two cases that it was clear and obvious that the players could avoid getting touched by the ball.

When I watched it live i thought 100% it was a penalty and that's how I call it when I officiate it. But man these are tough calls.

 

[Five Meters Out]

it was the rugby gods. to save the tours the rugby gods intervened and drew the series.
not the first time this has happened.
1995 for the good of SA, the rugby gods food poisoned the ABs
2011 NZ'rs were getting too cocky so WC was only won by a single point.
and now the drawn 2017 Lions series

And don't forget 1905 Mania. Down 3 -0, Bob Deans scored that clear try for the All Blacks and those bloody Welsh dragged him back into the field of play. Ref just crossing the half-way when he rules no try. Where was the TMO that day?