Got Biased reffing?

[Phillipbul]

Well said :bravo: . Thx for the link. Ahh.... those were the days. Will we ever see tours like that again?

 

[Prestwick]

Paddy O'Brien was not happy with the usually reliable southern hemisphere refs who for some very strange reason were calling all sorts of strange decisions at the cup and had to give them linesmen jobs.
[/b]

Is this sarcasm? Because guys like Kaplan and Walsh have been absolutely shocking for the past few years let alone during this world cup. Kaplan with his x-ray vision, why with the ability to see through 15 jerseys and see a ball buried at the bottom who needs a TMO?! And Walsh, please, do not get me started on the man who doth love to prance upon yonder field like a well oiled nubile adonis strutting his stuff art thou field.

Considering how green the guy is, Barnes didn't do too badly. Yes he got a vital call wrong but don't let that tarnish a vocal and controlled performance as referee. He had a keen eye at the scrum, didn't let either pack try and control when they engage (something which all major teams try to bully the referee with) and had an even keener eye at the breakdown. Don't worry my Kiwi compardres, he is just as hard as elder master of the dark arts of the break down Richard Hill when he refs in the Guinness Premiership. And considering that Hill is about 2 billion% less conspicuous than McCaw when a) slowing ball down and b ) pushing for the turnover, that has to mean that he has a good perception of the breakdown, one far better than many other referees.

 

[diehardkiwi07]

Considering how green the guy is, Barnes didn't do too badly.YES HE GOT A VITAL CALL WRONG but don't let that tarnish a vocal and controlled performance as referee. [/b]

Did this person actually say the ref got the call wrong? after reading these forums everyday it made me think hey the pass may have been line ball after all.

 

[Bullitt]

<div class='quotemain'>
Considering how green the guy is, Barnes didn't do too badly.YES HE GOT A VITAL CALL WRONG but don't let that tarnish a vocal and controlled performance as referee. [/b]

Did this person actually say the ref got the call wrong? after reading these forums everyday it made me think hey the pass may have been line ball after all. [/b][/quote]

Jesus-H-f***ing-Christ, do you ever stop moaning? I don't think I've seen one singly post by you yet which isn't a ***** or a moan.

 

[diehardkiwi07]

Jesus-H-f***ing-Christ, do you ever stop moaning? I don't think I've seen one singly post by you yet which isn't a ***** or a moan.
[/b]

"After reading these forums everyday it made me think hey the pass may have been line ball after all."

Is this what a pom thinks the definition to moaning is?

 

[I Bleed Black]

I think everyone has had there say on the refs now. Lets try and wind it up and talk about something more constructive.

Now lets get back to whats in front of us - a couple of cracker semis and a NH v SH final!!

 

[KZNSharksFan]

And Walsh, please, do not get me started on the man who doth love to prance upon yonder field like a well oiled nubile adonis strutting his stuff art thou field.

Considering how green the guy is, Barnes didn't do too badly. Yes he got a vital call wrong but don't let that tarnish a vocal and controlled performance as referee. He had a keen eye at the scrum, didn't let either pack try and control when they engage (something which all major teams try to bully the referee with) and had an even keener eye at the breakdown. Don't worry my Kiwi compardres, he is just as hard as elder master of the dark arts of the break down Richard Hill when he refs in the Guinness Premiership. And considering that Hill is about 2 billion% less conspicuous than McCaw when a) slowing ball down and b ) pushing for the turnover, that has to mean that he has a good perception of the breakdown, one far better than many other referees.
[/b]

Please, please, please for the sake of the language which is your country's namesake, at least know what your'e saying when using shakespearean lingo.

However, good point on McCaw, many refs are too scared to penalise him sometimes. Everyone watches their national team rather one sidedly and this may explain why some kiwis take exception to McCaw being penalised

 

[scuubasteve]

Everyone watches their national team rather one sidedly[/b]

Mate, that has to be one of the truest comments I have ever read on this forum.

And is obviously the real source for this thread, and most of the arguements on this forum also.

 

[scuubasteve]

I think the AB's have every reason to be angry. Bad refereeing always leaves a bad taste in the mouth. I can still remember when the AB's where awarded a dubious penalty in the FIFTH minute of injury time during the third test against the Boks in 1981. Not long ago our captain was told to go talk to his players while the Irish scored. How many high tackles where missed in the SA v Tonga game. Just a few examples of many.

What should happen is that they should ***** & moan about it for a long time all the while remembering that they simply weren't good enough to beat France. What they certainly shouldn't do is believe that if it wasn't for one forward pass that they would have won the tournament. To think that they are better than all the other teams by a margin is simply untrue. That is the sad fact.

The AB's haven't had the opportunity to play a full strength bok team this year. The closest measure is the totally lopsided super 14 and we all know what happened there. Man for man, I think the boks have a team full of players of which at least 7 is equal to if not better than the best in their positions in the world. That doesn't mean that the other 8 are AB's. Far from it.

Sure I'm gonna be miffed if we choke like the AB's did. Sure it's gonna hurt even more if the ref had anything to do with it. But, if we truly are the strongest team in the world right now ( as I believe we are) then we should not let that happen. The AB's for all their hype simply shouldn't have let it happen. Forward pass or not!
[/b]

You had me believing you with the first couple of paragraphs (which were very true), but you lost me with the 3rd?

The Boks haven't been that convincing, to be perfectly honest. Close wins over Tonga and Fiji suggest that if they do win the Cup (and I'll readily admit they have a VERY good chance) then they won't exactly be remembered as a legendary team (like the AB's of '87 and Wallabies of '91). These two teams were really "full of players of which at least 7 is equal to if not better than the best in their positions in the world".

I'll give you...Smit, Matfield, Burger and Du Preez. Where do you see "at least" 3 others? Not trying to be a cynical smart c#@t here either, just interested?

 

[Phillipbul]

I'll give you...Smit, Matfield, Burger and Du Preez. Where do you see "at least" 3 others? Not trying to be a cynical smart c#@t here either, just interested?

Du Randt, Botha and Habana

 

[QKXV]

@ Scuuba - I agree that the Bok haven't been utterly convincing throughout this tournament, but it also depends on what criteria you use to define the term 'convincing'. If you define it by the amount of bonus points achieved then Aus & NZ was really convincing, or maybe it's the amount of points againts, in which case New Zealand is another forerunner, along with Argentina. Fiji was convincing as a serious competitor during the pool stages and so nearly convinced the world against the Boks (infact I am convinced the 'minnow' nations are closing the gaps)

Now I think 'convincing' is defined by the following little gem, the four semifinalists comes from the two toughest pools in the competition, clearly these sides had more convincing performances (especially when it mattered) as each had to work their way out of their pools and then some to get into the semi's. They had been wieghed against some real heavy weights and came out top. Convinced?

 

[scuubasteve]

Mate, apologies on Habana, I seriously overlooked him in my count (definitely up there as one of the best in his position!).

Maybe not so much big Os and Bakkies as worlds best, but still pretty decent!

But as KZNSharksFan said, everyone watches their national team a little one sidedly and I'm not different. Personally I'd have said the AB's had at least 10 players who were argueably the best in their position in the world, but then I would say that! Haha

QKXV you might be onto something there with the 2 pools thing aye.
But, of the semifinalists, 2 teams have already lost games in this tournament (France & England) and only managed tight wins last week. So if either of those 2 teams won the cup I wouldn't call them convincing world champions by any stretch.

Similarly, Argentina have won all their games but struggled at times and have only finished as convincing winners against Namibia. Remembering their close victories over France and Scotland (Quarter) and the way they struggled for most of the game against Georgia suggests that they too have not been convincing.

I guess I would define convincing as taking into account all the things you suggested (bonus points, for/against, scorelines) plus the quality of opposition faced to suggest a clear champion above all others.

Hmm, that sounds longwinded, but you get the jist hopefully. But I guess on those terms, while I don't think South Africa has been very convincing, they are the MOST convincing. But then...they struggled against Tonga and Fiji...Nah I just don't yet believe aye.

Maybe a big performance in the Semi's will tip the scales.

 

[Klarkash-ton]

Mate, apologies on Habana, I seriously overlooked him in my count (definitely up there as one of the best in his position!).

Maybe not so much big Os and Bakkies as worlds best, but still pretty decent!
[/b]

well said.

Similarly, Argentina have won all their games but struggled at times and have only finished as convincing winners against Namibia. Remembering their close victories over France and Scotland (Quarter) and the way they struggled for most of the game against Georgia suggests that they too have not been convincing.

[/b]

I dunno about the Georgia game. Pumas had only 4 days to recover from a huge effort, and Georgia suprised everyone with their stength, particularly in the pack, in thier other games. I was impressed at the end by the fact the Pumas kept at it, determined to get what may (at that stage) have been a crucial bonus point. They really did look knackered that night. I think they showed some real backbone.

The Scotland and Ireland games for me were more illuminating. I think they were more nervous with more at stake. They have to go back to the do or die stuff they showed against France, and previously at home against touring teams to win against SA. However, win SA being favourites I think they can get into that mode.

SA on the other hand have to recognise the real threat Argentina pose.

 

[QKXV]

You see the thing is even if SA manage to scrape a victory over the Argentinians - which I believe will be the case in fact regardless of who wins, it will be a very close match - It would still be hard to be convinced by anything offerered in the Kiwi meaning of the word. The reason is that the quality of the opposition makes a huge difference to how well a team is perceived to perform. NZ performed brilliantly against Portugal - clean lines - didn't let the try fest run away with them, simply controlled it - solid defence, same against Scotland etc

'Convincing' rugby doesn't exist in it's true form in a competition like the world cup, because at the top the competition is too close, it's simply not a one off test like we see in between world cups, consider occasion, pride, nerves, consider the last stand made by many players and coaches, there's many other variables present as compared to a one off test, - the upsets in this comp should by now have convinced people that under competition conditions like in the RWC teams perform differently and it's those differences that makes the difference.

England's convincing pack performance against Australia is one of those differences, France's convincing defence against New Zealand is another, Fiji v Wales. It seems to me if Kiwi's speak about 'convincing' they speak about the perfect match for one side, a huge score and opponents left with nothing but bruises and questions and awe and fear.

The moment that could've defined NZ's campaign was the drop goal that never came in the last miutes against France, instead trying to work away on the fringes like to try and get a convincing victory rather than take responsibility for the gamble of a dropgoal and possibly get the game in the bag when it mattered.

In this world cup the only convincing that really matters is convincing the score sheet of the results.....all other convincing is better left for the posers, show offs and the braggers.

 

[fcukernaut]

I don't believe in the old notion that "human error is part of the game". Yes at club rugby on Saturday you can forgive a guy who's refereeing because he blew his knee out a few years ago and just wants to have a beer with the boys. But when it comes to the World Cup, the most important games on the planet, consistently getting calls wrong is unaccepable. Regardless whether you believe Barnes was poor or not, it is neither here nor there, we have to get past this and look to the future. Unfortunately, this is far from the first time poor refereeing has been brought up in this tournament. That is the truely sad part. I think the iRB should certainly put more focus not only into developing rugby nations, but developing top flight rugby referees. What also needs to be amened is the interpretations of referees. There needs to be consistency between both SH referees and NH referees. As of right now, we do know that NH refs interperate calls differently than SH refs. Going forward, idealy, you'd like to not even notice the difference between any referee that is qualified to do international games.

 

[klinthicum]

I highly doubt the death threats came from just one person (the wikipedia guy). Otherwise the IRB wouldn't be claiming Barnes has received death threatS, and added extra security to him. They're separate issues. The person who did wikipedia is identifiable and probably continents away from France where Barnes is. They wouldn't add extra security for just one death threat from a guy thousands of miles away.



Of Course teams do check in every year for test matches. And most of the time New Zealand Wins and the public doesn't get worked up about the referee. I'm only saying the kiwis only get worked up about the refernee when the AB's lose. Which is why there has a been a barrage of complaints about referring in favor of New Zealand, particularly when matches occur in New Zealand.

Yes I am an American and we try to learn more about rugby by watching international matches. We're objective when watching these matches, I don't care if South Africa beats New Zealand or vice versa, just want to see some high level rugby, and hope to see if we can learn things to improve our games. We see it, the All Blacks consistently receive the luck of the green with the refs.



Living in the USA I didn't get to see the match until a day after it was over, and I had already heard the outcry about "the forward pass". I noticed several foreign passes by the kiwis when watching the game downloaded on my computer the next day.




"Ironic you talk about safety in a country when your flag is listed as the USA."





see the
link,
http://agendatv.co.nz/Site/agenda/Agenda_Home/default.aspx,

your foreign minister (or deputy prime minister- i don't know his actual ***le) actually directly implied that if the All Blacks win, people are less likely to beat up their children. Imagine if the All Blacks don't win in New Zealand in the Word Cup....
....... poor kids. Can't even imagine what will happen to the refs or heaven forbid the players of a team who dared defeat the deitic all blacks.


posts? Nooooo.
[/quote]

So you are criticising NZ for calling the ref biased, and in the next breath accusing other refs of bias by name? It's good that you want to bring yourself right down to the level of the people you're criticising.


This had a question mark so I assume it is a question?

My answer for you:
I am criticising NZ for going over the top with their complaints about the referee, not for calling a ref biased. The rest of the world deals with their negative opinions about the refs without death threats and government officials getting involved.


Oh, perhaps it was a rhetorical question. You kiwis seem good at asking those types of questions. Maybe try to come up with questions that you actually want an answer to.

For example, All things being equal, Why do we actually lose at the world cup?

My apologies for three consequtive posts.

To elaborate on Stuart Dickenson, who I have been accused of calling biased in favor of the Kiwis.

I would say his bias comes involuntarily. He is just under too much pressure to call against the favor of the All Blacks. It's not that he wants a particular team to win and certainly not hoping to receive an interest for his calls.

It's just that the pressure of messing up causes him to mess up. I think the Kiwis can relate to that.

 

[Prestwick]

Please, please, please for the sake of the language which is your country's namesake, at least know what your'e saying when using shakespearean lingo. [/b]

I'll have thee know I recorded a D grade in GCSE English Language! Thats worth a Masters Degree at Harvard University! Make haste thine vagrant have at thee! :blink:

Also, while I agree that Smit, Matfield and Du Randt (or Du Randy as I keep hitting the y instead of the t, GCSE English cropping up there again) are indeed special in a good way and also while Habana is a quality player, he is the only one out of those four that I mentioned who seems to be prone to wild bouts of crazy ideas. Not that should stop him from being mentioned of course...

 

[KZNSharksFan]

<div class='quotemain'>
Please, please, please for the sake of the language which is your country's namesake, at least know what your'e saying when using shakespearean lingo. [/b]

I'll have thee know I recorded a D grade in GCSE English Language! Thats worth a Masters Degree at Harvard University! Make haste thine vagrant have at thee! :blink:

[/b][/quote]

Hahaha i'm never averse to a bit of Yank bashing! ( Apologies in advance to all US members)

 

[Klarkash-ton]

I highly doubt the death threats came from just one person (the wikipedia guy). Otherwise the IRB wouldn't be claiming Barnes has received death threatS, and added extra security to him. They're separate issues. The person who did wikipedia is identifiable and probably continents away from France where Barnes is. They wouldn't add extra security for just one death threat from a guy thousands of miles away.
[/b]

I don't know the reality regarding death threats, and apparently neither do you, as your only evidence is 'added extra security'. I've seen a newspaper report state the wikipedia edit was 'tantamount to a death threat', which is hyperbole. The wiki edit was just a pathetic attempt at a joke.

Any death threat is, of course, pathetic, idiotic, and indefensible. But bizarrely they occur all the time, certainly in the wonderful sporting world. Rugby is certainly not unique, New Zealand is certainly not unique, and this example is not unique. Fortunately I don't know of any actual attempts being followed through, except maybe the Tonya Harding/ Nancy Kerrigan incident, but I'm sure there are other examples.

Of Course teams do check in every year for test matches. And most of the time New Zealand Wins and the public doesn't get worked up about the referee. I'm only saying the kiwis only get worked up about the refernee when the AB's lose. Which is why there has a been a barrage of complaints about referring in favor of New Zealand, particularly when matches occur in New Zealand.
[/b]

Yes I am an American and we try to learn more about rugby by watching international matches. We're objective when watching these matches, I don't care if South Africa beats New Zealand or vice versa, just want to see some high level rugby, and hope to see if we can learn things to improve our games. We see it, the All Blacks consistently receive the luck of the green with the refs.
[/b]

Teams make their own 'luck'. IMHO France made their own luck on Saturday. Some people disagree, but the first unwritten law of rugby is you play to the whistle. In the UK I see constant media targeting any opposing and particularly the All Blacks, with accusations of 'cheating'. And the coaches always try to wind this up in their favour. Commentators and 'colour' commentators are as one eyed as everyone else and despite the advantage of slow motion replays are often completely wrong about referring decisions. Listening to these people is interesting, but will not give you an accurate understanding of the laws, as they seem to be oblivious to them. If you like I can give you a couple of dozen examples, none of which involve the All Blacks.

You're quite right, Kiwis don't get worked up about the ref when they win. Oddly enough the other countries don't get worked up when the lose either. Funny that.

Yes I am an American and we try to learn more about rugby by watching international matches. We're objective when watching these matches, I don't care if South Africa beats New Zealand or vice versa, just want to see some high level rugby, and hope to see if we can learn things to improve our games. We see it, the All Blacks consistently receive the luck of the green with the refs.
[/b]

Teams make their own 'luck'. IMHO France made their own luck on Saturday. Some people disagree, but the first unwritten law of rugby is you play to the whistle. In the UK I see constant media targeting any opposing and particularly the All Blacks, with accusations of 'cheating'. And the coaches always try to wind this up in their favour. Commentators and 'colour' commentators are as one eyed as everyone else and despite the advantage of slow motion replays are often completely wrong about referring decisions. Listening to these people is interesting, but will not give you an accurate understanding of the laws, as they seem to be oblivious to them. If you like I can give you a couple of dozen examples, none of which involve the All Blacks.

If you want to be near objectivity, I suggest you visit http://www.sareferees.co.za/home/ . They examine decisions and explain them. 99% of the time the ref is right.

to answer the rest of your post without quoting:

-Forming an opinion about New Zealand based on the words of Winston Peters would be like forming an opinion of Americans based on the words of Dan Quayle.
-you still say Stuart Dickenson is biased, but not intentionally, due to pressure. Perhaps you could provide the examples to support your claim. More than likely I think Dickenson will be correct.

 

[KZNSharksFan]

Mate, i have lived in both New Zealand and South Africa and i love both countries dearly. I have to tell you though that when it comes to *****ing about rugby, NZ wins the world cup everytime. The sheer arrogance of the NZ media is frankly disgusting and is almost on a par with Stephen Jones of England. To consistantly hear Grant Fox complain during his commentary in the games since that tragic semifinal is pathetic. I grow tired of hearing about nations getting a chance to play the "mighty All Blacks", yes they are mighty, yes they are probably still the best in the world and yes the players are all very modest. But i don't think that they appreciate the media and particularly some members of the public making excuses for them every time they lose (i'm not at all saying you do, just making a point and trying to give some objectivity)