Referee decisions during World Cup

[ncurd]

World Rugby have ummmmm thrown all the refs under the bus.

https://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/49810476

 

[die_mole]

he didn't, watched it multiple times to confirm it was a clear penalty and they got that right. Graces wanted the number of the player so he could card him and the TMO talked him out of it. In my view when a player deliberately commits a penalty in desperate defense on the try line to save a try after a long breakout that's an instant yellow card. I'd still put that on Garces though he should have enough common sense to reason with and overrule his TMO to get the decision right.

From an All Black perspective the other howler in this game was in the 46th minute just before the Boks scored their only try. Richie made his try saving tackle on Kolbe. Barrett shifted to ALB in goal and ALB managed to break the line and get right in behind the Bok defense before being taken down and a ruck definitely formed - Kitsoff was on his feet going for the ball and Read+1 other cleaned him out you only need one player from each team on their feet competing for the ball, that is a ruck. The AB's shifted the ball left and had a 4 on 0 overlap with speedsters bridge and Savea in wait. 3 bok defenders scrambling from midfield but the 15 was way on the other side leaving a massive gap. But PSDT came from behind the all black line jumped and intercepted the pass clearly offside, like so obvious it was ridiculous offside. But play continued despite protests from the AB's and a few phases later they scored their only try. That was essentially a 14 point error.

I think these were massive calls that were wrong. But this game was full of bad reffing and both sides have reasons to question the reffing.

Angus Gardiner is one of the refs I really respect but he made a howler to finish the France vs Puma's game. Going to be a tough WC for refs. Looking back WC's have become a bit of a lottery for refereeing. the games are so important it seems referees get whistle shy and tend to just let stuff go. Even more so towards the end of games.

As an AB supporter my main gripe is when Referees don't look after the off side line. The AB' are a running/attacking team that take risks and shift the ball. When a ref allows teams to sneak up in that area it ruins the attack of both teams but with the AB's having more emphasis on attack it hurts them more.

PSDT wasn't offside

1. 
   RETIRING FROM A RUCK, MAUL, SCRUM OR LINEOUT
   
   
2. A player who is offside at a ruck, maul, scrum or lineout remains offside, even after the ruck, maul, scrum or lineout has ended.
3. The player can be put onside only if:
   1. That player immediately retires behind the applicable offside line; or
   2. An opposition player carries the ball five metres in any direction; or
   3. An opposition player kicks the ball.
4. An offside player may be penalised if that player:
   1. Fails to retire without undue delay and benefits from being put onside in a more advantageous position; or
   2. Interferes with play; or
   3. Moves towards the ball.
      Sanction: Penalty.

as soon as any player moves 5m with the ball he's considered onside and can make a tackle

 

[Scotty]

I don't rate Poite as @ referee, but in fairness to him, I think the TMO talked him out of giving a red for Lee-Lo's tackle. Poite sounded like he'd made up his mind and then TMO said something like 'wait, there's mitigation'.

To not give Matu'u a red minutes later though was outright bizarre.

Yes he did get talked out of it from the first one but he needed to look at that and make his own mind up but it was a clear shoulder to the head. Not like it clipped the chin it was full in the face, he needed a good few looks to see while there was some mitigation was it enough to say yes that is the reason 100% that his shoulder made contact with the face with force and it wasnt just reckless. My opinion is there is mitigsting circumstances but had he not dipped his still could easily have made contact with the chin area.

The second one was even more clear cut but because he had done it for the first one he felt he had to do it again. Again without looking at alot of angles before deciding himself.

 

[BPM]

I agree. It was almost as though he felt that if he'd agreed the first was yellow, the second should be too.

Both were red cards IMO, but at worst, the first should have served as a warning and the second should have copped the full sanction. Artemyev barely 'dipped' for either.

Compare that to Kalamafoni's tackle on Watson. I didn't like the fact that Kalamafoni slapped Watson's head after making the hit, but it would have been very difficult to argue against the fact that Watson had dipped significantly before the contact. I think Kalamafoni was committed to the hit and it would have been almost impossible for him to pull out of the tackle. As see it, that's the sort of 'mitigation' that should be applied, not situations where they're trying to find a minimal change of height to claim for mitigation as they seemed to with the Samoan game.

 

[Rinkadink]

As I said elsewhere, first one was right call (just) as it was a red following framework but mitigating factors in the dip/turn and it being unsighted. Yellow was correct and should have served as a warning.

No idea what happened with the second as the officials didn't seem to follow the framework, just a straight red all day with no mitigation as far as I could tell. Massive failure there.

I wouldn't want it to overshadow the game too much, the players certainly aren't;

https://www.instagram.com/p/B2zENnCAPIc/?igshid=1bp84jf9v7vb6

https://twitter.com/rugbyworldcup/status/1176473391240503296?s=20

 

[BVPuma]

he didn't, watched it multiple times to confirm it was a clear penalty and they got that right. Graces wanted the number of the player so he could card him and the TMO talked him out of it. In my view when a player deliberately commits a penalty in desperate defense on the try line to save a try after a long breakout that's an instant yellow card. I'd still put that on Garces though he should have enough common sense to reason with and overrule his TMO to get the decision right.

From an All Black perspective the other howler in this game was in the 46th minute just before the Boks scored their only try. Richie made his try saving tackle on Kolbe. Barrett shifted to ALB in goal and ALB managed to break the line and get right in behind the Bok defense before being taken down and a ruck definitely formed - Kitsoff was on his feet going for the ball and Read+1 other cleaned him out you only need one player from each team on their feet competing for the ball, that is a ruck. The AB's shifted the ball left and had a 4 on 0 overlap with speedsters bridge and Savea in wait. 3 bok defenders scrambling from midfield but the 15 was way on the other side leaving a massive gap. But PSDT came from behind the all black line jumped and intercepted the pass clearly offside, like so obvious it was ridiculous offside. But play continued despite protests from the AB's and a few phases later they scored their only try. That was essentially a 14 point error.

I think these were massive calls that were wrong. But this game was full of bad reffing and both sides have reasons to question the reffing.

Angus Gardiner is one of the refs I really respect but he made a howler to finish the France vs Puma's game. Going to be a tough WC for refs. Looking back WC's have become a bit of a lottery for refereeing. the games are so important it seems referees get whistle shy and tend to just let stuff go. Even more so towards the end of games.

As an AB supporter my main gripe is when Referees don't look after the off side line. The AB' are a running/attacking team that take risks and shift the ball. When a ref allows teams to sneak up in that area it ruins the attack of both teams but with the AB's having more emphasis on attack it hurts them more.

.... on Angus Gardiner and his performance this past weekend.. it was beyond appalling.... there were close to 10 penalties by the goal line that didn't result in a yellow card and then the gift from heaven that put the French into the quarters at the end.. having watched many Pumas games it's clear that most English speaking refs are massively biased against the Pumas. It's like a cartel that's rigged against anyone not from their stock .... as long as the governing body is stacked with the same it's a losing battle, literally and figuratively. Augustine P. Is a lonely voice....

 

[OneBlackEye]

PSDT wasn't offside



as soon as any player moves 5m with the ball he's considered onside and can make a tackle

From your own quote:

1. 1. An opposition player carries the ball five metres in any direction; or
   2. An opposition player kicks the ball.
2. An offside player may be penalised if that player:
   1. Fails to retire without undue delay and benefits from being put onside in a more advantageous position

I would argue that running in the opposition back line to catch a pass would be a "more advantageous position" which he definitely "benefited" from.

 

[Umaga's Witness]

Poite has got them both wrong personally. The first one I can see being a bit more debatable, but the second was a red all day long.

Yep, at least the second one, was one of the worst incidences of shoulder to head I've seen. The player was hardly falling, and it's not like he fell suddenly before impact; matuu could have judged his height easily

Yes he did get talked out of it from the first one but he needed to look at that and make his own mind up but it was a clear shoulder to the head. Not like it clipped the chin it was full in the face, he needed a good few looks to see while there was some mitigation was it enough to say yes that is the reason 100% that his shoulder made contact with the face with force and it wasnt just reckless. My opinion is there is mitigsting circumstances but had he not dipped his still could easily have made contact with the chin area.

The second one was even more clear cut but because he had done it for the first one he felt he had to do it again. Again without looking at alot of angles before deciding himself.

I think in the first one it looked slightly worse than it was. Not saying it shouldn't be red but I don't think it was quite full impact flush on the head like it looked. Instead the force from the shoulder was distributed over the Russians chest, shoulder, and head at the same time. Poite I think saw that, I think that is why he said there wasn't high force.

 

[Which Tyler]

Just watching Russia Samoa now - how the hell are those only yellow cards?

For the first one, Poite wanted to give red, but the TMO talked him down (wrongly IMO - there was a dip - but I don't believe it made enough of a difference); the second one, he just stuck with his previous logic even though it didn't really apply.

Didn't this match take place a day AFTER World Rugby announced that the ref.s had been getting it wrong and needed to tighten up and grow some balls when it came to showing cards?
If it was a few hours beforehand, then I'll kinda understand, Poite was following the precedent shown over the first few days; but if after, then it's an outright terrible copule of decisions.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Just watching Russia Samoa now - how the hell are those only yellow cards?

For the first one, Poite wanted to give red, but the TMO talked him down (wrongly IMO - there was a dip - but I don't believe it made enough of a difference); the second one, he just stuck with his previous logic even though it didn't really apply.

Didn't this match take place a day AFTER World Rugby announced that the ref.s had been getting it wrong and needed to tighten up and grow some balls when it came to showing cards?
If it was a few hours beforehand, then I'll kinda understand, Poite was following the precedent shown over the first few days; but if after, then it's an outright terrible copule of decisions.

Same day...

But that first yellow, Poite was adamant on giving a red, and then the TMO said the player was dipping. Which is a mitigating factor. But I don't think the dipping had any effect or difference to the tackle. The ball-player just started to dip, when the hit was made, and if he didn't dip, the shoulder would still have made contact with the head/neck area.

Even with the mitigating factor there, it should still have been a red card...

 

[TRF_Olyy]

and if he didn't dip, the shoulder would still have made contact with the head/neck area.

That's the thing I was annoyed at too - it's not like it was a legal hit and the Russian players slipped over and it caused it to go high.
It was a high shot regardless, but if he was standing straight up right it would have been neck rather than face - still a red.

 

[Which Tyler]

Same day...

Thank you - I was obviously getting confused with everything else going on yesterday (Thomas Cook, Prorogation, Impeachment...), and coming to the match after the WR statement. In that case Poite was wrong, but "simply" following precedent from the previous few days - could easily have been half a dozen red cards in the opening round!

But that first yellow, Poite was adamant on giving a red, and then the TMO said the player was dipping. Which is a mitigating factor. But I don't think the dipping had any effect or difference to the tackle. The ball-player just started to dip, when the hit was made, and if he didn't dip, the shoulder would still have made contact with the head/neck area.

Even with the mitigating factor there, it should still have been a red card...

Yup - tackle was high by about a foot; the dip accounted for about 1/3 of that. No dip at all, and he being hit on the chin. Had he actuially stood straight up after taking the ball, it would have been borderline; and that's a thing that's never happened on a rugby pitch.

The second one was simply inexplicable, as there wasn't any mitigation at all.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Both cited from yesterday.

 

[Which Tyler]

Hodge gets 3 weeks sitting in the stands: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/49822814

 

[TRF_heineken]

Hodge gets 3 weeks sitting in the stands: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/49822814

Good!

Hope Cheika gets reprimanded too. Man I can't stand that obnoxious prick!

 

[Scotty]

Both cited from yesterday.

Cant believe there has been 3 red cards not given and the team that should have got the reds were down or least within touching distance at this point....both teams that should have got reds went on to win the game by quite big margains. Feel sorry for both Fiji and Russia.

 

[Yoshimitsu]

Anyone see Goneva's cheapshot on Uruguay's 14? Very cynical for me........ Comes at 65:31 on the game clock. Goneva strikes a player to the head with his elbow. I called it "naughty" in real time. In slo mo it's a straight red....... The thing is looking at the footage the ref is literally looking right at it..........

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Read's the biggest one for me, by a mile.

Most of the ones mentioned here are about tackles, high tackles. Granted, some of them were wrong, should have been spotted and should have been carded on the spot.
But again, they are about, excuse the euphemism, poorly executed tackles. Extremely poorly executed, granted.

Read's is a completely different animal. He grabbed a player from behind, from the players head, while the other player was running, and pulled him with force to the ground. They guy didn't have the ball. They wasnt even about to get the ball. His team wasnt even contesting the ball. The ball was in Read's team possession (this is relevant because it disqualifies Read's actions as a tackle).

In this day and age, i refuse to believe no one related to whoever is in charge of citings was made aware of the incident. I dont buy it.
I am not stating any conspiracy theory and i couldnt give a flying turd about what jersey he is wearing. I am just saying that what he did was not just wrong, but tremendously so, and it is just inexplicable given the technology and media available today that he got away with it.

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

If World Rugby is publicly throwing refs under the bus then you know things are bad. On a positive note the games have almost all been above average in terms of openness, scoring chances and tries. At least, that is my perception.

I give credit to World Rugby for the rules and to the refs that implement them for making the RWC pretty entertaining. Yes, there are errors with decisions on offside etc, but if the refs were making a consistent dogs breakfast of enforcing that (and slowing down the ball) then I think scoring would be far lower.

 

[Zerobound]

Read's the biggest one for me, by a mile.

Most of the ones mentioned here are about tackles, high tackles. Granted, some of them were wrong, should have been spotted and should have been carded on the spot.
But again, they are about, excuse the euphemism, poorly executed tackles. Extremely poorly executed, granted.

Read's is a completely different animal. He grabbed a player from behind, from the players head, while the other player was running, and pulled him with force to the ground. They guy didn't have the ball. They wasnt even about to get the ball. His team wasnt even contesting the ball. The ball was in Read's team possession (this is relevant because it disqualifies Read's actions as a tackle).

In this day and age, i refuse to believe no one related to whoever is in charge of citings was made aware of the incident. I dont buy it.
I am not stating any conspiracy theory and i couldnt give a flying turd about what jersey he is wearing. I am just saying that what he did was not just wrong, but tremendously so, and it is just inexplicable given the technology and media available today that he got away with it.

Any player that did what Read did should be reprimanded. Heck, I remember in a match I played, must have been under 15s I took a player out off the ball. Was really just grabbing and holding him back. I was binned for that incident and I have no problem with that. Pretty cynical from me.

The thing that disappoints me most about the Read incident is that he's the captain. How can a captain expect to be respected by the ref if he's behaving like that. Especially if said captain wants to call the ref gutless.