• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Romain Poite's credibility

First: this thread is about credibility of the referee, not about how Poite's mistakes helped Argentina. I was simply saying that the third try for Imhoff wasn't wrong and that the first one was more illegal.

Here somebody who obviously knows more than me:

Actually I thought the refereeing was just fine. The only calls of note were

1 - The 4th Argentine try: He was absolutely right with his ruling. There is no Law that says he cannot call time on while medics are still on the field. The only protocol here is, was the injured player in a position where he might interfere with play or be endangered if play continued. He wasn't, so play on. The Pumas were quick to spot the opportunity, the Boks were caught napping.

2 - The disallowed South African try: Again the correct call. Poite was clearly indicating offside a couple of metres back from where the Bok player took the tap kick

3 - The TMO initiated review for the last South African try: Ben Skeen was well within his rights to review this. He only got one look at full speed, at the end of which a Pumas player grounded the ball. What if he had said nothing, and it turned out that Habana didn't actually ground the ball? Skeen would have copped a red ink entry in his Match Assessment.
Click to expand...

Second: what do you mean "huge hand"? That implies the pumas wouln't have won without the referees performance today? False.

Third: it's already been a couple of times, not only with this victory, also with last year's one against Australia, that some users complain about the referee after the match. How long before some genius comes up with the theory that SANZAR encourages the refs to help Argentina get on the same level as the rest of teams by bribing refs with coala hugs, kiwis and safari tours?

Cheers
 
The doubting of the credibilityof the refs has become far more prevalent with the increase jn the numbers of cameras covering the games from almost every angle!

The laws of the game are many and can be complicated for the players and officials who are closely involved. It is hard to see how we mere spectators can really be expected to know and judge them. That is also true, but to a slightly lesser extent, to the amateur or part time player who is not privy to the regular "teach ins"

Increasingly, and naturally, all rules are open to interpretation. Think laws which are then interpreted into precedents by judges and appeal courts. These rugby "interpretations" are interpreted by the chief judge and set out for the refs and the players sometimes but even then leave the door open. In this case the match ref does talk to the teams before games and let's them know what he is looking for.

The idea that a ref is biased or paid off is the easiest way to criticize a genuine guy doing the best he can who makes a call that you either do not understand the reason for, do not accurately know about, or just do not like as it has been made against your team!

Finally, I make mistakes. Actually, if you admit it, so do you! So why are refs deemed to be totally above making mistakes?

Yours - once a Ref hater but now a more mature human being!!
 
Last edited:
Tony Manx said:
The doubting of the credibilityof the refs has become far more prevalent with the increase jn the numbers of cameras covering the games from almost every angle!

The laws of the game are many and can be complicated for the players and officials who are closely involved. It is hard to see how we mere spectators can really be expected to know and judge them. That is also true, but to a slightly lesser extent, to the amateur or part time player who is not privy to the regular "teach ins"

Increasingly, and naturally, all rules are open to interpretation. Think laws which are then interpreted into precedents by judges and appeal courts. These rugby "interpretations" are interpreted by the chief judge and set out for the refs and the players sometimes but even then leave the door open. In this case the match ref does talk to the teams before games and let's them know what he is looking for.

The idea that a ref is biased or paid off is the easiest way to criticize a genuine guy doing the best he can who makes a call that you either do not understand the reason for, do not accurately know about, or just do not like as it has been made against your team!

Finally, I make mistakes. Actually, if you admit it, so do you! So why are refs deemed to be totally above making mistakes?

Yours - once a Ref hater but now a more mature human being!!
Click to expand...

Does reading your post count as one of them? <_<:p

You make the point well - but equally, when I make a mistake, people give me stick. If I make a really big mistake, they probably wish they could beat me with one.

I don't think we can defend all refs from all criticism by saying 'of course they'll make mistakes', just like refs shouldn't get as much criticism as they do sometimes. There's a line and if a ref's guilty of gross incompetence, or even worse repeated gross incompetence, then they should be criticised.

Which is where my contribution to this ends as I didn't actually watch this. But basically, burn the refs.
 
TRF_Peat said:
I don't think we can defend all refs from all criticism by saying 'of course they'll make mistakes', just like refs shouldn't get as much criticism as they do sometimes. There's a line and if a ref's guilty of gross incompetence, or even worse repeated gross incompetence, then they should be criticised.
Click to expand...

I agree with that but am fed up with the "uneducated" deciding its is actually a mistake rather than their own interpreting the facts wrongly, through their own stupidity and ignorance of the laws, or seeing something after at least one replay from a totally different angle that could easily have been missed at full speed.

The other point is that if a ref called every marginal rule break, the game would have no flow at all. ( think every scrum and breakdown)! Yet he gets criticised by the team that misses out from that call even though it had no real impact on the play!
 
Horacito said:
First: this thread is about credibility of the referee, not about how Poite's mistakes helped Argentina. I was simply saying that the third try for Imhoff wasn't wrong and that the first one was more illegal.

Here somebody who obviously knows more than me:



Second: what do you mean "huge hand"? That implies the pumas wouln't have won without the referees performance today? False.

Third: it's already been a couple of times, not only with this victory, also with last year's one against Australia, that some users complain about the referee after the match. How long before some genius comes up with the theory that SANZAR encourages the refs to help Argentina get on the same level as the rest of teams by bribing refs with coala hugs, kiwis and safari tours?

Cheers
Click to expand...

On the first count the game past does have bearing on this thread.

I'm not disuting any Argentine try, even the forward pass one. I am all for letting the game go but then let it go for both sides. Why go to the TMO what felt like evry time SA crossed but never for Argentina for instance. So I'm complaiing about the 'non-calls' like the ones I mentioned earlier and that Creevy and co stole many balls while never supporting their own weight. IE I was frustrated at the ref not giving some fundamentals of the game the time of day and not always for both teams.

That said Argentina won and did work for that win and can only be given credit for adapting to the ref incomparably better than us. You got off well early, rattled us effectively, harrassed us and kept it up throughout. You were accurate i your handling, accurate and clever in shifting the ball before contact the way you did. You are full value for the win and I don't want to take away from that as a competitive Argentina (which youu have been throughout) is good for the RC and rugby in general.

The ref did have a **** poor gme though and SA were never able to get any sort of momentum because of it and that the level of refereeing is better at a 3rd tier comp in the Curry Cup is better than the supposed pinacle of the sport is not good for rugby though and is where my frustrations creep in. We saw it in SR, we see it now. I just wnat some consistency in refereeing. The sport is supposed to be pro.
 
Tony Manx said:
I agree with that but am fed up with the "uneducated" deciding its is actually a mistake rather than their own interpreting the facts wrongly, through their own stupidity and ignorance of the laws, or seeing something after at least one replay from a totally different angle that could easily have been missed at full speed.

The other point is that if a ref called every marginal rule break, the game would have no flow at all. ( think every scrum and breakdown)! Yet he gets criticised by the team that misses out from that call even though it had no real impact on the play!
Click to expand...

That cost France a world cu ***le though.
 
smartcooky said:
There is no basis in Law for a captain being allowed time off to have a chat with his players, and its not a reason for time-off. If the referee tells the captain to have a chat, its up to the captain to decide when best to do that, but he still has to be aware that the game could restart at any time. Besides, how long does it take to shout NO MORE PENALTIES you your team.
Click to expand...
I see your point, but i have to side with the South Africans on this one.
You see ref's left and right stopping fast penalties for a plethora of reasons (some sound, some not, granted). I find it unreasonable to expect players to adjust their behaviour depending on which ref they've got to deal with.

You say there is no basis for for a time off, agreed. But once the the ref tell you "talk to your guys" a 10 second allowance seems reasonable, particularly since you are doing what he specifically asked you to do.
 
Granted the horse has bolted and SA could not possibly hope to win the game with 5 mins left but...........

Minute 75 - Poite gives penalty advantage to SA with Bosch off side at the breakdown. The off side position is 20 meters in from touch and 12 meters from the try line.

Reinach takes a quick tap and dots down on the line. Poite does not stay at the penalty mark but watches Reinach take the tap and follows play. Calls time off. First question to TMO is try yes or no. TMO confirms it is a try. Second question did he take it from the mark - well obviously he didn't because Reinach was a meter in front of Poite and Poite already knows this because he watched him take the tap.

Poite then indicates the mark as being 15 meters in from touch and 15 meters from the try line not where the off side infringement took place.

Can anybody shed any light on the logic of Poite's decisions here. Why check with the TMO on try or not if he already knows it wasn't taken from the mark. Why indicate the mark as being somewhere completely different to the spot of the offside infringement.
 
Ospervat said:
Granted the horse has bolted and SA could not possibly hope to win the game with 5 mins left but...........

Minute 75 - Poite gives penalty advantage to SA with Bosch off side at the breakdown. The off side position is 20 meters in from touch and 12 meters from the try line.

Reinach takes a quick tap and dots down on the line. Poite does not stay at the penalty mark but watches Reinach take the tap and follows play. Calls time off. First question to TMO is try yes or no. TMO confirms it is a try. Second question did he take it from the mark - well obviously he didn't because Reinach was a meter in front of Poite and Poite already knows this because he watched him take the tap.

Poite then indicates the mark as being 15 meters in from touch and 15 meters from the try line not where the off side infringement took place.

Can anybody shed any light on the logic of Poite's decisions here. Why check with the TMO on try or not if he already knows it wasn't taken from the mark. Why indicate the mark as being somewhere completely different to the spot of the offside infringement.
Click to expand...

That is because Romain Poite is a **** and should not be allowed on a rugby field in South Africa again. This guy has no idea what he is doing, thus questioning his credibility. South Africa vs Scotland 2013, South Africa vs New Zealbd 2013, South Africa vs Argentina 2015; not saying we would've won all of them, but why are all the controversail calls by the same man against one country?
 
Feicarsinn said:
I watched none of todays game. Poite is one of the worst ref's I've ever seen. How he is demed worthy of international games is beyond me.
Click to expand...

It's scandalous how Poite continues to ref at this level.
Controversy continually follows him around for good reason.
I don't think I've ever seen a ref with such a perfect and complete lack of any knowledge pertaining to the scrum. How can a ref get 1st class gigs when continually showing an abject lack of even the basic rules of an entire facet of play?

It has long been known that he covers up his ignorance of the scrum by simply choosing a side to penalise and sticks with that regardless. South Africa were not the first side by far to suffer from his complete ineptness, and they certainly will not be the last.

- - - Updated - - -

Two of the scrums in particular:

Koch the tighthead vs Ayerza the loosehead.
Scrum gets going. Koch has a perfectly legal bind on Ayerza jersey, Ayerza has a perfectly legal bind on Kochs jersey.
Ayerza slips his bind and his elbow hits the ground.
Koch still has his bind.

Poite? "Eeez slipped eez bind" he says as he penalises Koch. Truly and utterly bizarre.

Another time, Ayerza is clearly not scrumming straight. Even as the first hit goes in, it is clear.
There is an overhead camera shot that shows this too.
The commentator, one of whom is a former front ranker himself, immediately notices and states this, that Ayerza is boring in. It is as clear as day.
Poite is standing right over this, 2 feet away. It is happening right in front of him.
When Koch is forced by the illegal scrumming to pop, Poite immediately penalises him.

It has long been known that Poite doesn't understand anything at all at scrumtime. He has a long history of this, and has been roundly criticised by a number of teams.
Why is he still reffing at this level when it is widely known he doesn't know his rules?

And more pertinently, which sides are going to have to play in matches officiated by him in the World Cup? Is there a list so that sides and fans can prepare themselves?
 
Last edited:
I've only seen Roman Poite referee four times so far and each game has been entertaining and exciting.
Works for me.
 
OhDannyBoy said:
It's scandalous how Poite continues to ref at this level.
Controversy continually follows him around for good reason.
I don't think I've ever seen a ref with such a perfect and complete lack of any knowledge pertaining to the scrum. How can a ref get 1st class gigs when continually showing an abject lack of even the basic rules of an entire facet of play?

It has long been known that he covers up his ignorance of the scrum by simply choosing a side to penalise and sticks with that regardless. South Africa were not the first side by far to suffer from his complete ineptness, and they certainly will not be the last.

- - - Updated - - -

Two of the scrums in particular:

Koch the tighthead vs Ayerza the loosehead.
Scrum gets going. Koch has a perfectly legal bind on Ayerza jersey, Ayerza has a perfectly legal bind on Kochs jersey.
Ayerza slips his bind and his elbow hits the ground.
Koch still has his bind.

Poite? "Eeez slipped eez bind" he says as he penalises Koch. Truly and utterly bizarre.

Another time, Ayerza is clearly not scrumming straight. Even as the first hit goes in, it is clear.
There is an overhead camera shot that shows this too.
The commentator, one of whom is a former front ranker himself, immediately notices and states this, that Ayerza is boring in. It is as clear as day.
Poite is standing right over this, 2 feet away. It is happening right in front of him.
When Koch is forced by the illegal scrumming to pop, Poite immediately penalises him.

It has long been known that Poite doesn't understand anything at all at scrumtime. He has a long history of this, and has been roundly criticised by a number of teams.
Why is he still reffing at this level when it is widely known he doesn't know his rules?

And more pertinently, which sides are going to have to play in matches officiated by him in the World Cup? Is there a list so that sides and fans can prepare themselves?
Click to expand...

South Africa's scrum coach, Pieter de Villiers (the French prop not the guy with the mustache), has released a statement to say he's meeting with World Rugby High Performance Referees Manager, Joel Jutge this week to discuss the interpretation of the scrums this past Saturday and obtain clarity. I for one am glad he's taken that step, because at first glance it seemed like Saturday could've ended Vincent Koch's international career.
 
Look, this is something that I personally have an issue with. I think Monsieur Romain Poite has a personal problem with the Springboks, and he does his level best to make the games we are involved with all about him and that we are inferior to him.

But I think we have to look at the entire panel involved in this last match, and not just at Poite.

But to stay on topic, I'll comment just on Poite, and put the rest in the match thread.

In the last 3 matches where he reffed a game the Springboks were involved with, there were controversy. And it all started when we played the All Blacks in NZ and he carded Bismarck Du Plessis for one of the best legitimate and well timed tackles of all time. It hasn't gotten better for us from there.

I could rant about this guy for days, but it won't help us that much. What I do like is that the Springboks have compiled a video segment for him, and that he should explain to them his interpretations on it, mostly for the scrums.

What I had a hard time figuring out was his interpretation at the rucks. Our guys had to plead with him to give us advantage when the Argentine's held on to the ball, but when our guys did the exact same thing, he blew us up immediately.

He clearly has his own set of standards when it comes to the Springboks, and it's my honest opinion that he's not fit to be a referee at the World Cup.
 
RichardRheeder said:
South Africa's scrum coach, Pieter de Villiers (the French prop not the guy with the mustache), has released a statement to say he's meeting with World Rugby High Performance Referees Manager, Joel Jutge this week to discuss the interpretation of the scrums this past Saturday and obtain clarity. I for one am glad he's taken that step, because at first glance it seemed like Saturday could've ended Vincent Koch's international career.
Click to expand...

That is what infuriates me. Poite is an abject failure as a test coach. Every single game I've seen of him I cringe at his complete failure to get a call right at the scrum and more importantly his breakdown 'interpretations' leave a lot to be desired. Yet he seems to be completely insulated from his lack of performance as a "professional" referee.

Koch on the other hand, his family depending on his career just like every other breadwinner, gets the shaft from this clown and though I have complete confidence our selectors will turn a blind eye to this performance since it was Poite and not Koch faling at the scrum it could concievably cost the man his test career. As a professional person myself I have to accept liability for my work. I expect others (who earn a lot more than me to boot) to do the same.
 
Heineken, if you were a Kiwi and the ref you were talking about was Barnes, then the post would be more less identical!!
 
I remember the abuse the English got when we asked for clarification of what the hell Steve Walsh was thinking when it came to scrum time.......
 
Tony Manx said:
Heineken, if you were a Kiwi and the ref you were talking about was Barnes, then the post would be more less identical!!
Click to expand...

With good reason. Barnes has had NZ more than once.

I know its unreasonable to expect perfect or even close to perfect performances from referees but those times they have absolute shockers it needs addressing IMO for the good of the game. Its not sour grapes here. We've handled a lot of losses of late and can take it, even this loss as Arg are good value for their win. But to blow so inconsistently so consistently it shows Poite shouldn't be handling tests and just isn't up too it. What happens when he has another poor performance at the RWC? Should others pay for his continuous poor displays and he just gets a free pass?
 
Last edited:
The OP does beg a question. And maybe it's not just applicable with Poite, but to all referees. If we look at the list, there are some nations that has had a history with a certain referee, on several, if not all the matches involved where that specific referee was in charge. Maybe WR should look into the matter and not let thos refs officiate games where those specific teams are involved.

SA - Poite
NZ - Barnes
FRA - Joubert

Maybe that is a place to start at least.
 
TRF_heineken said:
Like you frenchies and Craig Joubert...
Click to expand...

Sorry I am not French and think Joubert is an ok ref with a SH interpretation of the rules which am happy to accept!

To think that any particular ref has a "problem" with any specific country is trite, wrong and, in fact, racist!!
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Top