South Africa vs British and Irish Lions - Test 2

[BeSmart123]

I will try to address the issue from a different angle. Forget Lions vs RSA for a minute, or at least try.

We have a former player, from a tier 1 nation, coach, world cup winner, that looks at a game his team was involved in and does not understand either how the ref is calling the shots or the rules themselves.
And it's not 1 or 2 plays. It's a LOT of the calls. He is not alone and watching how we argue about plays in any thread here is another perfect example.

Just think for a second about this: this guy breaths rugby and cannot explain ~30% of the calls in the most important rugby game of the year. That is a pretty big red flag. Imagine, just picture it for a second, how that impacts the people you want to attract to the sport.
And it's not that the ref made a mistake and we know what the right call should have been. We don't know that either.

This is an issue and an issue that has been dodged for a long time. The elegant excuse is generally something along the lines of 'ref's do not need more pressure'. Fine. bloody fine. Then WR needs to step the **** in and address the issue. Refs need more resources? Better training, more people, twice the pay? (None of that would move the needle at tier 1 btw) Sure, all in, where do I sign?
As long as that comes with no more silly excuses and accountability. I want to know, without much doubt, what the ref should be calling when i watch a play.

As much as you might dislike his methods and particularly his timing, i can't help but to appreciate what RE is doing. I really do. Why? Because a) i think it is very important, b) no one else apparently has the balls to do it and c) he is using his position to make it an issue that has to be at the very least heard.

Let me rephrase: i don't care what the impact is for the tour. I care what the impact is for rugby. I wish, i sincerely wish, every coach would do the same till WR deals with this.

Again, world cup winning coach saying, out loud, 'i do not understand the rules'. Not 'i disagree with the ref here' or 'i saw something different. Again: 'i do not understand how the rules are being enforced'. That is quite a statement.

I for one am very, very happy about this.

You're kidding right? That's rugby. Its a game and a great game but it it isn't Gridiron nfl where everything is measured by numbers and pixels. Every call in rugby is judgement, based on the flow of the game and materiality (an assessment of how does x 'offence' affect the game) and the referee's own character is important. It was true in 1870 and its true today. What Rassie did is start this type of horrifying debate where referees are expected to be minutely detailed and to distrust their instinct. It might be a lot of money but rugby will never stop being a players game and good sport. And Willie Le Roux was offside infront of Mapimpe and can't be played onside if he's still sprinting forward. He had an unfair advantage in the sprint chase before Mapimpe kicked it. That is law and I'm sick of explaining it.

 

[Phil Stringer]

I will try to address the issue from a different angle. Forget Lions vs RSA for a minute, or at least try.

We have a former player, from a tier 1 nation, coach, world cup winner, that looks at a game his team was involved in and does not understand either how the ref is calling the shots or the rules themselves.
And it's not 1 or 2 plays. It's a LOT of the calls. He is not alone and watching how we argue about plays in any thread here is another perfect example.

Just think for a second about this: this guy breaths rugby and cannot explain ~30% of the calls in the most important rugby game of the year. That is a pretty big red flag. Imagine, just picture it for a second, how that impacts the people you want to attract to the sport.
And it's not that the ref made a mistake and we know what the right call should have been. We don't know that either.

This is an issue and an issue that has been dodged for a long time. The elegant excuse is generally something along the lines of 'ref's do not need more pressure'. Fine. bloody fine. Then WR needs to step the **** in and address the issue. Refs need more resources? Better training, more people, twice the pay? (None of that would move the needle at tier 1 btw) Sure, all in, where do I sign?
As long as that comes with no more silly excuses and accountability. I want to know, without much doubt, what the ref should be calling when i watch a play.

As much as you might dislike his methods and particularly his timing, i can't help but to appreciate what RE is doing. I really do. Why? Because a) i think it is very important, b) no one else apparently has the balls to do it and c) he is using his position to make it an issue that has to be at the very least heard.

Let me rephrase: i don't care what the impact is for the tour. I care what the impact is for rugby. I wish, i sincerely wish, every coach would do the same till WR deals with this.

Again, world cup winning coach saying, out loud, 'i do not understand the rules'. Not 'i disagree with the ref here' or 'i saw something different. Again: 'i do not understand how the rules are being enforced'. That is quite a statement.

I for one am very, very happy about this.

Sorry, but if you're happy about this then you are likely to be part of the problem. Coaches and DoRs already supply lists of queries at the end of every match at all levels asking for clarification on decisions or matters of interpretation. The answers are then supplied in private and with a minimum of emotion.
What Erasmus did was basically say '**** you' to the system. He put additional pressure on the referees and himself on a win/win situation. If it made the refs slightly more amenable to the SA tactics, great, if not he can say I told you so. I doubt very much that he gives a toss about being taken before WR - they've already proved they're incapable of doing anything positive so what are they going to do?

 

[The Hog]

I don't believe he is trying to influence the ref.

he has stated what was spoken about and then the lack of continuity from said conversations.
How one team has 8 seconds of advantage and another almost identical line break 22 seconds.
How a tip tackle isn't punished.
I think you're missing the point he is making in the fact that, the referee was not unbiased (subconscious obviously.)
If this is something that needs to be done to get the 50/50 calls 50/50 then so be it.
There may be an element of give us a shot at those calls, but why should he have to do this?? It's a joke that you cannot get clarification until 72 hours after.

Hahahahahahaha

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Sorry, but if you're happy about this then you are likely to be part of the problem.

I guess i missed the memo where they appointed you an authority, judge and jury on the subject.

What Erasmus did was basically say '**** you' to the system.

Precisely.

Do you understand what the current system encourages? This is what the system you appear to defend not only allows but only allows, by design:
- forces the coaches/directors/RUs to submit questions, clarification requests and complaints privately and only privately.
- There is no appeal process if you get an unsatisfactory response. They basically are allowed to reply 'fucky you' and there is nothing you can do about it. If you dont understand a way a rule is enforced, it is your problem.
- There is an article in Regulation 18 (cited on this very thread) that basically states that if you voice your complaint publicly you are breaking the regulation and are liable to a sanction


In a nutshell, the people who create the mess are not only the ones who receive the complaints about the mess but also the ones who judge and punish those who raise the complaints (either directly or by proxy). All of this is done behind closed doors and those who talk about it publicly are liable to punishment.
If you dont see the problem, well, i cant help you.

So yes, when RE says '**** you' to the system i am with him. You need a hell of an argument to argue against transparency, guidance and clarity. I've yet to see an argument, at all. All i hear is 'you shouldnt do that'? **** the system indeed.

Again, talk to coaches anywhere. They all have the same questions RE has. RE is not the problem here, He is just the messenger and shutting him up will not solve the problem. At best, it will only delay the consequences.

But i will bite and this goes for anyone on this thread. Let's assume for a second what RE did in a desperate attempt to get an answer is wrong, unequivocally wrong (keyword here been 'assume'). Now, if what he did is wrong you need to provide me with an alternative process through which i can get answers, guaranteed. Which is that process?
Failure to provide such a process only justifies RE's actions. The guy is falling on a grenade. If anything we should give the guy a medal (not really, he is doing it for other reasons too, but nevertheless).

And again, i understand the bias from B&I lions supporters. I do. But if you want to argue with justification then answer the question: which alternative process guarantees answers to RE's questions?
When the current process provides you with no answers it is inevitable (you could even argue desirable) for people to seek for alternative ways to achieve that goal. RE is not to blame for that. Those who do not provide reasonable answers are.

Assuming people will be indefinitely happy with unclarity, secrecy and lack of answers is pretty stupid. This was long overdue. I'll play Nostradamus for a sec: lack of answers will only result in something similar happening again. And again.

 

[GlennE2]

If he was arguing in good faith, he would not be doing it by posting a 1 hour long video on social media for god sake...

This is a publicity stunt and an attempt to influence the refs.

If he has exhausted all available channels and still not received the courtesy of a reply then what else was he supposed to do?

 

[Becca]

He was expected to wait, like every other Coach, until he gained a response.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

If he has exhausted all available channels and still not received the courtesy of a reply then what else was he supposed to do?

There is a grand total of zero evidence he did so.

Even if that was the case, you don't produce a 1 hour long video ranting about every single tiny infringement in a game. If he really wanted to go public he could very easily have simply said he asked for clarification and got none. He didn't. I'm amazed people still can't see this for the stunt it is and are acting like he is some ******* martyr taking on a corrupt world rugby that just hates South Africa oh so much...

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Precisely.

Do you understand what the current system encourages? This is what the system you appear to defend not only allows but only allows, by design:
- forces the coaches/directors/RUs to submit questions, clarification requests and complaints privately and only privately.
- There is no appeal process if you get an unsatisfactory response. They basically are allowed to reply 'fucky you' and there is nothing you can do about it. If you dont understand a way a rule is enforced, it is your problem.
- There is an article in Regulation 18 (cited on this very thread) that basically states that if you voice your complaint publicly you are breaking the regulation and are liable to a sanction

Is that so different from most other professional bodies? Very few organisations play out their internal workings in public. Why should a sport be different?

As far as Erasmus goes I think he embarrassed himself, his employer (you can't separate the two), the game and many would argue his country. He had no altruistic motives and when everything's calmed down I hope he thinks it was worth trading his dignity for.

And rest assured I'd say exactly the same if Eddie Jones had plumbed those depths.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Is that so different from most other professional bodies? Very few organisations play out their internal workings in public. Why should a sport be different?

I don't know but to be very honest, saying others do it too doesn't really justify a lot in my book. Maybe they do it for the wrong reasons. Maybe the level of controversy regarding clarity of rules and sanctions doesn't have the impact it does on rugby. Maybe it is incredibly sport-specific. Maybe it's a way of protecting themselves from wrongdoings. Maybe it's a way of concentrating power in a few hands. I don't know and i think the answer to the question could very well be irrelevant. Or not. Hard to tell with the info they give us.

The question i posed was along the lines of "is it good or not"? Others doing it is not a reason. Why others do it could be very enlightening, but the why part of the answer is the relevant bit, not the who.

All those maybe's could be better answered if we had, well, clarity and disclosure, which we do not. It becomes a matter of, well, faith. The powers that be claim this is the best way and it is also best if we don't know why? Seriously?
And one guy comes along and (for the wrong reasons, sure) kicks the board game off the table?
Sure, i'd like to buy the guy a drink. I'd pay for his entire tab if he'd let me.
Again, i understand your bias, i do. But do you understand where my argument is comming from? It's an honest question. I have no skin in the game here. I do not care, at all, who wins the tour.
I sincerely believe what he is doing is good, for the wrong reasons, but good for the sport.

But I digress. I like to give a straight answer to a straight question. Short answer, i do not know. I see no reason for privacy and secrecy but I am willing to be proven wrong and correct my view on this. I need help in order to do that, thou. Give me a reason where the game becomes better when these things are private vs public and let's discuss the specifics. But if you (not you) can't give me those reasons then I have to figure out them by myself and the only ones i can come up with don't look pretty. Again, it is not my first choice. I am eager to hear those good reasons and willing to change my mind, but give me something, because so far no one, ever, here or elsewhere, has explained to me what those reasons are.

If i have to sum it up in one line this would be it: I want answers and I see one party looking for answers (RE) and one party hiding them (WR). Naive, sure, that's why it's a one-liner and it's a situation WR and not RE created.

And rest assured I'd say exactly the same if Eddie Jones had plumbed those depths.

'Agreed'. I would be asking for a medal for him in that case, too. Statues and parades wouldn't be out of the question.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

But do you understand where my argument is comming from?

Not really, no
All sounds really tin foil tbh

Plus you keep claiming everyone (else) is bias, when a lot of NH fans on here want SA to win/are actively rooting against the lions

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Not really, no

Then maybe if you are truly interested in a constructive conversation you should be asking me some questions as opposed to calling someone a conspiracy theorist.
I can pinpoint what I like and dislike about RE actions and what I dislike. Same about WR's.
You just start namecalling, dodging the issue, apply that selective memory of yours (the folau thing on this thread was a beauty given how the case ended) and if push comes to shove, you just play the mod card like you've done in the past and use an argument form authority.

Other than when I am breaking a forum rule, why don't we just ignore each other? You provide no argument whatsoever and just called the opposing view tin foil material. Thanks but no. You only comment on the bad and have made no effort whatsoever in finding a common ground. What's the point.

I've asked a few quite important questions on this thread to which I have received no answer, yet. Those questions explain my position. No one, NO ONE has even attempted to answer them. Ok, Old Hooker gave it a shot, fair enough. I thought it was not a good shot and explained, i believe in detail, why.

Plus you keep claiming everyone (else) is bias, when a lot of NH fans on here want SA to win/are actively rooting against the lions

Let me point you in the right direction. Old Hooker's last post. 7 Likes. Mine and 6 others. Guess what the flags of every one of the 6 posters say? I'll give you a hint: starts with u and ends with k. They all support the same team that's on this very tour.
I might have a bias, sure. Please point it out but kindly provide at the very least an iota of evidence to back it up. Something along the line: "you clearly want the B&I lions to lose because xyz."
You have skin in the game, you support one of the teams. I do not. You think i am biased? Ok, how and why? You can even challenge my view "i do not believe you because hjk"?
But at the very least have some dignity and justify your arguments before you start labelling others'.
That's why your post is mind-boggling.

Your behaviour on this thread, actually on the forum in general, is a textbook example of someone comfortable in his echo chamber. I am looking for pretty much the opposite and that is why I participate in a forum where I don't get to use my native language, where the overwhelming majority of people are not from the same place as I am, different backgrounds, education, culture, etc.
I want to see what people from other places and different backgrounds think about certain issues. Truly, sincerely understand them. For the lack of a better word, learn. Doesn't mean i have to agree with them.
I am quite eager to listen to what others have to say, and I am willing to review and correct my position. Not easily, course, I need arguments, but I am willing to stand corrected.
You are just interested in confirming your bias.
That's the difference.
Again, let's ignore each other's posts.

For the record, if i am ever supporting a position that every argentine here agrees with and most of the people with no skin in the game do not, please let me know. I will love to be aware of that when and if it happens.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

(the folau thing on this thread was a beauty given how the case ended)

I mean my argument with that was that you CAN get fired for social media posts, and it's literally in my work contract - turned out Folau can't/didn't, but doesn't make my argument any less true.

you support one of the teams.

Which one?
I despise the Lions and hope this is the last tour they ever do

From what I remember my only input into this argument is that the whole thing is embarrassing, and pointing out that Rassie lied about when he should have received answers by.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

Then maybe if you are truly interested in a constructive conversation you should be asking me some questions as opposed to calling someone a conspiracy theorist.
I can pinpoint what I like and dislike about RE actions and what I dislike. Same about WR's.
You just start namecalling, dodging the issue, apply that selective memory of yours (the folau thing on this thread was a beauty given how the case ended) and if push comes to shove, you just play the mod card like you've done in the past and use an argument form authority.

Other than when I am breaking a forum rule, why don't we just ignore each other? You provide no argument whatsoever and just called the opposing view tin foil material. Thanks but no. You only comment on the bad and have made no effort whatsoever in finding a common ground. What's the point.

I've asked a few quite important questions on this thread to which I have received no answer, yet. Those questions explain my position. No one, NO ONE has even attempted to answer them. Ok, Old Hooker gave it a shot, fair enough. I thought it was not a good shot and explained, i believe in detail, why.



Let me point you in the right direction. Old Hooker's last post. 7 Likes. Mine and 6 others. Guess what the flags of every one of the 6 posters say? I'll give you a hint: starts with u and ends with k. They all support the same team that's on this very tour.
I might have a bias, sure. Please point it out but kindly provide at the very least an iota of evidence to back it up. Something along the line: "you clearly want the B&I lions to lose because xyz."
You have skin in the game, you support one of the teams. I do not. You think i am biased? Ok, how and why? You can even challenge my view "i do not believe you because hjk"?
But at the very least have some dignity and justify your arguments before you start labelling others'.
That's why your post is mind-boggling.

Your behaviour on this thread, actually on the forum in general, is a textbook example of someone comfortable in his echo chamber. I am looking for pretty much the opposite and that is why I participate in a forum where I don't get to use my native language, where the overwhelming majority of people are not from the same place as I am, different backgrounds, education, culture, etc.
I want to see what people from other places and different backgrounds think about certain issues. Truly, sincerely understand them. For the lack of a better word, learn. Doesn't mean i have to agree with them.
I am quite eager to listen to what others have to say, and I am willing to review and correct my position. Not easily, course, I need arguments, but I am willing to stand corrected.
You are just interested in confirming your bias.
That's the difference.
Again, let's ignore each other's posts.

For the record, if i am ever supporting a position that every argentine here agrees with and most of the people with no skin in the game do not, please let me know. I will love to be aware of that when and if it happens.

Dude, chill out. This is a rugby forum on line. Just relax, nothing is worth getting this het up over.

 

[Phil Stringer]

I guess i missed the memo where they appointed you an authority, judge and jury on the subject.



Precisely.

Do you understand what the current system encourages? This is what the system you appear to defend not only allows but only allows, by design:
- forces the coaches/directors/RUs to submit questions, clarification requests and complaints privately and only privately.
- There is no appeal process if you get an unsatisfactory response. They basically are allowed to reply 'fucky you' and there is nothing you can do about it. If you dont understand a way a rule is enforced, it is your problem.
- There is an article in Regulation 18 (cited on this very thread) that basically states that if you voice your complaint publicly you are breaking the regulation and are liable to a sanction


In a nutshell, the people who create the mess are not only the ones who receive the complaints about the mess but also the ones who judge and punish those who raise the complaints (either directly or by proxy). All of this is done behind closed doors and those who talk about it publicly are liable to punishment.
If you dont see the problem, well, i cant help you.

So yes, when RE says '**** you' to the system i am with him. You need a hell of an argument to argue against transparency, guidance and clarity. I've yet to see an argument, at all. All i hear is 'you shouldnt do that'? **** the system indeed.

Again, talk to coaches anywhere. They all have the same questions RE has. RE is not the problem here, He is just the messenger and shutting him up will not solve the problem. At best, it will only delay the consequences.

But i will bite and this goes for anyone on this thread. Let's assume for a second what RE did in a desperate attempt to get an answer is wrong, unequivocally wrong (keyword here been 'assume'). Now, if what he did is wrong you need to provide me with an alternative process through which i can get answers, guaranteed. Which is that process?
Failure to provide such a process only justifies RE's actions. The guy is falling on a grenade. If anything we should give the guy a medal (not really, he is doing it for other reasons too, but nevertheless).

And again, i understand the bias from B&I lions supporters. I do. But if you want to argue with justification then answer the question: which alternative process guarantees answers to RE's questions?
When the current process provides you with no answers it is inevitable (you could even argue desirable) for people to seek for alternative ways to achieve that goal. RE is not to blame for that. Those who do not provide reasonable answers are.

Assuming people will be indefinitely happy with unclarity, secrecy and lack of answers is pretty stupid. This was long overdue. I'll play Nostradamus for a sec: lack of answers will only result in something similar happening again. And again.

You make the huge assumption all the way through that sending in your list of questions after a match, s system that has worked for years, was not giving RE the answers he needed, that the system itself is wrong.
I would maintain that clarification on decisions was the very last thing RE was trying to get and it was primarily about creating an atmosphere which favoured his side. On the basis that whatever World Ruby did was irrelevant and too late, he was always in a win/win position.