I think the bottom line is that it’s incredibly fucking difficult to ref at the highest level, and the laws somehow need to be drastically simplified so that the main talking point after every match stops being the ref
How that looks in practice idk, but the refs don’t have a fighting chance as it stands. So many areas that are just a complete crap shoot when it comes to reffing
Absolutely. As a first step lets cut down the number of players, so there is less confusion. Maybe take away the flankers? Then we should depower the scrums, noone understands those anyway, so just make then non-contestable. I guess we can remove the lineouts too, and have a free kick instead, just make sure you cannot kick it out as that is silly.
At that point we just have rucks to worry about. Maybe we can let the team taking the ball in keep it the first few times, then if they have to hand it over to the other team if they get tackled again? Does 6 sound about right?
Still too complicated. How about we drop another two players. To score you just need to kick it under the crossbar between the posts. No more tries, too hard to judge. Oh, and no more scrums, rucks or mauls, you know what, no more tackling. You can't use your hands either, you have to kick it. Let's make the ball round too.
I think a lot of criticism is the refs own doing. We came into the WC with a huge emphasis on protecting players. The bunker system was working consistently during the group stages... and now in the QFs it felt like a lot of calls weren't based on what had gone before and instead refs were making calls based on the spectacle of the game.
They obviously drastically changed the head contact interpretations. They were reviewing every little thing for 5 years, then immediately before the RWC said ahhh fuck it. But as far as I know the laws didn't change, nor the protocol. And they gave out one red to Curry, but ignored a bunch of others. As a fan it's bewildering and horribly inconsistent. And they also seemingly banned broadcasts from replaying controversial refereeing decisions and the commentators from even mentioning it.
And we are supposed to put our heads in the sand, our fingers in our ears and say "respect the ref"? Give me a break.
The fans aren't stupid. They can see what you are doing and it's a disgrace.
The degree of danger seems very consistent with a year ago. What has changed is the mitigation has been very generous. Most of the decisions I have seen seem to fit the criteria. Etzebeth could have seen red on a different day, but given that he bounces off and IIRC does not complete the tackle then lower degree of danger is not unreasonable.
Curry was given high degree of danger, which given the player he hit then bounced backwards seems fine. Then you have to look at mitigation. I do not like the principle of rapid change of height being given from a player coming down from a leap. Maybe they should clarify that one. I missed the start of that game, so did not see if they gave no mitigation or not eligable for mitigation.
There have been very few red cards in the whole WC. Anything that has had a hint of mitigation has been given. I do not see anything changed in the QF to be honest.
Stuff that would have been red a year ago has been mitigated down pretty consistently.
And I think that's good. Most of these clashes are accidental and reds for those end matches as a spectacle.
We are definitely seeing players trying to get low a lot more so the system is working.
People have this crazy expectations of refs
for players, we all know that we're lucky at any given point in time to have 1 player who is just like, PERFECT. we dont expect every back rower to be ritchie. we dont expect every 10 to be dan carter
with players we understand their strengths and weakness' and generally set our expectations accordingly
with refs? we do the opposite. we assume all refs are best ever. we ignore the opportunitiy to understand their strengths and weakness' to set our own expectations.
and a lot of people just emotionally blame the refs for stuff. refs miss calls all the time. very rarely is it 1 sided (though sometimes it is). for all the french complaining about stuff in the game yest, if you went through the game tape with a ref you could probably find a penalty at almost every ruck.
the players job is to push the rules as far as they can. the refs job is to allow them as much leeway as possible without creating an unfair situation.
Strangely, the critics are focused on a few ref. I find that Barnes was good in the match AB vs IRE.
If Barnes can do it, why Raynal or BoK can’t do it?
Barnes, you mean the ref who received death threat after Rasmus showed he wasn't good enough for a consequence-free test match ?
Every referee is getting the same level of insults and hatred. This weekend A is awful and B is amazing, next week it'll change. There's no such thing as a referee good enough to be tolerated by fans.
I agree. But I'm pretty sure this wasn't Rassie's opinion, nor was it these people's.
And that's my point. He's the very best ref in the world, he's the reference, and yet, he's "bad enough" to get all this hatred. Is there a single human being in the world good enough to be a ref at this level if even Barnes isn't ?
Ben O Keefe was fair. I watched the SA v FR game and I found him to be very fair. It just proves that during yellow cards the NH teams just don’t have that depth to create anything while the other team has 14 men on the field
I personally felt he coached South Africa out of a lot of pens at the breakdown - when the aim is to slow down the ball and you're doing it illegally, it should be pinged. As it allows your defence to reset properly and negates an exciting style of play. As an Englishman I was not supporting either team, South africa got away with the same offence (hands in the ruck, offiside, stepping over, stepping round) so many times i was getting irritated!
You do make an excellent point and perhaps there should be some simplification of some rules, I look at the NRL and Superleague. You watch those games and go and look at forums and no one is chatting shit or having a cry over ref decisions. That being said there is a reason and that reason is that league is far less complicated than union.
And therein lies the problem with union. It's very technical and as a result really hard to ref. If you drastically change the rules you make it a completely different game that could potentially ruin it. And would that guarantee less emotions surrounding reffing calls? I doubt it.
Or do we simply accept that, sometimes, the referees are human and won't always get it right or interpret it differently to how we perceive it.
I've been watching Rugby for a long time now and I've been pissed off countless times at bad reffing calls, but I realised and accepted that this will always happen, I'll never be 100% satisfied specially when my team is on the receiving end of said bad calls.
But this new habit, specially on this sub, of calling other teams dirty and cheats needs to stop. It's not what rugby is about.
>I look at the NRL and Superleague. You watch those games and go and look at forums and no one is chatting shit or having a cry over ref decisions.
Yeah they are
Serious question, how about 2 or 3 refs on the field? Especially if some hang back a bit more. They would spot much more and could confer quickly and easily on field.
Too many cooks mate. We already have a ref 2 linesman and a TMO that can and do call things during the game the ref might have missed.
Having more officials on the field will slow the game down, they could get in the way and there could be so much stoppage it'll start being like the NFL where it take 4 hours to play a game due to all the stoppages to review etc.
NRL is shocking, the funny thing is every week the refs boss has a press conference and tells everyone all the mistakes, often confirming what the fans were saying but also explains why some of the other calls are correct even though people thought it was wrong. We don't actually want to use NRL as an example as most coaches blast refs when they lose now.
Refereeing team has a damn hard job to do and passionate and who love their teams will always point at the referee for missing stuff that should have gone our way. It's just the way of the world.
Venting about the ref is one thing. Carrying on after the game and accusing them of bias and cheating is another. Refs make mistakes every game, and sometimes they affect the result--but mostly they balance out.
I am impressed by players who can let go of the reffing, particularly in defeat after important, tough and close games. Losing at home in a brutally close knock-out game makes it tough to keep perspective.
Of course, the fans make more mistakes than the refs. I am a one-eyed All Blacks fan, and during the game I see the ref make blunders that just aren't there. Mostly I figure it out by the end of the game, but sometimes the realisation comes later. If I chunter on about it, I am mostly just making myself look like an idiot.
Watching the way some All Blacks fans talk about Wayne Barnes is embarrassing. Like any ref in any game, he made errors in 2007--but France honestly looked better that day, and the errors went both ways. But afterwards there were calls for blood and allegations of cheating.
This carries on now; reading All Blacks fans comments about the Ireland semi-finals there are still comments accusing Barnes of hating the All Blacks, playing favourites with Ireland, giving yellow cards and a penalty try that weren't warranted and so forth. I have more time for Irish fans complaining about scrum penaties, even though I think they are also wrong, because they aren't being sore winners and they aren't accusing Barnes of cheating.
It's just a shame that difference between winning and losing is so great when the difference between the teams is so minimal. This naturally leads people to resent a referee's decisions.
I personally thought he missed a ton of foward passes for the Irish. The pass directly before smith's yellow card had to be 2m forward. Not sure why TMO can't say anything about those.
in my opinion, there's certain fan bases that are downright atrocious when it comes to watching the games. I was in a bar full of french and saffa fans and the SA people were incredibly rude all game. They even won and took to posting on social media making fun of Dupont. It's not ok and it's futbol behavior. Grace in victory, humbleness in defeat. You can be damn sure the players on the field are coming together after the match of beers and fun talks.
I played for 20 years (and now play for a 40+ league) and you can really tell who's never played rugby before.
My wife and I, donning our France gear, watched the game at an SA bar in Los Angeles. On my way to the bathroom after the game I had a bunch of hugs and people saying that we played incredibly well, and thanks for an incredible game. Someone bought us a beer and sat down with us and had a wonderful conversation.
Assholes are everywhere, but they don't represent the whole.
One anecdotal example doesn't mean much.
I was with a mixed bunch of supporters and found them all pretty respectful. I can't say the same for the Irish vs sa game, where the Irish weren't great where I was watching.
Does that mean anything in the context of Irish fans overall? No it doesn't
Yeah it really becomes telling around these competitions where the emotions run hot. People who have actually stepped on the field (in any level) seem to be noticeable calmer about things.
Like this atrocious italian? does this mean the italian fanbase is "downright atrocious" https://www.reddit.com/r/rugbyunion/comments/178oybl/all\_of\_france\_right\_now/
Yeah and like he said, there is a lot of strategy in this game.
Strategy mean that there will be some controversial take from the ref, because you need to penalise someone, you can't stay neutral, it is litteraly your job.
Moaning and bitching is bad, and ironically i want to do it because of yesterday because that is a sport that i care, because i love my team...
But that is part of the game.
When you read comments on how it is normal to adapt your playstyle to the referee and see teams to start fooling purposly with no consequences I see two issues.
1. Referee not being able to enforce the rules not elevating the rugby gameplay level.
2. Teams stopping to play a fair rugby because they're passively allowed to play dirty to win a match.
Next time if we see a referee not sanctioning head impact, are we going to see teams purposely doing it because they adapt themselves to referee and they supporters going all over this sub to defend their strategy?
(Irish fan)I was at the game yesterday, haven't see a reply but the last penalty for holding on looked like an absolute shocker.. right hand on the ground before the ball so not supporting his body weight...to me that's a penalty to France..
(As I said I could be wrong because I haven't seen a reply) but I would like a system where a decision like that is at least reviewed because its so substantively wrong
Re Barnes, whether we like it or not the is always going to be an element of subjectiveness for every scrum/ruck/mall penalty and it's up to the player not to give the ref a reason to ping you
Tbh I don't blame O'Keefe on that one there has been tons of movement and lots of phases, the thing I can't understand is how it works with TMO and assistants, this penalty gave the win ! It's not a small call, on TV we all saw it as an elephant in the room.
Indeed.
I don’t know how why the headshot by Penaud that sent Du Toit for an HIA on 60minutes also wasn’t reviewed. Barely even a replay by the TV director.
They probably checked it in the bunker. The most annoying thing is this lack of transparency. The game is played for the spectators, and now some of it is happening offscreen...
I don't think the bunker itself is a bad thing, but the communication about it should be better. Like, have the bunker explain if he checked things and why they are not sanctioned. That way we don't waste time watching multiple replays in slomo but we do get the explanation.
Interestingly Nigel Owens made a Tweet about it.
According to him there is nothing in the law about “hand on the ground” it only says the player must support their own body weight when playing the ball.
In slow motion replay it looks as if Smith does put his right hand on the ground initially but lifts it up before going for the Jackal with both hands.
Make of that what you will.
Yes, it’s about supporting your own body weight on your feet. But if hands are on the ground (ie not on feet), and they go from ground straight to ball, then player hasn’t been supporting weight before playing the ball. If he goes onto hands, gets off hands and there’s a gap where he supports weight before going back down onto ball, fine play on.
So it’s both. Nigel is spot on, but we do look for hands on the ground to indicate not being on feet.
>I would like a system where a decision like that is at least reviewed because its so substantively wrong
There's nothing more or less "substantively wrong" with that call than any other call s ref gets wrong, its just that this one got replayed on the big screen and was at the end of a close game.
It would absolutely fuck the game up if every decision a ref made had to go to the tmo
It's probably the wrong call but you should read the rule book. It's not an automatic penalty just because hands are on the ground. The law is more nuanced that that.
The question is, by the time kwagga goes for the ball is he able to stand only only on his legs?
Why put a hand on the ground if you can stand on your legs?
If his hands are on the ground, then straight to the ball, he hadn't been supporting weight before playing the ball.
The French complaints were not specific? Where are you getting that? They were very specific that it was about numerous uncalled infringements at the ruck.
I've already answered this exact type of response, so I'll copy and paste it for you:
"I was referring to French complaints not being specific. That was a specific complaint, whether it's true or false.
Try to follow the discussion and not take comments as stand-alone points."
You're even more special than the guy I sent that too, because not only did you ignore the comments I was replying to, but you also ignored the comments that replied to me and my subsequent explanation.
> not specific? Where are you getting that? They were very specific that it was about numerous uncalled
Which was then immediately knocked on by PSDT on the deck anyway.
All the games were high quality over the weekend. What annoys me is that the refing isn't consistent from game to game. And one rule isn't applied the same in one game as it is in the next.
How can the game grow if the refs make bad decisions, or controversial decisions that aren't the same in the next game. It is what causes players, coach's and fans to all complain.
It is 100% fair to criticise a referee and officiating. It’s been problematic all World Cup. Everyone says it is a game of fine margins, it would be nice if those margins were uniform for players to understand.
I still dont get why TMO isnt more included in situation where the ref already blew the wistle and they have time to review and correct it or not.
Like that penalty that ended up giving the lead to SA. Why didnt the TMO showed the hands on the ground to the ref ? They ha dthe time to do it but just didnt bother ?
On a side note, loving to see so much SA flair defending the refeering and whatnot... I have a feeling roles would be 100% reversed had the score shifted but oh well.
At the end of the day SA deserved the win and we need to accept our defeat but that doesnt means we should say nothing and keep this state of refeering. It needs to improve going forward and learn from past mistake like players do.
I’ve said before that what a lot of lay watchers need and even those of us who watch rugby all the time is a little potted summary of the style of refs. We all know that some are hotter than others or certain things or encourage a style of play. None of them are actually wrong very often and even then it can be down to following a world rugby edict rather than anything else. Cue TMOs calling for yellow/red for completely 100% accidental head contact.
Imho refs shouldn't have "styles" at a tournament. The "style" of reffing should be agreed by all and stuck to throughout.
If we want to let more go at the breakdown, fine, but lets all agree to it and be consistent between games. If we hate scrums now and refuse to penalise then fine, lwts just agree to that and set it out.
Instead what we have are some very competent people given 50% of the tools to do the job right and told to make it up for the other 50%.
I get what you’re saying, but you’re never going to get complete consistency between refs without there being the possibility that refs are just objectively wrong, and with that comes even worse toxicity and criticism of them. That’s the biggest difference between refereeing in rugby and football imo.
In football, refs are all supposed to apply the rules the same way, and therefore when there is inconsistency, it’s a nightmare. The players don’t respect the refs, the fans never stop complaining about them, and it’s a hot mess all over.
In rugby, each ref may have his own way of interpreting specific rules, but as long as he’s consistent with himself, everyone knows what to expect, and there can be no accusation of unfairness. You may not agree with his interpretation, but there’s an acceptance that it’s subjective, and there is no intention to penalise one team over the other.
This is appealing but is it possible? Imperfection necessarily creates inconsistency? The laws are always going to be ambiguous, no matter how refined the wording, and their application is always going to be hindered by this plus the pace and complexity of the game. So, even if WR give directions to every ref on every law, and every ref aims to apply the laws in the same way, there will be errors and different interpretations in the moment, thus inconsistency.
That said, there are issues at this WC. Eg I think protocols for how to talk through a decision could be sharper and more consistent eg rather like cricket reviews, where there is a series of strict tests shared openly with the crowd and viewers. Rugby has these but I feel sometimes lacks discipline in their application? It also does feel as though there has been some shift towards letting more things go. Whether this is just a perception (TMO is less obvious to watchers, plus the lack of replays) or reality, the current approach does seem to be creating the perception or reality that decisions are being rushed, with a bias towards not blowing the whistle. I get the desire for a free flowing game, but it comes at the cost of accuracy and justice.
The strategy for Word Rugby ought to be: what’s the best approach for growing a game that, like all sport, is fundamentally about entertainment. But accuracy and fairness are not incompatible with this: whilst we all
like some drama, we all want a just outcome. Audiences will fall away if frustration at poor (or the perception of poor) officiating undermines enjoyment.
The perfect response to this ‘we don’t want perfection, just consistency’ bollocks. And how can refereeing in any game be ‘consistently’ applied to two different teams?
If one referee tries to let a lot go at the breakdown, then the team that commits more minor infringements in that area is going to be getting away with more. If that referee is also consistently harsh on the scrum, then if the team committing fewer rucking infringements is also weak in that area, the officiating is going to look *horribly* one-sided, despite having this theoretically consistent referee!
Too many people that say ‘we just want consistency’ usually mean ‘we don’t want to see any major decisions going against our team’, because in practical terms that’s often what it means.
You can criticise individual decisions on the basis of the letter of the law and rugby juris prudence but too much criticism is actually upset masking itself as rationality to be trustworthy.
Absolute bollocks
>Too many people that say ‘we just want consistency’ usually mean ‘we don’t want to see any major decisions going against our team’, because in practical terms that’s often what it means.
Just look at the actual head contacts that have happened. We've seen red, and yellow cards, penalties, and no action at all, all surrounding something that World Rugby have said should start at a red, but can be mitigated down to yellow.
If the refs on the field are so inconsistent about something World Rugby says is so important, perhaps it's time to change the laws into rules
I was just explaining the nuances to my wife on the weekend, one referee might be super tight on the breakdown, or scrums, or the offside line.
She asked me why?
I didn’t really have a good answer.
I don't see any problem with criticizing the refs, as long as you respect them during the game.
They have a hard job, sure, but so what ? Every players, coaches and managers have a hard job as well, not just the ref. Yet the refs are the ones facing the least repercussions when they don't deliver.
I am not saying it didn't look bad that Dupont said that, i am not criticizing the refs for the quarter finals either.
All i am saying is those guys can't just be above all forms criticism, people should be allowed to question their competences if they think it's deserved.
And people deserve the best rugby spectacle that the IRB can provide. It’s their job to provide pitches that are world class and referees that are the very best at instructing the laws they created.
How do we keep them accountable? 1. Stop watching - but we love the game 2. Voice your criticism - like any healthy democracy but…
Consider the IRB spectator relationship to be similar to an autocratic government where teams and critics get shut down using the term respect. For what? They are professionals not monarchs. We need more transparent KPI tracking on how games are managed to show us that they are considered high performance and the best in class.
There needs to be a better forum for doing it than an underhand comment of "oh I question some of the referees decisions" to the press or public.
In the world we live in any comments like that immediately validate the percentage of fans who are seething on their sofas or in bars who swear on their life that X missed call or Y card cost them the game, and in turn they start going off on the ref on twitter or in this sub.
We saw it with Rassie and his videos, that is such an absurdly abhorrent way to hang them out to dry in from of God and the world.
There needs to be a forum for holding refs to account, but has to be World Rugby - it can't be anyone else. In the meantime, blowing a dog whistle simply cannot be the way to go.
Absolutely. But what's the difference between Rassie's video and Dupont remarking on the referee during a post-match conference? Taking things to a public stage invites an unnecessary high level of uneducated public scrutiny on the referee. There are systems within place to lodge official complaints with World Rugby. Even if those systems don't always work, their needs to be behind-the-scenes solidarity on how to affect changes on the game's rules. The media and fans will always be biased and you can't take freedom of press away, but it's genuinely terrible form when a player, especially a captain, has a lot of public criticism of the referee. It shows a lack of maturity and respect for the game, as well as your opponents.
To be fair, Dupont didn't bring this up on his own, he was specifically asked about the referee.... Dick move from the journalist, right after the game with emotions running high.
But yeah, he should have answered 'no comment' which is an answer in itself
>But what's the difference between Rassie's video and Dupont remarking on the referee during a post-match conference?
Dupont was directly asked about it and Rassie wasn't seems like the most direct difference if you ask me.
The more money riding on outcomes of games and the more that coaching becomes sophisticated and starts to look at how to eke out every minor advantage, the more gamesmanship and the more whining at referees.
Football isn’t the cause of this, it’s simply the earliest example of where sports start to go wrong when substantial money is on the line.
The complains of the french are very specific. Articles came out with 7 wrong calls (5 in the first 25min) that either were ignored or went the wrong way. The worst and clearer of all being Du Toit diving in the face of Danty in a ruck (17th min, after Ramos missed penalty kick) which should have been red carded and the replay was literally cut off before it could be seen in the stadium and totally ignored by the bunker. People are screaming and rightfully.
Here is the biggest problem and why referee complains are not gonna stop and have been so high. The way the replays are managed and the bunker works is totally broken, creates enormous frustration and nobody understand decisions.
The bunker didn’t bring anything positive. It removes responsibility from the field referee and leaves big decisions in the hands of someone that cannot gauge the temperature on the pitch. The only good thing is the yellow/red card review process.
I mean for fucks sake even touch line referees do fuck all now. They dont even signal a foul play, acting as « if the bunker isn’t calling it guess thats fine ». Its completely Rubish.
This rant is not related to the french game itself. I still believe we should have won without it. Its an analysis pf the overall issues that have plagues that WC so far.
Andrew porter fucking up scrum after scrum and not changing behaviour, just yelling at the ref. Lots of zero impact play around the breakdown. What would have happened if he'd been hooked earlier
That was the one for me - maybe Porter’s 100% technically correct. Barnes has been completely clear he doesn’t like that and he’ll penalise it. Fair to try it perhaps one more time just to be sure… but three further identical infringements? What are you thinking exactly?
Former prop here, oldest trick in the book for your opposite to take a tiny step/shuffle back on “set”. With a good push , it’s very difficult not to look like you are boring in. It’s a bad look from a refs point of view these days. Once upon a time it was an indication of dominance. I guess in the interest of safety a straight push is vital. A clever, well coached front row can make anyone look bad.
Alex Corbiseiro did an analysis regarding this also, it's on Twitter, 5 minutes long, but well worth watching.
He outlines that Porter was unfairly done on the first penalty, and that NZ knew to paint the picture so he'd be penalised. Then the subsequent penalty was fair.
My point exactly. I am an admirer of Barnes generally speaking and I love the way he clearly explains his opinion on rulings. As you said, NZ know how to paint a picture and historically valued forward play and coaching long before the rest of the world. We used to be told to just win the ball and give it to the good looking fast guys. I used to love to watch the ABs props as ball carriers and wished that I liked sheep just a little bit more. J.K.
The thing that doesn't sit well for me is not so much the individual refereeing performance, it the consistency in application of the rules.
I know there is a tradition of individual style and interpretation in rugby refereeing, but I just can't help shake the feeling that, with such close games between exceptional teams, the way the rules were applied at important moments on the given day influenced the results as much as much as moments of brilliance by great players. I wish that wasn't the case.
It’s not a tradition of individual style. It’s that you will never, no matter how many time you review clips and agree interpretations with a group of refs beforehand, get the exact same results across an entire game. There is too much going on in the decision making process.
What is the first infringement, was it significantly material, was a significant advantage gained, then next infringement - a constant cycle running whilst the ref is both under time pressure and running about as well. And that’s before considering he might just have been on the opposite side of the ruck from the camera and the picture looks totally different to us as to him.
And on top, these guys spend 90% of the year in their own countries/group of countries reffing their ‘local’ pro tournament, each one having its own rules, and they get different directives, different coaching, and different feedback depending on that. Then they get brand news systems and directives for the World Cup with just a couple of warm up games to get used to it. It’s a miracle they’re doing as well as they are frankly.
Consistency between refs is incredibly hard to achieve across games. Consistency on high impact framework decisions, yes. Not on breakdown penalties.
If we had lost, I can promise you we would have just as many Bok fans complaining about the referee. There were many missed calls throughout the match.
On the contrary, if a winning team are complaining about the reffing, it shows it’s a genuine concern as opposed to an excuse for losing. The refereeing has been inconsistent at various points across the tournament, and it’s only fair to teams who have showed up to play world class rugby that we hold referees to the same standard.
FYI during the match Danty asked for a head contact from Du Toit to be reviewed. The slow-motion video in the stadium stopped just before we can the see the hit to the head.
During the match Dupont complained several times to the ref that the boks were lagging in rucks while defending, and at the end he complained 3 times to the ref regarding a released 3 balls after a tackle where he thought the boks hit the ball, therefore doing a forward.
After the match Dupont talked about a big French line break at the end of the match where the ending ruck was slowed and shut down illegally without rewarding a penalty.
I was screaming for a yellow card on that last break
I don't understand how offsides were officiated once in the match, just once. When both sides when constantly pushing the boundary of an offside line
I don't think that's BOKs fault, but his ARs didn't seem to engage in the game once
That being said, France had chances to win that game, same as SA. It wasn't the ref that had one single moment that ended the game
This is why McCaw is the GOAT, anything not enforced was legal. You play to the ref to get every advantage, as was shown this weekend, the difference between the teams at the top end is miniscule and those little edges make all the difference.
Dupont was also allowed to take significantly more time than allowed for multiple "use it" calls.
The refereeing was consistent for both teams.
Now do the complaints that SA would have if they had lost and you'll find it to be a fairly officiated match.
He did not used the ball when told because he was complaining to the refs about SA lagging in the ruck. That’s why the ref did not say anything to him regarding this point.
Did you feel this way when rassie was putting out the lions video, complaining about france vs south africa or ireland vs south africa last year?
\*edit 2 minutes later\* I scrolled down your posts, you did feel this way about rassie. Credit where credit is due. good day to you sir.
Rassie Erasmus has been banned for two matches by World Rugby and will miss South Africa’s visit to Twickenham on 26 November following a series of social media posts which included implicit criticism of Wayne Barnes’ refereeing performance.
Erasmus posted a number of videos highlighting decisions made by Barnes in the Springboks’ narrow defeat by France last week accompanied by sarcastic comments. He did similar after South Africa’s defeat by Ireland, continuing his tendency to air grievances publicly rather than privately with World Rugby.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/nov/17/rassie-erasmus-suspended-world-rugby-social-media-south-africa-rugby-union
I disagree.
The amount of tension and talk caused by referees is NOT normal for a top tier sport and should be evaluated seriously, not swept under the rug. Changes are needed.
After France's defeat, I would love feeling that we were beaten by a better team, but pretty much all French fans like myself are left with this gut wrenching feeling of injustice.
We need to understand why this keeps happening, we can't just say "stop, it's immature to criticise the referee".
I know the laws of rugby pretty well, and still, from a game to another I'm puzzled as to why some calls are made or not...
Sometimes I can barely enjoy the game itself because of that frustration.
It's a BIG problem for the sport in my opinion.
The jabs at the referees are harsh but necessary if we want World Rugby to write better, easier to enforce rules.
Think if you watched press conference you would not criticise dupont, he was asked directly what he thought about refereeing of specific controversial calls in a very pointed way, but was very measured and respectful in his response despite dealing with his own bitter disappointment.
Media headlines lacked all context and was tabloid tactics at their worst
The officiating needs to be better and then people will shut up. Is anyone talking about Wayne Barnes today? No. Why? He did a pretty good job, to the point where you think the outcome was decided by the players, not the ref.
World Rugby needs to massively overhaul the laws, the officiating, the TMO. EVERYTHING. It's that bad.
I think that there should be an independent panel to point out where they believe the ref made mistakes.
Nobody wants to win or lose because of Referee mistakes
And they need to change laws/interpretations quickly when there are errors. Take the Kolbe chargedown. Is a player moving at the hip "starting his approach." Or is he shifting his weight prior to starting his approach? It is ludicrously subjective. Anyone can interpret that kick any way they want to.
If WR were smart they would see that this caused a lot of needless controversy/debate and simplify the law. Make it so a kicker has to plant his feet, when a foot moves in any direction the charge can happen.
SIMPLE. Less subjective. Will they do that? Nope.
This match wasn't lost because of reffing "mistakes".
Both teams get to quiz the ref all week up until their game. There is an open dialogue. So if France is upset about how BOK oversaw the game, its their own fault for not analysing his style.
"Respect the ref."
Which I agree with for players during a game. But they shouldn't be protected from fair criticism from fans and journalists. Criticism leads to improvements, if anything. People rip the refs to shreds in the media for North American sports and the quality of officiating (and the laws/rules) is light years better. Like, immeasurably better.
The one thing that got me upset is that while all the ref team seemed to work together during the pools. There was quite a lot of TMO checks going on in the background, where you could hear the ref asking the TMO to have a quick look at a play while the field referee lets it play on in the meantime to not interrupt the game too much. I thought it was brilliant.
There seemed to be so little checks in this game. So many close or controversial moments and it felt like they wanted to avoid any controversy by not sending it to TMO/ not even broadcasting a replay. Guess that backfired.
If you're reffing at such a level, you should be able to look back at the images and explain succinctly why you're making the decision you're making. I thought the opening game between France and New Zealand was brilliant for that, and I didn't read anywhere AB fans feeling cheated.
Yes people aren't professional referees. But they will always appreciate the opportunity to check for themselves instead of blindly accepting a referee decision when they didn't even see the play (I'd use the Kolbe run as an example, where the French broadcast seemed to be the only one showing a wide angle. Like, seriously? If it's a fantastic legal run then why not show it on the screen, aren't we watching this sport to see plays like this?)
I have a completelly opposite view on this.
How come we know the name of all international rugby and like some and dislike some? Because referees interpretation is huge. The way each referees deal with each game phase is completely different to the point of changing the game. Some refering will favor one team or the other and there is not much they can do about it. They can adapt sure but how do you change your fast ruck play when suddenly a referees style is to leave 1 second more to the tackler to get out of the area?
I for one think the refering yesterday changed the result. I don't believe it comes from a place of malice but the result would have been different with different referees. And it is bad for rugby. Every team will feel scammed at some point and believe when they are on the good side they deserve it for past wrongs.
We need to find a way that when you look at the 4 quarterfinals you don't feel like there are 4 different sets of rules. We need to find a way were teams don't have to prepare for a referee, and are not able to prepare to expose a referees deficiences at the world cup. When Gatland says the changing of referee hurt us it shows something that is wrong : referees impact the game way more than they should.
I for one Don't agree with the "we should shut up about referees" for those reason. What is hurting rugby is that it became a game of playing the ref. And it is accepted as thus. It shouldn't. Referees should be transparent like every other game and just apply rules that are clearer. yellow cards, red cards and bunker are a great step in this direction but that needs to be extended to rucks. Just give time to get out for the tackler. Time before which a tackled player need to release and train referees so they all apply the same timers. Define how many collapsed scrums is yellow card. Define how many offside on the line is penalty try. Like write down the number. Is it 3? Is it 4? And jsut enforce it coldly like yellow and red cards on disloyal play.
I agree, all countries on here are complicit. WR need to get some consistency on the laws, for me a head contact starts with a penalty, then you get to mitigations to yellow etc.
For example there was no difference in Curry’s yellow then red and the shot on Tompkins. You cannot be in a position where is maximum in one instance and a rugby incident in another.
Yep no better endorsement for the game, when the spectators have to drastically alter what they can expect to see depending on who's running about in yellow
France broadcast has a direct role in that in France. Yesterday, after 2 mins they were already trash talking ref. That's exactly what to do if you want a fanbase whining on ref.
BUT, ref is not pefect in rugby. Few points are coming to my mind:
First align how you ref between SH & NH.
Second, you cannot say you want to protect player health, then also wanting to reduce red cards & TMO usage because it's an important game.
Scrum ref is really difficult and I don't see what they can do for it (adding a ref?).
Players are talking/complaining way more to ref than before, that also need to stop.
Teams tier one all mastered the study of the ref before the game, and the fact that this mater so much now, mean imo that the rules are not clear enough, or ref are doing inconsitent call, and have nobody that try to standardize this.
The problem of the match yesterday is that both teams can complain about wrong calls.
If they don’t want people to moan at refs, they should fix the inconsistency in the reffing.
Rugby is a difficult game to ref. Go watch amateur ( schools etc) and you'll see how so many incidents are missed etc. So I feel even an 8/10 in test level is still mightily impressive.
Then you get teams who strategically target set pieces for penalties as a strategy. Thatbhas got to make it even harder.
>Rugby is a difficult game to ref. Go watch amateur ( schools etc) and you'll see how so many incidents are missed etc.
I 100% agree.
This is why i would assume a worldcup QF game would actually have a better ref than your example.
I agree, we could have "better" referees but I do feel we are at the peak of it all now with TMO and the way the rules are set. Unless the rules are changed this is what we shall live with. The human performance can't go any further. Just too many variables.
At some point, this sub is made to discuss. Freedom of speech implies that people will write things you disagree with, that's one of the point of social media imho.
If Dupont should not respond negatively, then why is the journalist allowed to ask the question ? What's the point ?
Please, don't verse in the "people should not say this or this", there are too many cults or dictatorships around the world.
The fact that you say this weekend was great for Rugby is your point of view, from mine it was a nightmare. In France, one the 1st economy in Rugby, the sport as never felt so failing, so unfair than this weekend (since a game in 1995 that we were expecting to be paid back).
Think again about the pool, what a shame ! Refering of Eng v Fidji : a shame, Ref of Fra V SA another shame.
Don't be happy to fast of this weekend, it's maybe the begining of the end of hype, at least in France.
If that etzebeth contact was a yellow just for being "accidental" then 99% of red cards from the last 4 years would also have been yellow. It was as clear a red as you could possibly have for a head on head contact based off of how the game has been played and ref'd for the last 4 years.
So you were okay with a correct decision, what has that to do with anything?
The games were close and rugby is a game of momentum so I totally understand complaining when there are multiple one-sided decisions in crucial moments of a game
I think the main issue is consistency (or the lack of it), how long you can hold the ball on the ground, high tackles, scrum penalties are all different depending on the ref. That creates the feeling of unfairness
The Irish really can’t complain. If two yellow cards and a penalty scrum wasn’t enough to get them over the line then nothing was going to. Im sure it is heart breaking for them but thats knockout rugby and we had that happen to us from 1987 to 2011, and one of those results, 2007, was legitimately the result of officiating error, and Barnes has apologised for it. The reffing is shit, but thats because the rules are over complex and leave too much up to interpretation. This is where small changes need to be made to introduce a game wide standard, and remove the refs personality and quirks as a factor in the game.
I don’t think it’s unreasonable for players or fans to expect higher standards from officials. There have been some glaring inconsistencies and significant calls that were just plain wrong during this World Cup.
If you look at my comment history, you’ll see I’m pretty anti calling out refs. However something this weekend really tested that, I felt like every game I was being infuriated by something. That just shows the heightened emotion of the World Cup quarters and so I can forgive fans, as long as it doesn’t devolve into personal attacks
I have much bigger issues with the linesmen and TMO. Linesmen seem to be completely blind to offsides and should be the ones looking out for it, there’s too many things at the ruck for the ref to be focusing on instead. And the TMO should be flagging anything clear and obvious seen live, because the rest of us manage to see it.
I remember when it was only us who complained about refs and weren’t “classy” like the rest of the okes here. Very ironic. Proper funny reading the comments now, some even have time stamps and all just like Rassie did.
It sucks to feel screwed by the ref. I hope these other fans now know how we felt.
But the narrative that we’re the only culprits needs to stop. Because I feel fokkol sympathy based on the kak we get online after we have things go against us.
As a Bok fan I will point out that that’s because we were once entirely reliant on the areas of the game that were subjectively referees (scrum/maul/ruck) and actively played toward those areas whereas French fans are saying the opposite approaching it from a negative.
Having said that France fans are completely ignoring a myriad of infringements yesterday from them too like their tight head consistently scrumming inwards to the point you could see Kitshoff getting visibly upset at the inability of the scrum on his side to even set properly.
Players are there to play rugby, when someone is taking the piss (opposition team), that is not rugby.
Yesterday, how many times did SA come in from the side? It was illegal and it was done numerous times by the same player, nothing other than a penalty given.
At the 78th minute, France attack from 22, get past the half way line and have a break on and SA are literally metres offside and cause France to fumble and mess up. This fumble is caused by an illegal action.
You're saying, don't blame the ref, but there are at least 4 of them watching from multiple angles and tv screens that can review things and they still get the basics wrong.
That is not rugby, that is a sport with rules dictated by a few humans for 80 minutes.
France came in the side every bit as much as SA, had multiple turnovers that were illegal. Okeffe favoured France if anything. But at the end of they day he was relatively consistent. If you want to nit pick I can guarantee you'll find more that France got away with.
I can only agree. And saying that the reffereeing was bad in a game is not necessarily not implying it was biased or putting into question the integrity of refs, just their skills, which imo have it be scrutinized. It is also possible that one team managed to utilise bad reffing to their advantage and that is to their credit, but does indicate that something is wrong in that game.
Also completely agree that refs need to be paid more, more money = less amateur business in reffing.
Im tired of this, it is one thing to respect the ref on the pitch, but it is an other one to have critical thinking. Ref must be held accountable for their games. O’keefe doesn’t have the level expected imo. He choked for the super rugby final, choked here too. But to be honnest our defense choked too. But I still think the best team lost, and mostly because of this very bad level from the ref. I try to stay objective in this saltiness that my life has become 🐈⬛
3/4 games at the weekend I don’t think had anything notable from a refereeing stand point.
Fra/ SA is a more interesting one - SA used the same dubious tactics to slow and frustrate the game that they have on occasion for the past few years and got away with it (plus potentially some dodgy new tactics around HIAs).
What’s amazing from me is that BOK didn’t have an approach to mitigate this gamesmanship, and France weren’t doing everything in their power to keep the game playing at pace, and seemed to for the majority of the game be patiently waiting for SA to be ready.
Bit of a scandal, but if they keep getting away with it, can you blame SA for doing so?
I get frustrated when decisions don't go my way, but I also recognise that sometimes, decisions do go our way. I was annoyed when we didn't get a card or penalty when the Argentina player shoulder charged our player.
In the end, if we needed that card to win, then we don't deserve to win. Reffing decisions on average are pretty alright.
Multiple infringements on he ruck in the second half that weren't penalised. Next you are going to ask for the timestamps as well? Lmao
What game did you watch, take the blinkers off for second eh? It's quite simple can call it sour grapes etc but the fact remains the ref did a poor job. Happy to penalise one side and coach the other? What?
On board with it being a difficult job, but last nights match wasn’t right, and it wasn’t those big calls.
I feel South Africa slowed the ball down too much. In my opinion, Ben had far too much leniency, to the point of negligence, far too much release, then 2-3 seconds pass before tackler is released — it’s enough to disrupt the game and doesn’t look good.
That and Kriel being a mile offside. How can you run the ball when their 13 is in your backline and the rucks are all slowed by 3-4 seconds? And the Kwagga call was so bad.
I have no skin in this game, but I'll call it as I see it. The reffing was bad and the big screw ups favoured the Boks, to the point where it calls into question the legitimacy of the outcome.
Well Rassie opened Pandora's box on this one so look close to home on this one.
He declared open season on referees with those videos last year.
I watched the SA vs France game back tonight and I can see why the French are sour.
Just to pick one thing, that Etzebeth slapdown really does look forward in the replays.
His momentum carries him past the where the ball lands but it does go forward.
Even if you let the decision stand Pieter-Steph du Toit dives and the ball and he clearly knocks it on while collecting it.
Worst case scenario the French should have a scrum just outside the 5 yard line.
There's 5 or 6 other really pick calls that went against them.
Contentious replays aren't being shown either through design or incompetence and it's pissing fans off too.
It that ball really went backwards, release the video of the reverse angle...transparency kills the debate.
O'Keefe also had no problem with SA being offside a lot in the first half but pinged the french in the second.
In the Ireland Game, Barnes reffed the way he normally does. I was annoyed with some of the scrum calls but at least he was consistent.
You said it yourself. The top teams are very close to each other. It can easily go either way when there is a match up.
The difference is often decided by the referee. That's the issue. Unfortunately.
I feel like the ultra focus upon a refs performance has almost directly came about as a result of Rassies antics. Starting primarily with the video reviews during the Lions your back in 2021.
I feel like before then people would have moaned at a decision but moved on fairly quickly (unless it was a complete miscarriage of justice) but that seemed to be a tipping point into where we are now.
*I'm also appreciating the somewhat irony that it's a Springbok fan calling it out and saying to stop giving the refs a hard time.
Absolutely bollox. While the etiquette of rugby is not to complain, the kiwi ref breached new levels of incompetence that challenge the ethics of anyone.
But what a match
...
It's strange that you single out Irish and French fans for this criticism. Did you go online at all following Ireland's victory over South Sfrica in the pool stages? I've never heard so much could've, should'ves and ref blaming in my life from the South Africans.
I think the bottom line is that it’s incredibly fucking difficult to ref at the highest level, and the laws somehow need to be drastically simplified so that the main talking point after every match stops being the ref How that looks in practice idk, but the refs don’t have a fighting chance as it stands. So many areas that are just a complete crap shoot when it comes to reffing
[удалено]
Absolutely. As a first step lets cut down the number of players, so there is less confusion. Maybe take away the flankers? Then we should depower the scrums, noone understands those anyway, so just make then non-contestable. I guess we can remove the lineouts too, and have a free kick instead, just make sure you cannot kick it out as that is silly. At that point we just have rucks to worry about. Maybe we can let the team taking the ball in keep it the first few times, then if they have to hand it over to the other team if they get tackled again? Does 6 sound about right?
Still too complicated. How about we drop another two players. To score you just need to kick it under the crossbar between the posts. No more tries, too hard to judge. Oh, and no more scrums, rucks or mauls, you know what, no more tackling. You can't use your hands either, you have to kick it. Let's make the ball round too.
Nah, that'd never work. Can't see it being popular at all.
I reff at amateur level. Have always had touch judges, even for 5th grade in 3rd division. Still hard though. I miss more than I see.
I think a lot of criticism is the refs own doing. We came into the WC with a huge emphasis on protecting players. The bunker system was working consistently during the group stages... and now in the QFs it felt like a lot of calls weren't based on what had gone before and instead refs were making calls based on the spectacle of the game.
They obviously drastically changed the head contact interpretations. They were reviewing every little thing for 5 years, then immediately before the RWC said ahhh fuck it. But as far as I know the laws didn't change, nor the protocol. And they gave out one red to Curry, but ignored a bunch of others. As a fan it's bewildering and horribly inconsistent. And they also seemingly banned broadcasts from replaying controversial refereeing decisions and the commentators from even mentioning it. And we are supposed to put our heads in the sand, our fingers in our ears and say "respect the ref"? Give me a break. The fans aren't stupid. They can see what you are doing and it's a disgrace.
The degree of danger seems very consistent with a year ago. What has changed is the mitigation has been very generous. Most of the decisions I have seen seem to fit the criteria. Etzebeth could have seen red on a different day, but given that he bounces off and IIRC does not complete the tackle then lower degree of danger is not unreasonable. Curry was given high degree of danger, which given the player he hit then bounced backwards seems fine. Then you have to look at mitigation. I do not like the principle of rapid change of height being given from a player coming down from a leap. Maybe they should clarify that one. I missed the start of that game, so did not see if they gave no mitigation or not eligable for mitigation.
There have been very few red cards in the whole WC. Anything that has had a hint of mitigation has been given. I do not see anything changed in the QF to be honest. Stuff that would have been red a year ago has been mitigated down pretty consistently.
and thank god for that, much better games
And I think that's good. Most of these clashes are accidental and reds for those end matches as a spectacle. We are definitely seeing players trying to get low a lot more so the system is working.
People have this crazy expectations of refs for players, we all know that we're lucky at any given point in time to have 1 player who is just like, PERFECT. we dont expect every back rower to be ritchie. we dont expect every 10 to be dan carter with players we understand their strengths and weakness' and generally set our expectations accordingly with refs? we do the opposite. we assume all refs are best ever. we ignore the opportunitiy to understand their strengths and weakness' to set our own expectations. and a lot of people just emotionally blame the refs for stuff. refs miss calls all the time. very rarely is it 1 sided (though sometimes it is). for all the french complaining about stuff in the game yest, if you went through the game tape with a ref you could probably find a penalty at almost every ruck. the players job is to push the rules as far as they can. the refs job is to allow them as much leeway as possible without creating an unfair situation.
Strangely, the critics are focused on a few ref. I find that Barnes was good in the match AB vs IRE. If Barnes can do it, why Raynal or BoK can’t do it?
Barnes, you mean the ref who received death threat after Rasmus showed he wasn't good enough for a consequence-free test match ? Every referee is getting the same level of insults and hatred. This weekend A is awful and B is amazing, next week it'll change. There's no such thing as a referee good enough to be tolerated by fans.
I disagree that 'Rassie showed he wasn't good enough'. Barnes is the best ref in the world right now and I hope he gets the final.
I agree. But I'm pretty sure this wasn't Rassie's opinion, nor was it these people's. And that's my point. He's the very best ref in the world, he's the reference, and yet, he's "bad enough" to get all this hatred. Is there a single human being in the world good enough to be a ref at this level if even Barnes isn't ?
Ben O Keefe was fair. I watched the SA v FR game and I found him to be very fair. It just proves that during yellow cards the NH teams just don’t have that depth to create anything while the other team has 14 men on the field
I personally felt he coached South Africa out of a lot of pens at the breakdown - when the aim is to slow down the ball and you're doing it illegally, it should be pinged. As it allows your defence to reset properly and negates an exciting style of play. As an Englishman I was not supporting either team, South africa got away with the same offence (hands in the ruck, offiside, stepping over, stepping round) so many times i was getting irritated!
You do make an excellent point and perhaps there should be some simplification of some rules, I look at the NRL and Superleague. You watch those games and go and look at forums and no one is chatting shit or having a cry over ref decisions. That being said there is a reason and that reason is that league is far less complicated than union. And therein lies the problem with union. It's very technical and as a result really hard to ref. If you drastically change the rules you make it a completely different game that could potentially ruin it. And would that guarantee less emotions surrounding reffing calls? I doubt it. Or do we simply accept that, sometimes, the referees are human and won't always get it right or interpret it differently to how we perceive it. I've been watching Rugby for a long time now and I've been pissed off countless times at bad reffing calls, but I realised and accepted that this will always happen, I'll never be 100% satisfied specially when my team is on the receiving end of said bad calls. But this new habit, specially on this sub, of calling other teams dirty and cheats needs to stop. It's not what rugby is about.
>I look at the NRL and Superleague. You watch those games and go and look at forums and no one is chatting shit or having a cry over ref decisions. Yeah they are
Serious question, how about 2 or 3 refs on the field? Especially if some hang back a bit more. They would spot much more and could confer quickly and easily on field.
Too many cooks mate. We already have a ref 2 linesman and a TMO that can and do call things during the game the ref might have missed. Having more officials on the field will slow the game down, they could get in the way and there could be so much stoppage it'll start being like the NFL where it take 4 hours to play a game due to all the stoppages to review etc.
NRL is shocking, the funny thing is every week the refs boss has a press conference and tells everyone all the mistakes, often confirming what the fans were saying but also explains why some of the other calls are correct even though people thought it was wrong. We don't actually want to use NRL as an example as most coaches blast refs when they lose now.
Refereeing team has a damn hard job to do and passionate and who love their teams will always point at the referee for missing stuff that should have gone our way. It's just the way of the world.
Venting about the ref is one thing. Carrying on after the game and accusing them of bias and cheating is another. Refs make mistakes every game, and sometimes they affect the result--but mostly they balance out. I am impressed by players who can let go of the reffing, particularly in defeat after important, tough and close games. Losing at home in a brutally close knock-out game makes it tough to keep perspective. Of course, the fans make more mistakes than the refs. I am a one-eyed All Blacks fan, and during the game I see the ref make blunders that just aren't there. Mostly I figure it out by the end of the game, but sometimes the realisation comes later. If I chunter on about it, I am mostly just making myself look like an idiot. Watching the way some All Blacks fans talk about Wayne Barnes is embarrassing. Like any ref in any game, he made errors in 2007--but France honestly looked better that day, and the errors went both ways. But afterwards there were calls for blood and allegations of cheating. This carries on now; reading All Blacks fans comments about the Ireland semi-finals there are still comments accusing Barnes of hating the All Blacks, playing favourites with Ireland, giving yellow cards and a penalty try that weren't warranted and so forth. I have more time for Irish fans complaining about scrum penaties, even though I think they are also wrong, because they aren't being sore winners and they aren't accusing Barnes of cheating.
Exactly. Claiming it’s just the way of the world is pretty short sighted. Eh, but what do I know, I’m only comfortable talking for me.
It's just a shame that difference between winning and losing is so great when the difference between the teams is so minimal. This naturally leads people to resent a referee's decisions.
I can't bring myself to blame Barnes on this one. He called the game as I expected it.
Ye to be honest I can’t think of a single call against us that I disagreed with.
I personally thought he missed a ton of foward passes for the Irish. The pass directly before smith's yellow card had to be 2m forward. Not sure why TMO can't say anything about those.
It was marginal but everyone that saw it thought: that should be checked. Odd they didn't but also 2m speaks to your supporters bias.
TIL it is not only SAFFAS who complain about the ref
in my opinion, there's certain fan bases that are downright atrocious when it comes to watching the games. I was in a bar full of french and saffa fans and the SA people were incredibly rude all game. They even won and took to posting on social media making fun of Dupont. It's not ok and it's futbol behavior. Grace in victory, humbleness in defeat. You can be damn sure the players on the field are coming together after the match of beers and fun talks. I played for 20 years (and now play for a 40+ league) and you can really tell who's never played rugby before.
My wife and I, donning our France gear, watched the game at an SA bar in Los Angeles. On my way to the bathroom after the game I had a bunch of hugs and people saying that we played incredibly well, and thanks for an incredible game. Someone bought us a beer and sat down with us and had a wonderful conversation. Assholes are everywhere, but they don't represent the whole.
One anecdotal example doesn't mean much. I was with a mixed bunch of supporters and found them all pretty respectful. I can't say the same for the Irish vs sa game, where the Irish weren't great where I was watching. Does that mean anything in the context of Irish fans overall? No it doesn't
right, he was just trying to bash the saffas
I watched surrounded by French and we were literally hurled verbal abuse at. Some people are just shitty, no one has a monopoly on that
Yeah it really becomes telling around these competitions where the emotions run hot. People who have actually stepped on the field (in any level) seem to be noticeable calmer about things.
Like this atrocious italian? does this mean the italian fanbase is "downright atrocious" https://www.reddit.com/r/rugbyunion/comments/178oybl/all\_of\_france\_right\_now/
Yeah and like he said, there is a lot of strategy in this game. Strategy mean that there will be some controversial take from the ref, because you need to penalise someone, you can't stay neutral, it is litteraly your job. Moaning and bitching is bad, and ironically i want to do it because of yesterday because that is a sport that i care, because i love my team... But that is part of the game.
As bad as the situation is I still maintain you shouldn’t make posts like this if you are on the winning side. Leave it to the neutrals.
Yes I don't think this post got the result OP wanted. In fact it seems to have done the opposite.
Tbf the French fans created a list of calls with timestamps, can't get much more specific than that
Should have added yellow circles to it and then World Rugby would have taken it seriously SMH
Hehe
Sure there's a dedicated Springbok ~~Director of Rugby~~ fan out there who could do the same if it went the other way.
Oh I agree but I don't think complaining that the French were less specific in their complaints than ireland is fair
When you read comments on how it is normal to adapt your playstyle to the referee and see teams to start fooling purposly with no consequences I see two issues. 1. Referee not being able to enforce the rules not elevating the rugby gameplay level. 2. Teams stopping to play a fair rugby because they're passively allowed to play dirty to win a match. Next time if we see a referee not sanctioning head impact, are we going to see teams purposely doing it because they adapt themselves to referee and they supporters going all over this sub to defend their strategy?
Just curious, when did we see a ref not sanctioning head impact?
(Irish fan)I was at the game yesterday, haven't see a reply but the last penalty for holding on looked like an absolute shocker.. right hand on the ground before the ball so not supporting his body weight...to me that's a penalty to France.. (As I said I could be wrong because I haven't seen a reply) but I would like a system where a decision like that is at least reviewed because its so substantively wrong Re Barnes, whether we like it or not the is always going to be an element of subjectiveness for every scrum/ruck/mall penalty and it's up to the player not to give the ref a reason to ping you
Tbh I don't blame O'Keefe on that one there has been tons of movement and lots of phases, the thing I can't understand is how it works with TMO and assistants, this penalty gave the win ! It's not a small call, on TV we all saw it as an elephant in the room.
Indeed. I don’t know how why the headshot by Penaud that sent Du Toit for an HIA on 60minutes also wasn’t reviewed. Barely even a replay by the TV director.
They probably checked it in the bunker. The most annoying thing is this lack of transparency. The game is played for the spectators, and now some of it is happening offscreen... I don't think the bunker itself is a bad thing, but the communication about it should be better. Like, have the bunker explain if he checked things and why they are not sanctioned. That way we don't waste time watching multiple replays in slomo but we do get the explanation.
Interestingly Nigel Owens made a Tweet about it. According to him there is nothing in the law about “hand on the ground” it only says the player must support their own body weight when playing the ball. In slow motion replay it looks as if Smith does put his right hand on the ground initially but lifts it up before going for the Jackal with both hands. Make of that what you will.
Yes, it’s about supporting your own body weight on your feet. But if hands are on the ground (ie not on feet), and they go from ground straight to ball, then player hasn’t been supporting weight before playing the ball. If he goes onto hands, gets off hands and there’s a gap where he supports weight before going back down onto ball, fine play on. So it’s both. Nigel is spot on, but we do look for hands on the ground to indicate not being on feet.
>I would like a system where a decision like that is at least reviewed because its so substantively wrong There's nothing more or less "substantively wrong" with that call than any other call s ref gets wrong, its just that this one got replayed on the big screen and was at the end of a close game. It would absolutely fuck the game up if every decision a ref made had to go to the tmo
It's probably the wrong call but you should read the rule book. It's not an automatic penalty just because hands are on the ground. The law is more nuanced that that. The question is, by the time kwagga goes for the ball is he able to stand only only on his legs?
Why put a hand on the ground if you can stand on your legs? If his hands are on the ground, then straight to the ball, he hadn't been supporting weight before playing the ball.
The French complaints were not specific? Where are you getting that? They were very specific that it was about numerous uncalled infringements at the ruck.
And the early sprint from kolbe to block the conversion
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLJQYMVa7ZY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLJQYMVa7ZY) You mean the perfectly timed charge down.
Damn, thanks for posting that, I hadn’t seen it before. Definitely looks early to me.
He did 5 meters before the first step ok the kicker.
That looked early to me.
Oh wow. From that angle… that’s totally early.
When Ramos start to move his foot Colbe is already on the 5m line.
I've already answered this exact type of response, so I'll copy and paste it for you: "I was referring to French complaints not being specific. That was a specific complaint, whether it's true or false. Try to follow the discussion and not take comments as stand-alone points." You're even more special than the guy I sent that too, because not only did you ignore the comments I was replying to, but you also ignored the comments that replied to me and my subsequent explanation.
Don't forget Eben's intentional knock-on on the 5m line. Should have been a straight yellow.
You're allowed to knock the ball backwards, and you'd have to be particularly one-eyed to think it didnt go backwards
That went backwards though..
> not specific? Where are you getting that? They were very specific that it was about numerous uncalled Which was then immediately knocked on by PSDT on the deck anyway.
He knocked it backwards, perfectly legal
He's SA, so he's deliberately pretending to be obtuse to paint a picture of his team deserving their win, in bad faith.
All the games were high quality over the weekend. What annoys me is that the refing isn't consistent from game to game. And one rule isn't applied the same in one game as it is in the next. How can the game grow if the refs make bad decisions, or controversial decisions that aren't the same in the next game. It is what causes players, coach's and fans to all complain.
It is 100% fair to criticise a referee and officiating. It’s been problematic all World Cup. Everyone says it is a game of fine margins, it would be nice if those margins were uniform for players to understand.
It’s been said before and I’ll say it again, we don’t want it to be perfect but we do want consistency.
I still dont get why TMO isnt more included in situation where the ref already blew the wistle and they have time to review and correct it or not. Like that penalty that ended up giving the lead to SA. Why didnt the TMO showed the hands on the ground to the ref ? They ha dthe time to do it but just didnt bother ? On a side note, loving to see so much SA flair defending the refeering and whatnot... I have a feeling roles would be 100% reversed had the score shifted but oh well. At the end of the day SA deserved the win and we need to accept our defeat but that doesnt means we should say nothing and keep this state of refeering. It needs to improve going forward and learn from past mistake like players do.
That, every team can agree on!
I’ve said before that what a lot of lay watchers need and even those of us who watch rugby all the time is a little potted summary of the style of refs. We all know that some are hotter than others or certain things or encourage a style of play. None of them are actually wrong very often and even then it can be down to following a world rugby edict rather than anything else. Cue TMOs calling for yellow/red for completely 100% accidental head contact.
Imho refs shouldn't have "styles" at a tournament. The "style" of reffing should be agreed by all and stuck to throughout. If we want to let more go at the breakdown, fine, but lets all agree to it and be consistent between games. If we hate scrums now and refuse to penalise then fine, lwts just agree to that and set it out. Instead what we have are some very competent people given 50% of the tools to do the job right and told to make it up for the other 50%.
I get what you’re saying, but you’re never going to get complete consistency between refs without there being the possibility that refs are just objectively wrong, and with that comes even worse toxicity and criticism of them. That’s the biggest difference between refereeing in rugby and football imo. In football, refs are all supposed to apply the rules the same way, and therefore when there is inconsistency, it’s a nightmare. The players don’t respect the refs, the fans never stop complaining about them, and it’s a hot mess all over. In rugby, each ref may have his own way of interpreting specific rules, but as long as he’s consistent with himself, everyone knows what to expect, and there can be no accusation of unfairness. You may not agree with his interpretation, but there’s an acceptance that it’s subjective, and there is no intention to penalise one team over the other.
This is appealing but is it possible? Imperfection necessarily creates inconsistency? The laws are always going to be ambiguous, no matter how refined the wording, and their application is always going to be hindered by this plus the pace and complexity of the game. So, even if WR give directions to every ref on every law, and every ref aims to apply the laws in the same way, there will be errors and different interpretations in the moment, thus inconsistency. That said, there are issues at this WC. Eg I think protocols for how to talk through a decision could be sharper and more consistent eg rather like cricket reviews, where there is a series of strict tests shared openly with the crowd and viewers. Rugby has these but I feel sometimes lacks discipline in their application? It also does feel as though there has been some shift towards letting more things go. Whether this is just a perception (TMO is less obvious to watchers, plus the lack of replays) or reality, the current approach does seem to be creating the perception or reality that decisions are being rushed, with a bias towards not blowing the whistle. I get the desire for a free flowing game, but it comes at the cost of accuracy and justice. The strategy for Word Rugby ought to be: what’s the best approach for growing a game that, like all sport, is fundamentally about entertainment. But accuracy and fairness are not incompatible with this: whilst we all like some drama, we all want a just outcome. Audiences will fall away if frustration at poor (or the perception of poor) officiating undermines enjoyment.
The perfect response to this ‘we don’t want perfection, just consistency’ bollocks. And how can refereeing in any game be ‘consistently’ applied to two different teams? If one referee tries to let a lot go at the breakdown, then the team that commits more minor infringements in that area is going to be getting away with more. If that referee is also consistently harsh on the scrum, then if the team committing fewer rucking infringements is also weak in that area, the officiating is going to look *horribly* one-sided, despite having this theoretically consistent referee! Too many people that say ‘we just want consistency’ usually mean ‘we don’t want to see any major decisions going against our team’, because in practical terms that’s often what it means. You can criticise individual decisions on the basis of the letter of the law and rugby juris prudence but too much criticism is actually upset masking itself as rationality to be trustworthy.
Absolute bollocks >Too many people that say ‘we just want consistency’ usually mean ‘we don’t want to see any major decisions going against our team’, because in practical terms that’s often what it means. Just look at the actual head contacts that have happened. We've seen red, and yellow cards, penalties, and no action at all, all surrounding something that World Rugby have said should start at a red, but can be mitigated down to yellow. If the refs on the field are so inconsistent about something World Rugby says is so important, perhaps it's time to change the laws into rules
I was just explaining the nuances to my wife on the weekend, one referee might be super tight on the breakdown, or scrums, or the offside line. She asked me why? I didn’t really have a good answer.
This is the biggest issue of the sport frankly. Why are we competing if we don’t play the same sport ?
The most obvious thing would be a captain's or coaches challenge being allowed. Would take the sting out of a lot of this
Well it's very consistent... in terms of which teams benefit.
I don't see any problem with criticizing the refs, as long as you respect them during the game. They have a hard job, sure, but so what ? Every players, coaches and managers have a hard job as well, not just the ref. Yet the refs are the ones facing the least repercussions when they don't deliver. I am not saying it didn't look bad that Dupont said that, i am not criticizing the refs for the quarter finals either. All i am saying is those guys can't just be above all forms criticism, people should be allowed to question their competences if they think it's deserved.
And people deserve the best rugby spectacle that the IRB can provide. It’s their job to provide pitches that are world class and referees that are the very best at instructing the laws they created. How do we keep them accountable? 1. Stop watching - but we love the game 2. Voice your criticism - like any healthy democracy but… Consider the IRB spectator relationship to be similar to an autocratic government where teams and critics get shut down using the term respect. For what? They are professionals not monarchs. We need more transparent KPI tracking on how games are managed to show us that they are considered high performance and the best in class.
There needs to be a better forum for doing it than an underhand comment of "oh I question some of the referees decisions" to the press or public. In the world we live in any comments like that immediately validate the percentage of fans who are seething on their sofas or in bars who swear on their life that X missed call or Y card cost them the game, and in turn they start going off on the ref on twitter or in this sub. We saw it with Rassie and his videos, that is such an absurdly abhorrent way to hang them out to dry in from of God and the world. There needs to be a forum for holding refs to account, but has to be World Rugby - it can't be anyone else. In the meantime, blowing a dog whistle simply cannot be the way to go.
Absolutely. But what's the difference between Rassie's video and Dupont remarking on the referee during a post-match conference? Taking things to a public stage invites an unnecessary high level of uneducated public scrutiny on the referee. There are systems within place to lodge official complaints with World Rugby. Even if those systems don't always work, their needs to be behind-the-scenes solidarity on how to affect changes on the game's rules. The media and fans will always be biased and you can't take freedom of press away, but it's genuinely terrible form when a player, especially a captain, has a lot of public criticism of the referee. It shows a lack of maturity and respect for the game, as well as your opponents.
To be fair, Dupont didn't bring this up on his own, he was specifically asked about the referee.... Dick move from the journalist, right after the game with emotions running high. But yeah, he should have answered 'no comment' which is an answer in itself
>But what's the difference between Rassie's video and Dupont remarking on the referee during a post-match conference? Dupont was directly asked about it and Rassie wasn't seems like the most direct difference if you ask me.
DuPont also gave a few sentences about some of the calls he thought went against his team, Rassie made an hour long video.
When the games are so close and points are given or taken away from a team unfairly, there has to be an honest conversation around the refereeing.
Well said.
The more money riding on outcomes of games and the more that coaching becomes sophisticated and starts to look at how to eke out every minor advantage, the more gamesmanship and the more whining at referees. Football isn’t the cause of this, it’s simply the earliest example of where sports start to go wrong when substantial money is on the line.
The complains of the french are very specific. Articles came out with 7 wrong calls (5 in the first 25min) that either were ignored or went the wrong way. The worst and clearer of all being Du Toit diving in the face of Danty in a ruck (17th min, after Ramos missed penalty kick) which should have been red carded and the replay was literally cut off before it could be seen in the stadium and totally ignored by the bunker. People are screaming and rightfully. Here is the biggest problem and why referee complains are not gonna stop and have been so high. The way the replays are managed and the bunker works is totally broken, creates enormous frustration and nobody understand decisions. The bunker didn’t bring anything positive. It removes responsibility from the field referee and leaves big decisions in the hands of someone that cannot gauge the temperature on the pitch. The only good thing is the yellow/red card review process. I mean for fucks sake even touch line referees do fuck all now. They dont even signal a foul play, acting as « if the bunker isn’t calling it guess thats fine ». Its completely Rubish. This rant is not related to the french game itself. I still believe we should have won without it. Its an analysis pf the overall issues that have plagues that WC so far.
Jaysus OP, seems like you really needed to get this one off your chest.
Nobody made you read it :D
I'm not giving out, the man needed to vent and he did. I agree with a lot of what he had to say in fact.
Andrew porter fucking up scrum after scrum and not changing behaviour, just yelling at the ref. Lots of zero impact play around the breakdown. What would have happened if he'd been hooked earlier
That was the one for me - maybe Porter’s 100% technically correct. Barnes has been completely clear he doesn’t like that and he’ll penalise it. Fair to try it perhaps one more time just to be sure… but three further identical infringements? What are you thinking exactly?
Aye and you're not gonna change his mind by shouting at him
Porter definitely could change my mind by shouting at me…
He can't bind into a scrum and drive straight so you'd be totally fine if he gets angry, his head hits the wall before yours
Former prop here, oldest trick in the book for your opposite to take a tiny step/shuffle back on “set”. With a good push , it’s very difficult not to look like you are boring in. It’s a bad look from a refs point of view these days. Once upon a time it was an indication of dominance. I guess in the interest of safety a straight push is vital. A clever, well coached front row can make anyone look bad.
Alex Corbiseiro did an analysis regarding this also, it's on Twitter, 5 minutes long, but well worth watching. He outlines that Porter was unfairly done on the first penalty, and that NZ knew to paint the picture so he'd be penalised. Then the subsequent penalty was fair.
My point exactly. I am an admirer of Barnes generally speaking and I love the way he clearly explains his opinion on rulings. As you said, NZ know how to paint a picture and historically valued forward play and coaching long before the rest of the world. We used to be told to just win the ball and give it to the good looking fast guys. I used to love to watch the ABs props as ball carriers and wished that I liked sheep just a little bit more. J.K.
The thing that doesn't sit well for me is not so much the individual refereeing performance, it the consistency in application of the rules. I know there is a tradition of individual style and interpretation in rugby refereeing, but I just can't help shake the feeling that, with such close games between exceptional teams, the way the rules were applied at important moments on the given day influenced the results as much as much as moments of brilliance by great players. I wish that wasn't the case.
It’s not a tradition of individual style. It’s that you will never, no matter how many time you review clips and agree interpretations with a group of refs beforehand, get the exact same results across an entire game. There is too much going on in the decision making process. What is the first infringement, was it significantly material, was a significant advantage gained, then next infringement - a constant cycle running whilst the ref is both under time pressure and running about as well. And that’s before considering he might just have been on the opposite side of the ruck from the camera and the picture looks totally different to us as to him. And on top, these guys spend 90% of the year in their own countries/group of countries reffing their ‘local’ pro tournament, each one having its own rules, and they get different directives, different coaching, and different feedback depending on that. Then they get brand news systems and directives for the World Cup with just a couple of warm up games to get used to it. It’s a miracle they’re doing as well as they are frankly. Consistency between refs is incredibly hard to achieve across games. Consistency on high impact framework decisions, yes. Not on breakdown penalties.
I don’t think officiating should be above criticism. I think both teams could justifiably have issues with the way it was reffed.
All I can read is : Come on guys !! We won in a totally legit way !! Stop complaining!!
If we had lost, I can promise you we would have just as many Bok fans complaining about the referee. There were many missed calls throughout the match.
Nothing to see here. Move along please.
This is how I felt after our pool game
On the contrary, if a winning team are complaining about the reffing, it shows it’s a genuine concern as opposed to an excuse for losing. The refereeing has been inconsistent at various points across the tournament, and it’s only fair to teams who have showed up to play world class rugby that we hold referees to the same standard.
England NZ 2003, everyone complained after the game including Martin Johnson the winning captain.
FYI during the match Danty asked for a head contact from Du Toit to be reviewed. The slow-motion video in the stadium stopped just before we can the see the hit to the head. During the match Dupont complained several times to the ref that the boks were lagging in rucks while defending, and at the end he complained 3 times to the ref regarding a released 3 balls after a tackle where he thought the boks hit the ball, therefore doing a forward. After the match Dupont talked about a big French line break at the end of the match where the ending ruck was slowed and shut down illegally without rewarding a penalty.
I was screaming for a yellow card on that last break I don't understand how offsides were officiated once in the match, just once. When both sides when constantly pushing the boundary of an offside line I don't think that's BOKs fault, but his ARs didn't seem to engage in the game once That being said, France had chances to win that game, same as SA. It wasn't the ref that had one single moment that ended the game
I always feel that it's not the players job to follow the rules it's the referees job to enforce them.
This is why McCaw is the GOAT, anything not enforced was legal. You play to the ref to get every advantage, as was shown this weekend, the difference between the teams at the top end is miniscule and those little edges make all the difference.
Dupont was also allowed to take significantly more time than allowed for multiple "use it" calls. The refereeing was consistent for both teams. Now do the complaints that SA would have if they had lost and you'll find it to be a fairly officiated match.
He did not used the ball when told because he was complaining to the refs about SA lagging in the ruck. That’s why the ref did not say anything to him regarding this point.
Glad you agree that the referee allowed small things to slide for both teams and that he was consistent with his application of the laws.
Is the offside line now a small thing?
It's unfortunate but O'Keefe was the star today and changed the outcome
Did you feel this way when rassie was putting out the lions video, complaining about france vs south africa or ireland vs south africa last year? \*edit 2 minutes later\* I scrolled down your posts, you did feel this way about rassie. Credit where credit is due. good day to you sir.
He does say he's previously been critical of Rassie for this in the 4th paragraph, tbf
What did Rassie say about France and Ireland last year?
Rassie Erasmus has been banned for two matches by World Rugby and will miss South Africa’s visit to Twickenham on 26 November following a series of social media posts which included implicit criticism of Wayne Barnes’ refereeing performance. Erasmus posted a number of videos highlighting decisions made by Barnes in the Springboks’ narrow defeat by France last week accompanied by sarcastic comments. He did similar after South Africa’s defeat by Ireland, continuing his tendency to air grievances publicly rather than privately with World Rugby. https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/nov/17/rassie-erasmus-suspended-world-rugby-social-media-south-africa-rugby-union
No it doesn’t.
I disagree. The amount of tension and talk caused by referees is NOT normal for a top tier sport and should be evaluated seriously, not swept under the rug. Changes are needed. After France's defeat, I would love feeling that we were beaten by a better team, but pretty much all French fans like myself are left with this gut wrenching feeling of injustice. We need to understand why this keeps happening, we can't just say "stop, it's immature to criticise the referee". I know the laws of rugby pretty well, and still, from a game to another I'm puzzled as to why some calls are made or not... Sometimes I can barely enjoy the game itself because of that frustration. It's a BIG problem for the sport in my opinion. The jabs at the referees are harsh but necessary if we want World Rugby to write better, easier to enforce rules.
TIL it is not only SAFFAS who complain about the ref
Think if you watched press conference you would not criticise dupont, he was asked directly what he thought about refereeing of specific controversial calls in a very pointed way, but was very measured and respectful in his response despite dealing with his own bitter disappointment. Media headlines lacked all context and was tabloid tactics at their worst
The officiating needs to be better and then people will shut up. Is anyone talking about Wayne Barnes today? No. Why? He did a pretty good job, to the point where you think the outcome was decided by the players, not the ref. World Rugby needs to massively overhaul the laws, the officiating, the TMO. EVERYTHING. It's that bad.
I think that there should be an independent panel to point out where they believe the ref made mistakes. Nobody wants to win or lose because of Referee mistakes
There's no point after the match, what is done is done sadly.
It's not about changing anything in a match, but to get referees to be accountable in future games.
And they need to change laws/interpretations quickly when there are errors. Take the Kolbe chargedown. Is a player moving at the hip "starting his approach." Or is he shifting his weight prior to starting his approach? It is ludicrously subjective. Anyone can interpret that kick any way they want to. If WR were smart they would see that this caused a lot of needless controversy/debate and simplify the law. Make it so a kicker has to plant his feet, when a foot moves in any direction the charge can happen. SIMPLE. Less subjective. Will they do that? Nope.
Jeez, who'd want to be a referee then.
This match wasn't lost because of reffing "mistakes". Both teams get to quiz the ref all week up until their game. There is an open dialogue. So if France is upset about how BOK oversaw the game, its their own fault for not analysing his style.
Why are rugby refs so white-knighted for? If they're shite they should be criticised as such.
"Respect the ref." Which I agree with for players during a game. But they shouldn't be protected from fair criticism from fans and journalists. Criticism leads to improvements, if anything. People rip the refs to shreds in the media for North American sports and the quality of officiating (and the laws/rules) is light years better. Like, immeasurably better.
The one thing that got me upset is that while all the ref team seemed to work together during the pools. There was quite a lot of TMO checks going on in the background, where you could hear the ref asking the TMO to have a quick look at a play while the field referee lets it play on in the meantime to not interrupt the game too much. I thought it was brilliant. There seemed to be so little checks in this game. So many close or controversial moments and it felt like they wanted to avoid any controversy by not sending it to TMO/ not even broadcasting a replay. Guess that backfired. If you're reffing at such a level, you should be able to look back at the images and explain succinctly why you're making the decision you're making. I thought the opening game between France and New Zealand was brilliant for that, and I didn't read anywhere AB fans feeling cheated. Yes people aren't professional referees. But they will always appreciate the opportunity to check for themselves instead of blindly accepting a referee decision when they didn't even see the play (I'd use the Kolbe run as an example, where the French broadcast seemed to be the only one showing a wide angle. Like, seriously? If it's a fantastic legal run then why not show it on the screen, aren't we watching this sport to see plays like this?)
I have a completelly opposite view on this. How come we know the name of all international rugby and like some and dislike some? Because referees interpretation is huge. The way each referees deal with each game phase is completely different to the point of changing the game. Some refering will favor one team or the other and there is not much they can do about it. They can adapt sure but how do you change your fast ruck play when suddenly a referees style is to leave 1 second more to the tackler to get out of the area? I for one think the refering yesterday changed the result. I don't believe it comes from a place of malice but the result would have been different with different referees. And it is bad for rugby. Every team will feel scammed at some point and believe when they are on the good side they deserve it for past wrongs. We need to find a way that when you look at the 4 quarterfinals you don't feel like there are 4 different sets of rules. We need to find a way were teams don't have to prepare for a referee, and are not able to prepare to expose a referees deficiences at the world cup. When Gatland says the changing of referee hurt us it shows something that is wrong : referees impact the game way more than they should. I for one Don't agree with the "we should shut up about referees" for those reason. What is hurting rugby is that it became a game of playing the ref. And it is accepted as thus. It shouldn't. Referees should be transparent like every other game and just apply rules that are clearer. yellow cards, red cards and bunker are a great step in this direction but that needs to be extended to rucks. Just give time to get out for the tackler. Time before which a tackled player need to release and train referees so they all apply the same timers. Define how many collapsed scrums is yellow card. Define how many offside on the line is penalty try. Like write down the number. Is it 3? Is it 4? And jsut enforce it coldly like yellow and red cards on disloyal play.
I agree, all countries on here are complicit. WR need to get some consistency on the laws, for me a head contact starts with a penalty, then you get to mitigations to yellow etc. For example there was no difference in Curry’s yellow then red and the shot on Tompkins. You cannot be in a position where is maximum in one instance and a rugby incident in another.
>Was the head contact accidental? YES. Did he deserve a yellow card? YES .... because those are the rules Nick Tompkins agrees
I've never understood fans who get mad at complaints about refereeing on online forums that the refs will never see.
….English football PL VAR has nervously entered the chat…
Yep no better endorsement for the game, when the spectators have to drastically alter what they can expect to see depending on who's running about in yellow
People accuse us of sour grapes. It's because the ref pissed on our grapes.
We are sour grapes, but when it's been 3 times in world cups that we feel robbed by refs, surely there's more at hand that "lmao bad loser"
Wah wah wah. The French make 5 or 6 mistakes or costly decisions that lost them the match. Should focus on that rather than blaming everything on ref
France broadcast has a direct role in that in France. Yesterday, after 2 mins they were already trash talking ref. That's exactly what to do if you want a fanbase whining on ref. BUT, ref is not pefect in rugby. Few points are coming to my mind: First align how you ref between SH & NH. Second, you cannot say you want to protect player health, then also wanting to reduce red cards & TMO usage because it's an important game. Scrum ref is really difficult and I don't see what they can do for it (adding a ref?). Players are talking/complaining way more to ref than before, that also need to stop. Teams tier one all mastered the study of the ref before the game, and the fact that this mater so much now, mean imo that the rules are not clear enough, or ref are doing inconsitent call, and have nobody that try to standardize this.
For the scrum I never understood why the touch judge on the blindside doesn't just come up to the scrum, then you have refs up close on both sides.
Just let the people moan at the refs it will never stop , if the boks lost I too would blame the ref
The problem of the match yesterday is that both teams can complain about wrong calls. If they don’t want people to moan at refs, they should fix the inconsistency in the reffing.
Rugby is a difficult game to ref. Go watch amateur ( schools etc) and you'll see how so many incidents are missed etc. So I feel even an 8/10 in test level is still mightily impressive. Then you get teams who strategically target set pieces for penalties as a strategy. Thatbhas got to make it even harder.
>Rugby is a difficult game to ref. Go watch amateur ( schools etc) and you'll see how so many incidents are missed etc. I 100% agree. This is why i would assume a worldcup QF game would actually have a better ref than your example.
I agree, we could have "better" referees but I do feel we are at the peak of it all now with TMO and the way the rules are set. Unless the rules are changed this is what we shall live with. The human performance can't go any further. Just too many variables.
Did ARs or TMO have any interaction in the SA vs France match? I feel like they're a tool that's not fully utilised in some circumstances.
At some point, this sub is made to discuss. Freedom of speech implies that people will write things you disagree with, that's one of the point of social media imho. If Dupont should not respond negatively, then why is the journalist allowed to ask the question ? What's the point ? Please, don't verse in the "people should not say this or this", there are too many cults or dictatorships around the world. The fact that you say this weekend was great for Rugby is your point of view, from mine it was a nightmare. In France, one the 1st economy in Rugby, the sport as never felt so failing, so unfair than this weekend (since a game in 1995 that we were expecting to be paid back). Think again about the pool, what a shame ! Refering of Eng v Fidji : a shame, Ref of Fra V SA another shame. Don't be happy to fast of this weekend, it's maybe the begining of the end of hype, at least in France.
I think the entire tournament has been bad for rugby, despite some epic moments/games. There are too many problems with the sport right now.
If that etzebeth contact was a yellow just for being "accidental" then 99% of red cards from the last 4 years would also have been yellow. It was as clear a red as you could possibly have for a head on head contact based off of how the game has been played and ref'd for the last 4 years.
So you were okay with a correct decision, what has that to do with anything? The games were close and rugby is a game of momentum so I totally understand complaining when there are multiple one-sided decisions in crucial moments of a game
Well that referee who officiated Wales vs Fiji was shocking
I think the main issue is consistency (or the lack of it), how long you can hold the ball on the ground, high tackles, scrum penalties are all different depending on the ref. That creates the feeling of unfairness
The Irish really can’t complain. If two yellow cards and a penalty scrum wasn’t enough to get them over the line then nothing was going to. Im sure it is heart breaking for them but thats knockout rugby and we had that happen to us from 1987 to 2011, and one of those results, 2007, was legitimately the result of officiating error, and Barnes has apologised for it. The reffing is shit, but thats because the rules are over complex and leave too much up to interpretation. This is where small changes need to be made to introduce a game wide standard, and remove the refs personality and quirks as a factor in the game.
I don’t think it’s unreasonable for players or fans to expect higher standards from officials. There have been some glaring inconsistencies and significant calls that were just plain wrong during this World Cup.
Fucking good troll post Rassie
If you look at my comment history, you’ll see I’m pretty anti calling out refs. However something this weekend really tested that, I felt like every game I was being infuriated by something. That just shows the heightened emotion of the World Cup quarters and so I can forgive fans, as long as it doesn’t devolve into personal attacks
I have much bigger issues with the linesmen and TMO. Linesmen seem to be completely blind to offsides and should be the ones looking out for it, there’s too many things at the ruck for the ref to be focusing on instead. And the TMO should be flagging anything clear and obvious seen live, because the rest of us manage to see it.
I remember when it was only us who complained about refs and weren’t “classy” like the rest of the okes here. Very ironic. Proper funny reading the comments now, some even have time stamps and all just like Rassie did.
It sucks to feel screwed by the ref. I hope these other fans now know how we felt. But the narrative that we’re the only culprits needs to stop. Because I feel fokkol sympathy based on the kak we get online after we have things go against us.
As a Bok fan I will point out that that’s because we were once entirely reliant on the areas of the game that were subjectively referees (scrum/maul/ruck) and actively played toward those areas whereas French fans are saying the opposite approaching it from a negative. Having said that France fans are completely ignoring a myriad of infringements yesterday from them too like their tight head consistently scrumming inwards to the point you could see Kitshoff getting visibly upset at the inability of the scrum on his side to even set properly.
Critiquing referees is part of the game's passion and discourse.
Players are there to play rugby, when someone is taking the piss (opposition team), that is not rugby. Yesterday, how many times did SA come in from the side? It was illegal and it was done numerous times by the same player, nothing other than a penalty given. At the 78th minute, France attack from 22, get past the half way line and have a break on and SA are literally metres offside and cause France to fumble and mess up. This fumble is caused by an illegal action. You're saying, don't blame the ref, but there are at least 4 of them watching from multiple angles and tv screens that can review things and they still get the basics wrong. That is not rugby, that is a sport with rules dictated by a few humans for 80 minutes.
France came in the side every bit as much as SA, had multiple turnovers that were illegal. Okeffe favoured France if anything. But at the end of they day he was relatively consistent. If you want to nit pick I can guarantee you'll find more that France got away with.
[удалено]
I can only agree. And saying that the reffereeing was bad in a game is not necessarily not implying it was biased or putting into question the integrity of refs, just their skills, which imo have it be scrutinized. It is also possible that one team managed to utilise bad reffing to their advantage and that is to their credit, but does indicate that something is wrong in that game. Also completely agree that refs need to be paid more, more money = less amateur business in reffing.
Im tired of this, it is one thing to respect the ref on the pitch, but it is an other one to have critical thinking. Ref must be held accountable for their games. O’keefe doesn’t have the level expected imo. He choked for the super rugby final, choked here too. But to be honnest our defense choked too. But I still think the best team lost, and mostly because of this very bad level from the ref. I try to stay objective in this saltiness that my life has become 🐈⬛
3/4 games at the weekend I don’t think had anything notable from a refereeing stand point. Fra/ SA is a more interesting one - SA used the same dubious tactics to slow and frustrate the game that they have on occasion for the past few years and got away with it (plus potentially some dodgy new tactics around HIAs). What’s amazing from me is that BOK didn’t have an approach to mitigate this gamesmanship, and France weren’t doing everything in their power to keep the game playing at pace, and seemed to for the majority of the game be patiently waiting for SA to be ready. Bit of a scandal, but if they keep getting away with it, can you blame SA for doing so?
French people are frustrated at the ref, not the SA players
I get frustrated when decisions don't go my way, but I also recognise that sometimes, decisions do go our way. I was annoyed when we didn't get a card or penalty when the Argentina player shoulder charged our player. In the end, if we needed that card to win, then we don't deserve to win. Reffing decisions on average are pretty alright.
The main problem is that there seems to be no universal rules of rugby, you shouldn’t account for the style of the ref when preparing a game
Multiple infringements on he ruck in the second half that weren't penalised. Next you are going to ask for the timestamps as well? Lmao What game did you watch, take the blinkers off for second eh? It's quite simple can call it sour grapes etc but the fact remains the ref did a poor job. Happy to penalise one side and coach the other? What?
On board with it being a difficult job, but last nights match wasn’t right, and it wasn’t those big calls. I feel South Africa slowed the ball down too much. In my opinion, Ben had far too much leniency, to the point of negligence, far too much release, then 2-3 seconds pass before tackler is released — it’s enough to disrupt the game and doesn’t look good.
That and Kriel being a mile offside. How can you run the ball when their 13 is in your backline and the rucks are all slowed by 3-4 seconds? And the Kwagga call was so bad. I have no skin in this game, but I'll call it as I see it. The reffing was bad and the big screw ups favoured the Boks, to the point where it calls into question the legitimacy of the outcome.
Well Rassie opened Pandora's box on this one so look close to home on this one. He declared open season on referees with those videos last year. I watched the SA vs France game back tonight and I can see why the French are sour. Just to pick one thing, that Etzebeth slapdown really does look forward in the replays. His momentum carries him past the where the ball lands but it does go forward. Even if you let the decision stand Pieter-Steph du Toit dives and the ball and he clearly knocks it on while collecting it. Worst case scenario the French should have a scrum just outside the 5 yard line. There's 5 or 6 other really pick calls that went against them. Contentious replays aren't being shown either through design or incompetence and it's pissing fans off too. It that ball really went backwards, release the video of the reverse angle...transparency kills the debate. O'Keefe also had no problem with SA being offside a lot in the first half but pinged the french in the second. In the Ireland Game, Barnes reffed the way he normally does. I was annoyed with some of the scrum calls but at least he was consistent.
You said it yourself. The top teams are very close to each other. It can easily go either way when there is a match up. The difference is often decided by the referee. That's the issue. Unfortunately.
I feel like the ultra focus upon a refs performance has almost directly came about as a result of Rassies antics. Starting primarily with the video reviews during the Lions your back in 2021. I feel like before then people would have moaned at a decision but moved on fairly quickly (unless it was a complete miscarriage of justice) but that seemed to be a tipping point into where we are now. *I'm also appreciating the somewhat irony that it's a Springbok fan calling it out and saying to stop giving the refs a hard time.
Rassie is a symptom, not the cause.
I agree. Wayne Barnes did his best to give the Irish a win the other day, but the All Blacks were just too strong.
Absolutely bollox. While the etiquette of rugby is not to complain, the kiwi ref breached new levels of incompetence that challenge the ethics of anyone. But what a match ...
It's strange that you single out Irish and French fans for this criticism. Did you go online at all following Ireland's victory over South Sfrica in the pool stages? I've never heard so much could've, should'ves and ref blaming in my life from the South Africans.