Critical Decisions

Well..... that was a massive mistake by Joubert.... no question
World rugby have offically confirmed this now, but what is the way forward?.
France with the "Forward Try" against the All Blacks
Bryce Lawrence with that disgusting game against South Africa
Craig Joubert now, with a diabolical call against the Scots
This is three instances where the games final result has been dramatically altered or changed in some way by the officiating ref on the day.
The big question is.... what have we learnt from this in the past three world cups, because from what I can see, absolutely nothing.
I don't for a second put all the blame on the refs, because in these high pressure games it is impossible to see everything which unfolds during a game, but with consultation with the linesman, assistants, TMO, these issues could be sorted out.
The big question is where to from here.  Entire nations have been left demoralized or despondent over these stupid decisions, as well as four years of training and preparation by that team going down the drain.
Surely, after all these incidents, which directly affected a team from either progressing in a world cup, or getting knocked out, including ending individual careers, a decision should be made, especially regarding knockout games, but I would prefer a set rule
With all our global rugby brains out there, surely there could be an identified standard which works, and is conducive to enabling the flow of the game.
It is incredibly frustrating to see this happen over and over again at these world cups, when in my eyes, it is preventable.
Quite honestly, despite the small effect on the flow of the game, if the game was extended by 4 minutes due to some crucial calls being checked, I don't see supporters complaining, as long as the end score was an accurate account of the game
I was absolutely gutted for Scotland......... still am

Not even one suggestion from our guru's here?

Wehe . . . another blubbering crybaby who clearly never played a game of rugby in his life and who thinks refereeing is so easy . . . only this one is stamping his foot and demanding replies to his infantile tripe!

Waaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaha!

Rooinek
 
Status: Senior player 
Posts: 2804RE: Critical Decisions
October 20, 2015, 12:06:45

another blubbering crybaby who clearly never played a game of rugby in his life and who thinks refereeing is so easy

Devil's Advocate
 
Status: Bok regular 
Posts: 1008Critical Decisions
October 20, 2015, 08:06:00

I don't for a second put all the blame on the refs, because in these high pressure games it is impossible to see everything which unfolds during a game

Hello Rooi
You have hardly had time to settle back in here, and here you go with another complete and utter blunder of note....... wipe the egg little man
Clearly your standards in life are very low.... no surprise there
I can possibly accept one bad decision that rules a team out a world cup knockout game, but not three.  Clearly you live your life by low and mediocre standards, but if that's what you are accustomed to, who am I to try and help. 
I honestly cannot fathom the level your stupidity with that post, but the good news is, I certainly know it's the real you that's back, because nobody has been this stupid since you left

Sniff . . . not even one suggestion from all the naughty mean old gurus? Boohoohoo!

LMAO!

Normal post from you Rooi
Your first post to me in a long time.... and ............Straight into the pit of shyte posts
You never learn  
LMFAO

When the incident took place, I thought it was a penalty before Joubert even had his arm up. I unleashed a plethora of insults at the "stupid" Scotsman for playing so blatantly from an offisde position. I still didn't notice the Aussie hand when they showed it again on the replay. It looked to me like Joubert had it spot on in the heat of the moment. A very easy mistake to have made. On review he obviously got the call wrong, but damn! I saw it once in real time and again in slow motion and didn't notice the Aussie hand. 
He called what he saw, AND followed IRB protocol with regards to the referral. If anyone should be grilled for the decision, it should be the IRB! 
As someone else had mentioned, would anyone have questioned the call had it happened 10 minutes into the first half? 

 The way the ball was pinging round, you had to ask if Oz had got a touch. We were watching on record and knew seconds later it had come off an Aussie player. Why  could the TMO not have done that and given Craig a heads up? Why was the Hogg late tackle not called? Why was Joubert so quick to make a call he had to be "certain" about. Could he have been certain....nope, it was unclear at regular speed so a scrum should have been called.

If a referee does not use the TMO for critical decisions in a match they should be fired for not following instructions.No one is perfect and mistakes will be made, but this is why we have a TMO in the first place. 

 Laws are created by a governing body, and they are modified and improved by courts applying them. Refs are the rugby equivalent of courts. If Craig had said to the TMO, I need a read on whether an Australian touched the ball....he would have been a hero today. And a welcome precedent would have been set for critical decisions.

Rubbish. The laws are clear about what a TMO can be called for and checking for accidental offside is not one of them.

You can grumble and moan all you like about what you think the TMO should be used for but under the current laws, Joubert was 100% correct not to call for the TMO. Go read the laws yourself if you don't believe me.

For the record, my comment above was in response to Sharkbok, not the repulsive shrieking clown with mascara running down his fat cheeks.

When did we lose the edit function?

 Rooinek
 
Status: Senior player 
Posts: 2808RE: Critical Decisions
October 20, 2015, 14:12:52

Rubbish. The laws are clear about what a TMO can be called for and checking for accidental offside is not one of them. 

You can grumble and moan all you like about what you think the TMO should be used for but under the current laws, Joubert was 100% correct not to call for the TMO. Go read the laws yourself if you don't believe me.

A number of years ago, there were many calls for the powers of the TMO to be extended to calls beyond those in respect of incidents in the in-goal area. On many forums and in many articles people called for the TMO to be given the power to "go back" to previous phases.
How and when did they (the IRB/WR) decided to give in and give the TMO more powers? Marius Jonker, IIRC, was the TMO in a game between two SA sides in a Super Rugby game and there was a try scored after a knock-on. The question from the ref was: "Try or no try?". The TMO knew that he could only answer "yes" or "no". Instead, he then asked the ref whether he was sure that there was nothing else that he wanted him to look at and he repeated it a  few times until the ref picked up that he has noticed something. He then asked the TMO if there was indeed anything else and the TMO then said that there was a knock-on prior to the try being scored. The try was disallowed and the whole world cried foul. Not because it was the right outcome but because Jonker breached the protocol in order to get the correct outcome. The following year, IIRC, the laws were changed to allow the TMO more powers.
My question is this: "If CJ did go ahead and breach the protocol and ask for the TMO to have a look at the incident and got the correct result, would it have been that big a balls-up and could it not possibly have led to WR to have another look at the protocols again?"

I don't know what the correct answer is but, IMO, he would probably have been a bit of a hero if he decided to defy the protocol in order to get the correct outcome and if his actions led to a revisit of the protocol.

 Oh for heaven sake....how did rugby start as a game? Webb Ellis picked up the ball and ran. Rules are there to be challenged....we owe the game to breaking the rules.
All Joubert had to say was that he was unsighted, which he obviously was getting it wrong, and needed the TMO to call it for him. We get the right result, Joubert sets an important precedent and goes down as a  figure  in the history of the reffing, the fans think the right thing has been done.

Rugby is an entertainment ....rules ps haw.....petty thinking.

Ceradunce, if your company has a policy and you decide not to follow the policy because you might make the company a bit of extra money, I'd expect you to be fired. Craig Joubert is not some armchair beer-swilling lout with an opinion on some rugby message board, he's a professional referee. That's how he makes his living so please don't expect him to give up his livelihood for the greater good.

Anyway, there are two differerent discussions here . . . a) what should the TMO be allowed to do and b) should Craig Joubert have asked for the TMO or not. I'm not that interested in a) and I'm only arguing b).

 

 

 Decent companies, companies of substance don't fire employees for breaking rules where they can demonstrate it was the right thing to do....of course you have to have a bit of real experience to know that. 
Likewise there would have been zero repercussions for Joubert if he demonstrated that a decision to go to the TMO was to get the right result and support the larger objectives of the WC and while the use of the TMO is limited and doesn't include this application....it would have been consistent with the overall objective.

"Chairman of the World Rugby Match Officials Selection Committee John Jeffrey said: “The TMO is a part of the match official team and the fantastic technology available is a tool to be used in the making of key decisions during matches. The TMO process is used to make sure the correct calls are made to protect the integrity of the game."
Nobody would have said peep about Joubert protecting the integrity of the game, which clearly has bee n damaged by it's non use.

I don't really have a problem with the offsides call at the end of game - as many have opined, it was an easy mistake especially to the naked eye at real time. Joubert couldn't by rule include the TMO. Joubert is not there to innovate or improvise, but only there to enforce the rules.
I thought the yellow card was abysmal. First for the TMO bringing it to Joubert's attention when he had already settled on a scrum, and then the decision to make it a yellow when at best it was a 50/50 penalty. There was no downward movement of the hand, and the player was just as likely looking to catch it.
To produce a yellow in that circumstance without clear evidence in a critical quarter final matchup was poor judgment on both Joubert and the TMO. The yellow card has been abused this year, has affected too many games and it needs to stop.

 Rooinek
 
Status: Senior player 
Posts: 2809RE: Critical Decisions
October 20, 2015, 15:12:59

Ceradunce, if your company has a policy and you decide not to follow the policy because you might make the company a bit of extra money, I'd expect you to be fired. Craig Joubert is not some armchair beer-swilling lout with an opinion on some rugby message board, he's a professional referee. That's how he makes his living so please don't expect him to give up his livelihood for the greater good.

Anyway, there are two differerent discussions here . . . a) what should the TMO be allowed to do and b) should Craig Joubert have asked for the TMO or not. I'm not that interested in a) and I'm only arguing b).

•  0 Likes

The fact that you are not interested in (a) is of no importance to anybody but yourself. The two (a) and (b) goes hand in hand, i.e. the interaction between the TMO (and the two ARs, for that matter) and the referee, in order to accomplished the correct decision and a fair outcome. Many laws and law changes come about due to so-called "test cases". The same happens in rugby. I have given you one example of what could be perceived as a "test case" and it is my opinion that this incident could (note that is do not say "should") well have served the same purpose. Whether you like it or not and what is important to you, and what not, means nothing. The above  is still my opinion and if you do not like it, I have others as well. 

Well, let's look at the other scenario
Purely because this is 79.23s of a world cup knockout game, which we all know it was, and the ref is uncertain if a foul was committed, and whatever decision he makes now will determine the winner.
He then asks the TMO (against regulations) to review the incident 
Firstly:  
Would the TMO tell him he cannot assist him, (against regulations) would the TMO's job also be on the line here if he did, or does the ref's authority supersede the TMO?
Secondly:  
The TMO assists the ref and Joubert gets the call correct, and the rightful team goes through. What realistically, if Joubert correctly proves why he needed that call from the TMO, could happen to Joubert in front of all the rugby teams, fans, media etc etc
Thirdly:
If the losing team prove the ref blatantly went against strict regulations, which he would have done if he consulted the TMO, could the losing team have a legitimate legal claim change the result  

Wow, you do take yourself very seriously indeed, don't you Ceradunce?

They are two distinct issues. The one is what squealing crybabies like you and Moffie think should happen, the other is to do with Joubert's application of the laws as they stand today.

Hope that clears it up . . . although I somehow doubt it will!

I see Moz just posted a piece while I was busy with mine
I also believe that if all this was done in the best interests of the game, and to protect the integrity of the results, I don't see how consulting the TMO would have been a problem in the long run.
Typical Rooinek to say that rules cannot be broken, he has clearly never been involved in management or senior positions in corporations where the interests of the company are seriously taken into account should someone breach any directive or regulation, but ultimately did it in the best interests of the firm.
Poor Rooi...........
  

Rooi Rooi
What, in your own words, would happen, if Joubert did in fact ask the TMO for clarification on what happened at that time, and got it, used it, and the decision was a scrum instead of a penalty and Scotland won.
What sanction would you recommend for Joubert for disregarding the regulations ? 

Guys, I think you are missing the point a little here. He thought he had seen enough to make the call...and then he made it. We are all pretty much in agreement that it did appear to be offside until we had had a closer look at the replay, where the truth turned out to be something different. Why call in the TV ref, when you are "certain" about what you saw? Sure the crowd were biatching about it and the Scottish players too, but if a ref had to refer a decision every time a scrumhalf moaned about something, rugby matches would be six hours long. He thought he had made the right call, turns out he hadn't! End of story!
Just by the way....I really REALLY wanted Scotland to win the game!  

Yup - spot on bluebok. Watch the reaction of all the players on the field - they all thought it was a knock on as well. It is very unfortunate that the game happened to turn on two penalties and a yellow card that resulted from instinctive, reactive actions - no ill intent, maliciousness, or intention. Both rules should be re-evaluated.

 Agreed Blue. I don't like Joubert, but that was the right call. He had to blow what he saw and couldn't go to the TMO.

DbDraad
 
Status: Senior player 
Posts: 3060RE: Critical Decisions
October 20, 2015, 16:31:11

 Agreed Blue. I don't like Joubert, but that was the right call. He had to blow what he saw and couldn't go to the TMO.

 But what if he did, and it changed the result as we know it

 Rooinek
 
Status: Senior player 
Posts: 2810RE: Critical Decisions
October 20, 2015, 16:11:35

Wow, you do take yourself very seriously indeed, don't you Ceradunce?

They are two distinct issues. The one is what squealing crybabies like you and Moffie think should happen, the other is to do with Joubert's application of the laws as they stand today. 

Hope that clears it up . . . although I somehow doubt it will!

•  0 Likes

There is also a third issue. Little old self-conscious insecure Rooinek squealing: "I am right. I am the only one who is right and I will keep on squealing until you agree with me. How dare you?"

 DA, then he would have been wrong and the result would have been wrong, and Australia would have made a hell of a lot more noise. This is an issue that should have been addressed by WR ages ago. CJ is not the culprit, the laws and the people that make and apply them are. Reffing errors affecting outcomes are just the symptom.

Well Ceradunce, I did express my doubts that you would ever get the distinction and so it turned out. Looks like I was right again after all. 
Look, I know you're not the shiniest coin in the fountain but please try to understand this much . . . just because you're terminally stupid doesn't mean I think I'm some kind of genius. Trust me, it doesn't take much intelligence to best you in any kind of debate . . . and I'm not rushing off to join MENSA just because I overheated your drool-powered brain yet again.
I'm saying Craig Joubert applied the law correctly. You guys can whine and blubber about what you think the law should be, but that's the only point I'm making on this thread . . . and if you're disputing that then all that egg dribbling down your stupid face is your own doing . . . nothing at all to do with me. The laws are available for anyone with internet access.

 Uhmmm. Whining? Not me. I only pointed that there was another possibility. But if you want to be a conformist and stay one, then so be it. Enjoy.

 No Draad the result would have been right....consulting the TMO doesn't change what happened on the field. I have no doubt the Aussies would have complained, but without any credibility.
And here's the thing, there was no problem with Joubert consulting his touch judge, who may have had a different perspective....nor did he leave any time for the TMO to intervene....he rushed to judgement. And now he pays the price. Even if the touch judge said, I think an Aussie may have touched it, that would have been enough evidence to negate the penalty.
When we watched it in real time it looked as if multiple players had touched the ball, what made Joubert so sure that hadn't happened.

 Link to other thread on the subject

 OK Moz, I did not know the assistant ref told him that an Ozzie might have touched tha ball. If that was the case, he should have given a scrum without even going to the TMO. Doubt would have been enough.

 DB, Mozart didn't say the assistant ref told him, he said even if...

 Oops! Thanks JW. IF the AR saw something,  he would have been obligated to inform the ref and it would not have been against protocol for the ref to adjust his ruling. It never happened. ..more ifs and buts. Sad reality...fckn sad. Scotty will be my second team to support henceforth. ..and then Argie.   FREEEEEDOMMM!!!