Romain Poite reminds me of the humorous inspector who always gets things wrong and has the same logic...players and spectators alike never know how he reasons things out...lol.
Not so funny on the rugby field if you are Willie Le Roux or a Peter Horne.
https://youtu.be/WnlIWpZSPXU
Yeah, the Willie yellow was a farce.
According to that decision, any time you drop an attempted intercept you should get yellowed.
Apparently he wasn't trying to catch it despite running half way across the field to do so, tapped the ball up and would have had a clear run at the line if he caught it.
Another Frenchie idiot.
Another pro ref that makes ridiculous calls.
Would be nice to have just one game where the ref doesn't blunder.
The farcical end to the 3rd Test ABs .v. Lions & Le Roux's card are two examples of Poite's ineptitude & his lofty ref status is a sad indictment of the quality of top tier refs. Ffs in the ABs game he invented some new rules.
Agreed Bob, home- crowd-pleaser of note our Inspector Clouseau is.
Root
They're welcome to get difficult calls wrong. It's human.
It's the clangers that annoy the shit out if me. Especially when they change results.
Some human errors are inevitable but when you have the advantage of multiple slo motion replays and make an absolute shocker of a call, then your quality has to be brought into question.
Actually, I agree with you with the Willie Yellow. It has been constant of late that a intercept going wrong and the ball being lost forward is blown as a deliberate knock down. If you attempt an intercept, you better make it stick. I don't like it, but that is how all the refs see it. Poite is prone to other idiocies too. Home-town-ref.
It's pretty silly that it's even in question.
If he catches it he scores a try.
What player anywhere in the world at any level of the game is going for an intentional knock in that situation? Note the term "INTENTIONAL".
That's what makes it the blatant clanger that it was. Same as the very many clangers this same ref has made in the past...remember Bismark's? The literal textbook tackle that saw him sent off.
How does a professional ref, apparantly deserving of our respect, make a call like that?
I always use cricket as an example when people talk about human error. Remember how much human error there was prior to the review system? Have you seen umpiring the last decade or so...the guys are like robots. They hardly get anything wrong anymore.
So what happened? Is there just less room for corruption now? Has the review system itself helped umpires to look at things more clearly, have they been terrified into making better calls, been forced to be more objective?
Dunno what happened but there is a gulf size difference between the level of umpiring in cricket prior and post. And the dividing line was the review system.
My feeling on rugby refs is that that they get tired as the game goes on. And same as with players, tired bodies make tired minds that make bad decisions.
I've always felt that they should play more of an administrative role and there are enough angles and cameras at pro games these days for the tv ref, who generally has a better veiw of proceedings anyway, to make more calls. He also has the benefit of watching slow motion replays on the fly and making clearer calls and stopping play legitimately.
At scrum time, for example, a tv ref can see both sides of the scrum as well as a top down view. Surely he is more able to make a scrum call than the ref that is only privy to one view of it? The amount of scrum penalties that make no sense...it's ridiculous.
How about offsides? I won't mention a names but certain teams have become adept at creeping offside when the ref is facing the ruck and can't see the backline players behind him. It happens all too often and the linesman don't call it because they don't want to be seen to be interupting proceedings too much. So it goes unpunished.
Agreed. Cricket is much more defined in terms what constitutes deciding criteria for various aspects of the game.
You mention natural breaks in play.
The TV ref in rugby has limited and very strict involvement in the game right now.
He does however have the ability to re-watch events while play continues and if he sees something wrong, why should not be able to make a call?
Same goes for scrums, as mentioned.
TV refs haven't impacted games positively enough because we refuse to use them where they are most valuable.
We give them all the technology and information they need to make calls and then cut them off at the knees by only allowing them into the game for a few specific situations.
I say, widen their scope and get them more involved.
And at some point, somebody is gonna have to take on the seemingly impossible task of explaining to international refs what the word intentional and deliberate actually mean. That might be a good place to start.
My view is that there certainly are a good few aspects of reffing rugby that can be drastically improved without adding any more technology. Simply utalising it more efficiently will suffice.
In these types of discussions it always becomes a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, And it needn't be. Nothing is perfect at outset but small steps in t he right direction are very possible.
Anyway, Rooi, you have some idea as to why cricket calls have improved so much?
I'm not talking about reviews and their outcomes. I'm talking about the first time call from the umpire?
I've thought about it quite a lot but have zero idea.
All I can't think is that reviews have forced greater objectivity.
Remember the Atherton/Donald incident? Haha Atherton got so much on it that it was heading to point. Prior to reviews those types of situations weren't uncommon...these days, well I can't even remember a decision like even being reviewed.
It's not a piss take question btw.
Things like "intent" is the problem with rugby law interpretation...haw can the ref know when something was deliberate in these situations?
To punch at someone and miss is better than punching and actually being successful? A lot of horse manure! Set up a algorithm and let an AI make the decisions...we can hope!
Haha Draad
Bring on Skynet!
What can go wrong?
Nothing...in this timeline.
Thing is though ... Monsieur Twoite seems to get a lot of things wrong ... all the time ... things that influence the outcome of a match.
That to me smacks of incompetence ... and in all fairness, he should have been taken to task and barred from blowing at any test match.
He's just a clueless moron and controversy follows him around from match to match.
Inspector Clouseau at least solves the crime in the end ...
Surely we have better than that useless idiot ...?
In all honesty I can't really think of anyone than can match his ignorance.
Can you?
Well Redneck ... I think that your use of the word "qualified" should be revisited and perhaps replaced with something better suited to Twoite.
Also ... he may be on rugby's elite panel of refs but by no means is there anything "elite" about him..
One could argue the point that a semi-literate man who opened his speech a few years back with the words ... "in the beninging" ... was in fact the President of South Africa. Hard to believe but that too is a fact.
It doesn't "qualify" him as "elite" or as one suited to the office ... but only as an incompetent fool who somehow managed to get his foot in the door.
Incompetence seems to find it's way these days.
As is the case with quotas in sport and affirmative action in the business place ... what choice do we have but to sip our brew and start facebook hate campaigns against these fools.
I'm curious ... what are the other two worst jobs in world? Please don't tell me that the Springbok rugby coach qualifies as one ... !!
"I'm curious ... what are the other two worst jobs in world? Please don't tell me that the Springbok rugby coach qualifies as one ... !!"
Klown, re-read what I said and pay special attention to the bolded bits:
"Well, okay, I suppose you could be Baboon-ou's minder . . . or Moffie's shrink . . . but a test ref is up there with the worst 3 jobs in the world."
Do you need more hints?
Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaaa!!!
Nuff said!!
I should not have mentioned poor old Romain Clouseau on this forum because it causes this reaction to CC and others on this forum bar one.
General Tit ?
Is that a rank like in the army?
or are you just generally a tit?
tit for tat...who's the tat?
Haaaaaaaaahahahahahahaaaaaaa!!!
Didn't see that one coming, Sebastien!!!
