Referees

Outrageous news this morning as rouge Irish referee George "Vigilante" Clancy has escaped with a mere warning after blatantly overstepping his jurisdiction and conspiring with an unknown local man to rub out a valid All Black try in Port Elizabeth on Saturday.

After first suggesting that Clancy would be dealt with appropriately "It was disappointing and will form part of our discussions when we next meet." and confirming that the try should have stood, that Clancy was incorrect and that the local South African school teacher had led Clancy astray, toothless IRB chief referee O'Brien again displayed his inept handling of refereeing failure when he did nothing other than offer that "referees will be reminded of the protocol".

In a chilling reminder of O'Brien's failure to tackle the indept performance of English whistler Wayne Barnes in the 2007 RWC, Paddy remarked "the gaffe would not have any World Cup consequences, and didn't affect the outcome of the game".

Israel Dagg has suggested that the pass was not forward anyway, and that the incident which saw the local South African man (drafted in under questionable circumstances at the 11th hour apparently in contingency for such an opportunity) was really a moot point given the legality of the pass in the first place.

Graham Henry, as amiable and level headed as ever pointed out that if the pass was not forward then the try should have been awarded regardless of the efforts of the pair to conspire to find a reason to rule out the try.

It's clear that the sooner that POB is replaced with Steve Walsh, the better.

I think it's clear that this is all part of some communist plot to get rid of those All Blacks after all. Personally I would have thought, a nuclear missile but each to their own.

"Israel Dagg has suggested the pass wasn't forward anyway" No surprise there. Has a kiwi rugby player ever admitting to doing anything wrong on the pitch? I'm guessing he is a little low on intelligence anyway.

George Clancy should get a promotion out of it. Well done Clancy!!

Referees should be promoted for making errors?

leinsterbaby wrote:"Israel Dagg has suggested the pass wasn't forward anyway" No surprise there. Has a kiwi rugby player ever admitting to doing anything wrong on the pitch? I'm guessing he is a little low on intelligence anyway.

George Clancy should get a promotion out of it. Well done Clancy!!

To clarify, according to Henry here, Dagg told him post-match (and presumeably without seeing a replay) that he thought the pass was 50:50.

Players do get things wrong - just look at that England non-try in the 2007 final

TheGreyGhost wrote:Referees should be promoted for making errors?

He didn't make an error. It was a forward pass. He should be congratulated. He had a great game. He should be given the RWC final.

Only a Kiwi could so fervently moan about a forward pass against their team that leads to a try against their team (in RWC 07) then moan that a ref disallowed a try from a Kiwi for a forward pass. Hypocracy in the extreme.

Kiwi rugby philosophy:

One for us another rule for everyone else.

Only NZ can wear black jerseys. Call John Keys.

If a Kiwi does something dirty it was "an accident"

NZ should be allowed do haka everyone must watch and respect.

AB should be allowed score tries from forward passes.


Really hope they get knocked out by France.

Does anyone not get the the irony in this article?

I mean the reference to France's try in 2007.

On Saturday the right decision was reached, albeit in the wrong way. Even the kiwis in the pub admitted that Dagg's pass was forward. And forget what Dagg's view of it was. If the reporting is correct, Dagg 'suggested' (clever use of that word) the pass wasn't forward. That's a bit different to saying it definitely wasn't forward.

I wanted NZ to win btw, but fair and square.

leinsterbaby wrote:

TheGreyGhost wrote:Referees should be promoted for making errors?

He didn't make an error. It was a forward pass. He should be congratulated. He had a great game. He should be given the RWC final.

He did make an error. The referee is not allowed to disallow a try on the basis of something he has already missed...especially not am alleged forward pass in a previous play on the judgement of a local south african TMO with an agenda, and a poor video angle.

Clancy should have been stripped of world cup duties on the basis of his failure to stick to IRB decisions.

We don't want vigilantes or maverick referees going rouge in the RWC.

For me these are the interesting parts of the article…

"They will be told there should not be any breach of protocol as there was on this occasion. They made a call they were not entitled to make. If that means referees miss a knock-on or something else in the leadup to a try, then that's the way it is. This has all been talked about at the IRB level and that was the decision," O'Brien said.

That is the most completely ridiculous comment I have ever heard from somebody in a position of sporting authority. We have technology available, and if there is conclusive evidence there to show if something is a lawful act within the game then protocol should go out of the window and the right decision be reached. Not as Paddy suggests 'we will go with the wrong decision as long as protocol is observed even if we could have got it right by the simple act of stepping outside of protocol'.


South African Sean Veldsman was the original choice to monitor the television judgments at Nelson Mandela Bay Stadium but he was replaced by schoolteacher Meuswesen who originally hailed from Namibia.

Only greyghost could see a South African conspiracy iagainst the All Blacks in them replacing a South African with a Namibian to do the TMO's job. I hope you've got a tin foil helmet GG as I think the aliens are after you as well mate.


Meuswesen interrupted Clancy's request to check on whether Cowan had grounded the ball after backing up a magnificent break and offload from fullback Israel Dagg.
The TMO's additional inquiry about Dagg's pass changed Clancy's ideas and the pair ruled the try out.


This is a misrepresentation of what happened. Meauswesen did not interrupt anything. He informed Clancy that what happened in-goal was fine and asked if he wanted information from prior to the try line. Clancy said yes, and he imparted the information on the forward pass. Clancy then made the decision 'No Try'.


All Black coach Graham Henry supported their ruling even though he knew their verdict had fallen outside their jurisdiction. For some time Henry has campaigned to widen the TMO's powers to check other areas in try-scoring movements.

"If it was a forward pass, it shouldn't have been a try," Henry said.
"If the officials can make good decisions on the evidence they have got, why not? I know it's outside the laws of the game - they should only adjudicate over the goal line. But I haven't got a problem with it.

"That was the reality, it wasn't awarded. I don't know if it was a forward pass or not. I asked Israel Dagg after the game and he reckoned it was 50-50. If we were on the receiving end and South Africa were disallowed a try because it was a forward pass, we would be happy about that."

Henry has things 100% spot on his assessment of the situation. It is just a shame that some of the one eyed AB fans on here can't quite get their other eye open far enough to see that Clancy did the right thing and should be commended for it and not condemned.

No no no no no.

O'Brien is bang on about that. The law as it stands, and as it stood on Saturday is that there are restrictions on what a TMO can comment on.

This decision is one consciously made by the IRB and not some random oversight.

What Clancy did was totally wrong. When Mr. Meuswesen interrupted him and said "do you want to know about what happened prior to the try?" he should have said "no" and awarded the try. This is the LAW of the game.

Whether you, or Meuswesem, or Henry or Clancy think otherwise is entirely irrelevant. That is the LAW and what should have been applied.

Allowing referees and TMOs to change the rules as they see fit is a dangerous thing, and it should not be tolerated.

Far from issuing a warning and "reminding" the referees of protocol, Clancy should have been sacked from the RWC. He knew the law, he chose to ignore it. And that's worse than just being ignorant.

Clearly *some* posters here are clouded by the fact that this decision disadvantaged the All Blacks.

TheGreyGhost wrote:

leinsterbaby wrote:

TheGreyGhost wrote:Referees should be promoted for making errors?

He didn't make an error. It was a forward pass. He should be congratulated. He had a great game. He should be given the RWC final.

He did make an error. The referee is not allowed to disallow a try on the basis of something he has already missed...especially not am alleged forward pass in a previous play on the judgement of a local south african TMO with an agenda, and a poor video angle.

Clancy should have been stripped of world cup duties on the basis of his failure to stick to IRB decisions.

We don't want vigilantes or maverick referees going rouge in the RWC.

Or to summarise you want NZ to be allowed con the ref and score forward pass tries and if the ref disallows them they should be fired. No surprise there really.

There would be no refs left if bans were handed out for refs failing to pick up on NZ indiscretions. Should Rolland be banned for failing to notice Muliana's cheating v SA or Conrad Smiths non try v Aus.

Nope. No one is "conning" any body.

If the referee himself had spotted a forward pass. He could have disallowed the try. The fact that he didn't, despite being in good position probably tells you that the pass wasn't forward.

But it is against the LAW of the game for a TMO to ask a referee to disallow a try based on a forward pass prior to the try being scored.

The other situations on which you are attempting to pass judgement are utterly different.

Why is it so hard for you to understand that this isn't about whether the pass is forward or not? It's about whether the TMO is allowed to comment on it, and whether the referee is allowed to take action on it if he does.

Now the IRB have already clarified that Clancy and the local south african teacher drafted in at the 11th hour under suspicious circumstances were totally and utterly wrong.

So any attempt to deny that this is the case is just revealing your anti-All Black bias and shows your schadenfreud for what it is.

Ldc pete
But dont you think there is some obligation for the referees to act within the rules of the game? If we start disredarding the rules,and letting referees make up their own rules as they go along do , do you think this is going to be a positive move for rugby.
In a couple of weeks time the All Blacks have Mr Clancy again,do you not think the team is entitled to know what the rules are that he presiding with.the last thing rugby needs is to start promoting inconsistency by the referees.
At no stage did Graeme Henry say that the referee did the right thing...

Well now you know what the Welsh Regions have to put up with when Clancy is around,he is a inept one eyed fool.

Yep, I can feel it already, the great wave of dodgy northern hemisphere referees being lined up to provide some ad-hoc refereeing to the All Blacks so the rest of the world can crow on about how great it is that a referee "stood up to New Zealand" by essentially inventing a new sport that is impossible for NZ to win.

Wayne Barnes all over again.

It would be nice to get a level playing field provided by the north, just once.

aucklandlaurie

You are correct, referees should act within the laws of the game, so I refer you to the lawbook and in particular to law 6.A.4 (a) which states...

The referee is the sole judge of fact and of Law during a match. The referee must apply
fairly all the Laws of the Game in every match.

It does not mention IRB protocols in relation to the remit of the TMO. Did Clancy step out of agreed IRB protocols? Arguable, as there is no clear definition of what constitutes 'in the act of scoring' but if Paddy O'Brien says he has then fair enough.

Did he apply the laws of rugby fairly, in particular law 12.1 (a) which states...

Unintentional knock-on or throw forward. A scrum is awarded at the place of
infringement.

The answer is yes he did.

TheGreyGhost wrote:Yep, I can feel it already, the great wave of dodgy northern hemisphere referees being lined up to provide some ad-hoc refereeing to the All Blacks so the rest of the world can crow on about how great it is that a referee "stood up to New Zealand" by essentially inventing a new sport that is impossible for NZ to win.

Wayne Barnes all over again.

It would be nice to get a level playing field provided by the north, just once.

I have genuinely just laughed out loud at this GG and am still trying to work out if you are really this paranoid or on the wind up. Has made me chcukle either way, keep them coming big fella.

LDCPete wrote:aucklandlaurie

You are correct, referees should act within the laws of the game, so I refer you to the lawbook and in particular to law 6.A.4 (a) which states...

The referee is the sole judge of fact and of Law during a match. The referee must apply
fairly all the Laws of the Game in every match.

It does not mention IRB protocols in relation to the remit of the TMO. Did Clancy step out of agreed IRB protocols? Arguable, as there is no clear definition of what constitutes 'in the act of scoring' but if Paddy O'Brien says he has then fair enough.

Did he apply the laws of rugby fairly, in particular law 12.1 (a) which states...

Unintentional knock-on or throw forward. A scrum is awarded at the place of
infringement.

The answer is yes he did.

The referee is the sole judge of fact and of Law during a match. - oh! I thought any local south african teacher could step in and determine the "facts" and "laws" during the match according to you?

The referee must apply fairly all the Laws of the Game in every match. - yes, the law says that the TMO isn't allowed to comment on a forward pass prior to a try, so this didn't happen either.

Clancy should clearly be fired, or at least made to step down from his RWC appointment.

If he had any decency he'd resign, or apologise to New Zealand. Perhaps NZ should revoke his entry visa.

LDC Pete
so the referee could have asked the kid selling ice creams if it was a try, and what ever the kid said,would then become "fact" The sequence has to be within the rules....

Look atit this way.
If Clancy had been watching it back on TV the next day and saw he'd made a msiatke should he have been abel to ring up and demand the try is struck from the record?

He missed it at the time , or perhaps saw it but made a benefit of the doubt call (hardly suprising since forward passes are almost impossible to call consistently well and ones that appear marginal shouldnt be given)


The TMO in this case was an absolute disaster and dropped Clancy in it. Once he was told it wasnt going to be easy to say " yeah thats great but its too late to overule that now" even though thats what he should have done. The pressur eof teh situation go tto him and he compounded a mistake by making another one due to the mistake of another official.

The "justice" of the decision isnt the point to me.

Now you are just being silly laurie, the laws are clear 6.A.6 specifies the people that the referee may consult with. There are in effect 5, and they are

Assistant referees x2
TMO
Officially appoitned timekeeper
Reserve referee (4th official)

No ice cream sellers, although it would be entertaining.

Crumbs, if there's this much outrage when NZ lose now just think how much moaning there will be when France, Aus or SA knock them out of the world cup. Doesn't bear thinking about.

LDc Pete
I seriously wasnt suggesting that he could consult the kid selling ice creams. so please dont call me silly.
And where does the laws say that TMO can make calls on Forward passes.

I reckon any game New Zealand loses from now on the ref should automatically be fired.

Leisterboy
Its because Paddy keeps giving us Irish referees..

aucklandlaurie wrote:Leisterboy
Its because Paddy keeps giving us Irish referees..

Good. Someone needs to make sure NZ aren't allowed score off forward passes. No Irish ref NZ v Aus and Conrad Smith scores off a knock on, opposition robbed. Time to level the playing field.

Oh we wanted to score a try from a forward pass and the ref wouldn't let us. Boo hoo.

makes me wonder why Clancy awarded the other try,there must have been some reason to not award it...

TheGreyGhost wrote:
If the referee himself had spotted a forward pass. He could have disallowed the try. The fact that he didn't, despite being in good position probably tells you that the pass wasn't forward.

GG can we apply the above statement to the 2007 game and Mr Barnes?

Fantastic news from O'Brien and of course he is correct in saying it didn't affect the outcome of the game, if that try had wrongly been allowed, then the score would have been 18-10 which means NZ would still have lost the game

Knackeredknees wrote:

TheGreyGhost wrote:
If the referee himself had spotted a forward pass. He could have disallowed the try. The fact that he didn't, despite being in good position probably tells you that the pass wasn't forward.

GG can we apply the above statement to the 2007 game and Mr Barnes?

leinsterbaby wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:Leisterboy
Its because Paddy keeps giving us Irish referees..

Good. Someone needs to make sure NZ aren't allowed score off forward passes. No Irish ref NZ v Aus and Conrad Smith scores off a knock on, opposition robbed. Time to level the playing field.

Oh we wanted to score a try from a forward pass and the ref wouldn't let us. Boo hoo.

Leintser your emissing the point deliberatly. Its bnot an argument aboiut whether or not the pass was forward but about who and when is allowed to make that decision.
If the IRB were happy with what happened then they wouldnt have repleased a statement that they wewrent happy with it. Im not convvinced there is a need to burn clancy at the stake or hound him out the game like the Indian cricket team would but teh rules do need to be adhered to and it needs to be clear that TMOs are not in a position or allowed to give information to a ref beyond their remit.

Aside form anything else TV pictures are a poor tool to use for judging forward passes.

http://www.irblaws.com/EN/laws/2/6/54/before-the-match/match-officials/referee-consulting-with-others/#clause_54



Anyway, the rumour on the 'Welsh' grapevine is that Peter Allan is being called up

nottins wrote:Fantastic news from O'Brien and of course he is correct in saying it didn't affect the outcome of the game, if that try had wrongly been allowed, then the score would have been 18-10 which means NZ would still have lost the game

True, not even using the Cuteo 10 point try rule.

Law 6.A.6 says what the TMO can be consulted for and it's

Whether kicks go over

Whether foul play was involved in the in-goal area

Whether a ball was grounded or made dead in-goal

And whether a player was in-touch in the act of scoring

Anything else is outside of the laws. However the referee applies the laws in their own way, which is why we have ruck/scrum laws ignored/marginialised, several versions of forward passes applied depending on location/situation, etc.

It would be nice if this did force a change in the laws.

I'm not sure it would Hammer, TMOs seem to have a hard enough time judging what they're already allowed to judge. The more we ask TMOs to go back 4, 5, 10 phases and look for issues the more complex it becomes. Would we ask them to rule if the preceding breakdowns had been refereed correctly? Can. Of. Worms.

I also reckon Steyn's kick to take the score out to 12-0 didn't actually go over, but was called good by the assistant referees. It seemed to drift to the right of the upright, but cleared both of the posts height wise.

From my re-estimation of the incorrect adjudication of the whole game, NZ won 47-0. I can go through the logic of this if anyone is interested.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Aside form anything else TV pictures are a poor tool to use for judging forward passes.

There are occasions where it is difficult to judge forward passes on tv replays, that is true, although in international rugby most pitches are cut in such a way that there are clearly defined grass lines across the field along with the white lines marking various aspects of the playing area. They can all be useful for judging if a pass was forward or not, and the fact remains that Daggs offload was clearly forward.

That is clear and only an extremely one eyed All Black would seek to claim otherwise.

What is also clear is that Clancy and the TMO breached agreed IRB protocols, and we know this because Paddy O'Brien has told us so. So what is a protocol?

The English dictionary definition is this.

— noun
1. the formal etiquette and code of behaviour, precedence, and procedure for state and diplomatic ceremonies
2. a memorandum or record of an agreement, esp one reached in international negotiations, a meeting, etc

Different from a law…

–noun
1. the principles and regulations established in a community by some authority and applicable to its people, whether in the form of legislation or of custom and policies recognized and enforced by judicial decision.
2. any written or positive rule or collection of rules prescribed under the authority of the state or nation, as by the people in its constitution. Compare bylaw, statute law.


Yes, protocol was breached, it's not the first time in any walk of life that this has happened. What you have to ask yourself is why was it breached and what was the end result of it being breached.

It was breached as the TMO had information that a law of rugby union was broken allowing a try to be scored. Did he inform the referee of this because fo some South African conspiracy to undermine the All Blacks World Cup preparations, or did he inform him as he believed it was right in the circumstnaces with regard to the fair application of all of the laws of rugby? Only the TMO truly knows the answer to that question but I am prepared to take a leap of faith that it was the latter. So if we accept that is why it was breached I have no problem with the first part of the important question.

The second part is what was the end result, and the answer is that a try that would otherwise have been awarded despite the play enabling it to be scored breaking the laws of the game was ruled out. So a try where a forward pass was used to score it was not allowed to stand due to a breach of protocol in the interests of the fair application of the laws of the game.

I can live with that to be honest and it matters not to me that a few people seek to castigate Clancy and the TMO for their decision. Here endeth my participation in this argument.

TheGreyGhost wrote:From my re-estimation of the incorrect adjudication of the whole game, NZ won 47-0. I can go through the logic of this if anyone is interested.

Please do

You don't need to go back 4 or 5 phases. One would be enough. Or allow the ref ask for specific passes. Or even allow the captains a couple of chellenges after tries.

Are you sure one would be enough? What if just before the first phase, there was a forward pass that was spotted by the guy who does the announcements on the Tannoy at Mandella stadium? should he be allowed to race on to the field and tell Clancy to disallow the try?

Pete, it's the IRB Laws that were broken not a protocol.

Ghost, you have to draw the line somewhere and I think that not allowing for any forward passes to be ruled on by the TMO is a mistake. It's not a massive one and it's certainly not one of the main problems with the game. If it stays as it is I would lose any sleep over it.

Yep - my feeling is that the TMO should be able to have a word in the refs ear at any point, like any of the other assistant officials...provided he doesn't have to rely on a replay to do so. It would then not hold the game up in any way and the ref could be free to ignore his advice if he so wished.

At the end of the day though, I think we can all agree that Clancy should be set in the stocks in the middle of Eden Park during the opening ceremony and be pelted with rotten fruit by the Auckland public.

TheGreyGhost wrote:Yep - my feeling is that the TMO should be able to have a word in the refs ear at any point, like any of the other assistant officials...provided he doesn't have to rely on a replay to do so. It would then not hold the game up in any way and the ref could be free to ignore his advice if he so wished.

At the end of the day though, I think we can all agree that Clancy should be set in the stocks in the middle of Eden Park during the opening ceremony and be pelted with rotten fruit by the Auckland public.

Are you sure GG, I thought they'd only made one set of stocks - and with Wayne Barnes alreay set in them

Get used to it GG, if you think this ribbing is bad, just wait until the hyped up and eminently beatable Blacks get knocked out of this next WC.

Sorry GW, this thread is about the inadequacy of Irish referee George Clancy. Please keep all off-topic posts somewhere else thanks.

If you want to do the general anxious English hope that one your dodgy English refs will blatantly cheat to upset NZ again you'll have to start your own thread thanks.

TheGreyGhost wrote:Yep - my feeling is that the TMO should be able to have a word in the refs ear at any point

Steve Walsh has already set the precedent in doing that.....

LOL, change the barman.

Again, musical requests are off topic here, and should be posted in the "please change the music, barman" thread.

TheGreyGhost wrote:I also reckon Steyn's kick to take the score out to 12-0 didn't actually go over, but was called good by the assistant referees. It seemed to drift to the right of the upright, but cleared both of the posts height wise.

Really this shows up agin the propbnlem with trying to judge depth and angles from TV pictures. Unless you have specificaly positioned and measured cameras for the incident they can be hugely misleading. For kicks if the put cameras of the psots soley for that purpose they might be able to judge these better than someone on teh ground, as it is its often harder to tell from the pictures than it would be from a well placed official on the gorund. There was a curving kick form Flood during teh 6 nations that went high and was comepltly impossible to tell if it did go over or not.
Forward passes are exactly the same. Theres many cases where the TV pictures make it harder to see what the real angle of the release of the ball was, yet once the TMO is allowe d to adjudicate on these things the pressure is always on the ref to make that call.

As for the having a word theory how woukld that work? TMO shouts ooh forarwd pass...ref blows up. TMO reviews it the replays say " oh no sorry mistake" ? Or We wait for a break in play and then the TMPO goes througha ll the footage of the previous few pahses and calls play back " I think that guiy didnt release as fast as the one you gave a penalty to earlier so you should probably go back for that"? Or during a scrum " there definatly someone doing something they shouldnt but like everyone else im not even really sure how the laws can be practicaly and cosnitiently applied"?

There comes a point where you just have to get on with the game.