Upsets help make a tournament...!

"Upsets help make a tournament but they will remain rare until laws and directives are applied equally to all"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/sep/12/rugby-world-cup-2011-referee

As the RWC 2011 puts every aspect of the pinnacle of our sport under the microscope refereeing inconsistencies and interpretations will be scrutinised.

The above link is to a Paul Rees article in the Guardian, very interesting read.

Penalties awarded to a team are a crucial element in the natural flow and composure of a match, the Laws have to be applied fairly and consistently to both sides at all times to create fair opportunity within the game.


"Before the start of the tournament, the International Rugby Board's director of referees, Paddy O'Brien, told referees and coaches there were five key areas where consistency of application would be demanded. The third involved mauling. "The ball-carrier in a maul," said O'Brien, "must be available to be tackled by the defending team.

"Referee Bryce Lawrence had penalised England for doing something similar in the first half, (against Argentina) so why not when the game was at a crucial stage?"

"Argentina conceded seven penalties in the final quarter of their game against England and were awarded none. Wales were liberally supplied with penalties in the opening hour of their game against South Africa, but only one in the final 20 minutes of a game that ended when Mike Phillips was scragged as he went to pick up the ball from a ruck and the Springboks helped themselves."

"Upsets help make a tournament, but they will remain rare in World Cups until laws and directives are applied equally to all. Argentina defeated France in the 2007 opener not least because the referee Tony Spreadbury did not buckle to pressure and spray the hosts with penalties in the final 10 minutes."

Dont worry Im sure Samoa will do the cup a favour

I'm sorry, but England are notorious for conceding a string of penalties when they're under pressure to avoid conceding a try.

Referees need to get tough and starting dishing out yellow cards before England have saved 7 try scoring opportunities with their cynical negativity.

Referees need to be brave enough to come down hard on professional fouls whether it's the first minute of the 80th.

The reality is that players and coaching are 10 years ahead of the standard of refereeing at the moment. This is what is blighting the game.

When you hear almost every top coach and player come out and say that you essentially have to learn which laws the referee will enforce in the early stages of the game in order to be successful it's easy to see that the referees themselves have dropped the ball.

There is no accountability for referees in the way there is for players. On the big stage guys are dropped for one or two poor performances (unless you're Stephen Donald), whereas we see the worst referees in the world put in shockers and be recycled again and again.

Same shoite different day ghost

Thegreyghost you are broken record. Always the same boring rant about England and referees.

Do you ever talk about anything else?

You can't just rig the result because you dislike a certain side.

Why do you never talk about your own team? They are not the shining light you seem to think they are.

I know you think you are the greatest thing since sliced bread. If you are so meteoric in your interpretations of rugby why don't you get off your sofa bed and become a ref?

If you are as great as you like to believe you will be a top rugby ref in no time.

Beshocked.

This is a thread discussing an article on referees, refereeing and the inconsistencies appearing at the RWC.

maestegmafia wrote:Beshocked.

This is a thread discussing an article on referees, refereeing and the inconsistencies appearing at the RWC.

It's just yet another thread that's been greyghosted.

SafeAsMilk wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:Beshocked.

This is a thread discussing an article on referees, refereeing and the inconsistencies appearing at the RWC.

It's just yet another thread that's been greyghosted.

I'd have to agree. Tired of the same old diatribe from ghost, the self appointed oracle on pretty much everything but especially about the injustices of refereeing that have plagued NZ.

well a new thread seems to have developed here

Agree that upsets are good for the torunament. Argentina were, surely, the team of the last WC.

Not sure where the upsets will come this time. Perhaps with injuries to a few teams, one of the 'minnows' may claim a scalp of the bigger boys.

The Wales Samoa game is probably the most likely 'upset'; how will Wales respond to such a devastatingly close loss? However, does it really make it an upset if everyone can agree on Samoa's quality, and the fact that everyone is aware a Samoan victory is more likely now than ever before in the past due to the Pacific Islanders' professional qualirty.

Ireland could see an upset, and not against Australia. Argentina and Scotland look like they will be playing for the second group place. I'd look to France and Australia for upsets; I can see the Aussies crashing and burning against someone like England, and can see France doing likewise, but also possibly slaying NZ, if not in the group, then maybe in the final! You really never know with France...

Potential Upsets:

Group stage:

Any minnow beats Home nations or SH side, Ire beat Aus to win group
Italy beat Ire, France beat NZ, Samoa or Fiji beat SA, Scots beat Eng,

there are numerous potential ones all entriely possible

Wales will be very upset if they lose to Samoa and gatts even more so although he won't have to come all the way back to Cardiff if they do, I am sure WRU will sack him in NZ,

Clearly the big upset will be if NZ actually win the flipping World Cup at last and although everyone, their wives, their wives sisters' tennis partners and their wives sister's tennis partner's dogs think they will, i am not so sure

beshocked wrote:
Why do you never talk about your own team? They are not the shining light you seem to think they are.

POINT OF LOGIC: If I never talk about them, how do you know I think they are a shining light?

Because talking and thinking are different cognitive functions. I can think all sorts of things that I wouldn't dare write.

If you were half as smart as you think you are you would have picked up the fact that he should have said write, not talk.

So what you are saying is you know what I'm thinking? even though I'm not saying it?

Crikey. That sounds like a definition of paranoia.

miaow wrote:Agree that upsets are good for the torunament. Argentina were, surely, the team of the last WC.

Not sure where the upsets will come this time. Perhaps with injuries to a few teams, one of the 'minnows' may claim a scalp of the bigger boys.

The Wales Samoa game is probably the most likely 'upset'; how will Wales respond to such a devastatingly close loss? However, does it really make it an upset if everyone can agree on Samoa's quality, and the fact that everyone is aware a Samoan victory is more likely now than ever before in the past due to the Pacific Islanders' professional qualirty.

Ireland could see an upset, and not against Australia. Argentina and Scotland look like they will be playing for the second group place. I'd look to France and Australia for upsets; I can see the Aussies crashing and burning against someone like England, and can see France doing likewise, but also possibly slaying NZ, if not in the group, then maybe in the final! You really never know with France...

The next round France taking NZ is the most likely upset should it happen.

I dont think anyone would call Argentina vs Scots a controversial match unless one team pastes the other.

C'mon surely NZ beating France would be the upset.

TheGreyGhost wrote:C'mon surely NZ beating France would be the upset.

Ha ha ha, almost as big as Wales beating Samoa... Last time you beat France was 87, we hadn't ever beaten SAmoa at the RWC

TheGreyGhost wrote:C'mon surely NZ beating France would be the upset.

Depends who the ref is

It will be an upset if Scotland do not make the quarter finals. They are only one of 5 sides to reach the quarter final in all their appearances in the world cup. No prizes for guessing the other four.

It would be a huge upset if England now fail to reach the quarter finals too.

The top one is likely. The latter? Unlikely.

Wales still aren't home and dry if Fiji beat them. It would be an upset if Wales go out based on their current form.

There is always one surprise, this time..................

.........Argentina will knock NZ out in the quarters, that will be the big upset of this tournament........

Kiwis will go in a bit over confident (in spite of all the pre match talk about respect blah blah), Pumas will knock them back at the scrum and with tight driving play. NZ will panic as they usually do after unexpected pressure and make stupid mistakes, bingo, big upset

Remember you read it here first

As an update on the penalty count "Table of Infamy" here is the latest

1 Romania 29 pen 1 card
2 Australia 28 pen 0 card
3 Tonga 27 pen 1 card
4 NZ 26 pen 0 card
4 Samoa 26 pen 1 card
6 England 25 pen 2 cards
7 Georgia 24 pen 0 card
7 Namibia 24 pen 1 card
7 USA 24 pen 0 card

Given that penalties are awarded against teams for "cheating" it appears some teams are "cheating" like stink and getting away with it.

Other teams appear to be getting hammered for it, funny that.

Where did you get the stats from PJ

Hey Maesteg,

http://www.espnscrum.com/2011-rugby-world-cup/rugby/series/86293.html?template=results

Just click on the game you want and it brings up a stat mans dream, turnovers, metres gained, rucks won - everythin dude.

It's just beautiful

Hi.Maestag,I read that did`nt think much about it at the time BUT a few thoughts.
Pre RWC,IRB laid down guidelines to referees for RWC,they have been
implemented as per instructions.
The Referee is the SOLE arbiter on the field of play,TMO has certain specific
guidelines on what they can arbitrate on.It is standard procedure to "play the Referee".
We all moan about refs decisions but be fair ,ALL teams cheat.People brag about Pocock and Broussow,great players,but ignore the fact .
They win the ball,or slow it down or whatever by the same means as Ritchie McCaw.For them it`s great play,for McCaw cheating.
England and Argentina,talking about Argentina getting a string of penalties
but England none.
It mentions Spreadbury in 2007,but nothing about another great upset.
When Wayne Barnes was awarding France a string of penalties,and the All Blacks none in similar circumstances.
Mike Phillips scragged in the Wales game?that was his own fault he took forever to clear the ball from the Rucks.
It`s one thing making sure your ready for the next phase,another to take so long that you lose it.
At most Scrums or breakdowns the ref can ping EITHER side for any number
of offences,same with offsides,and the Maul.
Mostly if a scrum goes down the ref guesses and awards penalties.
BOTH sides are guilty of it and it`s coached now,the only people who REALLY know.
When a Scrum goes down only the FRONTROWS and they arn`t talking.
Sometimes the Refs a scrum half,or Frontrower when playing he picks it most of the time.
BUT those are rare,truth is ALL sides are at it seeing what they can get away with.
Sometimes they get caught at it.

PJHolybloke wrote:As an update on the penalty count "Table of Infamy" here is the latest

1 Romania 29 pen 1 card
2 Australia 28 pen 0 card
3 Tonga 27 pen 1 card
4 NZ 26 pen 0 card
4 Samoa 26 pen 1 card
6 England 25 pen 2 cards
7 Georgia 24 pen 0 card
7 Namibia 24 pen 1 card
7 USA 24 pen 0 card

Given that penalties are awarded against teams for "cheating" it appears some teams are "cheating" like stink and getting away with it.

Other teams appear to be getting hammered for it, funny that.

In defence of NZ ands Aus ( but dont let GG read this) I think a larger percentage ( based on impression) of their penalties have come whilst in possesion of the ball than when defending, from illegaly protecting it from sides trying to spoil rather than from being the spoilers. In general yellow cards are handed out to teams for defensive penalties not offensive ones. You never see a yellow given for obstruction leading toa dissalowed try, but you might for obstruction dentying a clear try..same goes for repeat infringement penalties. The laws and officicating tend to favour attackinsg sides in possesion wghich isnt a bad thing so long as the rules make it possible to defend cleanly ...which given SA's good defensive record and low penalty count apparently it is possible to do. Its also good to see that New Zealand are finaly being forced to consider defending their ball legally, whilst knowing that if sides try to take it off them illeagaly that yellow cards will come.

As for how Georgia got away without having anyone yellowed I think that was just a mercy rule.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

As for how Georgia got away without having anyone yellowed I think that was just a mercy rule.

I dont think that comment is fair on Georgia for the first fifty minutes. Where they were all over England's front five and England were actually lucky to not give away more penalties and have more players in the bin.

England's forwards had no answer to Georgia until they tired in the second half, that is when Georgia got sloppy and gave away all their penalties.

maestegmafia wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

As for how Georgia got away without having anyone yellowed I think that was just a mercy rule.

I dont think that comment is fair on Georgia for the first fifty minutes. Where they were all over England's front five and England were actually lucky to not give away more penalties and have more players in the bin.

England's forwards had no answer to Georgia until they tired in the second half, that is when Georgia got sloppy and gave away all their penalties.

Yes but in the second half they were giving away penalties in the same way England were in the first ( same with the Argentina game) . The penalties that werent given cant affect the yellow cards, so lets not get dragged into a " yeah but they spent the entire game offside" argument. The fact is that Georgia repeatedly got called for penalties, yet did not get called for repeated infringement.

Its a side issue anyway, and a comment I maybe shouldnt have put knowing it would get dragged into a silly Holly Wilaboobie for tat battle. When it really comes down to it we can see form that table that most sides are giving away a similar number of penalties, despite the impression the media and internets give its not just a problem of one team.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

PJHolybloke wrote:As an update on the penalty count "Table of Infamy" here is the latest

1 Romania 29 pen 1 card
2 Australia 28 pen 0 card
3 Tonga 27 pen 1 card
4 NZ 26 pen 0 card
4 Samoa 26 pen 1 card
6 England 25 pen 2 cards
7 Georgia 24 pen 0 card
7 Namibia 24 pen 1 card
7 USA 24 pen 0 card

Given that penalties are awarded against teams for "cheating" it appears some teams are "cheating" like stink and getting away with it.

Other teams appear to be getting hammered for it, funny that.

In defence of NZ ands Aus ( but dont let GG read this) I think a larger percentage ( based on impression) of their penalties have come whilst in possesion of the ball than when defending, from illegaly protecting it from sides trying to spoil rather than from being the spoilers. In general yellow cards are handed out to teams for defensive penalties not offensive ones. You never see a yellow given for obstruction leading toa dissalowed try, but you might for obstruction dentying a clear try..same goes for repeat infringement penalties. The laws and officicating tend to favour attackinsg sides in possesion wghich isnt a bad thing so long as the rules make it possible to defend cleanly ...which given SA's good defensive record and low penalty count apparently it is possible to do. Its also good to see that New Zealand are finaly being forced to consider defending their ball legally, whilst knowing that if sides try to take it off them illeagaly that yellow cards will come.

As for how Georgia got away without having anyone yellowed I think that was just a mercy rule.

Broadly agree with all of that Peter, but I do think there is an argument to card teams for repeated infringements regardless of where and how they occur It's true (and quite proper) that refs will focus on illegality when a team is defending close to it's own try line, but when a team can clock up 15 or 16 penalties in a game without action, it makes you wonder how much more cynical they are likely to become in gaining an advantage over their opponents.

The way I see it is that when the penalty is a result of desperate defending the ref will rightly be looking for it, but there are many more offences occuring in other parts of the field that are just as cynical but don't attract the same attention, or, for that matter, have the same associated threat - you can't kick for 3 points from your own half and refs don't appear to be carding teams for their repetitive "cheating" if it happens away from their own tryline.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

As for how Georgia got away without having anyone yellowed I think that was just a mercy rule.

I dont think that comment is fair on Georgia for the first fifty minutes. Where they were all over England's front five and England were actually lucky to not give away more penalties and have more players in the bin.

England's forwards had no answer to Georgia until they tired in the second half, that is when Georgia got sloppy and gave away all their penalties.

Yes but in the second half they were giving away penalties in the same way England were in the first ( same with the Argentina game) . The penalties that werent given cant affect the yellow cards, so lets not get dragged into a " yeah but they spent the entire game offside" argument. The fact is that Georgia repeatedly got called for penalties, yet did not get called for repeated infringement.

Its a side issue anyway, and a comment I maybe shouldnt have put knowing it would get dragged into a silly Holly Wilaboobie for tat battle. When it really comes down to it we can see form that table that most sides are giving away a similar number of penalties, despite the impression the media and internets give its not just a problem of one team.

No Holly Wilaboobie for tat intended here peter...! This is a point that alludes to another brought up in a thread last week.

But, this purely using England as an example because Georgia had a very strong pack, who were more within the laws that out of them in the referee's eye.

The trend in refereeing is to be kinder to the top nations and give them the benefit of the doubt rather than penalising them where they should be and giving a minnow an opportunity to play their game.

Every time Georgia entered England's 22 last week, England acted illegally at the ruck and many times were not punished for it.

Now part of this is attested to the Fact that England have taken their refereeing advice from Wayne Barnes who seems to have a different interpretation to many other referees, favouring the defence rather than the attacking team at the breakdown. If Barnes were refereeing England would have been doing much better and conceding less penalties.

maestegmafia wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

As for how Georgia got away without having anyone yellowed I think that was just a mercy rule.

I dont think that comment is fair on Georgia for the first fifty minutes. Where they were all over England's front five and England were actually lucky to not give away more penalties and have more players in the bin.

England's forwards had no answer to Georgia until they tired in the second half, that is when Georgia got sloppy and gave away all their penalties.

Yes but in the second half they were giving away penalties in the same way England were in the first ( same with the Argentina game) . The penalties that werent given cant affect the yellow cards, so lets not get dragged into a " yeah but they spent the entire game offside" argument. The fact is that Georgia repeatedly got called for penalties, yet did not get called for repeated infringement.

Its a side issue anyway, and a comment I maybe shouldnt have put knowing it would get dragged into a silly Holly Wilaboobie for tat battle. When it really comes down to it we can see form that table that most sides are giving away a similar number of penalties, despite the impression the media and internets give its not just a problem of one team.

No Holly Wilaboobie for tat intended here peter...! This is a point that alludes to another brought up in a thread last week.

But, this purely using England as an example because Georgia had a very strong pack, who were more within the laws that out of them in the referee's eye.

The trend in refereeing is to be kinder to the top nations and give them the benefit of the doubt rather than penalising them where they should be and giving a minnow an opportunity to play their game.

Every time Georgia entered England's 22 last week, England acted illegally at the ruck and many times were not punished for it.

Now part of this is attested to the Fact that England have taken their refereeing advice from Wayne Barnes who seems to have a different interpretation to many other referees, favouring the defence rather than the attacking team at the breakdown. If Barnes were refereeing England would have been doing much better and conceding less penalties.

The ternd is to bne kind to top nations? Really?
Is that why the penalty table has an even mix of tiop middle and low rank sides, despite the stronger ones having the ball more often and less interest in deliberate infringement? Surely the weaker side would be the one who gets forced into playing on the edge or out and out playing dirty, get tired late on and play scraggy, get tonked in the scrum, and just simply not have the experience to avoid giving away penalties
I dont see any evidence at all of the theory that referees are biassed in strong teams favour, if anything the opposite is true.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

As for how Georgia got away without having anyone yellowed I think that was just a mercy rule.

I dont think that comment is fair on Georgia for the first fifty minutes. Where they were all over England's front five and England were actually lucky to not give away more penalties and have more players in the bin.

England's forwards had no answer to Georgia until they tired in the second half, that is when Georgia got sloppy and gave away all their penalties.

Yes but in the second half they were giving away penalties in the same way England were in the first ( same with the Argentina game) . The penalties that werent given cant affect the yellow cards, so lets not get dragged into a " yeah but they spent the entire game offside" argument. The fact is that Georgia repeatedly got called for penalties, yet did not get called for repeated infringement.

Its a side issue anyway, and a comment I maybe shouldnt have put knowing it would get dragged into a silly Holly Wilaboobie for tat battle. When it really comes down to it we can see form that table that most sides are giving away a similar number of penalties, despite the impression the media and internets give its not just a problem of one team.

No Holly Wilaboobie for tat intended here peter...! This is a point that alludes to another brought up in a thread last week.

But, this purely using England as an example because Georgia had a very strong pack, who were more within the laws that out of them in the referee's eye.

The trend in refereeing is to be kinder to the top nations and give them the benefit of the doubt rather than penalising them where they should be and giving a minnow an opportunity to play their game.

Every time Georgia entered England's 22 last week, England acted illegally at the ruck and many times were not punished for it.

Now part of this is attested to the Fact that England have taken their refereeing advice from Wayne Barnes who seems to have a different interpretation to many other referees, favouring the defence rather than the attacking team at the breakdown. If Barnes were refereeing England would have been doing much better and conceding less penalties.

The ternd is to bne kind to top nations? Really?
Is that why the penalty table has an even mix of tiop middle and low rank sides, despite the stronger ones having the ball more often and less interest in deliberate infringement? Surely the weaker side would be the one who gets forced into playing on the edge or out and out playing dirty, get tired late on and play scraggy, get tonked in the scrum, and just simply not have the experience to avoid giving away penalties
I dont see any evidence at all of the theory that referees are biassed in strong teams favour, if anything the opposite is true.

England could have conceded a lot more penalties against Georgia than they did in the first half. A player should have gone to the bin for illegally interfering with the ball in defence long before Hartley.

Romania, Tonga and Samoa being the three teams out of the top 5 to recieve cards, whilst Australia and NZ have none does suggest that doesn't it Peter?

Australia (16) are second only to Romania (17) in terms of penalty infringements in a single match.

Incidentally, Tonga are joint second with Australia on 16 and yes, Tonga also got a card.

Case proven I think, the smaller nations and England are getting panned.

Maesteg, are you suggesting Kaplan missed some England infringements or that he should have gone to the pocket earlier?

Special mention should go to Italy who have only conceeded 16 penalties in their two matches.... but hang on, they got a card too.

Eh?

Fiji, Ireland, Scotland and SA also get good-boy bonuses on 17 and have no cards.

Squeaky barstewards.

PJHolybloke wrote:Maesteg, are you suggesting Kaplan missed some England infringements or that he should have gone to the pocket earlier?

Bit of both I think.
The standard repsonse to this is to either point out every possible penalty Wales could have concceeded in any game going back over the last 6 decades or say "yeah but Georgia spent the entire game offside".

Whatever its a discussion that going nowhere, I dont buy the argument that referees are biassed in favour of stronger teams.

I think bias suggests that referees are deliberately penalising one team over another and would agree that's not the case.

But the figures do suggest that it's possible to "cheat" like stink in the right area of the pitch and get away with it. The mesage being play smarter not harder perhaps?

They also suggest that if you've got "previous form" you're far more likely to get another card.

I'm off to find the odds on England getting a card against Romania...