Wayne Barnes - one major mistake nearly every game!

First topic message reminder :

For a referee who seems to be held in such high regard and who in general terms controls a game well he seems to make a disproportionate number of glaring errors in tight games. It's a pity that after what was such an enthralling game the major talking point is Barnes missing Contemponi being yards offside for Parks drop goal attempt. I bet New Zealand are hoping they avoid him at all costs!

Im not sure the criticism of Barnes is justified. His TJ's should have been in his ear. It isnt his responisbility to ask was everything ok after every play. It is they who inform him of this.

Rugby is such a complex game, with so many rules, that it's almost impossible for a referee to look at every scenario.

At almost every ruck there could be a penalty given to one side - hands in the ruck, not coming in from the back foot, defensive team offside, not rolling away etc.

Do the touch judges monitor offsides etc or is their role for foul play only?

The truth is Referees do make mistakes, but compare that to how many mistakes a team make during a match. Knock ons, forward passes, missed tackles, playing out of position, not getting defensive organisations set up, not competing at breakdowns etc.

and we expect referees to be perfect.

rugbyfan wrote: Do the touch judges monitor offsides etc or is their role for foul play only?

The ARs (ex-TJs) are there primarily for kicks at goal, to judge touch, and for foul play. In addition to this they can advise the referee on whatever he asks them too beforehand. Usually this will include knock-ons (if ref unsighted), and off-sides for scrums and line-outs. Some refs additionally ask for advice on off-sides in open play, forward passes, binding at scrums on far side, etc. It depends on the ref (even at international level, for example Kaplan is known for telling his ARs they're responsible for off-sides). The only few times I've had ARs I haven't had comms so we are limitted. I ask for knock-ons if unsighted and binding at scrums if near their touchline, with pre-arranged signals.

Mike Selig wrote:

rugbyfan wrote: Do the touch judges monitor offsides etc or is their role for foul play only?

The ARs (ex-TJs) are there primarily for kicks at goal, to judge touch, and for foul play. In addition to this they can advise the referee on whatever he asks them too beforehand. Usually this will include knock-ons (if ref unsighted), and off-sides for scrums and line-outs. Some refs additionally ask for advice on off-sides in open play, forward passes, binding at scrums on far side, etc. It depends on the ref (even at international level, for example Kaplan is known for telling his ARs they're responsible for off-sides). The only few times I've had ARs I haven't had comms so we are limitted. I ask for knock-ons if unsighted and binding at scrums if near their touchline, with pre-arranged signals.

thanks, this is what I thought. It's very rare - in fact I'm not sure I can remember an occasion - to see an AR putting his flag up for the defnsive team being offside. Yet knock ons, forward passes etc are routinely called by ARs..

funnyExiledScot wrote:Agreed, yes, such a high profile error is unfortunate, but Scotland lost because of Scotland, not Barnes.

So no credit to Argentina at all, then?

luckless_pedestrian wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:Agreed, yes, such a high profile error is unfortunate, but Scotland lost because of Scotland, not Barnes.

So no credit to Argentina at all, then?

Of course credit to Argentina, but with ten minutes to go, 6 points up, Scotland should have closed the game out. Even after the Argentina try Scotland should have set up the drop goal effort far better.

I actually think Argetina have shown themselves to be the better team in the group games, but Scotland had the game in the bag, almost.......

rugbyfan wrote:

Mike Selig wrote:

rugbyfan wrote: Do the touch judges monitor offsides etc or is their role for foul play only?

The ARs (ex-TJs) are there primarily for kicks at goal, to judge touch, and for foul play. In addition to this they can advise the referee on whatever he asks them too beforehand. Usually this will include knock-ons (if ref unsighted), and off-sides for scrums and line-outs. Some refs additionally ask for advice on off-sides in open play, forward passes, binding at scrums on far side, etc. It depends on the ref (even at international level, for example Kaplan is known for telling his ARs they're responsible for off-sides). The only few times I've had ARs I haven't had comms so we are limitted. I ask for knock-ons if unsighted and binding at scrums if near their touchline, with pre-arranged signals.

thanks, this is what I thought. It's very rare - in fact I'm not sure I can remember an occasion - to see an AR putting his flag up for the defnsive team being offside. Yet knock ons, forward passes etc are routinely called by ARs..

Ah, now ARs are only allowed to "flag" foul play. Anything else is done on Comms, so hopefully you will never have seen an AR putting a flag in for an off-side (although obstruction is technically foul play).

Mike Selig wrote:

rugbyfan wrote:

Mike Selig wrote:

rugbyfan wrote: Do the touch judges monitor offsides etc or is their role for foul play only?

The ARs (ex-TJs) are there primarily for kicks at goal, to judge touch, and for foul play. In addition to this they can advise the referee on whatever he asks them too beforehand. Usually this will include knock-ons (if ref unsighted), and off-sides for scrums and line-outs. Some refs additionally ask for advice on off-sides in open play, forward passes, binding at scrums on far side, etc. It depends on the ref (even at international level, for example Kaplan is known for telling his ARs they're responsible for off-sides). The only few times I've had ARs I haven't had comms so we are limitted. I ask for knock-ons if unsighted and binding at scrums if near their touchline, with pre-arranged signals.

thanks, this is what I thought. It's very rare - in fact I'm not sure I can remember an occasion - to see an AR putting his flag up for the defnsive team being offside. Yet knock ons, forward passes etc are routinely called by ARs..

Ah, now ARs are only allowed to "flag" foul play. Anything else is done on Comms, so hopefully you will never have seen an AR putting a flag in for an off-side (although obstruction is technically foul play).

I have seen plenty of games at all levels (Ulster yesterday for one) where the offsides are called by the TJ's. Very true in that they wont put up a flag but they will usually talk to the ref via the comms to let him know.

luckless_pedestrian wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:Agreed, yes, such a high profile error is unfortunate, but Scotland lost because of Scotland, not Barnes.

So no credit to Argentina at all, then?

Yes, they deserve credit for their response to going 6 points down. That was actually the decisive factor in the game, when they switched on and we switched off. What I meant though was that Scotland had this game within their control, despite the try. When we were gifted that lineout on the Argentina line, we should have won the game from there, against any side. Their defence was good (and illegal), but again, despite that we should have won. That we didn't close was down to us.

That's fair enough, FES. It certainly seemed at though some Scottish players thought the game was won.

Agreed. I think it was Kelly Brown who started congratulating Parks after his swung that drop goal, looks of smiling and punching the air whilst the Pumas had a quick pep talk and came out blazing.

I was actually pretty hacked off with Parks at the time. We were about 5 yards from the try line with a penalty advantage. We could have wasted at least 60 seconds, had a pop for a try (which would have been a decisive score) and had a kick in front of the sticks in any case (which would have eaten up another minute). If Barnes is good at anything it's playing long advantages. Had we done that, we would have been catching the restart with about 3 minutes left of the clock to kill, and would have had the time taken over the kick to refocus for the next phase. Again, a total lack of clear thinking (and ambition) on our part.

For a player who seems to be held in such high regard and who in general terms controls a game well he seems to make a disproportionate number of glaring errors in tight games. It's a pity that after what was such an enthralling game the major talking point is Parks missing a touch, and a drop goal being yards outside the posts. I bet Australia are glad they avoided him!

Ha ha!!! Although I love the idea of Parks playing ahead of Giteau, Barnes or Cooper, I don't think Parks playing for Australia was ever really an option. In fact I don't think he was good enough for a Super 15 team, and just played club rugby when he was over there.

I do think there would be some regrets over Hines though. The Aussies have had some real muck at lock over the last 8 or so years.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:For a player who seems to be held in such high regard and who in general terms controls a game well he seems to make a disproportionate number of glaring errors in tight games. It's a pity that after what was such an enthralling game the major talking point is Parks missing a touch, and a drop goal being yards outside the posts. I bet Australia are glad they avoided him!

Best comment on this thread by a mile including my original post!! I don't know what Andy Robinson was thinking by bringing him on.

Thought I'd just pop in to the "choker" thread and mention the choking of that greatest of all world cup chokers, Wayne Barnes.

Following up his 2007 choke where he failed to penalise France in the dying minutes on any one of 28 opportunities that would have handed NZ the victory, he has repeated the dose already in 2011 where he similarly denied Scotland a penalty in the dying minutes despite Argentinian offending of a very similar nature.

I've seen a lot of posters here, yet again defending Barnes and suggesting Scotland are entirely to blame.

But I'm having none of it. Frankly the same guy has messed up in the same way in another tournament. If we compare that to someone like Stephen Donald - well he doesn't get another opportunity. Why on Earth is so much sympathy extended to this man? Players make mistakes, yes, it costs games. But Scotland were the better team on the day, they made one defensive error, yes. But so did Argentina, and they weren't punished for theirs due to Wayne Barnes' incompetence.

I notice most of the defending of Barnes comes from English posters. Lucky you, that you will never have to suffer under his monocular vision.

Having said that, Alain Rolland was no better. Firstly failing to penalise Jane for a tackle in the air - not foul play, but still a tackle in the air, and still penalisable. If you go up, and don't get the ball and get the man who does, you should be penalised as per the laws. Once again Clancy involved, who was the man on the spot.

But more than that, how many people would be happy for the world cup to be decided by a try like France's second? A score when the referee was in conversation with the defending team's captain and front row? Absolutely unjustifiable. We saw a very similar incident to this a few years ago which was widely discussed in the media.

Why are decent referees not being produced? why are they 10 years behind the professionalism of the players and coaches? I'll tell you why - there are no consequences for incompetence.

TheGreyGhost wrote:Why are decent referees not being produced?

Maybe it's not as easy as it looks. You should train up and find out for yourself?

TheGreyGhost wrote:Why are decent referees not being produced? why are they 10 years behind the professionalism of the players and coaches? I'll tell you why - there are no consequences for incompetence.

Grey Ghost, I suggest that would make a great article opener. Just add 'discuss' at the end.

No don't do it GG! Sorry Luckless, it does seem to be a great topic to discuss. But I hate it when people write the topic, then the word 'discuss' below it. Like they've just dropped some crumbs for us all to fight over or are ordering us to chat about something!

Ha, okay, fair enough. GG, write 'discus' instead.

I daren't write another article. The last two times I've written an article, I've been banned from the site.

All I did was point out that Waldrom had been called up by England, like a lot of die hard England fans claimed would never happen when I was counting non-English members of the England squad.

TheGreyGhost wrote:I daren't write another article. The last two times I've written an article, I've been banned from the site.

All I did was point out that Waldrom had been called up by England, like a lot of die hard England fans claimed would never happen when I was counting non-English members of the England squad.

I've gotta say. you do "go on" sometimes, but you are generally right GG. sometimes people get a bit too defensive on here about things, but i find it hilarious he's been called up after everything I read saying he'd never be called up and it would be a mockery etc etc. thats all very quiet now hes back home!

It's safe and reasonable to say the back-bone of the team is now not English I think. Certainly the star performers are recent imports.

TheGreyGhost wrote:It's safe and reasonable to say the back-bone of the team is now not English I think. Certainly the star performers are recent imports.

I certainly wouldnt call Manu Tuilagi an import, however weird that reads. He's been there since he was what, 4? Same with players like Hartley/Stevens/Armitage who have been there since their younger years, thats no problem for me.

Its the Hape/Flutey/Waldrom/Fourie type players that grind me. Of course, this will all come back to bite me in the jubblies when Ben Morgan decides to play for Wales

and of course, WE'LL STILL TAKE HIM

TheGreyGhost wrote:Thought I'd just pop in to the "choker" thread and mention the choking of that greatest of all world cup chokers, Wayne Barnes.

Following up his 2007 choke where he failed to penalise France in the dying minutes on any one of 28 opportunities that would have handed NZ the victory, he has repeated the dose already in 2011 where he similarly denied Scotland a penalty in the dying minutes despite Argentinian offending of a very similar nature.

I've seen a lot of posters here, yet again defending Barnes and suggesting Scotland are entirely to blame.

But I'm having none of it. Frankly the same guy has messed up in the same way in another tournament. If we compare that to someone like Stephen Donald - well he doesn't get another opportunity. Why on Earth is so much sympathy extended to this man? Players make mistakes, yes, it costs games. But Scotland were the better team on the day, they made one defensive error, yes. But so did Argentina, and they weren't punished for theirs due to Wayne Barnes' incompetence.

I notice most of the defending of Barnes comes from English posters. Lucky you, that you will never have to suffer under his monocular vision.

Having said that, Alain Rolland was no better. Firstly failing to penalise Jane for a tackle in the air - not foul play, but still a tackle in the air, and still penalisable. If you go up, and don't get the ball and get the man who does, you should be penalised as per the laws. Once again Clancy involved, who was the man on the spot.

But more than that, how many people would be happy for the world cup to be decided by a try like France's second? A score when the referee was in conversation with the defending team's captain and front row? Absolutely unjustifiable. We saw a very similar incident to this a few years ago which was widely discussed in the media.

Why are decent referees not being produced? why are they 10 years behind the professionalism of the players and coaches? I'll tell you why - there are no consequences for incompetence.

What a load of balls! Leaving aside what I can only consider is a rant on Wayne Barnes (I am half-english, half-australian but mainly french FYI and please don't say the maths don't add up), you really have a chip on your shoulder with respect to referees. I am defending Barnes as the off-side was marginal, and you would expect his ARs to call it in as he wasn't looking. With regards to '07 if you never spread the ball the off-sides in midfield are immaterial.

AR had an excellent game in France-NZ, you bring up ONE (arguable) mistake, where AR was about 30 metres away (unless he suddenly managed to outrun a rugby ball it is hard to see how he could have got closer) and his assistant was 5 metres away. If you believe it was a tackle in the air (it has been argued by some - not me - that they were both going for the ball), then please at least pick the right target.

Re the second french try, it was due to NZ switching off. watch it again: Rolland is actually turned towards Yachvilli when he takes the tap, so the conversation was over. Time was on, play was open.

If you really believe there are no consequences for poor refereeing performances how do you explain that Dickinson, M. Lawrence and Berdos haven't gotten any "good" appointments for a while.

Referees are as good and probably better than ever, but it is people like you who will see our standards drop, with talented youngsters (such as myself, well for the young part anyway) being put off by the overly aggressive criticism, as is happening in football.

Tuilagi? You mean the same Tuilagi who was an illegal overstayer that the RFU had to employ specialist immigration lawyers in order to rectify his residency so that he could represent England?

I think you'll find he wasn't here at 4...

I thought it was 14 and he was an overstayer who had to appeal to the Home Office to stay because the RFU wanted him.

Mike Selig wrote:

TheGreyGhost wrote:Thought I'd just pop in to the "choker" thread and mention the choking of that greatest of all world cup chokers, Wayne Barnes.

Following up his 2007 choke where he failed to penalise France in the dying minutes on any one of 28 opportunities that would have handed NZ the victory, he has repeated the dose already in 2011 where he similarly denied Scotland a penalty in the dying minutes despite Argentinian offending of a very similar nature.

I've seen a lot of posters here, yet again defending Barnes and suggesting Scotland are entirely to blame.

But I'm having none of it. Frankly the same guy has messed up in the same way in another tournament. If we compare that to someone like Stephen Donald - well he doesn't get another opportunity. Why on Earth is so much sympathy extended to this man? Players make mistakes, yes, it costs games. But Scotland were the better team on the day, they made one defensive error, yes. But so did Argentina, and they weren't punished for theirs due to Wayne Barnes' incompetence.

I notice most of the defending of Barnes comes from English posters. Lucky you, that you will never have to suffer under his monocular vision.

Having said that, Alain Rolland was no better. Firstly failing to penalise Jane for a tackle in the air - not foul play, but still a tackle in the air, and still penalisable. If you go up, and don't get the ball and get the man who does, you should be penalised as per the laws. Once again Clancy involved, who was the man on the spot.

But more than that, how many people would be happy for the world cup to be decided by a try like France's second? A score when the referee was in conversation with the defending team's captain and front row? Absolutely unjustifiable. We saw a very similar incident to this a few years ago which was widely discussed in the media.

Why are decent referees not being produced? why are they 10 years behind the professionalism of the players and coaches? I'll tell you why - there are no consequences for incompetence.

What a load of balls! Leaving aside what I can only consider is a rant on Wayne Barnes (I am half-english, half-australian but mainly french FYI and please don't say the maths don't add up), you really have a chip on your shoulder with respect to referees. I am defending Barnes as the off-side was marginal, and you would expect his ARs to call it in as he wasn't looking. With regards to '07 if you never spread the ball the off-sides in midfield are immaterial.

AR had an excellent game in France-NZ, you bring up ONE (arguable) mistake, where AR was about 30 metres away (unless he suddenly managed to outrun a rugby ball it is hard to see how he could have got closer) and his assistant was 5 metres away. If you believe it was a tackle in the air (it has been argued by some - not me - that they were both going for the ball), then please at least pick the right target.

Re the second french try, it was due to NZ switching off. watch it again: Rolland is actually turned towards Yachvilli when he takes the tap, so the conversation was over. Time was on, play was open.

If you really believe there are no consequences for poor refereeing performances how do you explain that Dickinson, M. Lawrence and Berdos haven't gotten any "good" appointments for a while.

Referees are as good and probably better than ever, but it is people like you who will see our standards drop, with talented youngsters (such as myself, well for the young part anyway) being put off by the overly aggressive criticism, as is happening in football.

Rubbish. McCaw was still talking to Rolland when he turned around to check what was happening - the French dotting the ball down. He clearly has no idea what is happening because he clearly makes a prolonged shrugging gesture as we walks over to ask the assistant referee what happened. It was a farce.

I'm tired of this excuse making for referees "oh it was only marginal, he didn't see it, he was X meters away" It's all nonsense. It's their job. They are consistently getting it wrong, and getting away with it. It is utterly ruining the game, because the outcome of each match, especially the competitive ones are being turned into a lottery. The biggest play of each game is now becoming a refereeing bungle.

I don't have a "chip on my shoulder" about referees, I just expect them to be held accountable to the same high standard as the players, and currently they are clearly not.

The current round of excuse making for Barnes is just laughable "He can't be expected to call off-side, because he was out of position, and wasn't looking".

Well I'm sorry, but it's his job to BE IN THE RIGHT POSITION and BE LOOKING. Prior to the RWC head referee POB stressed that one of the VITAL areas that referees GET RIGHT and CONSISTENTLY is the off-side rule.

Barnes bungles that in a big match, changing the outcome of the match! If this was a surgeon, policeman, teacher, pilot, banker or lawyer, they'd be sacked for incompetence.

As it is, Barnes has repeatedly got away with utter incompetence. Enough is enough, surely.

TheGreyGhost wrote:
Rubbish. McCaw was still talking to Rolland when he turned around to check what was happening - the French dotting the ball down. He clearly has no idea what is happening because he clearly makes a prolonged shrugging gesture as we walks over to ask the assistant referee what happened. It was a farce.

Sorry this is just wrong. As Yachvilli takes the tap, Rolland is clearly looking towards him. he is then totally unsighted by NZ players (who are still all around the mark for the scrum) and doesn't see the grounding, hence the shrug. AR confirms grounding is fine, hence try. If you can't accept this there is no point debating things further.

[quote="TheGreyGhost"][quote="Mike Selig"]

TheGreyGhost wrote:
I'm tired of this excuse making for referees "oh it was only marginal, he didn't see it, he was X meters away" It's all nonsense. It's their job. They are consistently getting it wrong, and getting away with it. It is utterly ruining the game, because the outcome of each match, especially the competitive ones are being turned into a lottery. The biggest play of each game is now becoming a refereeing bungle.

I don't have a "chip on my shoulder" about referees, I just expect them to be held accountable to the same high standard as the players, and currently they are clearly not.

"consistently"? can you please tell me how many decisions you think a referee gets wrong in an average game? How many do you think it is acceptable to get wrong? And then how many decisions you think a referee has to make in an average game? Just so we can work out what "consistently getting it wrong" actually means.

Sorry but your wrong. Rolland engages Woodcock and McCaw in a conversation, they are not able to join a defensive line because he's talking to them. What should they have done? Wandered off while he was talking to them?

It's a farce. I would say "imagine if the RWC was decided by such a refereeing travesty" but frankly, there's no point in imaging it, because I'm sure it will be.

what disney said! (i dont have the facts, just a basic understanding of the situation)

and the politics of the UK immigration system is flawed at its very best but thats for another conversation altogether.

An example of what I deem absolutely fine could be Toby Faletau , he came to Wales pre-school, he's spent at least 3 quarters of his life in Wales but some people seem sure hes Samoan, not Welsh? I'm sure you guys will know this situation when people try to use the whole "PI poaching" crap, people emigrate for a number of reasons, some of them happen to emmigrate because there parents do and they have no real control over the situation.

Its the grown adults that swap allegiances after being produced and developed by a country(well the union of that country) thats the problem.

Here here, well said Comfort.

TheGreyGhost wrote:Sorry but your wrong. Rolland engages Woodcock and McCaw in a conversation, they are not able to join a defensive line because he's talking to them. What should they have done? Wandered off while he was talking to them?

It's a farce. I would say "imagine if the RWC was decided by such a refereeing travesty" but frankly, there's no point in imaging it, because I'm sure it will be.

Rolland was having a conversation with them with his back turned? How rude...

I agree with GG,France's second shouldn't have been a try. ROG got a simlar try against South Africa in 2004 or 2005. I think the ref had called time on that time but it was a similar scenario.

Thomond wrote:I agree with GG,France's second shouldn't have been a try. ROG got a simlar try against South Africa in 2004 or 2005. I think the ref had called time on that time but it was a similar scenario.

It was entirely different, on that occasion the ref asked the SA captain to talk to his players (a bit similar to Clancy during Wales-Argentina if we're looking for comparisons, although that was a worse blunder) whereas here he was talking to Woodcock (in presence of his captain) and had finished his conversation, with time on.

I don't think the conversation had actually finished. Richie was trying to make a point to Rolland, and was patiently waiting for him to finish wahing on about binding. As Richie starts to say his bit, the French take off and score.

Surely it should be taken as read that if the referee has taken time out to talk to players about an issue, then the opposition can't play on.

Otherwise I can foresee that players will be yellow carded for indiscipline in not talking to the referee because he has not officially called "time off". I will also say though that prior to the discussion. Rolland blew his whistle with his arm directly in the air and said "wait a minute, come here". So he'd dragged both of them out of th defensive line. It looked a lot to me like time was off, it was certainly ambiguous, and in that situation ambiguity would be the fault of the officials, who were generally poor in the game anyway.

I'm not even sure the tap was taken from the mark, or was a legitimate tap - I'm sure Rolland doesn't know either because he wasn't looking.

The conversation has finished once the referee has said it has. Given he turned to Yachvilli we can assume the conversation has finished. Richie has no "right" to make a point to Rolland, and certainly not whilst his player is being ticked off.

You say the officials were generally poor in the game anyway, and so far have quoted two examples, so I repeat my earlier questions.

Grasping at straws there. You expected them to move at light speed to the defensive line the instant Rolland deemed he had finished the conversation?

It's just a farce and your defense of it is pure schadenfreude.

More examples of poor refereeing: The way Rolland was continually duped by French play-acting. At one point during a promising AB attack, he stopped the game to attend to French player lying prone on the pitch as though he was seriously injured. When play stopped and NZ were brought back, the French player jumped to his feet and carried on. He should have got a yellow card for his efforts.

Next, was the ridiculous penalty against Kaino, when yet another of the French leapt to the ground theatrically for no reason pretending to be hit in the face.

France have a history of this histrionics and frankly any decent ref would be prepared for them and penalise the behaviour.

TGG, I have to agree about the wendy ball dives from the French, it's totally unacceptable and should be penalised whenever it's spotted. It would soon stop. There's a fair bit of it creeping into the game.

TheGreyGhost wrote:Grasping at straws there. You expected them to move at light speed to the defensive line the instant Rolland deemed he had finished the conversation?

It's just a farce and your defense of it is pure schadenfreude.

More examples of poor refereeing: The way Rolland was continually duped by French play-acting. At one point during a promising AB attack, he stopped the game to attend to French player lying prone on the pitch as though he was seriously injured. When play stopped and NZ were brought back, the French player jumped to his feet and carried on. He should have got a yellow card for his efforts.

Next, was the ridiculous penalty against Kaino, when yet another of the French leapt to the ground theatrically for no reason pretending to be hit in the face.

France have a history of this histrionics and frankly any decent ref would be prepared for them and penalise the behaviour.

Conversation finished, time is now on. The rest of the New-Zealand pack weren't concerned by the conversation so should have been in place anyway. I'm not sure what you expect Rolland to do, wait a few minutes and then ask "is it ok to start now Mr McCaw?"? Frankly you are (again) placing the blame at the door of the officials in order to ignore your own team's failings.

I have no recollection of the first incident.

Kaino was obstructing a french player and rightly penalised. Had I been Rolland I would have had a quiet word with Parra about milking it, but I'm afraid it was a def PK.

Your last sentence is so ridiculous it is unreal. It is akin to saying "the kiwis (or insert any other team you don't like) are all cheats". Refs don't start matches with pre-conceptions you know, otherwise people like you would probably accuse them of being biased and merely acting on what they thought would happen, rather than what did.

When the referee is talking to your front row and your captain, they can't be expected to respond to a quick tap by the opposition. It's frankly ridiculous and your continued attempt to defend the failings of Rolland (and there are many) is truely bizarre. It was unacceptable. He needs to learn and move on. End of.

The French have history in this competition (and the last), remember back to how Wayne Barnes was duped into sending off Luke M in 2007 because of French diving?

Now remember the French player diving over the advertising hordings to milk a penalty earlier in the tournament?

The referees need to wise up and start sending off these cheating French divers before an epidemic ruins rugby the way it's ruined football.

When the referee has finished talking to your captain and prop you are expected to be ready to react to anything. You're a professional rugby player for christ's sake. Your attempts to criticize a perfectly good piece of refereeing are indeed Truly bizarre. NZ need to learn and move on, end of.

Oh for goodness sake, McAllister ran straight accross the french line, YC end of story.

Médard was pushed towards the boards and jumped over them to avoid hitting them, not to win a pen.

I agree in general and it is a great shame that diving seems to be coming into the game but let's not try to pretend it's only the french who are doing it!

Also I find it quite ironic that you feel diving has ruined football. I think Managers and fans blaming everything on the referees has had a far worse effect particularly at grass roots...

It's hard to react to something 15 meters away when the referee has been talking to you by the posts.

Stupid decision.

McAllistair was running in a straight line to the ball and didn't deviate his course. He's entitled to do that. The ball was securely in the hands of AB defenders. The Frenchman realised he'd made a poor kick and tried to milk a penalty. I bet he thought his cream would curdle when old one eye awarded a yellow card to boot.

Medard jumped like a prancing circus pony to milk a penalty. He was hardly touched.

Oh dear. The tap was taken at the mark on the scrum, the discussion had taken place less than 5 metres away.

McAllistair ran towards the corner flag. No neutral I have ever met disputes this.

I bemoan the fact that diving seems to have crept into the game but I don't think it's nearly as much of a problem as the increasing tendency by fans and coaches to blame defeats on referees.

I repeat my question (again): how many errors do you think it is acceptable for a referee to make?

You clearly forget the incident, because McAllistair was running towards the ball in the in-goal area. The Frenchman ran into his back, leapt on the ground like a giant wet blouse and started crying until uncle Barnes changed his nappy and awarded a yellow card. Pitiful behavior for a grown man. I was ashamed for him.

As for "how many errors". A lot fewer than the 28 Barnes made in 2007.

My point is not really a numerical threshold of mistakes for referees to be allowed to make...it's that I can't stand the point that "you can't blame the ref for making mistakes".

Nonsense. Yes you can. They're professionals. No mistake is acceptable. And if they do make obvious blunders then we're all within our rights to point them out and call for corrective action to be taken.

Erm I think you forget the incident. Anyway no point arguing with you, however just to point out not all refs are professional. Rolland for example is a dentist. Barnes used to be a barrister but may be pro now I can't recall.

I find your language quite unnecessarily offensive so I'm out for now. I think you are a huge part of the problem of getting new refs involved.

Very, very few referees are professional, and that is where most of the problems arise from.

BTW you CAN blame a referee for mistakes, I have no gripes with that. I do have a gripe with claiming any referee has ever cost a side the match ever. Or focusing more on the referee's mistakes than that of your team.

For example I wanted Australia to beat Ireland. BL had probably the worst game of any ref in this world cup so far in that match. However he was not the reason Aus lost, in the end Ireland played to their gameplan perfectly and Aus couldn't react.

Mike Selig wrote:Erm I think you forget the incident.

I watched it this morning actually, so it's vivid in my memory.