Penalty Counts - The Table of Infamy Round 3

Well here it is, the table of Saints and Sinners after the third round of games, there are 3 exceptions Georgia have only played 2 games, while Namibia and USA have played 4.


The figures are "total number of penalties", "average penalties per game" "number of yellow cards"

USA / 58 / 14.5 / 3
NZ / 40 / 13.3 / 0
ENG / 38 / 12.6 / 2
NAM / 50 / 12.5 / 1
RUS / 36 / 12.0 / 1
GEO / 24 / 12.0 / 0
TON / 34 / 11.3 / 3
JAP / 33 / 11.0 / 2
SAM / 33 / 11.0 / 1
CAN / 33 / 11.0 / 0
AUS / 32 / 10.6 / 0
ARG / 32 / 10.6 / 0
ROM / 41 / 10.3 / 1
SCO / 29 / 9.6 / 0
WAL / 29 / 9.6 / 0
IRE / 28 / 9.3 / 0
FRA / 28 / 9.3 / 0
FIJ / 27 / 9.0 / 0
ITA / 24 / 8.0 / 1
SA / 23 / 7.6 / 0


What do these figures tell us?

I've got too much time on my hands? The USA are the devil incarnate (conceded an immense 21 in today's game alone)? Refs don't count penalties conceded by NZ? Everybody picks on England? For Georgia it's only a matter of time? Italy have been hard done by? SA have refined their art of cheating so much that it's now become undetectable to the human eye?


What do they tell you?

SA are geniuses (genii? Very clever?) and will win by using the undetectable dark side.

And that table is almost upside-down from what I would have expected, except England. They always cheat :p

The force is strong within us, it is.

I must now report to my jedi master, to tell him of our success and that the dark forces that has controlled our players has been eliminated.

Good boys our players are, the force is strong within them.

Interesting reading,

NZ management must be furious with that - its not even as if they have had much opposition

England as expected - there poor performances have been partly due to poor disipline.

SA are hard to beat, because they are very disiplined and have an excellent defense - the perfect combination for a WC (and why the win without looking good)

Impressive by Italy, although that pool seems to lack high penalties (due to the style of play?)

Im fairly happy with Wales position on that table, but the disipline still needs to improve before the 1/4s.

That 2 of the top 3 head their pools.

I think it tells us that wise teams give penaltys away when a try looks certain

i think it prooves that penalities givien away doenst mean that much.

A team can win a world cup by giving loads away, and a team can win by given hardly any away.

very interseting mind - cheers for the heads up

RubyGuby wrote:I think it tells us that wise teams give penaltys away when a try looks certain

Yep, as our ONE try conceded attests to that theory.

Rollmeister wrote:SA are geniuses (genii? Very clever?) and will win by using the undetectable dark side.

And that table is almost upside-down from what I would have expected, except England. They always cheat :p

Joking aside, I have been appalled by England's penalty count. And given away against teams that they should not have to worry about more often than not.

No disrespect intended to any of our opposition, but that many penalties per game will not take us far in this RWC

The breakdown of penalties awarded by individual refs is quite illuminating, put it this way, Kaplan and Rolland are two refs you may want to avoid if you're "favourite" to win a game.....

Barnes, Lawrence and Pearson are low-impact refs.

And if you're the underdog, Clancy, Owens and Walsh will pile on the agony.

so Craig Joubert is the man then?

Joubert and Poite to be fair Biltong.

Stats can prove anything,the only real opposition the Boks have played Wales,the Boks conceded 3 or 4 times the Kickable Penalties.for example.

Lies, damned lies .........

Ughh, Walsh. That man couldn't impartially ref his way out of a paper bag.

SA always look good at this kind of thing. They are solid, concede very little, yards, penalties, points. They put out less than my ex!

It's the knockout stages where this will really start to matter though.

Rollmeister wrote:Ughh, Walsh. That man couldn't impartially ref his way out of a paper bag.

SA always look good at this kind of thing. They are solid, concede very little, yards, penalties, points. They put out less than my ex!

It's the knockout stages where this will really start to matter though.

so i guess since your divorce/breakup you threw the vaseline away?

Nah, a real Welshman is used to getting buggered! (Figuratively speaking)

Rollmeister wrote:Ughh, Walsh. That man couldn't impartially ref his way out of a paper bag.

SA always look good at this kind of thing. They are solid, concede very little, yards, penalties, points. They put out less than my ex!

It's the knockout stages where this will really start to matter though.

Particularly when you look at the success rates of kicks at goal, in the likely QF between SA and AUS, AUS may get 3 or 4 kickable penalties and are statistically unlikely to get more than 2. On the other hand, AUS may hand SA 5 or 6 kickable penalties, and on current performance SA are unlikely to miss more than 1.

There's a potential 9 points difference.

emack2 wrote:Stats can prove anything,the only real opposition the Boks have played Wales,the Boks conceded 3 or 4 times the Kickable Penalties.for example.

alan we conceded 10 penalties in that match, just from memory 3 were on attack for going of our feet or holding on. We also conceded a penalty when north didn't release Hougaard which should not even have been a penalty for them it should ahve been for us.

so looking at that our discipline has been very good in under pressure against wales.

PJHolybloke wrote:

Rollmeister wrote:Ughh, Walsh. That man couldn't impartially ref his way out of a paper bag.

SA always look good at this kind of thing. They are solid, concede very little, yards, penalties, points. They put out less than my ex!

It's the knockout stages where this will really start to matter though.

Particularly when you look at the success rates of kicks at goal, in the likely QF between SA and AUS, AUS may get 3 or 4 kickable penalties and are statistically unlikely to get more than 2. On the other hand, AUS may hand SA 5 or 6 kickable penalties, and on current performance SA are unlikely to miss more than 1.

There's a potential 9 points difference.

PJ, sssshhht. not every one needs to know.

I think SA discipline has been very good, as alluded to earlier. Welsh discipline was pretty good, bet we let ourselves down against Namibia.

Based on the penalty counts alone though, you have to fancy SA over Aus, as PJHolybloke said.

It will be interesting to see if NZ and other team's penalty count drops as we get into proper knock-out rugby.

biltongbek wrote:

PJHolybloke wrote:

Rollmeister wrote:Ughh, Walsh. That man couldn't impartially ref his way out of a paper bag.

SA always look good at this kind of thing. They are solid, concede very little, yards, penalties, points. They put out less than my ex!

It's the knockout stages where this will really start to matter though.

Particularly when you look at the success rates of kicks at goal, in the likely QF between SA and AUS, AUS may get 3 or 4 kickable penalties and are statistically unlikely to get more than 2. On the other hand, AUS may hand SA 5 or 6 kickable penalties, and on current performance SA are unlikely to miss more than 1.

There's a potential 9 points difference.

PJ, sssshhht. not every one needs to know.

Wales only conceded 5 penalties against SA. One was kickable - and was duly kicked.

south africa have(better not say pedigree or i may get attacked) the experience and i can only see one winner between them and aus. they will make the right decisions aty the right times- be that giving a way a penalty or not!

giving away penalties at the right times can win you games.

But the fact they have so little penalities against is testiment that they have been very much in control of there fixtures, which is worrying.

If you have possesion how can you give away penalties.

NZ v SA will be one hell of a game mind, cant wait

mystiroakey wrote:south africa have(better not say pedigree or i may get attacked) the experience and i can only see one winner between them and aus. they will make the right decisions aty the right times- be that giving a way a penalty or not!

giving away penalties at the right times can win you games.

But the fact they have so little penalities against is testiment that they have been very much in control of there fixtures, which is worrying.

If you have possesion how can you give away penalties.

NZ v SA will be one hell of a game mind, cant wait

SA have bossed 100% of their scrums and have over 92% success rate at the breakdown, oh and BB hasn't really been at it yet....

If NZ do come up against SA, they'd better pay a bit more attention to that penalty count - in doing so they might lose a bit of their edge though it's a fine balance and no mistake.

PJHolybloke wrote:


SA have bossed 100% of their scrums and have over 92% success rate at the breakdown, oh and BB hasn't really been at it yet....

If NZ do come up against SA, they'd better pay a bit more attention to that penalty count - in doing so they might lose a bit of their edge though it's a fine balance and no mistake.

Unfortunately for us (NZ), it doesn't matter who we play our penalty count, since the current guidelines were put in place, has generally been greater than the opposition. By my count: 17 games more penalties than opposition, 4 times the same, 2 times less penalties than the opposition.

Either we consistently infringe more than the opposition, or there's a referee bias. It could be either. Although it's worth noting the only independent review of rugby refereeing indicates refereeing is biased and the IRB doesn't publish any quality reviews if refereeing. The other alternative is that the risk is worth the reward and is a tactical ploy by the coaches.

My personal view is: Refereeing has a large element of subjectivity. All sides infringe constantly. Refereeing is often inconsistent. I don't believe it matters what we do, we will be penalised, by and large, more than the opposition. At times this really stiffles our ability to play, but also means we have to stick to an expansive, high tempo game.

ermm , i can not see how or why professional reffs would single out NZ(the best team), most 'best' teams in sport get the breaks in pressure situations.

Sorry pal its just the way you guys play, england are very similar in our penalty count.

But the truth is its not worth worrying about to much, its good to bring it down but giving away penalties at the wrong time in the wrong place is the only thing teams need to worry about, not how many if they are coasting

mystiroakey wrote:ermm , i can not see how or why professional reffs would single out NZ(the best team), most 'best' teams in sport get the breaks in pressure situations.

Sorry pal its just the way you guys play, england are very similar in our penalty count.

But the truth is its not worth worrying about to much, its good to bring it down but giving away penalties at the wrong time in the wrong place is the only thing teams need to worry about, not how many if they are coasting

I hope you are right about the last bit. In terms of refereeing bias, I hope you are right. All I am doing is expressing my doubts. I'd like to the IRB or someone look into it. My expertise is in quantitative and qualitative analysis so I've got fairly strong opinions on what I'd like. The point is refereeing bias can't be ruled out and should be looked at in international rugby. It's not hard to do. The IRB may have done it, but haven't published the results.

being an england football fan, and being told by everyone in the game that yep you have been cheated out of many goals and wins, but nothing will be done about it(we have the tech- but it wont be used) i can understand your paranoia.

you may be right, but i personally cant see why reffs would be biased against the all blacks.

I know I'm paranoid. But in my defence, the penalty count record for NZ is quite different from other comparable teams and the only published independent research I've seen, indicates that professional referees are biased. As far as I'm aware european teams with NZ coaches are no more penalised than the opposition, and kiwis playing europe are no more penalised than other players. However, there is a clear systemic issue with the AB's over a significant timespan. I'd say its worth investigating.

Personally I think NZ play on the edge and always have done, by constantly pushing the boundaries any team will generate more infringements than a team playing conservatively.

The point to bear in mind is that teams only get really punished (i.e. get a yellow card) for defensive penalty infringements in the red zone, NZ clearly aren't doing that so the risk/reward element mentioned earlier is probably part of the coaching plan.

I expect NZ's penalty count to drop into single figures per game once we get down to the nitty-gritty of knockout rugby.

How are refs biased against NZ

All them penalties conceded and as usual no yellow cards.

Wasn't there a report from the tri nations that showed that NZ had to concede twice as many tries as SA and Aus to get a yellow card....or something like that. That would suggest that they get reffed too leniently compared with everyone else.

no it was 6 times.

blackcanelion wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:ermm , i can not see how or why professional reffs would single out NZ(the best team), most 'best' teams in sport get the breaks in pressure situations.

Sorry pal its just the way you guys play, england are very similar in our penalty count.

But the truth is its not worth worrying about to much, its good to bring it down but giving away penalties at the wrong time in the wrong place is the only thing teams need to worry about, not how many if they are coasting

I hope you are right about the last bit. In terms of refereeing bias, I hope you are right. All I am doing is expressing my doubts. I'd like to the IRB or someone look into it. My expertise is in quantitative and qualitative analysis so I've got fairly strong opinions on what I'd like. The point is refereeing bias can't be ruled out and should be looked at in international rugby. It's not hard to do. The IRB may have done it, but haven't published the results.

I have never understood how anyone can suggest that a top class rugby referee could be, or would want to be, in any way biased. Being an analyst you would understand that bias is an emotion, unless the is some sort of remuneration involved. If you are suggesting some of them are on the take in some way or another, then that is a different matter. Otherwise, why would an individual who has, mainly on a part-time basis, given a large part of their life to the task,
risk giving one team or another an unnecessary advantage? It just doesn't make any sense.

As an Irish supporter, I was particularly miffed at Jonathan Kaplan's decision to award a try to Wales in this year's 6N game, but at no stage did I believe that he was favouring them in some way. I saw it as an SH referee being a bit(well, a lot) more free and easy about the laws of the game then his NH colleagues.

A clear distinction should be made between, what some consider to be, bad decisions or different interpretations, and deliberately trying to assist one side or another.

So what do do think the results of this IRB investigation would show? Has Kaplan got a Welsh grandmother he's particularly fond of? Or maybe he drives a red Ferrari!

doctornickolas wrote:How are refs biased against NZ

All them penalties conceded and as usual no yellow cards.

Wasn't there a report from the tri nations that showed that NZ had to concede twice as many tries as SA and Aus to get a yellow card....or something like that. That would suggest that they get reffed too leniently compared with everyone else.

Yes, from first 5 tri nations games of 2010. NZ had 43 penalties against for every yellow card. SA and OZ were about 6-7 penalties against for every yellow card. Very limited sample but suggested at the time NZ are happy to concede a penalty rather than risk 7 points, in the knowledge they get a pretty friendly run in terms of actually getting a yellow.

Tells me that SA are definatly thugs, look at all the red cards. Oh.

In defence of NZ's record they have a disproportionatly high number of offensive ( thats is in possesion) penalties for technical infringements. This not only explains the lack of yellows but also argues against the "cynical defence" to some extent, although not entirely. They do openly speak of their dislike of giveing away tries and teh "smart" play of Mccaw and others iis legendary. I diont think theres any question that the ABs are as prgmatic as any other side when it comes to conceeding calculated penalties, but they are less often put in a position that they feel teh need to because they are a better side than most. The high number of in possesion penalties can in part be explained by the amount of posession tehy have and desire to generate quick ball, they often cross teh line tryiong to protect this. Sides often feel tehir only hope of defending against teh ABS is to get into a scrap with them and contest for everything, this creats a bit of a lottery. It would be interesting to see how many penalties sides playing the all blacks conceed...i suggets it would be higher than their avergae ( as I beleive is also the case with sides playing England who also in general have looked to scrap for every posession).

The US? Jesus, i guess they are confussed by the lack of bats and big gloves.

In terms of the refs (redstag?) has been posting up a table form the referees forum where they have been rated by their peers..Bryce Lawrence ( the NZ ref) was coming out bottom last time I saw it. Any update on that?

40 penalties given away in 3 games and no yellow issued?
That’s the all blacks for ya, it’s not that they have a skill of getting away without being pinged, but they’re never shown a card.

Hmm it's interesting that NZ are 2nd in the penalty conceded list but have yet to be shown a yellow card....

SA and Ireland have been accused of spoiling tactics but are two of the most disciplined sides. SA and Italy in particular have been incredibly disciplined.

If you took Buckley out of the Ireland side we would be closer to the bottom as he conceded 4 against Russia.

Here are the penalty stats for the Tri Nations since the last RWC.

Penalty And yellow cards/red cards stats for tri nation teams since last RWC.
South Africa
Matches played 22
Penalties conceded 225
Yellow cards recieved 7
Average penalties per match 10.22
Matches per yellow card 3.14
Penalties per yellow card 32.14
Penalty count per opponent SA 110, NZ 125 – SA 115, OZ 104
Yellow cards received per vs opponent, against NZ – 5, against OZ – 2

Australia
Matches played 25
Penalties conceded 249
Yellow cards recieved 9 one became a red
Average penalties per match 9.96
Matches per yellow card 2.77
Penalties per yellow card 27.66
Penalty count per opponent OZ 145, NZ 160 – SA 115, OZ 104
Yellow cards received per vs opponent, against NZ – 4, against SA – 5

New Zealand
Matches played 25
Penalties conceded 285
Yellow cards recieved 4
Average penalties per match 11.4
Matches per yellow card 6.25
Penalties per yellow card 71.25
Penalty count per opponent OZ 145, NZ 160 – SA 110, NZ 125
Yellow cards received per vs opponent, against OZ – 3, against SA – 1

mankiaow wrote:

I have never understood how anyone can suggest that a top class rugby referee could be, or would want to be, in any way biased. Being an analyst you would understand that bias is an emotion, unless the is some sort of remuneration involved. If you are suggesting some of them are on the take in some way or another, then that is a different matter. Otherwise, why would an individual who has, mainly on a part-time basis, given a large part of their life to the task,
risk giving one team or another an unnecessary advantage? It just doesn't make any sense.

As an Irish supporter, I was particularly miffed at Jonathan Kaplan's decision to award a try to Wales in this year's 6N game, but at no stage did I believe that he was favouring them in some way. I saw it as an SH referee being a bit(well, a lot) more free and easy about the laws of the game then his NH colleagues.

A clear distinction should be made between, what some consider to be, bad decisions or different interpretations, and deliberately trying to assist one side or another.

So what do do think the results of this IRB investigation would show? Has Kaplan got a Welsh grandmother he's particularly fond of? Or maybe he drives a red Ferrari!

A few points:

1: I'm not suggesting any deliberate or intentional bias.
2: The suggestion of bias in professional rugby referees was the result of research undertaken by academics from Cambridge University and the University of London (I don't know how good it is).
3. Yes teams like England and Ireland have had some calls go against them, and some poor penalty counts in games. However, none of the tri nations teams or six nations teams have stats comparable to the AB's. I.e the penalty counts tend to even out over time. NZ and Argentina are the only two teams to come out consistently on the wrong side of the ref.
4. Penalty count vs yellow card is a meaningless stat for a number of reasons. That have been gone into in a number of other posts. It could for instance be used as further evidence that the AB's are over penalised.
5. I think interepretation issues are a red herring. If it was just this then SA and Aus would show a similar trend.
6. To my mind the IRB should be reviewing their refs, by comparing actual infringements with those penalised. The trends (I.e. not individual refs) should be published and therefore transparent. I think there are issues with a largely qualitative review of refereeing (which as I understand its the current practice).
7. How would they use it. Well not to castigate refs. As a learning tool obviously. To ensure that refereeing is consistent, and as a tool to back up referees if teams can be shown to consistently infringe.
8. Lastly, the stat is there. The question is: is it because the AB's infringe more, the refs are harder on them, or is it just a statistical blip. I think it's a fair question to ask. Ask yourself, is it any worse to insinuatre that a team is dishonest, or that referees may penalise one side more than another. To my mind each is as bad as the other.

Blackcanelion

The penalties per yellow card issue is interesting in one way, in that it is indicative of the type of offence being committed. Yellow cards are given more readily for infringements by the defending side, repeated infringements (either same type of penalty or same player getting pinged on several occasions) and penalties which prevent try scoring opportunities. That the ABs get few cards despite giving away a relatively high number of penalties suggests some or all of the following:
1 - A high proportion of the penalties are while you are the attacking side. Would be things like not releasing (isolated players), illegal entry at rucks (something England's backs are prone to), and crossing. All of these are more likely because of the expansive game the ABs play and because of the speed of your backline.

2 - Your players are smart enough to spread the penalties around and not to be caught doing the same thing repeatedly.

3 - Again, your team is smart enough in defence to concede penalties further out from the try line (i.e. to know that you are in danger and to kill the ball a couple of phases earlier than England do).

Some good sensible debate going on here. So far the 2 most interesting points raised are that commiting infringements in posession are considered less serious than those comitted without posession, and that refs (purely by being human) will develop a natural bias in the way they run a game.

In the first instance I disagree on the basis that if they were less serious, surely they would be reduced to free kick offences?

In the second instance, the stats I'm collecting on penalties relative to individual refs, do suggest there is a "leaning" one way from certain individuals. It's nothing sinister in terms of national bias, but it does suggest certain refs will "reward" the favourites, while others will hammer the underdog, and surprising enough one or two may be over penalising the favourites.

It's still a work in progress and I want to include 6N & 3N matches to eliminate the special instructions given to refs prior to the WC.

PJ i have done the 3 nations from 2008, if you'd like I can provide that info to you. did it as a colllective over the four years but also did the referees indivdually.

PJ

With regard to penalties in attack v defence, I think part of the issue is that a defensive penalty is more often cynical (premeditated might be too strong a word, but 'calculated' definitely fits), whereas penalties against an attacking side are often caused by over-eagerness (for example support players entering the ruck from the side or diving over the ball). As such, it is understandable that they are considered differently by the referees.

I did get the impression towards the end of the England v Romania game that the ref became more lenient on the Romanians and stricter on England. Obviously by then it had no impact on the outcome (England had already earned their bonus point and a big poitns difference advantage), but I think without it England might have got a couple more tries. Most of the match (up to about 65-70 minutes) though I thought the ref was even-handed, and I think ended up just taking a bit of pity on the Romanians to save them from more scorebaord punishment.

Oh, and I have to criticise the thread title - great opportunity to do a Frankie Howard take-off:
'Infamy, Infamy, the ref has got it infamy...'

.. That was Kenneth Williams as he got dumped into a tank of goo by his own creations. Dont think Frankie Howard was in that one

Tri Nation stats since last RWC per individual referee.

Bryce Lawrence
SA - Matches 4- penalties 45
OZ – Matches 4 – Penalties 33

Linden Brey
SA – matches 1 – Penalties 12
OZ – matches 1 – Penalties 10 -

Alain Rolland
SA – matches 5 – penalties 46 – yellow cards 1
OZ – matches 3 – penalties 29
NZ – matches 4 – penalties 44

Wayne Barnes
SA – matches 2 – penalties 21
OZ – matches 3 – penalties 28 - yellow cards 1
NZ – matches 1 – penalties 10

George Clancy
SA – matches 2 – penalties 18 - yellow cards 2
OZ – matches 1 – penalties 7 – yellow cards 1
NZ – matches 1 – penalties 12

Chris Pollock
SA – matches 1 – penalties 8
OZ – matches 1 – penalties 13

Craig Joubert
OZ – matches 5 – penalties 57 – yellow cards 3
NZ – matches 5 – penalties 58 – yellow cards 2

Mark Lawrence
OZ – matches 3 – penalties 25
NZ – matches 3 – penalties 35 – yellow cards 1

Jonothan Kaplan
Oz – matches 3 – penalties 33 – yellow cards 1
NZ – matches 3 – penalties 39

Alan Lewis
SA – matches 1 - penalties 5 – yellow cards 1
OZ – matches 1 – penalties 12
NZ – matches 2 – penalties 18

Stuart Dickinson
SA – matches 1 – penalties 13
NZ – matches 1 – penalties 12

Matthew Goddard
SA – matches 2 – penalties 32 – yellow cards 1
NZ – matches 2 – penalties 23

Nigel Owens
SA – matches 3 – penalties 25 – yellow cards 2
NZ – matches 3 – penalties 36 – yellow cards 1

Guess Joubert and Owens wont be on anyones Chritsmas card list this year