Nigel Owens abuse

First topic message reminder :

Not sure if anyone has seen this but the abuse Nigel Owens is getting on Twitter and Facebook from Samoa fans is shocking. For me this makes me glad they are no longer in the RWC.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Nigel-Ref-Owens/285269013216

TheGreyGhost wrote:

BlueNote wrote:"Is it not that you infer from his re-tweet that he agrees with it...Is that not entirely about your perception?"

Nope, it isn't, it's based on the words cited above, which are a clear endorsement and encouragement. It's the perfectly obvious inference from what he is reported as having said (assuming he's not being mis-reported), not the mere fact of re-tweeting.

But you don't feel Graham Henry used a very similar device when he said of Wayne Barnes "You all saw it, it's not for me to comment, that's the job others, we're going to leave that to others, like you [the media]".

Ali Williams also went on a radio show shortly after the 2007 incident and used reasonably strong language to describe Barnes' performance. But was not cited.

You don't think there's any double standard here?

Had he been warned the week before for doing exactkly the same thing?

The point is that the reported comments go way beyond criticism of the ref's performance to encouragement of personal violence by way of retribution. As far as I am concerned, even mere criticism should be measured and appropriate, but this is something completely different.

TheGreyGhost wrote:He compared him to the faeces of a bovine creature, in less measured syntax.

So your saying that it's just a question of subtlty? rather than a semantic or moral failing? Are you saying that if all in question in the Samoa incident had been slightly more measured in their use of language, then the sentiment was generally acceptable and possibly even correct?

You can imply so much by saying little. He could have implied the ref was biased in a perhaps more subtle way and people could have taken that.

But to come out and label someone a cheaing racist, then endorsing and laughing about death threats is insane. This a week after his first indisgretion.

Ali Williams, well, thats stupid, and it does smack of double standards a little, but labelling a refs performance as "sh*t" is slightly different from calling the ref a cheating racist.

My main point is, it wasnt just an attack at the refs performance. More an attack on him as an individual with a side of calling him biased thrown in (this again is different than just saying the ref was rubbish, biased/rubbish - seperate insults altogether).

Yes, entirely agree with you Comfort.

I would even go further and say that players shouldn't be criticising referees performances at all.

I think if the team want to make an official complaint, then there is a mechanism for doing so. Random ad hoc complaints by individuals via social network sites, or media outlets is not particularly professional in my few.

I also think that the IRB does have to deal more robustly with blatant refereeing failures, independently of any complaint.

Agree entirely on the IRB acting on referees performances after games.

Yeah, any coaches/team manageres who let their players go on a social network the night after a tough game are partaking in stupid management in my eyes. These people aren't going to be in the right frame of mind (especially after a game like that) to be making well-balanced comments to the public.


And on the game in question, there was perhaps some calls that were contentious from Owens, but in how many games arent there any contentious calls? The problem now is, most of the IRB focus will be shifted (and correctly) to dealing with him and his vile rant rather than looking at the ref's performance.

(p.s. im sure they'll take a look and give feedback to Owens anyway, but perhaps not to anywhere near the same extent as could have been done).

Well the referees for the fknockouts were selected based on their performace reviews.

Apparently being gay and biased against Samoa is better than what Barnes and co managed. (Read as "humour")

Aparently the IRB have been focussing on the eperfomance with regard to the 5 instriuctions they sent out, as well as looking at major errors. It also seem they want refs to do more penalising and less talking...which is at odds with the general feeling in the reffing community and what people feel sets rugby reffing apart. Soemtimes you can keep the game flowing without the need to penalise, premept and avoid the penalty if possible.

Either way it seems his performnace in this game has been over crtitisized and isnt anywhere near as bad as certain media outlets have protrayed it. All that plus the Twittering has only added to the abuse.,
All in all its just like any Premier League soccer weekend.

Pete I hope they do look at those 5 points seriously, along with getting some experts in to help with the scrums - or as i call them super-fun-lottery time.

I hope they're encouraging referees to talk more than penalise. I'd rather watch:

Tackle made, ruck formed, in goes the defensive forwards.
Ref:"Red 7, get your hands out its a ruck"
Out comes his hands, then the balls falls back on the attacking side
Ref: "Thanks red"

than:

Tackle made, ruck formed, in goes the defensive forwards.
Ref: " "
The forwards fiddle and fiddle and slow the rucks down until eventually...
Ref: Penalty to the attacking team.

Of course, this is just my personal opinion on what I'd prefer to see. I won't make any comment on the beauty/ugliness of a slow/fast game as Billtong will be along soon to make me into a tasty dried snack.