Rolland Saves Deans' Bacon?

First topic message reminder :

Chris Rattue suggested today in the NZ Herald that SANZAR should kick Rolland out of the Rugby Championship, and also that only his inept whistle happy performance saved the Wallabies from an absolute embarrassment.

Is he right?

Morgan, how clear can I be that "empathy" does not mean ignoring the laws? I suggest you read the excellent post by red_stag for clarification on this issue. He lays it out in simple and accurate terms.

Which one? The NH vs SH refs related post? Or the 'knowing when to blow the whistle?' I agree with the latter, and Rolland did a very good job on the weekend. There is blowing a whistle too often (Clancy, Wales v Italy, 12) and only blowing it for the one team (Joubert, Aus v Wales, third test, 12). Both outcomes and scorelines were affected. You should be grateful you had a top official on the weekend.

From an English perspective, in the 6N, the win ratio over the last twenty years with NH refs officiating compared to SH refs is truly an enormous difference.

There is no doubt that the SH refs let far more infringements go unpunished in the forward confrontation. Whether that makes for a better game or not is probably down to how you think the game should be played; as either a contact sport with a running game or a running game with contact. I prefer the former.

Morgannwg wrote:Which one? The NH vs SH refs related post? Or the 'knowing when to blow the whistle?' I agree with the latter, and Rolland did a very good job on the weekend. There is blowing a whistle too often (Clancy, Wales v Italy, 12) and only blowing it for the one team (Joubert, Aus v Wales, third test, 12). Both outcomes and scorelines were affected. You should be grateful you had a top official on the weekend.

Of course, all the bad examples of dubious refereeing affect only Wales...and all the "best" examples mysteriously coincide with NZ losses. I bet you think there were three great refereeing performances in the history of the game.
Stop trying to pick a fight, there is none to be had here

So after you've coat-tailed Stag's post you are not going to answer my questions and you are (as usual) going to turn your attentions to Wales? I can see why you did latch on to the other comments though, seeing as your posts got ripped up.

If you hadnt seen the game and saw the statistics that 27 penalties were awarded , you would be forgiven for thinking it was an ill tempered cynical affair.

Truth is that it wasnt...

Hey! You brought up Wales Morgan!

I've already answered your question. I don't think that having empathy for the game equates to ignoring the laws, but you clearly do! Perhaps you have no empathy for the game and merely like it when a referee hands you a game, or a result that you prefer!

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Now this thread is about yet another (not the first by any means) ref failing to penalise the Aussie scrum. This has been going on for years. Rolland is not the first to be duped. Perhaps some credit ought to go to the Wallabies forwards coaches. They seem to continuously pull off this remarkable trick of conning refs.

There is no doubt that Australian rugby isn't in good shape, and that there's a serious lack of depth in any number of positions, particularly prop. I just struggle to see what Deans has really done wrong. Not sure you can grow top class forwards in four years.

The saying 'you can fool some of the people some of the time, but not everyone all the time' comes to mind. I don't think the wallabies forwards con the refs. I do think they are preceived to be very poor, where I think they are an average to middling scrum unit, but without the experience of other countries. When the have a good engage they're reasonably good, sometimes, not often, able to push others off the ball. What they lack is skill and experience, when they face a front row that knows the tricks and is able to pull it off, the wallabies front row has not the experience to correct it, and often concedes penalties. I think that is the reason why people think they should be always the one in the wrong at scrum time if things goes wrong, in that unless they got it right first time they can be in trouble, ignoring the fact that the wallaby scrum can actually scrum and get the upper hand sometimes, after all, they are pros like all others. Whilst not a great scrum they can scrum. And that is why I say they're not conning the refs, the ref can see that they do some things right, and when they do they can upset the other side, thus gaining a penalty.

My 2c worth

All that you have said backs up my original point about you deciding where empathy suits your team. In no way did Rolland go out of his way to penalise every offence on the weekend, that is ridiculous. In actual fact that is a rarity in Rugby. I’ve only seen it once and I pointed out that fixture (you can’t accuse me of me of looking for fixtures to suit Wales’ favour here as we still won that game). If you infringe and go off your feet at the breakdown then you deserve to get penalised, simple. Maybe then the Blacks will stop the infringements and that way the game can flow. I also notice you think the offences at the breakdown your team are frequently comitting are fine yet you quickly change your tune once your team is on the receiving end; hence reference to a certain forward pass in a certain RWC quarter final. The breakdown is as bad a contest as the scrums for disrupting play in my opinion. Warbs red was justified however you look at it. Because it is in the laws of the game, or not justified because it was considered a big game and it set a precedent to issue a card for every good tackle ever since. I suppose only what you decide is okay is all that matters though, correct?

Once again very well reffed in my opinion. Like a certain quarter final in 2007 (tongue firmly in cheek).

Barnes 2007 baby!

And just when you think things couldnt get any worse.....

this week weve got a bludee Welshman for a ref.

Oh no. How is the cHampionsHip even going to be more than a well thought through logo and veiled swipe at the perennial rankings of the NH unions if we insist on inviting the detritus of the refereeing world to Love sacks up every single game with their pedantry?

Surely they want the competition to provide a spectacle??

Jesus AWOP your English is going from kindy to PhD quicksmart. Kudos

The NH refs encourage using the scrum as a weapon so I'd imagine Owens will give the All Blacks and Wallabies the chance to attack each other. I'm interested in how Crockett goes for that reason-hope the ABs have gotten on the same page as Owens in the pre-game meetings as if Crockett doesn't get pinged he can wreak havoc.

I think each scrum should have a clean slate-of course repeat offenders should be binned. But refs are only human so their preconceptions are crucial. Australia win the odd scrum against big teams, but they lose more often.

It wasn't just that pass Morgan. Jeepers-see I can't understand why Jones raves on about that performance for any other reason than to antagonise NZ as three of the four tries shouldn't have been awarded to infringements. I also find it ridiculous how people were going on about NZ finally getting blown up for the cheating so and sos they are-and Barnes 'refusing to bow to NZ intimidation' when it was actually nothing to do with NZ infringing and everything to do with French infringing (good on you Frogs though you played to the ref which every good team should do). I have empathy for France in the 2011 final and SA in the QF, but I'm sorry Barnes' performance was on another level to that. That pass was merely the tip of the iceberg that destroyed NZ's Titanic.

Bring back rucking though. One way to improve the spectacle right there.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Taylorman wrote:He also said it would be the end of the career of Deans. I agree.

Ive been saying for 2-3 years that Deans is hopeless at the international level. He doesnt get Oz rugby, hasnt put it in any better position than it was when he started, has a terrible record and lost to sides ranked so low they were 'shocks'.

A world cup win over SA in the last 8 and a 3N title (when the AB's went for world cup cover) is all he has to show for it.

He can stay there as far as Im concerned...happy days...

Love this. 3rd place at the World Cup, Tri-Nations champions and whitewash over the 6 Nations GS champions "is all he has to show for it".

What a terrible coach! Fire him now!!

Can someone tell me who these awesome forwards are that Deans is supposed to be picking in order to beat New Zealand?? He has rubbish props, one decent (yet ageing) lock and only 2/3 of a back row, and yet for some reason no side ever seems able to fully press home obvious advantage against the Wallabies forwards.

Now this thread is about yet another (not the first by any means) ref failing to penalise the Aussie scrum. This has been going on for years. Rolland is not the first to be duped. Perhaps some credit ought to go to the Wallabies forwards coaches. They seem to continuously pull off this remarkable trick of conning refs.

There is no doubt that Australian rugby isn't in good shape, and that there's a serious lack of depth in any number of positions, particularly prop. I just struggle to see what Deans has really done wrong. Not sure you can grow top class forwards in four years.

This post is possibly too sensible for 606v2. If the mods see it, you might be in trouble.

disneychilly wrote:Jesus AWOP your English is going from kindy to PhD quicksmart. Kudos

The NH refs encourage using the scrum as a weapon so I'd imagine Owens will give the All Blacks and Wallabies the chance to attack each other. I'm interested in how Crockett goes for that reason-hope the ABs have gotten on the same page as Owens in the pre-game meetings as if Crockett doesn't get pinged he can wreak havoc.

I think each scrum should have a clean slate-of course repeat offenders should be binned. But refs are only human so their preconceptions are crucial. Australia win the odd scrum against big teams, but they lose more often.

It wasn't just that pass Morgan. Jeepers-see I can't understand why Jones raves on about that performance for any other reason than to antagonise NZ as three of the four tries shouldn't have been awarded to infringements. I also find it ridiculous how people were going on about NZ finally getting blown up for the cheating so and sos they are-and Barnes 'refusing to bow to NZ intimidation' when it was actually nothing to do with NZ infringing and everything to do with French infringing (good on you Frogs though you played to the ref which every good team should do). I have empathy for France in the 2011 final and SA in the QF, but I'm sorry Barnes' performance was on another level to that. That pass was merely the tip of the iceberg that destroyed NZ's Titanic.

Bring back rucking though. One way to improve the spectacle right there.

I agree if the players could ruck the referee when he make a mistake then the error level will going down.

Disney,

I don't see any reason that rucking cannot be done under the current laws.

- The Laws state that "A player rucking for the ball must not intentionally ruck players on the ground. A player rucking for the ball must try to step over players on the ground and must not intentionally step on them. A player rucking must do so near the ball".

- The laws also make it clear that you are not allowed to handle in a ruck.

- By my reading of it, if you are rucking for the ball and you accidently ruck a guy lying on the wrong side thats perfectly legal.

- There is no reason that rucking cannot go on as it did back before it was abolished (the laws used to omit the word intentionally).

- I don't think the IRB could ever successfully announce "We are going to make it legal to use your studs on the other players". The health and safety brigade would have a fit. Look at the reaction to allowing the collapsed maul. The IRB would have too many questions like "Why was it abolished if it wasnt dangerous?" etc

- Basically if teams want to ruck they can. The real issue is not many teams really want to. I remember seeing an amazing game of rucking about 2 years ago. It was a France v South Africa match in the November tests. They went hell for leather. This was the match: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZAeUcJDwjE. Sheer ferocity at each and every breakdown. Boots on bodies, counter rucking etc all going on no problems. No sealing off. Every ruck was a contest and there was a lot of turnovers earned.

red_stag wrote:Disney,

I don't see any reason that rucking cannot be done under the current laws.

- The Laws state that "A player rucking for the ball must not intentionally ruck players on the ground. A player rucking for the ball must try to step over players on the ground and must not intentionally step on them. A player rucking must do so near the ball".

- The laws also make it clear that you are not allowed to handle in a ruck.

- By my reading of it, if you are rucking for the ball and you accidently ruck a guy lying on the wrong side thats perfectly legal.

- There is no reason that rucking cannot go on as it did back before it was abolished (the laws used to omit the word intentionally).

- I don't think the IRB could ever successfully announce "We are going to make it legal to use your studs on the other players". The health and safety brigade would have a fit. Look at the reaction to allowing the collapsed maul. The IRB would have too many questions like "Why was it abolished if it wasnt dangerous?" etc

- Basically if teams want to ruck they can. The real issue is not many teams really want to. I remember seeing an amazing game of rucking about 2 years ago. It was a France v South Africa match in the November tests. They went hell for leather. This was the match: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZAeUcJDwjE. Sheer ferocity at each and every breakdown. Boots on bodies, counter rucking etc all going on no problems. No sealing off. Every ruck was a contest and there was a lot of turnovers earned.

If only you could referee every game red_stag everything would be working well.

Truth be told AWOP I am getting disillutioned with refereeing. I had considered giving it up this year but I've decided to stick with it another while.

How so? What happened to make you feel like this? we need more people with your attitude at every level! Don't let the bad guys win!

Ah nothing major. I did have a lot more personal abuse last year than others. Limerick is a bit of a fishbowl when it comes to rugby. On one occasion a coach asked me could he have a word with me. Things got a bit heated and he ended up locking the two of us in a room so he could have a go at me. It got a bit out of hand. A lad same age as myself had awful hassle with a group of bouncers in a night club after refereeing one of them earlier that day.

The respect for the referee is dying out and when the laws are as grey as they are it is vital.

As you know at every ruck there are penalty offenses and the line "I made a judegement call. It wasn't material" isn't enough for people any more.

I carded a teenager (14 years old) for eye gouging last year and I spoke to his teacher about it. The teacher said that maybe it was an appropriate response seeing as I wasn't protecting the scrum half properly!!!

I really love rugby. I work in the rugby industry and didn't especially enjoy last season reffing. I had considered looking at coaching and getting teams playing the type of rugby that I like. But I'll give refereeing another season.

This is an interesting angle on the story red_stag and I am dismayed to hear about it.

Do you think that referee bashing in the media and rugby programmes encourages abuse against referees in this situation by legitimising it? Do you think the media need to introduce some programme like the way they don't promote streakers or fighting on the pitch by not airing it? Should it be discouraged for pundits and commentators to spend so much time questioning the officials? It seems to me this is increasing with video technology.

Or is there some other factors? Like general dissent and lack of respect for authority in society?

Or is it just all down to the grey areas of the laws and the idea of "interpretation"?

Do you ever feel intimidated and pressured towards making a bad call because you know it will make your life easier?

I think in Ireland over the last number of years we have seen a sharp increase in new rugby clubs and also new players. This is mainly down to the success of our provinces and things like our Tag Rugby Summer Leagues.

These guys are from soccer and gaelic football and hurling backgrounds. They will never have been told as a child first playing the match "Shush or the ref will march you back 10" or "Captain only speaks to the referee" or "call the referee 'sir'".

Now I am all for new faces involved in rugby. It is vital. But I think the respect for the ref thing is something drilled into kids who are going out to play the game. But there are a lot of people at the minute getting involved in rugby later in life.

As for making a bad call that will make my life easier no I don't. I generally tend to ignore that stuff at the time and worry about it afterwards. You block out a surprising amount of sideline abuse when you are refereeing.

As for pundits etc I don't think they should be discouraged from discussing it but I think they go over the top. They spend 5 minutes looking at an incident with 10-15 replays and they eventually say "Oh yes this proves the ref was wrong" when the guy on the pitch saw it once from one angle.

I do think the "interpretations" play a role. Remember Graham Henry saying that Wayne Barnes missed 40 penalty offences in 2007. Barnsey didn't miss them, he just (for whatever reason) didn't feel they were material. You can do it with any referee in any match point to penalty offences and say they should have been given.

I would like to have confidence in the IRB (at international level) to review referees performance and make sure we get consistent interpretation about what is "material". I'm not sure Paddy O'Brien was strong in this area. His public defense and criticism of various decisions in various contexts seemed a bit bizarre. I suppose with so much riding on it and so few fans who genuinely understand the laws we will always get a lot of aggravation on this area.

anotherworldofpain wrote:I suppose with so much riding on it and so few fans who genuinely understand the laws we will always get a lot of aggravation on this area.

Exactly. It will never be perfect and nor should it be.

Pundits and commentators are lazy a lot of the time. Fans are biased towards their own team. The laws are grey.

It really isn't lined up to be in the referees favour.

The easiest part of a game to deflect blame to is the referee. The hardest thing to admit is that your team just were not better than the opponent on the day, or didn't take advantage of their superiority when they had the chance.

A team can always win a game in spite of the referee, but you rarely hear it said. But you will always hear plenty claim a team only lost but for a couple of bad calls by referee.

I still think that the referee's should do a post match interview like players and coaches do, perhaps then he could explain himself straight away rather than have everybody tar and feather them for weeks on end.

LordDowlais wrote:I still think that the referee's should do a post match interview like players and coaches do, perhaps then he could explain himself straight away rather than have everybody tar and feather them for weeks on end.

And how many times would that interview take the form of, 'good job'. It would only become a mechanism to pick one clip that the tv studio might have had up to 40 minutes to re-analyse from 10 different angles and harrang a referee on that decision. Considering every breakdown will have multiple fouls by both teams all at the same time, it becomes a case of which one did you see first. Then a referee would also be seeing selected replays just after the game and then have to prepare his post match report. How much influence would showing him only certain replays have on that report?

Yes, but he can at least defend himself and explain that he only saw the incident from one angle at one split second, also they could actually explain why they made the decisions they made for any veiwers that might not be so knowledgeable about the game. I am sure they did this once during the super 15 and for all intent and purposes it was a resounding success. Perhaps our SH friends on here could enlighten us on it.

I think rugby refs have a thankless task.

They make their decisions. You live with the consequences. All teams and supporters have had their bad experiences - forward passes, offsides, wrong ball, in touch, etc, etc.

I don't buy the notion that one lot of refs from one hemisphere are better than the other. They aren't. I'd have Steve Walsh over Roman Pote anyway. And Alain Rolland over Craig Joubert and my grandfather's first cousin once removed over Dave Pearson - day or night.