Refereeing analysis of the 2011 RWC final.

First topic message reminder :

There has been a lot of talking about referees and quite a bit of damnation for some of them.

I found this Video Clip on another site and it is an analysis (quite biased in my view) on the 2011 RWC, it is definitely Frnech produced as you can find the Rench version on youtube as well, and the lady commenting on this clip is certainly french from her accent.

Anyway it is not for the faint hreated or those with quezzy stomachs, so I suggest you get yourself a cup of coffee, or a few beers if you are that way inclined and sit back, the video clip is 30 minutes long.

Note that the analysis criticises Richie McCaw heavily and rips Craig Joubert apart, according to the analysis the Frnach missed out on 27 points potentially, but there is little if any shown of what the French did wrong.

It is propoganda that shows one side of a story, still rather interesting.

Cyril on 606v2 wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

thebluesmancometh wrote:Just simplify one thing in the ruck, hands on ball, and half the penalties disappear.

Key word here I agree... simplify!!!

Let the attacking team ref their side of the ruck, the boot is becoming more and more used from what I see and not in real attempts to 'roll' too, fair play to them, if Mccaw dives on the wrong side on purpose the ref can skip to the defencive side and allow the attacking team to deal with him.

I'm not saying foul play exactly, but it only takes a boot here, an elbow drop there before players change their minds about forcing their way to the wrong side on purpose, it amazes me the protection the player who is offside, clearly got there through his own steam, and isn't making enough attempt to get away receives from refs!!!

Completely agree. Dan Cole springs to mind. Bring back the boot. Though not on the head or face.

The laws as is favour the best cheats.

Or ankle.

Or knee, groin, wrists, fingers....

Ah, heck, lets just leave it.

Next the wings will complain about their hair.

Biltong wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

majesticimperialman wrote:It does not paint a very good picture of Craig Joubert does it?

It just shows how much Richie Mcaw gets away with. Not just him though, most of the All Blacks . Get away with far more than any other player/team.

I always thought he was a fair REF to be honest. I guess this means or should mean that he will not get the Final game of 2015 RUGBY WORLD CUP?

He deserves a darn good eye gouging doesnt he? that'll teach him...

Come on Laurie, he never said that.

No laurie i never did say anything about eye gouging...What i was saying about Richie Mcaw about getting away with alot was the amount of time he was off side on the ruck. Lying on the wrong side in the tackle area, Not binding in the scrum. All this and not once did he get blown up for it by the ref.

Watching the video the ref seemed too turn a blind eye to every thing unlawful that the All Blacks did.

She hasn't said a bad word about Steve Walsh

majesticimperialman wrote:

Biltong wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

majesticimperialman wrote:It does not paint a very good picture of Craig Joubert does it?

It just shows how much Richie Mcaw gets away with. Not just him though, most of the All Blacks . Get away with far more than any other player/team.

I always thought he was a fair REF to be honest. I guess this means or should mean that he will not get the Final game of 2015 RUGBY WORLD CUP?

He deserves a darn good eye gouging doesnt he? that'll teach him...

Come on Laurie, he never said that.

No laurie i never did say anything about eye gouging...What i was saying about Richie Mcaw about getting away with alot was the amount of time he was off side on the ruck. Lying on the wrong side in the tackle area, Not binding in the scrum. All this and not once did he get blown up for it by the ref.

Watching the video the ref seemed too turn a blind eye to every thing unlawful that the All Blacks did.

Now Maj you know that isnt true, perhaps you should direct vindictiveness at Yachvili for missing the kick?

Its only biased if you think it is biased. Say if you are a whinging kiwi who needed a south African referee to shove you over the finish line and ignored multiple infringements in the last 15 minutes (a bit like all the moaning kiwis after the 2007 game). Or you could say its a French point of view and valid.

thebluesmancometh wrote:

Riskysports wrote:Auckland

Not sure i read that anyone is suggesting eye gouging is acceptable.

In the world cup the NZ team were the best by a mile up until the final

The French were poor and scraped though

I have to say that the final was one of the most painful performances to watch, as I felt NZ let the occassion get to them.

Joubert was a disgrace and from that one performance, should never be allowed to ref again - ever - he was so one sided that it was embarrassing and totally determined who won the match

And this is from A Scotsman who wanted you guys to win

+1

I went into the final feeling robbed of the occasion from the semi where France somehow managed to last out a great 14 man performance from Wales, I didn't like the way the French played in the groups, I didn't think they were up to anything other than survival in most games, however buy the 65tgh minute there was only one team I wanted to win, the underdogs to get one over on Joubert and his 'NZ must win at all costs' attitude, by the 80th minute I wanted to lynch him for what he did to the sport!!!

NZ were the better team for the 12 months previous, they were the form team in the tournament, they were my pick to win it, they were huge favourites and they were at home... yet they still deserved to lose that last game, and if it were not for Joubert they would have!!

So is it a ref thing or a NZ thing Blues...assuming you must have been even more enraged at the '07 match, by your own comments of course.

Fairly selective editing of the match footage, but certainly not Joubert's greatest performance (sadly, not his worst either!)

Ha nice try DOD.

Trinh-Duc should get blame too Laurie he cocked one up as well lol.

Anyone who thinks Joubert has a 'NZ must win at all costs' attitude should watch the ABs vs Aussie in Brisbane. A world record was on the line so it wasn't exactly a dead rubber either.

Lawrence and Barnes were worse IMO. For all France's supposed dominance they didn't make it into the NZ 22 after the try. It wasn't like they were knocking on the door try wise-in fact they didn't look like scoring one after Dusautoir went over.

I really think it was not a deliberate decision by Joubert

I just think the pressure got to him and he bottled it. He was scared to call anything

A ref that bottles it shouldnot be allowed to ref -sorry should have been taken off the elite roster after that

Joubert was massively biased towards France in the game in my opinion. It's the only way the French side already battered by NZ and Tonga and morally beaten by Wales would get anywhere near NZ on the shoreline.

I can point to any number if things he got wrong including most notably allowing off side play at a ruck which led directly to the French try and missing the blatant eye gouge on McCaw who as the tackler at the ruck in question was fully entitled to be where he was and not "on the wrong side deserving what he got" as some less educated posters have tried to suggest.

Overall due to poor refereeing the world was robbed of the true final which would have been Wales v NZ. I have no doubt Wales would have won it!!!

Risky in that case you'd have halved the elite panel!

As unfair as it will sound, one of the principles in any sport (it happens in to many unrelated sports for me to think it blatant, rather merely human nature) is that the best players get more lee-way. McCaw, for instance has been getting away with murder at the breakdown for years.

Or you could take the argument that when a player dominates or a team dominates, people go out of their way to find a reason for their dominance. The ref is in the pocket, they cheat, there are political motives. People love a good conspiracy theory. The confirmation bias sees people's beliefs only confirmed regardless of what they see. Malaga fans cpmplain of offside for dortmunds last goal but ignore their own offside for their goal. Similarly when a dominant player or team loses fans can often look for excuses instead of the uncomfortable truth on front of them: you weren't good enough on the day.

Kia, mate, all of what you say have merit, one thing you cannot deny is Richie is very smart when it comes down to how he falls, even if it is to slow ball for half a second.

I had a mate in high school, who used to take every tackle with his feet slightly lifted, if SARU had a look at the amount of cards our games had.

It is not just him. Thomson stupidly stomped on a Scottish player and no doubt that wasn't the first time he did that but he doesn't get the attention McCabe gets because his team doesn't win as much as nz. Healy and bod do stupid play but where are the videos of the dark arts of Ireland like there were after hire and Thomson. No point when they're fighting for the wooden spoon. I'm not denying it happens but people seem to deny their own team's dark arts. If you end up losing it seems you have carte Blanche to pick out all the oppositions misdeeds and brush off your own.

i am sure it is not only him, there must be others.

You don't have to look far mate. Frankly I think richie has been penalized more in recent years than when he was a traditional fetcher. But just like when he gets pinged for a legitimate steal that is not a popularly held view.

Well the reason for that is the ambiguity in interpretations. I think most of us are fedup with that.

Bring back the ruck instead of Buck. Won't hear too many complaints from me.

You have to make competition for the ball possible. You have to make also quick ball for the attacking team without going back to the endless recycle of ball for the attacking team also possible.

I agree it's too easy now to slow the ball down and the ref has too many things to monitor as the laws stand. Again no argument from me.

I also think more help has to be given to the ref to maintain the offside line which is reffed to varying degrees and no mention of that in the video for either side.

I think my only gripe is the permanent criticisms refs get. Especially the accusations of being biased. If your kid gets 85% in a test, you wont accuse him of conspiring against his future because he didnt get 100%. And yet these guys get it (horribly) wrong like once in a blue moon, and their villified.

Rugby has a lot of laws, and for the sake of the flow, the refs cant blow every minor offence.

I get that. You can stuff up a question, and sometimes even stuff up an entire exam which has major repercussions. The pain in the hole part of it is that it's like all down to bloody interpretation like a literature exam-where what you think isn't necessarily relevant, rather they want you to think in a certain way and take an approach to what THEIR interpretation is.

The criticisms don't come from the ones with 85 per cent. It's the ones who failed and go looking for excuses as to why they failed rather than accept the horrible truth that they are just not that good.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:The criticisms don't come from the ones with 85 per cent. It's the ones who failed and go looking for excuses as to why they failed rather than accept the horrible truth that they are just not that good.

kia that is not entirely true, I have watched some games as a neutral where I want to pull my hair out at some of the things I see.

The truth of the matter is many games that are within a few points are decided but erronius penalties.

There is one game as a South African I will never accept is our QF. There is no doubt in my mind we were screwed by a referee who was intimidated by John O'Neill over their loss to the Irish. Lawrence admitted it influenced him, Brussouw was taken out with a hit to the ribs in the 24 th minute and there after we had no koy at the breakdown.

I don't care if people call me a sore loser, a party pooper, a wining old Sac or whatever. i have been told by hundreds of people we weren't good enough on the day, of the 200 odd tests I saw SA play in, I will never forget that.

I blame Morne Steyn! As bad as Bryce was, Biltong, Steyn still missed nine points in a low scoring game. Plus Aus scored 11 points based on 5 minutes of penetrative play. I cant believe we didnt score a try that match.

Kingraf, I am not putting all the blame on Bryce, he was a contributor.

By the way, those kicks of Steyn were all long kicks, not sure if you are aware there were no penalties for SA close to the posts.

You're not 85 per cent but you're hardly 15 per cent either.

I'm not saying refs don't make mistakes. I was overcome by the outpouring of grief in 2007! But sometimes s@@t happens. But it does you no good to look back on something that's already happened and try to change it. Regueton and dub step are here and there's nothing we can do to stop it!!

Sometimes games are too close and you can't take the ref out of the game and sometimes a ref can make mistakes unfortunately. PowerPoint presentations or writing books about it don't make any difference.

Besides you would've lost in the semis anyway. You can't beat us at Eden park.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:The criticisms don't come from the ones with 85 per cent. It's the ones who failed and go looking for excuses as to why they failed rather than accept the horrible truth that they are just not that good.

Well isn't that gracious...

Which category do I fall in as a neutral who went into the final bitter and massively pro NZ?

You might want to have a chat with Ricky Januarie about that.

A fact I acknowledge Biltong, but I really think 2009-10 Morne would convert at least two of them.

At least SA had a couple of shots. NZ didn't even get a chance. May not have mattered anyhow-Carter and Evans were both crocked. In fact I'd love to be able to trade referees in the 2011 final for a fit Carter. France wouldn't have gotten close.

Bluesman your category is confused .

I've talked to Biltong about this once or twice and while two wrongs don't make a right, I'm glad that our greatest rivals have an idea of what we felt like in 2007. Though SA didn't get anywhere near the schadenfreude.

IMHO that 2007 game, and the Q/F weren't all that bad from a neutrals standpoint, the losing fans were bound to gripe, but it was nowhere near as bad as the 2011 joke that was the final.

I can honestly say I have never been incensed by a refs performance as I was in the 2011 final!!! Nothing comes close!

Hence not being in the neutral category....

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Hence not being in the neutral category....

How so?

And bare in mind I am sat here after coming in from the gym in my Kiwi shorts!!!

Funny as I rank the 2011 and 2007 QFs more. Sure my team was screwed in one but the Saffas have the right to feel bloody aggrieved. We're just as cheesed off for being the form team in the world for two years and not being good enough on the day to win despite the numerous factors that went against us.

France weren't good enough to win despite Joubert either. If they had they'd have spent more time in the NZ 22.

I will be honest, I was overjoyed when NZ got screwed in 2007. I mean, we were pretty much the runt of the 3N in 07, no chance in hell were we gonna beat NZ. No chance

Ok with 2007 but incensed with 2011. Mistakes made by the ref in both games with glaring specific examples but ultimately both losing sides able to wrest victory and spurned opportunities. I ask you how so?

disneychilly wrote:Funny as I rank the 2011 and 2007 QFs more. Sure my team was screwed in one but the Saffas have the right to feel bloody aggrieved. We're just as cheesed off for being the form team in the world for two years and not being good enough on the day to win despite the numerous factors that went against us.

France weren't good enough to win despite Joubert either. If they had they'd have spent more time in the NZ 22.

Well one could argue they were never allowed to contest at the breakdown fairly and so were never allowed the chance to make ground.

But my point is not to go into the nitty, my point is that I am 100% neutral in all 3 cases, and have no vested interest in the outcome of any of the 3 games. I went into the Q/F and 2007 with no preferences at all, what happened happened, and the results weren't dictated by the ref IMHO, whereas Joubert was a disgrace in the 2011 final, he seemed to ref one team out of the game, including numeorus incidents allowed to NZ and penalised France, not to mention the high tackles etc, IMHO France were the dominant team, better team on the day, and were heavily hindered by a ref not willing to let the game decide the outcome.

KingRaf I take it you're a SA supporter-that's not schadenfreude mate your team's still in it. I didn't begrudge the English at the time either-your roads to victory got a hell of a lot easier. There was no way England was going to beat SA or NZ. I must admit though I was rather envious of your ride in being Fiji, Argentina and a team you'd just beaten 36-0!

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Ok with 2007 but incensed with 2011. Mistakes made by the ref in both games with glaring specific examples but ultimately both losing sides able to wrest victory and spurned opportunities. I ask you how so?

I think you've used the right word with regards to 2007, mistakes. IMHO mistakes isn't the word to describe the 2011 final

There are all sorts of conspiracy theories about 07 too. How about Joubert Barnes and Lawrence all had sh*t games?

Disney- I know: We may have had the easiest ride in history! No France (at home), Ireland (beat us twice in a row), Australia (49-0), or NZ!!! A lot of peoplr congratulated White for his selection policies, but the truth is, we were on easy street.

What we must not forget before White took over England had a run of wins against us and his aim was always to beat England at Twickenham before the World Cup began to give the guys bekief as that would be the deciding pool match to decide the draw.

In 2006 November we beat them and that started our run of 9 straight victories against them.

So beating the defending world champions in the pool would decide our fate.

The same happened in 1995 when Christie had to beat Australia to get the better side of the draw in the knock outs, again, the aim was the defending champions in the pool.

Easier run yes, but well planned and executed.

Biltong, mate I take your point but I would be grossly lying if I said I thought we had a better chance of beating NZ & AUS in 2007 than in 2011

Kingraf, Prior to the tounament I thought we would win.

Our team had been poor in 2010 and in the Tri nations of 2011, but the focus was the RWC.

John Smit and his chronies knew what they had to do, and up to that QF did it, it wasn't pretty, but they were on track.

Maybe that's why I was so angry about it.

We looked good (In that Springbok way) in the group stages I must say. Frans Steyn was a colossus vs Wales, plus the forwards were also strong. Throw in the fact that we had beaten NZ twice in the NZ from 2008-2011. I think we were the only team that realistically could challenge them in NZ.

Agree

thebluesmancometh wrote:

disneychilly wrote:Funny as I rank the 2011 and 2007 QFs more. Sure my team was screwed in one but the Saffas have the right to feel bloody aggrieved. We're just as cheesed off for being the form team in the world for two years and not being good enough on the day to win despite the numerous factors that went against us.

France weren't good enough to win despite Joubert either. If they had they'd have spent more time in the NZ 22.

Well one could argue they were never allowed to contest at the breakdown fairly and so were never allowed the chance to make ground.

But my point is not to go into the nitty, my point is that I am 100% neutral in all 3 cases, and have no vested interest in the outcome of any of the 3 games. I went into the Q/F and 2007 with no preferences at all, what happened happened, and the results weren't dictated by the ref IMHO, whereas Joubert was a disgrace in the 2011 final, he seemed to ref one team out of the game, including numeorus incidents allowed to NZ and penalised France, not to mention the high tackles etc, IMHO France were the dominant team, better team on the day, and were heavily hindered by a ref not willing to let the game decide the outcome.

So you are saying that the clear and deliberate forward pass that lead to 7 points in a two point win had nothing to do with any of the 3 stewards that day? You think theres nothing in the 40 listed, to the minute, infringements in GH's book, that THE most penalised side in the entire cup up to that point suddenly became squeaky clean for an entire 60 minutes?

Blues you have demonstrated the most biased case of referee bias I have seen. It is CLEARLY a case of I hate the All Blacks to come to the two conclusions, summing 2007 up as 'what happened, happened' yet tirading on about the '11 effort. Saying that you had no vested interest in the outcomes is clearly wrong- in both cases you wanted France to win, and in the one they didnt, the ref becomes the target.

And the real reason Wales lost the semi? Because the great Halfpenny couldnt even reach the post from inside the French half. HE lost it for them.

Oh...and on losing semi's and Halfpenny...Dagg in the other semi was having a MOTM performance to defeat the Ozzies...but hey,,, what happened...happened.

Taylorman wrote:

thebluesmancometh wrote:

disneychilly wrote:Funny as I rank the 2011 and 2007 QFs more. Sure my team was screwed in one but the Saffas have the right to feel bloody aggrieved. We're just as cheesed off for being the form team in the world for two years and not being good enough on the day to win despite the numerous factors that went against us.

France weren't good enough to win despite Joubert either. If they had they'd have spent more time in the NZ 22.

Well one could argue they were never allowed to contest at the breakdown fairly and so were never allowed the chance to make ground.

But my point is not to go into the nitty, my point is that I am 100% neutral in all 3 cases, and have no vested interest in the outcome of any of the 3 games. I went into the Q/F and 2007 with no preferences at all, what happened happened, and the results weren't dictated by the ref IMHO, whereas Joubert was a disgrace in the 2011 final, he seemed to ref one team out of the game, including numeorus incidents allowed to NZ and penalised France, not to mention the high tackles etc, IMHO France were the dominant team, better team on the day, and were heavily hindered by a ref not willing to let the game decide the outcome.

So you are saying that the clear and deliberate forward pass that lead to 7 points in a two point win had nothing to do with any of the 3 stewards that day? You think theres nothing in the 40 listed, to the minute, infringements in GH's book, that THE most penalised side in the entire cup up to that point suddenly became squeaky clean for an entire 60 minutes?

Blues you have demonstrated the most biased case of referee bias I have seen. It is CLEARLY a case of I hate the All Blacks to come to the two conclusions, summing 2007 up as 'what happened, happened' yet tirading on about the '11 effort. Saying that you had no vested interest in the outcomes is clearly wrong- in both cases you wanted France to win, and in the one they didnt, the ref becomes the target.

And the real reason Wales lost the semi? Because the great Halfpenny couldnt even reach the post from inside the French half. HE lost it for them.

Oh...and on losing semi's and Halfpenny...Dagg in the other semi was having a MOTM performance to defeat the Ozzies...but hey,,, what happened...happened.

Youve lost a lot of respect from me in that semi attack there mate, because I disagree with your opinions on the 2007 game I clearly hate NZ, how about you go check the England NZ norovirus thread and check out how much I hate NZ, or one of the hundreds of pre world cup threads, or maybe any of my posts regarding junior development, governing bodies, or franchises in which I have a thousand times said NZ have it better than anyone else. Maybe you should go check my best of teams, world XV teams, or form players threads, then please get back to me on how I hate NZ!!

Posts like this is why kiwi fans get a raw deal, I have a number of freinds from NZ and they are great people, gracious winners and decent losers, shame you can't boast the same qualities!

Anyway that 'clear and deliberate' forward pass refers you were there and know what was being thought by all players and refs in that game, whereas I know you don't, so please use better language, it was a clear forward pass, one that was missed by the ref and his team, but it is understandable how a mistake happened, and a number of others, the better team didn't come away with the win, which happens sometimes. But looking at the situation surrounding the game, the politics surrounding the tournament, and the 80 minutes rugby it just doesn't compare to 2011.

I'll put your opinion on the opposing end of the spectrum to that french womans from the video (although she acts far more dignified on her end) so they will both counter each other out, IMHO other neutrals opinions on here mean far more to me personally, so you'll forgive me if I don't take your words as law