Penalties, coaches, fans. media and the IRB

I see that the subject of refereeing has once again raised it's head. Two games in the weekend and Peypers performance in particular has been panned by certain quarters. The key issues raised by the Link and the Aussie media are:
Nonu tackled without the shoulder and should have been carded.
Why didn't he go upstairs on the Moore non try.
Why weren't Smith or Reid carded for infringements following Leali'fanau.

I'm guessing he's genuinely peed. The counter argument is that it cuts both ways. By all accounts there was a lot of dirt in this test and a lot of marginal targeting of the ball in the ruck, with A Smith coming in for a bit of attention. No one would have been surprised if Nonu had spent at least 10 minutes looking at the night sky. Given so many tries are now refereed to the 4th official it's surprising this wasn't. I'm guessing the Peyper adjudged a double movement in Moores drive for the line and because he was right there made the call. It would have been surprising if Smith or Reid had gone off as it's pretty unusual for players to be carded for similar actions early in games (you have to be pretty blatant (i.e. like Argentina last week), and IMO he'd already let a few cynical Aussie infringements in the red zone go).

It got me thinking. How much of the talk is actually frustration, diversion or to stimulate discussion?

Having said that this test is worth revueing. The relative penalty count is high. It's almost 2:1 to the AB's. Whilst it's not Barneseque, it's still worth a look.

I think it is inevitable that a referee is blamed. The fact is referees are fallable and all make mistakes, or at the least their interpretation of the laws vary from ours.

Most often the winning team's supporters have gripes too, but they are happy to have won, even if it is in spite of the referee, so they just don't worry about it.

There is also the situation of being poor losers, but that is only human.

It's no secret that some teams prefer some referees. I imagine its the same for fans insomuch as they prefer their teams to be winning and naturally gravitate to the refs most likely to enable it.

England to Poite, NZ to Joubert, SA away from bald Kiwis, Wales towards Walsh when playing England. NZ away from blind talentless inexperienced Poms in World Cup knock outs...

The other reason refs are blamed because they arent of the same nationality/ province etc as the fans/ losing side (same reason our coaches get it as well).

Easier to say it wasnt anything our own did that caused this...we've all been there...

Taylorman wrote:The other reason refs are blamed because they arent of the same nationality/ province etc as the fans/ losing side (same reason our coaches get it as well).

Easier to say it wasnt anything our own did that caused this...we've all been there...

I disagree.

Most issues fans have with referees is their inconsistency and their lack of empathy. If decisions are not refereed evenly between either the teams or the similar situations.

When a referee is too far removed from the game, focused on the "letter of the law" rather than what is in front of him. Especially exemplified when a ref looks favourably on a team in ascendency while punishing the other.

I found some of the Ewe's postmatch comments a little puzzling. Particularly those regarding the scrum and coming from a former test prop. Essentially he was saying he didn't understand what was going on in the scrums. To me that's deflection for his side's failings in that area.

Other times he had legitimate complaints like the Moore try and the failure to go to the TMO and the lack of yellows for Nonu or Read. But show me a game maesteg where one side (invariably the losing side) doesn't feel aggrieved about the ref. You didn't hear comments in the 6N about Wales getting preference in the scrum from Joubert because they were the dominant team and the Scots weren't on a level playing field. Last week NZ got hammered in the penalty count. This time they got the rub of the green. Convenient to find an excuse for a team to win saying they have the IRB or the ref in the pocket.

Yes the losing side often feels aggrieved by the refs performance, and more often then not it's mostly sour grapes as anything they can feel annoyed about is usually marginal.

The calls against Oz on the weekend were completely different though. 7 points gone begging because he didn't use the TMO. Another 7 and a yellow card gone as he bottled it when Smith killed the ball. Another yellow card and the chance for 3 gone because he somehow missed Nonu's dangerous and illegal shoulder barge. And a good attacking opportunity turned around because of a TJ's imagination.

Genuinely shocking.

Once you start playing that game though you have to look at everything the ref missed. Plenty of off the ball cynical stuff from both sides. Like I said Australia had things to feel aggrieved about but in your hypothetical game you're choosing to see only one side. Much like these videos that have appeared recently which highlight the dark arts of NZ and imply that the other side never uses them. Much like the tired cliche that McCaw never gets penalized.

You have to be good enough to take the ref out of the equation. Sad reality of rugby. NZ in 07 and SA in 11 weren't able to do that.

disneychilly wrote:You have to be good enough to take the ref out of the equation. Sad reality of rugby. NZ in 07 and SA in 11 weren't able to do that.

Completely agree. I'm not sure that's possible in 2007, given the penalty count was almost 4:1 and our backline was pretty makeshift in the second half. You could add France and Wales 2011 to that list.