Aussie Coach Slams Match Officials

First topic message reminder :

"A 90 meter turn around with 7 points in the end if it" said Ewen McKenzie of twickenham match officials blatant blunder in Saturdays test. A decision which cost Australia the game that they lost by just that margin.

"You can't say these things don't have an impact on the game." Continued McKenzie.

The sporting Aussie gentleman wouldn't be drawn into further criticism if the officials over their dismissal of Dylan Hartley's clear obstruction that prevented a tackle on English fly half Farrell.

"I'd debate that point until I was blue in the face" he said in resignation "it's like the English knock ons and forward passes, there were dozens of those, but at the end what good does it do you? The officials make these decisions"

Although English stalwart Jeremy Guscott added his disbelief saying "I didnt think Farrell would score that try".

A shame that the game which offered little in terms of quality rugby was also over shadowed by such a disappointing display of adjudication, even by the standards expected from Clancy on past evidence.

Ignore GE guys. Don't feed the trolls

The blocking for Farrell's try was very marginal. Tries like this are given all the time. Poor Aussie defence was to blame. See no problem with this at all.

As for the feet in touch it was an error but you can understand how things like this are missed occasionally. Not Clancy's fault in any case as its up to the linesman to spot. In any case this all occurred the other end of the field to the subsequent try so really to claim this is the reason for the Aussie loss is a little pathetic.

The only thing the ref really missed IMO were the knock-ons which were bad.

However, Australia weren't good enough. That's the bottom line really.

I actually think I'm starting to like GE's posting style, he sets his stall out and bangs his anti NH drum to the same beat till he's blue in the face, can he really be called a WUM these days as it's clear he is the only one getting furious...

Self WUM 5...

GloriousEmpire wrote:It'll be interesting to see the IRB response to some clear as day errors by the officials. They've been quick to leap in and penalise NZ and others when they thought England or other home nations have been aggrieved.

I expect deafening silence this time. I suspect I won't be disappointed.

Hope not Ghost, as then you would become both deafened and blinded.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/sport/rugbyunion/article3915496.ece

Australia's complaints about the handling of the scrum by Clancy are now official. I know we're All a little tired of this debate now. So I shall just mention it as a matter of fact and await the outcome.

"Ewen Mckenzie, the Australia coach, has made an official complaint over the handling of the scrum by the referee, George Clancy, at Twickenham. McKenzie, a former tight head prop, said he was flabberghasted by what he called blatant inconsistencies in interpretation. He was particularly incensed that Australian scrum was penalised seven times."

Dear old Spiro Zavos is not too pleased either:

http://www.theroar.com.au/2013/11/04/spiro-wallabies-cook-cup-man sausage-up/

Saying there are no polite words for the refereeing...wow.

Ha! You'll have to change the auto replace in the URL ! Back to c..k

In case you can't get the link. It's a good write up with some interesting points.

"Roll the tape. Dylan Hartley, a noted smart-arse offender, cyncially moves in front of Moore deliberately blocking his progress across to the hole that Farrell is running through. It’s a try but the Clancy goes to the TMO for confirmation.

Numerous reruns show that Hartley has moved to block or obstruct Moore in making the tackle. It is so obvious that the UK rugby site PlanetRugby suggests that this is its ‘Villain of the Match’: ‘The minor block from Dylan Hartley was clearly obstructive. When has not enough obstruction been a thing?’

This last point is a reference to Clancy’s remarkable observation to the TMO before he gave his decision that there had been obstruction but ‘not enough.’ Why would Clancy try to pre-empt the TMO in his decision?

The point is that obstruction is a strict liability infringement. You can no more obstruct but ‘not enough’ than be a little bit pregnant.

Obstruction on a tackler is obstruction. The remedy is to penalise the player indulging in the obstruction. Hartley should have been penalised and should have been a candidate for a yellow card for a professional foul.

Before those Roar readers who like to accuse me of pig-headed ignorance of the laws get on their high horses, I’d suggest they google The Obstruction Law in rugby union.

When I did this before writing this, the first article that came up was The Evolution of the Obstruction Law which apparently was a ‘major project’ by James Leckie, who is an Australian Test referee.

Leckie goes through the Law Books since 1881 to document the actual wording and development of the Obstruction Law.

It is mentioned, he writes, in 1881 and by 1897 the infringement is being dealt with penalties and free kicks.

In 1908, the year of the first Wallabies tour of the UK, obstruction is ‘first recognised’ as foul play.

By 1955, the law on obstruction had evolved to the point where the notes for guidance of referees say this: ‘An offside player wilfully running or standing in front of another of his team who is in possession of the ball, thereby preventing an opponent from reaching the latter player, should be penalised for obstruction.’

This is exactly what Hartley did.

In his discussion on the law of obstruction and its interpretation in recent years, Leckie (a current Test referee remember) says this: ‘The simple fact of the matter is that if a player, who is in front of a ball-carrying team-mate gets in the way of a defender, who is trying to get to the ball, ball-carrier or possible ball-carrier, then he/she should be penalised for obstruction, if no advantage follows. If this is still too confusing, referees can think to themselves the following: In a possible obstruction scenario, who has initiated contact? If it is the attacker, then obstruction has occurred, and if it is the defender then obstruction has not occurred.’

the last sentence is critical here:

"In a possible obstruction scenario, who has initiated contact? If it is the attacker, then obstruction has occurred, and if it is the defender then obstruction has not occurred."

moores initiated the contact with hartley in an attempt to get an obstruction call. hartley did not initiate contact.

so spiro zavos has quoted the views of test referee Leckie without reading and understanding the key point....   

and therefore, so have you GE.  

Rubbish. You need glasses

Not read all the comments but I generally feel sympathy for Ewan McKenzie's position (though I think silence is more classy). I think Oz were very poor BUT also extremely unlucky, and we by far got the rub of the green. Not sure what else there is to say about it - BT's suggestions are interesting but I'm not convinced. I think a good start would be for rugby players, coaches and fans to go back to a less whiney response. I understand we need refs to be better, but we can also look at out own responses as part of the problem.

and you need to learn how to read. according to what you posted (i know how you like to post experts to support your view) there was no obstruction. see my quote above of your quote.

hartley was walking towards the england players and had his back turned to moore. moore initiated the contact. therefore, according to what you posted, from test refereee Leckie, it was not obstruction.

looks like neither you nor your one-eyed buddy spiro actually bothered to think about the comments from Leckie, just re-quoted them in a flurry of angry cutting and pasting. Comedy.

 

 

Hood83 wrote:Not read all the comments but I generally feel sympathy for Ewan McKenzie's position (though I think silence is more classy). I think Oz were very poor BUT also extremely unlucky, and we by far got the rub of the green. Not sure what else there is to say about it - BT's suggestions are interesting but I'm not convinced. I think a good start would be for rugby players, coaches and fans to go back to a less whiney response. I understand we need refs to be better, but we can also look at out own responses as part of the problem.

Sums up the entire situation completely. If we all took this view we'd all be in a better place.

quinsforever wrote:and you need to learn how to read. according to what you posted (i know how you like to post experts to support your view) there was no obstruction. see my quote above of your quote.

hartley was walking towards the england players and had his back turned to moore. moore initiated the contact. therefore, according to what you posted, from test refereee Leckie, it was not obstruction.

looks like neither you nor your one-eyed buddy spiro actually bothered to think about the comments from Leckie, just re-quoted them in a flurry of angry cutting and pasting. Comedy.

 

Your eyes deceive you. Don't trust them. You must let go of your conscious thought, reach out with your feelings.

Hood83 wrote:Not read all the comments but I generally feel sympathy for Ewan McKenzie's position (though I think silence is more classy). I think Oz were very poor BUT also extremely unlucky, and we by far got the rub of the green. Not sure what else there is to say about it - BT's suggestions are interesting but I'm not convinced. I think a good start would be for rugby players, coaches and fans to go back to a less whiney response. I understand we need refs to be better, but we can also look at out own responses as part of the problem.

Bang on there. Too much time spent on forums and over-analysis.

Plus, there's the odd poster getting aggrieved on behalf of others, but I think we know their agenda.

Can u read GE? Do u understand the meaning of what I bolder in your quote? Tell me, who initiated the contact between Moore and Hartley, defender or attacker?