What was Wayne Barnes Thinking?

First topic message reminder :

Before I start on this one let me get something out first. This is not a "We were robbed by the ref" post. No sour grapes or blaming the ref.

This is a question about trying to understand WB's thought processes in the 10 seconds or so after the incident which led to Quade Coopers yellow card. This is how I saw it:

Quade Cooper in with an early tackle...... Penalty to Wales....... No signal from WB for advantage and no whistle.

Ball knocked on by Wales.......... Play should be stopped and taken back for the penalty...... Still nothing from WB

George North Picks up the ball......... Play should now definitely be stopped If he didn't see the penalty offense then perhaps he was playing advantage to Australia..... If he hadn't seen the knock on then perhaps he was still playing advantage to Wales even though he didn't signal it.

Everyone on the pitch stops, seemingly waiting for WB to blow up for something, the crowd starts to get restless and eventually George North saunter under the posts. Every player on the pitch has committed the cardinal sin of not playing to the whistle.
Now WB blows up BEFORE GN touches down, and then asks for a video replay which confirms a penalty offense followed by a knock on therefore penalty to Wales.

Now my question is Why did he blow up at that point? if he wasn't sure about the penalty or knock on wouldn.t it have been better to let GN touch down first? If he had seen either then why no signal for advantage or earlier whistle?

Any ideas please.

GunsGerms wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:I'm here all day Maes. Quite happy to refute this silliness as long as the moderators allow it to continue.

You can't make something true just by repeating it 1,000 times.

A pass is forward if the direction the ball is passed/the force applied to the ball/the movement of the passers hands is towards the opponents goal line.

Folau is moving at some speed, he makes a brilliant flat pass.

The entire sequence is reviewed by Barnes on the big screen.

He's happy the pass is not forward.

The try is allowed.

Wales lose.

End of story.

A bit like France v NZ in 07?

 
Nope, that was completely different. In that case
 
1) The pass was evidently forward
2) There was no replay, no TMO.
3) The forward pass was not the only refereeing abnormality in the game

However that's all ancient history now. So let's not get into that.

Well the best team (France) won on the day so it was a fair result. Luck evens out over time.

GunsGerms wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:I'm here all day Maes. Quite happy to refute this silliness as long as the moderators allow it to continue.

You can't make something true just by repeating it 1,000 times.

A pass is forward if the direction the ball is passed/the force applied to the ball/the movement of the passers hands is towards the opponents goal line.

Folau is moving at some speed, he makes a brilliant flat pass.

The entire sequence is reviewed by Barnes on the big screen.

He's happy the pass is not forward.

The try is allowed.

Wales lose.

End of story.

A bit like France v NZ in 07?

That's why Glorious is definitely the person to see maes through this difficult time.

Barney McGrew did it wrote:
That's why Glorious is definitely the person to see maes through this difficult time.

He is an enigma of a man.

GunsGerms wrote:Well the best team (France) won on the day so it was a fair result. Luck evens out over time.

 
It's probably just as well that the NZ are blatantly robbed by either total and utter incompetence or some kind of shady back room dealing. Whatever it is.
 
Well, there would simply be nothing else to achieve in rugby had NZ been allowed to win at their usual and ever improving strike rate during world cups. So I can see why things like 1995 and 2007 are "allowed" to happen. Currently NZ are sitting on a 97% win rate since the start of the 2011 RWC.  So if NZ had won back to back RWC's already, and held more than 50% of world cups then rugby would essentially be rugby league with NZ at the top instead of Australia.  
 
So sometimes there's a greater good for the sport when the best team doesn't win.

I kind of fear for the sport post 2015. Either NZ's dominance will call into question the idea that rugby is a global and expanding sport; or we'll have witnessed such an unmistakable display of Machiavellian underhandedness that the very integrity of the sport will be undermined.

NZ have peaked too soon as usual and have an aging team. The WC will go elsewhere next time round. No question of that.

GloriousEmpire wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Well the best team (France) won on the day so it was a fair result. Luck evens out over time.

 
It's probably just as well that the NZ are blatantly robbed by either total and utter incompetence or some kind of shady back room dealing. Whatever it is.
 
Well, there would simply be nothing else to achieve in rugby had NZ been allowed to win at their usual and ever improving strike rate during world cups. So I can see why things like 1995 and 2007 are "allowed" to happen. Currently NZ are sitting on a 97% win rate since the start of the 2011 RWC.  So if NZ had won back to back RWC's already, and held more than 50% of world cups then rugby would essentially be rugby league with NZ at the top instead of Australia.  
 
So sometimes there's a greater good for the sport when the best team doesn't win.

I kind of fear for the sport post 2015. Either NZ's dominance will call into question the idea that rugby is a global and expanding sport; or we'll have witnessed such an unmistakable display of Machiavellian underhandedness that the very integrity of the sport will be undermined.

Phew. Like France in the last WC final.

GloriousEmpire wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Well the best team (France) won on the day so it was a fair result. Luck evens out over time.

It's probably just as well that the NZ are blatantly robbed by either total and utter incompetence or some kind of shady back room dealing. Whatever it is.

Well, there would simply be nothing else to achieve in rugby had NZ been allowed to win at their usual and ever improving strike rate during world cups. So I can see why things like 1995 and 2007 are "allowed" to happen. Currently NZ are sitting on a 97% win rate since the start of the 2011 RWC.  So if NZ had won back to back RWC's already, and held more than 50% of world cups then rugby would essentially be rugby league with NZ at the top instead of Australia.  

So sometimes there's a greater good for the sport when the best team doesn't win.

You go on about 95 like it was a huge injustice? First off, if you can't prove it was a SA govt. stooge then its a case of you chaps simply being unlucky... thats not injustice.

The coach still picked unfit players and left fit ones on the bench. People go on about Jeff Wilson throwing up on the pitch. Ok, well why wasn't Eric Rush picked in his place?

He has gone on record to say he didn't get food poisoning.. because he didn't eat at that particular meal as he ran off to a Pizza restaurant earlier in the day. With about 7-8 others.

Surely an Eric Rush at 100% is better then Jeff Wilson at 70-80%???

Players get ill/injured all the time. If as a coach you can't make the right decisions and play the best players available at that given day then you are not in the right job.

fa0019 wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:

fa0019 wrote:I do find it interesting that though that if the ball goes technically forward (but the hands are backwards) its not a forward pass whereas if the ball hits the ground in the process it is a forward pass.

Same pass, same hands movement. One goes straight to the hand - not a forward pass. One bounces - forward pass.

That's not true either.

Really?

Well obviously the first one is right so you're saying if the ball bounces and physically goes forward its not a forward pass???

as long as the hands are backwards??

so what happens if he throws it with his hands backwards and with an ugly bounce it goes 3 metres forward like rugby balls can do.... is that still not forward???

Yes that's correct. After the bounce, the ball can go anywhere and it doesn't make the pass forward.

GloriousEmpire wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:

fa0019 wrote:I do find it interesting that though that if the ball goes technically forward (but the hands are backwards) its not a forward pass whereas if the ball hits the ground in the process it is a forward pass.

Same pass, same hands movement. One goes straight to the hand - not a forward pass. One bounces - forward pass.

That's not true either.

Really?

Well obviously the first one is right so you're saying if the ball bounces and physically goes forward its not a forward pass???

as long as the hands are backwards??

so what happens if he throws it with his hands backwards and with an ugly bounce it goes 3 metres forward like rugby balls can do.... is that still not forward???

Yes that's correct. After the bounce, the ball can go anywhere and it doesn't make the pass forward.

not denying it but I've never seen that to memory... never seen it when the ball hits the deck, goes metres forward on an ugly bounce and it's not called forward (as the hands were back on the attempted pass).

Maes, sorry pal but I have to disagree with you on the motion thing. A ball can and does move forward even when passed backwards. It's just physics. Any pass made in rugby when running will travel forward. Every pass would then be a forward pass, unless we stopped still to pass it. This is why they brought in the 'hands backwards' distinction - otherwise the ref would have to call every pass forward because, well, they would be.

Here's a great video on the matter from Total Rugby. It certainly opened my eyes when I watched it a number of years back:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=box08lq9ylg

Even throwing the ball backwards over your head to someone behind you will still be a forward pass when running. Again, it's just physics!

GunsGerms wrote:NZ have peaked too soon as usual and have an aging team. The WC will go elsewhere next time round. No question of that.

Actually the average age of the team is trending downwards. It's probably the confidence and ability and composure of the young players but something like 20 new all blacks have been introduced since the RWC. You've learned to fear them already but look guys like world player of the year nominee Ben Smith, Julean Savea, Charles Piutau, Steve Luatua, Romano, Retallick, Saili, Barrett, Crotty, Cane, and so forth are young guys with just a handful of caps.

Statistically one of the youngest yet most experienced sides to ever hold a World Cup and number 1 ranking.

I think the All Blacks will be 40-50% better by the next RWC as some of these young guys mature and some of the old guard return like Vito, Kaino, SBW.

Terrifying for you, I'm sure. No wonder this "peaking" wishful thinking is coming up again.

fa0019 wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:

fa0019 wrote:I do find it interesting that though that if the ball goes technically forward (but the hands are backwards) its not a forward pass whereas if the ball hits the ground in the process it is a forward pass.

Same pass, same hands movement. One goes straight to the hand - not a forward pass. One bounces - forward pass.

That's not true either.

Really?

Well obviously the first one is right so you're saying if the ball bounces and physically goes forward its not a forward pass???

as long as the hands are backwards??

so what happens if he throws it with his hands backwards and with an ugly bounce it goes 3 metres forward like rugby balls can do.... is that still not forward???

Yes that's correct. After the bounce, the ball can go anywhere and it doesn't make the pass forward.

not denying it but I've never seen that to memory... never seen it when the ball hits the deck, goes metres forward on an ugly bounce and it's not called forward (as the hands were back on the attempted pass).

Happens all the time.

Not quite Griff. You just have to compensate for your running speed. Most people can pass fast than they can run.

However this is just an interpratation thing that the IRB have given their view on with the IRB Total Rugby video (I presume that's the one Griff linked to).

Also I seem to remember on one of the ref sites they managed to get a scan of a document from the 50s where it had been discussed and the momentum thing accepted.

Oh and welcome back Seabiscuit. Long time no hear.

GloriousEmpire wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:

fa0019 wrote:I do find it interesting that though that if the ball goes technically forward (but the hands are backwards) its not a forward pass whereas if the ball hits the ground in the process it is a forward pass.

Same pass, same hands movement. One goes straight to the hand - not a forward pass. One bounces - forward pass.

That's not true either.

Really?

Well obviously the first one is right so you're saying if the ball bounces and physically goes forward its not a forward pass???

as long as the hands are backwards??

so what happens if he throws it with his hands backwards and with an ugly bounce it goes 3 metres forward like rugby balls can do.... is that still not forward???

Yes that's correct. After the bounce, the ball can go anywhere and it doesn't make the pass forward.

not denying it but I've never seen that to memory... never seen it when the ball hits the deck, goes metres forward on an ugly bounce and it's not called forward (as the hands were back on the attempted pass).

Happens all the time.  

England vs Australia comes to mind....

GloriousEmpire wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:NZ have peaked too soon as usual and have an aging team. The WC will go elsewhere next time round. No question of that.

Actually the average age of the team is trending downwards. It's probably the confidence and ability and composure of the young players but something like 20 new all blacks have been introduced since the RWC. You've learned to fear them already but look guys like world player of the year nominee Ben Smith, Julean Savea, Charles Piutau, Steve Luatua, Romano, Retallick, Saili, Barrett, Crotty, Cane, and so forth are young guys with just a handful of caps.

Statistically one of the youngest yet most experienced sides to ever hold a World Cup and number 1 ranking.

I think the All Blacks will be 40-50% better by the next RWC as some of these young guys mature and some of the old guard return like Vito, Kaino, SBW.

Terrifying for you, I'm sure. No wonder this "peaking" wishful thinking is coming up again.

Not terrifying at all. The key players are getting on. McCaw carried the team in November and at the last WC which is fortunate as NZ struggled to dominate all three games and the WC final. If anything in Nov we learned SA and Australia are improving at a much faster rate than NZ and Ireland, France and England are all now well able to challenge the ABs.

lostinwales wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:

fa0019 wrote:I do find it interesting that though that if the ball goes technically forward (but the hands are backwards) its not a forward pass whereas if the ball hits the ground in the process it is a forward pass.

Same pass, same hands movement. One goes straight to the hand - not a forward pass. One bounces - forward pass.

That's not true either.

Really?

Well obviously the first one is right so you're saying if the ball bounces and physically goes forward its not a forward pass???

as long as the hands are backwards??

so what happens if he throws it with his hands backwards and with an ugly bounce it goes 3 metres forward like rugby balls can do.... is that still not forward???

Yes that's correct. After the bounce, the ball can go anywhere and it doesn't make the pass forward.

not denying it but I've never seen that to memory... never seen it when the ball hits the deck, goes metres forward on an ugly bounce and it's not called forward (as the hands were back on the attempted pass).

Happens all the time.  

England vs Australia comes to mind....

recall when? Just watched a quick 5min highlights on rugby dump and i didn't see a case? I assumed you were talking about the latest match. None of the 3 tries had a pass such as that where it bounced obviously forwards and wasn't called.... perhaps it was not in an important part of the match?

Lead up to Robshaw's try before the lineout wasn't it? About 3 passes went to ground in midfield (surprise?) bounced forward and the ref called it as ok.

Yeah the video cuts to the lineout only. Will try and catch a view of the move, interested for my own sake. Thanks 7.

HammerofThunor wrote:Not quite Griff. You just have to compensate for your running speed. Most people can pass fast than they can run.

However this is just an interpratation thing that the IRB have given their view on with the IRB Total Rugby video (I presume that's the one Griff linked to).

Also I seem to remember on one of the ref sites they managed to get a scan of a document from the 50s where it had been discussed and the momentum thing accepted.

You can pass faster than you run, but in means the supporting players have to align more deeply, which makes it easier to defend = boring games with fewer tries.

The laws are fine as they are. Accept them.

The last game and it was something GE picked up on. There were several fumbles where the ball went backwards and there was no fuss and no knock on called.

GunsGerms wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:NZ have peaked too soon as usual and have an aging team. The WC will go elsewhere next time round. No question of that.

Actually the average age of the team is trending downwards. It's probably the confidence and ability and composure of the young players but something like 20 new all blacks have been introduced since the RWC. You've learned to fear them already but look guys like world player of the year nominee Ben Smith, Julean Savea, Charles Piutau, Steve Luatua, Romano, Retallick, Saili, Barrett, Crotty, Cane, and so forth are young guys with just a handful of caps.

Statistically one of the youngest yet most experienced sides to ever hold a World Cup and number 1 ranking.

I think the All Blacks will be 40-50% better by the next RWC as some of these young guys mature and some of the old guard return like Vito, Kaino, SBW.

Terrifying for you, I'm sure. No wonder this "peaking" wishful thinking is coming up again.

Not terrifying at all. The key players are getting on. McCaw carried the team in November and at the last WC which is fortunate as NZ struggled to dominate all three games and the WC final. If anything in Nov we learned SA and Australia are improving at a much faster rate than NZ and Ireland, France and England are all now well able to challenge the ABs.

No, NZ are more dominant than ever. Hence the win rate being 100%.

NZ's ruck tactic is to be patient and commit fewer numbers, don't mistake the visual disparity for lack of "domination", NZ are winning more turn overs than any other team.

NZ are also kicking more possession away, because they're playing a more terriortial game. Not trying to attack when it's not on. Teams are being worn down and worn out. Hence the number of times NZ win in the last 20 minutes.

maestegmafia wrote:Obviously Folaus hands are forward of the point where he passed the ball. The ball still lands in front of that point as well.

There is nothing that makes that pass anything but forward. As agreed by the officials aiding the Ref.

So Wayne Barnes is either so deeply incompetent that he should never referee again, or he's a liar. Which are you alleging?

It's impossible that Folau's hands were 'obviously forward', or the TMO would't even have needed to be consulted.

So you arent concerned at all that the margin of defeat is narrowing and all other teams are noticably getting better? Perhaps with the exception of Wales who Im fairly sure will turn their slum around.

The world cup is always going to throw up surprises and no teams that has won has won it easy with the exception possibly of SA in '07 who had a ridiculously soft route to the final. They still failed to blow England away in the final.

GunsGerms wrote:So you arent concerned at all that the margin of defeat is narrowing and all other teams are noticably getting better? Perhaps with the exception of Wales who Im fairly sure will turn their slum around.

That's no way to talk about Newport.  

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:So you arent concerned at all that the margin of defeat is narrowing and all other teams are noticably getting better? Perhaps with the exception of Wales who Im fairly sure will turn their slum around.

That's no way to talk about Newport.  

Haha sorry slump.

GloriousEmpire wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Not quite Griff. You just have to compensate for your running speed. Most people can pass fast than they can run.

However this is just an interpratation thing that the IRB have given their view on with the IRB Total Rugby video (I presume that's the one Griff linked to).

Also I seem to remember on one of the ref sites they managed to get a scan of a document from the 50s where it had been discussed and the momentum thing accepted.

You can pass faster than you run, but in means the supporting players have to align more deeply, which makes it easier to defend = boring games with fewer tries.

The laws are fine as they are. Accept them.

I have. I even pointed out that this interpreatation has been around since the 50s.

GunsGerms wrote:So you arent concerned at all that the margin of defeat is narrowing and all other teams are noticably getting better? Perhaps with the exception of Wales who Im fairly sure will turn their slum around.

The world cup is always going to throw up surprises and no teams that has won has won it easy with the exception possibly of SA in '07 who had a ridiculously soft route to the final. They still failed to blow England away in the final.

There was no need to "blow them away" in the final, we did that in the pool game, all we had to do was win.

Biltong wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:So you arent concerned at all that the margin of defeat is narrowing and all other teams are noticably getting better? Perhaps with the exception of Wales who Im fairly sure will turn their slum around.

The world cup is always going to throw up surprises and no teams that has won has won it easy with the exception possibly of SA in '07 who had a ridiculously soft route to the final. They still failed to blow England away in the final.

There was no need to "blow them away" in the final, we did that in the pool game, all we had to do was win.

To be fair once you had established we couldn't win our lineouts you didn't need to try very hard  

HammerofThunor wrote:

Biltong wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:So you arent concerned at all that the margin of defeat is narrowing and all other teams are noticably getting better? Perhaps with the exception of Wales who Im fairly sure will turn their slum around.

The world cup is always going to throw up surprises and no teams that has won has won it easy with the exception possibly of SA in '07 who had a ridiculously soft route to the final. They still failed to blow England away in the final.

There was no need to "blow them away" in the final, we did that in the pool game, all we had to do was win.

To be fair once you had established we couldn't win our lineouts you didn't need to try very hard  

Well to be fair South Africa knew England after the pool match would have to make all the play, and they just sat back and watched. They took their kicks and stopped England from getting enough points.

And gave Mark Cueto the outside...

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:And gave Mark Cueto the outside...

Now, there we really do have a reffing nightmare.

Don't you hate it when referees make correct and inconvenient calls?

It's better than when they make incorrect but convenient calls:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yRM46g0Mp4

Yeah. No wonder they wanted Cuetos try after that effort.

Bit of a trend isn't it? Englishmen's feet being allowed to be in touch?

I still don't know how they gave that Wilkinson try. Equal opps for a blind TMO I'm assuming.

Well, the guy had waited 200 test for a try. It would've been mean not to award it.

He didnt score many but didnt he get a chip and chase one against the AB's?

Yeah I think he did. When we sent one of those development sides for a friendly, can't remember if it had test match status or not.

lostinwales wrote:He didnt score many but didnt he get a chip and chase one against the AB's?

That was a sweet try. Game ended in a draw didnt it?

GloriousEmpire wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:I'm here all day Maes. Quite happy to refute this silliness as long as the moderators allow it to continue.

You can't make something true just by repeating it 1,000 times.

A pass is forward if the direction the ball is passed/the force applied to the ball/the movement of the passers hands is towards the opponents goal line.

Folau is moving at some speed, he makes a brilliant flat pass.

The entire sequence is reviewed by Barnes on the big screen.

He's happy the pass is not forward.

The try is allowed.

Wales lose.

End of story.

A bit like France v NZ in 07?

 
Nope, that was completely different. In that case
 
1) The pass was evidently forward
2) There was no replay, no TMO.
3) The forward pass was not the only refereeing abnormality in the game

However that's all ancient history now. So let's not get into that.

The same can be said of Folau's pass apart from there was a replay, there was a TMO decision but the referee ignored it.

maestegmafia wrote:There was a TMO decision but the referee ignored it.

I thought you said he couldn't hear it. In any case, Barnes saw the replay himself so it doesn't matter.

Let's look at that.

1. Not true
2. Not true
3. Not true

No, there is no case for comparison.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:There was a TMO decision but the referee ignored it.

I thought you said he couldn't hear it. In any case, Barnes saw the replay himself so it doesn't matter.

And made a decision that was incorrect. Both Rollands and the TMO said it was a forward pass.

No they didn't.

Why are you lying maes?

maestegmafia wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:There was a TMO decision but the referee ignored it.

I thought you said he couldn't hear it. In any case, Barnes saw the replay himself so it doesn't matter.

And made a decision that was incorrect. Both Rollands and the TMO said it was a forward pass.

'Rollands' didn't say it was a forward pass. Stop making things up.

maestegmafia wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:There was a TMO decision but the referee ignored it.

I thought you said he couldn't hear it. In any case, Barnes saw the replay himself so it doesn't matter.

And made a decision that was incorrect. Both Rollands and the TMO said it was a forward pass.

So you think the game was a moral victory for Wales?

going back to the OP. It is clear that with the availability of TMOs and the ability to now look at any particular passage of play not simply try or no try, referees are inclined to let a passage of play run, and then get the TMO to go back afterwards, even if they suspect there is a forward pass or obstruction.

if its obvious they blow it, everything else they know they can check after the fact, so it seems like playing a long advantage (including potential penalties and forward passes/knock-ons etc) is going to become more and more common