Steve Walsh handed 6N finale again

First topic message reminder :

On form, the six nations will be a call between unbeaten France and Ireland. The "grand final" will be the last match played and similarly to last years climax between England and Wales, Steve Walsh has been handed the honours.

Surely this is yet a further underlining of the man's status as possibly the finest referee in the world and a continuation of the upward trend in his professional career after his well documented personal issues.

Congratulations Mr Walsh! A truly inspiring tale of personal strength and success - a role model for many no doubt!

blackcanelion wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:You seem adamant that jones was deliberating trying to ensure the scrum collapsed, but from what I've seen, Adam jones is a useful scrummager and the welsh scrum got on top of England.

Is it not just slightly possible that you are just a wee bit biased here? Just slightly possible that perhaps Wales were dominating, vunipola was boring and England were going down and Walsh was correct? Will you at least entertain that the scrum fault might not have been welsh?

Perhaps you can post a video clip of some of the contentious scrums so we can work from fact and not cloudy memories?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nF5KXo3_5z4

All the scrums from the said game.... only 13 minutes or so of playing time....

I'm no Adam Scott, who would do an excellent review of this, but this is what my intrinsically biased eyes see:

1st Scrum- 1st time it goes down is reset, Cole is binding on Jenkin's armpit- dubious legality but often let go. Similar bind next time. Can't see other side. Wales get free-kick for England not feeding in time- so that would be an early shove by Wales then? Replay from other side shows Jones getting the better of Marler, but his bind clearly on the arm. Clearly incorrect call -

" Binding by tight head props. A tight head prop must bind on the opposing loose head prop by placing the right arm outside the left upper arm of the opposing loose head prop. The tight head prop must grip the loose head prop’s jersey with the right hand only on the back or side. The tight head prop must not grip the chest, arm, sleeve or collar of the opposition loose head prop. The tight head prop must not exert any downward pressure.

Sanction: Penalty kick"

2nd Scrum- Can't see initial bind but Cole looks to have pulled down Jenkins after Wales win the hit. Reset. Scrum goes down. Can't see cause. Wales still get ball out. Probably right to leave it at that given Wales get ball back.

3rd Scrum- Cole's bind (and Jenkin's) looks ok, still armpit bind which is always controversial. Scrum wheels, penalty to Wales. Jenkins boring in with help from Warburton, but Walsh can't see it from his side. Penalty is for popping up. Youngs certainly pops up. Probably incorrect call.

4th Scrum- Bind looks ok. Still can only see Cole-Jenkins side. Jenkins looks to collapse scrum, penalty given to England. Jones popped Youngs though. Possibly incorrect call.

5th Scrum- collapses and rest. Looks from far angle like Cole is binding on Jenkin's arm, maybe pulling him down. Should possibly be a Wales penalty. Reset scrum collapses before ball is in. Can't see the side we are all interested in but Walsh is there. Armpit bind by Cole. England pushing Wales back which copuld be early hit. Jenkins drops his bind. Free kick Wales IMO. Walsh has literally no clue so resets. Next time is free kick for delaying the put it- ie early push by Wales. Probably wrong call but probably should have been at least a free kick to Wales earlier.

6th Scrum- preceded by snapshot showing Robshaw has 6 carries to Warbs' 3, 23 metres to his 3m and 9 tackles to his 4, which I'm sure will have been comforting to Chris... not (also bizarre as they are playing on opposite flanks and aren't in direction competition, odd choice by the BBC). Penalty Wales for England not driving straight. Walsh's smug face Wee weeing me off by now. Robshaw should be chatting to him though which is arguably as big an issue as anything else. Marler's bind is incredibly legal, as low a bind as you'll see, Jones starts off borderline armpit then drops to arm and yanks down, whilst also burrowing in, which collapses the scrum. Don't know what is going on Cole's side but as Walsh indicates the penalty was on Marler's side, this is an abysmal call. Equally clear on the replay.

Really need to see Jones' binds on Marler in the earlier scrums because apparently that seems to be the battle everyone assumes Wales were winning easily but the 2 shots we get here Jones' bind is clearly illegal and he takes active steps to collapse the scrum.

Vunipola comes on. Marler limping off

7th Scrum - Walsh stops and resets scrum because he wants to move England's pod a marginal amount for no clear reason... Then threatens to penalise Youngs for literally nothing... Says he has spoken to him already and he has moved which he has not at all. Jones then takes advantage of Walsh's obvious readiness to penalise England at this scrum but binding as low on the sleeve as he can and yanking down. The scrum collapses. Unless something is up on the other side, clear penalty to Engalnd but it's given to Wales. Awful call. Walsh seems to refuse to talk to Robshaw too

8th scrum- collapses straight away. Jones binds borderline armpit-sleeve, but both he and Vunipola lose their binding. Should be reset from the angle we can see. Walsh says Cole came off the arm. This may be true, we can't see it very well, looks like Cole doesn't drop his bind but it does slip to the arm which is a fair penalty

9th scrum - Scrum stable after Jones goes off. Free kick given, no reason given, assume for early engagement but both sides did this. Dubious.


10th scrum- another free kick though bizarrely BBC decided to show us Andy Farrell instead of the scrum itself.

11th scrum- Wales driving England but scrum becoming a mess. Vunipola clearly boring in, penalty Wales, but instead it's reset. Then the scrum wheels, can't tell who is doing it but on the Andrews-Vunipola side both are scrummaging straight. Penalty is given to Wales, however Andrews, though he binds borderline legally to start drops his bind entirely whilst Vunipola keeps his just before the scrum starts to wheel.

12th Scrum- Stable scrum, Andrews and Vunipola scrummage legally and Wales retain clean ball.

13th Scrum - Scrum starts stable, Andrews drops his bind and scrum collapses but ball is already out and England retain it.

All in all, painful to rewatch and some consistently dodgy calls made, for both sides but mostly in Wales', and Jones' in particular, favour. However, the abysmal referring of the scrum is not what lost England the match, the gainline success stats that came up make it clear that this, together with defensive lapses from the likes of Brown out of position, and a beasting at the breakdown partially due to an unbalanced backrow, were probably bigger factors

I am always a bit skeptical when any of us do a play by play assessment of decisions. As pointed out in the analysis of the ruck by one of South Africa's rugby sport scientists http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/10/rugby-world-cup-the-ref-debate . The issue is roughly the same for the scrum. Even if you got the scrum coaches from each of the 6 nations together you probably not going to get the same interpretation of who's at fault.

It's not uncommon for calls on scrums to be one sided (e.g. England v France this year, refereed by Nigel Owens, England penalised 4 times and France 0 - http://live.ruckingoodstats.com/events/game.html?id=555 - You may have to sign up to read these).

Statistically, I'm not sure he's outside the norm of what you'd expect. There are plenty of referees who have found fault with aspects of England's play. Luckily for them it generally averages out (If anything they appear to be on the right side of the ledger).

I think it's great that we are all passionate. I think Walsh has had anger management issues in the past. Being stood down by the NZRFU was probably the best thing that could have happened to him. Is he biased. British and Irish fans (particularly the English) are always going to be predisposed to that belief given the incidents in the 2003 world cup and 2005 lions tours. I don't think we have any way of knowing. However given that he's offended the fans of nations that are effectively the most powerful block within the IRB I have my doubts. I'm sure the RFU's of the home unions would have brought their combined weight to bear if bias could be substantiated.

Just playing devil's advocate for a moment about Walsh, Blackcanelion.  First of all, how often do supporters of the 4 Home Nations ever really agree on any topic?  If one of us offered up that the shape of a Rugby ball is ovoid, someone else would claim is it FACT the ball is actually an ellipsoid.  So when critical mass of supporters in each of the 4 Home Nations actually agree, it either means the end of the world is nigh or we are on to something.  

Walsh has a history, both before and after his personal issues surfaced, and are not limited to events 9 and 11 years ago.  I don't think I have ever heard such unanimity of opinion regarding a referee except for Steve Walsh.   It is unusual for people to spend much time ever discussing a referee.  And for me, he is probably the only referee I can really say that I am uncomfortable seeing.....OK, sometimes Wayne Barnes, but not so much.    

Regarding the notion of Unions pressuring the IRB to ban a referee for bias, I am sure it happens, but probably rarely.  I think that would be a very political act, and could have unpredictable outcomes.  Because of that, I would think Unions would try to stay away from that.   Besides, how many top level referees do we have?  Perhaps, keeping a flawed one is better than losing one altogether?  Just let him referee where his detractors are not so numerous.

doctor_grey wrote:Just playing devil's advocate for a moment about Walsh, Blackcanelion.  First of all, how often do supporters of the 4 Home Nations ever really agree on any topic?  If one of us offered up that the shape of a Rugby ball is ovoid, someone else would claim is it FACT the ball is actually an ellipsoid.  So when critical mass of supporters in each of the 4 Home Nations actually agree, it either means the end of the world is nigh or we are on to something.  

Walsh has a history, both before and after his personal issues surfaced, and are not limited to events 9 and 11 years ago.  I don't think I have ever heard such unanimity of opinion regarding a referee except for Steve Walsh.   It is unusual for people to spend much time ever discussing a referee.  And for me, he is probably the only referee I can really say that I am uncomfortable seeing.....OK, sometimes Wayne Barnes, but not so much.    

Regarding the notion of Unions pressuring the IRB to ban a referee for bias, I am sure it happens, but probably rarely.  I think that would be a very political act, and could have unpredictable outcomes.  Because of that, I would think Unions would try to stay away from that.   Besides, how many top level referees do we have?  Perhaps, keeping a flawed one is better than losing one altogether?  Just let him referee where his detractors are not so numerous.  

I love your posts. This is no exception.

I don't have much time. My response is it's really common for home nations fans to have a unanimous opinion about a referee. It often happens every 4 years when there's a Lions tour. The issue we all have watching referees is that we aren't neutral. His past history, added to the fact that he's going to penalise infringements that often go unpunished in the premiership (and vise versa) is bound to irritate English fans in particular.

I don't know if he's biased or not. The few statistics that we can get on refereeing (e.g. scrum.com or rucking good stats) don't necessarily indicate he's worse than many other refs. Nor do the stats for individual games or aspects of game management. There's other refs and games that raise more flags from indicator perspective. Having said that theirs a complete lack of meaningful analysis of referees for the general public, so how are any of us going to know.

A lot of nh supporters talk up these "issues" with Walsh, but as illustrated on this thread nobody can point to an actual single call that he has got wrong that irks them, which doesn't actually turn out to be a totally reasonable call.

Now that's quite rare given how easy it is to find at least ONE utter howler by most other referees.

The nh tends to be more culturally conservative (some might say refined) and self effacing in nature. Walsh is the opposite, he's confident, direct, vocal, cares about his hair, and his teeth. I wonder whether this "united home nations opinion" isn't more a kind of inter-continental personality clash.

For as far as I can see, he's actually a very good referee.

I should of added. It's really hard to get anything meaningful on a ref. to illustrate the point, look at Steve Walsh. How easy is it to find out basic information such as:
1: Which internationals he's refereed
2: What he's given penalties for
Etc.

Goes for any ref.

The IRB did publish an assessment of scrum penalties from the 2013 6 nations. Their assessment was that scrums involving Wales or England were more likely to collapse (more than 50%), than any other major nation. The attacking team was most likely to be awarded a penalty. That these sides sides materially benefited by a successful penalty per match, on average. On the other side scrums involving NZ and Australia, were less likely to collapse, tended to produce ball that often resulted in tries, with only a few penalty points coming from kicks at goal following a scrum.

You can read into that what you will. I think the IRB stats reports are usually pretty poor. so I'm not giving it much credence.

Great to see the six nations using top referees not substandard ones like Wayne Barnes, Jérôme Garces or George Clancy

Or Roman Poite...

Poite hasn't covered himself in glory the last few game I've seen him unfortunately. I recall having a sense of dred when Owens was assigned as ref for AB games but he's done well in two games in a row now for ABs games. That run of two games has changed my opinion on him. So perceptions can change if you give it a chance. I saw Walsh at the Takapuna gym one time. He does have nice hair for sure. Not my favorite ref I have to admit and talks a bit as if he's on show.

Walsh seems to be the only ref who fancies himself as a rugby ref who chose to ref instead of play the game, and carries himself as if he wouldn't be out of place among the players over whom he adjudicates. That can easily rub people the wrong way. It does for me. Yet when you get past that, he is clear on what he wants and is not afraid to ping a team for not doing what he wants. Ultimately we want consistency from our refs and at least with Walsh we get that. And I don't just mean that consistent hair or that consistent smug air he has about him.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Walsh seems to be the only ref who fancies himself as a rugby ref who chose to ref instead of play the game, and carries himself as if he wouldn't be out of place among the players over whom he adjudicates. That can easily rub people the wrong way. It does for me. Yet when you get past that, he is clear on what he wants and is not afraid to ping a team for not doing what he wants. Ultimately we want consistency from our refs and at least with Walsh we get that. And I don't just mean that consistent hair or that consistent smug air he has about him.

Not entirely sure he knows what he wants in the scrums but that could well be pointed at a lot of refs. Lack of help by a lot of the touch judges can't help though.

I think he does, as evident from the England Wales match. Whether you agree with that is another matter. I'm never confident with any ref at scrum or ruck time to be honest. All I hope for is consistency and clarity.

In general I hate ref baiting as he has a tough but absolutely vital role, but I do make an exception for Walsh*


* Standard T's + C's over who should of won last March apply

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:I think he does, as evident from the England Wales match. Whether you agree with that is another matter. I'm never confident with any ref at scrum or ruck time to be honest. All I hope for is consistency and clarity.

I was using Wales England as a case for not knowing! One thing for certain his clarity to the players was lacking that day. Wouldn't even talk to our captain. That sort of thing frustrates players and leads to a lesser spectacle.

In part you must lay some of that blame on Robshaw. It is his job to remind the ref that he has a right to speak with him. That requires a certain tact and knowing what buttons to press. I agree it shouldn't come to that but it's part of the captaincy learning curve. McCaw in 2007 learnt that harsh lesson.

Well I think as captain if you're sent away from the ref you do so not to pee him off more. He was quite happy to chat with Warburton (who wasn't captain) though. You can see him peeing off players and players then peeing him off and an endless cycle.

aucklandlaurie wrote: Or Roman Poite...

Aye

And Joubert can get beyond pedantic at times, completely distracting himself from the game.

Ref management is the responsibility of the captain. Nothing worse than seeing your captain argue with the ref as it's a sign he's lost his bottle and it's game over. Taine Randell was good at losing that battle and we sucked as a result of him being so emotional all the time.

If you want to ask for time off from your boss you choose your moment. You don't ask him after he's chewed out a colleague. You bide your time and wait until he's pished from a Friday lunch. It's all about the manner and choosing the battles to lose and the moments when you stand firm.

Look at DeVilliers for SA. The whole game in the ref's ear but you look at that smile and his body language and butter wouldn't melt in his mouth. That's good captaincy. Robshaw has a lot to learn in that regard in my opinion. Let's see if he's learned from the Wales game how to handle himself better.

I think he would have had to learn not to be english that day.

Affect an Aussie accent then.

Stevo, fair crack of the set up mate, pull those shorts down a bit son, I think they're cutting off circulation to your brain.

You do what you have to do.

GloriousEmpire wrote:A lot of nh supporters talk up these "issues" with Walsh, but as illustrated on this thread nobody can point to an actual single call that he has got wrong that irks them, which doesn't actually turn out to be a totally reasonable call.

Now that's quite rare given how easy it is to find at least ONE utter howler by most other referees.

The nh tends to be more culturally conservative (some might say refined) and self effacing in nature. Walsh is the opposite, he's confident, direct, vocal, cares about his hair, and his teeth. I wonder whether this "united home nations opinion" isn't more a kind of inter-continental personality clash.

For as far as I can see, he's actually a very good referee.

I thought I literally just a few posts ago listed several calls he probably got wrong and several he definitely got wrong, in that you can full on see the TH doing multiple things that directly contravene the scrummaging laws as they are written. Jones vs Mako being the most truly ridiculously blatant of them all.

Anyway, good luck to Ireland with Walsh as a ref. I'm sure he won't do anything controversial or try and be the star of the show. Well done on him getting over his issues but it doesn't make him a good referee, and the biggest problem I think we have with Walsh isn't that he just a bad referee (many refs have poor games and can be bad for games, like Clancy) but that we worry, with fair evidence just like regarding Rolland and France, that he is biased. Which is an awful thing to accuse him of so I only do it because he tries so hard to make it seem true

Anyone can find a large weight of adverse opinion about Walsh on the web after a couple of clicks. All areas of the rugby world nh and sh find fault with him. Strange some people can't see it or simply choose to ignore it preferring to promote their own biased views. I can only think they are somehow related.

englandglory4ever wrote:Anyone can find a large weight of adverse opinion about Walsh on the web after a couple of clicks. All areas of the rugby world nh and sh find fault with him. Strange some people can't see it or simply choose to ignore it preferring to promote their own biased views. I can only think they are somehow related.

I'm not sure what your point is. I can do a search and find adverse opinions from North and South on many international referees (I just have). It's a meaningless evidence anyway and adds nothing to the debate. I'm not a fan of Walsh. But in fairness, none of the evidence produced against him is greater than a number of other refs. Refs like Pearson and Barnes have also been demoted on the basis of performance. I certainly don't think they're generally worse than any other refs the RFU have put forward. Plenty of refs have been criticized both north and south. Barnes, Rolland, Owens, Poite, Dickenson etc, etc.

The post specifically talks about Walsh. Indeed the name Walsh appears in the title. So, we are mainly concerned here with Walsh.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because other refs are considered poor it does not mean that Walsh is somehow good. The fact remains that many people regard Walsh as being a poor ref. Except, of course, the op who considers him to be good. Once again GE openly swims against mainstream thinking.

englandglory4ever wrote:The post specifically talks about Walsh. Indeed the name Walsh appears in the title. So, we are mainly concerned here with Walsh.


Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because other refs are considered poor it does not mean that Walsh is somehow good. The fact remains that many people regard Walsh as being a poor ref. Except, of course, the op who considers him to be good. Once again GE openly swims against mainstream thinking.

My point exactly is that their are "opinions" but no facts! When has anyone pointed to a single factual refereeing error he has made that has withstood scrutiny? You'd think if he was as bad as some posters claim there would be copious incontrovertible evidence - there isn't. It sounds more like sour grapes to me.

All rugby refereeing is "opinion". Your statement that nothing has ever proved Walsh to be wrong is mere opinion. Several have tried to recall incidents where Walsh was wrong in this post but in your opinion he wasn't. You've even had the gall to state that you alone have "debunked" them. On what incontrovertible evidence have you debunked them? Once again in your opinion you are right and they are wrong. In my opinion you are wrong.

It's my opinion that GE is right in thinking he's right as much as his detractors always thinks he's wrong.

So true - right and wrong - a matter of opinion.  

Refereeing though is not "opinion".  The ref calls it, the ref decides who wins and who loses.  Opinions don't matter even though they are vented - the judgement has been made...by the ref.

I debunked them on the incontrovertible proof of using the laws. Rugby is not "all opinion". Referees are sometimes wrong - the "wrong ball" quick throw incident, Wayne Barnes forward pass debacle, Bryce Lawrence's handling of the sa v Aus quarterfinal, Joubert and the breakdown at twickenham, paddy obrien in the 1995 RWC, Wayne Barnes and the Ireland v Wales tip tackle debacle, and so forth.

Walsh does not have such an albatross, opinion against him is so far merely amorphous baseless wild generalisation.

You have not debunked anything. You are preposterous to even think you have. Delusional behavior at the very least.

Post me a single example of a grossly incorrect Walsh call?

What's"grossly" incorrect? Surely it's either incorrect or its not?

englandglory4ever wrote:What's"grossly" incorrect? Surely it's either incorrect or its not?

Couldn't find any, could you?

how's this? Debunk that. There's more, much more if you want it. I can keep you debunking for weeks.   

keo.co.za/index-old.php/2013/03/walsh-should-have-been-sacked/‎

englandglory4ever wrote:how's this? Debunk that. There's more, much more if you want it. I can keep you debunking for weeks.   

keo.co.za/index-old.php/2013/03/walsh-should-have-been-sacked/‎

Here is the incident:

http://www.farmingshow.com/player/video/conrad-smith-pushed-by-ref-mar2013

Utterly harmless, listen to Walsh apologise, clear and utter fantasy to suggest any malice there.

Conrad smith made a joke of it:



"I don't know if they'll be citing him or me," he laughed when quizzed on the incident.

Smith said he was attempting to clarify why the Hurricanes had been penalised as No 8 Brad Shields charged to the line in a bid to erase the Reds ultimately match-winning six-point advantage.

"He apologised for that. I know it probably looked bad," Smith said.

"He was off charging to give 10 (metres) for the backchat. I was sort of coming up to chat to him, he ran straight into me."


No case - merely another rancid prejudiced article by some disenchanted prat with an axe to grind. Next!

So you only read what you wanto read. The article goes on to say, which is why I posted it, was that Walsh lost his temper in the last 10 minutes of the match when he made bad calls. Read on and debunk some more. When you finish that I've got plenty more to keep you busy.

Clearly the article is a hatchet job - you can discount anything the author says based on the utterly hysterical portrayal of the initial incident. Did you even watch the game? Walsh was very good in that match. Hurricanes were appalling and deservedly lost.

What I'm really looking for is a short video clip of Walsh making an incorrect call that we can use to substantiate your otherwise baseless accusations. Some obnoxious foamy mouthed opinion piece by some random anonymous keyboard warrior isn't really going to cut it.

GloriousEmpire wrote:I debunked them on the incontrovertible proof of using the laws. Rugby is not "all opinion". Referees are sometimes wrong - the "wrong ball" quick throw incident, Wayne Barnes forward pass debacle, Bryce Lawrence's handling of the sa v Aus quarterfinal, Joubert and the breakdown at twickenham, paddy obrien in the 1995 RWC, Wayne Barnes and the Ireland v Wales tip tackle debacle, and so forth.

Walsh does not have such an albatross, opinion against him is so far merely amorphous baseless wild generalisation.

Well, there's his interpretation of a legal bind, though the only times we can see an illegal bind he is on the other side of the scrum, so maybe we should blame his line-judges

ChequeredJersey wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:I debunked them on the incontrovertible proof of using the laws. Rugby is not "all opinion". Referees are sometimes wrong - the "wrong ball" quick throw incident, Wayne Barnes forward pass debacle, Bryce Lawrence's handling of the sa v Aus quarterfinal, Joubert and the breakdown at twickenham, paddy obrien in the 1995 RWC, Wayne Barnes and the Ireland v Wales tip tackle debacle, and so forth.

Walsh does not have such an albatross, opinion against him is so far merely amorphous baseless wild generalisation.

Well, there's his interpretation of a legal bind, though the only times we can see an illegal bind he is on the other side of the scrum, so maybe we should blame his line-judges

Quite CJ - and to be fair the illegal bind is vastly less obvious than the rampant and insistent boring in and driving up of vunipola...or the crumbling of the out matched marler. I think Walsh got it about right on that count and Lancaster and rowntree's embarrassment turned them into squealing babies throwing their toys out of their prams - no wonder the IRB rebuffed their tantrum.

I think in that match Mako only bored in once, it was against the Lions that it was more obvious

blackcanelion wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:Just playing devil's advocate for a moment about Walsh, Blackcanelion.  First of all, how often do supporters of the 4 Home Nations ever really agree on any topic?  If one of us offered up that the shape of a Rugby ball is ovoid, someone else would claim is it FACT the ball is actually an ellipsoid.  So when critical mass of supporters in each of the 4 Home Nations actually agree, it either means the end of the world is nigh or we are on to something.  

Walsh has a history, both before and after his personal issues surfaced, and are not limited to events 9 and 11 years ago.  I don't think I have ever heard such unanimity of opinion regarding a referee except for Steve Walsh.   It is unusual for people to spend much time ever discussing a referee.  And for me, he is probably the only referee I can really say that I am uncomfortable seeing.....OK, sometimes Wayne Barnes, but not so much.    

Regarding the notion of Unions pressuring the IRB to ban a referee for bias, I am sure it happens, but probably rarely.  I think that would be a very political act, and could have unpredictable outcomes.  Because of that, I would think Unions would try to stay away from that.   Besides, how many top level referees do we have?  Perhaps, keeping a flawed one is better than losing one altogether?  Just let him referee where his detractors are not so numerous.  

I love your posts. This is no exception.

I don't have much time. My response is it's really common for home nations fans to have a unanimous opinion about a referee. It often happens every 4 years when there's a Lions tour. The issue we all have watching referees is that we aren't neutral. His past history, added to the fact that he's going to penalise infringements that often go unpunished in the premiership (and vise versa) is bound to irritate English fans in particular.

I don't know if he's biased or not. The few statistics that we can get on refereeing (e.g. scrum.com or rucking good stats) don't necessarily indicate he's worse than many other refs. Nor do the stats for individual games or aspects of game management. There's other refs and games that raise more flags from indicator perspective. Having said that theirs a complete lack of meaningful analysis of referees for the general public, so how are any of us going to know.

Thanks for the complement, mate.  Appreciate it.

I have to disagree with you about the frequency of the English, Irish, Scots, and Welsh being in agreement when a perfectly good argument is possible.  You see, the Lions are a cruel joke perpetrated against the peoples of England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales by the capricious and petty Rugby Gods.  Once upon a time a long time ago, they thought it funny to take these four peoples who argue for sport and fight over perceived national insults and make them sit together in one place and actually cheer together.  The Rugby Gods make them wear the same jerseys, spend a lot of money, travel half way around the world, going from summer to winter, and cheer for each other's players.  The ultimate in cruel irony, eh?  

However, if you peer even slightly below the surface the antagonisms are still there like fetid worms in the soil.  It comes out in many ways:  Disagreements over the captain, scrum halves who crab sideways (slowly), not inviting the Scots to the party, English Props, and any discussion about Saint Brian (O'Driscoll).  So we really do not agree that much.  

Except when we discuss Steve Walsh, who is another gift from the Rugby Gods, to make us agree one more time - a kind of punishment to the four nations for actually winning a Lions series, methinks.  

I am sure all Rugby arguments will end in the not too distant future when the ultimate Rugby God ascends into the heavens and takes his rightful place on the throne, both amongst and above the pantheon.........Jonny W.  Peace and love will reign.  
For a day or two.

Touche, my good sir.

I see the more GE gets backed in to a corner the more his vitriol and profanity ensues. It's clear that anyone who debunks his flawed arguments will become the focus of a rageful rant. Are you ready for the next article from a "foamy mouthed keyboard warrior" here goes. In it you will see that even the head of the SANZAR refs says he got it wrong. His he foamy mouthed too?

http://www.therugbysite.com/blog/news-opinions/pushy-steve-walsh-and-the-whistle-of-prejudice

I'm not being vitriolic or profane.

Again, what you've got there is an opinion piece as I've said, an example would Work like this:

1. Post a law definition
2. Post a clip of Walsh ruling contrary to that law
3. Demonstrate he makes this same mistake regularly

Simply posting links to third parties saying "I don't like him. He's not good. He gets it wrong" with no actual substance in not the basis of an argument that would hold up in any form of debate.

See, no "rage" just logic. In fact, it is you, old fellow who seems to get all hot under the collar.

I've already shown that your flat-earth opinion on forward passes was utterly without merit, so I recognise that it does take a while to get through to you. Luckily, I'm patient.

englandglory4ever wrote:I see the more GE gets backed in to a corner the more his vitriol and profanity ensues. It's clear that anyone who debunks his flawed arguments will become the focus of a rageful rant. Are you ready for the next article from a "foamy mouthed keyboard warrior" here goes. In it you will see that even the head of the SANZAR refs says he got it wrong. His he foamy mouthed too?

http://www.therugbysite.com/blog/news-opinions/pushy-steve-walsh-and-the-whistle-of-prejudice

Hilarious, qouting a Mark Reason article that is anti Steve walsh, We all know Reason Hates Walsh nearly as much as his old man hated new Zealand.

The English need to either learn to suck it up or learn how to play the referee, and a good place to start might be to start listening to him.

GE controlling instincts come to the fore. He's now giving us
commands in numerical order. He chooses to ignore what the Head of SANZAR refs said. That's too difficult. Got some more for you to debunk in your usual comical one-eyed way.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ffpzmQMUBQ

Ps. You've proved nothing on forward passes except that you like them even though they are against the law. How else would Nz score tries without them?

Like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjkQ97RgFwY

englandglory4ever wrote:GE controlling instincts come to the fore. He's now giving us
commands in numerical order. He chooses to ignore what the Head of SANZAR refs said. That's too difficult. Got some more for you to debunk in your usual  comical one-eyed way.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ffpzmQMUBQ

Ps. You've proved nothing on forward passes except that you like them even though they are against the law. How else would Nz score tries without them?

You do nothing to help your cause when you refuse to acknowledge the actual rules on passes.

When you've finished debunking that one I've got another for you. After this Walsh got sacked for his next game.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhbOVco4eYw