Referees named for the worldcup

First topic message reminder :

Planet Rugby wrote: The full list of referees with their union and number of tests in brackets is: Wayne Barnes (RFU, 57), George Clancy (IRFU, 38), JP Doyle (RFU, 12), Jérôme Garcès (FFR, 22), Pascal Gauzere (FFR, 17), Glen Jackson (NZR, 10), Craig Joubert (SARU, 55), John Lacey (IRFU, 13), Nigel Owens (WRU, 60), Jaco Peyper (SARU, 20), Romain Poite (FFR, 39) and Chris Pollock (NZR, 18).

In addition, the full list of assistant referees with their union and number of tests as AR in brackets is: Federico Anselmi (UAR, five), Stuart Berry (SARU, 15), Mike Fraser (NZR, 10), Angus Gardner (ARU, two), Leighton Hodges (WRU, 19), Marius Mitrea (FIR, 13), Mathieu Raynal (FFR, nine).

The television match officials for the six-week tournament are: George Ayoub (ARU, 33), Graham Hughes (RFU, 60) Ben Skeen (NZR, 11) and Shaun Veldsman (SARU, 50).

The selection was made after a comprehensive review of refereeing performances by the World Rugby Match Official Selection Committee.

I wonder why there I no Scots amongst that lot?

http://planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,3551_41841,00.html

Can we have a cheese icon to go with all this

'Fans' will always complain when their side loses. It's easier to blame the ref than admitting they were beaten by the better team.

It's a bit sad, but I guess it's human nature.

Biltong wrote:

Jimpy wrote:I'm struggling to make the correlation between refereeing decisions and a nation's (perceived) decline in general sporting achievement.

Perhaps you should read closer.

I said "referee freezes" such as what happened in 2011, and no I am not going to explain that one to you, if that is necessary then you needn't read any further.

The point is our sport is in decline due to politics, our currency and overseas poaching.

You wrote about poor refereeing decisions and a decline in national sporting achievement in the same paragraph. Perhaps you should have been clearer, I am not going to explain that one to you, if that is necessary then you needn't read any further.

Jimpy wrote:

Biltong wrote:

Jimpy wrote:I'm struggling to make the correlation between refereeing decisions and a nation's (perceived) decline in general sporting achievement.

Perhaps you should read closer.

I said "referee freezes" such as what happened in 2011, and no I am not going to explain that one to you, if that is necessary then you needn't read any further.

The point is our sport is in decline due to politics, our currency and overseas poaching.

You wrote about poor refereeing decisions and a decline in national sporting achievement in the same paragraph. Perhaps you should have been clearer, I am not going to explain that one to you,  if that is necessary then you needn't read any further.

Jimpy, if you are not interested in constructive debate, but rather feel the need to troll the site for opportunities where you can act like a smartass move along elsewhere

Still continuing to ignore Barnes penalised Wales to equal effect in the first half and sent a player to the bin.

Cyril wrote:'Fans' will always complain when their side loses. It's easier to blame the ref than admitting they were beaten by the better team.

It's a bit sad, but I guess it's human nature.

If not the ref, then blame gets apportioned to their own players not performing, rather than crediting the opposition.

Cyril wrote:'Fans' will always complain when their side loses. It's easier to blame the ref than admitting they were beaten by the better team.

It's a bit sad, but I guess it's human nature.

You are right that 9 out of 10 times it is solely down to the players, however on the evidence I have seen just in Super arugby alone, referees do influence results

LondonTiger wrote:

Cyril wrote:'Fans' will always complain when their side loses. It's easier to blame the ref than admitting they were beaten by the better team.

It's a bit sad, but I guess it's human nature.

If not the ref, then blame gets apportioned to their own players not performing, rather than crediting the opposition.

Absolutely. There is a long list of real reasons, including 30 players, 16 subs, coaching teams etc. Who knows when the most ordinary player is suddenly going to have a Devon Malcom moment?

And sometimes (usually) the opposition was better, even if it was only 'on the day.'

Refs will never influence the game more than players and coaches.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Still continuing to ignore Barnes penalised Wales to equal effect in the first half and sent a player to the bin.

This is what I have been trying to explain to some of my Irish colleagues. In the first half against Wales, Barnes was very pedantic but consistent. Ireland adjusted sooner than Wales did and as a result the Welsh received a yellow card. The second half flowed alot more due to this. I can not for the life of me see where the bias against Ireland is, even as an Irish fan!!!

The last penalty awarded to Wales, was IMO, a little dodgy but they sometimes go for you and sometimes against you.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Refs will never influence the game more than players and coaches.

I will disagree with you on that.

In 2011 South Africa owned Australia, they spent 69% of the match in OZ territory, had two tries disallowed due to "forward passes" Australia with only 25% possession and spending most of the match under pressure did not concede one penalty in their red zone, Bryce Lawrencedismissed John Smit and Victor Matfield with a wave of the hand refusing to discuss any issues they had.

It was a case of gross incompetence and publically Lawrence admitted he froze, succumbing to the pressure of John O'Neill's rants about the way Australia was penalised out of the game vs the Irish.

He failed in delivering a competence performance on the biggest stage of the RWC.

You want to get a new set of players and coaches then.

Nachos Jones_1 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Still continuing to ignore Barnes penalised Wales to equal effect in the first half and sent a player to the bin.

This is what I have been trying to explain to some of my Irish colleagues. In the first half against Wales, Barnes was very pedantic but consistent. Ireland adjusted sooner than Wales did and as a result the Welsh received a yellow card. The second half flowed alot more due to this. I can not for the life of me see where the bias against Ireland is, even as an Irish fan!!!

The last penalty awarded to Wales, was IMO, a little dodgy but they sometimes go for you and sometimes against you.

There is a certain amount of anti-Barnes feeling out there. I do think in his earlier career he made some odd refereeing decisions. But he is most definitely improved and as has already been said, he is at least consistent. Think he's one of the better officials in the NH now. Nigel Owens passed him on his way down the form stairs.

Funny thing is if you picked 5 of the very best games of rugby in the last few years, the likelihood is that Nigel Owen would have reffed them.

Question is.......... does Nigel Owens create those games by overlooking infringements or does he just hit lucky and be there when two sides decide to play exciting rugby?

I think Nigel creates them.................... by letting games 'FLOW'.  Isn't that what everyone has cried about for years???  Oh for a few wise refs that would let a game flow rather than pedantically whistle a game to a standstill!

Yet, when a ref does turn up and refs 'flowing' games - with a little muffled blindness of not-looking-at-every-detail to create the flow - you have people that say the man has gone off form.  Better a whistler and carder like Headmasters Barnes or Clancy.....

Oh sorry, Clancy is considered TOO in-form on the correct whistling and is a bloody boringly oppressive bastarde!  But of course he's the wrong Nationality to be as good as Barnes - who remains strict but very very good at being boringly whistley and dutifully cardtastic

No 7&1/2 wrote:You want to get a new set of players and coaches then.

And that comment is about as constructive as putting perforated lines in aeroplane wings

Not sure how constructive I can be considering I don't see any merit in your point, sorry.

There is simply too much inconsistency in interpretations from all refs, this means each team has to study the form of ref's, form a gameplan to match their individual rulings and have the ability to adjust during game situations.

If every ref in the world was the same then it would be fine but they are not so unfortunately ref's have become as big a part of team preparations as of analysing opposition players, coaches and tactics. Those who do this well are successful, those that don't seem to get a raw deal every game.

And of course one of the biggest reasons for individual interpretations is the fact that the laws themselves are constantly being tweaked. Not without reason but it doesn't always help.

Ryanair are actually thinking of introducing perforated wings to reduce further the drag of costs. Less wing, cheaper planes. Boeing aren't gone on the idea but since Ryanair buy most of their planes, they're in a tough negotiating hole.

If you are going in that direction there can be good reasons for putting holes/ 'perforations' in wing surfaces. Its all about controlling the air flow don't ya know.

Fair point lostinwales, the rules do get tweaked far too often for my liking and it does add a little extra confusion regarding interpretations.

lostinwales wrote:If you are going in that direction there can be good reasons for putting holes/ 'perforations' in wing surfaces. Its all about controlling the air flow don't ya know.

A hole though - any hole - is a bastard for turbulent vortexes!  And turbulent vortexes are bastards for crashing!   It's a ongoing engineering catch 22.  How many perforations per wing before the vibrations rip it off.  Costing will decide.

lostinwales wrote:If you are going in that direction there can be good reasons for putting holes/ 'perforations' in wing surfaces. Its all about controlling the air flow don't ya know.

Actually, one of the greatest aircraft ever built, the Harrier, had perforated leading edges. So under some circumstances, it can be a very good idea to have holes in the wings. And vortex generators aren't unknown on aircraft wings either.

SecretFly wrote:Funny thing is if you picked 5 of the very best games of rugby in the last few years, the likelihood is that Nigel Owen would have reffed them.

Question is.......... does Nigel Owens create those games by overlooking infringements or does he just hit lucky and be there when two sides decide to play exciting rugby?

I think one of the key things is that playerrs Know Owens will not miss much and will penalise deliberate infringements harshly - so they don't do it

SecretFly wrote:

lostinwales wrote:If you are going in that direction there can be good reasons for putting holes/ 'perforations' in wing surfaces. Its all about controlling the air flow don't ya know.

A hole though - any hole - is a bastard for turbulent vortexes!  And turbulent vortexes are bastards for crashing!   It's a ongoing engineering catch 22.  How many perforations per wing before the vibrations rip it off.  Costing will decide.

Turbulent vortices are often a good thing and not bastards for crashing. They help stop the air flow from getting detached from the top of the wing which in turn can stop it from working. So those little bastards actually help to keep the plane up in the air

Biltong wrote:My big worry is that referees will have a bigger than usual impact on this coming world cup.

Bigger than usual?

At the last World Cup, Barnes ruled out a Welsh penalty against SA which might have been given by a TMO referral, and might easily have affected the result. Bryce Lawrence then refereed the Boks out of the tournament, while Alain Rolland red-carded Warburton in the semi-final against France. Joubert then decided not to award a potential match-changing penalty in the closing stages of the final unless someone pulled a knife. That's just four matches I can recall without checking. Not all those decisions were necessarily wrong, but it's fair to say that other referees might have made different calls.

lostinwales wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

lostinwales wrote:If you are going in that direction there can be good reasons for putting holes/ 'perforations' in wing surfaces. Its all about controlling the air flow don't ya know.

A hole though - any hole - is a bastard for turbulent vortexes!  And turbulent vortexes are bastards for crashing!   It's a ongoing engineering catch 22.  How many perforations per wing before the vibrations rip it off.  Costing will decide.

Turbulent vortices are often a good thing and not bastards for crashing. They help stop the air flow from getting detached from the top of the wing which in turn can stop it from working. So those little bastards actually help to keep the plane up in the air

Rather, they delay local flow separation and can also be found on fuselage and lower aerofoil surfaces too.

All refs make dodgy decisions, like Owens bizarre new rule of knocking the ball on in New Zealand

nathan wrote:All refs make dodgy decisions, like Owens bizarre new rule of knocking the ball on in New Zealand

With Owens, all teams need to do is work out which law infringement he is going to ignore in that particular match and play to suit.

He's a good ref, but I think past his best.

Rugby Fan wrote:

Biltong wrote:My big worry is that referees will have a bigger than usual impact on this coming world cup.

Bigger than usual?

At the last World Cup, Barnes ruled out a Welsh penalty against SA which might have been given by a TMO referral, and might easily have affected the result. Bryce Lawrence then refereed the Boks out of the tournament, while Alain Rolland red-carded Warburton in the semi-final against France. Joubert then decided not to award a potential match-changing penalty in the closing stages of the final unless someone pulled a knife. That's just four matches I can recall without checking. Not all those decisions were necessarily wrong, but it's fair to say that other referees might have made different calls.

You are correct, last world cup had plenty of issues as well, however I have a feeling this one will be the one that will change laws and refereeing for the better (after it severely affects this one)

Jimpy wrote:With Owens, all teams need to do is work out which law infringement he is going to ignore in that particular match and play to suit.

He's a good ref, but I think past his best.

Why?
Is his eyesight failing? Judgment impaired? Unable to keep up with play? Loosing interest? Unaware of the laws? Intimidated by the occasion?

Just curious as to why he's "past his best".

offload wrote:

Jimpy wrote:With Owens, all teams need to do is work out which law infringement he is going to ignore in that particular match and play to suit.

He's a good ref, but I think past his best.

Why?  
Is his eyesight failing? Judgment impaired? Unable to keep up with play?  Loosing interest?  Unaware of the laws? Intimidated by the occasion?

Just curious as to why he's "past his best".

As I said, seems to have lost an edge, and many seem to agree that his officiating performances are not what they were. Or rather, he officiates in a different way to how he used to. Rightly or wrongly, that could be perceived as losing form. Certainly it is from my point of view. Quite a few comments on different forums about erratic decision making from him lately, an accusation you certainly couldn't have levelled at him in years gone by. My comment about which law infringements he's ignoring in a particular match were tongue in cheek, but have a basis in truth I feel.

Still a good referee. But not as good as he was maybe.

Jimpy wrote:

offload wrote:

Jimpy wrote:With Owens, all teams need to do is work out which law infringement he is going to ignore in that particular match and play to suit.

He's a good ref, but I think past his best.

Why?  
Is his eyesight failing? Judgment impaired? Unable to keep up with play?  Loosing interest?  Unaware of the laws? Intimidated by the occasion?

Just curious as to why he's "past his best".

As I said, seems to have lost an edge, and many seem to agree that his officiating performances are not what they were. Or rather, he officiates in a different way to how he used to. Rightly or wrongly, that could be perceived as losing form. Certainly it is from my point of view. Quite a few comments on different forums about erratic decision making from him lately, an accusation you certainly couldn't have levelled at him in years gone by. My comment about which law infringements he's ignoring in a particular match were tongue in cheek, but have a basis in truth I feel.

Still a good referee. But not as good as he was maybe.

Interesting perpective. Refs have good days and bad - I've not noticed him have more of the later to conclude that he's not as good as he was.

Owens is a good referee but I don't think he's particularly better (or makes fewer mistakes) than the other top officials. He tends to get the benefit of the doubt and less criticism because he adds a touch of humour to the game and is a bit of a character.

Owens is not as good as he once was, on that I agree. He is though, an icon of the game now and is responsible for getting more interest in the game as people who don't know the game like the way he approaches the players and how the players show him respect. I feel this celebrity side of him may affect his performances (my theory anyways). Still a very good ref and one of the best though.

lostinwales wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

lostinwales wrote:If you are going in that direction there can be good reasons for putting holes/ 'perforations' in wing surfaces. Its all about controlling the air flow don't ya know.

A hole though - any hole - is a bastard for turbulent vortexes!  And turbulent vortexes are bastards for crashing!   It's a ongoing engineering catch 22.  How many perforations per wing before the vibrations rip it off.  Costing will decide.

Turbulent vortices are often a good thing and not bastards for crashing. They help stop the air flow from getting detached from the top of the wing which in turn can stop it from working. So those little bastards actually help to keep the plane up in the air

That's far too much science for O'Leary!

Biltong wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

Biltong wrote:My big worry is that referees will have a bigger than usual impact on this coming world cup.

Bigger than usual?

At the last World Cup, Barnes ruled out a Welsh penalty against SA which might have been given by a TMO referral, and might easily have affected the result. Bryce Lawrence then refereed the Boks out of the tournament, while Alain Rolland red-carded Warburton in the semi-final against France. Joubert then decided not to award a potential match-changing penalty in the closing stages of the final unless someone pulled a knife. That's just four matches I can recall without checking. Not all those decisions were necessarily wrong, but it's fair to say that other referees might have made different calls.

You are correct, last world cup had plenty of issues as well, however I have a feeling this one will be the one that will change laws and refereeing for the better (after it severely affects this one)

I'd be happy if World Rugby avoided giving last minute guidelines to referees. It had the effect last time of making them change the way they officiated, which meant most of the work teams did to prepare for their idiosyncrasies was wasted.

I'd also be happy if we have an uncontroversial World Cup ball. You don't have to be a one-eyed England fan to realize that the last effort was different enough from usual match balls - or even the ones that teams had been given for practice - that a number of top kickers struggled to handle it. Some people had no issues at all - Wales slotted kicks, Toby Flood seemed fine with it for England, Morne Steyn liked it and Australia's kicking coach said it was the best he'd tried - but it wasn't just Wilkinson who found it difficult.

Balls!

SecretFly wrote:Balls!

Their aerodynamics are terrible!

More holes needed.

Fly, you are dangerously close to ripping off the wings.

What are we going to call airbusses then?













Bus.

I'd say Barnes is only there because England wouldn't have any refs at their own tournament (bearing in mind JP Doyle is an Irish reject) which would be a disgrace for England rugby.

Nigel Owens is a great ref not because he always gets everything right, but he is a great communicator and he is used to the big occasion. Some of the best games have been reffed by him in the last 2 years. I hope he gets the world cup final (not least because that means Wales will have been knocked out), but because he deserves to ref at the highest possible level. He was robbed of the last world cup final.

Rugby Fan - with regard to giving refs last minute directives. That shouldn't be a problem for the teams because they will all be told exactly what will happen by the refs prior to the world cup. David Wallace (who got injured in the warm up to last world cup and ended up doing punditry) said that they had a session with the Irish World Cup Refs and they were told then by them that they were going to be very hard on Tip Tackles. Wally was the only pundit who called it right and said straight up it was a Red Card (while Dayglo and co were saying it wasn't).

Hopefully the players will listen to the refs this time.

I agree Sin é. Nigel Owens is a smashing ref and for me cannot harvest enough praise for the way in which he refs big games. His communication skills with the players is top class, and whilst no man will get everything right, he understands how to get games flowing and does not bottle the big calls.

I struggle with Pollock's interpretation of the game the most - very hard to follow.

Joubert and Barnes are the biggest sticklers, and the most likely to be inconsistent game to game. Both seem to pick up one point one game, and ref it to death, only to pick on something entirely different the following week.

Poite is the ref you want if you have the dominant scrum.

Clancy is the ref to avoid if you are the favourite to win, as the game just turns into a lottery.

It's a real shame that Scotland haven't produced a decent ref in years.

Sin é wrote:I...Rugby Fan - with regard to giving refs last minute directives. That shouldn't be a problem for the teams because they will all be told exactly what will happen by the refs prior to the world cup...

I know how it should work. I followed what the IRB was saying before the last World Cup and highlighted their guidance on another rugby forum at the time, warning that it might cause problems.

I certainly remember one commentator warning that Rolland would go red on Warburton, because he had done it shortly before in a club game for the same offence, but you are a better man than me to remember it was Wallace. However, he was right in his judgement of what Rolland would do, not what every referee would have done, and that's the problem.

There were five areas of specific guidance last time:

* The breakdown – tackler must roll away and assist tackler must release, while arriving players must come through the gate.

* The scrum – slow sequence of four calls, the loosehead must have his head and shoulders above hips and the tighthead must bind on the body of his opponent, not the arm.

* Offsides – strict policing of offside players close to the breakdown and players in front of kicker must remain stationary until put onside.

* Mauls – the ball-carrier must be available to be tackled by the defending team.

* Foul play – high tackles, grabbing and twisting of the head and tip tackles to be emphasised, with referees to start at red and work backwards.

The trouble was that referees are competitive animals themselves, and tried to adjust their usual behaviour to fit what they thought their IRB bosses wanted, so as to have a better chance of selection for the top matches. They all did this to varying degrees so we ended up with even less consistency than usual.

Biltong wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

Biltong wrote:My big worry is that referees will have a bigger than usual impact on this coming world cup.

Bigger than usual?

At the last World Cup, Barnes ruled out a Welsh penalty against SA which might have been given by a TMO referral, and might easily have affected the result. Bryce Lawrence then refereed the Boks out of the tournament, while Alain Rolland red-carded Warburton in the semi-final against France. Joubert then decided not to award a potential match-changing penalty in the closing stages of the final unless someone pulled a knife. That's just four matches I can recall without checking. Not all those decisions were necessarily wrong, but it's fair to say that other referees might have made different calls.

You are correct, last world cup had plenty of issues as well, however I have a feeling this one will be the one that will change laws and refereeing for the better (after it severely affects this one)

Actually Biltong I think Mr Peyper needs to seriously look at his ability to referee the game in a fair manner, Hopefully his SANZAR warning makes him realise that he has to conduct himself (and other officials) not only in a fair manner but also in manner that seems to be fair.

http://m.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11430237

Seems pretty clear that Chieka broke SANZAR rules but they couldn't live with the idea of banning him from rugby for six months, so pretended he hadn't really.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Biltong wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

Biltong wrote:My big worry is that referees will have a bigger than usual impact on this coming world cup.

Bigger than usual?

At the last World Cup, Barnes ruled out a Welsh penalty against SA which might have been given by a TMO referral, and might easily have affected the result. Bryce Lawrence then refereed the Boks out of the tournament, while Alain Rolland red-carded Warburton in the semi-final against France. Joubert then decided not to award a potential match-changing penalty in the closing stages of the final unless someone pulled a knife. That's just four matches I can recall without checking. Not all those decisions were necessarily wrong, but it's fair to say that other referees might have made different calls.

You are correct, last world cup had plenty of issues as well, however I have a feeling this one will be the one that will change laws and refereeing for the better (after it severely affects this one)

Actually Biltong I think Mr Peyper needs to seriously look at his ability to referee the game in a fair manner, Hopefully his SANZAR warning makes him realise that he has to conduct himself (and other officials) not only in a fair manner but also in manner that seems to be fair.

Laurie, how do you suggest when a coach approaches him in front of his colleagues?

As a culture South Africans don't like to humiliate people in front of others, Peyper is an affable guy, you should be angry at Michael Cheika who seems to get away with whatever he wants.

In fact, the SANZAR judiciary is a farce, compare the bans SA players get in comparisons to Australian and New Zealand players.

And then SANZAR warns Peyper about accommodating temper tantrum Cheika?

The sooner this SANZAR allegiance is disbanded the better in my view

Yeah, Chieka was in the wrong alright. He seems like a bit of a knob. What doesn't look good for Peyper though is the sudden switch in penalty count after half time. Doesn't look good that's all.