Craig Joubert

First topic message reminder :

Well he feckin is !  lets make sure we do it boys ?

So just to clarify when Joubert asked the TMO for an opinion, was given it (yellow card), and then asked if he was correct not to award a penlty try, and had this verified by the tMO then it was Jouberts fault that a yellow card was given.

When he didnt ask the TMOs opinion, because he didnt have that facility under the guidance and even with the replays experts cant make up their minds as to whether or not it was a penalty or a scrum ... then its also his fault for not going to the TMO ( even though he couldnt).

That the Scotts couldnt tackle, field kick offs, or secure their own lineout ball with a couple of minutes left is of course irrelavant. It wasnt the Scots bottling it a making a basic error, it was of course the ref. And Australia would not have under any circumstance been able to change the scrum into a scoring position and definately only won the game because of that one decision.

Bloody refs.

Just been re-tweeted by Brian Moore :-)

"In the cold light of day Joubert had a poor game - but our line out failed - and that cost us the game"

Gooseberry wrote:So just to clarify when Joubert asked the TMO for an opinion, was given it (yellow card), and then asked if he was correct not to award a penlty try, and had this verified by the tMO then it was Jouberts fault that a yellow card was given.

When he didnt ask the TMOs opinion, because he didnt have that facility under the guidance and even with the replays experts cant make up their minds as to whether or not it was a penalty or a scrum ... then its also his fault for not going to the TMO ( even though he couldnt).

That the Scotts couldnt tackle, field kick offs, or secure their own lineout ball with a couple of minutes left is of course irrelavant. It wasnt the Scots bottling it a making a basic error, it was of course the ref. And Australia would not have under any circumstance been able to change the scrum into a scoring position and definately only won the game because of that one decision.

Bloody refs.

Pretty much sums it up.

Gooseberry wrote:So

That the Scotts couldnt tackle, field kick offs, or secure their own lineout ball with a couple of minutes left is of course irrelavant. It wasnt the Scots bottling it a making a basic error, it was of course the ref. And Australia would not have under any circumstance been able to change the scrum into a scoring position and definately only won the game because of that one decision.

Go onto the match thread and find more than 2 Scottish posters who have written that.

Ultimately (as I said during the game), you cannot ultimately argue with 5 tries to 3 against and a number of discernible basic set piece errors that cost Scotland possession and/or territory at crucial times. Which is why nobody really is arguing that. However, it is also true to say that less worthy teams have won matches in this tournament and (however inconvenient the fact may be) there was a decisive refereeing decision late in the game whose merits are worth debating.

The posters that I admire most on these boards are the ones with a bit of introspection who realise that if this had happened to their team in these circumstances, they would also have a thing or two to say about it.

George Carlin wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:So

That the Scotts couldnt tackle, field kick offs, or secure their own lineout ball with a couple of minutes left is of course irrelavant. It wasnt the Scots bottling it a making a basic error, it was of course the ref. And Australia would not have under any circumstance been able to change the scrum into a scoring position and definately only won the game because of that one decision.

Go onto the match thread and find more than 2 Scottish posters who have written that.

Ultimately (as I said during the game), you cannot ultimately argue with 5 tries to 3 against and a number of discernible basic set piece errors that cost Scotland possession and/or territory at crucial times. Which is why nobody really is arguing that. However, it is also true to say that less worthy teams have won matches in this tournament and (however inconvenient the fact may be) there was a decisive refereeing decision late in the game whose merits are worth debating.

The posters that I admire most on these boards are the ones with a bit of introspection who realise that if this had happened to their team in these circumstances, they would also have a thing or two to say about it.

I have said numerous times that Joubert had a bad game, but he is not the only reason Scotland lost.

Running off the pitch without shaking any ones hand is beyond inexcusable. It makes him look guilty and that alone should ensure he never referees another international match.

Imagine the repercussions if a player did that.

GLove39 wrote:

Riskysports wrote:No bottles should ever be thrown, but maybe someone felt that Joubert had lost his and was just returning it?

My thoughts exactly

Haha, good one.

I generally thought that Craig Joubert had a decent game. To me, the real villain was the TMO. It was him that advised the yellow card for a legitimate intercept attempt (he didn't deliberately slap the ball down) and him that missed the late charge on Hogg (also incompetent AR's) moments before the lineout. That's what I was led to believe was one of the TMO's core responsibilities.

Those two, for me, where the serious game defining moments and not Joubert's possible mistake at the end.

What a sad end to an epic contest. Well done both teams for a full on no holds barred game. There will always be two (at least) ways of looking at 'that' line out and subsequent ping-pong, but what's done is done. As a neutral, I don't think CJ is a cheat, but I do think yesterday showed he is not fit to referee again at this level, both for his inability to command the respect and confidence of both teams and for his hasty exit from the field, begun from a spot where no bottle possibly could have fallen near him before he set off.

Just seen World Rugby boss Gosper describe Joubert as a "fantastic" ref and then suggested that he hightailed it off the field because he might have needed a p1ss!!!!!!!

You can see the wagons circling around Joubert by the establishment.

He can't have needed a p1ss, he took it 2 minutes earlier

Really tough luck for Scotland, but Whilst the ref may have got the last call wrong (or right despite the slow or replays I am not sure either way) Scotland also had a lot of luck go in their favour. One charge down try, one interception try, I thought the last scrum was a penalty to Australia, not to Scotland as it looked as though the Scottish prop went down first. If the ref was as biased as some posters claim, he could have given that decision to Austraila and most would not have complained.

Maitland's sin binding was really harsh, but I thought the supposed late hit in Hogg was dealt with correctly, the Aussie looked as though he was pulling out and Hogg's reaction was rather theatrical (which he has a track record for).

All in all Australia are not as good as the press made them out to be after thrashing England, but in scoring 5 try's they probably deserved to win.

I can't see his career recovering. In the 2nd half alone he and his TMO were responsible for:

1. Maitland's extremely harsh yellow card.
2. Missing Hogg getting thumped off the ball by a very late no arms shoulder charge.
3. The debacle at the final lineout
4. Sprinting off the pitch and shaking noones hand.

A damning indictment of rugby refereeing if he ever takes charge of another match.

Let's be honest, he hasn't exactly had a glowing test match career having blown for 28 penalties in the Scotland vs. Wales game in 2013. The guy had a reputation with us as a hapless buffoon before Sunday's game.

As I have already said though, he isn't the only reason we lost. However there are 3 good reasons above why Scotland should be in the semi final and not Australia.

Ha!

Scotland joins the fray of Nations with a Nemesis Ref . Look on the bright side, things must be really beginning to go up in fortunes when that happens.

Not convinced it was a harsh yellow for Maitland. I would say it was a lot less clear cut than the one in the Scotland v Samoa game which didn't get one.

It's harshly treated (and should be) because it is instinctive to reach out for the ball as it goes past, even if you have little chance of getting it. This can have break up a good attacking move, hence the penalty. Exactly the same reason why knock-ons have offsides. To stop players from doing things that come instinctive, are illegal, but can have a big benefit for your team.

I thought the challenge on Hogg had Hooper trying to pull out. Difficult to tell as I've only seen it on the really tight camera shot. Certainly no where near as bad as I thought given the comments on here.

HammerofThunor wrote:Not convinced it was a harsh yellow for Maitland. I would say it was a lot less clear cut than the one in the Scotland v Samoa game which didn't get one.

It's harshly treated (and should be) because it is instinctive to reach out for the ball as it goes past, even if you have little chance of getting it. This can have break up a good attacking move, hence the penalty.  Exactly the same reason why knock-ons have offsides.  To stop players from doing things that come instinctive, are illegal, but can have a big benefit for your team.

I thought the challenge on Hogg had Hooper trying to pull out. Difficult to tell as I've only seen it on the really tight camera shot. Certainly no where near as bad as I thought given the comments on here.

Ok, lets take all that as read.

Sprinting off the field? Your thoughts Hammer?

Should he have hung around for the...lynching, Rugger?

I'm hearing so much about this running off the field. He obviously knew he'd made a contentious decision based on the tight scoreline. He knew emotions were high given the game it was in a WC and what was riding on it.

What was he going to hang around for? A stoning?

A handshake.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Not convinced it was a harsh yellow for Maitland. I would say it was a lot less clear cut than the one in the Scotland v Samoa game which didn't get one.

It's harshly treated (and should be) because it is instinctive to reach out for the ball as it goes past, even if you have little chance of getting it. This can have break up a good attacking move, hence the penalty.  Exactly the same reason why knock-ons have offsides.  To stop players from doing things that come instinctive, are illegal, but can have a big benefit for your team.

I thought the challenge on Hogg had Hooper trying to pull out. Difficult to tell as I've only seen it on the really tight camera shot. Certainly no where near as bad as I thought given the comments on here.

Ok, lets take all that as read.

Sprinting off the field? Your thoughts Hammer?

Completely and utterly out of order if he just ran off. If he really needed a urine and planned on coming back out, but someone chucked stuff at him, it would be more acceptable but I would have hoped he would have gone up to Laidlaw at least. Certainly needs reviewing.

RubyGuby wrote:He can't have needed a p1ss, he took it 2 minutes earlier

It's fair to say Glen Jackson is no Saint either, I reckon he had an unrequited crush on a Scottish girl or something based on his refereeing performance for the Wales game and his input yesterday.

With regards to him running off at the end, there's no excuse whatsoever, rugby is a sport where the players go at each other for 80 minutes and then shake hands after the game, you face up to your actions and accept your punishment. We pride ourselves on respect for the referee above all, so how can Joubert honestly look in the mirror given his act of pure cowardice and disrespect? He should have shaken Greig Laidlaw's hand and listened to what he had to say and then given an explanation, if he's not prepared to do that he should not be allowed back on a rugby pitch again.

One picture worth a thousand words.

The man is a maggot.

For those with a sense of humour Glove's is a beauty!

GLove39 wrote:Just going to leave this here https://vine.co/v/e9rPxHe2gO3

HammerofThunor wrote:Not convinced it was a harsh yellow for Maitland. I would say it was a lot less clear cut than the one in the Scotland v Samoa game which didn't get one.

It's harshly treated (and should be) because it is instinctive to reach out for the ball as it goes past, even if you have little chance of getting it. This can have break up a good attacking move, hence the penalty.  Exactly the same reason why knock-ons have offsides.  To stop players from doing things that come instinctive, are illegal, but can have a big benefit for your team.

I thought the challenge on Hogg had Hooper trying to pull out. Difficult to tell as I've only seen it on the really tight camera shot. Certainly no where near as bad as I thought given the comments on here.

Not sure I agree -when I watched it again - Maitland has his arms outstretched BEFORE the pass is made (To block the passage of the ball), it is then passed directly into his hand (he hardly moves it) form about a couple of feet

Not deliberate and the TMO really had no right to chime in (According the the laws why he could not at the end)

The more I seee this, it is the TMO that should be under scrutiny

Even the Ozzie press agree :-0

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/rugby/rugby-world-cup-the-other-controversial-craig-joubert-call-that-will-anger-scottish-fans/story-fnp0m102-1227573907165

Biltong wrote:

21st Century Schizoid Man wrote:Joubert is not only a cheat but a cowardly rat in running off and not explaining to Laidlaw.  Gavin Hastings and Matt Dawson, amongst many others, tweeting that it was an utter disgrace. Was he sprinting up the tunnel to collect his blood money ?  

Stop assassinating the man's character, enough of that now.

You are implying the man got paid to give the win to Australia, unless you have irrefutable proof desist immediately.

If you are of the opinion he is incompetent, then fine, you don't need proof for that.

Apologies Biltong for the above insinuations.  

I now realise that Mr Joubert is a well balanced individual who refereed yesterday's game in a completely impartial manner.  He sprinted off the field to receive his medal from World Rugby for following their instructions to the letter along with the impartial TMO      
I would like to add that World Rugby are not a corrupt and incompetent organisation who favour the Big 3 from the SH and their disciplinary processes are not cruel, vindictive and thoroughly corrupt.

21st Century Schizoid Man wrote:

Biltong wrote:

21st Century Schizoid Man wrote:Joubert is not only a cheat but a cowardly rat in running off and not explaining to Laidlaw.  Gavin Hastings and Matt Dawson, amongst many others, tweeting that it was an utter disgrace. Was he sprinting up the tunnel to collect his blood money ?  

Stop assassinating the man's character, enough of that now.

You are implying the man got paid to give the win to Australia, unless you have irrefutable proof desist immediately.

If you are of the opinion he is incompetent, then fine, you don't need proof for that.

Apologies Biltong for the above insinuations.  

I now realise that Mr Joubert is a well balanced individual who refereed yesterday's game in a completely impartial manner.  He sprinted off the field to receive his medal from World Rugby for following their instructions to the letter along with the impartial TMO      
I would like to add that World Rugby are not a corrupt and incompetent organisation who favour the Big 3 from the SH and their disciplinary processes are not cruel, vindictive and thoroughly corrupt.

No 7&1/2 wrote:A handshake.

The players were in a mood for handshakes?

SecretFly wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:A handshake.

The players were in a mood for handshakes?

That doesn't overly matter - can you imagine if a player publicly refused to shake hands with the ref?

Is that what the players wanted him to stay on for?

SecretFly wrote:Is that what the players wanted him to stay on for?

Again does that matter? I'm sure a few of them would have asked why he made those decisions but they would have ultimately given him a hand shake and moved on.

SecretFly wrote:Is that what the players wanted him to stay on for?

Most definitely. Whether any of the bones in his hand remained intact afterwards is a different question.

Well I hope the scapegoating of CJ helps Scotland to deal with their loss...picking on the ref helped Saffas deal with 2011...

I think the treatment he is getting is shocking.

I found this article today interesting read.

http://therugbydrum.com/features/spotlight-on-the-law-accidental-offside#jwyWICaKH58m7sMr.97

21st Century Schizoid Man wrote:

Biltong wrote:

21st Century Schizoid Man wrote:Joubert is not only a cheat but a cowardly rat in running off and not explaining to Laidlaw.  Gavin Hastings and Matt Dawson, amongst many others, tweeting that it was an utter disgrace. Was he sprinting up the tunnel to collect his blood money ?  

Stop assassinating the man's character, enough of that now.

You are implying the man got paid to give the win to Australia, unless you have irrefutable proof desist immediately.

If you are of the opinion he is incompetent, then fine, you don't need proof for that.

Apologies Biltong for the above insinuations.  

I now realise that Mr Joubert is a well balanced individual who refereed yesterday's game in a completely impartial manner.  He sprinted off the field to receive his medal from World Rugby for following their instructions to the letter along with the impartial TMO      
I would like to add that World Rugby are not a corrupt and incompetent organisation who favour the Big 3 from the SH and their disciplinary processes are not cruel, vindictive and thoroughly corrupt.

...and while we're being sarcastic:

Joubert, let's not forget, also disallowed a try by Ashley-Cooper on the grounds of a knock on that was barely noticeable, indeed, no one else had noticed it but himself. This is definitely the behaviour of a cheating, biased ref who is trying to illegally ensure that Australia win.

TightHEAD wrote:I think the treatment he is getting is shocking.

I found this article today interesting read.

http://therugbydrum.com/features/spotlight-on-the-law-accidental-offside#jwyWICaKH58m7sMr.97

TBF compared to what Nigel Owens got from the Samaons last time around its pretty mild.

TightHEAD wrote:I think the treatment he is getting is shocking.

I found this article today interesting read.

http://therugbydrum.com/features/spotlight-on-the-law-accidental-offside#jwyWICaKH58m7sMr.97

He didn't handle it well though. The run off immediately did nothing but stoke up the fire. His absence from publicity also suggests he again isn't handling it well. Even in his native SA he's been heavily criticised.

I don't think its got too out of hand though... compared to various referees when England football team have been knocked out its been a walk in the park.

The problem is... he has form. Bad form for being either swayed by an occasion, the home fans or worse... darker elements in 2011. That suggests he was ill prepared to referee at the highest level. Its taken another type scenario to confirm this. We all know the law is a complete joke in this respect but instead they're more interested in bringing in another scrum engagement ruling etc.

In addition Phipps hasn't taken flak which is surprising. He acknowledges he touched it last... but he also immediately after the Scotland player caught it screamed to Joubert of a penalty. That is cheating of the highest level. Its as bad as diving for a penalty and getting it.

fa0019 wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:I think the treatment he is getting is shocking.

I found this article today interesting read.

http://therugbydrum.com/features/spotlight-on-the-law-accidental-offside#jwyWICaKH58m7sMr.97

He didn't handle it well though. The run off immediately did nothing but stoke up the fire. His absence from publicity also suggests he again isn't handling it well. Even in his native SA he's been heavily criticised.

I don't think its got too out of hand though... compared to various referees when England football team have been knocked out its been a walk in the park.

The problem is... he has form. Bad form for being either swayed by an occasion, the home fans or worse... darker elements in 2011. That suggests he was ill prepared to referee at the highest level. Its taken another type scenario to confirm this. We all know the law is a complete joke in this respect but instead they're more interested in bringing in another scrum engagement ruling etc.

In addition Phipps hasn't taken flak which is surprising. He acknowledges he touched it last... but he also immediately after the Scotland player caught it screamed to Joubert of a penalty. That is cheating of the highest level. Its as bad as diving for a penalty and getting it.

Where is the line drawn though? Your guess is as good as mine.

Is it drawn at the scrum where the prop illegaly drives or slips his bind? When a player commits an act of foul play at the breakdown?

Who decides where gamesmanship ends and cheating begins?

Mr Fishpaste wrote:

21st Century Schizoid Man wrote:

Biltong wrote:

21st Century Schizoid Man wrote:Joubert is not only a cheat but a cowardly rat in running off and not explaining to Laidlaw.  Gavin Hastings and Matt Dawson, amongst many others, tweeting that it was an utter disgrace. Was he sprinting up the tunnel to collect his blood money ?  

Stop assassinating the man's character, enough of that now.

You are implying the man got paid to give the win to Australia, unless you have irrefutable proof desist immediately.

If you are of the opinion he is incompetent, then fine, you don't need proof for that.

Apologies Biltong for the above insinuations.  

I now realise that Mr Joubert is a well balanced individual who refereed yesterday's game in a completely impartial manner.  He sprinted off the field to receive his medal from World Rugby for following their instructions to the letter along with the impartial TMO      
I would like to add that World Rugby are not a corrupt and incompetent organisation who favour the Big 3 from the SH and their disciplinary processes are not cruel, vindictive and thoroughly corrupt.

...and while we're being sarcastic:

Joubert, let's not forget, also disallowed a try by Ashley-Cooper on the grounds of a knock on that was barely noticeable, indeed, no one else had noticed it but himself. This is definitely the behaviour of a cheating, biased ref who is trying to illegally ensure that Australia win.

Different circumstances Mr F.

AUS were in the driving seat, 1 man up and what 8 points up. They were coasting.

Do I think he was deliberately cheating... no. Do I think the weight of the majors hangs over referees... yes I do. Scotland is one of them, I don't dispute that. But its almost like, "favourites on verge of going out to a bunch of no hopers... this could be me under one hell of a beasting from the Aussies post game".

That hangs heavy on referees and Joubert has been shown to crack under this sort of pressure. Some people just don't deal with pressure well.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:I think the treatment he is getting is shocking.

I found this article today interesting read.

http://therugbydrum.com/features/spotlight-on-the-law-accidental-offside#jwyWICaKH58m7sMr.97

He didn't handle it well though. The run off immediately did nothing but stoke up the fire. His absence from publicity also suggests he again isn't handling it well. Even in his native SA he's been heavily criticised.

I don't think its got too out of hand though... compared to various referees when England football team have been knocked out its been a walk in the park.

The problem is... he has form. Bad form for being either swayed by an occasion, the home fans or worse... darker elements in 2011. That suggests he was ill prepared to referee at the highest level. Its taken another type scenario to confirm this. We all know the law is a complete joke in this respect but instead they're more interested in bringing in another scrum engagement ruling etc.

In addition Phipps hasn't taken flak which is surprising. He acknowledges he touched it last... but he also immediately after the Scotland player caught it screamed to Joubert of a penalty. That is cheating of the highest level. Its as bad as diving for a penalty and getting it.

Where is the line drawn though? Your guess is as good as mine.

Is it drawn at the scrum where the prop illegaly drives or slips his bind? When a player commits an act of foul play at the breakdown?

Who decides where gamesmanship ends and cheating begins?

I think its when a player tries to suggest a foul has been made when it wasn't. I.e. diving, over exaggerating pain, complaining to referees of opposition players conduct etc.

fa0019 wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:I think the treatment he is getting is shocking.

I found this article today interesting read.

http://therugbydrum.com/features/spotlight-on-the-law-accidental-offside#jwyWICaKH58m7sMr.97

He didn't handle it well though. The run off immediately did nothing but stoke up the fire. His absence from publicity also suggests he again isn't handling it well. Even in his native SA he's been heavily criticised.

I don't think its got too out of hand though... compared to various referees when England football team have been knocked out its been a walk in the park.

The problem is... he has form. Bad form for being either swayed by an occasion, the home fans or worse... darker elements in 2011. That suggests he was ill prepared to referee at the highest level. Its taken another type scenario to confirm this. We all know the law is a complete joke in this respect but instead they're more interested in bringing in another scrum engagement ruling etc.

In addition Phipps hasn't taken flak which is surprising. He acknowledges he touched it last... but he also immediately after the Scotland player caught it screamed to Joubert of a penalty. That is cheating of the highest level. Its as bad as diving for a penalty and getting it.

Where is the line drawn though? Your guess is as good as mine.

Is it drawn at the scrum where the prop illegaly drives or slips his bind? When a player commits an act of foul play at the breakdown?

Who decides where gamesmanship ends and cheating begins?

I think its when a player tries to suggest a foul has been made when it wasn't. I.e. diving, over exaggerating pain, complaining to referees of opposition players conduct etc.

I can imagine at the next scrum after a penalty is awarded, the looshead going over to the ref and saying sorry sir I wasn't driving straight, I think you should reverse your decision.


NOT!

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:I think the treatment he is getting is shocking.

I found this article today interesting read.

http://therugbydrum.com/features/spotlight-on-the-law-accidental-offside#jwyWICaKH58m7sMr.97

He didn't handle it well though. The run off immediately did nothing but stoke up the fire. His absence from publicity also suggests he again isn't handling it well. Even in his native SA he's been heavily criticised.

I don't think its got too out of hand though... compared to various referees when England football team have been knocked out its been a walk in the park.

The problem is... he has form. Bad form for being either swayed by an occasion, the home fans or worse... darker elements in 2011. That suggests he was ill prepared to referee at the highest level. Its taken another type scenario to confirm this. We all know the law is a complete joke in this respect but instead they're more interested in bringing in another scrum engagement ruling etc.

In addition Phipps hasn't taken flak which is surprising. He acknowledges he touched it last... but he also immediately after the Scotland player caught it screamed to Joubert of a penalty. That is cheating of the highest level. Its as bad as diving for a penalty and getting it.

Where is the line drawn though? Your guess is as good as mine.

Is it drawn at the scrum where the prop illegaly drives or slips his bind? When a player commits an act of foul play at the breakdown?

Who decides where gamesmanship ends and cheating begins?

I think its when a player tries to suggest a foul has been made when it wasn't. I.e. diving, over exaggerating pain, complaining to referees of opposition players conduct etc.

I can imagine at the next scrum after a penalty is awarded, the looshead going over to the ref and saying sorry sir I wasn't driving straight, I think you should reverse your decision.


NOT!

More so if he complains that his opposite number was doing something he wasn't.

Lets put this to bed

My final thought is

In the cold light of day Joubert and the TMO had a poor game - but our line out failed - and that cost us the game

Riskysports wrote:Lets put this to bed

My final thought is

In the cold light of day Joubert and the TMO had a poor game - but our line out failed - and that cost us the game

If I was Brian Moore I'd probably retweet that.

Right improtant serious question. If its come off the Aussie, doesnt this count as intercepting the ball in an offside position? Can you do that? just stay offside and intercept a bad ball?

The rule is stupid anyway, if a player deliberately passes the ball forward it's a scrum but if a player drops it and another seeing the ball loose dives on it, as is coached, then it is a penalty. Where it the logic there?

Riskysports wrote:Lets put this to bed

My final thought is

In the cold light of day Joubert and the TMO had a poor game - but our line out failed - and that cost us the game

Sorry Risky but I disagree. We could have been turned over if we had won the lineout, or given a penalty away at the breakdown....we'll never know.

What we DO know for a fact is that Joubert gave a penalty to Australia when it shouldn't have been. They then got the three points.

That is what cost us the game.

Rugby is anti-logic.

Hit a player full belt, head first, and touch his shoulders or waist whilst doing so (or touch the shoulders or waist of one of your own colleagues instead), it's fine. Only a penalty.
Hit a player full belt, head first, with no hands and it's a red if you've done it twice in the one game.....

The steadying hands make it less dangerous on the head.

fa0019 wrote:

Mr Fishpaste wrote:

21st Century Schizoid Man wrote:

Biltong wrote:

21st Century Schizoid Man wrote:Joubert is not only a cheat but a cowardly rat in running off and not explaining to Laidlaw.  Gavin Hastings and Matt Dawson, amongst many others, tweeting that it was an utter disgrace. Was he sprinting up the tunnel to collect his blood money ?  

Stop assassinating the man's character, enough of that now.

You are implying the man got paid to give the win to Australia, unless you have irrefutable proof desist immediately.

If you are of the opinion he is incompetent, then fine, you don't need proof for that.

Apologies Biltong for the above insinuations.  

I now realise that Mr Joubert is a well balanced individual who refereed yesterday's game in a completely impartial manner.  He sprinted off the field to receive his medal from World Rugby for following their instructions to the letter along with the impartial TMO      
I would like to add that World Rugby are not a corrupt and incompetent organisation who favour the Big 3 from the SH and their disciplinary processes are not cruel, vindictive and thoroughly corrupt.

...and while we're being sarcastic:

Joubert, let's not forget, also disallowed a try by Ashley-Cooper on the grounds of a knock on that was barely noticeable, indeed, no one else had noticed it but himself. This is definitely the behaviour of a cheating, biased ref who is trying to illegally ensure that Australia win.

Different circumstances Mr F.

AUS were in the driving seat, 1 man up and what 8 points up. They were coasting.

Do I think he was deliberately cheating... no. Do I think the weight of the majors hangs over referees... yes I do. Scotland is one of them, I don't dispute that. But its almost like, "favourites on verge of going out to a bunch of no hopers... this could be me under one hell of a beasting from the Aussies post game".

That hangs heavy on referees and Joubert has been shown to crack under this sort of pressure. Some people just don't deal with pressure well.

I have no problem with people who say "It was a tight call, and I think Joubert got it wrong, and that hurts because we probably would have won otherwise". I would say that if I were Scottish. I do stongly object to people such as Schizoid man (and Hastings etc) saying that Joubert is a cheat and a disgrace to rugby etc. (When in actual fact it is their comments that are a disgrace to rugby. If I may paraphrase Nigel Owens: If you want to say that sort of thing about a ref, go to the Football section of 606).

To be fair Hastings was calling him a disgrace for running away at the end, not because of his decisions during the game.

More than that, couldnt the shoudler barge be considered unlawful interference, wasnt there a scottish knock on...

Blame is pointless... if as a team youre leading by less than 3 and you start playing ping pong with the ball at the death, that is frankly their own fault, youre tempting fate by asking a human to make a perfect call there.

In the end, it was Scotlands own fault, deflecting blame onto a human error just runs the risk of souring the whole of your WC and not letting the team actually grow from the performance.

The anger against the ref getting away from trouble only serves to prove his decision as the correct one. Had he stayed, he would have been in deliberate danger.

temporary21 wrote:The anger against the ref getting away from trouble only serves to prove his decision as the correct one. Had he stayed, he would have been in deliberate danger.

I think that is a gross overreaction to the potential 'threat' level - this was a rugby game between Scotland and Australia, not a football game between Poland and Serbia for example, who have regular problems with crowd trouble.

Yes there are rumours that he had a plastic bottle chucked at him from the crowd as he ran down the tunnel, but I'd be surprised if that would have happened if he'd shaken hands with all the players then walked off with his refereeing team.

That's another thing - if he was worried about 'crowd trouble' he's gone and dumped his asssitant referees right in it by running away and leaving them on their own!

And you can't seriously be suggesting that he feared that the Scotland players would have attacked him.