Craig Joubert

First topic message reminder :

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

Mr Fishpaste wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

temporary21 wrote:Sorry but that looks like a scottish knock on... it was their fault for making such a terrible mess of their own line out.

It was initially a Scottish knock on but that isn't the point here, the last person who touched the ball however was Phipps and that is why it shouldn't have been a penalty.

Here is the law from the IRB website:

When a player knocks-on and an offside team-mate next plays the ball, the offside player is liable to sanction if playing the ball prevented an opponent from gaining an advantage.

It doesn't say anything about whether Phipps' contact with the ball (should it have indeed occurred) does or doesn't change it from being a penalty.

That's exactly what it states.

Mr Fishpaste wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

temporary21 wrote:Sorry but that looks like a scottish knock on... it was their fault for making such a terrible mess of their own line out.

It was initially a Scottish knock on but that isn't the point here, the last person who touched the ball however was Phipps and that is why it shouldn't have been a penalty.

Here is the law from the IRB website:

When a player knocks-on and an offside team-mate next plays the ball, the offside player is liable to sanction if playing the ball prevented an opponent from gaining an advantage.

It doesn't say anything about whether Phipps' contact with the ball (should it have indeed occurred) does or doesn't change it from being a penalty.

Under the hypothetical Strauss knocks the ball on and Phibbs touches it
1) the Scottish player isn't the 'next to play the ball', Phibbs was.
2) The offside law specifically says that an intentional play at the ball by the opposition so that they touch it (even if they don't catch it), puts offside players onside. So if Phibbs is the last to touch it, all Scottish players are onside.

Well at least Joubert won't be taking any further part in this year's competition.

In the best case, its still an aussie scrum, and its hard to think they would not have got a drop goal chance... either way just needed to secure that line out.

Even then, theres still the knock on...

Worth listening to the BBC radio commentary - Gavin Hastings and Matt Dawson are absolutely scathing at Joubert's behaviour sprinting off the pitch as soon as he blew the final whistle.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p035krs0?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_5_live_sports_extra&ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=radio_and_music

He didn't even shake hands with any of the players. Can you imagine a player deliberately not shaking a ref's hand?

Yeah but do they actually know what the rules of this are? He might be sprinting off by crowd trouble

He knows he screwed up that's why RDW and World Rugby know he screwed up so hastily released a statement backing his decision.

Some news sites are saying a bottle was thrown at Joubert, and that is why he sprinted off. If this is the case the person who done is should be found and banned.

He missed him, so maybe it was Ross Ford

Hastings having a go at the ref is as much a disgrace to rugby as a ref making a mistaken call (if indeed he was mistaken)

Mr Fishpaste wrote:Hastings having a go at the ref is as much a disgrace to rugby as a ref making a mistaken call (if indeed he was mistaken)

No it isn't. Hastings is a pundit now. Not a player/coach/official

Indeed, but he should know better. Pundits saying such things about referees contributes to the undermining of referees at all levels of the game...

temporary21 wrote:Yeah but do they actually know what the rules of this are? He might be sprinting off by crowd trouble

Who cares what the rules are - it goes against all of rugby's core values to Sprint off the pitch literally as soon as you blow your whistle and not shake hands with any of the players.

There are unconfirmed rumours that someone threw a plastic bottle after he sprinted up the tunnel - really not on if true - but would have been a massive over reaction for him to have run off straight away fearing crowd trouble!

cakeordeath wrote:Some news sites are saying a bottle was thrown at Joubert, and that is why he sprinted off. If this is the case the person who done is should be found and banned.

He missed him, so maybe it was Ross Ford

To be fair, it had to be Dougie Hall. Ford's alibi of being on the bench is pretty blast proof.

cakeordeath wrote:Some news sites are saying a bottle was thrown at Joubert, and that is why he sprinted off. If this is the case the person who done is should be found and banned.

He missed him, so maybe it was Ross Ford

.
Would be some throw if someone in the crowd managed to hit him on the pitch!

I thought it was as he ran down the tunnell.

Crowd troubles no joke. People have been killed by t
It

cakeordeath wrote:

Mr Fishpaste wrote:Hastings having a go at the ref is as much a disgrace to rugby as a ref making a mistaken call (if indeed he was mistaken)

No it isn't. Hastings is a pundit now. Not a player/coach/official

And he was having a go about him sprinting off the pitch as soon as he blew his whistle - that is what him and Dawson took issue with

RDW_Scotland wrote:

cakeordeath wrote:Some news sites are saying a bottle was thrown at Joubert, and that is why he sprinted off. If this is the case the person who done is should be found and banned.

He missed him, so maybe it was Ross Ford

.
Would be some throw if someone in the crowd managed to hit him on the pitch!

I thought it was as he ran down the tunnell.

You are right, this seems to be the case

Sad memories on here from such a fantastic game. Well done to both sides on an absolute cracker. I've never liked the "accidental" offside rule, sometimes it's a scrum and sometimes a penalty I just don't get it - time for more clarity. TMO might have helped here as it was so crucial and at the end of the day we all want the right decisions

Why is it Joubert's fault for making a hasty exit and not the crowd's fault for becoming hostile? That someone threw something at him vindicates his decision to get out of there, no? If we want to talk about rugby's core values we should concentrate on that, or how the crowd booed the final kick. Or maybe just the OP of this very thread?

Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:Why is it Joubert's fault for making a hasty exit and not the crowd's fault for becoming hostile? That someone threw something at him vindicates his decision to get out of there, no? If we want to talk about rugby's core values we should concentrate on that, or how the crowd booed the final kick. Or maybe just the OP of this very thread?

I agree with most of this, if it is indeed true the culprit needs a lifetime ban. However, it seems that Joubert didn't leg it as a result of the hostile crowd, but someone took exception to his darting down the tunnel. Not an excuse, just saying the timeline is possibly a bit different

No one is defending the person that allegedly threw the bottle - hopefully he is reprimanded for it.

There are only sketchy reports but they seem to suggest it was as he was heading up the tunnel, so his decision to run from the pitch was not motivated by any incident on the immediate final whistle.

Would be good to see a video of it.

Perhaps all the booing at the end prompted a swift exit

temporary21 wrote:Perhaps all the booing at the end prompted a swift exit

Eh? He must be pretty thin skinned if that upsets him.,
But, no I am not blaming him for our defeat. WE butchered the final restart and then a line out so we need to look closer to home for the reasons

I accept that the bottle (if it did happen) was thrown after he made his decision to leave. I'm just saying maybe he read the mood of the crowd and felt it was turning nasty. The fact that someone did go on to chuck something at him would suggest to me he was right to think that.

Driving home from a kids tournament I was cheering Scotland on.  There is clear discretion given over these types of penalties by refs, but it would be simple to rule it as follow:

1. Scotland player knocks on, not touched by opposition, picked up by a scotland player from an offside position = penalty

2. Scotland player knocks on, opposition player unintentionally touches the ball, therefore Scotland player is still offside but accidentally = opposition scrum

Seems simple, and all it would have taken to get it right would be to do a quick TMO check.  Hell they've done it for everything else this WC

chewed_mintie wrote:Driving home from a kids tournament I was cheering Scotland on.  There is clear discretion given over these types of penalties by refs, but it would be simple to rule it as follow:

1. Scotland player knocks on, not touched by opposition, picked up by a scotland player from an offside position = penalty

2. Scotland player knocks on, opposition player unintentionally touches the ball, therefore Scotland player is still offside but accidentally = opposition scrum

Seems simple, and all it would have taken to get it right would be to do a quick TMO check.  Hell they've done it for everything else this WC

......and I think that that is the crux of matters, mintie. At such a crucial point, the TMO should have been asked. He wasn't and game is in the record books so it is time to move on

My first thought was penalty. Always was a penalty

whilst that is the crux really should have been checked and the match instead would have inged on a final aussie scrum, the ref himself could not do that.

Hes got a ball pinged off near a Scottish shoulder and picked up by another way offside, he cant check it, and he knows his decision decides the match, its a horror situation and he knows hell be crucified either way. I dont think this is a fair scapegoat.

There is nothing in the regs that would allow him to check that decision is there?

Maybe a loophole with foul play, but I think the top bods have officially stated that he couldn't use it there.

Its cruel irony, the whole TMO thing up till this point was it was being OVER used... which is why that rule was there...

In the benefit of the doubt, Welsh shouldn't have played the ball as such a trajectory of the ball could only have come from a Scottish player.

And yes only TMO for tries or foul play please. Is the TMO called for a marginal scrum call? No. This is a similar case here.

The last lineout the Ozzie number six was haning off the scots player that took the ball.

It is no good blaming the referee just because you lost today.

If Scotland did not give away penalties, deliberately knocking the ball on, getting Yellow cards, you Scotland might have won.

Scotland deserve the highest praise for the way they played today. I really do think honestly believe out of England, Ireland, and Wales, you deserve more praise than any one.

Well played but sorry just like England, Ireland and Wales. you came up just short.

sprinted off the pitch? To escape boos?

majesticimperialman wrote:It is no good blaming the referee just because you lost today.

If Scotland did not give away penalties, deliberately knocking the ball on, getting Yellow cards, you Scotland might have won.

Scotland deserve the highest praise for the way they played today. I really do think honestly believe out of England, Ireland, and Wales, you deserve more praise than any one.

Well played but sorry just like England, Ireland and Wales. you came up just short.

Majestic - thats not why we lost. We lost for 3 fluffed restarts, 2 fluffed lineouts in our own 22 and poor maul defence.

An hour after the match, Phipps confirmed that there was intent on his part to play the ball when it hit him, which is hugely significant, as it means he effectively played Welsh onside. Thus, the quick call made by Joubert was wrong, which means this was not just a system malfunction but a miscarriage of justice.

Nonsense.

TJ wrote:Nonsense.

Well the laws are quite clear. He played the ball and put themhim onside.

Clear as day

. Not sure why you are disagreeing

Like a touched kick outs people onside

As you keep saying. You need to know the laws

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

What a load of pish! I've given most of my life to this game - it's probably my last chance to see my country get in amongst the big boys and we get screwed by an idiot ref . I am absolutely gutted .
Hanse

Gonna leave this one here too.

https://vine.co/v/e9nv1AZXItI

We got shafted yesterday guys.

I am not sure there's a problem. We know from this forum that Barne's 2007 performance was fine. This looks is less than a 0.2 on the International Barnes scale used to objectively measure bias in refereeing. You have to be above 1 to be considered biased (based on the 2007 quarterfinal between NZ and France (set as 1). It does compare well with Wales v France Semi final in 2011 (0.17) and France v NZ final in 2011 (0.14)). It is a bit behind South Africa v Australia quarterfinal  in 2011 (0.25). Therefor, we have it no need to worry about an investigation.

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

Nice clip. Very apt. You were robbed of a semi final place.

As gutted as I am about the Ireland loss, we didn't deserve a semi final. Scotland did.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Gonna leave this one here too.

https://vine.co/v/e9nv1AZXItI

We got shafted yesterday guys.

Yeah that has me absolutely fuming. That ball must've gone 40m at least from Hogg, penalty from where it lands, kick from there deep into Aussie territory. Game over.

despite all of this. Australia would STILL have had a good chance of another possession. Theres more than just one referee. The yellow card for example wasnt called by the ref on the field, without tmo, you cant expect the ref to have slow motion eyes either.
Still had the line out, made a horrid mess of it, and thats just that in the end

True but would've been 40m or however long Hoggs kick was plus the following penalty kick further down the field. A lot, lot less dangerous there.

Good point re other officials, the touch judge on that flank in particular was useless, didn't even spot AAC ? halfway into the stand during one attack.
And the point about the TMO makes it all the more frustrating, he was so keen to speak up for the Maitland incident but sat schtum for the Hogg one. Again it's inconsistencies that blight the game

Its a hard one to take. Did the officials see the Hogg one? The ball was well cleared, or was there some forgiveness because of how slippery it got? In the end it would have been nice for every decision to be gotten right, but big teams have clear thinking and great game sense, the Aussies have it in their blood, see the guy offside, call for it...

Scotland lost their senses on that line out, dont go long and fudge it, dont knock the ball on first of all, dont risk a shoulder charge, dont pick up the ball when youre clearly offside...

For the yellow card, you the last defender there, dont stick one hand out that looks nothing like an attempted catch, go with two hands at least...

Didnt manage the game well enough at the death sadly, and Im not sure making a hate figure is a good idea... seen too many

Evidently not. Although find it amazing the TMO missed it. I was screaming at the TV at the time that Mitchell should've be carded...

That aside, you're right we've only ourselves to blame. Failed to control our destiny when it mattered most cost us dear. Shouldn't have put ourselves in the position where the TMO's snoozing or Joubert's reffing had such a devastating outcome. All of which makes for one incredibly tough bitter pill to swallow.

Finally watched the game. I'm not sure Joubert was that bad. I don't think either of the decision was outrageous. I thought Maitlands knock on was deliberate and wasn't an attempt to catch. Whether it was a yellow card offence is another story, but have seen people carded this year for similar actions. Same goes for the final penalty. Overall, he possibly got the call wrong, but judging in real time I thought it was right. I didn't pick up it came of an Australian player. Given that he couldn't go to the TMO it's just one of those things that happens not infrequently in games.

Overall, I think it needs to be balanced against his rulings in favour of Scotland. For instance, he pretty much ruled against the Australian scrum. I think there plenty of room to argue that the Scottish entry was illegal. There were plenty of infringements at ruck as well. I think the game would have been a lot better if pinged players here early on. Aside from the yellow Scotland had a slight advantage in the penalty count.

Pretty much agree bcl.
But we all know how this goes. When the underdog gets close or sneaks a win and emotion takes over it's standard practice to ignore any infringements by them, scream about all the injustices of 50/50 calls going against them then completely refuse to see any issues with calls going in their favour.
T'was ever thus.