Earning your money

Ex-Players, Managers,etc.are a feature of these events like RWC,BUT you expect them to know there stuff.
Examples "he should have marked it"[Aus v Wales],you can`t MARK a Kick-off.
Should have gone to TMO,THAT incident,Pundits should have known Joubert couldn't use TMO because of
protocol.
Ok the REF using mark 1 eyeball didn't see something a dozen replays were needed to show,the WBA saying
he was wrong,instead of backing him.
As for "Would that have happened to an All Black"less said the better from a man I`ve always respected.
Jonny Wilkinson was the pick of the pundits saying how easy it is to criticize in a studio than on the pitch

You certainly have a point on knowledge of the pundits. Really annoying when a back says he doesn't knoww hats going on in a scrum as he was never in 1! Learn, you re being paid for it. The Wilkinson thing is just opinion though. Kay the best for me and Flatman.

As for "Would that have happened to an All Black"less said the better from a man I`ve always respected.

I assume you're speaking of McGeechan.

Alan, you're a big NZ fan but please don't try and dismiss star power just like United hardly ever conceded a penalty at Old Trafford during the fergie years.... it just so happens to be true.
Refs are humans but they're also fans, they get starstruck but also worry about things like getting blasted in the press, by the fans etc.

Take Schalk Burger in 2009, one of my favourite players... should have got a red in the 2nd lions test. It was such an easy decision, it was so clearcut.... the TMO says "its at least a yellow".. so what does the ref do? Yellow. Why? Well a) its Schalk Burger and b) its at the versfeld. There hasn't been a clearer example of gouging on the TMO ever. He got an 8 week ban which was reduced for good behaviour yet he stayed in the game and SA picked up the win and also the series.

The question, does NZ get the rub of the green refereeing wise.... well if we look at the RWC 2011 then the answer is quite easy.. its a yes, a big yes.

But the truth is it goes in cycles depending on which teams have the upper hand skills wise at the time. Since 2005 NZ have been pretty dominant bar 2009 when SA got a 3-0 win over them (they also won the lions series but it wasn't enough for PDV to get coach of the year... went to Kidney who won just the 6N).

Come on I mean even kiwis joke about people not being able to tackle Dan Carter... remember Bismarcks blindside him, he got a yellow for an excellent tackle even after a TMO.

I can imagine people probably said the same about the boks years back, AUS in the 90s, ENG in the early 00s... although to be truthful ENG are the world's pantomine villians in rugby... they could save crying babies from a burning building and rival fans would still cynically say it was just PR/aren't those poms a bunch of show offs etc.

No 7&1/2 wrote:You certainly have a point on knowledge of the pundits. Really annoying when a back says he doesn't knoww hats going on in a scrum as he was never in 1! Learn, you re being paid for it. The Wilkinson thing is just opinion though. Kay the best for me and Flatman.

Oh no he isn't! He's being paid for his name, not his encyclopaedic knowledge of the dark arts of the scrum. What do Pienaar or Fitzpatrick actually really say about the microscopic detail of the game? They're paid for their names, their history and generalised broad stroke overviews of what's going on. They takes their money and they stroll away.

Fao, Refs are human too home teams as a general rule tend to give 50/50 chances to
homeside.
We wos robbed in 2011 applied just as much to boks fans v Aus as did France fans.
I don`t expect all pundits no know the dark arts of the Front row mafia.I DO expect them
to know the rules of the game and TMO protocols.
Nor is a deliberately inflammatory comment about a non involved required,as if all
the stock AB bits needed.
Only win cos they cheat,The Haka should be banned,chokers,etc.for those uneducated
ponder this.
AB`s abandoned the Haka on the 1971=2 tour of Uk.IT was reinstated on REQUEST
by the Home nations.
EVERY team stretches the rules,cons the Ref.George Smith,Juan Smith,Neil Back,
Phil Waugh wrote the McCaw playbook.
In 2011 Final HE was gouged in the eyes,player was cited post RWC no punishment.
Refs decisions ?please don`t go down that road because can quote chapter and verse
just like you.
What is certain is that the laws and interpretation,by EVERY Ref seems different,
citings not standard'.
Laws in Scrum/Breakdown are penalty traps,and IRB making it up as they go along doesn't help.Whats todays diktat Neck Rolls/High tackles?lastweek competing in the air.
TMO you either say he can review and advice on everything or nothing it`s pointless
scrap it.

Alan

No one says they win only because they cheat.. they say that they get favourable refereeing which at the moment you'd probably say is fair... but fair to any team which is on top, in most sports. That's not cheating. That's referees not being able to deal with aura's, star persona and potential stick of making an unpopular decision.

Its why sometimes your viewpoint is taken with a pinch of salt... if you can't acknowledge that France were harshly refereed in the '11 final... and I mean really harshly then all it shows is your inability to put team colours aside when reviewing matches/plays etc.

In terms of McCaws gouge... I reckon had France won it would have been cited but the rugby masters were a little embarrassed by the whole fiasco of the final and simply said in this case no... just like the world player of the year award. Were NZ the best team then... absolutely, still are, but a 1 off final is a 1 off final and that day France were robbed.

With respect if by saying they weren't awarded kickable penalties true. BUT given the
goalkicking of both sides that day would they have won.?
To this day, given Weepu strained his groin during warm ups, why wasn't Cruden kicking
whilst fit?Iffy I know but may have slotted some of the misses.
Don`t you love arm chair pundits saying take 3,for difficult sideline shots maybe wrong touchline.Laidlaw was kicking like a machine his one miss cost the game?

It's the same old story Alan, the commentators/pundits get sucked into the fairytale as much as fans do and start to lose their objectivity. Too many people 'watch' matches with their ears.
First impressions are lasting impressions and usually they are formed on the basis of what commentators say in the heat of the battle, but are often wrong.
When the emotion of the underdog coming close dies down we see the furore abate or like last week, when it was accepted that Joubert gave pretty much the only decision he could at the last play, it gets shifted slightly to be able to vent the disappointment at not receiving the emotional payoff for the investment.

fa009, you really have a proper bee in your bonnet about 2011. How many times have you watched that game and when was the last time?
I watched it last week and still can't see that there is too much to get outraged about, couple of 50/50s maybe go the ABs way, but once Joubert had allowed France to be loose with the ruck laws he really has to be consistet for the rest of the game, which he was.

gone

I simply used it as an example to a question... also used Schalk Burgers yellow card in 2009 as another example.

Yup goneagain, I bet the people that think France were robbed in 2011 were listening to commentators that were frothing at the bung for an upset.

ebop wrote:Yup goneagain, I bet the people that think France were robbed in 2011 were listening to commentators that were frothing at the bung for an upset.

Ah so they only criticised foul play when it suits their purpose? What people want is a contest which is fought on a fair contest not fear of the ref.

Personally I think Joubert was so afraid of making an unpopular decision that NZ would have had to have done something really bad to simply force his hand. People aren't that unhappy as am I that NZ won the last WC... in some ways due to their dominance since 05 I think it would be unfair to say they didn't deserve the title world champs. But it was an example of referees not being able to make the right decision, part of which no doubt is the occasion, part of which is the aura which top players of all nations in all sports carry and rugby is no different.

No. But you know what rugby is like. You can find fault anywhere when you look hard enough. I'm saying I bet the commentary team that most people were listening to had their microscopes out when looking for AB indiscretions and maybe not so much French ones. And vice versa for us. Don't deny this doesn't happen. I swear the SH and NH sometimes watch different games given the perception each has of certain games. It's down to the commentary team and what agenda there is.

I watched it live with UK commentary and recently watched it with the ozzie commentators, like you say ebop it's like it was a different game.
The thing is fa009, people can't get upset about a ref not giving decisions against one team (rightly or wrongly) when he was not giving them against the other team 10 minutes earlier. But they are never highlighted, because when are decisions against the winning favourite ever analysed? Never!

Can your argument be extended to Kiwi TMOs then please? Let's ignore the late challenge on Stuart Hogg last week but let's REALLY focus on a possible Argentinian yellow card today.
And yes, I do agree with McGeechan. McCaw gets away with so much. Watch him against France last week. Comes in the side of a ruck, collapses it and a French guy gets binned. Tonga with momentum rolling, unstoppably (legally) towards the NZ try line. Maul gets collapsed bit only a penalty (I can't remember of a Kiwi even got binned)

Gets binned for fisting his face, excuse the term.

Do you mean the Argie player that was actually binned? That was Barnes. The kiwi TMO said penalty only.

I take it you haven't been following the comments in the Media?,some people really
Hate NZ in general and McCaw in particular the Louw incident as an example,in 147
games 3 Yellows?
Certainly he should probably have had more BUT dirty play as in deliberate physical
violence NO.

Possibly out of frustration for McCaw's unpenalised antics??? (not that I am excusing the French guy)
I don't know if you played the game but when I did there was nothing more likely to lead to taking the law into your own hands than an opponent having carte blanche to do what he wants with full diplomatic immunity
I can't remember what S14 game it was but, after a player was penalised for having the audacity to legally tackle, Dan Carter the "offending" players captain asked the ref if they were actually allowed to touch Carter!

So its more about poor NZ being picked on not about not knowing the rules?

NO actually it`s been hijacked

"expanded" is a better word than "hijacked". You highlighted cases where you felt the ABs were getting some bad press but pundits can't influence matches; refs and TMOs can

SecretFly wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:You certainly have a point on knowledge of the pundits. Really annoying when a back says he doesn't knoww hats going on in a scrum as he was never in 1! Learn, you re being paid for it. The Wilkinson thing is just opinion though. Kay the best for me and Flatman.

Oh no he isn't!  He's being paid for his name, not his encyclopaedic knowledge of the dark arts of the scrum.   What do Pienaar or Fitzpatrick actually really say about the microscopic detail of the game?  They're paid for their names, their history and generalised broad stroke overviews of what's going on.  They takes their money and they stroll away.

Yes I suppose they are but I expect better!

If this thread is about how much we all miss Bill McLaren, then I absolutely agree we cannot have too many of these.

George Carlin wrote:If this thread is about how much we all miss Bill McLaren, then I absolutely agree we cannot have too many of these.

Spot on.

InjuredYetAgain wrote:"expanded" is a better word than "hijacked". You highlighted cases where you felt the ABs were getting some bad press but pundits can't influence matches; refs and TMOs can

But pundits certainly can affect the aftermath and how players, matches and officials are perceived.
To turn it around a bit, I think Matt Dawson and Gavin Hastings should be banned for life from the commentary box.

Why?

Did you hear their commentary at the end of the Oz Sco game?

Not all of it, but extracts yes. From Hastings not Dawson. Have to say I didn't hear anthing too bad/wrong.

Well their mistakes regarding their knowledge of the rules surrounding use of the TMO were bigger errors than the one Joubert made at the end, so if that error is worthy of Hastings calling for the ref to never officiate again, then.......

Yeah fair enough on that but I don't think that their lack of knowledge on that issue is enough to ban them from commentary. I think he was spot on about the running away thing though.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yeah fair enough on that but I don't think that their lack of knowledge on that issue is enough to ban them from commentary. I think he was spot on about the running away thing though.

I agree the running away was poor. But the level of vitriol was a bit over the top, it lends legitimacy to some of the fans poor behaviour, which is why I think commentators & pundits need to show some restraint in the heat of the moment.

Ah you could well be right there. Count to 10 eh?!

To be honest I think the most of the commentrary and punditry has been pretty good, yes even Inverdale.

The worst person I've seen was the bloke at Twickenham chatting to pundits before the England games - bloody hopeless. Though he's not a rugby bloke so don't know what he was doing.

Was surprisingly disappointed with Barnes. Two big decisions going Australia's way which proved to be influential - the YC for Argentina and the potential forward pass for an Aussie try.

Scott Hastings does my nut in. He should know (and do!) better but he just seems to talk pure mince. Overall, I think ITV have done well but I do wish commentators would stop talking over the ref when he is speaking with the TMO

goneagain wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yeah fair enough on that but I don't think that their lack of knowledge on that issue is enough to ban them from commentary. I think he was spot on about the running away thing though.

I agree the running away was poor. But the level of vitriol was a bit over the top, it lends legitimacy to some of the fans poor behaviour, which is why I think commentators & pundits need to show some restraint in the heat of the moment.

So let me get this straight...

As a neutral (Are you?) you believe that making a match losing decision, rewatching it on the big screen, then running from the pitch before the ball crosses the touchline to end the game is poor, however it was the Scottish fans fault because the comentators and social media criticised him...

Are you claiming the social media furore is a sign of how the Scottish fans acted in the stadium? Have we seen the proof of bottles and stuff thrown to the centre of the park yet?

There are boo's and groans in every rugby ground these days, if a ref doesn't have the sensibility to know it won't spill over, and respect the players and fans enough to perform his duty post match than thats his issue.

As for this whole thread, it smacks of anti british tripe, veiled in a few punditry mistakes, of which happen in every sport at every level, NZ are not the mst hated team in the world, quite the opposite, 90% of the planet cheer for them, as in 2011 France didn't deserve to be in the final, and played extremely negatively all tournament, by half time I was hoping NZ would put 40 on them, however by full time I was screaming at Joubert to allow France something, anything. I honestly believe a kiwi player could have thrown an NFL style 40 yard pass and there wouldve been a reason to award a try!!!