Rugby World Cup 2019: 'Officiating not good enough' - World Rugby

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/49810476

Well, do we all agree with world rugby ?

I have noticed in particular, that the French refs seem below par, they do not ref the scrums or breakdown properly, have they been advised to let things flow ? I noticed this when both Poite and Garces reffed the Wales V Ireland warm up games.

Is this world rugby giving the officials a kick up the rear before things get worse ? I think it's not very professional coming out with into the public domain.

What do you all think ?

No surprise the French have been poor, their league is completely different to anything else in the world. It's truly laissez-faire. The standouts have been Paul Williams the Kiwi, think that's his name, and Luke Pearce, so far.

To come out with a statement like this is pretty shocking, but in a way, useful. Rather they just sorted it in house rather than making #statements, but a we've now had another poor game from Poite in the Russia Samoa game, you can't allow refs to dictate/define a tournament that, so far, has been great in terms of actual rugby.

World Rugby chose the refs/officials. Then they criticise them.

Maybe if World Rugby would stop changing and chopping the rules every few days to satisfy the cries from the social media masses, then refs might settle down and be able to concentrate on a group of rules that maybe don't get changed for a ten year period?

World Rugby - so interested in chasing after the future (money and spectacle) that they never give themselves, pltayers, coaches or match officials time to breathe.

I think Samoa should have seen 2 reds not yellows, yes the players dipped in to the tackle, but a dip of c.5cm does not excuse the tackle hitting 20-30 cm higher than the chest. So definitely agree that the refs have been poor.

Something I said on the weekend, with French refs at the forefront of it. Now WR agrees with me. Also the fact that O'Keeffe was deemed good enough to officiate at such a tournament is another mockery.

I hate danny cares comment. It's just so stupid. The players always have more impact on the game than the ref. Why ignorentheir mistakes and simply say it's the ref at fault for a team going home. The only real criticism to aim at is how reluctant the tmos seem at reviewing incidents rather than a red missing them on a field.

Both Samoan tackles today were worthy of Red Cards. I agree with 7 1/2 that the TMO has been just as big a let down, if not bigger let down, than the referee today.

So I think Poite set the precedence with the first one, mainly at the TMO advice that the Russian player dipped into the tackle.

The problem was the second one came soon after and for consistency the same mitigation had to apply.

The mistake was probably not to give the red card in the first instance but I suppose officials don't want to spoil the game if they can avoid it.

rodders wrote:So I think Poite set the precedence with the first one, mainly at the TMO advice that the Russian player dipped into the tackle.

The problem was the second one came soon after and for consistency the same mitigation had to apply.  

The mistake was probably not to give the red card in the first instance but I suppose officials don't want to spoil the game if they can avoid it.    

The lack of consistency is a big problem, in the England game on Sunday the TMO seemed to think that the tackle on Watson was worthy of a yellow card (it wasn't) whereas the day before you worth incidents not getting flagged.

TMOs seem to be the problem.

They saw nothing wrong with the shoulder charge on the Russian in the Japan game which resulted in a HIA.  Once that choice was made the rest seem to fall into line.

If you are the ref and the guy with all and angles who has a better view then your massive screen tells you that it's only a yellow you aren't going to go against them as he has the better views.

I think as the WC is in the SH sphere of influence we will have SH style reffing.  Either way these decisions make a complete joke of WR wanting to lower the tackle area when they can't even keep headshots as clearly off limits.

Gee funny how we kiwis have been saying the French refs have been rubbish for some time and only now others agree, bit slow folks.

Taylorman wrote:Gee funny how we kiwis have been saying the French refs have been rubbish for some time and only now others agree, bit slow folks.

I thought kiwis liked French refs as their record with them is mostly good wins? If I'm wrong I apologise but I always thought you guys liked the interpretations the French seem to have despite a bloody clear written law book. I think you'll find an England fan will check the ref of the match before the starting line up to see if we have a chance.

There is a growing xenophobia on here.

Yoda wrote:

Taylorman wrote:Gee funny how we kiwis have been saying the French refs have been rubbish for some time and only now others agree, bit slow folks.

I thought kiwis liked French refs as their record with them is mostly good wins? If I'm wrong I apologise but I always thought you guys liked the interpretations the French seem to have despite a bloody clear written law book. I think you'll find an England fan will check the ref of the match before the starting line up to see if we have a chance.

Whether you win or not isn’t the measure of a good ref. Poite and a Garces particularly have many poor showings and once again are being singled out.

The officials have some responsibility towards facilitating an entertaining contest in terms of letting the game flow (as far as possible). However, when it comes to player safety and penalising foul pay they need to be strict. If it ‘ruins’ a games as a spectacle because players are sent off then that is the respective players’ responsibility and their’s alone.

I also agree that there should be no special dispensation for ‘over-enthusiastic’ challenges by PI players who are often lauded for illegally flattening Tier 1 opposition. This artificial levelling the playing field helps no one. For example, the Tongan who no-arm tackled Billy V, while probably not a card, was certainly a penalty. The fact that he came off worse and got an ‘ooh’ from the crowd is of no relevance.

I do agree that the tackle on Watson didn’t deserve sanction.

I wouldn’t say we have had any contentious game-changing decisions yet. We probably will though.

I think it's been fine, don't know what people are moaning about, maybe it's just the people on this site?

Ever decision has been fair and correct so far and if a something was missed retrospective action has been taken.

Cyril wrote:

I wouldn’t say we have had any contentious game-changing decisions yet. We probably will though.

Yep, we definitely will, because they’ll be seen as game changing even when they actually aren’t. Fans tend to head for anything to pin on refs before accepting they’re own players are poor on the day.

True enough, Taylorman. I’m sure we will all do it. Human nature. Keeps the forum rolling too

TightHead, re. retrospective action. With the TMO and multiple angles and replays available to the officials in-game, this needs to be kept to a minimum. Incidents will be missed, but retrospective sanctions don’t penalise sides in games and potentially benefit opposition in future games.

The TMO at the Aus game clearly was out back having a smoke, had fallen asleep or had a bet on the Aussie winger scoring the most tries

It's videos like this (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1Oj1pMWo4oE&feature=share) that put doubt in people's mind. Very biased as there were probably misdemeanours from sa not shown. But if world Rugby are seeing their own highlights reel and see a ref team missing things like that then no wonder the critisism.

No 7&1/2 wrote:There is a growing xenophobia on here.

Aww gee, did your feelings get hurt?

With xenophobia mikey? Not directly but think itas disgusting in general and spreading here as seen on the thread.

Can't see it myself, so maybe you're just touchy.

Taylorman wrote:Gee funny how we kiwis have been saying the French refs have been rubbish for some time and only now others agree, bit slow folks.

Not sure about this. Maybe you just didn't notice. Anyway, there's usually more of a need to complain about the atrocious SH refereeing to worry about the typically unpredictable French referees.

The TMO directed Poite in to the yellow.

I'd say there's a trend generally of the TMO staying out as much as possible. I 'get' why they've done it - better the ref makes the mistake/gets respect from players/is seen as in charge, than a dual officiating thing, with the TMO overruling the ref rather than being seen as a last resort and safety net. But it means foul play is being missed.

This is a different issue perhaps, of the TMO guiding Poite to a yellow. Which, for the first one, it's a grey enough area you can see the justification for it.

The second tackle is wild, out of control, and ends up being shoulder/head to head. He comes from distance - on the same Russian - and hammers him. It's a red card all day. I'm not sure who/what is to blame there, other than weak officiating.

Samoans/Tongans are usually happy to take a yellow if it means they take a player or two out of the game, soften up the opponents through fear of the big/illegal hit, and have them checking themselves and second guessing as a result. That's success - it's part of the game and they take it right to and over the boundary of legality.

The issue with this, of course, was that once the first yellow had been given, a precedent is set, and it fired the team up to do it again. Almost immediately, on the same player (who looked decent all game), and even worse than the first. But is it that much worse than the first? Can you definitively say it's a red if the first was a yellow? Apparently not if you're Poite...

Horrible refereeing and I hope we don't see that in another game. Russia should be livid.

Taylorman wrote:

Cyril wrote:

I wouldn’t say we have had any contentious game-changing decisions yet. We probably will though.

Yep, we definitely will, because they’ll be seen as game changing even when they actually aren’t. Fans tend to head for anything to pin on refs before accepting they’re own players are poor on the day.

Perhaps it's been a while since you've played and you've forgotten how important a refereeing decision can change momentum in a heartbeat that can play a huge part in deciding the result of a tight game. Or maybe it's all because you're too used to watching the ABs dominate, where the only refereeing decisions are those that cost them - which is rarely ever, and Wayne Barnes still hasn't heard the end of it - because when the ABs win, it's always because they're the better side and nothing else.

Something like that?

Since the days of Joel Jutge I've never rated French refs highly. He was another French ref that loved the ABs though, so I can't see why kiwi's would have a problem.

miaow wrote:The TMO directed Poite in to the yellow.

I'd say there's a trend generally of the TMO staying out as much as possible. I 'get' why they've done it - better the ref makes the mistake/gets respect from players/is seen as in charge, than a dual officiating thing, with the TMO overruling the ref rather than being seen as a last resort and safety net. But it means foul play is being missed.

This is a different issue perhaps, of the TMO guiding Poite to a yellow. Which, for the first one, it's a grey enough area you can see the justification for it.

The second tackle is wild, out of control, and ends up being shoulder/head to head. He comes from distance - on the same Russian - and hammers him. It's a red card all day. I'm not sure who/what is to blame there, other than weak officiating.

Samoans/Tongans are usually happy to take a yellow if it means they take a player or two out of the game, soften up the opponents through fear of the big/illegal hit, and have them checking themselves and second guessing as a result. That's success - it's part of the game and they take it right to and over the boundary of legality.

The issue with this, of course, was that once the first yellow had been given, a precedent is set, and it fired the team up to do it again. Almost immediately, on the same player (who looked decent all game), and even worse than the first. But is it that much worse than the first? Can you definitively say it's a red if the first was a yellow? Apparently not if you're Poite...

Horrible refereeing and I hope we don't see that in another game. Russia should be livid.

Russia have every right to be livid yes, especially given the missed card in the first game too.

miaow wrote:The TMO directed Poite in to the yellow.

I'd say there's a trend generally of the TMO staying out as much as possible. I 'get' why they've done it - better the ref makes the mistake/gets respect from players/is seen as in charge, than a dual officiating thing, with the TMO overruling the ref rather than being seen as a last resort and safety net. But it means foul play is being missed.

This is a different issue perhaps, of the TMO guiding Poite to a yellow. Which, for the first one, it's a grey enough area you can see the justification for it.

The second tackle is wild, out of control, and ends up being shoulder/head to head. He comes from distance - on the same Russian - and hammers him. It's a red card all day. I'm not sure who/what is to blame there, other than weak officiating.

Samoans/Tongans are usually happy to take a yellow if it means they take a player or two out of the game, soften up the opponents through fear of the big/illegal hit, and have them checking themselves and second guessing as a result. That's success - it's part of the game and they take it right to and over the boundary of legality.

The issue with this, of course, was that once the first yellow had been given, a precedent is set, and it fired the team up to do it again. Almost immediately, on the same player (who looked decent all game), and even worse than the first. But is it that much worse than the first? Can you definitively say it's a red if the first was a yellow? Apparently not if you're Poite...

Horrible refereeing and I hope we don't see that in another game. Russia should be livid.

Gee, where have we seen this before?

Lions third test, Poite issues a penalty to the AB's within kicking range for the kickoff on full time.

Poite then decides to do the good thing then goes to TMO- who reconfirms the penalty.

But alas, Poite hears a 'voice' over his earpiece from Garces, who wasnt even consulted in the whole thing, while walking back to re-award the penalty...'You could give a scrum'

So...he does!

Regardless of who you support, or what you think the correct outcome should have been, the process used between the three to arrive at a scrum was a complete joke. And that series deserved better than Mickey mouse and his sidekicks to get something right.

I thought it was wrong at the time, but in hindsight - and listening to Warburton describe it recently was very interesting - he followed the laws by awarding an accidental offside, and therefore a scrum to NZ. If the player cannot move out of the way of the ball then it's accidental offside - and that was the case.

Think you're making up the 'process' of how it went to suit your pretty batsheet agenda tbh.

I witnessed Peyper literally ask Read if penalising his team 'was ok?' when Wales tourned NZ. There is no team who is on the receiving end of favourable refereeing more than NZ. The SA game this weekend just gone showed that.

As I said, watch some European rugby. Those of us who do know about the standards of refereeing in France and elsewhere.

Taylorman wrote:

miaow wrote:The TMO directed Poite in to the yellow.

I'd say there's a trend generally of the TMO staying out as much as possible. I 'get' why they've done it - better the ref makes the mistake/gets respect from players/is seen as in charge, than a dual officiating thing, with the TMO overruling the ref rather than being seen as a last resort and safety net. But it means foul play is being missed.

This is a different issue perhaps, of the TMO guiding Poite to a yellow. Which, for the first one, it's a grey enough area you can see the justification for it.

The second tackle is wild, out of control, and ends up being shoulder/head to head. He comes from distance - on the same Russian - and hammers him. It's a red card all day. I'm not sure who/what is to blame there, other than weak officiating.

Samoans/Tongans are usually happy to take a yellow if it means they take a player or two out of the game, soften up the opponents through fear of the big/illegal hit, and have them checking themselves and second guessing as a result. That's success - it's part of the game and they take it right to and over the boundary of legality.

The issue with this, of course, was that once the first yellow had been given, a precedent is set, and it fired the team up to do it again. Almost immediately, on the same player (who looked decent all game), and even worse than the first. But is it that much worse than the first? Can you definitively say it's a red if the first was a yellow? Apparently not if you're Poite...

Horrible refereeing and I hope we don't see that in another game. Russia should be livid.

Gee, where have we seen this before?

Lions third test, Poite issues a penalty to the AB's within kicking range for the kickoff on full time.

Poite then decides to do the good thing then goes to TMO- who reconfirms the penalty.

But alas, Poite hears a 'voice' over his earpiece from Garces, who wasnt even consulted in the whole thing, while walking back to re-award the penalty...'You could give a scrum'

So...he does!

Regardless of who you support, or what you think the correct outcome should have been, the process used between the three to arrive at a scrum was a complete joke. And that series deserved better than Mickey mouse and his sidekicks to get something right.

Or the TMO could just have said the runner is in front of the kicker so the whole incident is irrelevant.

Anyway I thought NZ don't use refs decisions to cover up the problems with the players.

He was in front as well aha. Good spot. You'd hope that would be picked up and credit to a few of the refs so far, they've not been too scared to rewind and look at the whole picture, including something like offside from the kick. Shows a confidence in your ability to actually judge what you see correctly.

Anyway, not to drag this up when there's a blydi RUGBY WORLD CUP on which is far more exciting, but looks like good assistance to me. Yeah, it could go each way, but it's not the TMO's place to disagree - he's there to affirm or contradict what the ref sees if it's obvious, and provide evidence, which he did.

What the assistant is there to do is...well...quite literally provide assistance. There is literally nothing wrong about listening to his assistant - the only thing I'd have liked to have seen after Garces spoke to him was for Poite to go back and have a look at the TMO clips again on the big screen, just to confirm that he couldn't move out of the way. However, it would appear he agreed with Garces, who reminded him on the laws, and that - depending on how he saw it - he could either stick with the penalty or give the scrum.

To say that THIS is evidence of poor French refereeing is just bitter and twisted.

You could provide reams of bizarre decision making stemming from how the game is played in the Top 14, but this is a great recent example:

https://youtu.be/CPHsBUaltW4?t=5334

Home refereeing, favouring the dominant side, not really having a grasp on the game, no provision of standards for the players to aim for, inconsistency, seemingly doesn't know the laws, and, sadly, poor communication skills. If you want to see all of that on show, watch the full game...

As Brendan says, weird to pick up on a refereeing decision that was correct to use as the example of bad French reffing, only to contradit yourself, Tman...

Brendan wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

miaow wrote:The TMO directed Poite in to the yellow.

I'd say there's a trend generally of the TMO staying out as much as possible. I 'get' why they've done it - better the ref makes the mistake/gets respect from players/is seen as in charge, than a dual officiating thing, with the TMO overruling the ref rather than being seen as a last resort and safety net. But it means foul play is being missed.

This is a different issue perhaps, of the TMO guiding Poite to a yellow. Which, for the first one, it's a grey enough area you can see the justification for it.

The second tackle is wild, out of control, and ends up being shoulder/head to head. He comes from distance - on the same Russian - and hammers him. It's a red card all day. I'm not sure who/what is to blame there, other than weak officiating.

Samoans/Tongans are usually happy to take a yellow if it means they take a player or two out of the game, soften up the opponents through fear of the big/illegal hit, and have them checking themselves and second guessing as a result. That's success - it's part of the game and they take it right to and over the boundary of legality.

The issue with this, of course, was that once the first yellow had been given, a precedent is set, and it fired the team up to do it again. Almost immediately, on the same player (who looked decent all game), and even worse than the first. But is it that much worse than the first? Can you definitively say it's a red if the first was a yellow? Apparently not if you're Poite...

Horrible refereeing and I hope we don't see that in another game. Russia should be livid.

Gee, where have we seen this before?

Lions third test, Poite issues a penalty to the AB's within kicking range for the kickoff on full time.

Poite then decides to do the good thing then goes to TMO- who reconfirms the penalty.

But alas, Poite hears a 'voice' over his earpiece from Garces, who wasnt even consulted in the whole thing, while walking back to re-award the penalty...'You could give a scrum'

So...he does!

Regardless of who you support, or what you think the correct outcome should have been, the process used between the three to arrive at a scrum was a complete joke. And that series deserved better than Mickey mouse and his sidekicks to get something right.

Or the TMO could just have said the runner is in front of the kicker so the whole incident is irrelevant.

Anyway I thought NZ don't use refs decisions to cover up the problems with the players.

We don't. I was commenting on the decision process, not the decison, or the players. But thanks for erring to both the 'regardless of' comment's instead.

miaow wrote:

He was in front as well aha. Good spot. You'd hope that would be picked up and credit to a few of the refs so far, they've not been too scared to rewind and look at the whole picture, including something like offside from the kick. Shows a confidence in your ability to actually judge what you see correctly.

Anyway, not to drag this up when there's a blydi RUGBY WORLD CUP on which is far more exciting, but looks like good assistance to me. Yeah, it could go each way, but it's not the TMO's place to disagree - he's there to affirm or contradict what the ref sees if it's obvious, and provide evidence, which he did.

What the assistant is there to do is...well...quite literally provide assistance. There is literally nothing wrong about listening to his assistant - the only thing I'd have liked to have seen after Garces spoke to him was for Poite to go back and have a look at the TMO clips again on the big screen, just to confirm that he couldn't move out of the way. However, it would appear he agreed with Garces, who reminded him on the laws, and that - depending on how he saw it - he could either stick with the penalty or give the scrum.

To say that THIS is evidence of poor French refereeing is just bitter and twisted.

You could provide reams of bizarre decision making stemming from how the game is played in the Top 14, but this is a great recent example:

https://youtu.be/CPHsBUaltW4?t=5334

Home refereeing, favouring the dominant side, not really having a grasp on the game, no provision of standards for the players to aim for, inconsistency, seemingly doesn't know the laws, and, sadly, poor communication skills. If you want to see all of that on show, watch the full game...

As Brendan says, weird to pick up on a refereeing decision that was correct to use as the example of bad French reffing, only to contradit yourself, Tman...

And sure enough, another jumps to the merits of the decision, none of which was part of the process. Those discussions came only in hindsight, after the decision process was applied.

But thanks for missing the point. And great to get two bites. Bitter and twisted? nope, just an observation of a ref unable to make his own decision.

Did Poite come to the right conclusion? Yes.

Soul Requiem wrote:Did Poite come to the right conclusion? Yes.

That's the thing. And as a ref, if I am struggling with a decision I would be very open to an AR giving me suggestions. In making a decision like that, you have to sift through a whole string of things that were going on, decide which were breaches of the Laws, which of those were material and what represents a fair and accurate outcome. Sometimes you forget what options are available to you.

The offside penalty from a knock on is one of the trickiest because it tends to happen in situations when a player was perfectly legal up until the moment the ball flew in their direction, and they're generally reacting on autopilot and muscle memory rather than making a conscious decision. Using accidental offside as the default option is a good call; the issue is that there wasn't much precedent for it.

My big gripe with the refereeing so far is that, having declared that they were going to follow a clear framework for assessing high tackles, they clearly aren't. In particular, the framework gave the TMOs more power to set out what they think is the right interpretation and sanction, but they're not doing it.

Taylorman wrote:
And sure enough, another jumps to the merits of the decision, none of which was part of the process. Those discussions came only in hindsight, after the decision process was applied.

But thanks for missing the point. And great to get two bites. Bitter and twisted? nope, just an observation of a ref unable to make his own decision.

TMan, I haven't missed the point. You've claimed something was wrong with the process here - I can't see anything wrong. The assistant referee assisted the referee in a major, series defining decision - and he did so to arrive at the correct decision, which, particularly as the NZ player who forced the free kick was himself offside from the kick off, avoided a major injustice againt the Lions. As it was, correct decision, and correct protocol. What's the issue?

You're also forgetting how this topic of conversation started...

I was listening to a podcast with Georgina Robinson and another Aussie rugby journalist, and they were under the impression the officials themselves were unhappy with the technical set-ups at the Cup.

I haven't seen any other reference to that, which makes me wonder if they are hearing something from Australian officials.

I haven't noticed anyone having problems but I do wonder whether, say, the TMOs are not getting speedy access to the clips they want to review in real time, and so haven't been able to point out offences to the man in the middle without major disruption to the flow of a match.

Rugby Fan wrote:I was listening to a podcast with Georgina Robinson and another Aussie rugby journalist, and they were under the impression the officials themselves were unhappy with the technical set-ups at the Cup.

I haven't seen any other reference to that, which makes me wonder if they are hearing something from Australian officials.

I haven't noticed anyone having problems but I do wonder whether, say, the TMOs are not getting speedy access to the clips they want to review in real time, and so haven't been able to point out offences to the man in the middle without major disruption to the flow of a match.

I'd say that has been obvious from every TMO intervention so far or rather every time the referee has asked about a try, it's been taking a long time before the replays are getting shown and there's been a lack of relevant highlights too which must be linked to it.

miaow wrote:

Taylorman wrote:
And sure enough, another jumps to the merits of the decision, none of which was part of the process. Those discussions came only in hindsight, after the decision process was applied.

But thanks for missing the point. And great to get two bites. Bitter and twisted? nope, just an observation of a ref unable to make his own decision.

TMan, I haven't missed the point. You've claimed something was wrong with the process here - I can't see anything wrong. The assistant referee assisted the referee in a major, series defining decision - and he did so to arrive at the correct decision, which, particularly as the NZ player who forced the free kick was himself offside from the kick off, avoided a major injustice againt the Lions. As it was, correct decision, and correct protocol. What's the issue?

You're also forgetting how this topic of conversation started...

How then, particularly as the nz player was offside at the kick off, and because I started the conversation off with ‘regardless of the correctness of the decision’, was the correct decision a scrum to nz?

In terms of an overall process there definitely should be a review on a checklist in order and how far in a move you can and should go back to on a tmo review. Depends at moment on ref etc. You could realistically simplify this and remove some subjectivity.

The correct decision in not giving NZ a series winning penalty, I suppose, eventhough they missed the offside (which may well have given the Lions a series winning shot from 55m).

What was wrong with the process? I can't see anything tbh.

Anyway talk about deflecting the conversation. I don't really get why everything has to be north bad south good with you T? You know you're on a NH-centric forum, yes?

miaow wrote:The correct decision in not giving NZ a series winning penalty, I suppose, eventhough they missed the offside (which may well have given the Lions a series winning shot from 55m).

What was wrong with the process? I can't see anything tbh.

Anyway talk about deflecting the conversation. I don't really get why everything has to be north bad south good with you T? You know you're on a NH-centric forum, yes?

My point, and it stands, is the process these guys follow in applying a decision. For a ref to first indicate penalty, then ask the official specifically assigned to manage the replay, who confirms the refs on field decision, then be convinced by someone not even involved in the process so far to overule (through suggesting an alternative) both of them, is a debacle. Two decisons were made, then a third was a applied. Weakness on Poites part. At that point in the process all I see is either garces undermining the confidence of the correctly followed process that has already arrived at a decision, or, his wanting to influence the result of an important match. There is no alternative. Between the three, they did not come to an agreement.

I saying that, these guys are under huuuge pressure, and thats part of it. the post match review and fuss focussed more on the correctness of the decision in relation to the players actions themselves, when the real learning from that should have been the process followed to produce such a debacle of a decision. But as usual, fans picked sides and 'fought' for the result that best suited their agenda. I have always maintained the match deserved a better process in which to come of with such an important decision.

If it had have been, perhaps we wouldnt be reliving similar events as much as we still are.

Sorry you can't see that.

So none of what happened here surprises me, especially when two of the same three are present.

Taylorman wrote:...For a ref to first indicate penalty, then ask the official specifically assigned to manage the replay, who confirms the refs on field decision, then be convinced by someone not even involved in the process so far to overule (through suggesting an alternative) both of them, is a debacle...

You've misprepresented the process there.

The officials are a four-man team, so it's not true that "someone not even involved in the process" interfered in an irregular fashion. There are some limitations on what the TMO can bring up but the other three officials have a free dialogue throughout the match. It was well within his remit for Garces to give his opinion, and Poite remained the final arbiter. There are plenty of occasions in matches where referees make decisions but are then advised to take something else into consideration, so the idea that there was anything exceptional about how things worked on that occasion is unfounded.

You can still disagree with the final decision but there was nothing improper about the way it was reached.

If you want an example of an improper process, it was the red cad shown to Simon Shaw in the second England Test against New Zealand in 2004. It was rescinded after the match, because the officials asked the TMO to identify the player, which the rules at the time did not allow.

Rugby Fan wrote:

Taylorman wrote:...For a ref to first indicate penalty, then ask the official specifically assigned to manage the replay, who confirms the refs on field decision, then be convinced by someone not even involved in the process so far to overule (through suggesting an alternative) both of them, is a debacle...

You've misprepresented the process there.

The officials are a four-man team, so it's not true that "someone not even involved in the process" interfered in an irregular fashion. There are some limitations on what the TMO can bring up but the other three officials have a free dialogue throughout the match. It was well within his remit for Garces to give his opinion, and Poite remained the final arbiter. There are plenty of occasions in matches where referees make decisions but are then advised to take something else into consideration, so the idea that there was anything exceptional about how things worked on that occasion is unfounded.

You can still disagree with the final decision but there was nothing improper about the way it was reached.

If you want an example of an improper process, it was the red cad shown to Simon Shaw in the second England Test against New Zealand in 2004. It was rescinded after the match, because the officials asked the TMO to identify the player, which the rules at the time did not allow.

I get that, but its still a poor process, I mean after the match are the three of them going to all be comfortable with the way they reached the decision? I would hope not, the TMO should at least be annoyed that the man in charge specifically asked him to rule, and did, concurring with the onfield decision. Then after Poite accepted it and moved to re-award it, Garces pipes up and Poite goes with that, and in front of everyone, changes his mind. Poite didnt ask for his advice.

If you're saying that is an acceptable process then I say that's rubbish. If the process can involve 4, then all 4 should come to that consensus, otherwise you get the mickey mouse changing of decisions we got. And the other thing is the offence remained the same, its the result (scrum vs penalty) that Garces sought to change. They are supposed to be a team, but choose to openly contest each other individually on the field.

Anyway, no need to go on because its clearly still going on and will continue to hound this world cup, given it seems, everyone thinks the systems fine...

Taylorman wrote:....If you're saying that is an acceptable process then I say that's rubbish...

I disagree with you. If the on-field referee wants to shut down discussion, he has the authority to so. Garces was free to speak as he saw, unless Poite told him otherwise.

Before the tournament, World Rugby did establish a protocol for handling red card decisions. In essence, the TMO must agree with an on-field decision. That is the only way in which the referees's discretion is now circumscribed.

I'd go futher than disagreeing with you about that process, and suggest it would be better for the game if Assistant Referees chimed in more often. Lions tours and World Cups are pressure cookers, and even the best officials can get flustered. Just this week, Jonathan Kaplan said that is true of Angus Gardner (I have noted his communication is particularly poor when English is not the first language for teams). A flustered referee can start getting tunnel vision about how a game is going, and it could be a great help to him if his Assistants gave advice on how to manage certain situations, or overall game management.

England are still mystified with how Andre Watson saw the scrum in 2003; South Africa would probably have like someone to have a word with Bryce Lawrence in 2011; and I seem to recall a lot of New Zealanders thinking Wayne Barnes had lost the plot in 2007.

Yeah that’s fair. Barnes did lose the plot by simply not policing anything. Would have helped if Kaplan I think it was called the forward pass as McCaw said he was looking right at it when he tackled the passer.
Anyway, I’m sure there’ll be more little ref chats to be had this round.
Though hopefully not.

FFS Taylorman, the Lions series is over, gone, let it go man.

You are just making yourself look really bitter. We all know the All Blacks are great, but as the song goes, you can't always get what you want.

New Zealand have benefited a lot more from dubious refereeing calls than they have had them cost them. Richie McCaw made a career out of conning the ref.

LordDowlais wrote:FFS Taylorman, the Lions series is over, gone, let it go man.

You are just making yourself look really bitter. We all know the All Blacks are great, but as the song goes, you can't always get what you want.

New Zealand have benefited a lot more from dubious refereeing calls than they have had them cost them. Richie McCaw made a career out of conning the ref.

Richie McCaw was possibly the best open side flanker ever - conning the ref, or at the very least playing to what the ref will allow of you rather than the laws as written, is one of the necessary skills to be that (Neil Back wasn't exactly an angel either).