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

First topic message reminder :

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 ?

Have removed this thread myself.

removed.

Is the perceived poor standard of the refereeing at this RWC caused by poor/unclear directives by Alain Rolland and World Rugby?

Mentioned in the Scotland - Russia match thread. Forward pass law - don't get it.

How can you allow Slade's try v Ireland where the ball travels a full 6 yards forwards in the space of 15 lateral metres, but disallow that pass from Bradbury? Bradbury's pass was less 'forward with momentum' but, because he was tackled, does it 'look' more forward? The pass being forward didn't lead to the try being scored - any catch, even a juggle, or a checked run, would have still led to it being scored.

The 'hands' looked identical to Slade's pass to May. I'm just really at a loss as to what the law is here - unless they've tightened up since the 6Ns, in which case Ireland can feel hard done by as that loss to England set them on their decline, I just don't get it. Slade's forward pass created a try -Bradbury's pass being marginally forward (and no more forward than momentum) was incidental to the try being scored.

Just don't get it.

miaow wrote:Mentioned in the Scotland - Russia match thread. Forward pass law - don't get it.

How can you allow Slade's try v Ireland where the ball travels a full 6 yards forwards in the space of 15 lateral metres, but disallow that pass from Bradbury? Bradbury's pass was less 'forward with momentum' but, because he was tackled, does it 'look' more forward? The pass being forward didn't lead to the try being scored - any catch, even a juggle, or a checked run, would have still led to it being scored.

The 'hands' looked identical to Slade's pass to May. I'm just really at a loss as to what the law is here - unless they've tightened up since the 6Ns, in which case Ireland can feel hard done by as that loss to England set them on their decline, I just don't get it. Slade's forward pass created a try -Bradbury's pass being marginally forward (and no more forward than momentum) was incidental to the try being scored.

Just don't get it.

Where did Bradburys pass end up in relation to his own movement?

Bradbury stopped almost immediately as he drew and passed the ball - so 'looked' forward. We'll never know how the ball would have travelled had his path not been blocked - which is a major issue if that's the basis for allowing/disallowing tries.

The Slade comparison is that Slade was running pretty much full tilt when he passed, and stayed in line or just in front of the ball. Yet the ball quite clearly travels a large 'forward' distance relative to the two goal lines, which is what the law states is not allowed.

I don't have too much issue with trying 'interpret' forward passes - but it has to be done better. We ended up with some horror passes early on, Wales got burned against Australia with some blatant forward passes including a try scoring one. Yet it doesn't also take in to account WHAT the forward pass creates - and I think that's something which is necessary if we're getting in to the realm of interpretation.

Slade's forward pass both cut out the defender and then directly allowed him to get on the end of the try.

Bradbury's pass was, as I said, incidental as Horne was in relative acres of space. A 'bad' backwards pass would have still seen the try scored.

That isn't what the law states at all, it's all about delivery hence why the Slade pass wasn't forward, relative to his own momentum the ball went backwards.

It's not about delivery. Read the laws. Delivery is a directive/interpretation, and seemingly prone to change arbitrarily, hence my confusion.

The law states 'thrown forward' that isn't the same as the ball going forward and does take into account momentum.

Bradbury to Horne was imo a mistake by all the officials. The tackle on Bradbury did make it look worse.

The ruling is still not that the ball travels forward at all, but that it travels forward from the hands - this is difficult to police however, hence why for a while they used that "direction of the hands" guidance. World Rugby's online lawbook and guidance still shows quite clearly that not all passes that travel forwards are forward passes - though that does lead to the "When is a pass forward not a forward pass?" question.

Pretty much every try that has a series of passes in it will have at least one that travels forward.

Thrown forward means thrown forward - it leaves a lot of room for interpretation. Unless they laws have changed pre world cup, forward is defined by the goal-lines. In which case the only mitigation for a ball being 'thrown forward' is momentum and the difficulty that poses. Neither Bradbury's or even Seymour's passes were 'thrown forward' - the hands were flat at worst and, again, a bit of empathy with the game would understand that Bradbury's 'forward' pass was due to the shoulders being square on to the last man. It's very hard to have the hands release the ball 'backwards' in that instance, but even so, he didn't 'throw' it forward in terms of when he released the ball. Which begs the question, again - what is a forward pass, and is it decided by whether or not the passer is tackled? Seems so unless blatant.

Garces - awful ref. Blind as a bat, over-relaint on TMO, lack of knowledge regarding the scrum laws and seemingly biased against a team that plays in red. I've watched him officiate us three times this season already and he has done the opposition favours to the extent that it seems like he's got a side job. Less so in today's game against Fiji when compared to the previous two. Is he our new Joubert? He was a lot of the same.

World Rugby view Garces as their best ref. He was excellent today and in my opinion has been fair in all games this Autumn.

The same WR that hired Glen Jackson, and allowed O'Keeffe to be at this world cup... Where do you get the idea that WR view him as their best ref? Better than Owens and Barnes?

Garces had a good game today, got the offside yellow card for Fiji wrong and Adams never grounded his 3rd try with control but hey compared to some Refs!

Owens will surely be cited?

I thought Garces had a good game. I rate Nigel Owens as the best, but think Garces is decent too.

Thought Owen's card could easily have been a red. Whilst there was no malice and the Fiji players goes over the top, Owen's movement upwards at the end of the tackle flips the player and endangers him. Just lucky he doesn't come down on his head.

Afro wrote:I thought Garces had a good game. I rate Nigel Owens as the best, but think Garces is decent too.

Thought Owen's card could easily have been a red. Whilst there was no malice and the Fiji players goes over the top, Owen's movement upwards at the end of the tackle flips the player and endangers him. Just lucky he doesn't come down on his head.

So do you think he'll be cited?

Doesn't matter that he received a yellow.

I don't think he will as they had a really good look at it at the time. It then comes down to interpretation and they have to back the referees judgement on stuff they have reviewed on the pitch.

The citing should only be on stuff that the ref hasn't seen, or where there is "new evidence", such as a different camera angle not available at the time

Afro wrote:I don't think he will as they had a really good look at it at the time. It then comes down to interpretation and they have to back the referees judgement on stuff they have reviewed on the pitch.

The citing should only be on stuff that the ref hasn't seen, or where there is "new evidence", such as a different camera angle not available at the time

Refs make mistakes in the heat of the moment. Anything that discourages reckless play has to be a good thing for Rugby.

I think he'll be cited, possible 2 game ban.

It didn't look heat of the moment at all. They took their time and it looked like a calm, well considered decision. Whether you agree with it is different

TMOs make mistakes too, in the heat of the moment.

Adams had both hands on the ball and enough downward pressure, hence a try was awarded. You can view this on YouTube and you have the option of slow-motion play. You'd have to be blind to think otherwise, or be on the WUM.

I am surprised not many people are talking about Fiji's penalty try and how quick that was awarded, given how the first half of this game ended, Wales in the ascendency and Fiji's three scrum infringements in a row. It wouldn't happen to have anything do with the bias against a certain team now, would it?

mikey_dragon wrote:Adams had both hands on the ball and enough downward pressure.

Downward pressure only counts if you have control of it. The TMO didn't allow the reply to roll. It might very well be a try but the TMO didnt check it.

LondonTiger wrote:World Rugby view Garces as their best ref. He was excellent today and in my opinion has been fair in all games this Autumn.

Did WR say this or anything of the sort then, or not? Admittedly I am being unnecessarily harsh on Garces today, but I know I'm not alone in thinking he's been very poor. I'm likely being harsh on him because of the calls he got wrong against Ireland and Australia, all of which were costly. Twice is enough in one world cup, hopefully not again.

TightHEAD wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:Adams had both hands on the ball and enough downward pressure.

Downward pressure only counts if you have control of it. The TMO didn't allow the reply to roll.

Which he did. My previous comment is suggesting that anyone can go and view this now, so I suggest you do it. It was also adequately reviewed by the TMO and ref which can be seen in the highlights.

mikey_dragon wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:Adams had both hands on the ball and enough downward pressure.

Downward pressure only counts if you have control of it. The TMO didn't allow the reply to roll.

Which he did. My previous comment is suggesting that anyone can go and view this now, so I suggest you do it.

Bit late to check it now, but more concerned that the TMO didn't. I think Rugby league and cricket have better review systems, there just doesn't seem to be a set process for the TMO to follow, just wings it

You've misunderstood me. Go back and read what I said, and then try again. Oh and you do realise you were wrong in saying the TMO didn't check it?

He didn't let it roll. Debatable whether he had control of it

But rather not take about individual cases, the basic fact is the officiating isn't great and games are decided before a ball is even kicked depending on who the ref/TMO is.

We all deserve better. TMOs should follow a script of things to check.

Watson scored a try a while back but because he wasn't in full control of the ball it was disallowed. but in slow motion it looked good.

Adam's had the ball and touched it down. No where near the side line. Obvious try. If he didn't have control of the ball no one does when scoring a try.

That is debatable.

Only by people who dont know the laws though tbf.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Only by people who dont know the laws though tbf.

TMOs need a refresher then.

Maybe it is time to leave the referees alone for a bit.

They do the best they can.

TightHEAD wrote:He didn't let it roll. Debatable whether he had control of it

But rather not take about individual cases, the basic fact is the officiating isn't great and games are decided before a ball is even kicked depending on who the ref/TMO is.

We all deserve better. TMOs should follow a script of things to check.

Watson scored a try a while back but because he wasn't in full control of the ball it was disallowed. but in slow motion it looked good.

When you have the ball in your hands you have control. When scoring while holding the ball you do not need downward pressure. Just a glance on a blade of grass in the in-goal area is enough to award a try. A player can let go of the ball after that if he wants a he has already scored a try. Adams was in control as he hit the ground, the ball touched the grass so it was a try. If anything happened in the Adams case, e.g. letting go of the ball, it was after he’d scored.

The rules are opposite for a loose ball in the in-goal area. In that situation you need downward pressure in any form but do not need control.

LondonTiger wrote:World Rugby view Garces as their best ref. He was excellent today and in my opinion has been fair in all games this Autumn.

He's been fair but thought he was poor earlier in the tournament.

No complaints today though. Literally none I can think of that stand out where he got anything glaringly wrong, or even arguably wrong.

Given my earlier comment about that 3rd try only fair to say I've just seen itv rugby's tweet showing Adam's extremely close to touch!

Should Ken Owens tip tackle today have been a red card rather than a yellow card?

Seem to remember Sam Warburton getting a red card for a similar tip tackle.

There was nothing similar about it at all.

The Owens tackle is about as clear a red card as you'll see, bad decision by the officials, just pure luck that he doesn't land on his head.

Yes....but he landed on his back so it's a yellow maximum is it not?

I don't think him landing on his back has any relevance, it was an out of control tackle that could have caused serious injury, that it didn't was luck.

Quite possibly however in terms of tip tackles I believe the severity of punishment is dished out on how the player lands. I've never seen anything else from world rugby to suggest that isnt the case.

Just because you don’t land on your head doesn’t mean it’s not a red. It’s just that if you do land on your head then it is a red!!!

Refs are getting some stick in this World Cup. Either they are being slack or the guidelines from world rugby is confusing them. Perfect example is the offside line. It’s so poorly reffed that there must be some directive not to ref ot to the letter of the law yet world rugby have now come out and said that Hawkeye might be rolled out to look for offsides as it’s getting that bad.

Bit of left hand right hand going on here I think

Ok I may well be wrong. I'm terms of a tip tackle what is the scale of punishment?

tigertattie wrote:Just because you don’t land on your head doesn’t mean it’s not a red.

Yes, but it's basically impossible to receive a red if he doesn't land on his head in the tackle.

It's a harsh but fair yellow. Particularly when you consider some of the Tongan and Australian high tackles that have resulted in yellow cards. This is in line with the laws - can we tone down the hysteria a bit? Fair enough if it's wrong or even arguably wrong, but this is clearly just a yellow card offence.

I'd say it's clearly a red card offence that could have caused serious injury.

Why wasn't Liam Williams red carded for his shoulder to Dan Biggar's head? The dangerous nature of the collision would have been an instant red had the shirts been different colours. That is how ridiculous World Rugby's directives are becoming.

Accidental collisions are being carded in a crude attempt to make the game safer, but this blunt instrument is proving unfair and putting tremendous pressure on the Officials.
Ken Owens went low in the tackle in compliance with the latest clampdown on 'high' tackles and still got a yellow card that could have been red. The colour was down to luck and the issuing of it won't shape his or anyone else's future behaviour.

World Rugby need to seriously look at the collision areas from a safety perspective rather than abrogate that responsibility to Referees who can only wield cards that in some cases are blatantly unfair and are game changing.

So again for those saying it's a red card: what are you basing this on in terms of laws and interpretations released by world rugby?

The Great Aukster wrote:Why wasn't Liam Williams red carded for his shoulder to Dan Biggar's head? The dangerous nature of the collision would have been an instant red had the shirts been different colours. That is how ridiculous World Rugby's directives are becoming.

If Liam was on the other team he still wouldn't have got a red card for what was a fair challenge in the air - backed up by the fact that Liam caught the ball. Did you even think before typing this bit?

Under what circumstances do 2 yellow cards equal red?foul play say armles tackle or
neck rolls? Or constant cynical offsides in the red zone? :doh:there have been some cracking games and the card system.Spoiled due to inconsistent reffing the card system I abhor:furious: