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 ?

Under every circumstance 2 yellows to the same person equals red.

Oh jeez, literally every kiwi I'm seeing online has been moaning about cards since Scott Barrett. They actually think Wales were favoured in this game too. How one-eyed.

mikey_dragon wrote:

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?

You are correct mikey dragon, but Aukster is right in the example of head injuries can be accidental.

It's a point I made ages ago i think around the challenges in the air when it all got a bit silly. If reckless play can lead to a red due to consequences then it should apply to a member of your own team too: it doesn't.

No 7&1/2 wrote: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?

Not read the law book recently?

9 Foul play

   Principle

   A player who commits foul play must either be cautioned or temporarily suspended or sent off.

You can then take your pick of various infringments

Unfair play
A player must not:

   Intentionally infringe any law of the game.

or

Dangerous play
Players must not do anything that is reckless or dangerous to others.

or

A player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously. Dangerous tackling includes, but is not limited to, tackling or attempting to tackle an opponent above the line of the shoulders even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders.

or

A player must not lift an opponent off the ground and drop or drive that player so that their head and/or upper body make contact with the ground.

you can even get a free kick against you if you drop your own team mate!

In open play, any player may lift or support a team-mate. Players who do so must lower that player to the ground safely as soon as the ball is won by either team.

Yeah I've read it ta.just waiting for one of those calling for a red card to justify that call.

Face it rugby is Frak. Go high you get a red, go low you do a ken and flip the runner.

Head collisions will happen all day and now w're penalizing people for it. What we should be doing is coaching it out of the tackle where possible and giving pens/yellows only.

Let citing officer deal with the intent/effect issue post game

Oh there we go. Ken didn't tackle above the shoulders, nor did he lift Mata off the ground and drop or drive that player into the ground. Mata flopped over him because the instructions from WR have been to tackle lower! The reaction of both players tells a story too, they just got up and carried on.

mikey_dragon wrote:Oh there we go. Ken didn't tackle above the shoulders, nor did he lift Mata off the ground and drop or drive that player into the ground. Mata flopped over him because the instructions from WR have been to tackle lower! The reaction of both players tells a story too, they just got up and carried on.

Not entirely true but I see your point. Ken starts low but in contact he stands up hence the height from which mata fell; if he'd stayed low Mata couldn't have been upended to that extent. Its minor and coachable but it is the case Ken tried to tackle low and as the impact occurs he drives up. I dont think he meant to achieve what he did and for me that is the point.

That was worth a check by the TMO. Why wasn't it checked

He was in touch before the perfectly fine grounding.

Even on the WRU facebook page they speed this part up so you can't see the grounding. They know the truth!

TightHEAD wrote:

That was worth a check by the TMO. Why wasn't it checked

Pretty obvious why.

Pie wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:Oh there we go. Ken didn't tackle above the shoulders, nor did he lift Mata off the ground and drop or drive that player into the ground. Mata flopped over him because the instructions from WR have been to tackle lower! The reaction of both players tells a story too, they just got up and carried on.

Not entirely true but I see your point. Ken starts low but in contact he stands up hence the height from which mata fell; if he'd stayed low Mata couldn't have been upended to that extent. Its minor and coachable but it is the case Ken tried to tackle low and as the impact occurs he drives up. I dont think he meant to achieve what he did and for me that is the point.

Owens doesn’t just stand up he raises his arms to lift Mata up and over his shoulder

He took maya wayyyyy over the horizontal and its dangerous play

Short of line in my picture and he has lost control unless he was moving backwards!

tigertattie wrote:

Pie wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:Oh there we go. Ken didn't tackle above the shoulders, nor did he lift Mata off the ground and drop or drive that player into the ground. Mata flopped over him because the instructions from WR have been to tackle lower! The reaction of both players tells a story too, they just got up and carried on.

Not entirely true but I see your point. Ken starts low but in contact he stands up hence the height from which mata fell; if he'd stayed low Mata couldn't have been upended to that extent. Its minor and coachable but it is the case Ken tried to tackle low and as the impact occurs he drives up. I dont think he meant to achieve what he did and for me that is the point.

Owens doesn’t just stand up he raises his arms to lift Mata up and over his shoulder

He took maya wayyyyy over the horizontal and its dangerous play

I appreciate the fact that it doesn't look like any other tackle we've seen before, but for me he wasn't the one to take Mata over the horizontal, it was his own momentum. I thought a YC was harsh for that reason but is acceptable. I might be one of just a few to see it that way.

Either time for a new screen device, laser eye surgery, an opticians' check up, or all 3.

In the live footage we clearly seen Adams ground the ball on the line, he never once lost control of it through using both his hands. For the last time it was checked by the TMO who confirmed it was a try. This is a failed crusade.

https://twitter.com/ITVRugby/status/1181878705091698688?s=09

To bring an earlier point back. In real time this looked fine and no where near close to being out. This wasnt checked unlike the grounding which was. The tmo sometimes goes their own way on what they look at but most of the time like in thos case only check what the ref wants. I understand the reason for that as they wanted the on field decision making not to be overruled but I do think it would be better to have a checklist as they do in other sports.

miaow wrote:Either time for a new screen device, laser eye surgery, an opticians' check up, or all 3.

I guess you can't accuse anyone else of getting spiteful and pathetically personal any more, can you? Not that you even had grounds to do it in the first place anyway. Pathetic.

You've got the wrong try 7.5. The screenshots are from the final try that was allowed. Your link is to the 'try' that was disallowed.

mikey_dragon wrote:

miaow wrote:Either time for a new screen device, laser eye surgery, an opticians' check up, or all 3.

I guess you can't accuse anyone else of getting spiteful and pathetically personal any more, can you? Not that you even had grounds to do it in the first place anyway. Pathetic.

Clearly not directed at you. Calm down. I meant it when I said it before. Just relax.

Ah was it. Cheers.
I'd still like to see a checklist though!

miaow wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

miaow wrote:Either time for a new screen device, laser eye surgery, an opticians' check up, or all 3.

I guess you can't accuse anyone else of getting spiteful and pathetically personal any more, can you? Not that you even had grounds to do it in the first place anyway. Pathetic.

Clearly not directed at you. Calm down. I meant it when I said it before. Just relax.

Are you sure now? I'd probably hold off on the jokes for a little while longer (at least with me), it's going to be interpreted as you being personal until things ease off around here.

mikey_dragon wrote:

miaow wrote:Either time for a new screen device, laser eye surgery, an opticians' check up, or all 3.

I guess you can't accuse anyone else of getting spiteful and pathetically personal any more, can you? Not that you even had grounds to do it in the first place anyway. Pathetic.

Yes Miaow has a tendency to poke tongues out like a child when he can't get his way. Cannot go an hour without being personal.

mikey_dragon wrote:

miaow wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

miaow wrote:Either time for a new screen device, laser eye surgery, an opticians' check up, or all 3.

I guess you can't accuse anyone else of getting spiteful and pathetically personal any more, can you? Not that you even had grounds to do it in the first place anyway. Pathetic.

Clearly not directed at you. Calm down. I meant it when I said it before. Just relax.

Are you sure now? I'd probably hold off on the jokes for a little while longer (at least with me), it's going to be interpreted as you being personal until things ease off around here.

Relax. Breathe. Let the red mist clear before posting next time. Not everything's about you. Calm down. If you just read the thread you'd realise that.

That's the point of this discussion, why hasn't the TMO got a set routine/script to follow, they do it in League and cricket.

Must be pretty desperate to prove a non point, around 30 hours after the game. Scraping the barrel now.

The generally do TH. They have protocols re: Try/No Try, what they're checking, and then it takes it forward and each check is done consecutivelyl until grounding. Adams clearly grounds the ball, your screenshot is a pretty poor attempt at 'fake news' as the ball spills out as a result of him flying at the ground from height and at pace, and it spins out of his hands once it hits the floor.

The other point, about doing it rugby league style - honestly, the refs don't seem good enough for that. Too many laws, too much ambiguity. Maybe get in contact with the RFU/WR though if you want to see this changed.

He grounds it before the line, that is correct. The picture proves that!

Think at the moment miaow it is very much driven by the ref. It's rare the tmo tries to lead the discussion on tries.

TightHEAD wrote:He grounds it before the line, that is correct. The picture proves that!

As I said, time for a new screen device and some sort of visual health improvement. Poor effort. Really poor.

So tries are now scored before the line brilliant. As long as TMOs are consistent for the remainder of the RWC we'll all be happy

No 7&1/2 wrote:Think at the moment miaow it is very much driven by the ref. It's rare the tmo tries to lead the discussion on tries.

We've seen what happens when they do. Look at Ben Skeen and the ire he's receiving from his countrymen, for starters. Perhaps the most telling issue is how frequently refs and TMOs disagree - it's probably about 60:40 agree/disagree on big decisions. Or at least it feels like that. With such discrepancies, Union isn't ready to make that change to empower TMOs above referees in any situation. That's why they bring in new directives like the ref asking try/no try, or 'on field decision is X' as it is at the moment. Until the standard of refereeing improves - and you have to wonder why it's so much poorer than League given the sizes of the two sports - you just have to make do with the status quo. Which also includes big differences in refereeing styles between hemispheres and countries as well.

TightHEAD wrote:

So tries are now scored before the line brilliant. As long as TMOs are consistent for the remainder of the RWC we'll all be happy

I would genuinely get checked out if you can't see it's on the line TH. Genuinely. How old are you? If you're under, say, 75, it's possibly a health issue.

Any news on Owens, have the citing committee seen the tackle yet or is it being held up due to all the cancellation of games meetings?

For once I agree with Stuart Barnes.

I think he does lose control short of the line to be honest. It's the sort of one that would always be given real time if there was no TMO but I think is probably not a try.



This is the last point he has control and he's short:

Does any one think that Ken Owens will be cited for that tackle.

Or was the yellow card he was given deem punishment enough?

miaow wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:

So tries are now scored before the line brilliant. As long as TMOs are consistent for the remainder of the RWC we'll all be happy

I would genuinely get checked out if you can't see it's on the line TH. Genuinely. How old are you? If you're under, say, 75, it's possibly a health issue.

In fairness the ball is short in the picture you posted yourself.

It was a dangerous tackle whether he meant it or not, pure luck he didn't land on his head. I've never seen anyone tackled like that before.

Maybe it was just a freak incident, at the time I thought yellow but would have expected it to be reviewed by the citing panel after the game.

It's clearly not short. This is one where a reverse angle would help you all out lads as perspective seems to be confusing you a bit.

Nope I can see all of the try line so yes is short.

My view on both is

the grounding looks fine and touching the line from the angles I have seen. He was very close to the touch line but inside, so it should be recognised for what it was, which was a brilliant finish.

In the tackle, I think he goes over the top of Owens, but as he does Owens stands up taller and therefore flips him over. I don’t think it was intentional or malicious, but it was “endangering” the opponent. Yellow was probably right, but if it had been a red I would have understood and not argued about it.

Soul Requiem wrote:Nope I can see all of the try line so yes is short.

Still think it's short?

Second photo is round about the time he loses control. I can see why you'd want to post an obstructed view though, he's short on the ones where you can see the line.

Yes, the ball is an egg shape and not round. Close to the line then loses it forward.
.but hey it was given, the question is why did the TMO not check it more closely?

No part of the ball seems to be in contact with the line in that picture.

Haha. Ok...looks about spot on frame for frame with the final photo if you bother to check. Fingers still on the ball, ball facing upwards, legs at that angle, defender's arm under Adams' knee.

They say love is blind, but apparently hate is as well...

As I said a few weeks ago, not having games of rugby is bad news for this website. If nothing else, WR should have avoided cancellations to make sure there's a constant stream of meaty scraps to feed the, ahem, 'posters' on here.

Hate? I have no real problem with the try being given, looks a try in real time. Just saying if it's try yes or no, correct decision is no.