RugbyRebels

16th man wrote:Peyper calling the feed to give the Japanese a shot at the bonus point. Okay, it's a good story but it's a ridiculous decision to penalise that in injury time having let it go for the previous 80.

Actually the previous 8,000 minutes if you include all the other referees.

CunningPunter wrote:

16th man wrote:Peyper calling the feed to give the Japanese a shot at the bonus point. Okay, it's a good story but it's a ridiculous decision to penalise that in injury time having let it go for the previous 80.

Actually the previous 8,000 minutes if you include all the other referees.

Yeah,....the squint feed being allowed has been a mistake and is hacking me off.

Other than that I have to say you are a miserable bunch of old farts moaning about ref's.
I know quite a few of these guys and they are proper rugby trying their best to provide structure in the teeth of your respective coaches trying to cheat and live their lives vicariously through the talent of others. Grow up.

Peej wrote: Patchell's piss poor technique was the problem there.
I thought Poite had zero authority and was basically a spectator.

Nah, Fella.
It was clever of Hooper to blame Patchs' technique.......but that accusation was balls.

kk67 wrote:

Peej wrote: Patchell's piss poor technique was the problem there.
I thought Poite had zero authority and was basically a spectator.

Nah, Fella.
It was clever of Hooper to blame Patchs' technique.......but that accusation was balls.

I thought it was forearm.

Piss off. This is nothing.

kk67 wrote:Piss off. This is nothing.

Rehab not going well again?

16th man wrote:Peyper calling the feed to give the Japanese a shot at the bonus point. Okay, it's a good story but it's a ridiculous decision to penalise that in injury time having let it go for the previous 80.

if the game tells the refs they can pass inspection by taking the occasional action we'll get the occasional action

16th man wrote:Peyper calling the feed to give the Japanese a shot at the bonus point. Okay, it's a good story but it's a ridiculous decision to penalise that in injury time having let it go for the previous 80.

Mind, Samoa choosing to have a scrum again after getting a free-kick was just as weird. It's deep in injury time and they're losing heavily and on their own line - any other game, you'd just kick that out to end the game.

You'd be narked if you were a Scotland fan and that bonus point put you out.

Puja

Puja wrote:

16th man wrote:Peyper calling the feed to give the Japanese a shot at the bonus point. Okay, it's a good story but it's a ridiculous decision to penalise that in injury time having let it go for the previous 80.

Mind, Samoa choosing to have a scrum again after getting a free-kick was just as weird. It's deep in injury time and they're losing heavily and on their own line - any other game, you'd just kick that out to end the game.

You'd be narked if you were a Scotland fan and that bonus point put you out.

Puja

Narked? Some Scots (and Irish) are calling conspiracy.

Was it feeding or not hooking? I wasn't completely paying attention at that point.

However, as you say, they had a chance to boot it off, and instead chose to run it. It's exactly those sort of clutch moments where these decisions are made, the ref always wants to be 100% at that point in the game (why not the rest as well i don;t know).

I would say that the standard of refereeing at this RWC has been poor. Something has to be done about consistency. No two refs seem to interpret the laws in the same way and teams spend a fair bit of the game groping about to try and find out what the ref really wants, what he will let go, and what he will penalize. The breakdown is now a complete lottery and set scrums are a close second, when the wrong front rower is frequently pinged. As for crooked lineout throws, squint feeds, blatant blocking, and non-turnover turnovers .....

I don't actually think the reffing has been too bad. I just think watching quite this much rugby emphasises to me quite how frustrating the rules and interpretations are and how impossible a game it makes it to referee.

Cameo wrote:I don't actually think the reffing has been too bad. I just think watching quite this much rugby emphasises to me quite how frustrating the rules and interpretations are and how impossible a game it makes it to referee.

This

Consistency is impossible when every player simply cheats so much. Every breakdown has at least 3 penalty offences that could be given, and each refnhas to balance what to blow based on his fee of the game at that point.

Which Tyler wrote:

Cameo wrote:I don't actually think the reffing has been too bad. I just think watching quite this much rugby emphasises to me quite how frustrating the rules and interpretations are and how impossible a game it makes it to referee.

This

Consistency is impossible when every player simply cheats so much. Every breakdown has at least 3 penalty offences that could be given, and each refnhas to balance what to blow based on his fee of the game at that point.

I agree... But...

There are some simple calls that can be easily checked and the refs should be calling all of these things the same.

Some of them will "break the flow" of the game but better a year of that and a better contest in the future, imo.

Stom wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:

Cameo wrote:I don't actually think the reffing has been too bad. I just think watching quite this much rugby emphasises to me quite how frustrating the rules and interpretations are and how impossible a game it makes it to referee.

This

Consistency is impossible when every player simply cheats so much. Every breakdown has at least 3 penalty offences that could be given, and each refnhas to balance what to blow based on his fee of the game at that point.

I agree... But...

There are some simple calls that can be easily checked and the refs should be calling all of these things the same.

Some of them will "break the flow" of the game but better a year of that and a better contest in the future, imo.

I've been saying since the first ELVs that I favour a clamp-down. 1 full year of strict application of the laws. Players and coaches will adapt reasonably quickly if the alternative is playing with 10 men, and assess from there what needs to be changed, ditched or added - and to do that in the laws, not ref guidelines.

The trouble is the risk of killing the game as a whole in that first couple of months, especially in places like Aus where it's already struggling

Ref. Berry lost it Fra v Ton.
Didn't bin a Tongan for clear late shoulder in ribs of Fra 8,, on the floor, causing injury.Fra players not 'appy.

Has sincklers blatant yellow yesterday been discussed?

paddy no 11 wrote:Has sincklers blatant yellow yesterday been discussed?

No? What was that one?

Puja

Early early on when Sinckler did a no arms tackle at the shins. I think it was the third advantage in succession and they took 3 points from it

paddy no 11 wrote:Has sincklers blatant yellow yesterday been discussed?

well no, what would there be to say? Nige talked about it to Faz and decided not to yellow him.

Slightly odd that Lavanini has been given a four week ban, but the two Italian probs that tried to pile drive Vermeulen head first into the ground only received three each

Must’ve been good biscotti.

Banquo wrote:

paddy no 11 wrote:Has sincklers blatant yellow yesterday been discussed?

well no, what would there be to say? Nige talked about it to Faz and decided not to yellow him.

It was a blatant yellow though one of the gashest bits of reffing of the tournament, if an argie or samoan had done it would have yellow for sure

Peej wrote:Slightly odd that Lavanini has been given a four week ban, but the two Italian probs that tried to pile drive Vermeulen head first into the ground only received three each

Lavanini has a significant amount of previous, hence not getting the full reduction.

paddy no 11 wrote:

Banquo wrote:

paddy no 11 wrote:Has sincklers blatant yellow yesterday been discussed?

well no, what would there be to say? Nige talked about it to Faz and decided not to yellow him.

It was a blatant yellow though one of the gashest bits of reffing of the tournament, if an argie or samoan had done it would have yellow for sure

And Sinckler has previous in this area

paddy no 11 wrote:

Banquo wrote:

paddy no 11 wrote:Has sincklers blatant yellow yesterday been discussed?

well no, what would there be to say? Nige talked about it to Faz and decided not to yellow him.

It was a blatant yellow though one of the gashest bits of reffing of the tournament, if an argie or samoan had done it would have yellow for sure

It was also part of a period of play where there were three penalties in a row, and the middle one, so whether that had a bearing I don't know. If you are trying to say England got special treatment because it was Nige, it'd be a first.

I thought I'd check out the laws on no arms tackles below the waist, but am now none the wiser
https://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=9&language=EN