In a wholly unprecedented move, World Rugby have hung referee Craig Joubert out to dry, condemning his late decision to award Australia a penalty that Bernard Foley duly kicked to give them a 35-34 win over Scotland in the World Cup quarter-final.
Now, a referee’s performance is reviewed after every game, but the feedback – whether positive or negative – is always given in private. Never before has such a critical decision been so publicly condemned by a governing body.
The verdict from World Rugby was as follows:
“The selection committee confirms that Joubert applied World Rugby Law 11.7 penalising Scotland’s Jon Welsh, who had played the ball following a knock-on by a team-mate, resulting in an offside.
“On review of all available angles, it is clear that after the knock-on, the ball was touched by Australia’s Nick Phipps and Law 11.3(c) states that a player can be put on-side by an opponent who intentionally plays the ball.
“It is important to clarify that, under the protocols, the referee could not refer to the television match official in this case and therefore had to rely on what he saw in real time.
“In this case, Law 11.3(c) should have been applied, putting Welsh onside. The appropriate decision, therefore, should have been a scrum to Australia for the original knock-on.
“Overall, it is widely recognised that the standard of officiating at Rugby World Cup 2015 has been very high across 44 compelling and competitive matches to date.”
Damning stuff, but it is hard to see what World Rugby are really hoping to achieve by publicly making such a statement. The game will not be replayed so it does not change anything for those Scotland fans still reeling from such a disappointing end to a fantastic game.
If anything, it will serve to increase the bitterness, now it has been confirmed that the referee did in fact make so crucial a mistake.
Loading ...And given Joubert has taken such a beating from the general public, how is dragging him over the coals again – by the body that governs the game, no less – going to help? He knows he’s made a mistake – that point could have been enforced in private rather than in public again.
All in all, it seems a very strange move from World Rugby and they are at real risk of setting an unpleasant precedent for themselves. Will they comment on every single debatable refereeing decision from here on in?
And where is their condemnation – or clarification of what Joubert’s reasons were – of his running from the scene afterwards without shaking the hands of the players? Surely that is more worthy of focus than a 50/50 decision that any referee would have done well to get right.
It smells an awful lot like World Rugby trying to cover their own backs and distance themselves from an official who, unfortunately for everyone, made a mistake. A mistake that many a referee at every level has made.
It’s human error – granted, a costly error – but how they have handled the whole thing, from Brett Gosper’s tasteless joke yesterday about Joubert needing the toilet, to this public stoning of his reputation, has been even worse than the decision itself.
By Jamie Hosie
Follow Jamie on Twitter: @jhosie43
Photo by: Patrick Khachfe / Onside Images
REF STRIKE!!
Brian Moore also raised the point that World Rugby were legally wrong to challenge Joubert in this way.
According to World Rugby Law 6.A.4 (a): The referee is the sole judge of fact and of Law during a match. The referee must apply fairly all the Laws of the Game in every match.
see – http://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=6&language=EN
That’s some really strong wording. The referee is the SOLE JUDGE of FACT and LAW during a match (capitalised for emphasis). It is therefore up to Joubert to decide whether Phipps deliberately played at the ball, and therefore put Welsh onside, or not. Not some suit at World Rugby after the event.
The simple facts are, Joubert gave a knock-on, and then upgraded it to a penalty because Welsh played it. If he saw a knock-on (not disputed) and saw no-one deliberately play the ball, then yes, Welsh was outside. And it is only up to Joubert as the SOLE JUDGE to decide whether Phipps played at the ball deliberately.
The fact that Joubert felt he had to hurry off the pitch fearing physical or verbal abuse was a sad sight for Rugby. This again compounds this whole sorry issue to another level.
Fair play to the Scottish players for pushing Australia closer than anyone thought they would, and for staying out of all this post-game mess. But some former players and fans need to take a hard look at themselves.
I’m going to throw this out there.
Law 11.9 loitering.
Regardless of what was thought. They needed to stand behind the referee, a better solution would be to suggest, that whilst 11.3c could have been applied, the Scottish player, whilst beginning to try and get back, then fell on the ball, preventing Australia from contesting the ball. Therefore, law 11.9 applied and the correct decision was given.
Seen this excuse bandied around elsewhere. He was retreating, therefore not loitering.
The decision was technically wrong but given the messy scenario and the speed at which things happened it is completely understandable.
He was retreating yes. But also prevented the ball from being played, and whilst offside benefitted from being played onside by the Australian action, something that could have been construed as falling foul of law 11.9 for loitering, IF the authorities had thought about it.
My point wasn’t that he was loitering. My point was that Joubert was completely hung out to dry by World Rugby. Surely the match day officials and World Rugby are a team. They should have backed him. How will the other referees feel now going into the final games? The effect of this, could potentially ruin the refereeing for the following games.
What if Barnes and Owens feel that due to the lack of support given to Joubert, they are going to refer every poxy 50/50 decision without making their own minds up?
World Rugby, simply put, could have said, in light of the video evidence, and consultation with the match day officials, law 11.7 didn’t apply, but neither did 11.3c. 11.9 however would have been picked up by the TMO and subsequently, the ruling on the field would have stood.
As you say. It happens so quickly, and the on field decision is understandable. World Rugby’s decision however, isn’t.
I still stand by the comment that loitering doesn’t apply but I completely agree with the sentiments regarding how World rugby has handled the situation.
Back the ref and say that given the evidence available to him he was right to make the decision he made, regardless of what 15 slow motion TMO replays from different angles show.
If this highlight the issues that pretty much screwed scotland over then yes, but the bigger issue is that in this circumstance we need to have a better system in place, if in doubt go to the TMO especially when a decision that affects to many happens time and time again. Effectively what World Rugby have done is not just hang CJ out to dry but also made it apparent that the TMO needs to be used more. Rugby is a complicated came with a lot going on so ref’s need as much backup as possible, Joubert isn’t the best ref anyway but there are much bigger issues than him being hung out to dry.
“The TMO needs to be used more”!? You must be joking…
TMO is a blight on the game, being used far too much already. All this stop-start nonsense is ruining the spirit and enjoyment of the game.
I think that the general hysterical vitriol passed out, but in particular from Matt Dawson, Gavin Hastings and in the immediate aftermath Greg Laidlaw that has been jumped on by a Scottish public carrying huge chips on their shoulders looking to blame anybody but themselves for the result (line out call, why didn’t Welch just not catch the ball – would me have taken all doubt away) has been far more damaging to the image of Rugby Union than any action of Joubert. Dawson should be sacked from the BBC for not only questioning Joubert’s judgement but his integrity.
An excellent referee once told myself and a group of team mates after a game when we, politely, questioned a desicion he made by saying:
‘In a game I blow my whistle maybe 50 or more times. Each blow of the whistle means a mistake has been made, whether intentionally or deliberately, by one of you players. And you say, based on one desicion, that I had a bad game’.
Sense of perspective
Take a wee bit of umbrage to that Jez. I think it’s a wee bit harsh on Laidlaw, given he had just come off the pitch after an epic game, on the edge of a historic upset. Put yourself in his shoes. He never went over the top and he toned it down after a breath to let the adrenaline subside. Most of the Scottish rugby fans I know felt the sting (as any fans would, surely?) but most, like the players, also recognise that it’s a case of focussing on the things that you can control, and moving on from the things that you can’t. We’re generally feeling cautiously positive (following a wooden spoon and being largely [not unfairly] written off), although still a long way to go. We believe in the Scottish players and are proud of them. Looking forward now and moving on.
Jez, I thoroughly agree with all of that, particularly that Dawson should be sacked – bringing the whole game into disrepute if you ask me. He should also be tarred and feathered for that pathetic Hakarena thing.
I love your ref’s quote. That is brilliantly put.
Just about acceptable from Laidlaw (although a player of his experience should know better), not acceptable from Hastings (but at least he’s Scottish) and totally disgraceful from Dawson.
Has he got a new book out for Christmas or something??
People make mistakes. If anything, condemn him for running off the pitch. Completely unprofessional and at odds with ‘the spirit of rugby’.
I’m glad 92% of readers have voted ‘No’. At the end of the day we’re fairly knowledgeable rugby fans and we know the referee is integral to the game in a deeper way than any other code of football. It’s not really about one bad decision or about one referee having one bad game. The bigger picture is about recognising the position and importance of referees in the game and it’s for the authorities that run the game to maintain this.
Refs get marginal calls wrong all the time and this was one of the most marginal calls I have seen in a while. I would expect 95% of refs would have got that wrong without the benefit of TMO.
His actions after the game were odd and I would expect an explanation/apology for that no more
TMO needs to be reduced in usage, for try or no try only. Anything else and you are trying to make a sport into a science. Mistakes on all parts are integral to the game, we will not eradicate them, merely dilute the game and the referees ability to referee.
Furthermore don’t show replays to the crowd of things that can’t go to TMO, it put CJ in a horrible place, no wonder he ran.
As for Gavin Hastings, you would thought a man who’s individual error cost Scotland a place in a World Cup would have a little more empathy with someone in exactly the same position. He’s the disgrace in this sorry tale as much as anyone.
Completely agree. Was Hastings the one on the commentary raving about how the Scottish player (Russell I think) should have called for a mark when catching a re-start???
Doesn’t really help his credibility either does it…
After some of the vitriol thrown at Joubert by fans it’s refreshing to see a large majority condeming World Rugby’s appalling decision to hang the Ref out to dry. Right or wrong the referees decision is final. They should stand by their man and, if necessary, deal with him in private. This will undermine all refs and feed Scottish (and other losing teams) paranoia in matches yet to be played.
This could wreck his career. If I was Joubert I would have taken my contract to an employment lawyer. Something like that is the last thing rugby needs, but World Rugby deserve it.
Unfortunately this is not the first time that Joubert has made a questionable decision. Perhaps the IRB should institgate a re-training programme for those Referees that fall below the standard that is expected of them by the Unions and more importantly by themselves.
So Joubert has officiated in 54 tests during which time on average he would perhaps make 50-70 desicions? So that’s approximately 3000 times he has blown his whistle. If he makes 1 ‘mistake ‘in every game that is about a 98% accuracy rate. I’d say he knows what he is doing.
What is apparent from the whole spect of play was that the aspect of what Clive Woodward would call the last 1%, the ability to make the correct desicion when the pressure was on was missing in a number of the people on the field at that moment:
1. Who called the line out? Richie Gray?
2. Shouldn’t the Scottish captain overruled the call?
3. Did Joubert make the right desicion?
4. Welch in catching and playing the ball when there was an element of doubt that he was offside.
The one person who did show that extra last 1% was whichever Aussie player called out that Welch was offside, putting that thought in Joubert’s mind. The Aussies showed a mental capability in that moment that was lacking in the Scottish players.
Absolutely incredible that they’ve hung him out like that. In real time, it was a completely understandable mistake to make.
Those calling for more TMO usage for things like this are probably the same people moaning about excessive TMO usage in the group stages.
Officials will get things wrong; that is sport. However, the way Joubert has been treated by fans and pundits alike has been pretty disgusting and certainly not welcome in rugby.
All that being said. If World Rugby did feel the need to make a statement; it should not have been regarding the decision. It should have been regarding the way Joubert exited the field without shaking hands with captains etc. Unfortunately, there probably isn’t any other answer outside of “he knew he was having a stinker and wanted to get out of there”. In which case, say nothing in public.
I’m not sure how this can be construed as “hanging him out to dry”…They simply point out that in hindsight, and with the benefit of multiple slow motion replays, the decision given was incorrect. They also stress that it was a very tough decision in real time and that Joubert had no access to replays….. hardly that damning…
if it wasn’t for this line then that would have been my interpretation too, but this line is pretty damning
“In this case, Law 11.3(c) should have been applied, putting Welsh onside. The appropriate decision, therefore, should have been a scrum to Australia for the original knock-on.”
I think condemnation is a bit strong. This is more an admission of error.
He’s not been condemned at all. The release is a statement of fact, due to the media demanding to know why he didn’t go to the TMO – this statement clearly indicates that he was not allowed to do so.
The phrase “On review of all available angles …” is also quite clear to anyone not trying to create an alternative witch-hunt; it is highly unlikely that the referee could have seen from his angle that there was contact with an Australian player.
Even our (TV spectators, that is) view created a false impression when viewed live – we were already at the best angle to see the incident, Joubert was on the other side (where he should have been) with his view obstructed by numerous players.
For me it’s not “World Rugby’s public condemnation of Joubert” – it’s the mud-raking by the media, especially the rugby media, that is shocking.
It is condemnation. Its a statement detailing he got a decision wrong, when they had no need to issue it. If anything needed to be said it was that all things considered Joubert made a justifiable and honest decision, and that TMO was not available to assist him. No fault is apportioned to Robert for this decision being subsequently found to be incorrect.
Maybe they shouldn’t have hung him out to dry however made a huge error of judgement. He also made horrendous errors in the 2011 RWC Final which is readily available on line! Let him go back to vodacom cup !
A sense of perspective is needed here. Joubert made an honest mistake and gave the penalty as he saw it. Non of us know what would have happened from the alternative verdict. an attacking scrum to Australia just outside the 22 m line, from that scrum Australia may have kicked a drop goal, or scored a try and won the game anyway, or Scotland may have held out for a win. Generally in rugby as any sport the ref has to give what he sees. Sometimes these 50/50 calls go for you, sometimes against, but they generally balance out. That’s sport!. Scotland gave a fine account of themselves and were just piped by Australia. On balance probably the slightly better side on the night went through. Hugely disappointing for Scotland a relief for Australia.
For me I thing the IRB have made the right decision to clarify what they have seen, I would like them to have gone further and clarified why Joubert left the pitch in a hurry and did not go and shake hands with either team on or off the park (in the changing rooms). For what its worth I think Joubert saw the replays on the screen in the ground and knew he got it wrong, but could not change his decision, In that circumstance it is understandable to want to leave the pitch, but It would be much better if he had gone to see both captains and explained he gave the decision as he saw it and shaken hands. Greig Laidlaw had it right when he said he thought the ref had it wrong but also added that he like other of the plaers also got things wrong on the night and Joubert was not the reason for them been knocked out. If the throw had been caught no knock on, no offside, no penalty etc. Scotland unlucky yes, but robbed I don’t think so.
Too often refs have got away with dreadful decisions that have seen teams go out of tournaments/lose games when they should not have.
We need to use the TMO more to be monitoring for things like this on Sunday.
The game is now a professional sport involving millions of £ and people’s livelihoods and jobs are on the line when sides lose big matches like this.
For too long guys like Joubert, Barnes and Clancy have been getting away with dreadful performances and they are never held to account.
It has to stop and World Rugby is right NOT to close ranks and defend a guy who ran off the field in the FULL KNOWELDGE that he had made a terrible mistake.
Mistake for him but gut-wrenching for the Scottish players, coaches and their supporters.
Joubert should have the courage to admit he was wrong and apologise publically.
If a coach or a player says anything after the game, he is accused of bringing the game into disrepute. The same should apply to a referee who screws up at a premier rugby sporting event that is the RWC.
I wonder if those defending Joubert would feel them same if it was the England’s key Pool of Death game V Australia that had ended like this
Prophet Enoch, another celt with a chip on the shoulder…
England have been on the end of as many ‘incorrect’ desicions as any other team (Cueto try in 2007 as an example) but have also benefitted from ‘good’ desicions. Some you get, some you don’t, that’s the nature of sport. We have also.learnt over the years to accept as so many times in the past, if England have accused refs of not being the best, we get accused of arrogance. In this case certain people could get accused of hypocrisy.
You also say players get charged with bringing the game into disrepute, so Joubert should the same. What utter rot. He has done his best, if his best isn’t good enough then deal with it in a suitable manner (if I need help or training at work it isn’t published for all to see.)But to accuse him of incompetence and lack of integrity (as some have) is beyond the pale.
Jez,
This has nothing to do with a chip on shoulder as I am not Scottish and everything to do with fairness.
But I can understand how frustrated the fans of the O2 Pygmies must be watching the tournament without the self-declared winners/hosts being part of the post pool stages following the erection of the mighty House of Lancaster and ‘a team of World-beaters’ as the author tells us in the preface to the book. Now on Amazon for 50p.
With Scotland v Aus on Sunday Joubert clearly signalled a scrum and changed this to a penalty after being mobbed by screaming and gesticulating Aussie players.
This is supposed to be a professional game and too many referees have been guilty of appalling decisions that have turned matches and cost teams victory/their place in tournaments. Yet these same men are allowed back to officiate time after time.
You might be able to recall some of these incidents………………
Joubert
1:All game in the RWC 2011 final with NZ v France dreadful..totally dreadful..every decision against France and for NZ coz it was ‘their’ turn to win as they failed in 1991, 1995, 2007 despite being favourites for every one of those tournaments.
1995 RWC in SA
Every ref that ref’d SA’s games in the RWC such as Derek Bevan in the semi and Ed Morris in the final gave them every decision in a thinly-veiled and politically motivated attempt to provide national unity for South Africa in the post-apartheid era under the leadership of a former terrorist called Nelson Mandela.
Clancy
1:Every Pro12 game he has ever done and most especially the games where non-Irish teams play Munster or Leinster.
2:Biaritz v the Ospreys Qtr final 2010
Nigel Owens
Whenever he refs a game that the Scarlets are playing in. World’s greatest ref people say, not when his ‘home’ side is playing he isn’t!
Chris White
2007 Italy v Wales ‘You can go for touch if you go quickly…..oh now I have changed my mind now….game over as the TMO called ‘Time Chris”.
Roland Rat-fan
Sending off Sam in the semi-final of RWC 2011. Wonder what England’s media would have made of this had it been their captain and they had lost to France in 2003 instead????
2007 RWC Final
Mark Cueto was clearly in touch as his foot dragged the white line and a converted try would not have altered the result as England were instead awarded a penalty, which they kicked, and they lost by more than 4 points in the end.
Yeah Jez its been so so fair the way other nations get ref’d but my oh my….. the Hooper decision would have won RWC 2015 Final for Captain C++ksure and the ‘we always back ourselves at home’ side.
In that match Burgess should have gone too in the same incident as Farrell but the ref was too scared to yellow card 2 England players in the same game at the same tournament in England.
I’m going to be honest with you Enoch but judging by this post and others I ve seen of yours you really are a complete and utter cock aren’t you.
I didn’t claim you were Scottish, I said you were a Celt (I’m assuming you are Welsh.)
You are basically claiming that every RWC has been a fix and that the referees are bent and in the pay of whoever? That’s one hell of a statement to make.
I didn’t see any evidence of Aussies screaming, maybe asking the question, which I would have done myself (heh I’m not perfect).
But you are, to reiterate, obviously a one eyed myopic cock judging by your quite nonsensical comments. You make Matt Dawson seem a modicum of common sense.
“This has nothing to do with a chip on shoulder”
At least there’s an admission of the existence of a chip …..
Sounds like the only ref Enoch likes is Wayne Barnes (snigger snigger)
p.s. Joubert clearly awards a penalty with a straight arm followed by the signal for knock on (bent arm moving from vertical to horizontal) followed by the signal for offside (drawing an imaginary offside line with his hand). At no point does he signal a scrum (two hands coming together)
Prophet Enoch: “With Scotland v Aus on Sunday Joubert clearly signalled a scrum and changed this to a penalty after being mobbed by screaming and gesticulating Aussie players.”
No. He held his arm out horizontal to indicate the initial knock-on, then when the offside Scottish player handled the ball he shifted his arm up to indicate the penalty. At no point did he signal a scrum. His arm went up for the penalty at the same time or even sligthly before any protests from the criminals.
And also, England were on the end of a potentially incorrect call (and possibly game changing one) when Hooper wasn’t sent off. We haven’t used that as an excuse for our defeat.
stop shitting about it, the important thing in here is that the better team won. scotland was lucky enough to get to such a result, after an over-confident side who had a kicker in a bad day. but if we see the game, we could see how easily the wallabies get over the line with ball in hand, they simply won the contact. for me it seemed that whenever australia wanted to accelerate, he could score. scotland played a smart game, were clinical to score from the wallabies errors, but apart from denton, no one gained the line consistently.
Much as I disagree with this, doesn’t a similar thing happen every time a player is cited for an incident seen by the referee (like Hooper)? They’re effectively saying “the referee got it wrong and should have waved a card”. I guess that’s a bit different since there’s an actual practical outcome of such things.
It does raise a good question about what should become of the TMO though – all these calls throughout the group stages that it was being used too much and suddenly it’s not used enough. Personally I think the less its used the better – we seem to be holding referees to much higher standards than previously because of it.
It’s not the same thing. Usually a citing is effectively saying….’the ref didn’t see this’
Often, yes – possibly even ‘usually’, but there are lots of incidents the ref sees and penalises (though he sometimes doesn’t see anything wrong at all), yet they’re still cited. Again, this is something that’s exacerbated by the TMO these days since he’s often the one doing the spotting.
I do struggle to believe they really believe the results of citings equate to red cards though. There’ve been what, 12 upheld citings in the world cup (not including the two Scottish boys). They can’t really believe there should have been that many red cards.
Tried to post this earlier, but it didn’t go through. Maybe because I included a link.
But 6.A.4 (a) puts the referee as the sole judge of fact and law on the pitch and puts the responsibility on the referee to apply the laws. The referee being Craig Joubert, not some press officer at the IRB.
If Joubert says that, in his opinion, Phipps didn’t make a deliberate play at the ball, then that is the end of the debate. He has come to the correct conclusion based on his interpretation of the events.
There is so much “shades of grey” in this ruling that you can’t say he was definitely wrong (as World Rugby have). However, you can say that he was definitively right based on 6.A.4 (a), although another referee may have seen it differently.
He’s been extremely unfairly treated.
Interestingly, ‘on the pitch’ has only recently been added. If I were being cynical, that may have been the precursor to this.
In fact I’m really concerned that there seems to be a creeping in of sportsmanship that is not good for the game of Rugby.
We see players now asking refs to go to TMOs for the slightest thing (it’s almost as bad as footballers waving imagine yellow cards.)
And for Scotland fans to call the action of Joubert disgraceful after Stuart Hoggs play acting… that was far more shameful than not shaking hands as this was a deliberate attempt to coerce a penalty and get a player into trouble (potentially sent off).
There are areas of behaviour that world rugby needs to stamp out before Joubert is criticised any further.
This hand-shaking thing is even more ridiculous. You cannot slag off the ref for not shaking someone’s hand, and then say his professional decision was wrong and imply he can’t do his job.
To criticise a highly experienced international referee from the comfort of your sofa after watching six replays is far more disrespectful than not shaking someone’s hand.
All refs make mistakes and it’s a thankless job at the best of times. Get some bloody perspective.
To quote another top referee who has been frequently maligned: “This is not football”.
Enoch,
Perhaps your partisan bitterness could be put on one side whilst the board discuss something a bit bigger than national support. Although your not Scottish, your last rant gives an indication where you come from.
The reason Joubert first puts his arm out is for the knock on which he then sees as an upgrade to a penalty when the Scot catches the ball.
Also Rolland was correct in his call with Warburton, and displayed the same consistency earlier in the season at Newcastle. Generally accepted by those in Wales with more than one eye as the correct call.
Chris White said “yes if you go now”, which Wales didn’t, and by the time the kick hit touch the clock was up.
The Cueto call was correct, but then again only you brought it up.
Teams going forwards in games tend to get the 50/50s regardless of the sport, and Joubert may have had a shocker in 2011, but we are not discussing that, we are discussing if it’s the right thing for an employer to hang their employee out to dry in such a public and I’ll thought out manner.
Mr Lowe , in my humble opinion the only correct statement you made in your response to Enoch was that Joubert had a “shocker” in 2011 RWCF. Widely accepted i believe outside of NZ. Why then is he still allowed to referee @ qfinal stage RWC 2015. Strongly believe NH get the worse of referees & tmo’s . I stated that a penalty (against Scotland) was on its way well before the line out. Paranoia possibly , experience definately.
Allain Rowland (French father) should never have been given the task of refereeing Wales v France and has rightly been reminded of his diabolical decision every day of his life since.
Indeed “Alain Roland” was born in France August 1966
Your comments on the Chris White are so wide of the mark as to be laughable. Chris White actually apologised to Gareth Thomas for the misinformation he provided before the kick to touch.
I really don’t think the IRB have hung Joubert out to dry. They clearly state he’s a good and respected ref and called it as he saw it on the day. They are merely stating what all can see from the multiple replays that with the benefit of slow motion and many more angles the decision may have been incorrect. I find it refreshing that we have some honesty from the IRB rather than blindly trying to tell the world that black is white. It would have been even more impressive if Joubert has been to see the captains either at full time or in the changing rooms to apologise for the error. We need perspective, even from the scrum Australia may have won. We will however never know.
The refs job is really hard, not too many give it a go, but many seem to be qualified to castigate.
Mr Mumford, forgive me if I do not take lessons in accuracy from a man who cut and paste’s Wikipedia as fact.
Dublin, the last time I looked was not in France.
In the case of French speaking Roland it might as well be Le Dublin ! Shocking appointment
I’m sorry your pathetic attempt at fact gathering has undermined you.
If you can’t get a mans nationality right what else can you say that can be of any value?
Scotland shouldn’t have played Austrlia in that Quarter Final! I don’t see Samoa crying foul for the ‘knock on’ before the try which won Scotland their final pool match. It wasn’t pickup by the referee or lines men or TMO!
The Samoan’s accepted defeat and took the match officials ‘blind eye’ to that final try by Scotland on the chin as true sportsmen.
Rugby politics and patriotism aside,
if the Samoa vs Scotland game was refereed properly with that final try by Scotland scrutinised properly before awarding it! Then Japan and NOT Scotland, should have played Australia in that Quarter Final. Food for thought!
And that decision *could* have been reviewed by the TMO under the current protocols, unlike that last play in the Sco v Oz game. Also, Samoa were missing one of their more talismanic players (and would have been captain I think?) in Tuilagi, who was cheated out of his final swansong, for the heinous crime of running.
But, as you say, the Samoan players just got on with it. I think they’re just accustomed to this type of treatment now…
I agree with Enoch up to a point. There is a problem here!
The ref is bound by the rules but with such momentous decisions (money/media coverage and the media savvy power of the fan nowadays to consider) I’d be in favour of a super ref officiating the ref for the ‘big decisions’ !!
It is NOT ACCEPTABLE to fan or losing player or for that matter the losing sponsor when a team such as Scotland falls foul of a miscarriage of justice.
Billy Burgess says things even out over a game – possibly with the small infringements! Not when it is a game changing, game altering, cock up in the last five minutes.
What I am proposing is You don’t blithely let the ref BE COMPOUNDED or restricted by farcical TMO regulations. Have a Super Ref who can be referred to at the BIG MOMENTS whose power it is to over-rule everyone else however and whenever in the game. Yes he would have to be a neutral (I’m not even in favour of a French ref officiating at any England game due to suspicions of bias as no Welshman would probably want an Englishman officiating a Wales v Italy game) BTW that’s not to be misinterpreted as prejudice but a recognition of the existence of prejudice (I.e. Reality!)
But, and here’s the crux, it wasn’t a game changing moment. If it happened in the first 5 minutes nobody would have said a word. Rugby is played over 80 minutes and there were far more important moments and mistakes made by both sides contributing to the overall result.
Missed tackles (Tommy Seymour)
Missed kicks (Foley in particular, but Laidlaw final conversion)
Australia scrum being penalised and not adjusting
James Slipper throwing passes in own 22.
Maitlands deliberately knocking on.
Joubert on the whole referred the game fairly, consistently and well.
Exactly. Same with England v Wales and that line-out at the end. In itself it’s an insignificant event; the game should have been well out of Wales’s reach by then, had England not conceded so many penalties. (By the way, at least two of those penalty decisions were completely wrong in my opinion, but I’m delighted that England fans have not tried to make a big deal out of them, although that may be because the type who would whine about ref decisions probably don’t actually understand why those decisions were wrong).
Will Greenwood’s column the other day talked about how Clive Woodward insisted they simply make their own luck. Play well enough that luck is taken out of the equation.
Anyone looking for a display of refereeing incompetence should look no further than Andre Watson in the 2003 final. It was absolutely shambolic, to the point that a more cynical observer might suspect deliberate bias in favour of the home team! Watson is the reason that the score that day was so close. But England just focused on the things that they could control and eventually delivered the goods.
It’s the other end of the positivity spectrum isn’t it? Number of times we’ve seen that final drop-goal replayed in slow motion, when it was all the excellent decision-making and execution over the preceding 98 minutes that accounted for the win.
The rules regarding a TMO referral are there and have to be observed in the interests of consistency and fairness. If Joubert had decided to arbitrarily refer the last call to TMO, who would you as an Aussie have reacted to a decision being overturned against the rule of the competition.
As for BIG decisions, those are arbitrary judgements that vary reason to person. Is a decision 15 minutes in that puts a team 2 scores up big enough to refer, or is a penalty under posts bigger than one at the range of a kicker?
I repeat, TMO usage needs downgrading to “try or no try”, and expectations on decision making need to become realistic.
That’s exactly right – Scotland were unlucky regarding this decision, but they put themselves in a position where they could be unlucky.
You’re always going to have doses of good and bad luck during the game – bad/good bounces, opponents making the wrong decisions (Scotland were very lucky when Australia butchered a try in the first half), and refereeing mistakes – it’s part of the game and the best teams just avoid potentially unlucky situations. How many times do you see the All Blacks concede ‘unlucky’ tries? They don’t have any more luck than any other team, they just don’t get themselves in situations where they can be unlucky.
So, am I literally the only person who thinks Craig Joubert got this call right?
*Puts on tin helmet*
Seriously, the infringement is that a Scotland player in an offside position plays the ball after a knock-on from one of his team-mates. The touch by Phipps was marginal and had no material effect on the outcome.
This is evidenced by the fact that *nobody* noticed until they’d seen slow-motion replays. The ball didn’t change course as a result of Phipps’s intervention; his touch made absolutely no difference. Different sport, but I would compare with the “ball-to-hand” accommodation made in wendyball.
I really don’t think that Law 11.3(c) is not intended for this type of minimal contact.
I reckon that Welch had no idea that Phipps had touched the ball. I’ve given away a penalty in the same way – the ball pops up next to you, you instinctively dive on it – very hard to resist that natural urge to secure the ball.
The ball was knocked on by Scotland and then played in an offside position by Scotland. That’s all there is to it for me. The contact by Phipps was so minimal and so inconsequential that it should be disregarded.
Letter of the law it was a Knock on
There is an argument to say spirit of the law it should still have been a penalty as Welsh had no idea Phipps had touched it and he was following instinct to secure the ball from an offside position.
There is another argument that says why is this a penalty offence in the first place?
1. Exactly Stroudos. It’s what Clive Woodward calls the 1% you cannot coach but is where the truly great players can make the right desicion everytime. In this case Welch should not have made a play for the ball as he couldn’t be certain he wasn’t offside. If that’s the case, don’t play at it.
2. The reason, Leon, it is a penalty is because Scotland would have gained an unfair advantage, therefore penalty.
I don’t see significant advantage as play stops regardless for the knock on.
Stroudos,
No – until the IRB’s statement I thought he had the call right. I’m still struggling to see an undoubtable reason why 11.3(c) applied here rather than 11.9. Someone suggested it was because Welch moved towards an on-side position, but the whole thing happened so fast I don’t think that’s conclusive.
The fine margins over which law should apply here (and I think even Joubert’s fiercest critics would still accept there is a fine margin) make the IRB’s actions even more stranger – they could (almost) just as easily stood by their man and said law 11.9 applied and Joubert was correct. Maybe he did something to annoy his bosses.
Just had another look at the whole incident and the IRB law book. A knock on only occurs if the ball comes off the hand or arm of the player. I don’t think Scotland even knocked the ball on. It hit Strauss’s back as he challenged Phipps, Phipps then flapped at it as it hit his chest and the ball went backwards from Phipps towards Welsh.
Think we really have to all stop analysing this now. !!! The ref got it wrong, it happens and he doesn’t have the opportunity in real time to examine the replays over and over. Its interesting that no of the commentators or players really argued with the decision in real time, the debate has only come later.
The ref didn’t get it wrong. He interpreted it differently to you. The difference being he didn’t have multiple replay reviews in slow motion and a copy of the IRB law book to hand.
Would have hoped he didn’t need the IRB Laws book in his hand as an international rugby referee. Agree he interpreted it differently and had no benefit of slo mo replays. That’s why the result stands, irrespective of what all of us arm chair refs think.
The knock on was prior to it hitting strauss, from the scrum half running back I believe
Think you mean the Scottish No7. In my view it goes backwards off him. i.e. towards his own try line it only appears forward as he’s travelling backwards so fast. Could be argued he didn’t catch it as he was tackled without the ball by the Aussie. FFS who would be a ref. What a mine field.
Yikes what a mess
I see what you mean about it potentially being backwards initially before hitting Phipps/Strauss. To me it looks like they are in front Hardie from the wide angle shot but its just another thing to debate.
Suffice it to say its complicated enough that you can’t blame Joubert for making what on the surface of it initially looked the right decision.
Agree, Joubert gave the decision as he saw it in real time. Decision stands even though it may have been wrong. Who knows what would have happened from the ensuing scrum.
Where does the buck stop. Joubert is not the governing body. If the play could not be reviewed the mistake lies with the governing body. Correct it. Respect the referee during and after the game. RWC knocked on.
Unfortunately perhaps for the game trying to hold back technology or its further and deeper usage in officiating will be like trying to hold back The Red Sea! It’s going to come flooding in because it already exists and is already highlighting human errors. I see the game becoming like American football (more stoppages and more money and more referrals)
Get the point about how does one decide what is and what isn’t a ‘big’ decision or WHEN do they or can they occur, but the influx of technology I think is inevitable! Take a strong person(s) to resist it!
Looking at all the debate here it’s fairly well agreed that what happened, in pouring rain, with the light changing, and players moving across the eyeline of Joubert, was an understandable and fair call to make at the time. Also it must be noted he followed the correct procedure for reaching that decision.
Why then the need for such a horrendous hand washing statement from World Rugby?
Take away the technology apart from no try or try, and please keep in mind sports in one form or another have existed from the dawn of mankind. In all that time they have had, and indeed needed, mistakes to be part and parcel of the event. Stop trying to sanitise the decision making process, and allow our officials the same understanding as we do players and coaches.
Joubert’s only and big mistake was to run off after the game, the crowd me included boo’d the decision as even though a neutral fan I knew it meant that the last NH team was now out after a courageous performance & a sad way to go out. Stand where he was in the middle of it all in the rain & he made a decision on what he saw, my only criticism was that he was not very vocal during the game in telling the teams where they were offending but overall did not have a bad game.
The even bigger mistake has been from both the media and world rugby in condemning him to death by a thousand cuts, it makes decision making by international referees even more difficult which can only be bad for the sport.
Lets see his performance data from the tournament compared to the other referees before calling for his head, I am sure his error rate and calls to the TMO will compare favourably & it is this sort of back up that WR should be putting to the media to support him & not he was wrong in this isolated case.
The fact you boo’d along with the rest of the crowd is a sad indictment on where Rugby Union is going spectator wise.
brilliant constructive comment, I suppose you were clapping when the ref did his runner or more likely already off to the free bar.
No, I would have been respectful and applauded all 50 people (players, subs and officials) who made it such a good and enjoyable game.
That’s how I’ve always behaved at Rugby matches.
I wish we could all behave the same way.
Col @ circa £300 a ticket i feel a “boo” is acceptable. I continue to have mixed feelings about Joubert , in my opinion its fair to say he has always been a “homer” for the South Hemisphere so maybe the flak is due ?
Ah Mr Mumford, nothing interesting on Wikipedia for you to pass off as fact tonight?
If you actually visited a game you would have seen plenty of signs spelling out the cornerstone of the game.
Respect is one of them, and something lacking towards the referee, and also to the better side on the day, who won, whilst also scoring more tries
Paying for a ticket doesn’t buy the right to erode those values.
Booing is a sign of lack of respect.
For what its worth I don’t think Joubert isn’t a homer, but to me, lacks feel for the game at times and sometimes guesses at scrum time. Ironically Sunday wasn’t one of those games and his control of the scrum gave the Scots ascendency. I have not been overly impressed by the reffing of the Aussie scrum or flying entries to the ruck all tournament, but Joubert was better than the rest.