Comments on: World Rugby’s public condemnation of Joubert is shocking

By: Rodney Lowe

Rodney Lowe — Thu, 22 Oct 2015 18:31:00 +0000

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.

By: Jez

Jez — Thu, 22 Oct 2015 17:05:22 +0000

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.

By: Steven Mumford

Steven Mumford — Thu, 22 Oct 2015 16:36:31 +0000

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 ?

By: Col

Col — Thu, 22 Oct 2015 16:08:02 +0000

brilliant constructive comment, I suppose you were clapping when the ref did his runner or more likely already off to the free bar.

By: Jez

Jez — Thu, 22 Oct 2015 12:09:30 +0000

The fact you boo’d along with the rest of the crowd is a sad indictment on where Rugby Union is going spectator wise.

By: Col

Col — Thu, 22 Oct 2015 11:57:59 +0000

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.

By: Rodney Lowe

Rodney Lowe — Thu, 22 Oct 2015 08:13:05 +0000

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.

By: Doc

Doc — Thu, 22 Oct 2015 07:48:51 +0000

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.

By: AlexD

AlexD — Wed, 21 Oct 2015 19:26:03 +0000

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!

By: wineservedlater

wineservedlater — Wed, 21 Oct 2015 15:24:17 +0000

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.

By: Richard

Richard — Wed, 21 Oct 2015 14:02:46 +0000

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.

By: Leon

Leon — Wed, 21 Oct 2015 14:00:04 +0000

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.