Barnes autobiography
-
It's pretty easy to see why this happens with refs or coaches etc the death threats etc. Read any rugby forum (and I assume all sports are same) and see how much anti shit about people is spewed. It's a pretty short step to online threats from the (let's face it) unbalanced to take.
It is one of reasons I dislike all the over top stuff on anyone, even the stuff on Foster etc gets over the top at times, and I know there was internet crap aimed to him and family at some stages.
I will add I enjoy this forum so much because in general there are not the seemingly nutters on here you see on places like Planet Rugby which at times is frankly almost dangerous in my opinion. -
WR has to take some responsibility themselves. If they weren't so protective of the refs/TMOs and publicly acknowledged when mistakes/errors were made, the fan reaction wouldn't be anywhere as bad. Instead they bury their heads in the sand and hope it all goes away.
@Bovidae said in Barnes autobiography:
publicly acknowledged when mistakes/errors were made
this is also because so much is interpretation - so one ref's 'play on' is another's 'yellow/red card'. It absoultely sucks.
Have been watching a lot of NFL and really enjoying it. Reflecting on why that is, I think it's because you always have 11 on 11, and the teams can't play for penalties/refs - they have to figure out ways to win the game themselves, through skill or power or tactics. They can increase their chances of a penalty (biffing the ball downfield in the general vicinity of a receiver seems to draw flags these days), but you won't win a game with penalties. Commentators also call out bad play and aren't afraid to critique players and coaches.
That, and it's apex sport finanically. On average, one game generates about half the overall NZR annual budget - and there are 16 games/week. The money is incredible.
-
@Bovidae said in Barnes autobiography:
publicly acknowledged when mistakes/errors were made
this is also because so much is interpretation - so one ref's 'play on' is another's 'yellow/red card'. It absoultely sucks.
Have been watching a lot of NFL and really enjoying it. Reflecting on why that is, I think it's because you always have 11 on 11, and the teams can't play for penalties/refs - they have to figure out ways to win the game themselves, through skill or power or tactics. They can increase their chances of a penalty (biffing the ball downfield in the general vicinity of a receiver seems to draw flags these days), but you won't win a game with penalties. Commentators also call out bad play and aren't afraid to critique players and coaches.
That, and it's apex sport finanically. On average, one game generates about half the overall NZR annual budget - and there are 16 games/week. The money is incredible.
@nzzp said in Barnes autobiography:
@Bovidae said in Barnes autobiography:
publicly acknowledged when mistakes/errors were made
this is also because so much is interpretation - so one ref's 'play on' is another's 'yellow/red card'. It absoultely sucks.
Raynal was 100% right in what should happen. The officials should be able to explain the decisions they made, even if fans/coaches/players don't agree with them. The lack of transparency and clarity leads to the frustration and the online abuse.
-
@nzzp said in Barnes autobiography:
@Bovidae said in Barnes autobiography:
publicly acknowledged when mistakes/errors were made
this is also because so much is interpretation - so one ref's 'play on' is another's 'yellow/red card'. It absoultely sucks.
Raynal was 100% right in what should happen. The officials should be able to explain the decisions they made, even if fans/coaches/players don't agree with them. The lack of transparency and clarity leads to the frustration and the online abuse.
@Bovidae said in Barnes autobiography:
@nzzp said in Barnes autobiography:
@Bovidae said in Barnes autobiography:
publicly acknowledged when mistakes/errors were made
this is also because so much is interpretation - so one ref's 'play on' is another's 'yellow/red card'. It absoultely sucks.
Raynal was 100% right in what should happen. The officials should be able to explain the decisions they made, even if fans/coaches/players don't agree with them. The lack of transparency and clarity leads to the frustration and the online abuse.
Absolutely. LIke in cricket, there's a big differnece between a bad decision and a wrong decision. Rugby's implementation of technology has been the worst of any major sport - even the soccer VAR/goal line is better now. We pick some random moments, slow them down, and then take players off as a result. It's broken.
-
WR has to take some responsibility themselves. If they weren't so protective of the refs/TMOs and publicly acknowledged when mistakes/errors were made, the fan reaction wouldn't be anywhere as bad. Instead they bury their heads in the sand and hope it all goes away.
@Bovidae said in Barnes autobiography:
WR has to take some responsibility themselves. If they weren't so protective of the refs/TMOs and publicly acknowledged when mistakes/errors were made, the fan reaction wouldn't be anywhere as bad. Instead they bury their heads in the sand and hope it all goes away.
Yes and no. What we are talking bout here is behavioural changes of the general population, not anything simple. Given the game is subjective, there will always be people that see Cane's card, Etzbeth getting away with a leading forearm and call foul / bias. You could also look SA getting the penalty to win their SF, see the similarities to the last scrum in the final and ask where was the NZ penalty? Thats just two examples where idiots can (controversially, legitimately) say officiating handed the world cup to South Africa.
I'm certainly one for thinking rules shouldn't be set for the lowest common denominator (Which they are), but you also can't keep your head in the sand when your changes are blatantly not working. We saw 3 yellow cards and a red in the world cup final for fucks sakes. How can it possibly be explained that the changes are having an effect, when 4 people got sent from the field in the biggest game of their lives for indiscretions? The only thing you can do is actually change the rules and/or the way it's refereed to try and reduce controversy.
The idea that we continue down this path & hope it all works out in the future is absurd. IT doesn't matter how many people condemn the people with death threats, they will still exist. They always have and they always will. That is the human population.
If you want to take death threats to officials away, you need to reduce the controversy.
-
@Bovidae said in Barnes autobiography:
WR has to take some responsibility themselves. If they weren't so protective of the refs/TMOs and publicly acknowledged when mistakes/errors were made, the fan reaction wouldn't be anywhere as bad. Instead they bury their heads in the sand and hope it all goes away.
Yes and no. What we are talking bout here is behavioural changes of the general population, not anything simple. Given the game is subjective, there will always be people that see Cane's card, Etzbeth getting away with a leading forearm and call foul / bias. You could also look SA getting the penalty to win their SF, see the similarities to the last scrum in the final and ask where was the NZ penalty? Thats just two examples where idiots can (controversially, legitimately) say officiating handed the world cup to South Africa.
I'm certainly one for thinking rules shouldn't be set for the lowest common denominator (Which they are), but you also can't keep your head in the sand when your changes are blatantly not working. We saw 3 yellow cards and a red in the world cup final for fucks sakes. How can it possibly be explained that the changes are having an effect, when 4 people got sent from the field in the biggest game of their lives for indiscretions? The only thing you can do is actually change the rules and/or the way it's refereed to try and reduce controversy.
The idea that we continue down this path & hope it all works out in the future is absurd. IT doesn't matter how many people condemn the people with death threats, they will still exist. They always have and they always will. That is the human population.
If you want to take death threats to officials away, you need to reduce the controversy.
@MajorRage said in Barnes autobiography:
The only thing you can do is actually change the rules and/or the way it's refereed to try and reduce controversy.
100% this.
The refs and TMOs are simply the messengers being shot.
The issue lies in the laws and framework they are asked to apply.
-
also agree, rules need to boiled down to black and white as much as possible and i think stop trying to use the refs to make the game more attacking and enjoyable through new rules, let opposition teams work out how to break down an attack for defensive line
-
@MajorRage fantastic post and could not agree more
-
@Bovidae said in Barnes autobiography:
WR has to take some responsibility themselves. If they weren't so protective of the refs/TMOs and publicly acknowledged when mistakes/errors were made, the fan reaction wouldn't be anywhere as bad. Instead they bury their heads in the sand and hope it all goes away.
Yes and no. What we are talking bout here is behavioural changes of the general population, not anything simple. Given the game is subjective, there will always be people that see Cane's card, Etzbeth getting away with a leading forearm and call foul / bias. You could also look SA getting the penalty to win their SF, see the similarities to the last scrum in the final and ask where was the NZ penalty? Thats just two examples where idiots can (controversially, legitimately) say officiating handed the world cup to South Africa.
I'm certainly one for thinking rules shouldn't be set for the lowest common denominator (Which they are), but you also can't keep your head in the sand when your changes are blatantly not working. We saw 3 yellow cards and a red in the world cup final for fucks sakes. How can it possibly be explained that the changes are having an effect, when 4 people got sent from the field in the biggest game of their lives for indiscretions? The only thing you can do is actually change the rules and/or the way it's refereed to try and reduce controversy.
The idea that we continue down this path & hope it all works out in the future is absurd. IT doesn't matter how many people condemn the people with death threats, they will still exist. They always have and they always will. That is the human population.
If you want to take death threats to officials away, you need to reduce the controversy.
@MajorRage said in Barnes autobiography:
I'm certainly one for thinking rules shouldn't be set for the lowest common denominator (Which they are), but you also can't keep your head in the sand when your changes are blatantly not working. We saw 3 yellow cards and a red in the world cup final for fucks sakes. How can it possibly be explained that the changes are having an effect, when 4 people got sent from the field in the biggest game of their lives for indiscretions? The only thing you can do is actually change the rules and/or the way it's refereed to try and reduce controversy.
WR do themselves no favours by not acknowledging their preferred course of action is clearly not having the desired effect and worse, is ruining the game.
That being said, it would help if the TMO wasn't a
