England v Australia
-
Rodda barely dropped his shoulder so that was a extra layer of bullshit from the ref.
Hooper did really well in the interview and even managed to avoid any facials in responding. Didn't even go 'fuck, what a bitch' on the walk back to the team. When they kept the camera on him! hmm wonder how orchestrated that was
-
@paekakboyz I haven't watched it again but I thought he looked like he was steaming when walking off. Kept stopping and looking back?
@bones I might have only caught a short part. May has missed the glances. Still did well not to mouth fucking bitch under his breath tho!!
-
@paekakboyz said in England v Australia:
Rodda barely dropped his shoulder so that was a extra layer of bullshit from the ref.
WTF? Is that an actual excuse being trotted out? Some one needs to point me to where in the laws that excuses a no arms tackle (called a shoulder charge when SBW does it). There's no way that should have got Farrell 'off the hook".
@nepia said in England v Australia:
@paekakboyz said in England v Australia:
Rodda barely dropped his shoulder so that was a extra layer of bullshit from the ref.
WTF? Is that an actual excuse being trotted out? Some one needs to point me to where in the laws that excuses a no arms tackle (called a shoulder charge when SBW does it). There's no way that should have got Farrell 'off the hook".
Peyper said it to Hooper. Caught on his mic.
Edit
Peyper to Hooper
"I thought your ball carrier also dropped the shoulder"So fucking what Peyper?
-
Are now surmising there is some kind of Peyper-gate, where Eddie's team is being favoured (shock emoje) ahead of the WC?
-
To be fair a quick read of the article mentions Stuart Barnes and Sir Clive both went on record to say Owen was damn lucky. Not quite as strong as the 'All Blacks shamelessly cynical' narrative
@canefan said in England v Australia:
To be fair a quick read of the article mentions Stuart Barnes and Sir Clive both went on record to say Owen was damn lucky. Not quite as strong as the 'All Blacks shamelessly cynical' narrative
Jesus Christ. That's like a broken clock being right 4 times a day
-
@canefan said in England v Australia:
To be fair a quick read of the article mentions Stuart Barnes and Sir Clive both went on record to say Owen was damn lucky. Not quite as strong as the 'All Blacks shamelessly cynical' narrative
Jesus Christ. That's like a broken clock being right 4 times a day
@mn5 said in England v Australia:
@canefan said in England v Australia:
To be fair a quick read of the article mentions Stuart Barnes and Sir Clive both went on record to say Owen was damn lucky. Not quite as strong as the 'All Blacks shamelessly cynical' narrative
Jesus Christ. That's like a broken clock being right 4 times a day
Still be twice. Those two in the same room for long enough would have their cycles in sync.
-
-
The little clip made me notice something in the SA tackle that made things even more obviously a penalty. Shoulder Boy actually points the point of his shoulder directly at the ball carrier before going in. At that moment you can dismiss all feeble attempts to wrap as afterthoughts.
I find Gardners 'excuse/explanation' quite bizarre. It has nothing to do with using both arms to wrap, it is whether the impacting shoulder was connected to a wrapping arm. Judge it on the reason shoulder charges aren't permitted - the safety aspect of a shoulder point impact.
-
Sad reflection on World Rugby when Gardner is considered the best referee.
-
Sad reflection on World Rugby when Gardner is considered the best referee.
@antipodean said in England v Australia:
Sad reflection on World Rugby when Gardner is considered the best referee.
It all comes down to the process and the expectations that WR keep changing on these guys. I have some sympathy for AG as the refs still don't seem to be making decisions based on the same evidence everyone at home sees.
We don't like it when the TMO makes the decision, we don't like it if the ref makes a call without the TMO input and we don't like it when the ref ignores the TMO.
It is up to WR to stop fiddling with the process all the time but come up with a clear understandable way of reviewing decisions. Cricket managed to do it in a shorter period and now even if the decision is slightly debateable you know the process has been followed properly. -
@antipodean said in England v Australia:
Sad reflection on World Rugby when Gardner is considered the best referee.
It all comes down to the process and the expectations that WR keep changing on these guys. I have some sympathy for AG as the refs still don't seem to be making decisions based on the same evidence everyone at home sees.
We don't like it when the TMO makes the decision, we don't like it if the ref makes a call without the TMO input and we don't like it when the ref ignores the TMO.
It is up to WR to stop fiddling with the process all the time but come up with a clear understandable way of reviewing decisions. Cricket managed to do it in a shorter period and now even if the decision is slightly debateable you know the process has been followed properly.@crucial said in England v Australia:
@antipodean said in England v Australia:
Sad reflection on World Rugby when Gardner is considered the best referee.
It all comes down to the process and the expectations that WR keep changing on these guys. I have some sympathy for AG as the refs still don't seem to be making decisions based on the same evidence everyone at home sees.
We don't like it when the TMO makes the decision, we don't like it if the ref makes a call without the TMO input and we don't like it when the ref ignores the TMO.
It is up to WR to stop fiddling with the process all the time but come up with a clear understandable way of reviewing decisions. Cricket managed to do it in a shorter period and now even if the decision is slightly debateable you know the process has been followed properly.This. Plus the refs never know when someone at World Rugby is going to publicly criticise their performance and tell everyone the ref got a crucial call wrong.
-
Sad reflection on World Rugby when Gardner is considered the best referee.
@antipodean said in England v Australia:
Sad reflection on World Rugby when Gardner is considered the best referee.
By whom?
Certainly not me.
-
@crucial said in England v Australia:
@antipodean said in England v Australia:
Sad reflection on World Rugby when Gardner is considered the best referee.
It all comes down to the process and the expectations that WR keep changing on these guys. I have some sympathy for AG as the refs still don't seem to be making decisions based on the same evidence everyone at home sees.
We don't like it when the TMO makes the decision, we don't like it if the ref makes a call without the TMO input and we don't like it when the ref ignores the TMO.
It is up to WR to stop fiddling with the process all the time but come up with a clear understandable way of reviewing decisions. Cricket managed to do it in a shorter period and now even if the decision is slightly debateable you know the process has been followed properly.This. Plus the refs never know when someone at World Rugby is going to publicly criticise their performance and tell everyone the ref got a crucial call wrong.
@catogrande said in England v Australia:
@crucial said in England v Australia:
@antipodean said in England v Australia:
Sad reflection on World Rugby when Gardner is considered the best referee.
It all comes down to the process and the expectations that WR keep changing on these guys. I have some sympathy for AG as the refs still don't seem to be making decisions based on the same evidence everyone at home sees.
We don't like it when the TMO makes the decision, we don't like it if the ref makes a call without the TMO input and we don't like it when the ref ignores the TMO.
It is up to WR to stop fiddling with the process all the time but come up with a clear understandable way of reviewing decisions. Cricket managed to do it in a shorter period and now even if the decision is slightly debateable you know the process has been followed properly.This. Plus the refs never know when someone at World Rugby is going to publicly criticise their performance and tell everyone the ref got a crucial call wrong.
Again, it is the inconsistency that grates. Some decisions get commented on, others are treated like a state secret. It appears from the outside that it all depends on who your mates are.
I doubt anyone wants a post game post mortem but there are ways by which they can convey that they aim for perfection but accept that errors will happen.
WR could learn a lot from the big US sports. NFL has quick clear decisions that everyone accepts and moves on. Each week they release an Officiating Video to the media to explain big calls.
NBA also put up post game video reviews.
Rugby TV commentary teams could also learn a lot from the US guys who don't spent half their time winding up the audience with claims of poor decisions or 50/50 calls. They let the viewer do all that themselves without adding a form of confirmation or (Justin Marshall) adding their own interpretation of the laws into the mix.
The game has been pro for over 20 years but doesn't act like it sometimes. -
@crucial said in England v Australia:
@antipodean said in England v Australia:
Sad reflection on World Rugby when Gardner is considered the best referee.
It all comes down to the process and the expectations that WR keep changing on these guys. I have some sympathy for AG as the refs still don't seem to be making decisions based on the same evidence everyone at home sees.
We don't like it when the TMO makes the decision, we don't like it if the ref makes a call without the TMO input and we don't like it when the ref ignores the TMO.
It is up to WR to stop fiddling with the process all the time but come up with a clear understandable way of reviewing decisions. Cricket managed to do it in a shorter period and now even if the decision is slightly debateable you know the process has been followed properly.This. Plus the refs never know when someone at World Rugby is going to publicly criticise their performance and tell everyone the ref got a crucial call wrong.
@catogrande said in England v Australia:
@crucial said in England v Australia:
@antipodean said in England v Australia:
Sad reflection on World Rugby when Gardner is considered the best referee.
It all comes down to the process and the expectations that WR keep changing on these guys. I have some sympathy for AG as the refs still don't seem to be making decisions based on the same evidence everyone at home sees.
We don't like it when the TMO makes the decision, we don't like it if the ref makes a call without the TMO input and we don't like it when the ref ignores the TMO.
It is up to WR to stop fiddling with the process all the time but come up with a clear understandable way of reviewing decisions. Cricket managed to do it in a shorter period and now even if the decision is slightly debateable you know the process has been followed properly.This. Plus the refs never know when someone at World Rugby is going to publicly criticise their performance and tell everyone the ref got a crucial call wrong.
Certainly World Rugby is run by incompetent amateurs.
@mikethesnow said in England v Australia:
@antipodean said in England v Australia:
Sad reflection on World Rugby when Gardner is considered the best referee.
By whom?
Certainly not me.
Same. If a player can fool a ref because the ref doesn't know the laws, I kinda think they shouldn't be promoted.
-
@antipodean said in England v Australia:
Sad reflection on World Rugby when Gardner is considered the best referee.
By whom?
Certainly not me.
@mikethesnow said in England v Australia:
@antipodean said in England v Australia:
Sad reflection on World Rugby when Gardner is considered the best referee.
By whom?
Certainly not me.
I didn't know you were on the board of World Rugby Mike? It normally takes more than just a taste for gin. :grinning_face:
-
@mikethesnow said in England v Australia:
@antipodean said in England v Australia:
Sad reflection on World Rugby when Gardner is considered the best referee.
By whom?
Certainly not me.
I didn't know you were on the board of World Rugby Mike? It normally takes more than just a taste for gin. :grinning_face:
@catogrande said in England v Australia:
@mikethesnow said in England v Australia:
@antipodean said in England v Australia:
Sad reflection on World Rugby when Gardner is considered the best referee.
By whom?
Certainly not me.
I didn't know you were on the board of World Rugby Mike? It normally takes more than just a taste for gin. :grinning_face:
:face_with_tears_of_joy:
:face_with_tears_of_joy: -
@catogrande said in England v Australia:
@crucial said in England v Australia:
@antipodean said in England v Australia:
Sad reflection on World Rugby when Gardner is considered the best referee.
It all comes down to the process and the expectations that WR keep changing on these guys. I have some sympathy for AG as the refs still don't seem to be making decisions based on the same evidence everyone at home sees.
We don't like it when the TMO makes the decision, we don't like it if the ref makes a call without the TMO input and we don't like it when the ref ignores the TMO.
It is up to WR to stop fiddling with the process all the time but come up with a clear understandable way of reviewing decisions. Cricket managed to do it in a shorter period and now even if the decision is slightly debateable you know the process has been followed properly.This. Plus the refs never know when someone at World Rugby is going to publicly criticise their performance and tell everyone the ref got a crucial call wrong.
Again, it is the inconsistency that grates. Some decisions get commented on, others are treated like a state secret. It appears from the outside that it all depends on who your mates are.
I doubt anyone wants a post game post mortem but there are ways by which they can convey that they aim for perfection but accept that errors will happen.
WR could learn a lot from the big US sports. NFL has quick clear decisions that everyone accepts and moves on. Each week they release an Officiating Video to the media to explain big calls.
NBA also put up post game video reviews.
Rugby TV commentary teams could also learn a lot from the US guys who don't spent half their time winding up the audience with claims of poor decisions or 50/50 calls. They let the viewer do all that themselves without adding a form of confirmation or (Justin Marshall) adding their own interpretation of the laws into the mix.
The game has been pro for over 20 years but doesn't act like it sometimes.@crucial said in England v Australia:
@catogrande said in England v Australia:
@crucial said in England v Australia:
@antipodean said in England v Australia:
Sad reflection on World Rugby when Gardner is considered the best referee.
It all comes down to the process and the expectations that WR keep changing on these guys. I have some sympathy for AG as the refs still don't seem to be making decisions based on the same evidence everyone at home sees.
We don't like it when the TMO makes the decision, we don't like it if the ref makes a call without the TMO input and we don't like it when the ref ignores the TMO.
It is up to WR to stop fiddling with the process all the time but come up with a clear understandable way of reviewing decisions. Cricket managed to do it in a shorter period and now even if the decision is slightly debateable you know the process has been followed properly.This. Plus the refs never know when someone at World Rugby is going to publicly criticise their performance and tell everyone the ref got a crucial call wrong.
Again, it is the inconsistency that grates. Some decisions get commented on, others are treated like a state secret. It appears from the outside that it all depends on who your mates are.
I doubt anyone wants a post game post mortem but there are ways by which they can convey that they aim for perfection but accept that errors will happen.
WR could learn a lot from the big US sports. NFL has quick clear decisions that everyone accepts and moves on. Each week they release an Officiating Video to the media to explain big calls.
NBA also put up post game video reviews.
Rugby TV commentary teams could also learn a lot from the US guys who don't spent half their time winding up the audience with claims of poor decisions or 50/50 calls. They let the viewer do all that themselves without adding a form of confirmation or (Justin Marshall) adding their own interpretation of the laws into the mix.
The game has been pro for over 20 years but doesn't act like it sometimes.I just don't understand why commentators are allows to complain about the Laws as part of the broadcast. That's not what they are there for, you can do that sort of thing in a panel show.
Also, it should be a requirement for the commentators to do a refereeing course every year to keep their knowledge of the Laws up to date. Looking at you Justin Marshall.
Less important, but I think that the commentators need to realise that they are part of the promotion of the sport. The constant sniping and negativity must be turning people off. And people like Tony Johnson really need to reign in their bias of certain teams. He makes watching Auckland or the Blues a terrible experience (even when we are winning). That's the countries largest TV market, Sky should be more concerned about that.
It's notable that you get a local "expert" commentator all around the country except for Auckland games too.
-
@crucial said in England v Australia:
@catogrande said in England v Australia:
@crucial said in England v Australia:
@antipodean said in England v Australia:
Sad reflection on World Rugby when Gardner is considered the best referee.
It all comes down to the process and the expectations that WR keep changing on these guys. I have some sympathy for AG as the refs still don't seem to be making decisions based on the same evidence everyone at home sees.
We don't like it when the TMO makes the decision, we don't like it if the ref makes a call without the TMO input and we don't like it when the ref ignores the TMO.
It is up to WR to stop fiddling with the process all the time but come up with a clear understandable way of reviewing decisions. Cricket managed to do it in a shorter period and now even if the decision is slightly debateable you know the process has been followed properly.This. Plus the refs never know when someone at World Rugby is going to publicly criticise their performance and tell everyone the ref got a crucial call wrong.
Again, it is the inconsistency that grates. Some decisions get commented on, others are treated like a state secret. It appears from the outside that it all depends on who your mates are.
I doubt anyone wants a post game post mortem but there are ways by which they can convey that they aim for perfection but accept that errors will happen.
WR could learn a lot from the big US sports. NFL has quick clear decisions that everyone accepts and moves on. Each week they release an Officiating Video to the media to explain big calls.
NBA also put up post game video reviews.
Rugby TV commentary teams could also learn a lot from the US guys who don't spent half their time winding up the audience with claims of poor decisions or 50/50 calls. They let the viewer do all that themselves without adding a form of confirmation or (Justin Marshall) adding their own interpretation of the laws into the mix.
The game has been pro for over 20 years but doesn't act like it sometimes.I just don't understand why commentators are allows to complain about the Laws as part of the broadcast. That's not what they are there for, you can do that sort of thing in a panel show.
Also, it should be a requirement for the commentators to do a refereeing course every year to keep their knowledge of the Laws up to date. Looking at you Justin Marshall.
Less important, but I think that the commentators need to realise that they are part of the promotion of the sport. The constant sniping and negativity must be turning people off. And people like Tony Johnson really need to reign in their bias of certain teams. He makes watching Auckland or the Blues a terrible experience (even when we are winning). That's the countries largest TV market, Sky should be more concerned about that.
It's notable that you get a local "expert" commentator all around the country except for Auckland games too.
@kirwan said in England v Australia:
I just don't understand why commentators are allows to complain about the Laws as part of the broadcast. That's not what they are there for, you can do that sort of thing in a panel show.
When I started reading this, I thought you were talking about Courtney Lawes, not The Laws. Although what you wrote would apply to the response to his decision!
Modern commentators are the new tabloid journalism - anything for a headline, as long as it supports your own team. Unfortunately, some people think they are still the newspapers of the pre-internet era; fair, respectful and balanced.
-
I watch, and read about, a wiiiide variety of sports. I don't know if there is any other sport that talks about referees, laws, and specific referee calls more than Rugby. Commentators, panel shows, dickheads on internet forums. Before and after.
Possibly Rugby League is worse, but it would be only just.
-
I watch, and read about, a wiiiide variety of sports. I don't know if there is any other sport that talks about referees, laws, and specific referee calls more than Rugby. Commentators, panel shows, dickheads on internet forums. Before and after.
Possibly Rugby League is worse, but it would be only just.
@mariner4life said in England v Australia:
Possibly Rugby League is worse, but it would be only just.
It is made worse by the fact that there are only about a dozen rules in their whole book.
And Gus Gould. He makes everything worse.
