By chief -
November 19th 2009 @ 2:10am
Get a Roar profile
Loading ...The IRB should cut Paddy O’Brien
Paddy O’Brien has publicly humiliated Stuart Dickinson’s handling of the New Zealand verses Italy match by criticizing his performance after pressure from both coaching staff.
The Italian coaching staff claimed that a penalty try should have been given, while Steve Hansen complained that Dickinson was guessing.
Has Paddy O’Brien overstepped the mark? Yes he has.
The IRB at the end of the year may in fact part ways with O’Brien, judging by this outburst towards Australia’s most experienced referee.
Bryce Lawrence didn’t get humiliated publicy for his dodgy performance in the England versus Australia game only two weeks ago, which many rugby commentators labelled as “pathetic”, and “nanny like.”
Jonathan Kaplan’s performance on the weekend highlights more inconsistencies with O’Brien’s decision to criticize Dickinson.
Both teams were served injustice at the calls whipped out by Kaplan.
Paddy O’Brien now has taken it one step too far. Hopefully this latest blunder encourages the IRB to part ways with him.
Super 14 Tipping now live on The Roar. Join now.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(147)
ohtani's jacket said | November 19th 2009 @ 2:17am | Report comment
Classic.
Maybe they can replace him with Jonathan Kaplan.
Jokerman said | November 20th 2009 @ 5:36pm | Report comment
BeeGee, spot on cuz, thanks for the balance on this article. I like your ideas. Refs have been so protected and this is just transparancy and communication. Go All Blacks!!!!!
BeeGee said | November 19th 2009 @ 5:03am | Report comment
Seems to me that Stuart had become a little untouchable lately as many see him as Australia’s best Ref but he shouldn’t be excluded from the mess in Italy the likes of which rugby followers have rarely seen before? The scrum was going no where but inwards and downwards. Italy has never been a great scrummaging side … just not renowned for this as one of their strengths. As the underdog we like to believe they had the upper hand even if it was by dubious means!
Dickinson has become a really good ref of late but he is also one that has a really pedantic past having blown over 25 penalties in a match on quite a few occasions. Does he have the capacity to learn and become a better Ref? No doubt here – he’s shown it already.
In one sense it’s good to see Referees come under the microscope – they need to be held accountable too. And Paddy has raised the profile of Refs who had no profile before he arrived at the IRB so no problem with giving him some airplay.
I don’t buy the trans-Tasman conspiracy theory – Paddy backed Wayne Barnes’ overall performance in Cardiff when France bounced the ABs out of the 2007 RWC so he’s not biased (although he did note that Barnes had missed a fairly important forward pass). In fact he had a sharp message for New Zealanders to “get over it” I recall. Paddy siding with his fellow countrymen? What a load of bollocks! But the public lashing out was unexpected and over the top but needed … in some other way?
It’s been a bad week for Aussie rugby – Grand Slam gone with seconds on the clock and our No. 1 Ref hauled over the coals. Taking the emotion out of it, Dickinson probably did stuff up but who could tell other than those that know the rules and have access to camera close-ups (x10) and slow-mo replays?
Consistency is an issue but interpreting some of the laws is a mine field as well. Perhaps the IRB should post its Performance Rating for each Ref after each Test match? I’d like to see the open and transparent approach!
Ed said | November 19th 2009 @ 4:43pm | Report comment
The italians have ALWAYS had a great scrum. It’s the one part of their game that they can rely on. I clearly remember them getting the better of the All Blacks the last time they played them in the world cup. It isn’t something new, the nz scrum is good, it just isn’t as good as the italians
Wooded said | November 19th 2009 @ 8:49pm | Report comment
why is 25 PK a large number? I would think thats a good number? did you just make that number up?
cheatingcorruptkiwi said | November 19th 2009 @ 5:59am | Report comment
Blah blah blah blah cheating kiwis blah blah blah everyone always sides with the all blacks blah blah blah
in the words of Mr Obrien “Grow Up” (what he said to new zealand after the Wayne Barnes performance)
That 10 minutes of rugby was the worst display ever. It could have been avoided if during the match he had noticed that the italin props were blatently boring in. And to be fair they had been rewarded for doing it for all game so why wouldnt they?
cheatingcorruptkiwi said | November 19th 2009 @ 6:01am | Report comment
ps maybe its Obrien adding a good bit of kiwi transparency and anti corruption after all New Zealand is officially the least corrupt and most transparent country on the planet
PastHisBest said | November 19th 2009 @ 6:02am | Report comment
Would you feel the same chief if he wasn’t a NZ’er?
chief said | November 19th 2009 @ 6:24am | Report comment
In fact I am half new Zealander. Absolutely not.
katzilla said | November 19th 2009 @ 4:36pm | Report comment
No such thing exists.
Why do you think our colours are black and white? There is no grey area between.
Stalker said | November 21st 2009 @ 1:37pm | Report comment
tis true
chief said | November 19th 2009 @ 6:45am | Report comment
Stuart in the B & I Lions match earlier in the year showed he was one of the best With easily taking the crown over anyone selected for those tests. He’s improved darasctically and he did a lot better then Kaplan.
Australia should get apologies from O’Brien too, and Wycliff Palu a Christmas card and a candy cane from O’Brien.
Colin N said | November 19th 2009 @ 8:48am | Report comment
Nevermind Australia getting an apology, what about the Lions? All the Beast did was bore in.
katzilla said | November 19th 2009 @ 4:38pm | Report comment
Still going on about the Lions? Borin
mitzter said | November 19th 2009 @ 6:45am | Report comment
Chief
I made this point yesterday and was hounded for it. If there was transparency on all refereeing performances then I would have absolutely no problem with it but there is not so i believe this move is unprofessional by o’brien. Who cares if he said barne’s preformance was correct, it doesn’t change anything, because this has been unprecedented to my knowledge
liam said | November 19th 2009 @ 6:49am | Report comment
I agree. I’m calling for O’Brien to go.
katzilla said | November 19th 2009 @ 4:40pm | Report comment
Who are you calling? The IRB batphone? Ghostbusters?
Well im calling for him to stay, infact im calling for him to have a raise! Take that……..
ohtani's jacket said | November 19th 2009 @ 4:43pm | Report comment
I think it’s amusing that he came out and said Kaplan had a good game.
cookie said | November 19th 2009 @ 9:15pm | Report comment
both should retire.i never liked dickinsons attitude anyway
Rugby Fan said | November 19th 2009 @ 6:52am | Report comment
I caught up with Paddy O’Brien a few weeks ago. He hasn’t been shy to speak out on refereeing controversies before but he has stopped short of criticizing the referee in public. I think he’s decided to turn the heat up on his top guys where they make consistent mistakes across the course of a match. I don’t think anyone really doubts that Dickinson got the scrums wrong. You can’t blame the Italian prop for carrying on boring in when he realizes he isn’t going to be called on it. The sad thing for the game is that Italy might even have had a scrum advantage anyway but we can’t know that now.
You might ask where he was when Bryce Lawrence was penalizing the Lions scrum in the first Test. Lions Tests are an odd challenge for the IRB referees committee. Out of the top 19 referees for the 2008/9 season, four were South African and seven from Britain & Ireland. O’Brien felt that the series warranted his best referees irrespective of nationality but the Lions wanted neutral referees which O’Brien saw as a potential problem, not least because of communication issues between the French and NZ/AUS officials. I think he decided not to call out anyone in public because neutral referees wasn’t his preferred option in the first place.
That didn’t stop him from speaking out completely. He said after the Lions series that the Schalk Burger gouging was a clear red card – and warranted a longer ban that the one handed out – but defended the officials on the grounds that Bryce Lawrence had done well to spot anything at all because gouging is rarely spotted during a game. He pointed out that Lawrence obviously suspected gouging but actually only saw “fingers near the eye” which is what he described to Christophe Berdos. He has his own views about the exchange that subsequently occurred between the two but he has addressed that one in private.
I’m undecided about his decision to criticize Dickinson. I don’t think O’Brien would have made the same comment if one of his younger referees had made the same mistake but Dickinson is already at the top. We also don’t know how Dickinson responded to him in private when they spoke or whether the assistant referees had complained about Dickinson. If O’Brien thought the message hadn’t got through then he might have decided to make the point in public. The trouble is that any team with a refereeing grievance is now going to wonder where their apology is and I’m not sure that’s good for the game.
Paddy O’Brien is a decent rugby man and well aware of the traps referees can fall into. He mentioned that, after a try has been scored by one team, the next penalty award almost invariably goes to the other side. This indicates that referees try to be even-handed but can end up not always playing what is in front of them. He is also aware that a referee can feel his authority is being challenged when a team consistently offends in the same way but can end up looking out for that problem to the exclusion of others on the pitch. There’s clearly a human side to refereeing which any good player knows and tries to influence.
I get the impression that O’Brien is a bit fed up that referees are copping so much flak when the rules are a bit of a mess and the games top administrators can’t agree on what consistent interpretation they want. It might be he has decided that the best way to defend his officials on the whole is to own up when one of his top guys does get it consistently wrong. That could be good if it sheds more light on the difficulties referees face but I have my doubts.
Rugby Fan said | November 19th 2009 @ 7:29am | Report comment
I caught up with Paddy O’Brien a few weeks ago. He hasn’t been shy to speak out on refereeing controversies before but he has stopped short of criticizing the referee in public. I think he’s decided to turn the heat up on his top guys where they make consistent mistakes across the course of a match. I don’t think anyone really doubts that Dickinson got the scrums wrong. You can’t blame the Italian prop for carrying on boring in when he realizes he isn’t going to be called on it. The sad thing for the game is that Italy might even have had a scrum advantage anyway but we can’t know that now.
You might ask where he was when Bryce Lawrence was penalizing the Lions scrum in the first Test. Lions Tests are an odd challenge for the IRB referees committee. Out of the top 19 referees for the 2008/9 season, four were South African and seven from Britain & Ireland. O’Brien felt that the series warranted his best referees irrespective of nationality but the Lions wanted neutral referees which O’Brien saw as a potential problem, not least because of communication issues between the French and NZ/AUS officials. I think he decided not to call out anyone in public because neutral referees wasn’t his preferred option in the first place.
That didn’t stop him from speaking out completely. He said after the Lions series that the Schalk Burger gouging was a clear red card – and warranted a longer ban that the one handed out – but defended the officials on the grounds that Bryce Lawrence had done well to spot anything at all because gouging is rarely spotted during a game. He pointed out that Lawrence obviously suspected gouging but actually only saw “fingers near the eye” which is what he described to Christophe Berdos. He has his own views about the exchange that subsequently occurred between the two but he has addressed that one in private.
I’m undecided about his decision to criticize Dickinson. I don’t think O’Brien would have made the same comment if one of his younger top referees had made the same mistake but Dickinson is already at the top. We also don’t know how Dickinson responded to him in private when they spoke or whether the assistant referees had complained about Dickinson. If O’Brien thought the message hadn’t got through then he might have decided to make the point in public. The trouble is that any team with a refereeing grievance is now going to wonder where their apology is and I’m not sure that’s good for the game.
Paddy O’Brien is a decent rugby man and well aware of the traps referees can fall into. He mentioned that, after a try has been scored by one team, the next penalty award almost invariably goes to the other side. This indicates that referees try to be even-handed but can end up not always playing what is in front of them. He is also aware that a referee can feel his authority is being challenged when a team consistently offends in the same way but can end up looking out for that problem to the exclusion of others on the pitch. There’s clearly a human side to refereeing which any good player knows and tries to influence.
I get the impression that O’Brien is a bit fed up that referees are copping so much flak when the rules are a bit of a mess and the games top administrators can’t agree on what consistent interpretation they want. It might be he has decided that the best way to defend his officials on the whole is to own up when one of his top guys gets it consistently wrong. That could be good if it sheds more light on the difficulties referees face but I have my doubts.
PastHisBest said | November 19th 2009 @ 8:59am | Report comment
You caught up with him twice in the space of a few short weeks! Impressive.
Cattledog said | November 20th 2009 @ 12:54am | Report comment
LOL !! Not sure how you can do that but it sure gets the point across.
Dazaar said | November 19th 2009 @ 8:02am | Report comment
I think Chief has crossed the line, by making an accusation of bias based on one indicent. The exception, if this is one, never proves the rule. I think Paddy should be judged on his total performance in his position and all the comments he has made. I think his support of Wayne Barnes was justified in the circumstances and his admission of Stu Dickinson’s obvious failure in this circumstance is also a breath of fresh air. I think Paddy’s reactions to controversial incidents over his career as Referees’ Manager has on the whole been measured and proportionate.
The last minutes of the ABs Italy test were a farce. And Stu’s performance was woeful and obvious to all that viewed that sorry episode. What a blight in an event that was staged in AC Milan’s stadium in a now forelorn hope to grow the game in soccer mad Italy. Stu obviously got it wrong (and he would probably be the first to admit it) and rather than close ranks, bullsh*t the Rugby public, Paddy’s say’s ‘fair cop and this is what we are going to do to prevent happening again’
And you think he should be sacked for that?…………..
Dean Pantio said | November 19th 2009 @ 8:25am | Report comment
Is the OP being sarcastic?
guy said | November 19th 2009 @ 8:32am | Report comment
Lets not forget that Paddy was one of the great rugby refs of all time, and the IRB certainly needed a fresh ref boss when Paddy took over. Dont forget what refing was like before he came along….refs were just not cutting it on the whole. Just because he is a Kiwi doesnt mean he favours that country….it’s an imature conclusion that ‘chief’ comes up with and very narrow minded. Dickenson stuffed up bigtime with that awful scrum and should have been firmer with it…..mind you the bloody IRB needs a rocket up its arse with the rediculous rules esp at breakdown and scrums.
I think that the SANZA nations should BOUCOTT any northern hemisphere rughby, including World Cup until laws have been sorted out to encourage a better game for us all. Afterall, who are the teams everyone wants and must playt to get a great game of rugby – SA, Oz and NZ…not England, esp now, maybe France and Ireland, but the big 3 are THE teams to play. SANZA play thye best rugby yet have the least clout on the IRB. Its pathetic and plainy wrong and it is time SANZA stood up to them. Without SANZA there is no cerdible world rugby.
Atawhai Drive said | November 19th 2009 @ 9:13am | Report comment
Chief ventures into dangerous territory by saying “Of course, Paddy sided with his fellow countrymen”. Not to mention: “Publicly criticising a referee had made clear his stance for his own country.”
I’m no defamation lawyer, but I was a newspaper’s letters editor for seven years and I soon learned to recognise the sort of comment that had to be referred to the paper’s lawyers.
It’s easy to focus on referees. The sad fact is that France-South Africa aside, most of last weekend’s rugby internationals were dire rubbish. The game itself has fundamental problems, chaps. Refereeing is just one of them.
Darwin hammer said | November 19th 2009 @ 9:13am | Report comment
Gee so it really is all about Australia and trying to keep them happy
Ben C said | November 19th 2009 @ 9:22am | Report comment
I am concerned by Paddy’s outburst but I would say it is definitely NOT Paddy showing his Kiwi roots. He stauchly defended Barnes against the legitimate greivances of NZ after the RWC07 quarter final. That he has coming out in favour of a NZ team appears coincidental rather than a deliberate backing of his home team.
The question is, after so many poor performance by refs over the last few years, why he has suddenly publicly humiltated Dickinson. I haven’t seen the match so I can’t say whether Dickinson deserves a slating. I suspect from the comments above he probably did but any of us would be annoyed if our boss defended screw-ups by our fellow employees and suddenly publicly embarassed you by berating your error without warning.
It would be interesting to know if Paddy warned the refs that he would be taking the gloves off or if Dickinson has copped this serve without warning.
Ben C said | November 19th 2009 @ 9:24am | Report comment
I guess next week we be the SH week of armbands. Australia will be wearing “justice for Paul”. NZ will be wearing “justice for Crockett”. SA will be wearing “needed – 1 loose head prop, apply at front office”
hayden said | November 19th 2009 @ 12:53pm | Report comment
Congratulations Ben – the post of the week.
MarkR said | November 19th 2009 @ 9:55am | Report comment
Paddy is damned is he does & damned if he doesn’t. Good on him for straightening this one out.
I often wonder if the true lovers of the game aren’t the specators or the players but the refs, as they front up week in week out & the best they get is ‘well he didn’t co*k that one up’, but if god forbid they make a human error everything about their skill & integrity (yes Chief, you’ve publicly vilified his integrity) gets called into question whether from the sideline, journos, or by anonymous keyboard heroes.
Vented Relief said | November 19th 2009 @ 11:22am | Report comment
What an absolute disgrace from Dickinson’s boss. Referees have a hard enough time as it is deflecting constant criticism from coaches, players and most commonly, rugby fans. That they now have to put up with the boss publicly vilifying and embarrassing them is surely too much.
I agree that Dickinson did not have the best game and perhaps felt the pressure of the crowd and the tight game when overlooking the boring Castrogiavanni. However, that is no reason for this behaviour from O’Brien. If he wants his referees to be better referees then he should be doing his job – providing direction, leadership and training (if required).
Might I suggest, given the level of criticism directed at referees in recent times, that the game might be better officiated by two referees on the pitch rather than one ala rugby league’s recent direction. That way, both sides of the scrum can be monitored, offsides can be policed in tandem with set pieces and the referees can support each other in critical decisions such as Palu’s recent yellow card that would surely not have happened if a second referee had seen the incident from a different angle.
Sam said | November 19th 2009 @ 11:42am | Report comment
Do you not think that Paddy can criticize Dickinson and also “providing direction, leadership and training (if required)”? As for the other set of eyes – Kaplan had two touch judges he can speak to, but if he believes he saw an illegal tackle than he is going to card Palu regardless isn’t he? I don’t think two referees will work in rugby, I do think that expanding the role of assistant referees to deal with offsides (like in soccer) would be a good idea though. The problem at the moment is that for the most part the referee needs to see on the ball and off the ball stuff at the same time. This however doesn’t apply to the scrum situation – having another referee would have just confused Dickinson even more I think.
Vented Relief said | November 19th 2009 @ 2:12pm | Report comment
I don’t think publicly criticising and even lambasting your employee is good leadership. My opinion though.
Something needs to be done to assist the referees as they are all struggling at the moment with the complexity of the game.
ThelmaWrites said | November 19th 2009 @ 11:15pm | Report comment
Vented Relief
The situation is so disheartening. You would expect that at that level, professionalism would prevail. Surely, there is a protocol which international referees and their superiors follow when there are differences about how a game should have been reffed.
Sam said | November 19th 2009 @ 11:36am | Report comment
Many posts above have mentioned the fact that Paddy has a track record of sticking up for referees performances in All Blacks games in the past so I won’t go into it. I will say that comparing Dickinson’s performance in one aspect of the Italy-ABs match is completely different to coming out and saying the same thing about Kaplan and the Palu yellow card. Dickinson repeatedly screwed up his refereeing of the scrum. In the last ten minutes alone – according to O’Brien – he should have awarded seven out of eight scrum penalties to the All Blacks. This is like Kaplan seeing Palu make the same tackle eight times and yellow carding him in seven of them. There is no comparison. One mistake made based on a split second view of something, and continuous repeated errors are completely different. I think it’s good that referees know that very poor performances won’t be publicly defended – it makes a change and I’m all for it. There is a difference between dismissing one error and dismissing a massive string of them though, and that is what O’Brien has done. That last ten minutes was an absolute farce, and hopefully it doesn’t happen again. I think it’s good that those 80,000 Italians now know that not every bloody scrum looks like what we saw.
AngryAnt said | November 20th 2009 @ 12:45pm | Report comment
Sam, there is a big difference between “that referees know that very poor performances won’t be publicly defended” and what Paddy said about Dickerson. The stance Paddy has made is almost without precedent in sport. Some refs have been stood down for a poor performance and officials have indicated that there are elements of a refs game where errors occured but I have not seen a situation where a ref’s performance this publically disected by his boss. Something is not right here. I do not believe this is a kiwi thing though. What I do know is that Dickerson ref’ing career is at an end. Every player, coach, commentator and spectator will be all over him every game going forward. Manipulation of refs at scrum time is a long held tradition in the game, what will be going on in the scrums if the props know Stu is standing there? What instructions will coaches send front rows out with knowing that Stu is in charge. The reality is the game is suffering as a entertainment, in games where he refs it will be reset after reset because he will be accused of guessing not matter which way he penalises. Shame it is difficult to get people to ref, especially at junior levels, this can’t help. I am not sure of the rules in Rugby but in many (most sports) players, coaches, etc are fined for vilifying a ref. The position is to defend the ref while admitting there is a human element. Paddy has done this in the past (Barnes and the forward pass is an example many are using. The ramifications of that decision far outweight any ramifications from Staurday’s game), do we know why he has choosen this time, this game and this ref to change his approach?
Greg Russell said | November 19th 2009 @ 12:03pm | Report comment
Following Paddy’s comments yesterday, he was lined up to be interviewed on RadioSport NZ at 9.15 am this morning. Just before this time, he emailed to say that he was no longer available to be interviewed. As host Brendan Telfer said, it was pretty easy to join the dots and work out what had happened: the IRB had muzzled him.
And I’m with the IRB and chief on this: it’s disgraceful that O’Brien publicly humiliated one of his top referees. I have no problem with O’Brien ticking off Dickinson in private, but all referees have to know that they have the confidence of their boss and that he will at least stand up for them in public.
Earlier in the week even Dave Hewett (ex All Blacks prop) admitted on NZ radio that it was only the aerial view of the scrums that made it clear that Castrogiovanni was illegally boring in on Crockett. No doubt Hansen and O’Brien were basing their criticism of Dickinson on the same aerial footage. But of course Dickinson doesn’t get to view such illuminating camera work while he’s in the middle of the cauldron.
So here’s a novel idea for the IRB and O’Brien to consider: instead of criticizing Dickinson, why don’t they act on the aerial footage of Castrogiovanni, which shows him deliberately using illegal tactics time and time again? Surely that constitutes deliberate and repeated infringement, for which he could be suspended. Players would certainly think very carefully about using illegal and deceitful tactics if they knew that it could lead to them being suspended following video review of a match.
mitzter said | November 19th 2009 @ 12:43pm | Report comment
Absolutely agree Greg. Suspend him now for illegal action, actually i’d love it if they went through all games for all repeated infringements (eg. caught illegally playing ball off ground 3 points, in at the side 4 points etc. get 10 points suspension for one match) There is way too much cheating in union that is killing the game more than refs
BennO said | November 19th 2009 @ 1:13pm | Report comment
i agree with that to an extent. I get fed up with everyone bagging the refs for missing illegal foul play. Have a go at the players for doing it rather than the refs for missing it. Surely it is the players who infringe who should be subject to vilification.
So what to do about it? I like your suggestion mitzter except that on yesterday’s thread about Palu half the crowd watched the youtube link and concluded he shoulder charged and the other half thought opposite. Half is a bit wrong, basically the Irish among us thought he acted illegally and the Aussies thought his tackle was legal. So your idea would be good in some respects but it surely would lead to more bickering about right and wrong after the fact. But that’s probably ok really isn’t it, if they get rid of the cheating like boring in and so on.
Darwin hammer said | November 19th 2009 @ 12:20pm | Report comment
Look it’s plain to most that Dickinson isn’t a great referee … he’s been substandard in the international arena for years and was particularly poor in the S14 this season esp in the 1st 3 – 4 games …. as Sam above has said comparing Dickinson’s appalling performance in the last 10 minutes with one off instances just doesn’t cut it …
I’ve no problem whatsoever with O’Brien coming out and setting the record straight in respect to what happened in Milan – it needed to be clarified, the evidence was there from the tape that the Italians were operating illegally – not to comment was tantamount to condoning it at least this way we’re armed with the knowledge that referees have been put on notice and the scrum will be a focal point
Yikes said | November 19th 2009 @ 12:57pm | Report comment
I love it when people make outlandish comments and then pretend that it is a general opinion.
Dickinson has been a professional referee since 1996. He simply could not have survived at international level if he was not a great referee. His performance in the 3rd Lions test was substantially better than the other 2 referees and there are few people in the world who could have done that. It is very debatable indeed whether or not he was poor in the first couple of S14 games this season. Overall he was one of the top performed referees in the whole tournament (as seen by appointments at the end and by the domestic S14 awards). He remains the top referee in Australia (which you might suggest is damning with faint praise but I would ignore such churlishness).
The lion’s share of media and rugby opinion following the match was that Dickinson was wrong for not awarding a penalty try against the All Blacks! Now, almost a week later, he is castigated for not penalising Italy! Talk about no-win situation. How is it possible that with almost the entire rugby world being ‘wrong’ about the contest, Dickinson making split second decisions in a very grey area constitutes an “appalling performance”. He was clear about what he wanted and he was consistent.
I would be more impressed with Paddy’s analysis if he seemed to be aware that Castrogiovanni had been subbed by the end of the game (as per my comment below). This notwithstanding, anyone who knows anything about scrums will tell you that the loosehead going in at an angle, and the tighthead boring are very much chicken-and-egg scenarios. I doubt Paddy’s opinion that Italy were entirely to blame is correct. Even if there is truth to the accusation that Italy used dubious tactics (and I’m sure there is), the NZ scrum also contributed to its own downfall.
Darwin hammer said | November 19th 2009 @ 3:29pm | Report comment
“I love it when people make outlandish comments and then pretend that it is a general opinion.” .. well I’d say it’s actually general opinion anywhere outside of Australia …
“It is very debatable indeed whether or not he was poor in the first couple of S14 games this season” .. only debatable really if you’re a NSW supporter – he was poor, very poor in the first 1 – 4 games and was a major factor in the flying start NSW got in this year’s S14 …
Yikes said | November 19th 2009 @ 4:17pm | Report comment
Well I hate to bring facts into the equation, but Dickinson only refereed 3 games at the start of the S14 (before going to NH for the 6N).
Only two of the three featured the Waratahs. In the first game the combined penalty/free kick count was 20-5 in favour of the Hurricanes. Yes, you read that right. In the second game, the combined penalty/free kick count was 17-13 in favour of the Chiefs.
So if he was a major factor in the “flying start” for NSW, he did a pretty good job of hiding it. I think you’re talking rubbish.
If there is a general opinion about Dickinson I would argue it is because he has been around so long – 13 years – that everyone has at some point had a bad experience of their team under him, either due to perceived or actual poor performance on his behalf. This doesn’t make him a ’substandard’ ref. In fact, it is evidence to the contrary – he has survived performing at a high level for such a long time.
Cattledog said | November 20th 2009 @ 1:19am | Report comment
Good, reasoned comments Yikes. I agree with you. Dickinson is a very good (great) referee who like ALL players and referees, has the occasional average game.
From a leadership perspective, PO’B got it wrong. If you have an issue with an employee, you don’t publicise it on the office memo / email for all and sundry. You lose all credibility and trust with all stakeholders this way.
Jerry said | November 20th 2009 @ 6:09am | Report comment
Yikes – that penalty/free kick count in the Tahs/Caness match was actually one of the main sources of criticims against Dickinson – ie that despite the Tahs infringing all night he never issued a card. He did warn them, but it was with about 90 seconds remaining in the match.
Yikes said | November 19th 2009 @ 12:33pm | Report comment
The bizarre thing in all this discussion – the Italian tighthead WASN’T Castrogiovanni. For the scrum sequence everyone is complaining about, he was on the sideline and Ignacio Rouyet had replaced him.
So whether Paddy has it right at all is not as clear cut as all the NZ’s on this site suggesting that now “the truth is out”. Far from it. O’Brien’s analysis comes from a meeting with Cron and Henry. Gee whiz. I wonder what the outcome was going to be! Of course, Dickinson has no ability to defend himself in the press.
This is not transparency from the referees as some people have laughingly put it. Transparency would have been to drop the referee making short comment that his performance at scrum time wasn’t ideal. This was a public execution, going far beyond what was necessary. If this kind of thing was a regular from Paddy, that would be a different story. But there have been enough poor performances by referees over the years that have met with silence and internal review (as they should). Why O’Brien has decided to unload on Stu I have no idea.
The closest I can guess is that it has something to do with NZ’s upcoming game with England and not wanting referees to think NZ’s scrum is weak. Does anyone seriously think O’Brien would have said what he said if it had been Italy playing Scotland?
ohtani's jacket said | November 19th 2009 @ 12:42pm | Report comment
Would there be articles about this if it weren’t an Australian ref? ‘Cos God knows Paddy O’Brien has gone too far.
mitzter said | November 19th 2009 @ 12:46pm | Report comment
absolutely, transaparency would be percentage mark of correct decisions and things not spotted and how the mark was reached etc. Not a one off hounding because nz feel hard done by
ohtani's jacket said | November 20th 2009 @ 12:36am | Report comment
Since we like dealing in facts here, O’Brien didn’t mention Castrogiovanni by name. He said the actions of the Italian tighthead prop had been purely illegal. I believe he was referring to both of them since Crockett was subbed in the 60th minute and only came back on after the sinbinning. The problem with the way Dickinson reffed the scrum is that he simply chose to penalise the defensive scrum. Crockett complained to Dickinson repeatedly that the tighthead was boring in on him, but every time Dickinson moved sides they cheated on the other side. That’s not Dickinson’s fault and for that he should shoulder no blame, but if he doesn’t know what’s going on he shouldn’t blow a penalty.
ohtani's jacket said | November 19th 2009 @ 12:37pm | Report comment
Public humiliation? Gee, what’s happening next on Days of Our Lives?
Jeff said | November 19th 2009 @ 1:11pm | Report comment
Hopefully Stu will spit the dummy and resign – and take Kaplin with him. They have to take some of the blame for the standard of play we are getting dished up. Those two in particular are very pedantic – I often think they need the rest and resetting a few scums gives them a breather. It is actually possible to predict the type of game we are about to see when we know who the ref is going to be. It used to be the UK refs who frustrated the hell out of us. Now it is nearly all of them. But I agree Paddy should not have criticised Stu in public. He would do much better talking privately to all of them and get them to dish out out a short arm as soon as there is a problem – oh can’t they do that? Much prefer another scrum.
Ai Rui Sheng said | November 19th 2009 @ 4:05pm | Report comment
I fear that Stu has not recovered from the flailing he received from the French Ayatollah before the last RWC. This,I believe, also explains that terrible performance by Barnes in Cardiff.
chief said | November 19th 2009 @ 4:10pm | Report comment
I am not deflming Paddy, I thought he was the best referee in the world during his time. What I am saying is had it been Ireland that was on the wrong end of Dickinson’s scrum calls, Ireland might not have received an apology. I am not questioning his integrity at all, I think he’s got the right idea at heart but is it the right idea rugby referees need? I think there is a possibility The fact that he took a plane from Ireland too address the problem is seriously concerning. Did we receive an apology for Alan Lewis’s mistakes in Tokyo? No. Dickinson made mistakes, Lewis made mistakes. What I am saying is that did a nationality play a part in this instance?
ohtani's jacket said | November 19th 2009 @ 4:23pm | Report comment
It was Mark Lawrence who was the ref in Tokyo, and yeah, we never got an apology for him incorrecting awarding the Wallabies a try.
Yikes said | November 19th 2009 @ 4:28pm | Report comment
I think he meant Alan Lewis in Hong Kong from last year. And both teams deserved an apology that day.
ohtani's jacket said | November 19th 2009 @ 4:35pm | Report comment
Well, it wasn’t that long ago that Paddy came out in defence of Dickinson after his TMO decision in the Rugby World Cup final. That’s how it should be of course, so I guess chief forgot about that little episode of Days of Our Lives.
Kaplan had such a better referring performance on the weekend than Dickinson it’s not even funny. Nobody’s even talked about the yellow card that the great one dished out to the Italians. What was that for?
Wooded said | November 19th 2009 @ 8:56pm | Report comment
why shouldnt he defend on that decesion, it was correct… only high light of the game was that momment
Yikes said | November 19th 2009 @ 9:35pm | Report comment
What isn’t funny is that sometimes OJ I think you post things you know are obviously wrong just to be argumentative.
Sure Paddy ‘defended’ Dickinson after to TMO decision. Why not? It was a correct decision. The fact that you pay your taxes one year because it’s the right thing to do doesn’t give you license to become a tax evader for the following year, does it?
As for the respective performances, you must be joking. The YC against the Italians was for a dumping tackle after the pass had gone. It was very clear indeed on the replay. Did you miss it? Dickinson 1, Ohtani’s Jacket 0.
As for Kaplan – at the breakdown he was all over the place like a dog’s breakfast. Penalties for no release by the tackler where the player released and got to his feet, penalties for no release of the ball even though the flanker (Pocock twice) never actually got his hands on the ball, penalties for no release of the ball even though the poaching player had his knees on the ground, then 5 mins later penalising AAC for having his elbow on the ground when attempting to play the ball…. and then he went missing in the second half allowing just about all of the above.
Many of these in isolation might be defended, but as for consistency… no. Add a YC for a generally legal tackle that at worst was a marginal high shot, and if you want to talk about scrum decisions that actually had an impact on the result of the game, I challenge you to re-watch the final scrum and tell me that the Irish TH did not deserve to be penalised. Different result.
Not that I’m complaining! It was similar for both teams, and the Wallabies had their chances to put the game beyond doubt and didn’t. That has nothing to do with Kaplan. But then I rarely think the referee has the impact on the game that most people ascribe to him.
ohtani's jacket said | November 20th 2009 @ 12:17am | Report comment
So let me get this straight… You don’t mind when Paddy defends Dickinson, but when Dickinson’s in the wrong he ought to remain silent?
It wasn’t simply the farce at the end that the All Black coaches complained about, it was Dickinson’s mishandling of the scrum throughout the entire game. Personally, I don’t have an issue with the Italians boring or any other illegality, but the All Black coaches did and for once O’Brien conceded that his man did a poor job. At the same time, he’s been defending referees left, right and centre, saying it’s not their fault how the game is played.
Dickinson’s reputation hasn’t been tarnished. Most of us thought he was a crap ref to begin with, but he’ll live to ref another day. I doubt he ever lost any of his match fee over the debacle. If you honestly think Kaplan did a worse job than Dickinson over the weekend then I’m afraid you’re just sticking up for one of your own. The Italians were repeatedly offside, making early tackles. They bound incorrectly at the scrum and their halfback was feeding the scrum illegally. He may have got the yellow card right, I’ll take your word for it, but it’s pittance compared to how ball he allowed the Italians to spoil. He contributed to it being one of the worst Tests in recent memory and did a lot of our fringe players no good by allowing the Italians to worsen their playing chances.
Nobody outside of Australia thinks Dickinson is a good ref. The South Africans don’t like him. The French don’t like him. The English don’t like him. New Zealanders don’t like him. How about you just admit that Hansen was right in this case, Paddy O’Brien was right and we can all go on with our lives including Stuart Dickinson, who I’m sure will ride this out.
Yikes said | November 20th 2009 @ 8:08am | Report comment
We will have to agree to disagree. I believe you are being coloured by the fact that NZ were playing, given that your complaints are basically about the Italians.
As for the Test being one of the worst, clearly you didn’t see England v Argentina. As for why people around the world don’t like Dickinson, see my previous comment about his longevity. The fact that people don’t like him proves nothing, and the fact that independent selectors and assessors continue to pick him over a decade hints at something else.
His reputation has most definitely been tarnished. Paddy said “he was so wrong it was dangerous. The Italian tighthead is completely illegal and Stu should be able to see this. Most of our refs are getting the picture quite clearly; he is not.” (Note: “the Italian tighthead is” not “the Italian tightheads are”). Apart from being wrong, that’s pretty vicious from someone who is supposed to be his boss. If this was the outcome behind closed doors so be it – and make short public comment to the fact that the Italians were not refereed properly and the referee will be dropped. But O’Brien went two steps further.
MarkR said | November 19th 2009 @ 4:35pm | Report comment
Hehehehehe…..come on OJ are you going to let the facts stand in the way of a good Ozzie whinge ??
Chief(less) – so what am I supposed to infer from “Of course, Paddy sided with his fellow countrymen”. If you make a statement stand by it or admit you were wrong, not slip & slide & “oh not that’s not what I really said”.
Oh well guys, there’s more games this weekend so there’ll be loads to whinge about on Monday;
NZ vs England
Wallabies vs Scotland
Ireland vs Fiji
Wales vs Argies
France vs Samoa
…….Just remember don’t listen to a broker when placing your bets…..& Go the underdogs (that’s not you England OK )
chief said | November 19th 2009 @ 4:34pm | Report comment
Yes Alan Lewis Hong Kong. My bad, it just seems wrong to do it, he’s going to have to start doing it regularly. Bad precedent.
kai_vt said | November 19th 2009 @ 4:48pm | Report comment
Paddy would know all about crap scum calls. I can’t recall any apology for his performance in RWC’99 though.
katzilla said | November 19th 2009 @ 4:55pm | Report comment
If it was any of the Saffa refs that made this mistake you’d all be backing O’Briens stance.
Sorry but Stuey just doesn’t cut the mustard anymore.
BTW he isn’t the best ref in Australia, thats Steve Walsh
mick h said | November 19th 2009 @ 8:43pm | Report comment
When he’s not pissed of course
Yikes said | November 19th 2009 @ 5:01pm | Report comment
katzilla, I disagree. No IRB referee should be treated this way. Saffa, Kiwi or Aussie, even Scot. I don’t mind the public admission of mistakes, just that O’Brien went way too far especially given the area concerned is not clear cut.
As for Stuey not cutting the mustard, how someone can be considered to have gone from being the best of the Lions referees to not good enough in the space of … one test, really, is baffling.
mother teresa said | November 19th 2009 @ 9:27pm | Report comment
yikes;its called a defining moment.just go back to the grassy knoll
Cattledog said | November 20th 2009 @ 1:39am | Report comment
Another gem, Mum. Meaningless and contributes nothing, as usual, to the debate. Dickinson didn’t have his best game. Nor did many of the players. However, that’s no reason for his ‘boss’ to publically castigate him. He overstepped the mark and knowing Paddy, he’s probably already apologised.
AndyS said | November 19th 2009 @ 5:24pm | Report comment
I may have said it before, but what surprised me was that O’Brien was prepared to publicly carpet a senior IRB referee over a series of decisions that had no bearing on the outcome of the match. I look forward to seeing if he continues the policy of “If the referee is not accurate we’ve got to put our hand up” when a refereeing performance does decide the winner.
The other thing I found odd was that the statement “We need to educate that referee and get him better” was closely followed by “He has been advised to undertake “scrum coaching” and also told his performance will be taken into account for future appointments”. It seems a bit contradictory – does the IRB take any responsibility for training etc, or is he being told to sort it out himself or he’ll be fired?
liam said | November 19th 2009 @ 5:43pm | Report comment
ARU will sort out this. I would say the referee coach of Australia will look into this and try and give him Scrum 101 DVD’s or something
ExpatSin said | November 19th 2009 @ 5:52pm | Report comment
Chief, who really cares what you say after your 3rd paragraph. Any rational thinking you where trying to bring to the discussion was negated from then on. Your belief is that O’Brien sided with his countryman through common heritage. Full Stop. The rest is rubbish.
chief said | November 19th 2009 @ 6:00pm | Report comment
The article was actually a lot longer, it was trimmed down significantly by The Roar.
mick h said | November 19th 2009 @ 8:41pm | Report comment
The real issue is what precedent has O’Brien set here. Is he going to feel the need to appoligise to every team that has had a few bad calls go against them? Because that’s primarily what he has done.
The question needs to be raised. Was this the worst performance by a referee ever? If not, then O’Brien has set a precedent that he cannot uphold therefore he needs to resign.
If it was the worst performance by a referee ever then it is only the worst performance after the last worst performance by a referee ever. Very ambiguous stuff and a topic that should have been discussed behind closed doors by the refs themselves.
Also I don’t quite understand how this can be construed as Aussie winging. Or is it just another chance for the Kiwi’s to have a another winge at Aussie winging???
MR said | November 19th 2009 @ 9:05pm | Report comment
mick h – the issue was that it wasn’t a ‘few bad calls’ over the course of a game all happening in split seconds. It was a 10 minute period consisting of 8 scrums where Paddy stated the ref got if consistently wrong. God forbid it had been Oz on the receiving of that prolonged period we’d never hear the end of it.
OK, back to watching Golota getting hammered on Fox (I love it when the big guys get outskilled). See ya tomorrow when I promise I’ll be in a better mood & play much nicer.
My apologies too Chief – it wasn’t you it was just that the consistent whining on a couple of subjects has got to me the last few days. Now where the hell did I put that Solero Reserve…….
BTW – Kudos to the guys who have taken the effort to look up the applicable rules for the situations we’ve been discussing this week. Thanks from one of the lazy sods who doesn’t bother letting the rule book interfer with his bias.
mick h said | November 19th 2009 @ 9:31pm | Report comment
God forbid MR, There is no God!. Hanson complained and he got an appology from the chief of refs. Strange days indeed.
Can you imaging the outcry if he felt the need to appoligise to Australians for poor refereeing.
I can see the headlines now. “O’Brien panders to Whinging Aussie Wankers”
We should just substitute the “Aussie” for “Kiwi” shall we.
MR said | November 19th 2009 @ 9:05pm | Report comment
BTW – MR = MarkR
Ian Cook said | November 20th 2009 @ 6:56am | Report comment
*** “Of course, Paddy sided with his fellow countrymen.
Has Paddy O’Brien overstepped the mark? Yes he has.
Publicly criticizing a referee has made clear his stance for his own country.”***
Utter poppycock chief!!. How quick you are to forget that it was O’Brien that stood up for ENGLISHMAN Wayne Barnes after that referee’s appalling performance in the second half of the All Blacks 2007 QF v France (and I don’t mean the forward pass either!!)
If you don’t like what O’Brien has done, then wait, there’s more, because you are not going to like what is going to happen next. This is actually an iRB policy change which was first hinted at when the world’s elite international referees and referee managers met for the annual IRB High Performance Referee Conference in London the week before last. In future, elite referees are going to become more accountable, both publicly and privately, for their poor performances.
That O’Brien happens to be a New Zealander is mere coincidence here; he was never partisan as a referee and isn’t now. It does not matter who the IRB referee manager was, or what country he came from, he was always going to publicly criticise Dickinson after that referee’s diabolical, mistake-ridden performance on Saturday, in which, not only did he make several serious errors in Law, he also put two All Black prop forwards in real danger of a serious neck injury by allowing first Castrogiovanni, then later Perugini, to wrap their arms around the AB prop’ neck, then bore in, twist and drag them to ground.
Yikes said | November 20th 2009 @ 8:27am | Report comment
Ian can you list the “serious errors in Law” (as opposed to errors in fact)? Or just list one?
Ian Cook said | November 20th 2009 @ 8:33am | Report comment
sorry. I meant serious errors in fact, not Law
ThelmaWrites said | November 20th 2009 @ 1:00pm | Report comment
Ian Cook
Are you saying, in short, that it is now IRB policy that elite referees can be publicly reprimanded for poor performances? Who is to judge poor performances? Who will reprimand?
I would hope there is clear guidance in this matter.
katzilla said | November 20th 2009 @ 3:25pm | Report comment
Its quite obvious isnt it? The expert in the field will Judge them……………..their boss.
AndyS said | November 20th 2009 @ 3:29pm | Report comment
A better question might be what criteria is he going to judge them on? If the new policy is “If the referee is not accurate we’ve got to put our hand up”, is he going to do so for a poor overall performance that didn’t affect the outcome (Dickinson), or a poor decision in the dying minutes of a game that decides the outcome – which is the bigger error?
Cattledog said | November 20th 2009 @ 4:08pm | Report comment
That’s it, expert…the x being an unknown quantity and spert (sic) a drip under pressure! Fact is, he has shown no loyalty or leadership to one of his ‘employees’ which has totally undermined his position. There again, it’s a failing within the IRB hierarchy so he’s just been tainted with the same brush.
ThelmaWrites said | November 20th 2009 @ 8:23pm | Report comment
If indeed what Ian Cook has reported is true, this is the ultimate farce, because here we behold the highest stratum of rugby administration.
I am so embarrassed for the game.
katzilla said | November 20th 2009 @ 8:38pm | Report comment
‘he has shown no loyalty or leadership to one of his ‘employees’ which has totally undermined his position’
How is telling one of your underlings that they’re not performing up to standard, not showing leadership?
You guys need to get O’Neil to build a Bridge so you guys can get over it.
ThelmaWrites said | November 20th 2009 @ 8:50pm | Report comment
In well-run organizations, there are procedures whereby a superior calls the attention of an employee to wrong-doings. It is the haste, the venom, the public nature of Paddy O’Brien’s criticism that offends one’s good sense.
The situation with referees recently reminds me of the Wild West, or “Lord of the Flies”.
Cattledog said | November 20th 2009 @ 9:06pm | Report comment
Thelma has put it probably a little kinder than I would have, Katzilla. Suffice to say there is not an issue with PO’B taking Dickinson to task on this. As has been pointed out, the public forum is not the place to do it.
You also do yourself no favours by including superfluous remarks about building bridges to get over.
bob said | November 20th 2009 @ 7:12am | Report comment
what a bunch of sissys.
The Italians owned the Ab front row, they made them bow down and beg, they did exactly what they are supposed to do, they dominated, they destroyed and they broke the Ab dominance… Leicester tigers and Sarries and the French did teh same to the Saffers, but they aren’t whinging… so we have the amazing scene: A lot of people who can’t and don’t scrummage, and who openely state their dislike for that aspect of the game, passing judgement on a great job well done. The ref was wrong to award a penalty try, teh Ab’s wrong to assume their big boys were also strong, and their new boy crocket was ready.
don’t blame the Italians for showing up the Ab’s weakness. the ab’s should send for mackintosh and newlands and harden up. And o’Brien is a joke for coming out as he did against the ref. He’s lost all respect, but intruth he should have fallen on his sword after the mess he and his cronies made of the ELVs.
MarkR said | November 20th 2009 @ 8:01am | Report comment
On a different note – Does anybody know how to watch the AB England game in Oz. It appears Foxtel don’t have teh Twickenham games & being the ABs it won’t be on free to air.
Thanks in advance.
Mark
Sam said | November 20th 2009 @ 11:52am | Report comment
It’s on setanta – you can read how to get coverage here http://www.setanta.com/au/Customer-Info-Articles/England-vs-New-Zealand—International-Rugby-Test-Match-/gnid-58695/?utm_source=AllBlacks.com&utm_medium=Banner&utm_campaign=EnglandVAllblacks
Justin said | November 20th 2009 @ 11:56am | Report comment
Mark you can always watch it over the net if you have broadband. Google justin tv, I was watching India Sri Lanka in the cricket last night…
MarkR said | November 20th 2009 @ 12:37pm | Report comment
Thanks guys.
Jack Petro said | November 20th 2009 @ 12:48pm | Report comment
Wow … let’s get the facts. Two Coaches complain about a referees performance .. not the first or last time this will happen …Those watching around the world who support those team agree … once again not the first or last time … The IRB Referee Manager (or whatever tossa title) castigates his referee in the Public domain … first time that’s happened! What’s the problem … only if it’s the first and last time Paddy does it; if it is now general policy to meet with the coaches then get stuck into the referee post-match ‘Bring It On’!
Actually you could call it “World Championship Referee Castigating” and do it in front of a live audience, with the referee in a caged wrestling ring; with his Referee Coach belting him from one corner and the disheartened Coaches from the other. I’m sure Fox/Sky would buy it and the revenue generated could go back into match official recruitment and retention.
With what O’Brien did last week, they’ll definitely need to figure out a way to develop and keep refs in the game
NickF said | November 20th 2009 @ 1:06pm | Report comment
My problem with Paddy is that in an article about a year ago, he spoke about the Australian scrum, saying they cheated, whilst refering to the New Zealander as “US”. He show a definite conflict of interest here again in defending the New Zealanders, and pandering to their objections.
Sylvester said | November 21st 2009 @ 9:53pm | Report comment
I’m pretty sure the comments you’re referring to were made by Paul Honiss, shortly after he retired. It was in NZ Rugby World magazine last year. The quote, about a Wallabies/NZ test match in Sydney, as follows:
“The All Blacks were not allowed to scrummage effectively due to the collapsing tactics of the Wallabies, which were rewarded with re-sets [allowing the Wallabies to secure a more competitive engagement], the odd penalty and free kick, but generally untidy ball for the All Blacks to attack from.
“It was also considered that the Wallabies outclassed us in the tactical kicking game, however, closer examination reveals that the chasers of the kicks were invariably starting from an offside position [in front of the kicker], therefore shutting down the counter-attacking opportunities of the All Blacks.”
Wix said | November 20th 2009 @ 4:06pm | Report comment
What is all the fuss about?? Referees should be subject to open critiques just like the players. There are 31 persons on the field. At the elite end of the code, they are all paid handsomely from money obtained from us “mug” punters. So, excuse me if I say all 31 of them should be accountable. There should be no exceptions
Over the years criticism of players has generally resulted in improvement of standards. The absence of criticsim of referees has produced the present parlous standard of refereeing
Cattledog said | November 20th 2009 @ 4:13pm | Report comment
The fuss is about leadership, loyalty and trying to get more officials into the game. Goes to show how little you understand of the bigger picture, Wix.
AndyS said | November 20th 2009 @ 4:16pm | Report comment
You may be right Wix, but even if you said they should be treated like the players, how often does the coach come out and publically say that a particular player cost them the game, was out of his depth, needs to go back to relearn his trade and won’t be picked again until he does? He may think it, others may say it, but it would be hellish bad form to let rip in the media.
frank said | November 20th 2009 @ 7:29pm | Report comment
You always spoke about Castrogiovanni but in the last fifteen minutes he was out.
If you don’t like scrum ask Paddi to put them out of the game… He surely agrees with you: new rules!
zhenry said | November 20th 2009 @ 8:09pm | Report comment
A Roarer has labeled ‘Dickinson a cowboy’ actually I agree and maybe O’Brien has difficulties communicating with him, hence his public outburst? The AB’s certainly had difficulty communicating with him and I think ‘Cowboy’ is appropriate because he strikes me as someone who has an attitude of ego and is motivated to control and fairness is incidental. I don’t think Aust Dickinson and the NZ ABs are a good combinaton, though he has had good periods of refereeing. There is no doubt Chief is carried away with Aust prejudice against NZ’ers. Actually I am a hybrid but am always thoroughly irritated by the ‘no conscience scapegoating’ that Australians use against NZ’ers. All that aside I am no a fan of O’Brien but the Italian incident was exceptional, and Dickinson has erred in the wrong place. The rare 80,000 crowd of football mad Italians watching rugby needed an explanation for the rare opportunity that was missed to showcase rugby. Something that has not been adequately recognised by those involved and the rugby bosses. Obviously the way the Italians play does not help but if the scrum had been sorted then the crowd would have seen better rugby. The IRB is such an elitist mob that their attitude would kill off any other game which at the moment is being played in such an appalling manner. I think O’Brien was publicly shaming (I am privately pleased) and his message should have been better managed regardless of whether Dickinson’s attitude was behind it. He did however give the Italians, who saw the game, an explanation for the awful disappointment they saw.
zhenry said | November 20th 2009 @ 8:25pm | Report comment
Great comment re the players being picked up by the camera for repeated offending.
aix said | November 20th 2009 @ 11:15pm | Report comment
I knew nothing about rugby until this year, when I saw on TV in my gite in Tarascon near Arles, that France beat the All Blacks in NZ. Until later I didn’t realise that the team France defeated was dreadfully starved of NZ’s best players.
I was also told that NZ had won the World Cup in 1987, were semi-finalists in 1991, reached the final in 1995, were semi-fialists in 1999 and 2003, and quarter finalists in 2007. What a fantastic achievement for a small country of only 4 million. No wonder NZ was so upset that the Italians (a country of 60 million) were so brutish in last week’s game.
A NZ friend told me yesterday that if Castrovaggiani (who is not even Italian but Argentinian) had tried that on with the great All Black props of yesteryear he would have quickly been despatched to the sideline with a broken nose. He gave as an example when the famous Richard Loe, who is now a well respected NZ sports writer, took out the giant Australian prop Paul Carrozza with an an elbow to the the nose which finished his career. He also mentioned that Colin Meads had destroyed another huge Australian prop called Ken Catchpole so that he became a vitrual cripple and could never play rugby again.
But who cares. He wasn’t a NZ’r and Australians hate rugby anway. It was great to see (Sir) Colin Meads get his knighthood for that act. What an inspirational person. Look, even as a newcomer to rugby, I want NZ to win every game by a hundred points because no other country understands rugby or has any of the passion that NZ has for it.
Paddy O’Brien was right. Roll on 2011.
Cattledog said | November 21st 2009 @ 3:09am | Report comment
A bit out of left field, but worth the read. Good on ya Aix.
ohtani's jacket said | November 21st 2009 @ 12:41am | Report comment
Please, Yikes. Dickinson’s reptuation hasn’t been tarnished. His reputation was poor to begin with. Nevertheless, the average rugby fan will forget this ever happened. Kaplan has reffed All Black games since 2000. Barnes has reffed All Black games since 2007. There’s no blacklisting and no controversy in this story. If O’Brien had come out and criticised Kaplan for his yellow card on Sunday, you lot would’ve been all over Paddy like a rash.
And for the record, O’Brien was paraphrased in every report. If you piece them all together you can clearly see that he was talking about both Italian tighthead props since it was a game long issue. Anyway, the All Black pack was soft in that game. At least we can agree on that, I hope.
Cattledog said | November 21st 2009 @ 3:32am | Report comment
OJ, can you point me to the ‘fact file’ which indicates Dickinson’s reputation was poor to begin with, or is this just another of your summations? PO’B’s handling of this shows little consideration to normal management practices and even less to a display of leadership and loyalty. It’s fast becoming unrecoverable for him.
His opinion on the whole issue was based on what, watching the sequence on TV once, or hours of analysis with overhead shots and slow mo. I suspect the latter.
The AB pack was under the pump and going backwards, as attested to by the NZ panel on Re-Union. Perhaps Dickinson should have bitten the bullet, awarded a controversial penalty try and then got on with it. Would it have made much difference to the outcome…probably not.
Knives Out said | November 21st 2009 @ 4:13am | Report comment
Are you not familiar with the Simon Shaw red card?
Jerry said | November 21st 2009 @ 4:57am | Report comment
Further to KO’s point, are you also look at the Brad Thorn/John Smit incident where Dickinson failed to yellow card Thorn. He said after the game that he didn’t see the incident, but replays showed it happened about 1 metre in front of his face and that he was looking right at it.
http://static.stuff.co.nz/1233108507/401/521401.jpg
Cattledog said | November 21st 2009 @ 2:00pm | Report comment
You’re all clutching at straws. In fact you can’t point to a definitive document, merely drag up specific incidents, which can be done for every referee running around.
Anyway, as I said in an earlier post, PO’B should apologise, which he has. They need to re-look at their management procedures and get on with it. It was innappropriate, it’s been dealt with, move on.
ohtani's jacket said | November 21st 2009 @ 6:31pm | Report comment
Ask anybody from outside Australia what their opinion of Dickinson is and the answer will be the same — poor ref. I can’t believe O’Brien had to apologise. If anybody should be apologising it ought to be Dickinson.
Anyway, it’s been an interesting week. I’ll remember this the next time the Wallabies are under the pump and people are complaining about the ref letting the opposition get away with illegal ruck tactics.
liam said | November 21st 2009 @ 7:59am | Report comment
it seem the ARU has complained about Paddy’s conduct And paddy has issued a apology. Law suit time if you ask me.
Joh4Canberra said | November 21st 2009 @ 9:44am | Report comment
Paddy apologises for issuing his initial apology:
http://www.worldcupweb.com/rugby/news/viewarticle.asp?id=23211
Jerry said | November 21st 2009 @ 10:55am | Report comment
What kind of lawsuit and by whom?
bennalong said | November 21st 2009 @ 5:34pm | Report comment
Can’t find who said it but the fact is the referees are being asked to referee a degenerating game due to difficulties with the rules, especially at the breakdown and the scrum, but also – and this is critical – the deisre to please Rupert Murdoch.
They tell them to police “this , not that” one week and a couple of weeks later it’s “police that but don’t slow the game down with this”
Why did they take lineout throws away from the touchies?
Why don’t they keep resetting scrums?
Why do they arbitrarily pick a scrum to penalise when they haven’t a clue?
Why don’t they police players in front of the ball at the kick-off
Why don’t they police the offside at the breakdown rigorously to try and preserve “space” between the backlines
There are loads more and the tinkering hasn’t improved rugby one iota.
In the professional game refs can’t be a protected species. God forbid but they could be paid off by dodgy gamblers. Aaaargh!!!!!!!!
My solutions………………………………..1 Bring back the ruck
2 Use the video ref before sending off players if you’re unsighted
3 Bring back rucking
4 Reset scrums, like the old days. The tactics become clearer (on whose ball does it happen) but mostly the players stop doing it cause it aint fun
5 Bring back the ruck
6 Allow complaints from coaches, have a video panel to adjudicate, and publish findings two weeks after the game and at the end of the season summarise significant outpoints
7 There are heaps more……………
But first………………………………………….BRING BACK THE RUCK !
Harry said | November 21st 2009 @ 9:12pm | Report comment
Why has O’Brien apologised to the ARU? What the fark have they got to do with this?
More and more bizzare.
Joh4Canberra said | November 21st 2009 @ 10:49pm | Report comment
Um, because the ARU is responsible for the game of rugby in Australia including refereeing. Dickinson is an Australian referee. Ergo POB apologises to the ARU.
The ARU belongs just as much to Australian referees as it does to Australian players. As strange as this may sound to some people, referees are a part of the rugby family and like it or not Dickinson is a flag bearer for the ARU on the international stage just as the Wallabies are a flag bearer for the ARU. If POB were publicly to criticise the performance of a Wallaby then it would be right for him to issue an apology to both the player and the ARU. Same thing applies if he steps out of line and publicly criticises an Australian referee.
Cattledog said | November 22nd 2009 @ 12:48am | Report comment
Thanks Joh, some people just can’t see the forest for the trees!
bob said | November 21st 2009 @ 9:32pm | Report comment
Aix, go back to your gite and find another sport….
Now to the real point, Tane Randell was on NZ TV tonight saying it as it is… and he should know… the NZ front row should have been able to handle it, and had it been the other way round and the AB’s smashed and humiliated the Italians, all of NZ, including Mike Cron and Graham Henry, would have been crowing and proud.
ohtani's jacket said | November 21st 2009 @ 11:51pm | Report comment
What would Taine Randell know? Buck Shelford said it was a “diabolical performance by the referee with regards to managing the scrum.” Hmm, Taine Randell or Buck Shelford?
chief said | November 22nd 2009 @ 1:54am | Report comment
Precisely, referees are paid by the ARU with a bonus by the IRB. The ARU nominates Stu Dickinson each year to be an IRB panel referee, so saying that it just flaws their selection of Stu Dickinson. The ARU got it right, we need referees in this game, and O’Brien’s precedent or whatever you can call it. I guaranteed you that he won’t fly anywhere to give an apology to a team who was mistreated by the referee. Good on the ARU for stepping in.
cookie said | November 22nd 2009 @ 2:42pm | Report comment
The O’Brien’s Dummy spit was no different to my Kiwi mates dummy spits…
But it was obvious he wasn’t pissed about the refereeing he was pissed because how bloody dare anyone pull the all blacks up for anything.
They are allowed to get away with murder, don’t you forget that Dicko!
westy said | November 22nd 2009 @ 2:59pm | Report comment
From The IRB’s own research of test matches referred to in the Australian ( Wayne Smith) there are an average of 18 scrums as many collapses and as many resets in atest match..
The average game time consumed by scrummaging resets and collapses is 16 %.and when it gets ” ugly” 25%.
Strong scrummagung is a joy to behold but twenty minutes is over the top. The fact Smith and the IRB exclude is the time lost to penalties resulting from the scrums resets and collapses. Cosevatively another 4 at best and upto to 6 minutes may have to be added on.
I have no issue with O’brien taking Dickenson to task if he felt he was wrong however his decision to personally attend Henry at his hotel to apologise and affirm that Dickenson had been” guessing ” was over the top .
O’Brien more than any one else should known it was unnecessary to attend henry and his cohorts personally when the public rebuke of Dickenson said it all.
As Smith says perception is important especially when your scrummaging advisor is another NZer Cron.
What causes Smith angst is that if a rugby referee with over 50 test matches is guessing with scrum penalties it leads one to the uncomfortable conclusion that penalties for rugby scrummaging may be more determined by pre existing perception and bias than actually what happens during a game.
Ian Cook said | November 22nd 2009 @ 5:07pm | Report comment
An Australian forum/website with Australian writers and Australian posters defending an Australian referee… gee whizz, I wonder what the connection could possibly be there?
That is no more far fetched that what you are suggesting….Paddy Obrien a Kiwi defending the All Blacks. However, what most of you are either too stupd or too ignorant to realise is that referee assesments aren’t done by Paddy O’Brien, they are done by an appointed member of the IRB “A” Referee Assesors Panel, in Dickinson’s case, it was Steve Hilditch, an Irishman.
Cattledog said | November 22nd 2009 @ 5:45pm | Report comment
Not sure where your coming from here, Ian. What is it, or who is it you’re condemning. Do you condone PO’Bs actions? Just can’t get the gist of your post.
I think most on this site are aware that assessments are done by referee assessors and not necessarily PO’B. Not sure what relevance and the fact Steve Hilditch did the assessment has, unless your post is related to an earlier post, but not connected.
Ian Cook said | November 22nd 2009 @ 6:52pm | Report comment
All through this thread is an implication, mostly from Australian posters that it was O’Brien who decided that Dickinson’s performance was poor, that he got things wrong in those last 10 minutes, and that because he is a Kiwi he somehow favours the NZ team. I am pointing out that it was not O’Brien’s assessment, it was Hildich’s. People forget how, when Wayne Barnes copped a huge backlash from Kiwi fans, it was O’Brien who stuck up for Barnes and effectively told Kiwi fans to get over it; hardly the words of a biased man. people should also recall that OBrien gave NZ referee Paul Honiss a bollocking in 2007. No favoritism there either.
Now whether or not O’Brien should have publicly rebuked Dickinson is not for me to decide, but I am in favour of it. IMO, ALL elite refs should have to face the media at the post-match media conference the same way that coaches and captains do, and give an accounting for the decisions they have made. They are paid professionals, and are major part of rugby at the elite level, so it goes with the territory,
As for Dickinsons’ performance, it was one of the worst examples of scrum management I have seen. If you want to see a detailed and accurate assessment of the last 10 minutes, look here…
http://www.rugbyrefs.com/forums/showpost.php?p=98556&postcount=6
I have been a referee and a coach, and have been involved in both for over 30 years. I have also played all three positions in the front row. As a referee, I was a Senior and Senior-Reserve Club Rugby referee in Canterbury and Auckland (one level below Provincial/Rep rugby), as I said earlier, I think elite refs ought to be accountable. I never had any problems answering questions and justifying my decision in the bar after a game, and I was never afraid to front up. When my assessor gave me a serve, I would cop it on the chin, as Dickinson should have.
Cattledog said | November 22nd 2009 @ 7:22pm | Report comment
Ian, whilst I agree in principle to your thoughts, I am totally against any referee manager debating a referees performance in the public arena. It surprises me you believe this to be acceptable. It goes against all tenants of management, leadership and loyalty. This has been recognised and appropriate apologies to the appropriate bodies and individuals has occurred.
I don’t disagree with referees being accountable, as we all need to be in whatever profession we undertake. However, I wouldn’t expect my boss to outline to me any shortcomings through a general email to all. Nor would he do such a thing! There are accepted procedures for this.
Appropriate action can be taken in these instances without voicing it publicly. It was wrong, it’s now been dealt with. We’re moving on.
Joh4Canberra said | November 23rd 2009 @ 5:42am | Report comment
Agree with Cattledog here. I’m all for referee accountability. But I am also against referee managers or assessors discussing the details of an assessment in public. That’s not their job. If the media or armchair critics want to publicly discuss the details of a referee’s (or a player’s) performance then that’s their right. But that’s not the job of an assessor or referee manager. In fact it is an abuse of their position. We don’t expect coaches and player management to “go public” to the media with their assessments of their players’ games. If there’s a problem we expect the coaches and team management to sort it out internally rather than taking their dirty linen to the press. Exactly the same goes for referee assessors and managers in relation to referees’ performances as for coaches and team management in relation to players. Feedback and criticism and if necessary being dropped? Yes. Airing the details of their assessments in public? No.
westy said | November 22nd 2009 @ 5:55pm | Report comment
Ian Cook Ian as i said I have no problem with his public comments on Dickenson . But honestly I do not think the trip to the hotel to publicly agree with NZ coaching staff that dickenson was guessing was a tad unnecessary. All I am saying is that the public and published comments were enough. The message was clear. The trip to the hotel was I believe with the benefit of hindsight unnecessary. God ian is he going to go to every coach’s hotel who rightlycomplains about a referee.
I have no reason to denigrate O’Brien ’s intergrity. But as an experienced mature man and official of the IRB perceptions are important. Tell him off publicly if he needs to for the benefit of the game do not then be seen to be massaging the complainant in front of journalists at the complainant’s hotel. That is what happened.
Liam said | November 22nd 2009 @ 6:22pm | Report comment
Ian, obviously Paddy would have watched the game and not just looked at the assessor’s report. Ian I believe is a strong believer of Craig Joubert and his performance in the first Bledisloe. Obviously this shows Ian’s adverse rugby knowledge. So if you’ll excuse me if I really don’t rake what you say seriously.
Ian Cook said | November 22nd 2009 @ 7:20pm | Report comment
Yes I am a strong believer that Joubert got it right in the first Bledisloe Cup match. He was pinging Al Baxter for incorrect binding (I’ll explain the importance of correct binding in a moment.). That was confirmed in the second BC when Kaplan pinged him for exactly the same thing, and further confirmed when Robbie Deans pulled Baxter after 30 minutes. Even further confirmation, as if any was needed by now, was the fact that Deans didn’t select him at all for the last two BC games, because he knew Baxter was a liability. And Baxter has since admitted that he has a lot to work on and must change his technique. (At last!!!)
Some people regard incorrect binding as a minor offence, but its not. Binding is the absolute foundation of the scrum. It is a core component of scrummaging that if not executed properly, or is mismanaged by the referee, can lead to serious, even life-threatening injuries.Thats why Law 20.3 is very specific about where binding takes place; it spells out EXACTLY where the props must bind. It is also the reason why incorrect binding is a Penalty Kick offence, not the Free Kick offence it would be if it was considered by the Lawmakers to be “minor”.
Illegal binding is the easiest thing to spot when its on your own side of the scrum. Its right in front of your eyes. If you want to do one thing as a Saturday afternoon referee to minimise your chances of having a “bad scrum day” INSIST on a long, straight bind by ALL props on the back or the side of their opponent. Its the easiest pre-emptive step a referee can take in managing the scrum. Do not allow binding on the upper arm, because this allows that prop the extra leverage he needs to pull or twist his opponent in any direction he likes. Get in and show them where you want them to bind to if necessary, and if you don’t get co-operation, ping them until they do. If all four props are made to bind in accordance with Law 20.3, esp. (b) and (c), the scrum will stay up, and it is very difficult for any of them to bore-in, twist or drop it.
Cattledog said | November 22nd 2009 @ 7:28pm | Report comment
Good analysis, Ian. Agree that if all props were to take a long grip, there would be a 100% improvement on scrums. Have you noticed, though, that most props these days have an arm the length of most peoples forearm!! Or that’s what they would tell you!
Ian Cook said | November 22nd 2009 @ 7:49pm | Report comment
When I had the whistle matey, their arms stretched somewhat. They learned fairly quickly when their side was 0-9 down and they had given away all nine points!
Liam said | November 22nd 2009 @ 7:27pm | Report comment
Your not expected to immediately bind with the opposition front rower. Baxter wasn’t given the chance to bind by Joubert because NZ folded so it went down and they got the penalty. That doesn’t seem right.
Jerry said | November 22nd 2009 @ 7:33pm | Report comment
Baxter did bind immediately, he did so on the arm of Woodcock.
Ian Cook said | November 22nd 2009 @ 7:44pm | Report comment
Exactly, he bound immediately on the upper arm (illegal) at every scrum. Any 3rd rate prop is capable of putting his arm onto the opponents side. I’m 53 years old (Golden Oldie) and I can STILL get my arm up and over onto my opponent’s back!!! If I can do it, a young, fit player like Al Baxter ought to be able to.
Yikes said | November 22nd 2009 @ 9:18pm | Report comment
Sorry Ian. I disagree with your ‘analysis’ of what went on at scrum time. I agree the Italian bind was often illegal. However, while you may be up with some parts of Law 20, you’re not up with the concept of material effect.
The image you posted in the midst of your one-eyed ‘analysis’ shows the NZ LHP clearly at an angle driving in on the Italian! This is of far greater import at scrum time. I am not downplaying the importance of binding, but you have to keep things in perspective. It might come as a surprise to you that front row binding WAS a FK for the whole of the last 2 S14 and 3N series during the ELV trial, PRECISELY because it was deemed a minor issue by comparison to ‘dangerous play’. Which pretty much blows your entire point out of the water.
I note your own analysis is miraculously free of references to the NZ LHP’s arm hitting the ground and failing to get the first bind, which happens on a couple of occasions including the very FIRST SCRUM! Perhaps you are unaware of the consequences of Law 20.3 (c) and (d) which indicate that the LHP binds inside and the THP outside which means the LHP must bind first. Not to mention that on a couple of occasions you cannot see where the NZ LHP is binding because he’s pulling the jersey down so low it is out of camera view.
Were the Italians illegal? At times, yes. Was the NZ scrum weak and also illegal under pressure? At times, yes. Is Mike Cron going to whisper sweet nothings in Paddy’s ear about how his front row got demolished? No.
I might add, on your point about Stephen Hildich’s assessment – have you seen a copy? If you know as much as you say you do, you might know these assessments take time to write and provide. I’d be surprised if either Dickinson or O’Brien had seen any report on the game by the time O’Brien opened his big mouth. If it was a spoken opinion, what evidence do you have for this other than assumption?
Yikes said | November 22nd 2009 @ 9:30pm | Report comment
Oh, and before we move on, please do not try and tell me that it is legal for the LHP’s arm to hit the ground. The Law says the LHP “must bind firmly and continuously from the start to the finish of the scrum” and it tells the LHP where to bind. This is even more important for the LHP given he gets the first bind. Furthermore the body angle of a prop whose arm is on the ground would certainly not be scrummaging square and straight from the start of the scrum.
It might be allowed as a momentary stability factor at the community level of the game to facilitate a game, but this is an International we’re talking about.
Ian Cook said | November 23rd 2009 @ 4:47am | Report comment
Yikes
I am fully aware of the meaning of materiality. I am also fully aware that referees all over the world do take pre-emptive steps to prevent offenses from occurring. A well known referee called Clive Norling once stated that there were “over 20 penalty offenses in the line-out, all of which were preceded by closing the gap, which only merited a free kick, so he refereed accordingly”. Incorrect binding has a huge material effect if it is allowed to continue (as we saw in this match). Honestly, I cannot see how you can possibly believe that at the first scrum (from which the still was taken) it was the Black LHP who was driving up when he is clearly a passenger. The Italian THP is lifting his opponent’s upper arm (on which he is illegally bound) and driving in towards the black hooker. This is blindingly obvious to anyone with just a moderate knowledge of scrummaging.
Also, I take issue with your statement about “inside” and “outside”. Yes the LHP has his arm inside and the THP outside, but it does NOT mean that the LHP has to bind first. That is just pure bunkum. Having played both sides of the scrum, I can testify to that personally. The arms come forward at the engagement and cross each other, they aren’t wrapped from the outside. You are inferring that the THP cannot bind properly if the LHP doesn’t bind first. That is just utter rubbish. You may be correct at very low levels of the game, i.e. juniors, where scrummaging is being learned, but not at the elite level.
And yes, I am aware that the ELV’s made scrum binding a FK, and it also made it LEGAL to collapse mauls, and that IS dangerous. Wiser heads prevailed, and both have gone back to a penalty kick. I was a supporter of the ELVs generally, but not those two.
Also, I AM going to tell you that it IS legal for a prop’s hand to touch the ground. If you believe otherwise, please quote the Law that says he cannot.
20.3 (a) Binding by all front row players. All front row players must bind firmly and continuously
from the START to the FINISH of the scrum.
20.7 (a) Play in the scrum BEGINS when the ball leaves the hands of the scrum half.
Yes, the props have to bind continuously from the from the BEGINNING to the END of the scrum as defined above. Once the bind has been set, the props cannot let go, although they are allowed to adjust their bind i.a.w. Law 20.3(e). There is no law that specifically states a prop cannot put his hand on the ground prior to binding. In fact, the use of a hand on the ground just prior to binding is a good technique for stopping the scrum from dropping immediately. Its something the All Blacks have used a lot in the past when playing Australia, to try and stop them dropping the scrum on the engage, à la Al Baxter. I see scrum coaches teaching the ground touch a lot, and I teach it myself. At the engage, a prop, esp. the LHP will momentarily put his hand down, then up into a correct bind. Not only does this help to steady a scrum that might be going down, it also helps to make sure that the scrum is not set too low. A full length arm on the ground measures that the scrum is set i.a.w. Law 20.1 (g) “….when they meet, each player’s head and shoulders are no lower than the hips.”
I also see props drop the bind, steady, and rebind, as they are allowed in Law 20.3 (e). Provided this is done immediately, and before the scrum-half puts the ball in, there is no problem. It is normally the LHP that does this because it’s his team’s feed, and he knows when the ball is going to be put in.
Yikes said | November 23rd 2009 @ 5:52pm | Report comment
Ian,
The issue of materiality is a big one – do not worry about the splinter in your hand when someone has taken your leg off with a chainsaw. Your fixating on the rather minor issue of the THP bind is causing you to miss the bigger picture of issues with body position, angle and keeping head and shoulders above hips. The point about the frontrow bind being a FK under ELVs is not to find out which ELVs you supported (!) but rather to point out that the lawmakers you praise actually disagree with you as to its relative importance.
On the issue of the first bind – my point is not that the THP cannot physically bind first, but that that the onus is on the LHP first given the relative positions under Law. Especially for the non-feeding side, the LHP can be the bane of the referee’s existence. There is a specific reason that the Law was changed to prevent the LHP from having his hand on his leg and instead require him to bind.
As to whether or not it is legal to have the arm on the ground – I did post Law references to justify my position. There is nothing specifically on the issue – but neither does it say anywhere in the Law that you can’t take an AK47 onto the field and machine-gun your opponents. It’s just generally assumed to be covered by 10.4(L).
I take issue with you as to whether the Law intends to mandate proper binding only from the moment that the ball enters the scrum. The Laws says this is when “PLAY in the scrum begins…”. Is this the ’start’ of the scrum itself, though? What other scrum Laws don’t apply because the scrum hasn’t started yet? We will have to agree to disagree – as we will on the issue of whether the hand on the ground keeps your head and shoulders above hips!
Finally, while I don’t deny the basic underlying principle behind “firmer, sooner” in your comments to westy, and agree it is vital, the notion that materiality itself is not relevant in the ‘first part’ of the game, which you say might last up to 20 minutes depending on the players, is a little absurd. What you call “setting your stall out early” might just as easily be called “painting yourself into a corner” depending on the situation. If only all games were as easy to referee as your memory of your own abilities makes out.
Ian Cook said | November 24th 2009 @ 5:20pm | Report comment
Yikes
If the lawmakers really disagreed (with me) over the importance of the bind, why did they decide not to proceed with that particular ELV?
I am fully aware of the importance of body position and head & shoulders above hips. That is one of the reasons I coach the ground touch; ( and advocate its allowance by referees) so that props know when the are at the right height, in the right position, and get to feel what it feels like.
I find your crack about my “memory of my own abilities” insulting. If you cannot get your point across in a debate without resorting to the use or personal (and professional ) insults then its a poor show on your part.. I was a good enough referee to have a number of seasons at Senior and Senior Reserve level in two major unions in NZ. I had some representative honors as well, but didn’t progress because of an accident from which I never recovered full fitness
While I see that your knowledge of scrummaging seems pretty reasonable, I doubt that you have ever played in the front row to any reasonable level. Also, your un-called for criticism of my “style” makes me suspect that you have probably never been a referee either.
Yikes said | November 24th 2009 @ 7:40pm | Report comment
To answer your first question, the change was not a specific ELV on front row binding, but rather part of a general ELV on reducing more technical infringements from PK to FK. Another example is 10.1(e). When this general reduction of PKs to FKs ELV got knocked on the head, they all reverted back. It was all or nothing.
My point still stands – had the lawmakers thought of this not as a technical infringement but rather the cornerstone of the scrum as you make out, they never would have changed it in the first place!
I’m sorry you found my supposed ‘crack’ insulting. Still, have a read of your posts again. You seemed to be saying that it’s all oh-so-simple: referees everywhere should take a leaf from the Ian Cook playbook and all you need to do to get a ‘running game’ of football is to ‘ping’ people left right and centre for the first period of any match, as you did.
Frankly, I found that (mildly) insulting. A little modesty might not have gone astray (even if this is an opinion website!), and nor would some realisation that refereeing is not always that simple (if it was it wouldn’t be so rewarding). I was not criticising your “style” as such but rather your insistence that it is the golden key to refereeing – when there are many different types of games and at least as many different approaches to refereeing.
Personally I think a happy medium can be found where the referee is tough to set standards at the start of a match, but still applies the principle of material effect.
Ian Cook said | November 24th 2009 @ 8:30pm | Report comment
Did I ever say that binding was the be all and end all? No I didn’t……
– “Binding is the absolute foundation of the scrum. It is A core component of scrummaging that if not executed properly, or is mismanaged by the referee, can lead to serious, even life-threatening injuries.” –
There are many other components that come into scrummaging that are important, you have mentioned some of them, body position, a correct crouch, head and shoulder above hips, and good engage etc, but binding is the key. Without it, even a good scrummage will likely fall down, while with correct and legal binding, a poor scrummage can be kept from collapsing. Even Brian Moore agrees with me; I know because I have asked him!!
Also, my point about enforcing binding is that it is the easiest thing to spot. Body position is not all that easy to see with the different (but not too different) body shapes of props. Often its down to referee’s judgment, However, binding happens right in front of your eyes, either the player has his bind in the right place or not. Its unequivocal because the law specifies exactly where a prop CAN bind (side and back) and where he CANNOT bind (chest, arm, sleeve or collar). Almost all the most common scrum infringements after the engage.stem from allowing incorrect binding… boring, twisting, lifting (driving up), dropping (collapsing), wheeling. Most of these are either impossible or made very difficult when the props are bound correct with a full arm.
westy said | November 22nd 2009 @ 10:11pm | Report comment
Yikes i do not lack the confidence to say that ian and your knowledge of the scrummaging laws puts me in the shade. What i will comment on is as aspectator or viewer.
I have stayed up to watch each of the wallabies tests. i find a tendency for referee’s (perhaps for understandable human reasons) to display too much tolerance early on in a test allowing multiple resets when it would seem to me someone is infringing and a penalty is warranted.
I am afraid you either impose your requirements early or fail as a referee. The yellow card is there not only for purported or real shoulder charges or interfering with a player in the air but for repeated scrum infringements.
Any referee who allows srcrums collapses resets and ensung penalties to exceed 25 minutes of game time in a test basicaly damages the game as a spectacle.
My charge against current test referees is they lack the confidence to issue a yellow card for repeated scrum infringements with the same confidence they display for high tackles /shoulder charges/ and interfering with a player in the air.
I only hope this hesitancy is not due to a lack of knowledge as to what is going on.
Ian Cook said | November 23rd 2009 @ 6:50am | Report comment
westy
“i find a tendency for referee’s (perhaps for understandable human reasons) to display too much tolerance early on in a test allowing multiple resets when it would seem to me someone is infringing and a penalty is warranted.”
I want to address this comment of yours because it is a good one and is very relevant, and it goes to Yikes’ comment about materiality. As a referee, I believe that for the first part of any game, materiality is not relevant. I never warned during this period, only penalised. Players ahead of a kick – no telling them to wait, just ping, players offside in the backs or ahead of the hindmost foot and around the fringes of the ruck and maul – ping, hands on the ball in a ruck – ping. Props not binding correctly – ping etc. If a player wilfully plays the ball on the ground in front of his own posts, even in the first minute of the game,.. penalty kick and sin-bin. This period can last for as little as a couple of minutes and for as long as twenty depending on the game and the attitude of the players. If it gets much beyond that, you may need to start dishing out cards until they get it.
This is called “setting your stall out early” The players understand right from the get-go that you are not going to tolerate cheats, and they know what to expect if they try. However, if you are a keen weekend referee, be aware of what might happen if the keep players onside and you keep the scrums a fair contest, and you don’t allow players to cheat. Beware because you will need to be very, very fit. Unless both sides have outstanding defences, You will have a running game on your hands.
jus de couchon said | November 23rd 2009 @ 2:01am | Report comment
Who would be a rugby ref? I was a brilliant rugby player[its true I swear] and a completely incompetent ref . Knowing this I would never criticize any ref under any circumstance unless they get something wrong .
JEFF said | November 23rd 2009 @ 8:38pm | Report comment
Now I know why Rugby was invented. A game to give Counsel something to get their teeth into whenever business is a bit slow. I can just imagine the complexity of the discussion within the halls of the IRB. No wonder nothing will ever change. And, yes I take back everything negative I said about you Stu – and Jonathan for that matter. I will let my case rest and start watching a game that is easy to understand.