New Zealand fans got a taste of the appalling refereeing endured by the All Blacks at Cardiff in the RWC quarter-final with Nigel Owens, the Welsh referee, saving England at Auckland from a monster defeat with a series of bewildering decisions and non-decisions.
As it was NZ 37 – England 20 (which included two runaway tries against the run of play) represented a thrashing that was acknowledged even by the most biased of the UK rugby writers.
And examples of Owens’ woeful refereeing? England were awarded a penalty, for instance, right in front of the NZ posts when Richie McCaw was penalised for being on the wrong side of a ruck while playing the ball. ‘I made the tackle,’ a bewildered McCaw told Owens. ‘No you didn’t,’ was the reply.
The television replay clearly showed McCaw making the first tackle, getting to his feet and facing his own tryline legally winning the ball. Daniel Carter made the second tackle on the English player. And this was the only tackle Owens saw, even though it was only a few metres away from him.
It’s time NH hemisphere referees start to referee what is in front of them, instead of what they think they see. McCaw, along with George Smith who is also unfairly treated by NH referees, has an exceptional skill in making a tackle, getting to his feet and winning the ball. There is not one player in Europe who can do this. NH referees tend to think that because their players can’t do it, it can’t be done.
Owens was dreadful also at scrum time where the All Blacks monstered England to the extent that England in the last 20 minutes just collapsed scrum, and scrum, and bizarrely gained short arm penalties doing so.
Then there was Owens’ tolerance of England’s forwards coming in from the side, a no-no refereed very strictly (and rightly so) every ruck and maul by SH referees.
The All Blacks have not been beaten in NZ for the past five years. On the evidence of the first two Tests this year, the All Blacks are going to remain the team to beat at home and abroad, at least for this season and probably up to 2011.
There is a physical edge and abrasiveness to the forwards that was lacking last year. The lineout, however, creaked against England mainly due to Owens allowing England to come across the line with impunity before the ball was thrown in.
The NZ scrum is becoming a monster wrecking machine. McCaw and Daniel Carter are back to their best (which is as good as any player in their position in the history of rugby). And a centre pairing of power with Ma’a Nonu and high skills with Conrad Smith (something absent last year, too), is being created.
The South Africa 37 – Wales 21 Test at Pretoria was expertly refereed by NZer Lyndon Bray. This allowed both sides to play rugby, rather than the football the NH whistle-blowers seem to prefer. And both did so splendidly, with Wales, in particular, showing flair and grit that was a credit to the players and their coach.
So freely did the South Africans throw the ball around in the first half that at half-time the experts begged the Springboks to go back to basics and use their 63 per cent possession to play ‘less rugby.’ The Springboks had a slight 17 – 15 edge, even though they had opened up the Welsh defence time after time.
It was quite remarkable that despite the fact that they were defending most of the match, and doing the job splendidly, Wales was actually in the lead three times in the Test. The reason for this was two unbelievable tries scored by the genius, Shane Williams.
The highest praise that can be given to Williams is to say that he is rugby players can be reincarnated like Dalai Lamas, then Williams is the new David Campese, just as Campese reincarnated the great Dally Messenger, Australian rugby’s first super-star.
At times the Springboks looked to be an exceptional side. The loose forward trio are terrific. The second row is great in the loose and in the lineouts. But at other times, especially at scrum time and in the mauls, they looked vulnerable. They do not play the ad lib game as well as Australians and NZers. But the athleticism of the loose forwards is very impressive.
If I were rating the two teams on the their first two Tests, I’d say the Springboks look like a good side and the All Blacks look like a very good side.
But whether this is the way it pans out in the Tri Nations tournament we’ll have to wait and see …
Sledgeandhammer
Guest
Spiro, I absolutely agree with your last comment "too many modern referees, and many of them are SH referees, tend to referee to find mistakes". I almost get the impression that when the game starts to flow, referees get the jitters and feel they are losing control, and start blowing the pea. The other key point is that decisions made at the breakdown are not black and white, they are open to interpretation. This is a key reason why the ELVs are so necesary to ensure players determine the outcome of games not the referees.
Spiro Zavos
Expert
Photon The problem is that Nigel Owens did not see Richie McCaw NOT making the tackle. He couldn't have done this because the tackle was clearly made. He presumed the tackle wasn't made even though he actually was in no position to make this presumption. He seemingly had the mental image of McCaw as a cheater and presumed that he was cheating. This probably explains why he dismissed McCaw as if he were a naughty schoolboy trying to explain why he hadn't done his homework. Too many modern referees, and many of them are SH referees, tend to referee to find mistakes. Watching the Pacific Cup and IRB Under-20 World Cup games you see this syndrome at work. Virtually every ruck and maul is blown up, even when the ball is out and has been won.
ohtani's jacket
Guest
Jerry, I can't get the video to work, so I'll take your word for it. As far as the wildly different interpretations go, I guess it comes down to the battle in philosophies. South Hemisphere sides contest for the ball. Northern Hemisphere sides try to kill it. The ELVs worked in the Super 14 because the SH sides share the same philosophy. Will the ELVs really change the ruck situation in European club rugby?
Photon
Guest
"If Owens had been in a managing mode he would not have ruled, or should not have ruled, on an incident where he was slightly unsighted. He should have ruled on what he saw, or should have seen, which is the player coming in from the side." Spiro, you're not being fair, a match official can only rule on what he sees, you say yourself that from his point of view, he called it as he saw it, you can't ask for more than that from an official. Nothing frustrates players more than when officials guess!! I think the official was right in this situation. he doesn't have twenty camera angles and all he can trust is his eyes
Spiro Zavos
Expert
Just listen to the referee Nigel Owens and what he said to McCaw about not making the tackle. There was no Jesuitical hair-splitting in his mind about knees on ground and so on. Owens was adamant that the tackle was actually made by Daniel Carter and that McCaw had planted himself deliberately on the wrong side of the ruck. And I know why he came to this decision. England had a quick tap. The ball carrier ran away and slightly ahead of Owens. Carter came from behind the ball carrier to make his tackle. So what Owens saw was the back of the England player initially, then Carter tackling him, then McCaw on the 'wrong' side of the ruck trying to win the ball. He did not see McCaw actually making the first tackle. The reason why I was so pointed about this was the absolute arrogance of Owens in rejecting McCaw's explanation. No one expects a referee to change his mind. But the refusal to even contemplate that he had made a mistake indicated that he is unable to comprehend that very good players like McCaw and George Smith have this tremendous ability and strength to make a tackle, get to their feet, and with no bridging dig for the ball. It is a travesty that this sort of high skill should be penalised by ignorant referees. Jerry has provided a clip of the incident in slow-motion. It does not give the picture of the event leading up to McCaw starting his digging. But it does show what McCaw does so well after he makes the tackle. And as Jerry notes, an English forward comes in from the side. Something that England was allowed to throughout the Test, and something I commented on in my article. My point about the referees is that they should be managers not parking officials. If Owens had been in a managing mode he would not have ruled, or should not have ruled, on an incident where he was slightly unsighted. He should have ruled on what he saw, or should have seen, which is the player coming in from the side. The IRB has expressly stated that the essence of rugby is that it is a game where there is a continual contest for possession. Rob Andrews and others show a profound ignorance of the continual contest ethic with their criticisms (wrong in law, as well) of players like McCaw and George Smith. They diminish the skills involved by calling it 'cheating' when as is obvious to anyone who understands anything about the laws of rugby that it is positive and legal play. At the risk of calling down on my head further abuse, I might note that Rod Macqueen, Paddy O'Brien and the other experts from the major rugby nations who devised the ELVs reduced the full-arm penalties at the ruck and the maul to three because of the very feature exposed by Owens' mistake. Referees get it wrong. It should not be worth three points to an opposing side when a player like McCaw plays within the laws and a referee makes a mistake and penalises this play. b
Jerry
Guest
Haven't been back to Dublin since I got my camera nicked on O'Connell street while drunk stumbling back from the Guinness brewery tour a few years ago. Still, even if I started my morning with the brewery tour I reckon I could do a better job than half the IRB types. You're right, off I go!
Mart
Guest
OK - you've sorted that out. Now catch the plane to Dublin !
Jerry
Guest
Those 4 England players were set up by a mystery All Black with a cigarette lighter setting off all the smoke alarms, word has it...
Mart
Guest
Jerry - OK pack your bags, you are leaving on the next plane to Dublin as Head of the IRB and with a mission to sort this out. Before you depart please sort out this crud about the 4 Eng players in the Hilton in Auckland. When you arrive in Dublin appoint whatever team necessary to get common laws / interpretations / season (hiring of anyone with the surnames Zavos, Jones, or Rattue is not permitted). Get this in place for the NH internationals starting October. Then come home. (BTW when the next Hong Kong 7's roll around just remember your contact in Melbourne that got you the IRB job and flip a couple of tix and a plane fare my way in a used brown paper envelope.......)
Jerry
Guest
Mart - well the ruck/tackle situation is fraught with difficulty. Owens had to look at 4 or 5 things and adjudicate on them all in less than a second. He's got to determine whether Carter and McCaw are tacklers, if they're releasing Narraway, if Narraway is releasing/holding on to the ball, if the next players in are coming in through the gate and whether they're staying on their feet etc. And he's got to do that over 100 times during a game! Given that, I'm disappointed the "hands in" ELV hasn't been more widely trialled. But, as you say, the debate is fairly petty a lot of the time and this makes it hard to get any genuine objective discussion about the state of the game and the merits of the ELVs vs current laws.
Mart
Guest
Jerry - agree, that would be my most likely interpret too. Frustrating though that ,by definition, those of us on the Roar are probably mostly rugby fans who claim to have the best (!!) understanding of the game / laws etc compared to the average sports fan. And yet most of this blog (and several other blogs on the site) has us all debating fundamentals like laws, their interpretations, difference between SH and NH interpretations etc. And us "experts" (OK, let's agree on 'interested parties' !) all have different views that range from the high watermark of detailed 'technically correct' logic analysis (such as you / Ohtani spell out above) to the "my view's correct" "no it's not, my view's correct you muppet" pap that is trotted out (see Spiro verus the NH !). My point is that if us wot takes a real interest in the game can't agree on stuff like regulations which should really be fairly straightforward and, after all, are fundamental elements of our beloved game then what hope has the casual punter got ?
Jerry
Guest
Mart - I have heard one explanation that Owens might not have seen McCaw's knees on the ground. To be classed as a tackler you must bring the ball carrier to ground and go to ground yourself. If you don't go to ground, you're not a tackler and are required to come through the gate in order to play the ball at the tackle - top opensides such as Smith & McCaw have perfected the art of letting one knee touch the ground momentarily (that's all it takes) in order to be able to play the ball without coming through the gate. It's possible that this is what Owens meant when he said McCaw wasn't the tackler, but it's more likely he just thought Carter was the tackler and McCaw wasn't holding Narraway's legs when he was tackled.
Mart
Guest
Ohtani - Jerry's correct since if the penalty was called right by Owens then that would mean Spiro was wrong and that simply can't be possible. End of.
Jerry
Guest
Ohtani - nah, it was just wrong. You can see a replay here - http://tvnz.co.nz/view/video_popup_windows_skin/1849728 McCaw is on his feet and contesting before any English player arrives over the ball on his feet - remember a ruck requires 1 player from either team on their feet over the ball. Also, given that Rees fairly obviously comes in from in front of the last foot (in fact not only does he come in from in front of McCaw he's doesn't even come from behind the foot of Narraway) the penalty should have been awarded to NZ rather than England. I
ohtani's jacket
Guest
Bit of talk going round that Owens' penalty on McCaw was correct, he just gave the wrong explanation. McCaw was the tackler, but a ruck had formed, so McCaw should've come in from the otherside.
Mart
Guest
Sam - good comments, hadn't realised that was the case in NZ media, thanks. So it seems each country has (at least 1 'inflamatory' columnist ? E.g for your line "Just as many rational and reasonably minded people aren’t fooled by the posturing of Stephen Jones and co. don’t assume that Wynne Gray and Chris Rattue represent the majority of NZ’s views of English rugby or that test match" sub the words Spiro Zavos or Chris Rattue for Stephen Jones and perm 2 Aussie or NZ names from the journo pack for the Gray / Rattue. Hey presto, the comment still holds ! What particularly annoys me about folks like Zavos, Jones and (it seems) Rattue is these guys generally have a great view of the history and laws of the game but negate that with petty rants and biases - every Spiro column these days for the SMH / Roar seems to have an anti NH, Eng, Jones bias or moan in it, playing to the gallery I guess but boringly predictable. His blog here starts with a huge rant against the (NH) ref and continues at a wonky angle henceforth and so disappears up its own wazoo instead of reporting on what many of us (myself having watched the reply) thought was an entertaining game. Yes NZ were better (no suprise - Eng weren't a team, they were for a start, always helps !) and the ref was a bundle of wonderment (great phrase !), but how about commenting that all tests this last weekend were pretty open despite being played under the old laws (doesn't fit with the recent Zavos dig of the Super 14 final against the European Final in this respect I suppose ?) or, say, about the pace of Topsy Wotnot in skinning NZ's fast backlines twice foir his trys (nope, 2 runaway tries kept the score respectable !) ? Petty digs, vendettas, and agendas are getting in the way of reporting the actual game in an insightful way and for this reason Zavos and co are poor jorunalists in my book: I often learn zero from them and I know I could given some of the stuff they write (e.g the Zavos article on the history of rugby league etc) .... a shame.
Ian Noble
Guest
Sam T Clutching at straws after last weekend, but I felt there were positives for England and one poor selection which I flagged up on another posting . I have never rated Hodgson as an international fly half and regrettably he was badly exposed on Saturday, He just seems to lose all confidence when he plays for England and although he has played some 20+ tests he hasn't progressed. The positives hopefully will produce a better performance this coming weekend. Matt Certainly many of the players in the squad had played well towards end of the GP season, but at International level they have been found wanting. I think English rugby is very much at the crossroads as there is a big gap between the players who have recently retired Catt, Dallagio etc and the next group of players coming through. Cipriani, Haskell, Rees, Naraway and a number of others have been tracked over the last few years through the RFU academy system. They are the first graduates of that system but they are all in their early twenties. Whilst they are fitter, faster and generally bigger than their elders and it is really a question of whether they are mature enough to step up. The supply chain will bring it's rewards as players from the Saxons and the U20's will challenge for places but they need more international exposure and perticularly in the SH. I find it amazing that the next tour by England to NZ will be 6 years away otherthan RWC2011. NZ and other SH countries are in the UK every year which allows their squads to experience playing in a hostile environment, which helps to develop players in the international arena. Johnson has to choose his first squad of 32 on 1st July following the agreement between the clubs and country. He can not change this squad during the entire season other than for injury and it will be interesting to see who has failed to meet his standards during the current NZ tour. He has to identify the good club player as an international and it is particularly difficult at the current stage of England's evolution. Bob Don't forget both Palmer and Johnson played representative rugby in NZ before returning to the UK and the challenge is whether the new players coming through with a background of playing only in a professional environment will perform with more confidence to realise their potential. By the way I am surprised you havn't made the point that the NH v SH tours have been played under the old rules, good games, plenty of tries......
bob
Guest
Sam, I have to agree with you, and your take on the NZ jouno's is based on more knowledge than I have of them... not sure that Galtand was right that wales would take any of the 6 nations... but maybe... you're right about the premier league too, but there is a real problem here in England with development... the pitches players develop on are usually very poor and kids grow up with a real eye for forward play but not too much in the creative pace department. I coahed a youth team in NZ for a while, and in the school 2nd 15 was an english lad who had played first team county rugby in england at under 18... for a good county too... he could only make the 2nd 15 for the school, and first 15 bench cover... I asked him honestly whether it was because he was newcomer to NZ and was being overlooked because he was a new immigrant, but he absolutely reassured me that he was not in the team because he wasn't good enough... this kind of illustrates the gulf... interesting too that johnson was honed in NZ, and so was Julian White, arguably the best tight head prop apart from Leonard that England have had for some years. It does kind of raise the ELV's again, because when you kids raised in a place where you have to clear the pitch of ducks and water fowl before you play, tap and go gets really hard!
Sam Taulelei
Guest
Hi Bob I take your point and admit that when I read Wynne Gray's headline in the NZ Herald about England being world rugby's great frauds I thought to myself that it's no wonder that we can be our own worst enemies when we look down upon our beaten opponents and strip them of any dignity then complain bitterly about the same treatment from the foreign press when we lose. My old rugby coach always reminded us to "be humble in victory and gracious in defeat" while the players themselves may show respect for their combatants, reporters operate on a different agenda. Columnist Chris Rattue is no friend of Graham Henry and the NZRU and famously wrote a piece ahead of the Irish test that he could no longer support any NZ team coached by Henry and run by CEO Steve Tew because of their various sins, as if anyone should give a rats about what a columnist thinks. He has a personal grievance against them so take with a grain of salt his criticisms of NZ rugby as he's the closest version to Stephen Jones in NZ and the more offensive his opinions the more extensive coverage he enjoys. He angered Henry and the All Blacks ahead of the Welsh test during their end of season tour in 2006 by writing in his column that Welsh rugby was a joke and called them a pack of village idiots. So that gives you an indication of the type of forthright honesty in his writing. His isolation of those incidents leading up to the All Blacks tries is a thinly veiled up yours to Graham Henry who blamed Wayne Barnes for the loss in Cardiff but conveniently overlooked some missed indiscretions by Nigel Owens in awarding those tries. However Rattue is comparing apples with oranges and forgets that no coach of a winning team is going to publicly criticise a referee for giving them a break in awarding a try when they shouldn't, only coaches of losing teams do that which Rob Andrew has kindly confirmed for me with his latest comments about the match. I don't think that England were as bad as many match reviews report they were and they had the All Blacks struggling for the first 20 minutes and still competed to the final whistle not allowing any further tries to be scored. Just as many rational and reasonably minded people aren't fooled by the posturing of Stephen Jones and co. don't assume that Wynne Gray and Chris Rattue represent the majority of NZ's views of English rugby or that test match. NH sides have attained the same level of physical strength and fitness as SH sides but where they continue to be caught out is the increased speed they have to play at when playing NZ, SA and Australia. Premiership rugby may be attritional and reward fine forward play but until they can attack with the ball in hand at a sustained increase of speed to what they would normally be used to then their victories over SH sides will be more the exception than the rule. Interesting to read Warren Gatland's comments after last week's games saying that the way Wales played against SA would have been too good for any other Six Nations side, kind of sums it up really.
Matt
Guest
Just out of interest, and to guage the true strength of the England side who played on the weeked, but who else would have made the team if they had been fit to play? Cipriani, Shaw, Lewsey, Sackey? Are there many others apart from those? I had assumed (given the media comments before the match) that this was an England side who were chosen on form and not reputation? Was this not the case? The All Blacks will definitely struggle to win without their 2 key players in Carter and McCaw, although any side that lost these 2 from the starting XV would (given their roles as the best flanker and five eigth at present). Of course the All Blacks will be looking forward to wlecoming back Brendon Leonard, Joe Rokocoko and Tony Woodcock from injury in the near future. As well as the return to NZ of Hayman and McAlister next year.