Dropping Steve Walsh opens up other problems

Poor,poor article Spiro,quite disappointing really.Although I personally don't rate or like Walsh as a referee,I have no more doubt in my mind that in this Sanzar marriage the Aussies have one set of rules and the rest have another set of rules. Spiro is obviously too emotional about this whole saga and that's why I can't take this article too serious.The only thing Walsh did wrong was to not discipline Hoiles for his behaviour on the field.I've never ever seen a player getting away with this kind of behaviour towards a referee.It was Not a try,cry all you want,the rules are very clear on this.ACT also had enough time to condemn their captain and ''golden baby'' Giteau's behaviour but never even attempted to do so.ACT,Hoiles and Giteau should've appeared before Sanzar for bringing the game into disrepute.Does this mean now that next time the Springboks get Dickenson as a ref we can just say we can just as well go and lie on the beach and not play? I think all of us know how that will turn out. All in all,the Brumbies may think they've won this battle but I, for one,have lost all of the little respect I had for this franchise and the same goes for Sanzar.

Steve Walsh is a show pony who seeks centre stage. He is not the only S. hemisphere referee/touchjudge with similar pretensions. All this man management by referees is baloney. All we need is for them to keep up with play, apply the rules fairly and consistently, be civil to players and except civility from them. Super 15 claims to be more entertaining than European rugby. It certainly has more clowns blowing whistles.

As a South African, it pains me to say it. Dickinson has been the best by a mile. Consistent and the best. Yes it is certainly different to many other years....

completely agree Pots, SANZAR have brought anything that happens (in terms of criticising refs) on themselves now. Honestly, they would have been better off saying Walsh was dropped for an average game. That would have been it. Or, like you suggest, they could have told the Brumbies to suck it up, issued Giteau with something slightly more than slap on the wrist and just declared once and for all that they're in charge around here. And guess what Canberra, you've got Walsh for the next three games. Complain all you like, but the only avenue to appeal is by replacing Walsh with Kaplan. It might have started out as catch-22 Pots, but somehow the Brumbies have walked away from this episode grinning like schoolgirls...

don't buy that jb and s-b. i reckon giteau did what no professional sportsman ever does anymore, just said what he thinks! About time someone was honest. it's refreshing!

Brett - was it not one of those 'you can't win' situations for SANZAR? The minute I saw the headline saying that Brumbies were looking for Walsh's head, then the die was cast. The only response to that should have been from SANZAR, Refs and whoever else is in charge, was 'go shove it." and a large fine on the club and player for attempting to undermine refs in general and bringing game into disrepute. If Bray had come out and said 'well we've changed Steve's match to the other one, cos he thought he'd prefer the weather there' everyone was going to see it for what it really was. SANZAR refs got pressurised into changing ref due to club pressure. Full stop. There's no other way you can read this - leastways I don't. The precedent is now set. The club must come forward and make apology to SANZAR and Walsh for behaviour of its players for having compromised SANZAR. IRB should insist on it. Because this thing could get legs. Let's say that we get to the June Internationals - Australia v England and Walsh is set to ref. England say that Walsh cannot ref match because he will feel under an obligation to mollycoddle Oz because of the Brumbies/Tahs match? Media report England say, 'not sure about the match if Walsh is involved, is there any point in turning up? Look you've got rid of him before, what's the problem? Better to remove any element of doubt or accusation of bias before the match. Right? Cue international pandemonium

Interesting how the Youtube clip - obviously created by someone from the NR Refs association...judging my the Youtueb Handle - NZRUREFS calls the clip DOuble Movement???!!! There is no such thing as Double Movement in Rugby Union- and watching in slow motion, AAC didnt release the ball immediately after his knee hit the ground. NO TRY

I have to take issue with you Spiro on your assessment of Walsh's refereeing performance in the Brumby/Waratah match at ANZ stadium last Saturday evening - yet again - as I did in your prior article on "The Reds can win, The Tahs Cannot' I have copied part of my post therein as follows: "The second point is the dis-allowance of the Brumby try ’scored’ by Adam Ashley-Cooper. I believe the correct decision was made as he was tackled well short of the line – certainly NOT within stretching distance with his arms while ON THE GROUND. The onus in such circumstances is for the tackler to roll away – which he did – and the ball carrier to play the ball. AAC CANNOT regain his feet with the ball in hand and then dive over the line without incurring a penalty. Remember the Rugby league rule of holding the tackled player for 3 seconds DOES NOT APPLY to Union. Had he regained his feet without the ball then picked it up he would have been successful and a legitimate try would have been awarded". Later in the game Hoiles likewise was legitimately tackled and regained his feet with the ball illegally in hand and was penalized correctly – while on attack about 30m out from the Tah’s try line. Only the better referees pick this up in the heat of the game. Overall, I thought Steve Walsh Junior had a good game in difficult circumstances. He cannot be criticized for the poor scrummaging by both front rows – especially as both were disrupted by injuries during the game. Bloggers will know I have been very critical over the past few years on Referees incompetence - especially Kaplan - so I have a track record of being highly critical of the species BUT I believe credit/support needs to be accredited where it is deserved. AAC was clearly tackled and BROUGHT TO THE GROUND. Your statement: "But replays showed he had performed an astonishing feat of athleticism by tumbling after he was tackled, keep the ball and his knees off the ground, before planting the ball down for a try" - defies both logic and the laws of gravity. Apart from my earlier remarks the Laws state if you are OFF your feet you are out of the game. AAC was clearly so FROM a legitimate tackle and failed to put himself legitimately back in the game. What galls me are the so called armchair critics of the written and TV media festering and fomenting an incident due to their ignorance of the Laws. Recent articles by Growden on the subject only confirm my action in cancelling the SMH about the time you retired Spiro and subscribing to the Australian. Brett Harris was far more circumspect about the AAC incident and quoted Lyndon Bray's assessment he believed Walsh's decision to disallow AC's try was the correct one, indicating he had crawled over the line. For those prepared to be objective about the game/incidents etc it is well covered in Brett Harris's very good article "Giteau faces sanction over ref calls"; page 28 in Sport section of the Australian of April 28, 2008 - bottom right hand corner. By the way Harris's article didn't mention Bray as saying Walsh had an "average' game. Where did this come from? I think it's time the media went out and bought themselves a copy of the Laws of Rugby and consulted them on occasion. No wonder after watching the Rugby Club et al so much ill informed OPINIONS are put about.

I was really pleased to see that the referee are receiving performance feedback, and coaching. For a professional sport, this is important. I was particularly impressed that Patricio Noriega has spent time with Walsh going over the scrums in the game, and how they went, what could have been done better, what went well etc. Great to see. The fact that Walsh misses out this weekend is in fact the correct decision, not because of the player power but because the game is more important than one individual.

Its a bit different in that he's telling the ref about something that's happening and asking him to do something about it, instead of writing the ref off completely ahead of time.

How did the try cost the Tahs the game?

What obstruction? Kaplan awarded the try cause he saw the ball touched down - therefore he didn't need the TMO to check whether it had been. What he needed was confirmation nothing had happened prior to the ball being touched down (eg a knock on or penalty offence) which would negate the try.

Thanks PK, the inconsistent timing has always bothered me no end given as you say there are plenty of other things to watch out for. I guess the idea is to stop a false start as in the 100m or a swimming race. I never played as a forward except as a loosie when there was no one left on the bench so I have no idea what really goes on. I would have thought a consistent rhythm of call would give a ref a better opportunity to see who is packing early and penalise as a result.

Hombre - It is a law book Hoiles was out of line with the comment it was a crap decision and was in dissent of the refderee at the time Yes i am a referee and it was no try Giteau is a clown in this instant - he should have shut it Hoiles was held on the ground for a split second - he can not go forward -

I agree Peter K - I watch Richie McCaw at the ref's decision, turning silently and running back to position almost invariably; and John Smit, who smiles widely and does the same. Taine Randall acted similarly, Oliver, Reuben Thorne and others who stand out. It's almost as if they consider captaincy as a leadership thing. But Spiro says: "It was plain from the way Hoiles spoke to Walsh that he disagreed with the call. ... Walsh seemed to resent this comment." Suddenly disrespectful dissent becomes the ref's fault because of his "resentment"?!!?!! And the Brumby's captain earned his role by what special quality - rotation? I learned very early in the piece as captain what was expected of me - came off for half time and the coach said "If you ever swear about a ref's decision again (as I had) you will no longer captain my team". He was very articulate, big and fit, and he went on to become one of the best, most successful league coaches. I am most grateful for the lesson I learned from Wazza that day, decades ago. Has the cat got Coach Friend's tongue I wonder?

was there Sat night too, it was chockers!!

Love yer work, ballboy!

I haven't been able to see the match yet aside from the various short clips around the place, so it's dissappointing to hear that such a terrific local derby has been marred by all this bickering. On looking at the link provided above and checking on the rules: Ashley-Cooper does not score a try. Rule 15 in the laws states that a ball carrier is tackled when brought to the ground. It then further defines (15.3) being brought to the ground as when one or both of their knees are on the ground. The replay clearly shows this. As for Hoiles, bit tougher as it does look like the tackler has fallen off, but this is after he has been brought to ground, as defined in law 15 and whereby the tackler is also required to release. I can see why Hoiles thought he could get up and continue but you could also reason that the Waratahs did not come in to assist the tackle as they thought he had been tackled and was therefore required to play the ball. That said, I'm sure we'd be able to find numerous other instances where the same thing has happened but been allowed to play on. As for the public comments made, there's no need for it and it has been handled much better in the past.

On the scrum engagement call as a ref I want to disseminate what we are taught, and in this case disagree with. They say we should NOT be consistent in timing with our calls because the teams will anticipate them and engage on expectation rather than hearing the call. The idea being they must learn to wait until you say it rather than when they think it will be. I tried arguing but there is no point. Since I have no pretensions of going up to professional ranks and dont do this and ignore referee coaches who tell me to do it. Instead I have a regular timed call and I get very few resets or early engagements, they both hit at the same time because they know that is when I will say engage. I do like to have the pause call because it gives me extra time to check alignments, that they are square and steady, that binds are ok etc. There is so much to look for and so little time in a scrum.

Eales was reacting to something the ref may not have been able to see, that is eye gouging at the bottom of the ruck. He was protecting his team from harm, saying the win wasn't worth someone losing their sight. THis wasn't questioning the integrity of the ref, it was saying do something about the other team (who were cheating) or I will. Giteau suggested Walsh is a cheat and would cheat them out of the game. He is suggesting Walsh is not impartial. That's questioning the integrity of the referee, a completely different thing from what Eales did, and very poor form.