After two terrible performances by referees over the past couple of weeks and in the first two matches of the Tri Nations, I have come to the conclusion that laughable accusations by Peter De Villiers have some element of truth.
A couple of weeks ago after suffering a second straight loss to the Kiwis on their home turf, he accused the referees, IRB or NZRU of match fixing, to increase ticket sales for the 2011 World Cup. I, like most of the rugby world, considered these comments stupid, having watched both games myself and viewing the send offs as 50/50s and the referees’ performances as slightly below par, but not laughable.
On Saturday, I, like most Aussie rugby fans, would have been amazed at the lack of inconsistency and lack of decisiveness shown by the refs. As a Wallabies fan, sure I’m sick of poor performances and under achievement, but they are part of the game, especially in Australia. What is not and should never by part of the game is the allowance of people to throw cheapshots and receive countless warnings without being sent off.
I’m not exactly aware of what’s happening in regards to the suspensions as a result of the Saia Faingaa cheap shot, but I am a passionate rugby supporter who loves the toughness and beauty the game possesses and I for one am sick of Richie McCaw and am sick of inconsistent refereeing. The one match that I’ve seen these Tri Nations that was well refereed was the one match that didn’t involve the Kiwis. Countless times in the scrum the Kiwis illegally targeted one side with illegal binding, and since when does a final warning mean you get another chance?
Rugby needs to face this problem head on. I respect Peter De Villiers for his courage to stand up against the IRB and challenge the undoubtedly bias refereeing. It’s one thing to win a match fair and square, but rugby and referees need to clean up their act now.
Tock
Guest
So ex ref I take it you dont have an opinion iether because your not an international ref? I thought so! I can answer my own questions too.
ExRef
Guest
Sorry, you're a Level 3 qualified Referee Coach and Assessor then? Didn't think so...
Tock
Guest
I think what is missing in the above discussion is a proper assessment of Kaplans performance, which I suggest for those with the time is worthy of close review. Kaplans refereeing was outside every guideline issued this year not once did he insist on the tackler rolling away, niether team was required to come through the gate and niether team was required to stay on their feet. In general he was refereeing something but it was not a rugby match. To the All blacks credit they did what they always do they played to the way the referee interpreted the match. Unlike many other correspondants here I thought that the AB's played within themselves and were not asked any real questions by the Wallabies. I dont understand why Giteau played 5/8 and why we cant hold onto the ball without dropping it or throw passes that are so innacurate they constantly put the receiver under pressure not to mention our lack of urgency in everything we do. Having said that the game deserved a better referee, one capable of applying the laws within the IRB directives that have been issued this year.
MarkR
Guest
Well said Arky
Cattledog
Guest
See point 3. above. Roger's had a 'shocker' for the Aussies. You've had a 'shocker' for the Kiwis...lol
Jerry
Guest
Blatant is slang for something so obvious, you can't miss it. Unless you're just not looking. And if you reckon that's a shoulder charge you're barking mad. Ask yourself this question, if Woodcock did that exact same thing to a guy with the ball, would it have been called a penalty? Watch this youtube clip at 40-46 seconds and tell me he doesn't use his arms... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kLEcVW7DAs He obviously wasn't part of the ruck as you said in your first post, but there's no need to invent alternatives out of thin air.
Jason
Guest
No it isn't a shoulder charge, unless you're Cobus Wessels. Woodcock quite clearly used his arms in the "tackle/ clearout".
Jason
Guest
So he should - Dean Mumm would never be mistaken for "an aggressive forward".
Jason
Guest
Obviously when Elsom said "with bodies around the ruck" he actually meant "players lying in the ruck"... Rest assured you're not the only one who isn't a fan of Kaplan.
stash
Roar Pro
Woah... is it a full moon... To be honest, I can understand the frustration of the Wallaby fans... AB fans felt the same during the cold, isolation years without the beloved Bledsloie to keep us warm. We all know that there is no conspiracy and the kiwis are not getting any favoritism from the referees or the IRB, other than a rule change that is suited more to the AB style. But no one is complaining about the visual feel of the rugby on display. McCaw cheating accusations continue even though he's changed his playing style... the blokes a talented player, get over it (and who wouldn't want him on their side). Rugby is a game where you play the rules to the brink...and adapt to the refs decision making on the day... the key word being adapt...
Georgie McHugh
Guest
Jerry, it is an interesting use of the word "blatant", usually used as an adjective describing something contrary to the rules; but, I'll accept that you probably meant "obvious". However, the fact is that he was not obviously using his arms. His first point of contact was the shoulder in the back and the arms came second. That is a shoulder charge. This is only the alternative basis for the foul, in circumstances that the referee found that Faingaa was part of the ruck. Clearly he was not.
Jerry
Guest
If you follow the citing procedures to the letter (ie, a citing being only for a red card level offence) then it shouldn't have been cited. However, if you apply a similar standard to those incidents previously cited, you'd have to say it should. I don't think it's a case of bias, the citing procedure is ludicrously inconsistent across the board. Has been for ages.
Sylvester
Guest
I personally think Woodcock was lucky to escape a yellow, but I wonder does the the lack of a citing prove that Kaplan was spot?
Jerry
Guest
Er, he pretty blatantly did use his arms.
Georgie McHugh
Guest
I should have said that the yellow card should have been issued under rule 10.5(a).
mickh
Guest
That was not an aggressive forward doing his job. It was a coward hitting a bloke from behind trying to get back to position.
JohnB
Guest
Hilarious. So if a player is offside you can commit any act of foul play against him?
Georgie McHugh
Guest
A ridiculous comment. Faingaa made the tackle and was clearing the ruck less than 2 seconds after initial contact. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kLEcVW7DAs). The act was foul play under rule 10.4(e)(playing a player without the ball), (f) (Faingaa wasn't part of the ruck pursuant to rule 16.2(b)) and even if Faingaa was part of the ruck it still breaches rule 10.4(g) as Woodcock didn't attempt to use his arms. Accordingly, Woodcock should have been given a yellow card under rule 16.2(b). It was gutless play and even more gutless refereeing. Again, it is not the reason the Wallabies lost and it is not sour grapes. But, you can't have a rationale of not allowing lifting tackles because you have to send a message to all levels of rugby (which I agree with) and not make an example of this. As has been said here, if it was Faingaa doing the same thing to Dan Carter you can hardly imagine the result would have been the same. Can you imagine a teenage game where a big kid for his age, possibly a Pacfic Islander (but not necessarily), hits a little kid in the same position playing at number 7 or in the backs? There is the potential for huge damage to be done. If that is not the case, then allow lifting tackles, retaliation and any other form of foul play, because it's a test match. You can't have it both ways. If this is unacceptable at any level of rugby, it is unacceptable in a test match. It wasn't tough; it was cheap and it should have been dealt with.
kiwi 07
Guest
AUS PLAYER WAS OFF SIDE THERE IS NO LAW IN RUGBY THAT CAN PUT WOODCOCK IN THE BIN
Nerk
Guest
You're absolutely right Marty, please air-mail us one of your superior Aussie props to work with as it is patently obvious our side just doesn't cut it at the highest level.