World Rugby has confirmed what every Scottish person was already sure of: the 78th minute penalty awarded to Australia was an incorrect decision.
As it stood, the decision resulted in an offside penalty that gave Australia’s Bernard Foley a shot at goal which secured the 35-34 win.
>> MATCH OFFICIALS FOR RUGBY WORLD CUP SEMI-FINALS ANNOUNCED
Upon review, World Rugby concluded that because the ball was clearly touched by Australia’s Nick Phipps, who importantly was intentionally trying to play the ball, before it was recovered by Scotland’s Jon Welsh.
The fact that Phipps was intentionally playing at the ball means that Welsh should have been deemed on-side and that the correct decision should have been an Australian scrum.
World Rugby were also clear in clarifying that Craig Joubert could not have referred the decision to the television match official (TMO).
The full statement from World Rugby is as follows:
Following a full review of match officials’ performance, the World Rugby match official selection committee has clarified the decision made by referee Craig Joubert to award a penalty to Australia for offside in the 78th minute of the Rugby World Cup 2015 quarter-final between Australia and Scotland at Twickenham.The selection committee confirms that Joubert applied World Rugby Law 11.7 penalising Scotland’s Jon Welsh, who had played the ball following a knock-on by a team-mate, resulting in an offside.
On review of all available angles, it is clear that after the knock-on, the ball was touched by Australia’s Nick Phipps and Law 11.3(c) states that a player can be put on-side by an opponent who intentionally plays the ball.
It is important to clarify that, under the protocols, the referee could not refer to the television match official in this case and therefore had to rely on what he saw in real time. In this case, Law 11.3(c) should have been applied, putting Welsh onside. The appropriate decision, therefore, should have been a scrum to Australia for the original knock-on.
Overall, it is widely recognised that the standard of officiating at Rugby World Cup 2015 has been very high across 44 compelling and competitive matches to date.
World Rugby High Performance Match Official Manager Joël Jutge said: “Despite this experience, Craig has been and remains a world-class referee and an important member of our team.”
All match official performances are thoroughly reviewed and assessed by the World Rugby Match Official Selection Committee comprising John Jeffrey (Chairman), Lyndon Bray (SANZAR), Andrew Cole (SANZAR), Donal Courtney (EPCR), Clayton Thomas (Six Nations) and World Rugby High Performance Match Official Manager Joël Jutge.
Frontrow
Guest
Spot on Taylorman
Cliff (Bishkek)
Guest
TMan - Comng back a bit late on this. I will agree with your last comment below. But I think robbed is a strong word - a decision was made and it was a porr decision but what we are saying is - Why has World Rugby singled out this one and only penalty of the whole RWC? And irrespective of it being a 100% incorrect decision and honestly I think there is still no clear 100% proof that it was a dud call. We are all great in slowmo - not real time. But for World Rugby to do what they have done - has and will open up a can of worms - yes do the review of referees and keep it in house. Then penalise referees in house - the fans will know by default that a ref has been taken to task when he is not referring for some time. For me a poor showing by the World Rugby.
Cliff (Bishkek)
Guest
The first game of the RWC as I have read - took up to 2 hours because of TMO interjections and referrals. There was from reports a large run of complaints against the TMO in that game.
Cliff (Bishkek)
Guest
TMan -- if the WB are right in doing this - why was it not the decision of 2007 broadcast all over the World? And that was a semi, am I correct? What I am saying is that their are sound reasons for World Rugby to keep their house laundry in-house and do the review but do not publish the findings to all and sundry. A good article this morning, Friday, was published - and I back it up - as I am in the same vintage but a generation or two out - but mid 60s and 70s - "We were taught to Accept the Referee's Decision and not question it and to always respect the referee" And on top of that we called the Referee - Sir. All of that has gone out the window - for the worse! And again I will say, although possibly limited angles compared to World Rugby and I am not 100% certain - in even slomo - that Phipps played it with intent or did not and that the call is correct or incorrect. In real time Joubert made a decision - and a decision on what he saw. And TMan I do not see you or I out there refereeing? Would we be as perfect as we all expect our referees to be - they are as human as us!
ken
Guest
To all you Scottish "we was robbed" whingers... lets have a re-match... see how it goes. You wont get within coo-ee. We all agree that it was a 50-50 call... but so were all the Scot penalties at the scrum. nuff said.
Sage
Guest
colour..........
mapu
Guest
Gold Coast?Na has to be in NSW
Paul Dunworth
Roar Rookie
I think everyone needs to forget about “That Penalty” being the deciding factor in the win by our Wallabies. If the ruling had gone the other way it would have still given Australia a scrum inside the Scotish half and with time on the clock we “could have” just held the ball until we scored or were given another penalty closer to the posts. Australia deserved to win the match and the rugby Gods saw that as well!! 2 to go for the Men in Gold
ClarkeG
Roar Guru
Surely he is allowed to live where he likes. If he spends a lot of time in a rugby forum it’s probably because he has an interest in rugby discussion including rugby involving Australia.
ScotandProud
Guest
The French would have won but for Joubert.
Riccardo
Guest
Sorry Cliff, I could have worded that better. I was referring to the referee's flight being understandable, NOT that pelting ANYONE in a rugby game is tolerable.
soapit
Guest
except the way theyve ruled on similar (playing at it) it in past matches see knock ons from someone just going in for a tackle. always bod goes towards the guy playing at it unless clearly not the case
soapit
Guest
no you cant be tackled for playing at the ball. you must be in possession. different
soapit
Guest
wt i did hear joubert is off searching for plutonium for some unknown reason
Connor33
Guest
Yeah, I was hoping to get into some good healthy banter re your point being the last penalty. Time just seemed to get away. Like Rebel, I can see your point. It's a fair one because it is very difficult for there to be an even up. The point, though, probably has a bit more depth to it than I am making out in this short summary. Trust you could also see my point about context--i.e., the full 80. Actually, I don't think I used the word context, but that's what those 35 points were all about and the 31 points the week before. Look forward to this week's games. One thing I do hope for are tries--not necessarily lots, but the odd great one in both semis. Surely a secret set play will be used by someone...Wellington in 2000 or 2001 will go down as one of my top 2.
Kent Wilson
Roar Rookie
Joubert's call in the first incident (in the 57th minute) might well serve to explain what was in his mind when, just over 20 minutes later, he made his call in the second incident (in the 78th minute). In the first incident, Ashley-Cooper's miscued clearing kick, from the Wallabies' 22m line, hit the backside of the Scottish No. 1 and then rebounded about 4 metres. The Scottish No. 10, from a clearly offside position on the Wallabies' 22m line, skilfully scooped the ball up, spun around to face the Wallaby try-line, towards which he took a couple of steps, and, as he was being tackled, offloaded the ball to the Scottish No. 1. At this point, Joubert blew the whistle and then said (as best I can make it out), by way of explanation to the Scottish captain: "Kicked into a Blue player and a Blue player in front picked it up. Unintentional. Scrum. Off a Blue player, Blue player in front." The key word here of course is "Unintentional". I, for one, was flabbergasted that Joubert did not see that everything the Scottish No. 10 had done was concertedly intentional; indeed, as he replayed the sequence of events in his own mind after his call, Joubert might also have had second thoughts. Be that as it may, however, Joubert had, by implication, established, for the rest of the game, his benchmark as regards what was "Unintentional". If anything, this bizarre benchmark became even more firmly entrenched after the ensuing scrum (as opposed to a penalty) led to a Scottish try. One can imagine Joubert praying that the final quarter of the game would not see a situation arise where the benchmark would need to be applied. The offside incident in the 78th minute was Joubert's worst nightmare. Joubert was well positioned to observe that the ball, after being knocked on by the Scottish No 7, did indeed come into contact with Phipps, before looping towards the manifestly offside Scottish No 18, who had a couple of clearly conscious grabs at the ball before falling to the ground with it. In the first incident, the ball had travelled 4 metres before it was "Unintentionally" picked up by the Scottish No 10; in the second incident, it had travelled mere centimetres before bouncing into Phipps' upper body, shoulder, arm or whatever. The consistent application of his previously established benchmark left Joubert no option but to deem Phipps engagement with the ball as "Unintentional". Result: penalty to Australia; final score, 35-33. Two wrongs may not make a right, but they certainly do make for fiery debate by passionate rugby supporters.
taylorman
Roar Guru
What? In that thrashing rain, where everyone was fatigued. Rubbish. No try was likely there. Oz scored from quick passing wide to the corners. No way we're they going to do that in that storm of a rain. Geez.
taylorman
Roar Guru
Yes exactly. What was needed by some oz fans here was a bit of humility in saying, hard luck Scotland, we got lucky...but no. They have to dredge out things like previous decisions to feel better. And they ask us to show humility. This takes the cake. They're still in through a massive stroke of luck, and are still complaining. Pfff... Most would be happy with that.
taylorman
Roar Guru
Except one is opinion, the other is fact.
taylorman
Roar Guru
It is not me that is advocating going back here. I am saying everyone should just accept the decision was poor, accept they got lucky, not bother trying to some how placate themselves by trying to justify it by trawling up other decisions and move on. Oz got lucky, Scotland were robbed. I mean how hard is it to accept that? No ones fault, just the way it is.