He’s been labeled inept, a disgrace, a coward and calls have been made for him to never ref at international level again. Even World Rugby has hung him out to dry under the weight of Twitter posts.
But while the final blame must lay at the hands of Craig Joubert for a truly awful call that cost Scotland a trip to the Rugby World Cup semi-finals, at least a portion of the fervent internet rage should be directed at some of the Australian players.
Yes, that’s right, the Australian players.
Before the World Cup started, a directive was sent out by World Rugby to the refs to clamp down on players simulating infringements or appealing for penalties that were not penalties.
The directive was perhaps less of a message to refs and more of message to players that trying to fool refs or gain an advantage was a tactic best left for the round-ball code, and that this type of coercion was against the spirit of the game.
For the most part, the directive seems to have worked – the only instance of it we have seen was when Nigel Owens admonished Stuart Hogg for what looked like a clear and obvious dive against South Africa. Although no punishment was given, the embarrassment of being called out like that was likely far more effective than getting a yellow card. Hogg’s highland freckles burst out faster than Joubert running from the field after the quarter-final.
Nigel Owens showed in a couple of sentences why he is the best in the world and why Joubert is still a pretender. The elder Welshman managed to shut down an act of bad sportsmanship with a couple of sharp words, while Joubert totally gave into it.
And this is where we go back to the Australian players.
It was clear and obvious that Nick Phipps had played at the ball, and in so doing had put Jon Welsh back in an onside position. Phipps admitted as much himself after the game.
During the play, there is a slight delay before Welsh gets the ball where Joubert has his hand in the knock-on advantage position, indicating that he has seen the play correctly; however as soon as Welsh collects the ball and drops to the ground, three Australian players – Kane Douglas, Scott Fardy and Phipps himself – aggressively appeal to the ref for a penalty.
Bullocking loose-forward Fardy does his best impression of a fast bowler and pulls out an appeal that wouldn’t be out of place at Lord’s. Guess what happens? Joubert’s arm Viagra kicks in.
First and foremost, Joubert deserves blame for capitulating so easily – he completely neglected his objective decision-making process under the coercion of the Australian players and the pressure of a big match. However, under the new directives, the Australian players could have also been penalised for undue appealing.
Phipps claimed that he was intentionally going for the ball, so he knew it wasn’t a penalty and as such, was in direct contravention of that directive.
Now, I’m not saying that the Australians are bad sportsmen – players from every team in the world would have appealed for that penalty – but the Australian players did appeal, strongly at that, and at least one of them knew it wasn’t a penalty.
If World Rugby sets a directive to stop players influencing refs, then why not follow through?
At the end of the day, Australia are going to the semis and Scotland are going home, but if World Rugby wants less controversial moments, they need to either nurture stronger-minded refs or crackdown on the players trying to influence them.
Lindommer
Guest
In addition to that poor decision the offside call prior to the final penalty was also incorrectly adjudicated; as a former ref I thought that call should have been a penalty. I've watched the 78 min call in both real time and in slo-slo-mo and it's a penalty for offside every time. The bit about the Aussies influencing the ref by calling for a penalty is a red herring. BTW, the call re Genia knocking the ball on before AAC's "second try" was correct, the ball accidently bobbled off the back of his left wrist before he picked it up. For the iRB/WR to publicly review that final penalty is disgraceful. Why didn't they review the last Scottish try scored off a knock on (no controversy about that non-decision) which allowed them to beat Samoa and make the quarters? Ah, doesn't matter, it's only Samoa. Shame on you, World Rugby, shame on you.
Sebastian Amor-Smith
Guest
https://www.facebook.com/sebastian.amorsmith/posts/10205891999994461?notif_t=like - I am happy to be proven wrong by better footage, but the analysis seems to be correct in terms of the knock on...
World in Union
Guest
@ Biffa give yourself an uppercut ya goose
vic rugby
Guest
Easily one of the best articles on this topic. Being objective is key.
vic rugby
Guest
In rugby union you can get 3 points for a drop goal or a penalty kick. This makes it possible to score less tries than your opponent but still win. Why is this so hard to understand for some people?
John Short
Guest
Dev, you are spot on. What we need are good sports not cry babies. I am not against criticizing refs .if they appear incorrect, but the treatment of Joubert by the RWC is pathetic.REgards John Short
John Short
Guest
The RWC should hang their head in shame over the Joubert affair. They are no better than the FIFA mob. Obviously as the RWC is basically controlled by the Home Country Unions they cannot stomach the fact that none of the Home Country teams were good enough.. Leave Joubert alone he made the correct decision. If it had not been in the 78th minute of the game and the game breaker very little would have been made of the incident. I would hate to have the RWC members in the trenches with me when the order was given to go over the top.Regards John Short
Cadfael
Roar Guru
I seem to recall that the Scot's also appealed for penalties when they were given for scrum onfringements, which should probably not have been given.
Cadfael
Roar Guru
But did he make a mistake? The rule says that the player has to have "intent" to play the ball, intent and it is a scrum, no intent and it is a penalty. This is up to the referee to interpret. His interpretation was that there was no intent to play the ball so a penalty was awarded. What was poor was the WR said it was the wrong decision, what about the decision to allow that last try to the Saffas against Wales, which should not have been allowed. Why wasn't the ref publically castigated for that? Was Joubert the only ref to make a mistake, it looks that way doesn't it. Joubert didn't have the best of games but I don't hear any complaints from WR or Scotland that three scrum penalties against the Wallabies should have gone the other way. What it looks like is "let's blame the ref for not having any NH teams in the semis". The whole brouuhaha about Joubert comes across as nothing more than a political smokescreen.
Jono
Guest
Given the number of times refs have to explain the rules of the game to players I'd question the insinuation that Phibbs is a dishonest player as made the the article writer for appealing. I think it is more likely that in the heat of the moment Phibbs sees a player in front of a knock on pick up the ball and joins the appeal for that. I don't think he is trying to trick Joubert or hide his role in what has happened.
Muggs
Roar Rookie
Thanks for the reply Edward. I appreciate that you've taken the time to respond to so many posters to further clarify your statements.
Biffa
Guest
Cliff (Fishkek) ... more like!
Edward Pye
Roar Guru
Did you watch the video Dev? I know they weren't appealing for the scrum because they yelled "offside sir." That's just a fact - it's something that all teams do (not just Australia) and it's also the reason that World Rugby created the appealing directive in the first place. It's interesting that you talk about childish reactions because this comment really seems to fall into that category.
Edward Pye
Roar Guru
Thanks for you initial questions there Muggs, I am happy to respond to objective criticism. I didn't chose this time to write the article. It seemed pertinent to write it now because of the effects and the outrage coming from the call. The same type of play has been happening right throughout the WC and right throughout the history of rugby. The timing was simply because there was a bad call made in a big game and I believe that the appealing from the players contributed to it. Obviously, my belief that the appealing played some part in the call is subjective, so I expected to get some push back there. However, I wasn't singling out the Wallaby players because I was trying to take a cheap shot as you suggest - I singled them out simply because they were the players involved. Perhaps you missed the last part of the article where I stated that the Aussies were NOT bad sportsmen, they were simply appealing like players from any other team would. Also, I didn't claim that I knew what was in the head of NP - I said that he admitted to intentionally playing the ball post-game. His direct words were "Everybody was trying to win the ball there, we were all going for it." So if he knew he touched it, then he should have known it wasn't a penalty, yet he still appealed. I think most-likely none of those Australian players knew what had happened exactly - but they all still aggressively appealed for the penalty. The issue is with appealing in general and this is why World Rugby created the directive in the first place. Perhaps that message got lost in my writing, so if offence was taken there then I apologize. I probably could have written the article with less of a slant.
Edward Pye
Roar Guru
Thanks John, you make some good points here - I am responding to a lot of commenters because upon review I think I probably wrote the article with too much of a controversial angle and I have been trying to clarify my point. The original premise was that refereeing is difficult and it is more difficult when players appeal to refs for calls trying to get an advantage to their team. World Rugby identified this before the WC and that's why they put out the directive to stamp out that kind of play. In this situation, I was of the opinion that Joubert was influenced by the Australian players when he made his call - now that is subjective I know, people will argue with me on that point, but I think when you are reviewing a refereeing performance and incorrect calls - it makes sense to look at all the factors that contributed to them. In this case - I think the Australian appeals were a factor. In some of my other replies you'll notice that I stated that all teams are guilty of doing this including the All Blacks - but if WR puts out a directive to stop it and then it happens in a game and it leads to a bad call being made - shouldn't we talk about it?
ols
Roar Pro
Edward Every body keeps going on how the Scottish player collecting the ball was ruled offside. The more I see it the bearded Scottish player who bumps into Phipps is off side and obviously so. His team mate has knocked the ball forward and he has no option but to desist playing at the ball (yet he still did)
Muggs
Roar Rookie
Edward. So your point is about players appealing to the referee. Are you being deliberately controversial by choosing this time in this game to make your point? or is it just that this was the first time during the tournament that players have appealed for a penalty? Why single out the wallabies as being unsportsmanlike? why NP in particular? To claim you know what was in the mind of a player must mean that you have a truly supernatural ability. I believe you have misquoted Phipps anyway but that doesn't matter because you knew he knew it was a penalty! This article is dumb and offensive on many levels.
JLaunch
Guest
So you have no opinion about World Rugby throwing him under the bus but are happy to whine about this so called undue pressure that players allegedly put on a referee by appealing for an infringement? In my view your lack of a position in relation to World Rugby's decision is in conflict with your position on the other when you are essentially arguing that referees have a tough time so should be protected from influences that could lead to wrong decisions being made. Maybe it would be easier for the referees if we replaced the professional players with nuns.
Ken Catchpole's Other Leg
Guest
Kezablonde, wouldn't he also need a laser powered radar and an electronic theodolite? Yeh, any ref with a few simple tools should be able to get that right.
kezablonde
Guest
read the other article by Max: Joubert was right after all. God, any queen's council equipped with motion and heat detectors could have called that penalty