South African referee Craig Joubert has been let down by World Rugby officials and Scottish greats of the game like Gavin Hastings for correctly – yes, that’s right – awarding the Wallabies a penalty in the dying minutes of their quarter-final against Scotland.
It is part of Australian rugby folklore now, with shades of Ireland-Australia in the 1991 World Cup quarter-final, that a nerveless, dead-eyed Bernard Foley booted over the penalty.
Foley, who had kicked poorly in the match, with rain drifting into his eyes and from a wide angle 35 metres out from the posts, took the Wallabies into the semi-finals.
Of course Scottish supporters have every right to be angry. But the anger should be directed to their players. It were the players who lost the game by giving away a penalty for stupid, uninformed play.
They had a lineout outside their 22. They only had to capture the ball and after a couple of phases kick it to the shithouse (to quote Bob Dwyer).
They threw long. Why would any team trying to play out time do this? This was a stupid play.
The Wallabies disrupted the long throw. You would expect them to do this. The Scots tapped the ball back and the ball went loose, given the conditions, something you could expect.
The Wallabies bustled through chasing the slippery ball into the Scots’ backfield. The ball was moved forward by a panicking Scots back, and this placed all the Scots forwards offside.
There was a scuffle for possession. The ball seems to strike Nick Phipps on the chest. But was he playing at the ball? It certainly doesn’t look like it. His arms, for instance, are nowhere in a catching position.
Phipps, under pressure from the moving Scots forwards (and photos and videos show this clearly), failed to grab control of the ball.
Joubert instantly ruled a penalty against Scotland.
World Rugby officials have claimed that Joubert had incorrectly applied law 11.7 penalising Scotland’s Jon Welsh, who had played at the ball following a knock-on by a teammate, resulting in him being ruled 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.
“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.”
Cut and dried, then. A Joubert blunder.
Well, perhaps not. Let me re-phrase that: certainly not. This World Cup official ruling presumes that Phipps intentionally played at the ball. This is certainly not obvious from the videos of the incident.
Why didn’t the World Rugby officials invoke law 11.1(b)?
“Law 11.1(b) Offside and interfering with play. A player who is offside must not (my emphasis) take part in the game. This means the player must not play the ball or obstruct an opponent.”
It is also clear from videos and photos that the offside Scots forwards did take part in the game. They contested the ball by moving towards the onside Phipps. It may be that this was the inevitable result of following the play.
But the law is the law. If they are offside, as they were when the ball came off the defending Scots player, they could not play the ball or obstruct an opponent. And by moving towards Phipps this is what they did.
We enter here into the philosophy of the rugby laws. A key principle behind the laws is that rugby is a game where there is a constant contest for possession. But this contest has to be confined within the laws of the game. And a primary requirement in this is that offside players must not take part in this constant contest, until they are onside.
Wikipedia has an excellent exposition of the offside laws. The opening paragraph of this exposition makes my point: “Offside rules in rugby union are complex. However the basic principle is simple: a player may not derive any advantage from being in front of the ball.”
It is arguable, at the very least, that Joubert made the right decision. The Scots players, by moving towards the ball (and Phipps), derived an advantage from being in front of the ball.
I can’t understand why Joubert has been dudded in this way. Why was there no consideration of the possibility of Law 11.1(b) being argued in the statement put out by the World Rugby high performance manager Joel Jutge, himself a former referee?
This is a disaster for Joubert, one of the best rugby referees going around.
It is also a disaster for the game.
What is not revealed in all the phoney, concocted Scottish outrage against Joubert is that he was appointed to the Australia-Scotland knockout quarter-final by a referees committee that was chaired by the Scottish former champion loose forward John Jeffrey.
I have not read anywhere comments from Jeffrey protecting a referee he was instrumental in appointing. His silence on this matter does him no credit as a board member of World Rugby since 2010.
Jeffrey’s silence has, moreover, encouraged outrageous and unacceptable comments from former players who should know better. These comments show no respect for Joubert and referees in general.
You expect someone like Matt Dawson (see his behaviour on the British and Irish Lions tour of Australia with Graham Henry) to show no good sense or intelligence on this matter.
But you do not expect that the worst offender in all this nastiness is the former Scottish international Gavin Hastings, one of the most revered figures (but not any more) in world rugby.
“If I see referee Craig Joubert again I am going to tell him how disgusted I am. It was disgraceful that he ran off the pitch like that at the end,” he said.
“The referee is not expected to make the right decision at the time. That’s what the TMO system is in place for. This is a quarter-final of a Rugby World Cup. This is the highest end of our sport and they have to get these decisions right.”
Right on, Gavin. So get a few things right yourself. To begin with, as Joel Jutge pointed out: “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.”
Rugby greats like Hastings who make big money as ambassadors for the game need to be very careful about trashing officials, and even more so when that trashing involves comments that are factually wrong.
***
The referees for the semi-finals are Jerome Garces (Springboks-All Blacks) and Wayne Barnes (Wallabies-Pumas).
Frenchman Garces was criticised, justifiably, early in his Test career for scattering yellow cards like confetti at a wedding.
In the 2015 Rugby World Cup he was criticised by Wales for missing a late tackle by England’s Brad Barritt that ended Scott Williams’ tournament.
Interestingly, too, this late tackle was not shown on the big screen at Twickenham, an indictment on the credibility of the TMO process.
Garces was the referee who officiated at the greatest upset in Rugby World Cup history, Japan’s magnificent victory over the Springboks. A feature of that match was the energy and pace the Brave Blossoms played with.
He has refereed two All Blacks-Springboks Tests, with New Zealand winning 27-20 at Johannesburg earlier this year and 14-10 at Wellington in 2014.
The All Blacks have won all five Tests Garces has refereed, including wins over England, Argentina and Scotland.
Is World Rugby trying to send the Springboks a message that fast-paced, skilful rugby is what is wanted to enhance rugby as a spectacle?
When Barnes was appointed to referee the first 2015 Bledisloe Cup Test at Sydney (won by the Wallabies) The Australian‘s Bret Harris wrote an article headed: “English referee perfect fit for the Wallabies.”
The Wallabies had won all nine of their Tests with Barnes officiating. The Wallabies win at Sydney gave the Barnes-Wallabies combination a perfect 10 out of 10 result.
Barnes refereed the Wallabies’ 54-17 win over the Pumas in 2013 at Rosario. According to Harris: “Barnes’ decision not to award Argentina a penalty try early in the game after forcing three penalties for scrum collapses five metres out from the Wallabies line was a turning point in the match.”
No matter what happens in these semis, it is clear that Nigel Owens is being rested, after his quarter-final stint with France-New Zealand, to officiate the final between…
richardislip
Guest
This is just the best piece of reporting on a shameful incident. World Cup Rugby are a disgrace, and indeed, the comments of Hastings and Dawson and Dawson are indicative of the childish and pampered, jingoistic nature of former players who have not got over the fact that they are no longer in the limelight, and need to get lives. Their behaviour has been truly appalling and they are the ones who need a face to face dressing down.
Jack Fertal
Guest
While I understand the ambiguity of the word intentional in the law, it is clear his arms went for the ball. It was really a scramble by all players as a matter of instinct in order to get the ball. I also question your say to this given this is an Australian newspaper. As an Australian, I would say the same thing, and my first instinct would be to say our penalty! But World Rugby looked at this with a team, by purposefully excluding any people from Scotland, and came with an objective conclusion that the correct call was in fact a scrum. You have to feel for Joubert though because given how fast it all happened, he had to make a decision, and just as players make errors, referees are allowed to make errors as well. He is meant to make the call on what he thought he saw and for that he did the right thing. He also was not able to consult the TMO. So, for that, I say World Rugby might have made a mistake by attacking Joubert. Perhaps it might be said that World Rugby itself is at fault for not allowing TMO access whenever there is a match-determining decision to be played (ie a penalty in the last couple of minutes). Obviously, where you draw the line of what determines a match-determining decision should probably be up to the referees there. It may also be possible to say that Joubert might have been able to break the rules a little bit and actually request for TMO assistance. That would have avoided any controversy. But by avoiding controversy this way, you create a new one. It is simply at this present time a part of rugby that the decision is meant to come from the referee and he has to abide by the rules that are present at that given time. If he can't go to the TMO, he should not go to the TMO. And if he makes a wrong decision (a very difficult one), then so be it, that is rugby. Sometimes the ref will be on your side, sometimes it won't. Therefore, it's best to forget about this controversy, and really say that Australia won fair and square, given the rules of the game. On any other day, Joubert might have ruled that a scrum if that is what he saw. But that day, Scotland were unlucky, and that's simply rugby.
Mikew
Guest
As Elk says, "Nick said in an interview he was trying to play the ball, therefore the rules apply as he actually hit it with his hand as he went to play it.".... So nice try, but wrong! The saddest thing is that rugby is the sport that makes the most use of TMO to great effect, yet got this wrong at a critical point. I see a happier (more accurate) future where any decisions in the final 5 minutes can be referred to TMO. That will be for the good of the sport, and will avoid such a travesty of justice as this one. Oh, and Joubert was absolutely wrong to sprint from the field: what an embarrassment to the game.
rodney holden
Guest
what the IRB is doing to craig joubert is a injustice to him ..he is a great ref and after watching the replay over and over he got it right the scotts were of side there for it was a penalty ..the reason that the IRB said he was wrong clearly tells us that they want a southern hem heminsfere ref to do finals be cause the IRB have always said that the refs over there are better than here like the kiwi refs boks like joubert and aussie refs... THE IRB rate Wayne Barnes as no1 Nigel Owens as no 2 Craig Joubert no 3 THE IRB ARE A JOKE
Reiver
Guest
Spot on Colin N. The late hit on Hogg was completely missed. Really poor from both Joubert and TMO.
Geoff
Guest
He's not the first ref to be slammed, but he was hung out to dry. Funny how that "one-eyed" Bryce Lawrence was not publicly lambasted by World Rugby (the then IRB). I suppose there are standards for some...
Ironhorse
Guest
Getting pretty worked up, aren't we, about one throwaway observation that the Springboks have played some pretty dull rugby. Spiro is spot on; there is nothing 'nasty' about it. I say all that as someone who is mystified by their absence of all-court rugger. Look at their backline - let them loose and it could get pretty wild for the New Zealanders.
Woodies Tragic
Guest
Let's accept that Phipps played at the ball whilst advantage law applied. Unless my old eyes are failing me , immediately after the ball was propelled forward by the Scot Number 20 (New Advantage!!) and continued forward to the player deemed offside who played at the ball. . Joubert was right!!
Andrew Jardine
Roar Guru
Absolutely. The disgrace involves the fans and critics like Hastings and Dawson
Andrew Jardine
Roar Guru
Agreed
Boatie
Roar Rookie
Whether Joubert made a technically correct or incorrect decision is no longer relevant. It is the aftermath that is important here. A bitter and vitriolic former Scotttish international, Gavin Hastings, and his former Scottish team mate, John Jeffrey, in his role of Chairman of the World Rugby Match Official Selection Committee, have, in their own ways, reacted disgracefully and taken revenge on a leading international referee. By the way, how does the man who almost destroyed the Calcutta Cup in 1988 on a drunken rampage get to hold a senior position in World Rugby? Old mates club, I guess. In case you don't know what I'm talking about, you can read about it here. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/9837785/Six-Nations-2013-The-drunken-night-when-Dean-Richards-and-John-Jeffrey-trashed-the-Calcutta-Cup.html
Tycoch22
Guest
In an ideal World we would have consistency from one referee to another. So Poite v Joubert v Owens v Barnes v Pollock would all officiate the scrum and the breakdown in exactly the same way. Obviously this is not going to happen. However what we should strive for and get is consistency from a given referee. Unfortunately Joubert is highly inconsistent. He got a favorable reputation for letting the game flow. He did this by overlooking minor (he thought) infractions. However he does not do this throughout the game. He has periods where he lets lots go and at other times he becomes officious and whistle happy. He is one of those refs that after the game has the fans of both teams ticked off. I am Welsh and obviously no fan of Allain Rollands who I thought was overly officious. However Rollands was consistently officious and in my mind a good ref
Boatie
Roar Rookie
Excellent summary of what happened. As a former referee I can say that I would have acted the same as Joubert
Kiwi
Guest
Not a great article, it reads like you are trying to pump up the Wallabies slowly deflating tyres. Just accept that your mob are lucky to still be in it, and that Joubert got the basics of rugby law wrong (the ball didn't travel forward off one Scotsman and directly into the hands of another). IMO the Wallabies are ripe for the picking this weekend They peaked against England and have since been putting out gradually more laboured performances. But you never know; I didn't believe the ABs could play so well after such average form in the pool rounds... Also, 1991 against Ireland was completely different, a late score by Australia that they earned off their own hard work vs an incorrect ruling that provided the match winning points.
wardad
Guest
Geez I hope so Jokerman me old mate ,quietly confident I am but still it is the Boks......
wardad
Guest
So just to clarify what exactly did Joubert get wrong in 2011 ? Other than not red carding that Rougerie whacker ? Every time someone blathers on about 2011 they never show exactly how or when Joubert showed bias one way or the other just vague nonsense like ' he didnt ref the breakdown properly blah blah " As I have said before he gave the French more than enough kickable penalties does he have to kick 'em too ?
GDayMate
Roar Rookie
touche
Biffa
Guest
Was not a knock on also because the ball hit Hardie's shoulder/chin due to an Australian player illegally pulling Hardie's arm as he was trying to catch it.... Watch the video closely.
Confused
Guest
The perfect article for this audience. The video evidence and comments of players involved suggest otherwise. Joubert in impossible situation and hopefully this will lead to Coaches Challenge similar to cricket and tennis.
Bondio
Roar Rookie
Not pushing backwards?? Found it! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNYhTD6w7Co