I wonder how World Rugby officials came to the conclusion that Wallaby Nick Phipps intended to play the ball in a contentious incident that saw Australia beat Scotland by just one point, 35-34, in their quarter-final at Twickenham.
Like many fans and critics I have watched the video of the action, but I would rather have former South African Test referee Jonathan Kaplan describe what happened.
On his website, ratetheref.co.za, Kaplan wrote:
Joubert blew for Scottish prop Jon Welsh being off-side ahead of the last ‘Scotsman’ to play the ball, Josh Strauss. What happened between these two acts is what seems to have incensed a large portion of the Scottish rugby public and perhaps the neutrals looking for the upset.
If the ball touches a player (Nick Phipps) and he doesn’t play it, it is not enough for the sanction of a penalty to change. And so, this whole review revolves around whether you think Phipps intentionally played/touched the ball, when trying to catch it, or whether it merely bounced off him.
This is the crux of the matter. Did Phipps get a hand to the ball, or did he get a finger on it? There are people on both sides of the fence, and those still sitting on that fence.
Kaplan believes the decision to award the penalty would remain a point of debate depending on how one viewed the incident in question, but did question why Joubert opted to award a penalty if it wasn’t “clear and obvious”.
“This is not a luxury that Joubert had at his disposal. He had to make a decision in real time. It is not an easy decision, even in slomo.”
However, Kaplan suggested Joubert should have erred on the side of caution if he was in doubt.
“The only thing I will say is that generally referees are told to only to only blow for the clear and obvious and in this particular case I would hazard a guess that there could have been doubt,” added Kaplan, without speculating on why Joubert hurried from the field at the final whistle.
Joubert wasn’t at risk of being burnt at the stake or thrown in jail, so it isn’t clear why he ran off so quickly. Apparently someone threw a bottle at him.
So furious were the fans that some may have wanted him placed in stocks field-side so they could throw haggis at him, but their anger was surpassed by the comments by two former international players, Gavin Hastings and Matt Dawson.
Hastings, who once played for Scotland, told the BBC, “That is the worst thing I have seen on a rugby field in a long time.
“He (Joubert) is not prepared to face up to the players. That is not the spirit of rugby. He should be sent home tomorrow and he should not be allowed to make an international rugby commitment again.
“If I see referee Craig Joubert again, I am going to tell him how disgusted I am. It was disgraceful that he ran straight off the pitch at the end like that.”
Dawson, a former England international, described Joubert’s actions as “disrespectful” and “despicable”.
What it really comes down to is intent.
Rule 11.3(c) states that a player can be put onside by an opponent who intentionally plays the ball.
If Joubert thought that Phipps intentionally played the ball, he would have ruled for a scrum to Australia and not a penalty. He didn’t, and Bernard Foley popped over the penalty kick – a feat that brought enough tears from Scottish fans to fill a bath, as someone lamented.
The World Rugby panel said, “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 teammate, 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 onside 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.”
Later, Scotland captain Greig Laidlaw claimed to have asked Joubert “on several occasions” to review the decision via the television match official.
But World Rugby officials said this was not possible: “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.”
Of course none of this matters.
What does matter is that Joubert made decision that he believed was correct, and as the referee on the field of play, he was in the best position to make it. Videos can tell you only so much. They can’t reveal intent.
As such, the vitriol directed at Joubert is a disgrace. Here is a top-class referee doing his best in a difficult situation who had to make an instant decision. In this case, his ruling made a vital difference to the outcome of the match.
Did the World Cup officials pander to the Scottish fans and other British critics with their statement? Or did Joubert really make a mistake? You be the judge.
johnb747b
Guest
This howler aside, Joubert is a shocker. What was the tally - 27 penalties? He regards himself as the protagonist, relishing centre stage. Where are the Arthur Tierneys of our age? Arthur was an 'invisible' referee, often reffing on the run, not grandstanding over trivial matters. One can but hope that Joubert doesn't get the final. I'd give him lower grade district stuff. That's about his standard. JB
Lancaster Bomber
Guest
Pot, he said they were all scrambling for the ball because the game is all about possession. Their is always an intent to get the ball, but sometimes it touches you without you being ready or aware it is going to touch you. And how is the earlier offside play accidental. When you actual reach out and pick the ball up when clearly offside it can hardly be deemed accidental. Funny how no Scotsman is complaining about that. Probably why Joubert didn't call the last one accidental because he knew he got the first one wrong.
Lancaster Bomber
Guest
Of course that should apply throughout the match and not just in the last couple of minutes. People seem to forget that every decision throughout the whole match can affect the final outcome.
Lancaster Bomber
Guest
I don't recall any Wallaby supporters saying Bryce had a good game. He was terrible because he was afraid to make any decisions but equally bad for both sides. But Boks had enough territory and possession to win several games. Their failure to do so was something they needed to address with coach.
Lancaster Bomber
Guest
Probably not much compassion based on the over the top reaction and total disregard of decisions that went their way. To suggest that one decision meant they were the better side is ridiculous.
Lancaster Bomber
Guest
Lucky on that decision, unlucky on others. Scots were unlucky they let Wallabies score 5 tries and cross their line on 2 other occasions. Their best wasn't good enough for Wallabies worst - unlucky, move on, try again in 4 years.
apelu
Guest
Wardad, go watch the video; the ball bounced off Phipp's chest. It does not matter what he said. All that matters is what happened, and what happened is that the ball bounced of his chest; he did not touch it. So the right call is a penalty. The problem with Joubert is that there was a similar and more clearer case earlier when a Scottish player in an offisde position played the ball, and Joubert ruled accidental off-side and ordered a scrum. That was a clear penalty. The only problem with the case that was penalised is that it was not very clear; but the right call was made.
Tycoch22
Guest
Chairman - French, Vice Chairman - South African, CEO - Australia, Executive Committee Members - 1 England, 1 Italian, 1 New Zealand, 1 Australian, 1 Japanese and 1 USA. So out of 9 there is one Home Union guy
richard
Guest
Irrelevant,the game is still run by the NH i.e the home unions.
Derm
Roar Guru
Phipp s is quoted after the match as saying they were all scrambling for it. So there was intent to connect with, play, or simply get their hands on the ball in any way possible. Any hands involved in that melee had every intent of playing the ball. The fact that both sets of players were involved made it more difficult to see who ultimately had last touch before it hit Welsh. I don't blame Joubert really. The sannctimonious attitude from some Australian commentators and fans on here is a bit rich though. It's happened before. And no doubt it'll happen again. Hopefully not this weekend........
Shop
Guest
" the player catching the ball often has no idea who it came off last" This is a huge fact that no one seems to have debated. I don' think Welsh knew who it came off, whether it was "played at with intent by Phipps" or who knocked on. For this reason he was taking a massive risk in playing at the ball. Especially when the ball spits that fast and your in a potential off side position he should have known not to go near it.
Reiver
Guest
Guys - you are conveniently forgetting Drew Mitchell's challenge on Hogg which we Scots were upset about immediately beforehand. Should have been a penalty which takes us 20 yards further upfield for lineout. We have history being harshly treated on late challenges that are more debatable than Mitchells. Good luck in your semi tomorrow, but don't forget how fortunate you are to be there.
Vic
Guest
Sorry, Jerry, but you simply can't judge intent by judging an action. Intent is a thought, or several thoughts. The follow up action may, or may not, successfully carry the thought to your intended outcome. But an outcome (action), in itself, without corroborating evidence, can never be fully taken as proof of intent. My view. People often judge others' intent. And are often wrong.
Tycoch22
Guest
CEO of World Rugby is an Aussie
Tycoch22
Guest
Poite 2nd yellow card against B du P for tackle on Carter was "hung out to dry" by IRB/World Rugby/Commentators/Citing Judiciary. If you do any high visibility job expect high visibility accolades and high visibility "grading". Bottom line the Wallabies were extremely lucky - now stop trying to justify the wrong decision by Joubert which probably kept you in the competition.
VanguardontheLav
Guest
Yes, deliberate knock on comes under the foul play law, whereas offside is, surprisingly enough, under the offside law...
VanguardontheLav
Guest
The crowd was definitely booing Joubert: I was there and a Welshman, so reasonably neutral and I was disgusted at the behaviour of a crowd towards a referee, whatever the quality of the decision.
Jerry
Guest
Nah, that's not really the issue. Intention is judged by the player's actions and in this case it's generally easy to tell (certainly a lot easier than when judging an 'intentional knock on'). The problem with this law is that firstly, the player catching the ball often has no idea who it came off last and secondly they weren't 'loitering' offside for the most part, they were onside until a split second before the ball was hit towards them.
Andrew Jardine
Roar Guru
Agreed. Also, World Cup Rugby is responsible for the Laws, not Joubert. Too many fans and critics don't know the Laws of rugby and the TMO protocols (also decided by World Cup Rugby). When you point finger, remember that three point back at you.
Vic
Guest
"Rule 11.3(c) states that a player can be put onside by an opponent who intentionally plays the ball." And there in lies the crux - the referee is expected to judge someone's intention. Which is impossible, unless the culprit actually admits to his intent, right there and then, to the referee. Or unless, as in court, you can find evidence of preplanning and intent to offend. Or the ref is allowed to question the offender while using a lie detctor. No one, as of yet, can mind read intent. So yes, poorly constructed laws, poor treatment of Craig Joubert.