It is impossible to sound anything but bitter speaking about the Wallabies World Cup final loss to the All Blacks.
The All Blacks were deserved winners in a hard-fought match, and the Wallabies’ second-half fightback was a small consolation prize, but it was great to see they never gave up.
The tournament was also a great spectacle and has been a great success.
However, through the enormity of the game and the pressure and prowess the winner would receive, I was struck again with the grave mistake World Rugby made in publicly shaming referee Craig Joubert a few weeks ago.
I have never been the biggest fan of Joubert’s refereeing, but the way World Rugby threw him out with the bathwater after the Wallabies’ victory over Scotland was a disgrace.
Rugby fans and coaches now seem to have the legitimate ability to publicly question and demand a response on specific refereeing calls from the sport’s governing body. We can go back and look at a million decisions that change matches, that alter decisions and that decide World Cups.
The Wallabies would definitely like to understand how a blatant forward pass led to New Zealand extending its lead and exerting strangulating pressure in the first half of the final, not to mention a number of knock ons and countless breakdown infringements.
Would the Wallabies have won the match? Who knows? Did it change the game? Yes.
That’s too bad for the Wallabies. It doesn’t matter now.
The ball is always in contest in rugby, and that’s what’s great about it. Everything is up for grabs, even the interpretation of the laws. Everyone understands that perfection is sought, but not always achieved. That’s life. Sport is the greatest arena for life’s competition.
A few other teams might be interested to lodge their official public refereeing reviews to World Rugby. Scotland for certain; as would Samoa who lost to Scotland in the dying stages of their fourth round match only to be denied by a knock-on that would have seen Japan go through. No one reviewed that. The referee of that game hasn’t gone into hiding and doesn’t have his career on the chopping block.
I would call on World Rugby to clarify why it chose to make a public statement about Joubert’s controversial call at the end of the quarter-final. Michael Cheika made reference to this in his press conference after that match.
Is Scotland separately important that they needed an explanation for a penalty decision? Did they ask for one and get one, publicly? Many questions need to be answered here.
Are teams now expected to compile a list of ‘issues’ or ‘moments’ in their matches that need a public review from World Rugby? Every decision in the eyes of a rugby referee comes at high pace and under extreme pressure. We all understand that. Craig Joubert knows that. It seems World Rugby doesn’t.
Bitterness aside, I am upset the Wallabies lost, but I fear that we may lose a generation of referees to the game and create legitimate bitterness in supporters. As much as I want a witch-hunt for Nigel Owens, particularly now World Rugby has set the precedent, that is definitely not what is needed.
World Rugby has given us the referee attack card for every lost match and harsh call from now on. We are allowed to be officially bitter. That’s not what this tournament has ever been about.
Rugby is about respecting authority, and knowing when to be humble and when to exert power. That’s what we all tell ourselves anyway. I am writing about it now because that is the role we should play. We should engage about it in the mediums we have, with our friends and our foes, on websites and in the media. Rugby always wins in the end. One decision is one decision.
So why then the Joubert disgrace? Never has there been a more important time for public clarification of a decision? Brett Gosper take note.
Other than that, great tournament and well done New Zealand. No bitterness here at all.
RobC
Roar Guru
Thanks for your post Andrew. Thought the tournie was pretty good, actually. The main event for WBs for me was to exit the pools, which I had no hope for. - But it was quickly ignited after the ANZ win. - Realised thanks for Eng fubaring their RWC prep - Thanks also to Wales - for being Wales. - WBs made it to the final by hijacking Eng's soft path to the finals. So I thought it worked out alright. I predicted to my friends, we would be trashed by the ABs: - They thought I may be pessimistic - I thought I was being realistic In any case, WBs did a lot better than anyone could have imagined. Now the REAL WORK starts
BargeArse
Guest
Spot on
DT
Guest
Sorry, "portent of what lay ahead" is clearly a tautology. Rugby-induced sleep deprivation is playing havoc with my brain. I love Japan, I love rugby, I'm planning my trip already. Love the game.
DT
Guest
I agree, Highlander, and posted on the '5 things we learned' story to that effect…that every decision affects everything. My two gripes (and I concur with the philosopher below about decisions affecting the course of the game but not the outcome, often) were the Carter/Nonu obstruction/accidental offside not called, and the forward pass. All three are the same to a degree, but different. Definitely that scrum you spoke of should have been a penalty to the ABs. As is his wont, however, Owens let it go because the ball came out to the ABs and they attacked…by that stage it was too far gone to call back. Ball is turned over, Beale scurries off etc etc. Tip tackle, YC, try Oz. So an error of judgement by Owens disadvantages what at the time of the offence was the attacking side, the ABs. With the forward pass (which led to a penalty at the next breakdown and 3 pts to the ABs), and the accidental offside/obstruction not called (which 7 phases later resulted in MS try), the refereeing errors (let's call it that) resulted in advantage for the attacking team, the ABs. On the issue of Joubert and World Rugby, I think it was poor form to criticise him like that, but I also think it was bound to end in tears due to the overzealous use of technology right from the first game. I didn't watch the England v Fiji opener, but when I looked at Fox Sports early next day, the first thing that I heard was that the match went nearly 15 minutes overtime because so much was referred to the TMO. A portent of what lay ahead, unfortunately.
RT
Guest
And there it is?
Lancaster Bomber
Guest
Every decision can be critical. Why isolate one, especially when it was such a tight call and other decisions favoured Scots who lost because they let in too many tries
JeffRo
Roar Pro
Rugby ref, toughest job in sport.
Chris Guy
Guest
Do you really believe Foley was in a position to tackle anyone with the ball? Also I don't believe Cole's ran into Foley but that Foley bought the dummy run and attempted a tackle.
Lancaster Bomber
Guest
No clear evidence of a stamp or intent. Definitely evidence of a serial pest holding back a player illegally. That of course is irrelevant in a match where ABs deserved winners.
Dave
Guest
Does that mean you flouncing?- thank God for small mercies. The board is just dripping with your bitter tears for the last 24 hours.
Dave
Guest
Could you elaborate on the League humiliation? Americas Cup - at least our boat stayed afloat. Cricket/ Netball , currently second in the world - not too shabby considering player numbers is it, DH?
mtiger
Roar Rookie
Just checking, "http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugby_union/rules_and_equipment/4204726.stm" Standing in a position which stops an opponent from playing the ball is also considered to be obstruction. What about the No. 2 running into opposition no.10 so that your 9 can pass to your 13 and ends up with try to No. 14. Is there anything in there at all, for Nehe's try?
Clark
Guest
What about pocock stomping on McCaws head?
Wozza
Guest
OB The point I'm making is that if Joubert had either correctly not called the knock on or called the penalty then this whole issue would be irrelevant as Australia would most likely have taken the lead quicker. The kick would have been easier had the penalty been awarded for a start. It;'s if's and buts I know but given these decisions happened after the Scot's final try, these bad calls are just as relevant as the final penalty. If they'd been let go and the final decision been changed leading to a Scottish victory using the process you outlined it would have been the exact same outcome but with Australia on the wrong side of the bad call. These calls were some 2 mins apart in the last 5 mins of the game. One is NOT more important than the other. With regards to you question, firstly, if joubert had made the correct decisions I'm referring to it would be irrelevant. Secondly, if it was a court of law the question would be withdrawn as how could I possibly know what was going through Phipps mind at that exact moment? What I will say is if I was in Phipps' position I would possibly have done the exact same thing and most people who say something different are probably lying. I acknowledge there are a lot of Adam Gilchrists out there but there are a lot more, myself included, who could put it down to a rub of the green decision made in the heat of the moment and not think twice about it but how could I possibly know until I was in that position.
Debz
Guest
That was kuridrani, not kepu
Old Bugger
Guest
Wozza What happened in this match was the ref's call did have an impact upon the final score - that is the objective issue in this discussion. While all other matters you reference occurred, it was this final penalty that Joubert awarded which had the most significant impact on the game and gave the win to the WBs. Significant because of when it occurred being in the last 2mins of proper game time. Joubert made a mistake - there's no doubting that and confirmation of that mistake was provided by WR. Had the WR provided an ability for refs to go upstairs, then Joubert would have checked the position and probably ruled a knock-on rather than a penalty. Mistakes happen but with all the technology at hand, it is difficult to acknowledge that a referee could not use this technology, to assist his decision. IMO, that was the problem with this whole instance....Joubert made a decision based upon a real time event but here's a question for you - why Phipps did not advise Joubert that he touched the ball rather than throw his arms in the air, to seek a penalty?? I guess that's what has to happen to advance to the next round - conceal the truth and take advantage to progress?? While its too late for Scotland, I am pleased that TMO's, can now intervene in such decisions.
Cliff (Bishkek)
Guest
Moaman - good to see some perspective from a respected AB fan and supporter - thank you. The content and statement of the article completely ignored by ignorance and arrogance. This thread becomes so damn annoying when one has to wade through the incessant back and forth over a point that is not the context of the article. Cheers
Riccardo
Guest
Still feeling the elation my friend? Yeah, it's a bit of a cop out expression but probably entirely relevant under the circumstances.
Hayley
Guest
Yes because a forearm to the chin is not high. Neither was his tackle on Richie in the lead up to the All Blacks try. He was very very very lucky.
DanFan
Guest
It would have been interesting if the ABs had scored as no doubt the "pass" would have been reviewed. I suspect after many, many slow-mo's it might have been considered "back of hand".