Another humiliating loss for the men in gold, another hit to Cheika’s ever fading reputation.
The spring tour has ended, thank goodness, and so the Wallabies leave Europe humbled. No more is the team’s ten-year winning streak versus Wales, and instead, the Aussies depart having lost to the Poms for the sixth straight time.
England played a tougher game, with more pride and more passion, to win easily. Good on them.
Sitting in a pub in central London surrounded by English fans, my dream of celebrating a Wallabies victory as the lone Aussie representative did not materialise. The embarrassment started early, with the Wallabies conceding in the first couple of minutes, and culminated with my walk of shame to the nearest exit as soon as the final whistle blew.
There were many uncomfortable moments throughout the game, but the worst part had to be Owen Farrell’s blatantly obvious shoulder charge on Izack Rodda.
I sat there fuming, with no attempt on my part to hide my distaste for Jaco Peyper’s egregious decision. As the replays rolled, the faces of the English fans lit up. The illegality of the hit was clear, even to them, and so they celebrated the decision going their way.
It is well known that one of the Englishman’s favourite past times is calling Australians moaners and whingers.
Michael Cheika’s response post-match didn’t let them down.
Of course, Cheika commented on the decision after the game. Of course, he was slated for his childlike outburst, and I understand why. But the notion that just because his team lost, he should now suck it up and pretend like there is no reason to criticise the ref is a strange one.
Peyper as a referee has a unique responsibility to control and officiate any game of rugby to the best of his ability. He failed. Cheika responded to this failure. Surely a referee’s performance is worthy of much more scrutiny if it directly affects the course of the game?
Let us not forget that officiating is a job like any other and poor performance should be commented on.
The most concerning thing for me is that Farrell has done this twice now. Angus Gardner’s awful decision not to penalise Farrell after his shoulder charge on Duane Vermeulen cost the Springboks a shot at victory. And so, he repeated the offence against Australia and again escaped any form of consequence.
All credit to the lad, there is no reason to stop if you are never penalised for it.
Essentially, referees are telling Farrell that the way he tackles is okay and so there is no need for him to change his technique. But that’s clearly wrong. So why shouldn’t Cheika be able to state the obvious? Criticism of refereeing decision must be paramount in order to pursue officiating consistency and reliability.
Good officiating leads to fair and even contests and that is the kind of rugby we should all want to see.
I think the most baffling thing for me is Peyper’s justification for not penalising Farrell. He said that he thought Rodda leant into the ‘tackle’ with his shoulder and so that negated the actions of Farrell. Yes, Jaco, yes he did, and that is how you play rugby.
That’s a baffling comment from an individual who officiates at the highest possible level.
Again, to avoid this article being labelled as a biased rant I want to make something clear – England played far better than Australia. The game would have been different if Australia went up 17-13 at halftime, but I believe we would have lost regardless.
England were far hungrier, more physical and took the initiative when the game was in the balance.
I really wish it wasn’t necessary for me to qualify my opinion in this manner. Any Australian should not be condemned for taking umbrage with a blatant refereeing mistake.
Clive Woodward put it best when he said, “It defies belief that referee Jaco Peyper did not award Australia a penalty try just before halftime for Owen Farrell’s challenge on Izack Rodda.”
Yes, Clive, it does indeed.
adastra32
Roar Rookie
Respectfully, everyone needs to move on. All the signs seem to point in the direction of collective WB depression for the ROAR rugby community. Focus on the trauma, relive the trauma (again and again), feel awful(ler), then catastrophise about the future...
Terminater
Guest
Why and what does the current chair lady really know and feel about Australia Rugby it makes no sense at all ,you have to have played it to fully understand it, that’s a major starting problem. Cheika has no controls on his megalomaniac ideas which clearly don’t work ,yet he is allowed to go unchecked in every field. The fact that all decisions seem to be made in public and clearly show no thought or feeling. The pride has to be to honour and wear the gold and green with pride as Australians Some paid players don’t appeared that bothered if they lose or not,more concerned about wearing rainbow laces than playing their guts out for what matters Wallabies winning. I think their training needs to be harder as they don’t even look like winners,they must have game plans and stick to them,it’s not touch Rugby after school, The coaches must share and believe the dream with total dedication. Please leave Cheika ,let the country find a solid taskmaster,give Jake White a short term trial and see what happens.
ThugbyFan
Roar Guru
Nice article Samuel, welcome to the Roar Writer's Club. Yes M.Cheika has every right to complain with terrible decisions. But he is just too one-eyed, for he carries his heart on his sleeve, and ruins his gravitas with officials. He needs to be more impartial and accept that some go against you but some go with you. I'm not too sure what weighting is given with complaints through the official channels, but a mite more openness would certainly clear the air. More it appears the ostriches at WR clutch their gin n tonics even harder and ignore any change. The only times I have ever heard the blighties respond to terrible ref decisions is when a NH team loses the match. Sadly the end result is it feeds ammunition to folks who bellow that to win at Twickenham you have to beat the touchies, ref, TMO and television producer as well as play better rugby than the English team. And this spoils what was clearly a well-earned win for England. I also hope that I.Rodda's Reds coach kicks him if he runs at the line so upright again. Lets not also forget the WB team was all over the shop with disciplinary suspensions, injuries and some howler selections. What gobsmacked me was M.Koroibete was not in the 23 and suspended, but then parachuted in to cover D.Pocock's injury (work that one out!) while the obvious (better!) replacement winger, Tom Banks, sits wasting him time in an English pub.
ThugbyFan
Roar Guru
John, you sound "like the whiney little bitch that .. " you purport M.Cheika to be. Any decent argument that you put up is totally enfeebled with your pathetic last line "For me – very much Australian – that tells me everything ...". Why don't you start your post with what you really feel? Something like "ALL Aussies are whingers, not like we magnificent fans from (place country here)". Let it out what you really think John, we "whingeing Aussies" are hanging on your every words of wisdom. :)
Paulo
Roar Rookie
I think you either skipped reading the article or miss the point entirely. The point was how to react to decisions like this. Didn’t see any ref blaming, I did however see a passage deliberately saying, this isn’t ref bashing and Eng would have won anyway. Maybe go back and re-read.
Paulo
Roar Rookie
I think a lot of people don’t understand how post game citing works. It’s not like the NRL. Citing will only happen if they deem it red card worthy, then it goes to the judiciary. The judiciary can determine guilty or not guilty (of an offence worthy of a red card). If it isn’t cited, it doesn’t mean it wasn’t worthy of yellow, and if it isn’t ruled against by judiciary, they determined it wasn’t red worthy. No citing, or citing but then found not guilty, is not a determination of innocence, merely that the player didn’t deserve a Red.
mpc
Guest
Rodda should have been in the Sin Bin over his Spear Tackle.
Paulo
Roar Rookie
All of that may be true, but none of it changes the fact the call was wrong, Aus benefited, and Cheika was more than happy to accept it and tell everyone these things happen, the difference being on that occasion he was the beneficiary.
Jerry
Guest
That was a trialled ELV type thing that didn't get introduced fully, I thought.
The Slow Eater
Roar Rookie
Good post. It is such a tough game to ref and I think all that people want is consistency- rightly or wrongly
Tired
Guest
I have looked at the replays of the "tackle" and at this stage do not really care if the decision was right or wrong, that is the nature of rugby. What I am more concerned about is that the WBs were hard on attack but could not turn this into points, and even worse, lost all form and did what they now normally do.......poor pass, drop ball, turn over . Have a look at the replay and forget about the tackle, look at what happens after......it is a disgrace and you would find most clubs teams would do better and be able to turn that situation into a try, then no one would be talking too much about the "tackle".
AY
Guest
Yeah.... Rassie's all class... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBxAevKSflA
CUW
Roar Rookie
it cost more than 4 becoz had Farrell been yellowed , the try immediately after 1/2 time may not have been scored. also it will have affected england's kicking game. there are many writers in England who question Eddie's strategy of ignoring Cipriani for Ford - becoz against Japan Ford failed from 10. it was only after Farrell came on that the game got easier for Poms.
Samlaurence26
Roar Rookie
The way Farrell reacted really irritated me because he knows what he's doing.
CUW
Roar Rookie
and completely disregarded the 5 seconds to clear rule or law or whatever they brought in a few seasons back.
CUW
Roar Rookie
Refs have been saying that the ball is not out untill the SH lifts the ball - as opposed to touches the ball , has been going on for years. That is why u will see every SH makes sure the ball is in the ruck even when it is out by slowly tapping it back by foot or rolling it along the ground by hand. if u can show me one SH who does not do it - u will be considered a great observer of the game :D as for refs - there are some who implore the ball is out of the ruck when the SH rolls it out and hangs on to it. i remember Mathew REYNAL do it in one match this year in June - but then everyone went back on it atfer that. the question u shud be asking is what happened to the five seconds time to clear the ball - as was talked about a few years back. sorry i cannot recall the year since rugger changes the LAWS every six months with new definitions and interpretations , its so hard to keep up. Also there is always the flavor of the month Laws in rugger - i think this November it is the line out gap and numbers . in june matches it was the tackle height.
CUW
Roar Rookie
Tungafasi?
CUW
Roar Rookie
and that is also the issue now with TMO - who in the past will have said something to the ref. i think most shoulder charges are a yellow. i cannot remember which year - but SBW copped a yellow within a minute after coming on as a sub. he and maa nonu were serial offenders at a time.
Nigel
Guest
Always talking about the players manning up Coach, well it’s your turn, resign your position for the good of our game!! No one man is bigger than the game, that applies to you now Coach!! Your time to leave gracefully Michael Cheika.
ScottD
Roar Guru
At the risk of inciting a riot, I just looked at the so called tackle for the first time. It looks to me like he ran into Rodda from the side and it would have looked to the referee like a shoulder to shoulder contact. On the replay from the front it is clearly more than that but I can see why Peyper called it an offside penalty and not a penalty try/yellow card. This was totally different in my mind to the blatant arms free tackle pulled by Farrell in the SA game.