- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
Roar Rookie
Joined August 2015
0
Views
0
Published
7
Comments
Published
Comments
I do empathise with the Scots who, given the deep disappointment of their country’s heart-breaking loss following a contentious referee decision late in the game, are understandably going through the usual stages of grief. We have all been there.
Nonetheless, as regards the referee’s intervention in the matter of Phipps’ contact with the ball in the off-side incident in the 78th minute, there are only two realistic possibilities. One possibility is that Joubert just didn’t see it – maybe he blinked. In this case, he simply called it as he saw it – which is all anyone can ask of a good referee. In consequence, Joubert awarded the penalty to Australia. As others have noted, given that there was no contrary input from the AR, while the protocols precluded a TMO review, his split-second penalty decision inevitably stood.
The other possibility, which, given Joubert’s vantage point does seem the more likely, is that he did indeed observe contact between Phipps and the ball. In this case, the issue revolves entirely around Joubert’s perception of Phipps’ intentionality in this ball contact. Again, Joubert had a split second to make a decision; again, there was no apparent input from the AR, while the protocols precluded a TMO review. Luckily for Australia and unluckily for Scotland, it was Joubert’s judgment, based on his perception, that the contact was unintentional and, accordingly, his decision was to award a penalty.
In my opinion, not only did Joubert see Phipps’ contact with the ball, but also, in making the decision he did in the 78th minute incident, Joubert exhibited another quality that we usually ask of a good referee – consistency. In an earlier off-side incident – this time luckily for Scotland and unluckily for Australia – Joubert had awarded Australia a mere scrum (rather than a penalty) in the 57th minute. He had loudly ruled “Unintentional”, when the Scottish No 10, in a clearly off-side position, skilfully scooped up a ball that had ricocheted a good 4 metres back, after a miscued clearing kick from Ashley-Cooper’s bounced off another Scottish player. Frankly, at the time I didn’t agree with that ruling, but that is irrelevant. The real point is that, having ruled that the Scottish No 10’s seemingly adroit hand contact with a ball that had travelled a full 4 metres was “Unintentional”, for consistency’s sake Joubert had no option in the 78th minute but to also rule “Unintentional”, especially bearing in mind that Phipps’ shoulder or arm (or maybe even hand) made contact with a ball that had travelled mere centimetres after being knocked on by the Scottish No 7.
Now it could be plausibly argued that, while there was consistency, both decisions were wrong. Nevertheless, to focus on one off-side incident while ignoring the other is, at best, being unfairly selective – or, under a less charitable interpretation, hypocritically one-eyed. Yet this is precisely what World Rugby has done in its so-called “ruling”. And what has it gained? Nothing, it seems, except to exacerbate the grief of the Scots at their loss, and to gratuitously taint the victory of the Australians. And, of course, to humiliate Craig Joubert.
SPIRO: Joubert has been dudded by World Rugby for correct call
Joubert’s call in the first incident (in the 57th minute) might well serve to explain what was in his mind when, just over 20 minutes later, he made his call in the second incident (in the 78th minute).
In the first incident, Ashley-Cooper’s miscued clearing kick, from the Wallabies’ 22m line, hit the backside of the Scottish No. 1 and then rebounded about 4 metres. The Scottish No. 10, from a clearly offside position on the Wallabies’ 22m line, skilfully scooped the ball up, spun around to face the Wallaby try-line, towards which he took a couple of steps, and, as he was being tackled, offloaded the ball to the Scottish No. 1. At this point, Joubert blew the whistle and then said (as best I can make it out), by way of explanation to the Scottish captain: “Kicked into a Blue player and a Blue player in front picked it up. Unintentional. Scrum. Off a Blue player, Blue player in front.” The key word here of course is “Unintentional”.
I, for one, was flabbergasted that Joubert did not see that everything the Scottish No. 10 had done was concertedly intentional; indeed, as he replayed the sequence of events in his own mind after his call, Joubert might also have had second thoughts. Be that as it may, however, Joubert had, by implication, established, for the rest of the game, his benchmark as regards what was “Unintentional”. If anything, this bizarre benchmark became even more firmly entrenched after the ensuing scrum (as opposed to a penalty) led to a Scottish try. One can imagine Joubert praying that the final quarter of the game would not see a situation arise where the benchmark would need to be applied.
The offside incident in the 78th minute was Joubert’s worst nightmare. Joubert was well positioned to observe that the ball, after being knocked on by the Scottish No 7, did indeed come into contact with Phipps, before looping towards the manifestly offside Scottish No 18, who had a couple of clearly conscious grabs at the ball before falling to the ground with it. In the first incident, the ball had travelled 4 metres before it was “Unintentionally” picked up by the Scottish No 10; in the second incident, it had travelled mere centimetres before bouncing into Phipps’ upper body, shoulder, arm or whatever. The consistent application of his previously established benchmark left Joubert no option but to deem Phipps engagement with the ball as “Unintentional”. Result: penalty to Australia; final score, 35-33.
Two wrongs may not make a right, but they certainly do make for fiery debate by passionate rugby supporters.
The Scots were right! World Rugby confirm Joubert got it wrong
Probably a fair enough eventual outcome, but it makes a farce of the citing and judicial processes. At least Scotland has no excuses now.
Don't write Scotland off just yet
Ross Ford and Jonny Gray are free to resume playing with immediate effect after successfully appealing against their three-week suspension: “Having conducted a detailed review of all the evidence, including new submissions from the players and their representatives, along with all available camera angles, the Appeal Committee dismissed the finding that the players had committed an act of foul play as the player had not been dropped or driven and therefore the tackle was not dangerous.”
Don't write Scotland off just yet
Julius, I believe your analysis is spot on.
Hansen’s clever approach to playing the lower-ranked teams in the All Blacks pool reminds me of how I used to play chess with my young children. Removing a few of my key pieces before each game, as a self-imposed handicap, served to convert what would otherwise be a series of rather pointless mismatches into proper challenges – and learning experiences – for me as well as them.
The rugby scoreboard doesn't show the whole story
Sheek’s comments reflect my own views and have prompted me to register for The Roar and to offer as my first contribution the following:
Six blind elephants were assessing the Wallabies squad for the Rugby World Cup.
The first blind elephant, being irredeemably provincial in outlook, simply counted the squad members from his own Super Rugby team and, disappointed by the tally, petulantly withdrew to a corner to sulk.
The second elephant examined the second-rowers and, concluding the squad could not win because it did not contain James Horwill, proclaimed a fatwa against other second-rowers who had been graced with selection.
The third blind elephant scrutinised the half-backs and, overlooking the email attachment which revealed Matt Giteau had been selected, asserted that the squad stood no chance because it had two rather than three half-backs.
The fourth elephant examined the hookers and, overcome by an obsession that the squad was fatally flawed because it was one deficient by one hooker, became sadly addicted to crafting increasingly long and complex scholastic tracts which, ad nauseam, expounded that single tenet.
The fifth and sixth blind elephants jointly assessed Quade Cooper and Kurtley Beale but, their strident differences of opinion being irreconcilable, resumed the futile and increasingly intemperate verbal war that consumed the rest of their lives.
Is Michael Cheika fearless or reckless?
I asked myself the same question – where the hell were our playmakers when Slipper’s pass was intercepted?
The answer becomes apparent if you look at a replay of the action immediately prior to that incident. As I remember it, from a Scottish box-kick, Beale takes an excellent catch and makes a good few metres before being tackled. Mumm is the only onside Wallablies forward available to get quickly to Beale to form a ruck, so Foley has to join the ruck to help protect our ball before the Scots arrive. Meanwhile, as he should, Phipps has moved to the back of the ruck, whence he delivers a good clean ball to Slipper. (Not sure where Giteau is.)
So blame for the intercept can hardly be attributed to Phipps, Foley or Beale.
DIY Player Ratings: Wallabies vs Scotland - the results