Yes, it is hard to imagine Bob Dwyer’s 1990-1995 side, Alan Jones’ 1984-87 side, MacQueen’s 1998-2001 side in the same situation. They managed all the basics of the game very well and guys like Lynagh, Farr Jones could read a game and a ref. Didn’t always work, of course but…

I think you are spot on with this side lacking faith and confidence. They seem to play best once they are safely behind on the scoreboard and that should really worry supporters. I am mystified by Rennie’s performance – the limitations of the player pool seem pretty apparent and the game has moved on from when his side won consecutive Super trophies in 2012 and 2013, yet he appears intent on applying pretty much the same grid. I still think Jake White is the opportunity missed for this country.

Tooly, nothing would give me greater pleasure, because I have enormous respect and sympathy for Foley. For all his significant limitations, he has never played a game where I didn’t think he was giving everything. He is a very gifted player. If I get time I might really annoy people by doing just as you suggest!

Cheika is only ever happy with refs when his side wins. I would like to see more focus on flow and management than on policing by refs but coaches have a part to play, as do players. Cheika’s charges lay all over the place in the ruck and got blown off the park and SA did what they do and so drew plenty of penalties also.

I agree that the psychology of 20 years of losing has a dangerous self-fulfilling aspect to it. The calls to abandon or massively limit contests with New Zealand sides, the constant bleating about referees rather than examining the really remarkable flaws in basic skills, rugby smarts, coaching etc., the messiah approach to new coaches, the belief that things can be fixed instantly by paying a fortune for League players (if there is something they feel that code can bring it would be better to look at some of their coaches/analysts etc. so that it is the know how and not the end product that is acquired) and the lack of grace and appreciation that sometimes other sides are better. It is not a reflection on everyone here – I am basically a native myself – but it is very common. Again, not unique to Oz but until a larger part of the rugby community here snaps out of it they will struggle to address the real issues, as they have for 20 years. The analysis of the game might have been better if it had started with why Oz found themselves in the position they were in and then finished with a pretty awful refereeing performance that was consistent with his past behaviour and of a type that is far from unusual and always has been and probably always will be. Hamish Bidwell wrote in the lead up to the game that he hoped Reynal wouldn’t end up centre stage – rather prescient.

Thanks Moaman. Another exercise of mine in annoying people on both sides of the Tasman. I do find myself wondering when will this rugby nation learn? It isn’t unique to Oz by any means. There will be a significant test for both sides next week. I haven’t looked at who the ref is yet, but I hope both coaches do.

AJ73, the point really is this – referees do what they do. This one was a known quantity and he did what he was known to do. The real issue is why did Australia get themselves into a position where they coughed up a lead they secured late in the game and why have they yet again found themselves on the wrong side of a ref? That’s what Oz supporters, let alone coaches and players need to look at because that is the only way they will get out of a sub 50% win ratio. They could be better, probably a lot better than that.

Refereeing consistency is a chimera. Love it when you get it but don’t expect it often. It has always been that way and it probably always will be until we have robots playing and robots officiating. Then there will be calls for the reintroduction of the glorious uncertainty of the human foibles. Then people won’t like the foibles and then etc.

They should all be closer to home if they want to get better and God knows there is room for improvement.

I recall a game in Wellington in August 2000 where a South African ref allowed an unprecedented amount of ‘extra time’ and during that time he awarded a penalty that Australia earned and John Eales had the skill to kick to win the game. There was a fair degree of angst east of where I am about that but, more fundamentally, they acknowledged that they had been outplayed and looked to do something about that. It didn’t turn out roses in 2001 but the work paid off handsomely over time. That’s the type of thing I would like to see Australian supporters, coaches and players do. It might be a little more profitable. If referees were controversial 22 years ago, I suspect they might be for a while to come. Complaining about them only gets you so far, whether justified, or not.

And there you go again with lying. I am assuming you are just engaging in ‘pub talk’ now, because “He wanted to prove his is the man” doesn’t read like a lawyer’s work. I am guessing that saying he is mistaken is not enough. I find the grievance odd but there it is. I assume you feel that Australia were the better side and that the inability to do basic things (uninfluenced by the ref) and the persistence of basic flaws is really not the issue and it is all about the ref.

I also note that materially false, imputing a motive to another do not make a lie. We come back to intent. But never mind. Why worry about intent, let is just satisfy our anger. It would have been good to engage on intent but that would be a different type of conversation.

I note that it remains possible that Raynal was upset about time wasting and took the view that Australia ignored his concerns and so he acted as he was authorised to and in accordance with the Laws. Indeed, that is how I and others read his words https://www.rugbypass.com/news/released-sky-cam-footage-reveals-full-extent-of-what-mathieu-raynal-told-bernard-foley/

I look forward to Australia continuing as they are and prospering thereby, as they have over the last 20 years. Blaming Adamson last year v Wales seems to have really boosted their work this year.

I won’t hold my breath waiting for World Rugby to back their man, as they tend not to, as many refs have found, including, I think at least one of your countrymen in 2015.

Harry, I think we will have to agree that reasonable minds may differ on this and I hope you will accept that I think that the real issue for Australia lies not in the ref but in why they got where they did and why they so often do.

And League, AFL, Soccer/Football etc. have no bleatings about referees/umpires?

My points appear beyond you and you want to argue a different case. I wish you well.

I gather you live in a different world. Thank you for your respectful contribution and well reasoned response.

Apparently you know more about the law and indeed the world and rugby than I do. I will pass on your pity to my unfortunate clients.

Is this the first time, or the last that there will be a refereeing controversy? I ask because it seems to be the central premise of your well generous response that this is an unusual situation.

Do I think it is good that referees are central to the game? Well, they are and they have been and they will be. What I think about its ‘goodness’ hasn’t been markedly impactful over the 30 plus years I have watched the game. But perhaps your wishes will be more potent.

Of course what I really missed was the masterful way that Australia handled the situation once they took the lead, for the first time, at home, against a relatively poor New Zealand side, that has shown a surprising fragility under pressure. The way Australia took the restart and then conceded the penalty rather than executing a basic exit was dazzling. The way they ignored the referee who was very clearly unhappy about time wasting was both ethical in the truest Christian sense and quite brilliant. And the way Australia failed to defend the scrum and subsequent play to concede the try really does show that the better team was robbed of a deserving victory.

Oh and the law? Well, yes it is so perfectly predictable that no-one is ever really unjustly convicted, there are not judges and tribunal members who allow their prejudices free reign and precedent is never distinguished or simply ignored or over-ruled. Now I must way to ride my unicorn and apologise to my clients. Hi ho Silver!

I am sorry but it seems we live in different worlds. I deal with the world as it is and you seem in search of the unicorn.

I don’t know how I can make myself more clear, but I will try. You (here I mean the players and coach) need to read the ref, just like I need to read the judge. You might want them to share your view or to be consistent (as you see it) but they may be unobliging and they have the power, as the ref is the sole arbiter on the field. That is how it is. You need to fashion your work to meet the reality.

The reality was that Raynal had warned the Wallabies for time wasting in the first half and he did it again in the 78th minute. You can disagree, you can ignore him, you can pray to God for a perfect world but the fact is the ref has the call. Spare me fairness, because it doesn’t exist. Like peace, it is a pious hope built on denial.

The ref had the Laws on his side.

I will try a different tack for this point. Would Raynal’s call have mattered much if the penalty was 30 meters up field, where it might have been if Australia had been able to execute a basic part of the game – control the restart kicked to you, exit your 22?

Would Raynal’s call have mattered if Australia had numbered up in defence and moved up rather than sidewise and failed to keep New Zealand from crossing their line in the last plays of the game?

Raynal didn’t award a penalty try. New Zealand scored one when Australia couldn’t defend 15 on 15 when it mattered.

Why do Australia keep losing these sorts of games? Raynal doesn’t referee them all.

The premise of my article, in case you missed the headline and most of the content is not that the call was ‘fair’, whatever that is. It is that it was correct under the Laws of the game, that he had given Australia good reason to know he was unhappy about them wasting time and perhaps most importantly (and this appears to have been spectacularly missed by you) it obscures the real issues, which is that there are big problems with Australia’s rugby that focusing on referees misses. Or are they in a terrible cabal that has given this formerly great rugby nation a deserved sub-50% win ratio and a ranking outside the top 5?

Keep noting down irrelevant material in your quest to deny the reality that this is a very poor side, poorly led, poorly coached and apparently heading the same way it has been going for 20 years. I suspect you will still be engaging in the periphery in another 20 years.

Believe it or not, I would be very happy to see Australia play intelligent, winning rugby, like it once did. I like rugby as a sport, as a diversion, as a game. I like watching teams who play with a plan that I can see making sense, that play with skill and passion and intelligence. Not many games bring all those together with intense physicality. I have great empathy with Australian fans who feel disappointed that their side lost. But do you really believe that the way to beat New Zealand, with a moderate bunch of players and to do so in an environment where possession is dangerous and refs are happily blowing large numbers of penalties is to ignore the ref, play a lot of ball in hand and ignore basics like exits?

Consistency is a chimera. Find me a sport where they don’t bleat about it. Humans are not consistent. They are human. Employ a computer and you will get consistency but then you will complain about a lack of feel and touch. Look at what you can control, what you can manage and how you can adapt. Following phantasms and your imagination will keep you where this side are.

I am sorry that I may sound impatient or harsh. I know sport means a lot and people get very emotionally invested. But it is a game, not anything really important and focusing on what is real may have better results than all that other stuff. A smart and skillful Australian side would be good to see again.

Jimmy, Reynal is the type of ref you have to plan around; he is trigger happy – he makes big calls and they are most often correct but also often very controversial. An example is his test officiating England in the 6N this year- red card early. He is not the type to give a lot of information or talk you through where he is going, like Nigel Owen, for example. By the way, I note that Owen backed Reynal on this one.

Any half switched on side would plan to play as far from their sticks as possible and play very little possession because the risk-reward equation is not good with him (or O’Keefe, or Adamson or several others). At any rate a side with as many limitations as this Australian one should also look to play a very pared back style so they can at least execute with some precision, because in rugby, especially test rugby, it is first your mistakes that kill you. Poor selections, poor gameplan, poor reading of the ref, poor on field leadership, poor execution of basic parts of the game (restarts, exits). What style causes NZ problems? Sides trying to outrun and out score them in open rugby, or sides that execute the basics and apply pressure on NZ’s supply? What style did and do Oz continue to play v NZ? How has it worked for them over the last 20 years? Reynal isn’t to blame for all of that.

Dusty, the ref didn’t award a penalty try and then blow full time. He allowed NZ to set a scrum, which they had to win, then they had to score a try. Australia failed to defend their line. They didn’t even mark up man on man in defence at the end. The ref wasn’t holding the jersey of the Oz defenders.

How could anyone have more than a hope that a side that had failed to take the restart after they went into the lead at 77 minutes and construct a basic exit play would have managed to control the lineout and subsequent exit play to end the game if the ref hadn’t acted on his warnings?

Sorry, but isn’t the inability to read the ref, to construct a smart gameplan based around the ref and the present law interps and to execute very basic parts of the game the problem? I don’t like being flooded out but if I build on flood plain do I blame the clouds or do I do better to ask why I built there, why I was allowed to build there and so on?

I am not a Kiwi. I have some connection to the place but much more to this country and some to England. I empathize with the pain and disappointment for Oz fans but to me they need to look to the real problems and that isn’t the ref. Until they do, they will get even more practice than they have had over the last 20 years at feeling hard done by, when they really don’t honour basics of the game.

Ah, sport. So it is sporting to time waste?

There are many things in life that shouldn’t be, including dinner with the in laws, but then there are the things that are, whether or not they should be. Reading the ref is one of those. Otherwise you end up where Australia are, serially on the wrong side of refs, not just French ones either.

With the injuries they had it is hard to know what to make of that aspect. Not ideal, of course, but Cane is a very important part of the defensive set up, beyond his tackles and jackaling – his positional play and decision making helps others in the chain. The loss of two midfielders would also have crippled many, if not most sides, because for all Rieko’s attributes, he is still not a backline defensive leader, or even yet a great defensive reader at 13.

The real test comes with the coming game. Still very much a work in progress but one feels they are slowly moving more towards the type of rugby needed under the current regime controlling the game.

Forgive me for being so dim. Apparently Nigel Owen is obtuse as well.

If you care to address the facts and chronology with alternatives we can have a discussion, because I set out a chronology that might be painful, or irritating, but you really need to address it. Generalisations and vaguely ad hominem comments don’t really cut it.

But you also need to address what was the real thrust of the article, do you not, which was that Australia failed to read the ref, a basic part of the game; that contrary to your unsupported assertion, his own teammates were shouting at Foley to kick the thing (so they seem to have had some inkling that this might end badly). Additionally, is the issue really not why do Australian rugby teams keep ending up in these situations? Why were they playing at the wrong end of the field, at the wrong time, with the wrong ref for that situation and why was one of the shorter kicks in the game taking a kick for touch to clear from deep defence when the stand in captain has a huge kick?

If you think the ref cost Oz the game, you also need to ignore the fact that Australia failed to defend the scrum and ensuing phases. The ref didn’t stop them marking up in defence. You have to assume that if Foley had not been pinged for taking 36 seconds to punt for touch, he would have cleared it sufficiently far to put the ball at a safe distance, that Australia would have won the subsequent lineout and then retained possession without penalty and managed to control the game to its conclusion. Maybe they would have but they hadn’t shown much to make any of that look a certainty, or even more than a hope. Just look at how they coughed up the restart at 77 minutes, immediately after taking the lead. That wasn’t the ref’s fault. I would say not looking at these things is beyond obtuse. I will give you the benefit and respect you notably failed to show me and I won’t say that you are obtuse.

Unless there is a change of attitude to these things Australian sides will be re-running this story endlessly. Do you really think the great sides of the 1980’s, the 1990’s and early 2000’s would have been this stupid and incompetent? Would the great Qld sides of the same time? Canterbury? England 2000-2003? Wales in the 1970’s? They all had to deal with the Reynals of their time and often much worse.

And it is a sanction that has been used for scrums and lineouts, so it is hardly ‘never used’ except in the minds of those who want to have a moan rather than deal with the real problems.

I understand the disappointment at losing but that is a different matter.

Harry, we are both lawyers. The word lie has a very specific meaning. Intention to deceive. This is no court but it is a bloke’s integrity and career you are talking about. Where is the evidence of intention? That he expresses himself poorly in what is very clearly his second language? That he made a mistake? People make mistakes about what they said all the time. That doesn’t make them liars. It makes them mistaken. You’d go down like a sack of the proverbial if you tried to argue a lie based on the above, but you’d be fine in saying he was mistaken. You must know the risk of overstretching.

Here’s an alternative – English is his second language and he knows what he meant by the words he used. It does appear that a lot of other Australian players knew too because they seemed to be gesturing to Foley to kick the thing.

As I said in my article, I think he could have been more clear, but it doesn’t really matter. He is not required by any law of the game to provide a long explanation of what he will do, he is required to adjudicate on the laws.

And Reynal also made the very valid point that he had warned. I have seen other restarts reversed without any warning simply because the ref has decided the lineout had taken too long, or the scrum could have been fed. It’s the same thing.

Is the real point not that if Australia had been even vaguely switched on and competent at the basic parts of the game they would not have been down by 18 points, at home, against a side that has struggled for consistency, lost their captain and two midfielders, has shown notable lack of composure under pressure (think the fluffed 2nd half v Argentina in the match they lost as one example). Why was Australia playing in the wrong part of the field at the wrong time, with the wrong ref after they had just taken the lead and been the given the opportunity to take the restart, secure it and then put it down deep into New Zealand’s half? Aren’t these the salient questions?

Australia could also have read the ref just a little when he was clearly not happy about time wasting at restarts by Australia (whether fair or not) and why were they not able to execute a basic safe take when NZ kicked off to them and then exited? Why was Australia trying to play running rugby with this type of ref and the present Law interps? I am sorry but stupidity piled on stupidity, lack of competence at basic parts of the game and foolhardy gameplans will tend to lead to disappointment. Blaming refs and not addressing problems won’t change anything. Are Australia just serially unlucky with referees or do they have a tin ear for them and do they just do their thing and play their plays without regard to the very real factor that is the ref?

As I said in my article, he isn’t my preferred type of ref, but his type has been around forever and will continue to be. In fact, they tend to predominate. This ref didn’t pull a surprise out of the hat – the chronology shows that. They rolled the dice and hoped he would do as you note, just fluff about, but he didn’t. I see Nigel Owen, a very different style of ref thinks he was right. Now that doesn’t end the discussion but I think it is does have some significance.

Angus, I agree that it is best to be consistent and to lay down the markers early. I also think the risk could have been communicated more clearly (as per my article), but I think he was clear enough. The thing about time wasting is that it is likely to be something that evolves through the game so that you can’t really lay down the marker early.

Whilst it would be good to go after all time wasting, the reality is there is so much that you have to pick one area and go at that. For Reynal this became slow kicks to restart play.

I do understand that there will be different views on this issue and that reasonable minds can differ. What I most want, though is for the focus to be where it needs to be and that is why do Oz sides lose so much and why can they not close out tight games like this? It is a long term issue – think Link’s last test as coach in 2014, the Bled test in Dunedin in 2017 – just two examples.

Damn! I really meant to annoy you. I take this whole article back. That ref’s real name is Blair Larson and he and Robbie Deans met in a pizza joint in Washington DC to plot this one out with Hilary whilst they sacrificed a few babies. The dominant side was robbed. No side has ever scored more points. Fake news might say otherwise.

More seriously, glad you got something from it. I wonder what the next game will bring. Less injuries hopefully. Sadly, I didn’t really feel that either side made me feel I was watching the likely finalists of the 2023 RWC, but it is a year away and one never knows. I think NZ are edging closer to where they need to be, Oz seem to me to be in constant chaos. Rennie is clearly a talented coach but it ain’t working out in Oz and I think he has made some really bad calls. Also not sure his style is well suited to the present Law interps and I am a bit surprised that his style doesn’t seem to have evolved a lot from circa 2012-13. He is too good a coach for there not to be cogent reasons for his decisions, but I am not able to work them out at present. Any thoughts?

How did you feel about NZ performance?

Ash I am happy to examine another chronology, as long as it isn’t based on alternative facts (I jest). I took a lot of time to watch the game and re-watch several parts of it. My first reaction was actually ‘why is Foley going to popgun the ball when White can blast it to around the halfway line?’ My next reaction was ‘kick the thing because this bloke will ping you’. Foley is a fine rugby player and I have never felt he did anything but give his all. It seemed so predictable. But why were they even in this position? Why could they not master a basic exit play to put the ball into Kiwi land from the restart so that a trigger happy ref would be sweating on NZ, who would have to play the Russian Roulette of possession in the present day? You and the coach and the players really might do better to ask this and seek answers.

Thanks for your reply. Kicking a penalty goal is not the same as kicking for touch.

Nic White was allowed the same time for his penalty kick at goal to put Oz ahead by 3.

I am not sure if we are getting our Laws from the same source? I am not being sarcastic here (text has no tone, so I want to be clear on that) – I am using https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/law/21 That doesn’t gel with your reference. I also looked at the Regs but same. Happy to respond further once we are both looking at the same thing. Can you send your link for me?

Judging by the angst about refereeing from NRL media and fans, rugby nomads won’t loiter there for long before being herded on to other pastures, but then they will find no relief in AFL or soccer/football. Cricket? Same.

So read the ref? He was very clearly agitated, he’d raised the issue before, he is known to be trigger happy. Other players were reading it and calling on Foley (why was he kicking – White has a longer boot for touch and isn’t rugby 101 to clear for as much distance as you can from that position?).

I have seen scrum feeds and lineout throws reversed for taking too long. There is nothing unprecedented in this. This is just unpalatable for some. As you have watched a lot of rugby you’d remember a tub called Clive Norling and some of his ‘exciting’ officiating from a few miles behind the play; or any other number of refs known for their rather particular styles.

Isn’t the real reason for losing and losing and losing, something this side is so proficient at, to be found in their inability to fashion a game plan in synch with the present Law interps, the capacities of their players, the particularities of given refs and a persistent inability to execute things like restarts and exit plays?

I fear that too many Australian players, coaches and supporters are stuck in one of the 5 Stages of Grief (Denial?) to really move on and address why they keep losing. The Reynals and Adamsons etc. of this world are hard to turn to your advantage but you can minimise your risks if you fashion a game plan and selections to the ref and the Law interps. And you can have some smarts in on field leadership. Or you can keep doing the same things for 20 years and have the crutch of blaming refs, the laws, cheating Kiwis, rolling mauls, the laws of physics – there is really no end of excuses if one is truly dedicated to avoidance. I will dust off this article for the end of year tour (recall the deliberate knock down test – different ref but all else the same), the next Bledisloe series, the RWC etc. ad infinitum.

And I don’t much like Reynal’s refereeing either.

Appreciate your post and the tone, given you don’t agree. Have you not seen scrum feeds and lineout put in’s reversed for taking too long? I have. It is the same rule. 39 seconds plus the time off is a hell of a long time to punt a ball into touch, especially when the ref has been on at you and has been on at you previously in the game. And why was one of the shorter kicks in the Oz side even taking the punt? White has a cannon and would he not be your option to clear out of your 22 with a trigger happy ref and time winding down? Are those not really the questions that might help understand the loss – coaching and on field leadership of very questionable effect.

And why were they in that part of the field? Struggles with restarts and exit plays. I could write that sentence in 2016 and every year after and it would be right. Reynal wasn’t the ref in all of those games. Incapacity to execute fundamental parts of the game isn’t Reynal’s fault.

I will add that the style of rugby eschewed since 2015 has been way out of synch with the way the game is being officiated and whether you like it or not that is just a truth, like the flow of a river, or the movement of tides. It would be much smarter to swim with those forces, wouldn’t it? You can try to be a salmon but the Wallabies haven’t been like the ones that actually make it upstream and fertilise the eggs, they have been like the ones being hooked out by the happy bears and they have been like that year after stupid year. The salmon might be a noble fish but if it is a dead one it soon smells and this side stinks.

Reynal was no mystery. He is a known trigger puller. For this type of ref you play the game a million miles from your own line. You run almost nothing. You let the other side have the poison pill of possession and you kick your penalties and maul your way over the line from lineouts. Ugly isn’t it, but I get the impression that most Roarers re finding it hard to locate the beauty in losing again and again and again. Un-Australian to play like this? No, I watched Wallaby sides under the loathsome Alan Jones adapt their style to trends in the game and especially to refs. Bob Dwyer in his ‘Lazarus’ phase did the same and so did MacQueen. Fast Eddie did it once, in the slush at the House of Pain in 2001, and secured a surprise win. And believe me there were worse than Reynal in each of those periods.

Think about it.

Sure. One might start by looking at how long NZ took to kick their penalty to touch when Oz fluffed their exit play. It wasn’t 39 seconds. Regardless, once the ref is onto you, right or wrong, you need to react and if you choose to push the limits then you can’t complain when you roll the dice and it comes up snake eyes and not a 12.

I have had plenty of experiences in court where the judge just doesn’t like your case, or a line of questioning, or your manner, or … something and the other side seem to be getting an armchair ride. You just have to adapt as best you can and the one thing you really don’t do is keep annoying them. We’d love everything to be totally fair and even handed but it just doesn’t always play that way. Read the ref and work him on side to you, or risk the consequences.

Many thanks Sheek, we occasionally spar, so appreciated all the more.

At one level it sort of broke my heart, because Foley, whatever his shortcomings at this level, is a guy who never gives less than everything and he did a lot of good things, especially given how long he has been out of the game at this standard. I also think it speaks about the state of the coaching and on field leadership that Foley even had the ball for this type of kick. And that the side still tends to leak points as soon as it scores some and can’t exit properly is not Foley’s fault.

I used to rage at refs but when I coached (pretty badly) for a bit at school level, I came to realise that mostly when you lose it is actually because of stuff ups of your own that put you in the position where the ref can add to your problems. Then I started watching sides who seemed to get a lot more of the ‘rub of the green’ and I saw that they typically were providing a picture of competence and method and also they were either intimidating the ref in various ways (not so much abuse but by making things happen fast, so that the ref wasn’t really sure what had happened, or by seeming so well drilled that, for example, it couldn’t be them collapsing at scrum, or by feeding information to the ref that conveyed their deep knowledge and put the ref on notice that they couldn’t be trifled with) and/or were working the ref on-side by responding to decisions and adjusting their game and also showing they were listening.

Very occasionally a ref costs you the game, but mostly it is your own stuff -ups and an opposition good enough to capitalise.

You would be feeling some optimism for next Super season? Thoughts on the Waratahs coach making a move up after the RWC? Do you think he could work with McKellar, or do you think he should take the role ahead of?