Did you watch the video Dev? I know they weren’t appealing for the scrum because they yelled “offside sir.” That’s just a fact – it’s something that all teams do (not just Australia) and it’s also the reason that World Rugby created the appealing directive in the first place.

It’s interesting that you talk about childish reactions because this comment really seems to fall into that category.

Thanks for you initial questions there Muggs, I am happy to respond to objective criticism.

I didn’t chose this time to write the article. It seemed pertinent to write it now because of the effects and the outrage coming from the call. The same type of play has been happening right throughout the WC and right throughout the history of rugby. The timing was simply because there was a bad call made in a big game and I believe that the appealing from the players contributed to it. Obviously, my belief that the appealing played some part in the call is subjective, so I expected to get some push back there. However, I wasn’t singling out the Wallaby players because I was trying to take a cheap shot as you suggest – I singled them out simply because they were the players involved. Perhaps you missed the last part of the article where I stated that the Aussies were NOT bad sportsmen, they were simply appealing like players from any other team would.

Also, I didn’t claim that I knew what was in the head of NP – I said that he admitted to intentionally playing the ball post-game. His direct words were “Everybody was trying to win the ball there, we were all going for it.”
So if he knew he touched it, then he should have known it wasn’t a penalty, yet he still appealed.
I think most-likely none of those Australian players knew what had happened exactly – but they all still aggressively appealed for the penalty.

The issue is with appealing in general and this is why World Rugby created the directive in the first place. Perhaps that message got lost in my writing, so if offence was taken there then I apologize. I probably could have written the article with less of a slant.

Thanks John, you make some good points here – I am responding to a lot of commenters because upon review I think I probably wrote the article with too much of a controversial angle and I have been trying to clarify my point.

The original premise was that refereeing is difficult and it is more difficult when players appeal to refs for calls trying to get an advantage to their team. World Rugby identified this before the WC and that’s why they put out the directive to stamp out that kind of play.

In this situation, I was of the opinion that Joubert was influenced by the Australian players when he made his call – now that is subjective I know, people will argue with me on that point, but I think when you are reviewing a refereeing performance and incorrect calls – it makes sense to look at all the factors that contributed to them. In this case – I think the Australian appeals were a factor. In some of my other replies you’ll notice that I stated that all teams are guilty of doing this including the All Blacks – but if WR puts out a directive to stop it and then it happens in a game and it leads to a bad call being made – shouldn’t we talk about it?

Unfortunately that sentence was made slightly stronger in the site’s editing, my original article said “to me, it was clear and obvious…” which underlines the subjective nature of the call, but if you have a look through some of my comments on the article you will get a clearer picture of my premise. Thanks for the positivity in your comment also.

Well, if you think the players had no influence on Joubert then that is your prerogative. It’s certainly a subjective opinion, but I tend to disagree.

Perhaps you missed a sentence at the end of the article where I said that the Australian players were not bad sportsmen – they simply appealed like any team would (including NZ) to help their team win. So I would argue that I took a cheap shot at the Aussies. However, appealing is something that World Rugby has decided is unsportsman-like because it puts undue pressure on the ref and the Australian players most definitely appealed.

If we want to get the correct decisions in rugby, then we need to look at the factors that contributed to incorrect calls. I don’t think it’s out of line to question whether or not the appealing played a part, especially when WR made a point of it pre-tournament.

Regards, Nit-Wit

Not sure I understand what you mean by fake RW – do you mean the appeal is fake?

If that’s what you mean then I think you have me mistaken – the only one who seems to know exactly what happened in that split second was Nick Phipps because he admitted later in an interview that he intentionally played the ball.

You may have missed the part at the end of the article where I said that Australian players are not bad sportsmen, they were simply appealing to get a better result for their team (like many other teams would do.) Fardy and Douglas most likely had no idea what had happened exactly. The problem is they both aggressively lobbied Joubert for the penalty and this is what the World Rugby directive was created to stamp out. It is hard enough for refs to make accurate calls without players shouting in their face. That is the crux of the article, not any tarnishing of the players.

Thanks Cliff – brace yourself because technology is here to stay 🙂

Apelu, Phipps admitted later that he intentionally played at the ball – it touched him then went to the scottish player. That is accidental offside – scrum to Australia.

However, Joubert may not have known that Phipps played the ball intentionally, so what should he do in a 50/50 situation like that? He should make a ruling consistent with his other calls in the game – notably a situation earlier when he called a very similar play accidental offside.

Now, I don’t claim to know the rule book inside and out, but I would assume that World Rugby have experts who do, and they have said the call was wrong and while I don’t agree with them hanging him out to dry for one call – it was def the wrong call.

There were 2 parts to the directive – simulation and appealing, simulation being taking a dive and appealing being putting undue pressure on a ref to make a call, which I believe is part of the reason why Joubert made the wrong call here.

I have no opinion about WR’s decision to call him out on it. I just think Joubert has a history of making controversial decisions under pressure.

Phipps admitted in an interview after the game that he intentionally played the ball. It touched him and then went to the scottish player – that is accidental offside, scrum to Australia.
Perhaps people didn’t see it the way I did, but it looked pretty obvious to me that Phipps had touched the ball. Regardless of Phipp’s intent, the ball did touch him and Joubert had earlier called a very similar incident accidental. Obviously he was handcuffed by the inability to use the TMO but if he wanted to maintain his consistency in light of a 50/50 call, then a scrum would have sufficed.

Yeah I didn’t create the directive, World Rugby did – so you can direct your scorn to them if you think it’s okay for players to aggressively lobby the ref for penalties. Joubert made the call, so unfortunately he’s on the end of it all.

Well I appreciate the positive sentiments there TBS – I’m certainly copping my fair share of abuse, but then again, I did controversially attack Australian players on an Australian website, so not unexpected.

In response to your question, I claimed that Phipps knew it wasn’t a penalty because he later admitted to playing the ball – Fardy and Douglas were probably unaware of what exactly had happened and were just appealing for the penalty because they could.
But that kind of makes it worse…World Rugby created the appealing directive because they wanted players to stop appealing to refs. The directive is trying to stamp out the players who aren’t concerned about getting the right call, but getting a call that helps their team to win. Yes, appealing for penalties is a play as old as the hills, but it doesn’t mean it’s right.

The ref is under a lot of pressure in a game to make the correct call and it doesn’t help when you have players screaming in your face – that’s why the directive was created and I believe that was one of the contributing factors to Joubert making the wrong call. So I think it’s valuable to have a discussion on how this directive has been applied.

I think you may be misinterpreting the article there John, at no point did I imply that Joubert wanted the Australians to win. Perhaps it was the fault of my writing, but what I was trying to say is that Joubert was influenced by the 3 Australian players appealing for the penalty, an action that had been highlighted as unsportsman-like by World Rugby.
I didn’t claim to be an expert, nor do I believe I am being hypocritical – I stated in the article that I believed that players from every team in the world would have appealed for the penalty, that includes NZ players. Of course Brodie Rettallick would have appealed for the penalty, but that doesn’t make it okay to do so.
Refs have enough problems in getting the calls correct without having players screaming at them to give a penalty. That is why WR created the directive, to help refs get the right call without coercion. In this case, it didn’t work because the players appealed for the penalty and the ref made the wrong call.
Yes, lets give him a fair go, but lets also get the process right so it doesn’t happen again – that means evaluating all the reasons for the bad call.

If we want refs to be more accurate, then we have to give them the space to make good decisions – thats why the appealing directive was created in the first place.

That’s a fair argument Who? However, Joubert is copping it left, right and center because of a call he made under the pressure of appealing players – appealing was part of the directive that WR sent out. My question is would he have made the correct call if he didn’t have players aggressively yelling in his face?

Haha too true 🙂

Wow…settle down Antoni – did you read the article? Them appealing for the penalty is the whole point. They aggressively tried to influence the ref in direct contravention to the directive that World Rugby sent out before the tournament. Not only that, but Nick Phipps admitted he had played the ball and still appealed.

If you provide some sensible counter-points as to why you think I’m a pathetic nit-wit, then I will gladly concede, but as it stands, all you have is anger and that will get you a heart attack my friend.

Totally agree Paul, I don’t think it’s just the Aussies though – every country does it when it comes to these big matches and it increases the pressure on the refs. Thats what needs to stop

Ha, thanks SP. The editor changed my sentence there making it slightly stronger than it was originally, but I get your drift – you’ll notice that I’m not slandering Joubert as harshly as others are. Being a ref myself, I have some sympathy for him, it’s a split second decision and he chose wrongly, but this is why I wrote the article. I think his decision-making process was hindered by the appeals of the Australian players. If he had the unimpeded time to think about the play without the screams of the Australian players, then he may have made the right call.

Thanks for the comments John – interestingly enough, my next article is on Aleasana Tuilagi and why his 5 week ban was warranted. Just for the record, I’m from NZ not the UK and I’m also a ref, so I have some knowledge of the topic.
You’ll notice that I never resorted to the same slandering of Joubert as others have – I criticized his call and his overall reffing in comparison to Nigel Owens, but I do have sympathy for him in this situation.
You are right though, ultimately it won’t change anything about this WC, but it might possibly start a conversation on the pressures that refs are put under in these types of games.

I’m not sure if the video attached to this article is the same as the one I watched, but in the video I saw – you can hear them clearly call “offside sir”

I agree with the “challenge” idea John – I think it’s a great innovation.

In the case of both of those missed errors (although I’ll admit that I thought there was a knock by Genia) it doesn’t change the fact that there was a mistake by the ref, nor does it change the fact that the players aggressively appealed for a penalty putting the ref under the pressure that he then caved to.

The appealing for the penalty is my problem here, not the admission of guilt.

That’s a possibility Die Hard and it’s true that I did take a controversial angle, but why would WR ask to crack down on appealing if they didn’t want it to be highlighted? Perhaps this article will promote discussion on that.

If he did see the contact then it’s a terrible call, if he didn’t see it, it’s simply a bad call – if Joubert was in doubt then he should have gone to a scrum as he did earlier in the game. It was an inconsistent call given the calls in the game and an inconsistent call given they way those situations have been called historically.

Thanks for the feedback ozinsa, got any counter-arguments or critique or analysis or anything…? No…?
I’ve made a point that I think is worth discussing for the benefit of the game, you have just written a personal attack without any justification, that’s the kind of thing that the moderators are there for.