The Roar
The Roar

Wally James

Roar Guru

Joined November 2008

75.7k

Views

46

Published

1.9k

Comments

Published

Comments

Cheers Paul. Spot on.

Should water carriers stick to water carrying?

I’m with you Hugh.

Should water carriers stick to water carrying?

It was an illegal attempt to change the outcome of the game. Corruption does not just entail money. What if the AR had changed his mind because of the influence of the water carrier? Would that not have corrupted the outcome of the game?

Do you think such things will improve performance of the ref and AR? How do you think the TJ felt? Someone yelling at him he was wrong in front of 20,000 odd people. Do you think he would have said “Sorry about that. I’ll just have to improve” And Nick Berry is, no doubt, still taking notes from Rassie’s video to make sure he cops on to himself.

Every captain is guilty of it, if allowed to do it. Farley was firm. Good on him.

Should water carriers stick to water carrying?

My thoughts exactly, Charlie.

Cheika is renowned for finding something to bleat about when his team is not going well. Inside Wallaby sources told me he did it so attention would be taken away from the players’ ineptness and placed firmly on Cheika. His rationale was to protect the players that way.

Argentina has always been renowned for sucking things up and getting on with it. Cheika appears, that stops and the complaining starts. Coincidence you say? I think not.

'The boys and staff felt really disrespected': Why this photo has Argentina coach fuming

Etepeus, couldn’t have said it better myself.

A bullet pass from a lock, and other wonders from the Wallabies’ Brisbane win

I did not express my self accurately enough PK. I agree with you. It was after match pressers and general comments I was meaning to emphasise. That said, DR would be mad not to use protocols to put across his view. With the exception of White on the paddock, that get on with it attitude and not complain about the ref in public, seems to have affected the whole team. Hooper is more inclined to be reasonable in his ref responses. All to the good.

A bullet pass from a lock, and other wonders from the Wallabies’ Brisbane win

Brett, you raised Dave Rennie’s response to the yellow of Swinton. A very good point to make and well observed.

I thought that was indicative of the Wallaby mindset. “Let’s not argue with the ref. The outcome is in our hands. Let’s get better.” Compared to the Bok’s 62 minutes from a few weeks ago followed by the unspecified off the ball incidents alleged in after match comments by them this week.

One team ignores the ref and concentrates on its own performance. The other blames reffing and the other side and goes down 2-0. A pleasant change from the Men in Gold.

A bullet pass from a lock, and other wonders from the Wallabies’ Brisbane win

Two rugby minds as one.

Wallabies lock in Japan fixture as part of their Spring Tour

The Boks and Ireland said they had never lost to Japan once upon a time. Their losses were not a new low. Wonderful games.

Wallabies lock in Japan fixture as part of their Spring Tour

The safety feature for all of those is not to kick someone in the head.

'Not guilty': Why Jordie Barrett was cleared for Koroibete face kick

Spot on

'Not guilty': Why Jordie Barrett was cleared for Koroibete face kick

Brett, I agree with you about the inconsistency between that decision and previous ones. However the role of the judiciary is to determine whether the send off was wrong because the alleged offence did not warrant a red card. Since they determined (wrongly in my view), that it did not warrant a red card, it follows that the card should be expunged from his record. The judiciary has that power. Barrett should not have a prior red card to contend with if he was sent off again. Prior misconduct is relevant to sanction for a subsequent offence.

'Not guilty': Why Jordie Barrett was cleared for Koroibete face kick

What a precedent! I hope the decision of the judiciary gives some guideline as to the difference between incidental/accidental and reckless. That outcome gives carte blanche to people jumping up for the ball to raise their leg with foot extended to protect themselves from being tackled in midair, regardless of consequences to any player waiting to tackle them legally. The law already prohibits tackling someone in midair so why would you need to protect yourself from it? I think that’s an awful decision and will come back to haunt Rugby.

'Not guilty': Why Jordie Barrett was cleared for Koroibete face kick

No Shep. All it means is it shouldn’t have been a send-off. It’s not up to he judiciary to decide anything other than the ref was wrong in sending the bloke off. it’s not up to them to say what should have been done.

'Not guilty': Why Jordie Barrett was cleared for Koroibete face kick

I did not say the head is sacrosanct, neither is it under the Laws. The laws take into account there can be incidental contact with the head. It’s a contact sport.

Brodie’s contact with Hooper was utterly different to Barrett’s. Brodie could not have avoided that contact. Barrett could have avoided kicking Koribete in the head by not being reckless. Barrett’s was not trivial. Brodie’s was.

The Laws are complicated enough without adding another level of card. We once had no cards at all. When the ref pointed to the touch line you were gone. Then Soccer cards were introduced. Yellow cards added a sufficient degree of complexity without there being a third.

Would a 20-minute red card work in rugby union?

A 20 minute red card trivialises an offence.

There is some argument that a red card ends in lopsided game. If there is a send off in the 3rd minute that has a different effect than in the 60th minute. All true as far as it goes.

However it is a team sport. If someone knocks on over the goal line in the 3rd minute and a try is not scored, that affects the whole team. So does a missed penalty kick at goal in the 60th minute. A lot of individual actions affect the team. After all, the actions of each player always affect the team. The beauty of the game is it is a team sport.

Not to send a bloke off for foul play, which comes within the guidelines, is to minimise the offence and condone it. And to those who talk about “lack of intent”, refs are not mind readers. They cannot act upon anything other than what they see. Were it otherwise, the application of foul play laws would be even more inconsistent.

Would a 20-minute red card work in rugby union?

It’s an interesting point you raise Harry.

If a court gets involved (let’s hope it doesn’t) the first question is “the courts of what land?” Maybe an international court of arbitration.

Would the job of that court be to simply see whether procedural fairness was followed or go further to determine the correctness of the judiciary’s decision?

Does bringing the game into disrepute necessitate a finding of diminishing of Rugby’s reputation? By definition, probably not. While both expressions have as their root “repute”, they mean different things.

Then, if the court says there was a correct finding of guilt, was the penalty appropriate according to the WR code of conduct?

All of which would not be required if Rassie had simply remained silent and played the whistle, as it were.

Rassie in the dock: How punitive will World Rugby be?

That criticisms of refs have been made in the past is not relevant to whether the current charge is proven. It is relevant to whether WR has consistently enforced the code of conduct in the past. I have said for some years on this site that the its enforcement has been consistently slack.

Similarly it does not matter whether any criticism of the ref was correct or incorrect in law. If that is at stake then evidence would need to be called, ad nauseum, for all number of experts to determine that issue. The question is, rather, whether the video called the game into disrepute. Any concerted attempt to suggest bias or incompetence in a match official can certainly bring the game into disrepute.

To raise in mitigation Rassie’s prodigious contributions to Rugby is a double-edged sword. Clearly, he has been an ornament to the game as a player and coach. He deserves credit for that. On the other hand, he should know better than to take steps which show such dissent and disrespect from such a senior man.

The long and short of it is – forget the ref. He will never be perfect in the eyes of any observer, independent or otherwise. Get over it and move on. Perpetual complaint about refs shows more about the person objecting than it does about the ref.

Rassie in the dock: How punitive will World Rugby be?

In my view the rubbish that happens in every series and practically every game is that fans/coaches/players don’t accept the ref’s decision and get on with concentrating on their own game.

We should all thank Rassie

Refs don’t get anything from these sorts of debacles. They just suck it up and come back next week. Just like coaches should.

We should all thank Rassie

I agree with you. If he gets a slap on the wrist there will be no line in the sand. It will be an encouragement to continue with the same approach by him and other coaches. I saw a Clive Woodward video someone referred to. Worse that RE’s in some respects

We should all thank Rassie

Haha. You are quite right of course. I should have said there were none to which Rassie referred!

We should all thank Rassie

And your comments lead to the next item on the agenda which is why did he do it? Altruism? Some helpful hints which will allow Nick Berry to better himself as a ref? Informing the rugby public at large as to the correct application of the Laws of the Game? I think not. I can see no alternative he did it to benefit the Boks. Now. there is nothing wrong with doing things to help your own side (finding a great coach like SA did before RWC 2019, for example) and a lot right with it. But there are wrong ways to help your side win. What he did was one of them. Unfortunately World Rugby has for too long sat on their hands about this issue (a la Cheika and Eddie Jones). If they do not come down heavily on Rassie they will be seen to be as weak about him as they were for the likes of Clive Woodward et al. If they give Rassie what he deserves, SA will perceive (rightly, I think) historical inconsistent treatment, about which they will say Rassie was talking about in the first place. WR is damned if they do and damned if they don’t. I prefer if they draw a line in the sand and say we will tolerate this no more.

We should all thank Rassie

In my experience those who allege bias against a ref are biased in favour of the team they say were hard done by. Rassie has shown nothing but this. There were no Bok infringements in his video.
There is nothing wrong with bias per se. Otherwise we would never have fanatical club/provincial/national supporters. They are a great part of the drama of Rugby.
Rassie has contributed greatly to the game as a player and coach. But he has not done Rugby any favours in his latest YouTube rant. It is nothing that doesn’t happen in Lounge rooms and pubs all the way the world. It lets steam off. However a man of his position should not have done it.
The game does not need more ref bashers. It needs none. The lesson from Rassie should be “Stop complaining about refs. Concentrate on your own role in the game. It will be better for it”
I would be surprised if he is not found guilty of breaching the code of conduct and punished accordingly.

We should all thank Rassie

Referees are accountable. They get dropped just like players do. Referees at that level are not mediocre. If they were mediocre they would be reffing mediocre games. Erasmus’s job is to coach players. Not refs. There are official channels (not YouTube) for complaining about refs. God knows losing coaches do enough of it.

Rassie Erasmus to face World Rugby misconduct hearing over 62-minute ref rant

close