2015 Rugby World Cup **Potential spoilers**

[GrumpyGregry]

Have read he got off the field sharpish due to stuff being thrown at him....
Yellows are often given for those kinds of failed interceptions, agree it seems harsh but seen the same given in other situations so it's not like it was something out the blue. The potential 2nd yellow for the aussie was a big call. I don't think he felt it was serious enough to warrant a sending off though I wonder if he would've given yellow had the guy not already had one....

On the flip side the commentary was suggesting some of the penalties against Australia in the scrum were harsh. I don't understand enough to comment either way, but a lot of people seem to be suggesting the ref was very anti-Scotland, which wasn't the impression I got.

Nothing more would have been said about his performance had Scotland won.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Neither do most refs, so they toss a mental coin.

Every scrum and every line-out is pingable. The ref tries to determine what is material and what isn't. It isn't so much a coin as a pair of scales.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Easy enough to find a long list of former players from a number of nations saying pretty much the same thing. Just go to twitterland.

edit - here's Matt Dawson's tweet: Craig Joubert you are a disgrace and should never referee again!! How dare you sprint off the pitch after that decision!!!

And Austin Healy: Never a penalty never totally robbed totally robbed #beproud Scotland

No ref in their right mind listens to what a nine has to say. Ever.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

They sell plastic bottles of Heineken at Twickenham. Empty not really an issue, full and it'll probably hurt. However we are talking Scots here so it's unlikely they were full.

Well not full of lager anyway.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

For me the most telling "error" was the failure to ping Gold for lying around in the tackle zone throughout the second half and, more critically, the lack of a peno when Hogg was smashed two minutes before the end of play. All four officials seem to have missed that.

 

[martint235]

TBH I thought that the ref could go to the TMO for anything in this RWC but it appears it's only for foul play or a try scoring situation. With that in mind I think it's pretty disgraceful to be piling such abuse onto a ref who made a difficult, split second decision. Yes in hindsight he got it wrong but that happens.

With Maitland, if he'd been using two hands he'd have removed any doubt but a one handed attempt to catch the ball in that position does look like a deliberate knock on

 

[martint235]

Out of interest when did J K Rowling become Scottish? She's quoted in the Times "should've been ours", I didn't know Gloucester were in the RWC

 

[Bollo]

Out of interest when did J K Rowling become Scottish? She's quoted in the Times "should've been ours", I didn't know Gloucester were in the RWC

She's lived in Edinburgh or thereabouts since the early '90s, where she wrote the first of them Wizard books.

 

[Wafer]

With that in mind I think it's pretty disgraceful to be piling such abuse onto a ref who made a difficult, split second decision. Yes in hindsight he got it wrong but that happens.

Yeah, most of the tournament people have been moaning about over use of the tmo and saying refs should make a decision, then lambast them when they do just that and get a decision wrong that is only possible to spot in slow motion...
Some hypocritical past players out there, let alone fans....

 

[Joey Shabadoo]

Nothing more would have been said about his performance had Scotland won.

Aye, cos Australians never ever whinge. Ever

 

[Brandane]

Out of interest when did J K Rowling become Scottish? She's quoted in the Times "should've been ours", I didn't know Gloucester were in the RWC

Were her parents not Scottish, from Arbroath or thereabouts? She was just unfortunate in that her parents were living south of the border when she was born.

 

[Joey Shabadoo]

They are a skill. There have been loads of turnovers in this RWC because teams are strong enough to tie it up and not let it go to ground.

The opponents can choose not to join from the outset then there is no maul and no offside lines.

Aye, I know and teams with huge packs can turn it to their advantage but, in my ever so etc, rugby is about getting the ball, running through a lot of players and scoring. Not a lot of players surrounding the ball and walking over the line.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Aye, I know and teams with huge packs can turn it to their advantage but, in my ever so etc, rugby is about getting the ball, running through a lot of players and scoring. Not a lot of players surrounding the ball and walking over the line.

Part of the game is allowing the pretty boys to run about and score dazzling tries without getting their hair messed up or getting muddy.
Part of the game is allowing the greet ugly lumps to batter each other to a standstill in close contact and then dredge up the will to drive over the line.

and/both not either/or.

 

[nickyboy]

Aye, I know and teams with huge packs can turn it to their advantage but, in my ever so etc, rugby is about getting the ball, running through a lot of players and scoring. Not a lot of players surrounding the ball and walking over the line.

I agree. Whilst the current laws allow for this sort of tactic it doesn't feel like it's what rugby should be about. It's a skill of course and well marshalled it is extremely hard to defend against. But it always looks like you've got half a dozen players offside. Appreciate they're not according to the laws, but that's how it always looks

More generally, very disappointed with the Australian performance yesterday. I genuinely believed they had what it takes to present a real challenge to NZ based on their performance against England. They don't lack the skills, it seems they lack the mental strength and decision making ability. Far too many poor decisions which kept a mediocre Scottish side in with a sniff. NZ will destroy them if they meet in the final and they play like that. NZ steamrollering everyone isn't good for the tournament

 

[GrumpyGregry]

I agree. Whilst the current laws allow for this sort of tactic it doesn't feel like it's what rugby should be about. It's a skill of course and well marshalled it is extremely hard to defend against. But it always looks like you've got half a dozen players offside. Appreciate they're not according to the laws, but that's how it always looks

A driving/rolling maul is precisely one of the things that rugby should be about. Setting one up isn't a matter of luck and requires a great deal of skill. Keeping it moving, and moving forwards towards the oppo goal line, requires huge strength, teamwork and is one of the most exhausting things you do as a forward on the park. Well built and executed it is almost impossible to defend against, and once it crosses the goal line and ends grounding the ball is far from a formality.

What I find strange is how few penalty tries get awarded at elite level from rolling mauls that collapse in the red zone or in-goal, and how infrequently referees sanction defenders for all the manner of illegality they apply once the oppo start trundling forwards.

Provided the ball is at the back, and the ball carrier and all the players in front of it are properly bound together, ie full arm, no offsides. Any more than there would be if the ball was at the base of a scrum or ruck. The issue I have is too often, and too often at RWC in particular, the ball carrier is holding on with mere finger tips to the guy in front of him. Smacks of classic truck and trailer to me. But that is a question of materiality and the elite refs apply different standards to the rest of us.