[6N] Tmo farce
- Thread starter Christy
- Start date
Surely that would have been covered in the referees debrief days after the game.
I'm sure they were both more professional than Holwer about it. That might explain the lack of public pronouncement. Alternatively WR may not have agreed with NZ so there was little reason for them to go public. I guess we will never know.
What reamains true is that Howler was (is) unprofessional.
I'm sure they were both more professional than Holwer about it. That might explain the lack of public pronouncement. Alternatively WR may not have agreed with NZ so there was little reason for them to go public. I guess we will never know.
What reamains true is that Howler was (is) unprofessional.
Last edited:
Hmmm...when it suits him....
...https://theblitzdefence.wordpress.c...-history-of-eddie-jones-respecting-officials/
...https://theblitzdefence.wordpress.c...-history-of-eddie-jones-respecting-officials/
good analysis in the Guardian...
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/feb/15/tmo-decision-wales-england-precedent-six-nations
I agree with that.
If WR were going to issue a statement saying that the decision is wrong, they needed to explain their position
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/feb/15/tmo-decision-wales-england-precedent-six-nations
I agree with that.
If WR were going to issue a statement saying that the decision is wrong, they needed to explain their position
the 2007 incident wasn't clever, I agree -- but, really, that was 2007.
the other two I don't think amount to much, especially if that's all there is in the last 11 years?
Anyway, coaches complaining about a ref is very different from the WR head of refereeing throwing a particular official under a bus, in an ill-considered semi-official? phone call.
the other two I don't think amount to much, especially if that's all there is in the last 11 years?
Anyway, coaches complaining about a ref is very different from the WR head of refereeing throwing a particular official under a bus, in an ill-considered semi-official? phone call.
NZ Herald article by Wynne Gray 16/2/18
Warren Gatland complained about a TMO’s “terrible mistake” in the Six Nations and World Rugby compounded the situation — but the Wales coach should let his disapproval drift back six months to Eden Park.
The Lions had drawn the test series with the All Blacks after persuading referee Romaine Poite to overturn a late penalty for offside and deny Beauden Barrett a handy chance for victory.
“It comes in swings and roundabouts,” Gatland said, “you get calls that go for you and calls that go against you.”
All that c’est la vie feedback got the boot after Wales lost a first half verdict that Gareth Anscombe had scored and Gatland seized on that decision from Kiwi TMO Glenn Newman for his side’s 12-6 defeat rather than their failure to crack England in the remaining 57 minutes.
It’s enough to make you think there was some merit in the red nose caricature of Gatland that provoked such annoyance on the Lions’ visit. Certainly World Rugby should wear a dunce’s hat after referees’ boss Alain Rolland got on the blower to Gatland to say Anscombe should have been awarded the try. His organisation then issued a statement confirming the content of that conversation. That’s as misguided as New Zealand Rugby’s decision to set up an official grievance service where callers can register complaints about rugby players’ behaviour they feel is unacceptable, inappropriate or objectionable. It’s an invitation for social media sleuths, the vengeful or those who are anti-rugby to unfurl their grievance lists. Players are warned repeatedly about the misbehaving and if some of that spills over to the attention of the public or police then they like any other person should wear the consequences. Offering an open line for complaints is an invitation for vexatious and frivolous criticism which then has to be assessed by a senior lawyer. When World Rugby censured Newman in public, the governing body and Rolland opened themselves up to a torrent of questions about decisions from referees and the touchline assessments from his assistants.
In-goal verdicts are an influential part of the game but so are decisions referees make throughout a game. They make judgments on the run and many can be debated in a game which allows advantage.
If World Rugby’s inquiry and support for Wales was consistent, they’d need another company to deal with the 2007 RWC quarter-final where the sideline silence and the work of Wayne Barnes provoked All Black coach Graham Henry’s claims about a mass of unpunished offences.
Making retrospective judgments in public as World Rugby and Rolland did, weakens the reputation of referees and highlights their predicament as one set of eyeballs against a multitude of angles and slow-motion assessments from highpowered cameras.
Rugby is running the risk of sinking into the blame game. Tests have been delayed but never replayed and World Rugby should remind themselves that fulltime scores are only altered by hooligans and keyboard vandals.
Another thing that won’t change is fans debating the rights and injustices of refereeing decisions, the colourful third half of the game when emotions rise as pints are drowned in a zone authorities should avoid.
Certainly World Rugby should wear a dunce’s hat after referees’ boss Alain Rolland got on the blower to Gatland to say Anscombe should have been awarded the try.
Warren Gatland complained about a TMO’s “terrible mistake” in the Six Nations and World Rugby compounded the situation — but the Wales coach should let his disapproval drift back six months to Eden Park.
The Lions had drawn the test series with the All Blacks after persuading referee Romaine Poite to overturn a late penalty for offside and deny Beauden Barrett a handy chance for victory.
“It comes in swings and roundabouts,” Gatland said, “you get calls that go for you and calls that go against you.”
All that c’est la vie feedback got the boot after Wales lost a first half verdict that Gareth Anscombe had scored and Gatland seized on that decision from Kiwi TMO Glenn Newman for his side’s 12-6 defeat rather than their failure to crack England in the remaining 57 minutes.
It’s enough to make you think there was some merit in the red nose caricature of Gatland that provoked such annoyance on the Lions’ visit. Certainly World Rugby should wear a dunce’s hat after referees’ boss Alain Rolland got on the blower to Gatland to say Anscombe should have been awarded the try. His organisation then issued a statement confirming the content of that conversation. That’s as misguided as New Zealand Rugby’s decision to set up an official grievance service where callers can register complaints about rugby players’ behaviour they feel is unacceptable, inappropriate or objectionable. It’s an invitation for social media sleuths, the vengeful or those who are anti-rugby to unfurl their grievance lists. Players are warned repeatedly about the misbehaving and if some of that spills over to the attention of the public or police then they like any other person should wear the consequences. Offering an open line for complaints is an invitation for vexatious and frivolous criticism which then has to be assessed by a senior lawyer. When World Rugby censured Newman in public, the governing body and Rolland opened themselves up to a torrent of questions about decisions from referees and the touchline assessments from his assistants.
In-goal verdicts are an influential part of the game but so are decisions referees make throughout a game. They make judgments on the run and many can be debated in a game which allows advantage.
If World Rugby’s inquiry and support for Wales was consistent, they’d need another company to deal with the 2007 RWC quarter-final where the sideline silence and the work of Wayne Barnes provoked All Black coach Graham Henry’s claims about a mass of unpunished offences.
Making retrospective judgments in public as World Rugby and Rolland did, weakens the reputation of referees and highlights their predicament as one set of eyeballs against a multitude of angles and slow-motion assessments from highpowered cameras.
Rugby is running the risk of sinking into the blame game. Tests have been delayed but never replayed and World Rugby should remind themselves that fulltime scores are only altered by hooligans and keyboard vandals.
Another thing that won’t change is fans debating the rights and injustices of refereeing decisions, the colourful third half of the game when emotions rise as pints are drowned in a zone authorities should avoid.
Certainly World Rugby should wear a dunce’s hat after referees’ boss Alain Rolland got on the blower to Gatland to say Anscombe should have been awarded the try.
Quite!
The only allegations of Howley behaving improperly come from a couple of otherwise distinguished posters on this board, and solely on the basis of pure conjecture.
Contradicting the allegations is the inconvenient fact that the BBC reported that WR backed up Howley's statement with one of their own to the BBC, confirming what he had said, and WR neither said nor hinted that they had any problems with Howley going public!
Go figure.
The point about Eddie Jones complaining about Alun Wynn Jones last week, was that he (Eddie) was effectively saying that the ref on the spot got it wrong. And then he complains about others undermining refs.
And yes, 2007 was 11 years ago, but how many other national coaches have been fined $10000 for ref abuse?!?
No one is comparing a to b - just pointing out that Jones is a sanctimonious prig ?
And yes, 2007 was 11 years ago, but how many other national coaches have been fined $10000 for ref abuse?!?
No one is comparing a to b - just pointing out that Jones is a sanctimonious prig ?
Totally agree ChrisR, I think you hit the nail on the head. In any professional situation when we make mistakes we should own up and put it right as best we can.
Obviously in sport it doesn't work to alter the score after no side, but admitting errors can at least help bring understanding and closure to controversial situatuons. We're all human, after all.
But of course WR can't figure out a way of doing this consistently, nor in a way that doesn't leave refs here feeling undermined...
Obviously in sport it doesn't work to alter the score after no side, but admitting errors can at least help bring understanding and closure to controversial situatuons. We're all human, after all.
But of course WR can't figure out a way of doing this consistently, nor in a way that doesn't leave refs here feeling undermined...
But the Guardian is being selective in its presentation of fact: the same dictionary states that a synonym of "to press" is "to push (down)", which has no connotations of having to be continuous for any length of time, thus destroying their entire argument.
And thinking in physical terms you cannot touch something and not press on it, however slightly.
And if you press on something anywhere on its upper side, some component of the applied force will be downwards.
Is it really news that a try can be scored by pressing anywhere on the top half of the ball, and by only pressing slightly, and not for very long? (Perhaps it is!)
Agree 100%.
Which bit of law was misapplied and in what way?!? Surely we are entitled to know.
And thinking in physical terms you cannot touch something and not press on it, however slightly.
And if you press on something anywhere on its upper side, some component of the applied force will be downwards.
Is it really news that a try can be scored by pressing anywhere on the top half of the ball, and by only pressing slightly, and not for very long? (Perhaps it is!)
Agree 100%.
Which bit of law was misapplied and in what way?!? Surely we are entitled to know.