Thursday, June 02, 2011
Refs hit the headlines again as the Reds beat the Crusaders in classic
It was a low scoring, yet intense game with a fantastic test match feel to it. Two of the top number tens of the world game came up against each other, with Quade Cooper pulling out some incredible stuff, although Dan Carter probably got the better of him in the end with an incredibly polished all round performance.
It was Cooper who celebrated at the final whistle however, as a capacity crowd of 48 000 watched on as he slotted a last minute penalty, a kick that took the Reds into a 17-16 lead.
While the Reds were fantastic and in many respects deserved the win, there's been plenty of talk about the manner in which they got there in the end, most notably through the inefficiencies of referee Stuart Dickinson and his touch judges.
They missed a few things on the night, and while that will always be the case as refs are human and tend to err from time to time, there have been big question marks over his performance. Some went as far as to call it bias towards the Australian side, while others simply felt it was below par, which at such a crucial stage in the comp, is unforgivable.
There was a suspect looking pass early in the game, then in the lead up to the final play a ball appeared to have gone forward. The biggest talking point though has been his decision to ping Richie McCaw for using his hands in a ruck, right in front of the posts in the dying moments.
McCaw clearly disagreed, but the worrying matter here is that there's such a vast difference of opinion as to whether it was the right or wrong call. Referee boss Lyndon Bray chose to defend Dickinson publicly, although he apparently said later that there are definitely grey areas. SANZAR's Greg Peters has said that Dickinson will be under review, as is the norm.
McCaw, who gave away the penalty, somehow escaped the wrath of the fans as everything seemed to be directed at Dickinson, but the greater issue is that there's so much confusion around the breakdown. When top referees, pundits, and former test players can't call it conclusively either way, surely that's a bit of a problem, especially as we're trying to grow the game? Of course it's a debate that lingers on though, and will always be a touchy subject.
Unfortunately what it did do is take away from a great game of rugby, of which you can view highlights below. For those of you who also enjoy a bit of post match discussion and analysis, the second clip in the playlist is a snippet from Reunion, where it's debated from a New Zealand perspective. Enjoy, and feel free to leave some thoughts as a comment below.
Posted at 9:01 am | 84 comments
|
|
Viewing 84 comments
Anonymous June 02, 2011 11:38 am

Whatever richie thought the correct interpretation was, is irrelevant. Since we were all knee high we were told that refs decision is final. So man the fuck up, and stop whinging
More in your line ask why DC kicked it so far from the ensuing kick-off.
Nick June 02, 2011 11:40 am

Most of your comment does make sense though.
Anonymous June 02, 2011 11:49 am

sam June 02, 2011 11:56 am

i do however agree that dickinson did miss 2 crucial handling errors by the reds in those last phases but why did the touch judge say nothing he would have clearly saw them aswell.
my final verdict, ritchie was wrong and needs to take blame and the rest of the nz population needs to get over it. and finally, it doesn't really matter because these 2 teams will be in the grand final anyway and the Reds are too far in front it wouldn't have made a difference as to decide home grounds.
LG June 02, 2011 11:57 am

I agree with the guys after the game. The touch judges really didn't help the the referee. They are there to look out for the forward passes. Bit hard to tell how forward it was from the camera angle, but I imagine about 1m. Should really have been picked up.
Its sad when poor referees get given big games in any sport.
Guy June 02, 2011 12:01 pm

IMHO he thought the Red lying on the ground at the Cusaders side, was not part of the ruck anymore. The ref thought he was. In the end the ref decides.
Sorry for Richie but that cost them the match.
On the other hand he has been a matchwinner for them on quite a few occasions.
Frantic stuff by the way!
Anonymous June 02, 2011 12:04 pm

JHN June 02, 2011 12:11 pm

Ruair June 02, 2011 12:11 pm

Anonymous June 02, 2011 12:12 pm

Anonymous June 02, 2011 12:13 pm

Anonymous June 02, 2011 12:14 pm

Tim June 02, 2011 12:15 pm

It's the media that have blown it up since it was a controversial decision that decided the game, thus everyone here is jumping to conclusions (that Richie was having a whinge) and getting their knickers in a twist.
Anonymous June 02, 2011 12:15 pm

Laz June 02, 2011 12:16 pm

Flipje June 02, 2011 12:17 pm

Great stuff...
As a neutral, and according to those highligthts, which probably is not enough based on some of your comments, I found the counter ruck perfect but I felt Mc Caw came from the side to collect the ball? Am I wrong in my judgement?
Anyway, I understand there is quite some controversies, to my opinion, not some much of the forward pass leading to the try (I found it quite limit and difficult to spot) but clearly on the knock on in the build up leading to the final penalty.
Ps: Cooper is more and more amazing!!!!
Alexander June 02, 2011 12:17 pm

Tim June 02, 2011 12:27 pm

Line call went a against McCaw end of story.
The ref has been copping it more because he was shit for the rest of the game.
AusVed June 02, 2011 12:27 pm

I'm an Aussie and can admit McCaw is a great player, why does everyone have to start blaming entire nations for crap like this? Ease up on the generalisations fellas!
JAMIE June 02, 2011 12:37 pm

I'd be pissed if there was some outrageous, blatantly incorrect decision. This decision was nothing like that. Sure it can be argued that it was the wrong decision, but it can easily be argued that the decision was correct as well. Anyway, everyone knows they should do what the ref says. McCaw did not and he paid the consequences, regardless of whether or not the ref was correct or not in telling him to leave the ball. This is not like the game where Ireland were screwed by the refs and linesmen vs. Wales. This was just a 50 / 50 and the ref chose to act.
Anonymous June 02, 2011 12:40 pm

edbok June 02, 2011 12:43 pm

The question surely is why he was taking a chance while defending a 2 point lead in the dying minutes. Sometimes what he did will go unpenalised, but often you do get pinged, he knows that and he paid the price this time.
Why Dickinson is still reffing these top games is a question people have been asking for what, 10 years now?
JAMIE June 02, 2011 12:44 pm

A commentator for some match I watched last week mentioned that the game might be at the stage where a scrum specialist referee is needed. Why not just "specialise" them all and make the linesmen step in field when the scrum is happening. Or at least one linesman on the opposite side of the ref so the other linesman could watch open play.
I just don't understand the way the they ref / are told to monitor the game. It's so inefficient.
Ian M June 02, 2011 12:47 pm

Technically, any time a scrumhalf uses his hands to get the ball out of a ruck he commits an offense, but we let it slide. This is different because the ball was not clearly won.
Anonymous June 02, 2011 12:47 pm

Anonymous June 02, 2011 1:16 pm

It wasn't called, "Lets all jump on the Richie McCaw bashing wagon and try and drag all Kiwis down too"
The guy got pinged as the ref thought he was doing something wrong. Simple.
McCaw is a legendary payer, albeit one who divides opinion.
I'm a staunch Bok fan and I hate him on the field as he is utter quality. He also happens to be a gent and a role model. I can't imagine a better advert for the game.
Compare him to Wayne Rooney or Ashley Cole.... Exactly.
What would rugby be without these kinds of events? Shite.
Douglas June 02, 2011 1:38 pm

Anonymous June 02, 2011 1:40 pm

Dixon June 02, 2011 1:42 pm

Issues I have with this game
1. The 1st reds try, was the throw in from the lineout straight? And then there were atleast 2 forward passes that came after.
2. The scrum before Genia's try came from a ruck where the ref judged that the ball couldn't come out. But if memory serves, the ball was out on the crusaders side, and even the commentators said, that the crusaders were hard done by that call. A crusaders player already had the ball in his hand.
3. The other calls that were not made and already noted, knock ons and then what Richie did.
Just as a matter of inquiry, did anyone else notice the 1st 2 points I made?
Ben June 02, 2011 1:45 pm

nicolas June 02, 2011 1:46 pm

mcCaw play on the edge of the law , sometime it pay off sometime not.
Maximus June 02, 2011 1:48 pm

Everybody's lying on the floor and the ball is between McCaw's feet. He takes it. I can't really see a penalty. He's right behind Franck's (I think it's Franck) counterruck and doesn't even touch Red 11 who was kinda part of the ruck. So, to me, he can't be penalized for coming by the side, he's just following his team mate.
The ref said he had to leave the ball. I, too, wonder if he woulda said that to Crus nb 9. Nobody touches you and you have touched nobody, the ball is between your feet and you should watch an opponent take it? How come?
Looked like an extraordinary game with fantastic moves, steps, intensions, intensity and all but a poor reffing at important times. And THAT is a shame. Fair play to all the players anyway. Even McCaw.
Anonymous June 02, 2011 1:57 pm

The penalty at the end was a penalty, McCaw just needed to drive over and keep the ruck formed and leave the ball to someone else, when a ruck is formed you cannot put ur hands in!!!
wh
berko75 June 02, 2011 2:07 pm

olwakachangchang June 02, 2011 2:08 pm

Stu Dickinson does seem to have earned his tag as a bad ref tho, if it were another ref there wouldn't be so much brouhaha.
Trolls can eat shit and die.
Laz June 02, 2011 2:14 pm

It was the straw that broke the camels back. There were an accumulation of stuff ups.
Bitter sweet feeling watching the ending as a neutral
Anonymous June 02, 2011 2:34 pm

gf June 02, 2011 2:36 pm

Personally I'd say most (not all) were down to the touchies, its just unfortunate Dickinson's name gets thrown around..
Jill Kilpatrick June 02, 2011 2:42 pm

1. Regardless of what the ref told McCaw that ruck was over and done with. Unless Digby Ioane having two hands and nothing else on McCaw counts as forming a ruck with the opposite player no one was bound in that ruck. Ball was not under anyone's feet but McCaw's. I agree with obeying the ref, but can the ref simply say whatever he wants and still not be called for poor reffing? If he for some reason said 'you can't call mark right now' would it be okay to penalize a player for making a perfectly legal mark call? I think not.
2. Love rugby as I do, it has too many rules open to too much interpretation. It is confusing for EVERYONE including professional players, coaches and referees. What can we expect of the average fan then? It is hindering the games growth in my opinion, especially for spectators (I am an American BTW) with little background in rugby. We need to have laws that leave as little room for interpretation as possible and go with it, much as American football has done. Lots of rules, but they are as clear cut as they can get so there are way fewer refereeing controversies. Getting ridiculous at this point for rugby.
Anonymous June 02, 2011 2:52 pm

Gramps, it's not purely about the decision about being weak, it's about the breakdown law being an absolute source of confusion. If players, top rugby people etc cant understand, how are new fans to the game supposed to?
Also, McCaw didnt whine like a baby. The rugby public did because they saw how bad Dickinson was during the whole match
Anonymous June 02, 2011 3:02 pm

medicaluke June 02, 2011 3:55 pm

Touch judges were totally inadequate. They're there to support the referee, not to make him look totally incompetent.
Props to the person that recommended greenandgoldrugby. Good analysis, nice slow mos.
cheyanqui June 02, 2011 4:40 pm

Rugby is a fluid game
rugby is a players' game
I must disagree with the idea of having so many rules (at least using American Football as a comparison).
Gridiron's rules are too technical and esoteric. That lends itself to gridiron, as they have natural stoppages, and the pro leagues want any excuse to cut to a commerical, or an ad at the bottom of the screen for "Two and a Half Men".
The gridiron rulebook is already too long. Multiple times in a game, the referees have to convene to discuss the technical rule for that given circumstance.
Even worse, they continue to constipate the game by walking over to a coach on the sidelines to give them a full explanation.
I even saw a game where the captain accepted the penalty rather than declining it (decling would have been more advantageous). The coach stormed onto the field, and requested a full explanation, and the referee allowed the coach to reverse the choice.
cheyanqui June 02, 2011 4:47 pm

American football's field smaller than a rugby pitch, but packed with seven officials.
The head official does the TMO work by walking over to a sideline and viewing pics.
--- Where can rugby expand? The TMO.
Firstly, TMO should be able to call any foul play, or at least address it at the next stoppage with the referee. It's clear the TJs are already visually impaired, and are legally blind when it comes to off-the-ball tugs and biffo.
As for the scrum ref, I think if you could run an overhead camera, perhaps the TMO might have a role there, watching for wheeling and binds.
Madflyhalf June 02, 2011 4:51 pm

NZ ref, 1 missed forward pass, 1 doubtful penalty = NZ team won by 2...
Ricky June 02, 2011 5:18 pm

The first person to clear out the ruck was fine, then the ruck didn't exist because the people that formed it were on the ground. There wasn't a person , then the clear out of number 17, that formed the ruck.
Finally the ref didn't penalized the "come from the side" !!!!
Anonymous June 02, 2011 5:38 pm

Fridge June 02, 2011 6:23 pm

A low scoring NH game is boring?
Hmmmmm.
Anonymous June 02, 2011 6:42 pm

Anonymous June 02, 2011 6:46 pm

The counter ruck was excellent but then the Crusader player (17) went straight to ground over the ball - this is what the penalty should have been for. McCaw was unlucky as the ball was at his feet and was legally allowed to play it - other than the first players offence that is!
As for the other reffering errors the two AR's should have been better in assisting but clearly weren't. They were also most likely in the wrong position to see what was happening clearly.
Jam June 02, 2011 8:58 pm

The guy had been pushed backwards off the ball and McCaw was just playing scrum half.
Everyone else is just detritus that haadn't rolled away because we've banned raking.
Not a penalty.
http://rugbyjam.blogspot.com/2010/09/very-good-year.html
Anonymous June 02, 2011 9:18 pm

Irish guy June 02, 2011 9:55 pm

Anonymous June 02, 2011 9:58 pm

Mike June 02, 2011 10:15 pm

whatever June 02, 2011 10:20 pm

McCaw was specifically reprimanded multiple times during the match for either going in at the side or slowing down the ball, so of course the ref is going to be watching even harder for him breaking the rules (even though he seemed technically within the law on that last penalty).
In any case, the Crusaders lost themselves this match. I think most teams know that playing against the Reds or Australia, you come out quick hitting Cooper and he folds like a deck of cards and starts making mistakes. They let him alone and he ended up winning the match. Go figure.
Nicko June 02, 2011 10:57 pm

It was a fucking average game by the ref, but who really cares... its a super15 round robin game, nothing to loose sleep over!
Well done reds :-)
Get some June 02, 2011 10:59 pm

Obviously bitter South Africans who can't handle being an inferior rugby nation wihout a player that can match it with McCaw (Brussow is shit apart from his work at the breakdown).
Darren June 03, 2011 12:27 am

Here's my humble opinion.
1) Richie McCaw gets so much abuse, not because he's a cunt, coz he's not, but because he's such a good player. At ruck time, disruption happens approx. 75% of the time, sometimes pinged by refs, sometimes not. Whoever says slowing down ball at the breakdown is not part of the game. Fuck off. Is that cheating? No! It's bending rules in your favour and McCaw is a genius at it. He may no longer be at the level he once was, but he's still the # 7 that sets the bench mark.
2) Officials were shit, end of story.
3) Cooper better than Carter....? I'm gonna say not a fucking hope, however it will remain to be seen at this word cup. Both class players, but Carter has it all, every facet of his game. Cooper has outstanding qualities, but some questionable ones.
We will see...
Gman June 03, 2011 1:10 am

Anonymous June 03, 2011 4:01 am

Cooper reminds me of Spencer, but I rate Spencer much higher... Quade does great stuff in super15 but Spencer did it at International level.
Anonymous June 03, 2011 7:18 am

Richie thought the ruck was over as there were no players standing-struggling over the ball, so he came in from the side. The ref point of view was; a ruck was formed and you can ONLY came in from the rear side, regardless of what happened with the players that created the ruck.
Anyway, we can discuss the matter to try to throw some light on this grey zones of the laws. But it's dangerous to start blaming the ref. It would be take the rugby a step closer to the soccer.
Jeremy June 03, 2011 7:44 am

Anonymous June 03, 2011 7:53 am

zacaria June 03, 2011 8:04 am

their will always be grey areas, even the scrum that got the crusaders in front it was both the crusaders prop and hooker that came up the reds front row,
kiwis always pick the shit out of any referees performance that doesnt go thier way
Alphonse June 03, 2011 9:03 am

The penalty that brought the score from 14-10 to 14-13 was a joke. "Last feet" does not mean "last body on the ground".
The same misconception that bodies on the ground are part of a ruck was also behind the penalty that brought the score from 14-16 to 17-16.
SmellyNerfherder June 03, 2011 10:44 am

William June 03, 2011 12:15 pm

But as a neutral (NH) i'm laughing at the overeaction from the NZ commentators in the clip.
The whole tackle area is a grey area where wither side can be pinged at every ruck. The IRB need to consider bringing back rucking with the boot back into the game.
There were a number of poor decisions, but it went to both sides, before the Carter pen that sent Canterbury into the lead the Canterbury flanker could easily be pinged for his binding in the scrum.
However, im sure in a few months time the Kiwis won't be whinging at the WC as has happened in every WC the host country tends to get the rub of the green.
Anonymous June 03, 2011 1:54 pm

Adam Keni June 03, 2011 1:56 pm

Pity tho... Would've liked to see Crusaders win this.
Anonymous June 03, 2011 1:56 pm

Astronaut June 03, 2011 5:25 pm

Jon Butcher June 03, 2011 7:32 pm

Anonymous June 04, 2011 3:19 am

End of the day the result remains.
Anonymous June 07, 2011 11:06 am

Anonymous June 08, 2011 6:22 am
















Commenting as Guest | Register or Login