Romain Poite

[Ralto]

Scrums are now a penalty to the team awarded one.

Just on that, I thought the main idea of the "bind, set" call was meant to clear up the scrums, stop the resets, and STOP the collapses. I'll give some leeway for conditions, but I've seen more dangerous collapses in the last month than in the last year with the old rules.

[westies man]

The mighty Blacks showed yet again why they are ranked No 1 in the world and then daylight to everyone else.What was Du Plessis thinking ,he should know by now that you aren't allowed to tackle Carter

[chibi]

Why aren't they making sure the scrum is straight and steady? I thought you can't push before the ball is put in? Why do they keep ignoring that law?

[Secret Spy]

Guys, AB's had it in the bag anyway. Two yelows turns into one red. What got me was only got to see second half yesterday, so I treid to watch first half today on Fox, so they replayed Aussie v Argies this morning and then the same game four hours later. WTF!!!! Where was the AB's replay.
I heard the under 16 Grand final curtain raiser was cancelled by ARU because they thought the advertising might get rubbed off the field. Is that true??

[almac]

We're not infallible. And never claim to be. .
Posted via Mobile Device

Theres a BIG difference between infallible and incompetent...!!!

[RugbyRef]

Indeed, all of you that comment are incompetent to referee at that level (as am I), where as Romain has made a mistake. I agree it's not good, but it certainly doesn't make him incompetent.

Same way that when Sam Warburton was sent off for his tip tackle in the RWC. It arguably knocked Wales out of the RWC. Sam Warburton isn't incompetent, he made a mistake and paid the price.

I'm sure Romain will review his video with his coaches and learn from it, perhaps he may get dropped, but he is still a quality referee, one mistake doesn't change that.
Posted via Mobile Device

[GIGS20]

I'm sorry RR, you're stretching it to say he wasn't incompetent. I don't actually think he was incompetent at all, I think he was too arrogant to change the call.

The new laws allow him to watch the video review during TMO decisions and make his own call before the TMO has ruled and he did so once or twice during the game. That clearly shows that he was keen to use the law. The video evidence clearly showed arms in the tackle and it is safe to assume he was watching (if he wasn't he certainly should be)

I'm not claiming to be capable of reffing at that level, honestly I wouldn't have the fitness to keep up with the game and wouldn't have a deep enough understanding of the law to be able to make most of those calls instantly. That's why, when I can see something clearly on video review that an international standard ref cannot I believe that questions need to be asked about his competence at that level.

Answer me this, was the incident a shoulder charge? don't try to defend the ref, don't try to dodge the issue don't try to tell me I'm not qualified to criticize him tell me whether my assessment of the law in that one specific situation is flawed. If I am wrong I will publicly apologize for my rash statements and ask the mods to delete this thread.

What will you do if I'm right?

[Kev]

Do they still have coaches Q&A with the ref before test matches ... so the likes of Hansen can get into the ref's ears about possible targetting of Cotton Wool Carter.
Perhaps if the refs were left to make decisons that are based in the Laws of the game & not have coaches interpret it all for them pre-match they might get better ...

[SNOB]

Both Hansen and Carter have said it was a good tackle. The only person that didnt was Romain who was even told by his TMO there was "no foul play" or as Romain seems to call it "Fore Play"

[Kev]

Whatever is said after the game has no bearing whatsoever on the result that will stand. With Cotton Wool Carter, Romain's immediate reaction was protection ... wonder why that was?
Boks, ABs, Crowd, Rugby World deprived of a great contest ... why?

[SNOB]

IRB says Ref wrong!

http://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/ir...ss#mm-register

[jargan83]

IRB says Ref wrong!

http://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/ir...ss#mm-register

IRB confirms what the whole world knows

[RugbyRef]

None of us said he was right.
Posted via Mobile Device

[westies man]

Both Hansen and Carter have said it was a good tackle. The only person that didnt was Romain who was even told by his TMO there was "no foul play" or as Romain seems to call it "Fore Play"

Nice comment Snob but you are still going to have the usual whingers who think it's a conspiracy.It was a piss poor ref decision and it had a huge bearing on the match but I read the results this morning and it was still the same score as Saturday

[RugbyRef]

From the rugby blog:

North-South Divide: Steve Walsh Talks Interpretation, Inconsistency and Improvement

Consistency – the key to refereeing. Described as the “holy grail” by International Rugby Board (IRB) CEO Brett Gosper, but so often lacking among rugby’s top match officials. We hear with monotonous regularity those involved with the game bemoaning the variations that plainly exist between referees at the highest level, and have done for a number of years. The manner in which different individuals interpret some of the game’s key aspects, the scrum and the breakdown, is a subject constantly being debated. Even something as simple as a forward pass, and what constitutes one, is policed with altering attitudes by the sport’s elite whistleblowers.

This week, I spoke to veteran test-match referee Steve Walsh in connection with a feature piece on the IRB’s new scrum directive set to appear on The Rugby Blog in the coming weeks. The New Zealander was typically forthright and frank in his views on the perceived gap between the breakdown interpretations of one referee and the next at elite level. In the eyes of many, including Walsh, this gap is at its most glaringly obvious between officials in the Southern Hemisphere and their Northern counterparts.

“I think we have got a separation at the breakdown, and that is very much split North and South, I believe.

“In the last meeting between referees, we finally nailed down that there is a difference at the breakdown regarding defending players putting their hands past the ball, trying to steal the ball, and not supporting their bodyweight. We need to nut out how we’re going to fix that at this stage.”

This was an issue that reared its ugly head this summer, as the British and Irish Lions took on Australia in one of the sport’s flagship events. The interpretations of the test match referees – Chris Pollock (NZ), Craig Joubert (South Africa) and Romain Poite (France) – varied wildly from week to week. In the opening clash, Lions head coach Warren Gatland claimed that Pollock “crucified” his side at the breakdown, particularly illustrious centre Brian O’Driscoll. Walsh is not so sure.

“There were two penalties against O’Driscoll in the first test-match for, I suppose, not supporting his bodyweight.

“The referee knows he made a mistake on one of them, but the other one, I would say that my colleagues and I in the Southern Hemisphere absolutely thought that he was right, and the penalty was correct.

“Whereas almost all the Northern Hemisphere guys thought that both penalties were wrong. So there is a split regarding supporting bodyweight at the breakdown and attacking the ball – we need to be better at that. That’s where the biggest difference is at the moment.”

That the performance of a referee dominated the headlines in the wake of, at the time, comfortably the biggest game of the season, spoke volumes on a problem that has niggled away at the sport for a number of years.

It is important, here, to remember that, given the solo nature of refereeing, a particular individual may be marginally more stringent than another in any given area, and this is a point Walsh is keen to acknowledge.

“The majority of the differences are around maybe culturally or individually how we see things.

“Whether we’re technically minded or more liberal in our approach – that’s human nature, and you’re never going to get away from it, because that just comes down to individuals. For example, you might have an accountant, who’s very rigid in the way he sees certain things versus a musician, who’s more liberal.”

Some argue that the weather conditions in the Northern Hemisphere versus the Southern Hemisphere dictate, to an extent, the style of play teams adopt, and that referees have adapted to officiate accordingly. The Kiwi describes how the resultant philosophies of referees from different parts of the globe may affect their interpretations.

“I need to mention how we reward the ball-carrying team versus non-ball-carrying team.

“The statistics show that the team without the ball get penalised roughly 75% of the time down south, whereas up north the split is about 60-40.”

But surely, in a sport with one set of laws for all, this cannot be possible? Perhaps more importantly, what are the IRB and High Performance Match Official Manager Joël Jutge doing about it? Walsh maintains that, from a previous state of denial, the governing body and the elite panel of referees are now taking steps to tackle the problem.

“I was talking to the boss, Joël Jutge, about this, and I think he was happy that we’ve now nailed down what the differences are, instead of us all saying “No, it’s ok, there are no problems”.”

“Knowing those two things is important to at least be able to put a stake in the ground and say ‘this is where we’re at now, where do we need to get to where everyone in the game – players, coaches, spectators, media and referees – is happy? How do we get there? What does it look like?’ That’s the next stage between now and our next meeting in January – halfway through the Northern Hemisphere season and before the Six Nations.”

Gosper, too, points out that the IRB is working hard to iron out the contradictions and variability among officials.

“The referees sit in sessions with Joël and envision their own refereeing time and time again over a number of days, so that they can all see their own mistakes, see the differences in interpretations, and work towards a much more consistent interpretation.”

It is both refreshing and somewhat reassuring to hear one of rugby’s top match officials talk so openly about a problem that has not been readily admitted or addressed by many in the game. I have spoken to a number of leading figures in the sport in recent weeks, and the range of opinions on this particular subject is vast. Some lament the North-South divide, while others simply refute its existence.

With the introduction of the IRB’s new scrum protocols has come a potential area for more inconsistencies to develop – one look at the way Joubert, Pollock and Jaco Peyper policed the crooked feeds in the opening rounds of the Rugby Championship confirms that. Equally, though, it has provided an opportunity to significantly reduce these frustrating irregularities, and help make for a more palatable and enjoyable outcome for those involved. In the eyes of Walsh, at least, the first few steps on the road to a consistent and effective refereeing standard have just been taken.
Posted via Mobile Device