Geekzone Rugby (Union) Discussion Thread

Forums › Sports › Geekzone Rugby (Union) Discussion Thread

1 | ... | 441 | 442 | 443 | 444 | 445 | 446 | 447 | 448 | 449 | 450 | 451 | ... | 642

Networkn
32257 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2903672 19-Apr-2022 09:08

GV27:

Come on dude, are you going to tell me there has been as much scrutiny of the howlers the Blues copped in the last 10 minutes of that game (no referrals for clearly questionable incidents) as the Canterbury decision in the Wellington game? I mean it simply is how it is in NZ rugby, there's not much point in blowing up about it to the point where you pop a gasket, but let's not stick our head in the sand either here.

You understand both of those games were attention that the Crusaders got or didn't for apparent penalties or actions *against* them, right? The Hurricanes asked for clarification from the Referees post-match and got it. Seems like the explanation given was satisfactory.

I didn't see much re the Wellington game past the post-match interviews and a bit from 1 or 2 people in here and a topic on Reddit, where it was fairly split (more toward the fact the Crusaders were in the wrong but some reasoned arguments why they weren't. I didn't see anything from Pundits.

Likewise, I didn't see anything about the stuff you guys claimed happened in the Blues-Crusaders game. The TMO reviewed the apparent knock-on and said it was fine. They have more angles, but I am unsure why you think the TMO would deliberately lie about a knock-on or lack of one just because it's the Crusaders.

You keep going on about the preferential treatment the Crusaders get, but honestly, when was the last time the Crusaders got an apology from the referees?

networkn

Networkn
32257 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2903676 19-Apr-2022 09:19

itxtme:

In regards to Hurricanes being robbed, I do not believe that was insinuated, they were certainly robbed of the opportunity, but that would not have definately lead to winning the game...

Well, the Hurricanes asked for and got clarification on that and seemed satisfied with the explanation they got, no apology was issued or statement that it wasn't handled correctly...

As far as the Highlanders last play went, I think it was 50/50. The referee ruled prelimanry no try, and there was no clear evedience the try was grounded. Now if he had called it prelimenery try again it would have been awareded as there was no clear evidence it had not been grounded. The reality is the replays didnt show wether it was or was not, only a view of the top half of the ball.

The Hurricanes did there absolute best to lose that game, not taking advantage of the 20 minutes of 14 players. Also kicking away the ball inside the Highlanders 22 on 4 occasions. Canes are certainly missing a genuine number 10.

Personally, what I saw was one shot of the ball clearly over the line, but only the top half of the ball.

So basically, what it comes down to was, not whether the ball was over the line and grounded or not, but rather the question asked. I think if you are a Highlanders fan (I have no horse in that race), I think you could feel hard done by.

itxtme

2102 posts

Uber Geek

#2903803 19-Apr-2022 13:26

Can only laugh out loud at your conclusion re. the match officials. If they were so wrong how come they have not been brought up for bring the game into disrepute. He was 100% lying on the wrong side of the ruck, I mean unless you watch with your eyes closed I guess.... Anyway, he can spend 4 weeks on the side-line perfecting his ability to roll away for being the thug he is.

networkn:

Personally, what I saw was one shot of the ball clearly over the line, but only the top half of the ball.

So basically, what it comes down to was, not whether the ball was over the line and grounded or not, but rather the question asked. I think if you are a Highlanders fan (I have no horse in that race), I think you could feel hard done by.

The burden of proof is higher to overturn the referees using the latest rules in other words it has to be clear and obvious that the decision is wrong, and like you said, you could not confirm the ball had been grounded in the replays. There was also question marks around double movement if I recall correctly, like I said 50/50 and it could have gone the other way, and the try would have stood if he had ruled the otherway. There was no clear and obvious mistake......

One other thing I feel teams are doing poorly, is forwards going for the miracle score. With the new goaline drop out, getting over the line in the air is a very bad move, giving up possession. There will always be occasions when they get held up, but in the past it was worth a shot in that it was 5m reset, but not now - so attempts at scoring need to be better.

Hammerer

2476 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2903820 19-Apr-2022 13:57

networkn:

The Hurricanes asked for clarification from the Referees post-match and got it. Seems like the explanation given was satisfactory.

…

You keep going on about the preferential treatment the Crusaders get, but honestly, when was the last time the Crusaders got an apology from the referees?

It seems more like the Hurricanes had no further options for redress short of legal action. They’d already expressed their view and have not retracted it.

Re preferential treatment of the Crusaders, lack of an apology, from referees who generally don’t comment or apologise, appears to have little or no relationship to the claims of preferential treatment.

Dominant teams do tend to get a little more leeway from the referees. It normally doesn’t change the result but when it might have then the other team feels the “injustice”. But if the other team did get to dominate, they usually don’t point out how such treatment has worked to their own advantage too.

I think the closeness of the final scores means that we will get a similar proportion of complaints by the losing teams.

networkn

Networkn
32257 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2903822 19-Apr-2022 13:59

itxtme:

Can only laugh out loud at your conclusion re. the match officials. If they were so wrong how come they have not been brought up for bring the game into disrepute. He was 100% lying on the wrong side of the ruck, I mean unless you watch with your eyes closed I guess.... Anyway, he can spend 4 weeks on the side-line perfecting his ability to roll away for being the thug he is.

Well, that is an interesting take on things. If the Hurricanes had asked for clarification and the referees had come out and said they made a mistake, then Holland would have been on record when asked subsequently, as saying he had confirmation they made a mistake. Instead, his wording (paraphrased) was they had clarification and needed to move on. I saw an explanation from an ex-referee in the reddit thread which explained why Scott Barrett would not have been required to roll away, but I can't recall what exactly it was. My guess is that this ruling whatever it was, was the clarification Holland got.

The burden of proof is higher to overturn the referees using the latest rules in other words it has to be clear and obvious that the decision is wrong, and like you said, you could not confirm the ball had been grounded in the replays. There was also question marks around double movement if I recall correctly, like I said 50/50 and it could have gone the other way, and the try would have stood if he had ruled the otherway. There was no clear and obvious mistake......

One other thing I feel teams are doing poorly, is forwards going for the miracle score. With the new goaline drop out, getting over the line in the air is a very bad move, giving up possession. There will always be occasions when they get held up, but in the past it was worth a shot in that it was 5m reset, but not now - so attempts at scoring need to be better.

I am not a fan of the way that the way the question is asked can affect the outcome. The double movement was questioned and eliminated. Momentum from his teammates put him over the line. If it had been deemed a double movement, it would have been a penalty.

The only way that wasn't a try was if someone had their hand/arm underneath it entirely so that one blade of grass wasn't touching the ball over the line. Pretty unlikely in my opinion.

No matter what method they use, someone will always be unhappy. TMO has too much influence, TMO doesn't have enough power to override onfield decisions when in all probability the try was scored. I am not sure what the correct answer is, I guess so long as the rules always apply the same to everyone.

itxtme

2102 posts

Uber Geek

#2904641 21-Apr-2022 08:23

Super Rugby: NZ Rugby backs refs after criticism by Aaron Smith and Ardie Savea

"I know what we want to see is feedback around referees and feedback from referees to teams, and vice versa, being made through the appropriate channels.''

Ready for your retraction networkn. It would appear NZRU wish to run the system behind closed doors, with no openness, and zero visible accountability. Its something the NRL deals with a lot better, and rather than just stealing goal line drop outs and 40/20's they should consider why supporters are becoming frustrated with the refereeing and the inability to use the system they have in place. All the while NZRU looks around the room with a dumbfound expression on their faces wondering why the Super platform is losing patronage....

networkn

Networkn
32257 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2904653 21-Apr-2022 08:50

itxtme:

Super Rugby: NZ Rugby backs refs after criticism by Aaron Smith and Ardie Savea

"I know what we want to see is feedback around referees and feedback from referees to teams, and vice versa, being made through the appropriate channels.''

Ready for your retraction networkn. It would appear NZRU wish to run the system behind closed doors, with no openness, and zero visible accountability. Its something the NRL deals with a lot better, and rather than just stealing goal line drop outs and 40/20's they should consider why supporters are becoming frustrated with the refereeing and the inability to use the system they have in place. All the while NZRU looks around the room with a dumbfound expression on their faces wondering why the Super platform is losing patronage....

I am not really sure what you'd like me to retract?

I haven't made any claims that weren't an extension/paraphrasing of what was reported by the media or said by the coaches themselves.

All sports have a code of conduct around how referees are to be treated.

I don't see anything in that article that conflicts with what I said anyway...

Hatch

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Hatch (affiliate link).

itxtme

2102 posts

Uber Geek

#2904833 21-Apr-2022 13:21

Lol all of your assumptions on the outcome of the decisions in question. Clearly they will not come out saying the referees were wrong, NZRU has said that black and white.

Well, the Hurricanes asked for and got clarification on that and seemed satisfied with the explanation they got, no apology was issued or statement that it wasn't handled correctly...

Jason Holland said that they had conversations with the referee management where the decisions were explained and that they needed to move on (slightly paraphrasing). Seems like the explanation from the referee was good enough that there was no apology needed or issued.

networkn

Networkn
32257 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2904840 21-Apr-2022 13:33

itxtme:

Lol all of your assumptions on the outcome of the decisions in question. Clearly they will not come out saying the referees were wrong, NZRU has said that black and white.

Sigh.

You seem to be grasping at straws for some reason. None of what I said was proven incorrect at all. It's all going to be based on how you choose to interpret things.

Jason Holland himself made those statements, you can look them up if you care enough to do so. If he said it, then what exactly is your issue? Even if they don't publically state they were right or wrong, doesn't mean it didn't happen behind closed doors. You weren't at the meeting and neither was I, but I have heard coaches come out in the past couple of years subsequent to a referee meeting and say they were vindicated or whatever. Holland said they received clarification on the calls and was moving on (Paraphrasing).

@gv27 was the one who said the referees rush to apologise to the Crusaders (which I subsequently asked for clarification on when, since I can't recall it happening for many years).

Honestly, at this point, I think you should just let it go.

GV27

5885 posts

Uber Geek

#2904861 21-Apr-2022 14:32

networkn:

@gv27 was the one who said the referees rush to apologise to the Crusaders (which I subsequently asked for clarification on when, since I can't recall it happening for many years).

The most recent media evidence of such I can find was from 2014 but I am almost certain that it has happened in the last three years.

Time seems to have gotten all jumbled and confused for some reason after 2019. Can't imagine why!

networkn

Networkn
32257 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2904877 21-Apr-2022 15:14

GV27:

The most recent media evidence of such I can find was from 2014 but I am almost certain that it has happened in the last three years.

Time seems to have gotten all jumbled and confused for some reason after 2019. Can't imagine why!

To be fair, that was nearly 8 years ago, and certainly, that would have been the last time I can recall. If you cost a team a grand final, then you should apologise.

GV27

5885 posts

Uber Geek

#2904878 21-Apr-2022 15:16

networkn:

To be fair, that was nearly 8 years ago, and certainly, that would have been the last time I can recall. If you cost a team a grand final, then you should apologise.

Bit of success bias there; if you're getting rubbish calls and narrowly losing games throughout the season like the Blues were, you never get close to the finals 😅

itxtme

2102 posts

Uber Geek

#2904879 21-Apr-2022 15:19

networkn:

itxtme:

Lol all of your assumptions on the outcome of the decisions in question. Clearly they will not come out saying the referees were wrong, NZRU has said that black and white.

Sigh.

You seem to be grasping at straws for some reason. None of what I said was proven incorrect at all. It's all going to be based on how you choose to interpret things.

Jason Holland himself made those statements, you can look them up if you care enough to do so. If he said it, then what exactly is your issue? Even if they don't publically state they were right or wrong, doesn't mean it didn't happen behind closed doors. You weren't at the meeting and neither was I, but I have heard coaches come out in the past couple of years subsequent to a referee meeting and say they were vindicated or whatever. Holland said they received clarification on the calls and was moving on (Paraphrasing).

@gv27 was the one who said the referees rush to apologise to the Crusaders (which I subsequently asked for clarification on when, since I can't recall it happening for many years).

Honestly, at this point, I think you should just let it go.

Just holding you to account for what you say. The point stands your point of view is no more supported than mine, the difference is you use the lack of statement as evidence it was the right call.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/super-rugby-pacific-hurricanes-coach-jason-holland-reveals-discussion-with-referees-after-controversial-calls/QAM6NVTC2XF7TXWOSR5XLBWTGM/

It was the wrong call two weeks ago, and it was still the wrong call today. Barrett is a recidivist, and that is why he got 4 weeks and not 3 like the other two - I guess that's at least something we can both agree on 😅

networkn

Networkn
32257 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2904880 21-Apr-2022 15:21

GV27:

Bit of success bias there; if you're getting rubbish calls and narrowly losing games throughout the season like the Blues were, you never get close to the finals 😅

I'd suggest you may have your own bias in play, I don't think the Blues were really title contenders for quite a number of years. Some years not even finals contenders. A few decisions going the wrong way wasn't changing that.

You are the only person I know of from the Blues supporters I 'know' who still talks about those decisions years after they have occurred. :)

GV27

5885 posts

Uber Geek

#2904881 21-Apr-2022 15:27

networkn:

You are the only person I know of from the Blues supporters I 'know' who still talks about those decisions years after they have occurred. :)

Meh. I have a lot of issues with the way the Blues and NZR have treated rugby in Auckland over the last twenty years. A lot of it is to do with how accomodating NZR has been for other players wanting sabbaticals while Auckland bled senior players, and then us becoming a home for wayward ex-All Blacks who would show up out of shape and not in match condition. Made doubly frustrating by a lot of local schoolboy talent popping up in various other teams.

It blows my mind that we supposedly have the biggest player pool in the country but still had to take hand-me-down second fives and halfbacks. Funnily enough, after the NPC team started firing, the Blues came right.

1 | ... | 441 | 442 | 443 | 444 | 445 | 446 | 447 | 448 | 449 | 450 | 451 | ... | 642