PDA

View Full Version : Andre Watson's autobiog .... cant wait..



ex-lucy
27-10-05, 15:10
"It is a story and not an instruction manual, but there is much in it that could be of help to aspirant referees....."

http://www.planetrugby.com/News/story_47009.shtml

i wonder what he says about Rwc03 final and his performance on the day ...

ExHookah
27-10-05, 15:10
I'm assuming his section on "how to referee the scrum" should probably be disregarded, considering after RWC03 final he admitted in the press that he didn't have the faintest idea about scrums.

Ricampbell
27-10-05, 16:10
I bet it would be excellent I mean he is the most succesful ref of all time and apart from the scrum he reffed the final to perfection.

Ross

Mike Whittaker
27-10-05, 17:10
I have heard a current international referee say that he often is not sure of what is going on in the scrum, but he manages it!
He communicates and gets them to work with him, or accept the consequences.

ExHookah
27-10-05, 17:10
I bet it would be excellent I mean he is the most succesful ref of all time and apart from the scrum he reffed the final to perfection.

Ross


I'll add it to my Christmas list.

Just got Paddy O'Brien's book which I havn't read yet, and Woodward's "Winning" which I have to admit is fascinating so far. (Seriously)

OB..
27-10-05, 17:10
he admitted in the press that he didn't have the faintest idea about scrums.Here is an extract from an article in the Star (a South African newspaper) which does not quite support your contention.

South Africa's Andre Watson who refereed the World Cup final between England and Australia, tells Mike Bersiks about the four penalties he awarded Australia - and which upset the English so much.

Penalty No 1

"The first penalty was against Trevor Woodman, the England loosehead, for unbinding after I warned him to bind. He slipped the bind for whatever reason, it caused a weak link and the scrum collapsed. Woodman didn't have his hand up there where it should have been and the law clearly states that that's a penalty."

Penalty No 2

"The second one was for (tighthead prop) Phil Vickery when he scrummed in, he went on to the replacement hooker Jeremy Paul. The law is pretty clear that the man must keep his bind and push straight. He was going on the hooker which is dangerous play."

Penalty No 3


"The third penalty was against the whole England pack for pushing up, which caused two of the players, the tighthead prop and the hooker of Australia to pop out of the scrum.

Penalty No 4

"Prior to that scrum I had called both front rows out and said to them, 'Don't stuff this game up, stop this crap - I want you guys as experts in frontrows to make sure this thing works'.

At the crucial scrum I had to reset it because it collapsed and I said 'That's it, no more warnings now, try me' and then at the engagement there was no indication that anyone was unhappy so I called engage. The Australian pack went for it and the No 3 and the No 2 of the England team went for it but the No 1 for whatever reason didn't go in. At engagement once you hit and someone pulls out that is dangerous play, so it's a penalty."

I also have a longish transcript from a TV programme in which he described what happened in some detail.

Perhaps you are referrring to 1999 article on the London Society website:
These two gentlemen [Sean Fitzpatrick and Andrew Blades] have recently retired from the active game and I made a point of asking, checking and indeed sucking information out of them with regard to the secret game of front-row play. After milking them, I came to the following conclusions: that I knew very little about front-row play before I spoke to them. That I knew very little about front-row play after I spoke to them.

I have always regarded that as very much tongue in cheek.

didds
27-10-05, 17:10
pretty much what he said within a couple of days after the final I would imagine

didds

didds
27-10-05, 17:10
really?

I recall reading how he defended each penalty etc with reason, logic and applying the laws.

didds

ExHookah
27-10-05, 20:10
Perhaps you are referrring to 1999 article on the London Society website

These two gentlemen [Sean Fitzpatrick and Andrew Blades] have recently retired from the active game and I made a point of asking, checking and indeed sucking information out of them with regard to the secret game of front-row play. After milking them, I came to the following conclusions: that I knew very little about front-row play before I spoke to them. That I knew very little about front-row play after I spoke to them.


That's the statement I was thinking of, but I heard it just after the final. I think it might have been someone like Akford quoting the aforementioned statement.

His breakdown of the penalties is very reasoned.

Why the English front row couldn't just play it simple and straight is beyond me. They clearly had the upper hand all day, so they really didn't need to screw about and risk penalites.

didds
27-10-05, 23:10
certainly vivkery seemed to lose the plot - leoneard was subbed on with instructions to "keep it simple" He told Watson - I may go forward, I may go back, but I wonlt go up and down" To which watson replied "I'm pleased to hear it".

That all said (and in no means trying to underm,ine anything) others have used the word "materiality" WRT Watson and the game which I find interesting. And I - as an ex front row - stoill remain to be convinced about penalty number 4 about Woodman failing to engage. There is a perfect replay angle of the aus tight head at that scrummage whose engagement angle is at the floor ie with intent to dump woodman and thompson downwards i.e. he wasn;t ever travelling forwards with his head and chest parallel to the ground. No wonder woodman didn;t want to engage.

didds

didds