• Twitter

  • Wales and the dubious penalty

    Well once again Wayne Barnes has become the centre of controversy at a RWC, but this time due to his unwillingness to use the TMO to check Hooks kick at goal. Is the criticism of him right, or just an excuse as to why Wales lost (we'll ignore the other missed penalties and the missed drop goal).

    So, let's define the right questions first.
    1. Did the kick go through the posts?
    2. Could Wayne Barnes have used the TMO?
    3. Why didn't he?
    1, Well this is the hardest question, it certainly looks like it was through at first glance on the TV. However if you look closer you can see it starts wide right and then curls in. From the angle shown it is impossible to tell if it curled in too late. To know that you would need to be directly below the post, Which is the position that the Assistant Referee is in. It would be his decision to call it. And from that angle the call should be fairly simple.

    So the balance of probability is that it didn't go through.

    2, This is the easiest question. Yes he could.

    3, Wayne tells the Welsh captain that he could have gone to the TMO but the Assistant Referees were sure, and that should be good enough, the Assistant Referee was in the best position in the stadium, and I'm sure had a camera angle been available that showed it going through the commentators would have been showing it after the game. So even if he had gone to the TMO, the result would have been inconclusive and the original call of no goal upheld.

    Unfortunately it seems that this criticism of Wayne Barnes is unfair, with some Welsh looking to try and prove something that just isn't true.

    Remember, camera angles are 2D. And do not always accurately show the facts. Take the missed drop goal for example. The first angle looked like it just missed, but the second angle showed it to be well wide.

    On this occasion it was the consistently poor kicking that lost Wales the game and not the Match Officials.
    Comments 50 Comments
    1. OB..'s Avatar
      OB.. -
      A very good summary.
    1. chopper15's Avatar
      chopper15 -
      As it happens it wouldn't have made much difference to the score. When looking for 'my incident' it showed Wales's first try pass was forward.
    1. Jenko's Avatar
      Jenko -
      Your comment that ' some Welsh looking to try and prove something that just isn't true' is based on what exactly? From the comments that I have seen the Welsh Squad have accepted and moved on. This statement has spoilt an otherwise well reasoned article.

      I have seen comment by Paul Ackford that questioned 'were Wales Robbed' in http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rug...uled-wide.html. Is he now Welsh. LOL
    1. OB..'s Avatar
      OB.. -
      Quote Originally Posted by Jenko View Post
      Your comment that ' some Welsh looking to try and prove something that just isn't true' is based on what exactly?
      I understand there has been a certain amount of comment on gwladrugby.

      I have seen comment by Paul Ackford that questioned 'were Wales Robbed' in http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rug...uled-wide.html. Is he now Welsh. LOL
      A poor article. Arguing that going from 10-3 down to 10-6 down would have won Wales the game is nonsensical. Suggesting the TMO would have had a better view than the ARs is just wrong.
    1. Jenko's Avatar
      Jenko -
      Quote Originally Posted by OB.. View Post
      I understand there has been a certain amount of comment on gwladrugby.

      A poor article. Arguing that going from 10-3 down to 10-6 down would have won Wales the game is nonsensical. Suggesting the TMO would have had a better view than the ARs is just wrong.
      OB, I am surprised at you taking what is written on Gwlad to represent any sane view of the world. I shall approach your future posts with caution!
    1. crossref's Avatar
      crossref -
      Quote Originally Posted by OB.. View Post
      Suggesting the TMO would have had a better view than the ARs is just wrong.
      not necessarily -- it all depends on how many cameras saw it, and from what angles.

      notwithstanding that the view from any one camera may indeed be decpetive and not to be relied upon :if the TMO has access to replays from multiple cameras he may well be able to establish the truth conclusively. .... that's why TMOs are indeed allowed to adjudicate on kicks.
    1. OB..'s Avatar
      OB.. -
      Quote Originally Posted by Jenko View Post
      OB, I am surprised at you taking what is written on Gwlad to represent any sane view of the world. I shall approach your future posts with caution!
      I have never read gwlad, but the article simply referred to "some Welsh", not to the Welsh team. (There have also been some comments of that sort on planet-rugby.)
    1. Jacko -
      I think that using TV replays to check kicks at goal is very risky, especially if the ball is above the height of the posts. I can see the point for drop goals if the ref is out of position (or on his arse etc) but when the ARs are in position I would always trust their 3D compatible eyeballs above a 2D TV lens.
    1. chopper15's Avatar
      chopper15 -
      Quote Originally Posted by Jacko View Post
      I think that using TV replays to check kicks at goal is very risky, especially if the ball is above the height of the posts. I can see the point for drop goals if the ref is out of position (or on his arse etc) but when the ARs are in position I would always trust their 3D compatible eyeballs above a 2D TV lens.
      Did WB consult the ARs, I wonder? If so, how sure were they that their decision was correct? Anything short of positive would have to be the TMO's recommendation, surely? Isn't this accepted procedure for the modest ref?
    1. Jacko -
      Quote Originally Posted by chopper15 View Post
      Did WB consult the ARs, I wonder? If so, how sure were they that their decision was correct? Anything short of positive would have to be the TMO's recommendation, surely? Isn't this accepted procedure for the modest ref?
      I would expect the ARs to declare themselves unsure which would initiate a referral to TMO, rather than expect WB to do it off his own back in this case. Normally if they don't raise their flags I assume it is unsuccessful and go with their decision as they are better placed than the ref to give the call. Nothing to do with modesty - I rely on my assistants to do their job.
    1. Bryan's Avatar
      Bryan -
      Quote Originally Posted by chopper15 View Post
      1. Did WB consult the ARs, I wonder?
      2. If so, how sure were they that their decision was correct?
      3. Anything short of positive would have to be the TMO's recommendation, surely?
      4. Isn't this accepted procedure for the modest ref?

      Initial Reaction (it's Monday, I'm going on holidays, so f**k it, I'm having fun with my response!)

      1. No. The flag-waving to signal a successful kick at goal by the AR is only for exercise. The referee is in the best position to see whether the kick was successful based on his position of being lined-up nowhere near the ball and also drinking water while not really paying attention.
      2. They toss a coin; or they play Marco-Polo and the winner decides. They also tried to show the Springboks that they arent trying to "f**k them over again" and instead have a hate-on for Warren Gatland. The correctness of their decision has no bearing here.
      3. Not really. The Aussie TMO was unavailable as he was getting the production crew to scope out the talent in the crowd, so there was only one camera angle on the posts while the others were busy scoping out the grandstand. Also, by this point, he was into his 4th can of Tui.
      4. No modest referee would be caught dead relying on a pair of Irish/Kiwi ARs against the Taffs/Yappies.

      Serious Reply
      1. Did you know they have open-mic communication? If there was an issue, it's the ARs who would take initiative.
      2. Did you know that if there was an issue, the ARs would tell him to "go upstairs"?
      3. Agreed. If the ARs were positive on their acccuracy, the referee wont overrule them
      4. Yes, but once again the ARs would be driving this.
      5. Can you define "modest ref"?

      I dont know why Wayne is wearing this decision. It's an AR issue, not a referee one.
    1. Wireless's Avatar
      Wireless -
      If we're able to put GPS on the backs of players, why not add one to the ball in future (when there's miniturisation available of course), then the flight of the ball would instantaneously be shown against the fixed positions of the goal posts. Obviously there would need to be a rule change to enable the TMO to be able to raise a flag of some sort to bring the matter to the attention of the Referee.At the moment, the Referee is able to contact the TMO, but there is currently no way that the TMO can show the Referee that he's seen an infringement.This would have to be via a GPS or 3D TV system, since as others have commented already, 2D TV proves nothing regarding the flight path of the ball in this incident.
    1. chopper15's Avatar
      chopper15 -
      Nice one, Bryan, and thank you. Have a nice holiday.
    1. wilksy's Avatar
      wilksy -
      I like the idea of GPS (at high level only, obviously) but what about Hawkeye or whatever it is called for cricket and tennis. Surely, the technology is there, especially for something as critical as the World Cup. Haven't seen the game so will not give opinion either way.
    1. OB..'s Avatar
      OB.. -
      In tennis and cricket. Hawkeye is used fairly often. How often do you see dubious kicks? I doubt if cost-benefit analysis would justify Hawkeye for this purpose.

      Others have suggested it could be used to detect forward passes, but merely knowing where the ball is and where it is going is not enough. We are talking technology, not magic, so I am cautious about what could be done.
    1. chopper15's Avatar
      chopper15 -
      Quote Originally Posted by OB.. View Post
      . . . but merely knowing where the ball is and where it is going is not enough. We are talking technology, not magic, so I am cautious about what could be done.
      But surely all that's necessary is to confirm the direction of the passing movement . . . where the ball is, or goes, isn't the issue. . . is it? Technology to determine that shouldn't be all that difficult, surely?
    1. OB..'s Avatar
      OB.. -
      Quote Originally Posted by chopper15 View Post
      But surely all that's necessary is to confirm the direction of the passing movement . . . where the ball is, or goes, isn't the issue. . . is it? Technology to determine that shouldn't be all that difficult, surely?
      You can only tell if it is a forward pass if you know who passed it.
    1. kestrel49's Avatar
      kestrel49 -
      1 Did the kick go through the posts? Ans: YES Anyone with an ounce of common sense could see it curl back in BEFORE going through the posts! 2 Could Wayne Barnes have used the TMO? Ans: YES 3 Why didn't he? Ans: He was too pig headed not to cover himself & took the word entirely of his ARs. In my opinion, that "blunder" should cost him the RWC final.
    1. Robert Burns's Avatar
      Robert Burns -
      How could you tell this, and could you provide evidence to show this? The video evidence that I and everyone else saw clearly shows the ball above the posts, there is no reference to say the ball curled in before or after.

      As for your reply to 3, you obviously didn't read the article fully, the Assistant Referee(s) calls the kick successful or not, the referee just signals it to the crowd with his Whistle.He also did ask the Assistant Referees but they were sure, may I point out that Both Assistant Referees are IRB Referees of their own merit, had they been unsure, they would have asked WB to check with the TMO.

      Furthermore, IF there was an error here, the error would have been with the Assistant Referees, not Wayne Barnes. IF an error was proved all would be asking for at least an apology from the Assistant Referee and Wayne Barnes (despite him not being the issue here).

      If it's ever proved that the Assistant Referees were right, how many of the people certain it went through, would have the decency to stand up and apologise to a Referee that is being hounded for a decision that isn't actually his to make?

      Not many I would think.
    1. Dixie's Avatar
      Dixie -
      Quote Originally Posted by kestrel49 View Post
      1 Did the kick go through the posts? Ans: YES Anyone with an ounce of common sense could see it curl back in BEFORE going through the posts! 2 Could Wayne Barnes have used the TMO? Ans: YES 3 Why didn't he? Ans: He was too pig headed not to cover himself & took the word entirely of his ARs. In my opinion, that "blunder" should cost him the RWC final.
      Hi Kestrel49. Welcome to the referee forums. I normally encourage new participants to post any points they wish to make, even if it seems daft, on the basis that we often have our best discussions when someone challenges a long-held preconception. With you now having two posts, I thought long and hard about making an exception and suggesting you might be more comfortable at PlanetRugby, where ill-informed rant and mindless character assassination seem to be appreciated. However, I slapped myself down for holding such uncharitable thoughts, especially since you are a Kiwi, and so still have THAT pass at the front of your mind. Do however bear in mind that the people here actually know what they are talking about by and large, and can spot ignorant jingoism a mile off. Keep that in mind and you'll have a great time on here.
  • Recent Activity Widget

    crossref

    FizzBuzz

    Thread Starter: crossref

    Fizz on Fives Buzz on Sevens Reverse Direction on Buzz (surprisingly this is possible online, but will take concentration) Take your seats as they come up. I will start, going clockwise ONE

    Last Post By: crossref 2 Hours Ago Go to last post
    Phil E

    Enforcement of current law - refereeing at the breakdown March 2020

    Thread Starter: Phil E

    New Law Application Guidelines https://rugbyreferee.net/2020/04/02/new-2020-tackle-law-guidelines-announced/?fbclid=IwAR2dK3xdBPsFOuUEsm8bZ-16ZfoxV9-e2FC-n5A1NiZ1Vnqb8Q2lmKRUcJc

    Last Post By: Marc Wakeham 15 Hours Ago Go to last post
    Pablo

    Mornington Crescent

    Thread Starter: Pablo

    Right, a simple one so the newbies can get involved too. Since the network is largely suspended, we'll play the Cambridge Standard Rules, with broken escalators as wild. I'll start: Chalfont & Latimer

    Last Post By: SimonSmith 1 Day Ago Go to last post