We value your privacy

We and our partners store and/or access information on a device, such as cookies and process personal data, such as unique identifiers and standard information sent by a device for personalised ads and content, ad and content measurement, and audience insights, as well as to develop and improve products.

With your permission we and our partners may use precise geolocation. You may click to consent to our and our partners’ processing as described above. Please note that some processing of your personal data may not require your consent, but you have a right to object to such processing.

More Options

Tue 27 Nov 2018 | 09:47
Referee of the year admits that he should have penalised Owen Farrell's tackle

15
Comments

Australian referee Angus Gardner has told Sky Sports that he should have penalised Owen Farrell for the no-arms tackle he made on Andre Esterhuizen in the closing seconds of the England vs South Africa Test match three weeks ago.

The 34-year-old's decision denied the Springboks a penalty and a shot at goal, which had they landed, would have won them a tight Test match at Twickenham. It has naturally been a huge topic of debate.

Gardner was awarded Referee of the Year at the World Rugby Awards in Monaco a few days back. He said there that if he could turn back the clock, he would change his decision.

"I think in hindsight now, having discussed it with some other referees... I think the general consensus would be that a penalty was probably the outcome there that should have been given," Gardner told Rupert Cox on the Will Greenwood podcast.

"I think we need to see a wrap with both arms, and I think in hindsight - although he got pinned - there wasn't a big enough wrap from both arms, really. There was a wrap with one arm, but there wasn't a wrap with the other arm."

Explaining why he saw it the way he did, he said: "The angles that I saw with the TMO, which were the head-on angles, showed a clear wrap of the front arm, but it was the back arm which got pinned.

"Of the angles that I was showed in the stadium at the time, that seemed to me to be enough of a wrap for me to constitute a legal tackle.

"It was never high, and so all we were looking at was the tackle technique. The collision itself also kind of swayed my decision because it was a big rugby collision, and we see these hits in the game.

WATCH: FARRELL MAKES ANOTHER CONTROVERSIAL BIG HIT

"We don't always get it right, and we understand that there are going to be decisions that are going to heavily influence the game. At this level the expectation is that we do get it right - and that's what we're striving to achieve - but we don't always.

"I suppose that's the best way, just to be honest about it. If I made a mistake, I've got to put my hand up and say I was wrong, and hopefully if I see that again then I'll know where I'm heading."

While Gardner is a highly respected official, it is somewhat ironic that he was named the best referee in the world following one of the most debated incidents of the year.

credit: worldrugby/skysports

Posted By: Grant Constable

15 Comments

  • acordy
    2:44 AM 29/11/2018

    To little to late. You hurried your decision and did not want to go through normal protocol. Did not give tmo time

  • reality
    11:24 AM 28/11/2018

    I like that they provided closure and said what the right call was, but the fact the chap was named the best referee in the world when this ridiculous and evidently incorrect decision decided the winner and loser of one of the most hotly contested matches of the year is too stupid for words.

    • jimmy23
      11:32 AM 28/11/2018

      I'm sorry but I don't see how it decided the result. There's no guarantee that South Africa would have won it from there if they were awarded a penalty. 

      • 45678
        9:55 PM 28/11/2018

        Exactly. The tackle was just inside the England half about 5-10 metres from the touch line. Pollard missed the previous kick in front of the sticks. Time to move on 

  • im1
    9:19 AM 28/11/2018

    Just need the TMO to admit he shouldn't have got involved in the Lawes offside decision in the NZ game...

    • colombes
      9:43 AM 28/11/2018

      There is a big difference between a shoulder charge which was unfairly not sanctioned... and a player who did not replace just enough to be "on side"

      • im1
        10:48 AM 28/11/2018

        The similarities are stronger than the differences. In both cases, the laws and guidelines issued by World Rugby were not followed correctly. In both cases, the laws are ambiguous enough that it needs guidelines to determine the correct decision. And in both cases, if the decision had gone the other way then there was probably a more than 80% chance the result would have gone the other  As Gardner says, mistakes are made in the game. If he is admitting this one, he should also admit that not choosing to refer the high hit on Kruis in the same game was wrong. In that case the TMO should have intervened as it looked like there was foul play.

        • reality
          11:27 AM 28/11/2018

          There's a fundamental difference between the two cases.In the first case, Farrell was incorrectly not penalised for an illegal tackle which decided the outcome of the match.In the second case Lawes was correctly penalised for being offside, which also decided the outcome of the match.So in the first case they got it wrong, and in the second case they got it right.

          • im1
            12:12 PM 28/11/2018

            the replays didn't conclusively prove Lawes was offside.

            • colombes
              1:40 PM 28/11/2018

              Yes they did. Replays, TMO and ref decided Lawes never replaced himself behind the defensive line. It was tight and marginal, but correct call as it allowed Lawes to counter the kick. During France vs Fiji, Radradra was penalized for the same reason.

  • jmdavies
    8:36 AM 28/11/2018

    Nice to see a ref reflecting on a decision made on the pitch and putting there hands up saying 'I was wrong'. I just wish some more decisions were explained post match to stop debates about what is right and wrong post match. Respect to Gardner

  • jimmy23
    7:55 AM 28/11/2018

    Urgh. Like the players, people need to move on. As I said before, it wasn't all that long ago everyone on here would be praising the hit and looking forward to seeing in the next TSRB video. 

    • colombes
      9:58 AM 28/11/2018

      Shoulder charges have never been praised here as far as i remember.We should praise these hits: https://www.rugbydump.com/news/this-sevu-reece-tackle-was-so-good-that-even-the-guy-he-smashed-laughed-about-itFarrell would be inspired to revise his actual tackling technique for the 6N

      • jimmy23
        11:21 AM 28/11/2018

        Maybe I'm exaggerating about it being praised, but there certainly wouldn't have been THIS much fuss over it (over all of social media, not just here). I'm finding it rather tiresome that with so many games today people can only talk about these sort of moments, rather than the game itself. 

        • pickay
          2:00 PM 28/11/2018

          I think that's just the global trend towards sensationalism. That's just how discourse is done nowadays, things are blown out of proportion, people get upset. I agree the focus should be on the great game of rugby, and the other stuff should be side notes, that can be fun to discuss, but without losing one's head and having to create a hashtag...

Related Articles