Bernard Foley showed nerves of steel to slot a match winning penalty at the death of a thrilling encounter between Australia and Scotland at Twickenham. The dramatic 35-34 win came down to a highly controversial refereeing decision off the back of a lineout.
The Wallabies will play Argentina in the World Cup Semi Final next weekend.
Highlights above with more feedback and reaction to follow
BS. Watch even closer at 7 seconds, it was a foot from the ruck. Blink and you'll miss it. The ref is right there watching too.
sorry but I need to rectify that:
"a forward pass that cost a world cup,(thanks Barnes)"
seriously?? It cost you a place in the semi-final. End of.
Don't be so arrogant to automatically assume you would have won the next 2 games. And by the way, Ali Williams and other ABs have said they did not deserve to win that day.
sorry but I need to rectify that:
"a forward pass that cost a world cup,(thanks Barnes)"
seriously?? It cost you a place in the semi-final. End of.
Don't be so arrogant to automatically assume you would have won the next 2 games. And by the way, Ali Williams and other ABs have said they did not deserve to win that day.
Totally off topic now, but I love dissecting this stuff.
Looking at that Laidlaw try, I don't think he ever touched it at the moment of the supposed knock. It looks to me he reached for it and then the #8 kicked it a bit before he actually grabbed it. Then he picks and dives for the line. Would love to see more angles, but assuming that was the only one available, I don't think you could say he definitely knocked it. I'd award the try. But who knows really.
I agreed with what you said right up until the end. You really think the NH is shite?? Aus just beat the worst of the 5 nations teams by 1 point on a bad call by the ref. RSA beat wales by just 4pts after trailing the entire game, although they did control possession (I still have no idea why wales continually kicked away possession). By no means am I say that those two teams did not deserve their victories, but the margins are slim. Seems a bit short-sided, and indicative of SH arrogance that manifests itself in all of these conversations, to say the NH is shite.
It's taken a couple of coffees, but I think I see what you're saying. Because the Scotsman grabbed the ball while offside, then maybe that constitutes deliberate foul play and can therefore be sent to the TMO. I think the law recognises the difference between instinctively grabbing at a possibly knocked-on ball (and often, who can tell?), and deliberately playing the ball while being unambiguously offside. And thank God for that. It's only on slo-mo replay that any of us knows for sure that it brushed against Phipps. My position is that the vast majority of even the very best refs would've made the same decision in real time, and players too.
So, I've finally watched this. By no means am I defending Joubert, because he obviously blew the call at the end and cost Scotland a spot in the semifinal. He also showed a lack of class by running off afterward. HOWEVER those saying he should have used the TMO are way off base, to the point that it's absolutely ludicrous to suggest it. First, this assumes that the TMO wouldn't stop him say, I can't review that because it's not among the legitimate reasons. But most importantly, even if the TMO went along, what you would have is two men, a ref and a TMO, bilaterally changing the rules of officiating rugby. That sets a dangerous president, that if two officials see fit, they can do whatever they want with the rules of Rugby. That's absurd, dangerous, illogical and honestly very childish to call for. He bollocksed up the end of the game for sure (i think that's how you Brits use the term), but rewriting the officiating laws on the field would just be making a terrible decision worse. Sometimes ref screw up, and you just have to take it.
That being said, he should have consequences. I'd think his days refereeing at the RWC are finished. Not sure what the rules are governing poor performance at an international such as this. Are fines in order? A suspension? I doubt it. But perhaps a demotion or loss of opportunity on other large stages.
Not the worst thing I've been called, I'll take that :)
Thank you Katman for being a voice of reason amongst all this ill-informed parochial BS!
That's a reasonable point. The assistant referees seem to have been emasculated with all this insistence on consulting the TMO all the bloody time. In this and many other cases it's probably the assistant refs who have the best view.
Breakaway I mentioned those 2 things because you are talking about tmo protocols and I'm saying if you want to look at definitions then a deliberate offside is a form of foul play, the deliberate part shows intent also, therefore 'intent to cheat', which the tmo can weigh in on...
Because the TMO cannot under the current arrangements be used for such a situation and because the TMO is an ugly blight on the game which is quickly turning rugby into the stop-start bore-fest our American cousins like to have as background entertainment while they stuff their faces with hot dogs and inferior quality beer.
I like a ref who backs himself instead of holding up the game every two minutes to listen to some boring bastard poring through slow-motion replays that distort every situation.
This game - Scotland persevered well and fair play for their commitment. But in no way did they deserve the win. Steady boot and a couple of flukey tries does not match Australia's wonderfully creative flowing rugby, for pure rugby.
Yes 45678! Too bloody right. Live by the dive, die by the dive. Or something like that. Here we have a case of karma, (if you take the standard erroneous definition of karma that is).
Ah, the days when football refs used to piss themselves laughing when Klinnsman rolled about grabbing his knee. I reckon rugby has about two years left of its honeymoon period where divers and fakers are still ridiculed.
You are correct, but it ceases to be a penalty offence, and then the original offence (which was a Scottish knock on, before the Aussie played it back) would have left us with a scrum between the two of them to finish.
Breakaway, I love that we can fundamentally disagree and yet you can make me chuckle out loud. Chapeau, sir, chapeau.
*use of French, ban him for five weeks*
He's beeing crucified for beeing Joubert in the first place.
And it will go on. No other ref has been subject to such controversy as far as I know.
And wether it's right or not, he's now knowned as a bad ref by a lot of people. His name may well be the only one that many people know as far as refs are concerned.
Of course World rugby has to stand by his side because you can't have people criticizing referees.
But he's still an arse, with the charisma of one. And that's problematic in itself (even tough there's not much one can do about it).
Lot of talk about the TMO here... how about the dodgy rulings on the scrums? 5 penalties to Scotland for collapsed scrum on Scott Sio's side No re sets no warning just a gift 3 points to Scotland. Then he re sets every dropped Scottish scum in the 2nd half until Holmes dopes it and guess what??? Penalty Scotland. If he was consistent at scrum time Australia would have been gifted 6 points mid way through the 2nd half
So did Joubert make the wrong call at the end? Maybe, but he did gift them 12 points from inconsistent refereeing at the scrum.
No, TMO protocol only allows for very specific reviews, and not "important decisions". This is from the IRB website:
The TMO can be used only in the following circumstances:
Determining the grounding of the ball in-goal for a try or touchdown and/or whether players were in touch or touch in goal before grounding
Determining whether a kick at goal has been successful
Confirm if an infringement has occurred in the build-up to a try or prevention of a try (infringement must be within two phases of the try or touchdown)
Considering acts of possible foul play
Here's the link: http://www.worldrugby.org/news/96575
Joubert was not allowed to consult the TMO, and he's being crucified for following the IRB rules.
Not sure I follow these conspiracy theories about Joubert, but TMO protocol allows for the review of suspected foul play and important decisions, so I think it should apply to the final penalty yesterday.
Nevertheless, Scotland really shouldn't be throwing to the tail in torrential rain! Bad luck otherwise though, they put in a hell of a performance (damn sight better than England!).
But the aussie playing the bal doesn't put the Scotsman on side. He was still off side, playing the bal after a knock on, and preventing an opponent from gaining an advantage.
In addition I missed the aussie hands in the first place and I can imagine Joubert did too.
I am not a fan of Joubert and after watching your link regarding the previous final I have serious doubts about him, but purely this decision i won't hold against him.
Looks like Joubert had to poop.
...
Not sure that helps his image much.
http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/rugby-union/34572066
As far as I am concerned, you could give the TMO a whistle.
So the ref wouldn't have to stop the game and ask for it.
Don't see how it could do harm to the game.
No, all it shows is that big decisions in the dying moments of close games can go both ways, but we only care about the ones that affect our own teams.
I demand the TMO. I know it's not allowed, but this is a critical moment in my day.
No, that is not what the TMO is for. The TMO is only there to check grounding of a try, foot in touch prior to a try, transgressions up to 2 phases before a try and suspicion of foul play. That's it. You wrote earlier that the IRB had changed this before the World Cup. Where did they do this? Can you post a link?
"They are also designed to be flexible, with the most important aspect being the guiding principles, which enable to referee to over-rule the protocols and emphasises the importance of using TMO to protect the image of the game by being credible and consistent."
Really? Where does it say all that?
Also, see my comment at the bottom about the Laidlaw try from the Samoa game in the closing minutes. Karma? Who knows?
Might I also remind the upset Scottish fans that Scotland only played in the quarter finals thanks to a narrow victory over Samoa. Had they lost this game, then Japan would have progressed. And they only won this game 36-33 thanks to (ironically also in the 74th minute) a try to Greig Laidlaw where he clearly seems to fumble the ball forward at the base of the scrum before darting over for the try. This was never referred to the TMO (and here the TMO would have had all the right to intervene as it was a try-scoring situation). Had it been referred, I'm pretty sure the try wouldn't have stood and Japan would have progressed to the quarter finals. Just something to ponder, while everyone is upset about the Joubert decision.
Here is the try in question. Watch closely at 7 seconds. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxU_SjPegag
Website suggestion: Font specifically for humorous/sarcastic/ironic comments.
Should reduce some confusion.
was the first Scottish try (Horne) legal?
I always thought if you were engaged in an attacking ruck, you have to disengage and come back onside in order to pick it up. I may be completely wrong, but it instinctively looked all wrong to me
He thought you had other intentions and gave you a yellow card, off you go :-)
@WJMcP you could call a penalty at every single breakdown if you wanted to. the most important issue is consistency in a game. it gives players a chance to play to the ref interpretation. I think joubert although not amazing, was consistent. the game was great entertainment. he got a couple of calls wrong, but then every referee will
I would argue that Nigel Owens was far less consistent in the NZ France game. I thought he let the kiwis get away with murder at the breakdown and was quite pedantic at times with the French. didn't change the result and France were dire
we all get a bit one eyed when its our own team
So, in the last minute of a massive match, Craig Joubert invents a fictional penalty and Bernard Foley takes the kick to win the game.
Oh, wait, you thought I mean last night? No, I meant the 2014 Super Rugby Final. That's right. Craig Joubert did this exact same thing for an Australian side last year. Of course, World Rugby say it's fine, so no need to worry.
What a game! Pretty dramatic!
I understand why scots fans can't swallow that one, I can't either.
It was their night. They were brilliant, brave...and lucky to stay that close.
They desserved to win but let's not kid ourselves. The aussies offered them many points (lots of missed kick, wrong passes that cost tries...)...
Still I feel very sorry for them, and northern rugby. All we can do is almost beat southern nations, when playing at 150% and beeing in luck while they ate something weird last night...
This 4 nations semis are a fair result and its very sad.
Joubert... just look at the guy. His face calls for a good slap. I m sure he isn't biased in any particular way but he's a poor decision maker. Always have been, always will be.
It seems the rule permits the yellow card but it was absurd. It's obvious Mainland tries to get the ball even if with one hand. The outcome could have been very different had he succeded. Still it must be "intentional" so... I would say if you have any doubt regarding that intention, you dont go for a yellow card...
Nigel Owens wouldn't have used the TMO in the final minutes of the Scotland Australia game either, because it is not allowed. Which is why Joubert didn't. How come none of the aggrieved Scottish fans can bring themselves to admit this? It's the fundamental point in this whole debate. The TMO was not an option. Full stop. Move on.
But we're not complaining about one decision. There were several of them.
To be honest Australia did deserver to win, created and took their chances well. But then so did Scotland, and the fact that the game was decided by a las minute kick and thee was only a point between the teams tells you just how close it was. That is why when it comes to getting the close calls right it is not a nice to have but an essential.
Watching Nigel Owens' performances gives you an idea of how a ref can use the TMO whilst keeping the game flowing, whilst also talking to the players all the time to tell them what he wants. It's a pity that Joubert does not possess the same skills and authority that NO does.
I think you missed the intended humour. Do you truly believe I think I convinced everyone, or even anyone? pff!
We get obsessed with tiny moments in games, usually in the dying minutes. kick at goal / instead of the lineout? was this or that a penalty?
the bottom line is that if you have not done enough to win the game in the preceding 79 minutes, you cant really complain about 1 decision
easy to hide behind the referee, but we'd be better to accept that NH is shite atm and move on
I'm afraid Hogg was a victim of his own doing here. you only need to dive once to get a reputation
So watching again it is unclear who hit the ball that caused the knock-on. What is clear in the video replays is that Hardie is high tackled and that is also a penalty. A harsh call yes but nowhere near as harsh as giving a penalty for offside to Australia.
Joubert is getting a hard time here not just for this incident but for a whole series of them:
1/ Sean Maitland should never have been yellow carded, it was not a deliberate knock-on but a genuine attempt to catch the ball.
2/ There was precious little consistency at the scrum with both sets of forwards being penalised whist it was unclear who was at fault.
3/ Stuart Hogg charged late after his clearing kick which was a clear penalty and should have been awarded where the ball landed. as it was foul play the tMO should have got involved.
4/ To sprint off the field at the end was disgraceful, even in the much maligned sport of WendyBall the referees never do that.
...and if none of that makes you think that it is time Joubert was told to pack it in, go back and have a look at the 2011 final and that should be enough to convince you. It might be hard to take as a Scottish fan but that is nothing compared to being French and cheated out of the world cup.
I'm not sure why you're asking me about deliberate offside and foul play. I haven't mentioned them. I also haven't said that I'm a big fan of Joubert, in fact I've criticised the yellow card in this game and I think he got the front row penalties mostly wrong too. He has pretty ordinary days.
I'm saying that whatever the fluctuating standards of referees, individually or as a group, rugby is difficult enough to referee as it stands, even with laws mostly as clear as they can be written. It won't improve the situation by insisting that a ref has to decide whether to go to the TMO based on highly subjective ideas about whether that point in the game is crucial or important enough. Any sort of consistency would be impossible and even the decisions to go to the TMO or not every few minutes towards the end of a big match would add controversy. Nobody would be happy. The complaints would increase, not decrease. The TMO protocols are clear and Joubert followed them because he had no alternative. Frankly, I think most other top refs would've made the same decision in real time. See katman's post below, for more common sense.
Emotional people here are having a go at Joubert simply because he followed the TMO rules as set out by the IRB. The rules about when a ref can call on the TMO are very specific for a reason. What people seem to want is for the ref to disregard those rules because:
a.) it was a quarter final
b.) it was in the dying minutes
c.) there were only two points separating the teams
d.) the penalty was kickable
e.) their team was involved
f.) all of the above
Tomorrow there is another decision that could warrant a bending of the rules, next week another, etc etc. The only way to prevent this creep is by setting the rules in stone.
This was one decision, made on the spot. It looked right in real time, and even on multiple slo-mo replays it's not conclusive that he was wrong. And even if he was, the TMO simply wasn't an option here.
I feel sorry for Scotland and I feel sorry for their fans. But it's time to put on the big boy pants now. The All Blacks felt aggrieved about Wayne Barnes in 2007. The South Africans felt aggrieved about Bryce Lawrence in 2011. Life is full of disappointments because life is full of humans.
Totally right, it's not a forgone conclusion on the match, but had it been a scrum to Aus and they powered through, I'd imagine every Scotland would have been saying "damn, we just didn't concentrate for the last 3 mins" instead of this..
Ok breakaway...
Tmo only allowed to rule on foul play (ignore tries here).... What does deliberate offside mean to you?
Offside? Infringing, going beyond your side onto opposition side...
Deliberate? Doing an action on purpose....
So deliberately infringing? Deliberately cheating? Sounds like foul play to me....
Joubert is an awful referee, 4 years ago he bottled it, and yesterday he bottled it!
Like said below,
U're right on the TMO decisions, Joubert couldn't use it.
But his decision would be right if the ball went backwards after Hardy escaped the ball...
Because there is clearly an australian hand just before the scotsman secured it.
Pity that Scot fans will have to deal with this doubt.
I've watched and re-watched the incident a dozen of times...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSiYF793wUg
... And it's a tricky situation as it would depend if the ball went backwards after Hardy touched it.
Only a TMO check would have helped, but seems you can just use the video for the tries and foul play.
Craig Joubert, i'm personally tired and annoyed to speak about him. So, no comment.
Better to talk about Scotland and Ozzie players who offered a wonderful thriller.
That's the curse of this beautiful game. It is way, way more complicated to officiate than, say, soccer. Soccer has about four rules, and they're pretty obvious. As long as the ref is centrally positioned, and the linesmen stay in line with the game, they should get 99% of the calls right. In rugby, it is not only far harder to spot every transgression, but half of them are also completely open to interpretation. It is a minefield for any ref, and asking the TMO to judge every single thing is not an option. So what do you do? Because who would want to be a ref when this is the result of people's expectations under highly charged circumstances?
Those aren't the facts, the ball came off a Scotsman, was played backwards by an Australian, and was then caught by a Scot. Scrum to Australia for a knock-on, not a penalty for deliberate offside.
Surely the TMO protocols were not designed for this sort of situation, where a match-winning penalty, if it is kicked, results from a decision about whether or not a player knocked on. The protocols are designed to be used in try scoring situations because of the importance of those actions. This was more important. This was a RWC quarter-final which had been on the edge all game. Joubert bottled it, just as he bottled the last RWC final.
Is it possible to whinge on behalf of a team that you don't support? Or is that just being aggrieved that an enjoyable RWC match ended with a match-deciding, incorrect decision?
Oh dear, this nonsense again. And some people complain about NZers whingeing! I think you should've taken that lie-down immediately, Dan.
As for Joubert, you seem to be saying that he's a bad ref while insisting that he contravene the established protocols regarding the use of TMOs. You can't have it both ways. He doesn't have any licence to use TMO just to check a knock-on in general play with no try involved. You may think that should be available to him, but that's a different matter. The protocols can't be changed in mid-match because one team feels aggrieved.
Personally I think the yellow card was a worse decision (the final penalty just seems worse because of the timing). If a player clearly slaps the ball forward when intercepting, then I can see why the penalty might be given; but when he's putting his hand across the path of the ball to intercept its flight, to me that's not an intentional knock-on. And I think that's the case with Maitland's action. The reason they went to the TMO is to check if the "deliberate knock-on" had stopped a try. Joubert and the TMO decided that the cover was there, so no penalty try. But to me, a card seems way too harsh for what is not a deliberate act. He was trying to intercept, not knock-on.
I was pretty neutral for this one, but can't help feeling for the Scots. In the end, though, a shorter line-out throw and a controlled exit probably would've seen them in the SF. Sometimes teams make their own luck, or invite bad luck.
I know everyone is disappointed for Scotland. I am too. But the IRB rules on TMO decisions are very clear: only for try grounding, foot in or out of touch prior to try, transgressions in last 2 phases before try and suspicion of foul play. Don't hate the ref if he follows the rules, however much the result irks you. Also, he appears to have got the call right. Ball came forward off Scottish hand and was then secured by Scotsman. Those are the facts. I suggest people rather deal with the facts than make emotional statements.
Gutted for the Scots. They played extremely well.
What makes this all very bitter is that Joubert ignored his chance for TMO for the penalty, and then at the end, blew 3 quick blasts on his whistle to end the game and rather bizarrely sprinted from the field.
Weird, huh? And disrespectful to say the least!
Maitland's card was harsh but possibly fair. We've all seen worse knock-ons not given as deliberate like his was.
Wouldn't want to be Craig Joubert just now...
I normally try to avoid targeting the ref but that was incredibly unfair on Scotland. We've seen the TMO used on so many non-incidents resulting in silly outcomes (Maitland's yellow card) yet when something that potentially has a HUGE outcome on things it's ignored.
That said, there was still time for Australia to launch one more attack (SHOULD have a been an Aus scrum I believe?) so we can't say that Scotland definitely would have won. Plus, if they hadn't botched 2 line-outs then perhaps they wouldn't have gotten into that situation. Still, doesn't make what happened any less unjust.
Let's just remind ourselves what happened four years ago...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuIuXrwPCcc
That was a fantastic match ruined by the incompetence of Craig Joubert. Unfortunately a terrible call, which was clearly wrong based on the slow motion replay of the incident, was what allowed Australia to win the game. TMO protocols be damned, for a decision of that magnitude the right decision would have been to check with the TMO. When those protocols were written they surely did not intend that they would be used to stop a review taking place of a match-defining penalty.
I was also appalled to see Joubert sprint from the pitch at the end without shaking hands with any of the players. I usually support the referee, but on this occasion his decision-making and behaviour were unforgivable.
He allowed New Zealand to win the last World Cup final by failing to ping them three times for penalty offences, any of which would have allowed France to take the lead had they kicked the three points.
And I'm English, cheered for Scotland throughout, and feel gutted that they lost. Time for a lie down.