Hard News by Russell Brown

Russell, I'm glad you brought this up because it really troubled me how an incident that happened a few seconds before the awarded scrum could be looped on the ground screens without a request from the match officials.
Surely there needs to be a protocol to manage this instituted prior to the World Cup.

Russell, there was a famous academic paper written on the subject by the social psychologist Roy Baumeister (who was my PhD supervisor many moons ago). There's a good summary of his (and related) research here:

https://ruizmd.wordpress.com/tag/sport-psychology/

Russell, I’m glad you brought this up because it really troubled me how an incident that happened a few seconds before the awarded scrum

It was more than a few seconds – more like a minute, and 30 metres away.

But I hated it when international cricket had a period of not showing replays on th4 big screens while they were adjudicated by the video official.

I'm astounded that rugby doesn't have rules for this - when referees are and aren't allowed to use video replay. In ice hockey video (for those leagues that have it) video replay is only allowed to be used in relation to scoring of a goal - did the puck cross the line, did a player kick it into the net or play it with a high stick etc. You cannot request or use a video replay to decide on penalties.

And when there is a review, it's not done via the big screen (though often the big screen will have the same feed, but often they have less camera angles than the referee) it's done on a private screen off the ice.

You can't have players coming up to the referee and asking them to review plays on the big screen. That's just encouraging players to demand refereeing by video.

I broadly agree with you Russell, but you're letting Messam off far too lightly. He basically committed a shoulder charge, his arms weren't making a tackling motion, that's for sure.

It was stupid and ill-disciplined, simple as that.

I used to watch rugby quite a lot and now find myself only watching when it's convenient as it happened to be on Sunday. What struck me was just how many rules can be broken in rugby, for the most part any minute of play seems to have two or three situations where a rule is broken, most of which go unnoticed by the referee or are "waved on", essentially the referee deciding he can't be arsed stopping play.

The local TV crew could pick any of those breeches of the rules to replay on loop at the ground. It seems weird that rugby does not have a rule about which source of information can be used by the referee - or more accurately does not have five different and contradictory rules that might apply.

I really do love watching the talent and energy on display during a good rugby match but honestly they really need to get their shit together and sort out the rules to allow the game to flow better and not simply at the discretion of the referee.

Having just watched a reasonable amount of the American game it's hard to say rugby flows better and the American game is designed to be played in 15 second bursts!

He basically committed a shoulder charge, his arms weren’t making a tackling motion, that’s for sure.

It was stupid and ill-disciplined, simple as that.

As were numerous "tackles" during the game - most of which were ignored. That is the point.

damn right Grant, especially given the context. otherwise, I couldn't fathom our low energy start and has C Smith ever sent a ball flying over his winger before?
but no complaints and surprisingly unfussed by the loss, possibly because I still don't accept we're as good as we think we are.
also, could someone please sort out A Smith's (it's getting like the Wales Jones') box kick?

Entirely down to the director what gets seen. But it’s not out of line to replay something the ref has missed. Still quite possible a kiwi director would have replayed Reid’s turnover first, though.
Also: replays only happen when there’s a breakdown. And sometimes even then what’s on the field and happening is too fast or the incident gets eclipsed by subsequent play and forgotten. So there’s always an element of chance about what gets picked up.
No denying the effect on a partisan crowd. They howl and stop watching the game completely. Which must influence the refs on some level.
Which all makes me wish I’d seen this game. Sounds epic :)

As were numerous “tackles” during the game – most of which were ignored. That is the point.

I'm not so sure. There may've been, but the Messam one was certainly the most blatant and reckless.

Alan, that was certainly the biggest hospital pass I've ever seen from Conrad Smith, too.

The reffing and video replay may also be a red herring as to why the ABs lost.

At least twice, if not more, the ABs turned down easily kickable penalties. McCaw usually orders them to be attempted, as it's easy points - which often come in handy in tight matches.

It's very unlike him to turn down easy points, maybe he was under orders from Hansen to go for a try in such circumstances.

They were costly, poor decisions and I expect McCaw will revert to type next time.

also, could someone please sort out A Smith’s (it’s getting like the Wales Jones’) box kick?

Never his strength. I thought he had a poor game in general, actually. There were times when he needed to step up and get the ball from the breakdown, and didn't.

Entirely down to the director what gets seen. But it’s not out of line to replay something the ref has missed. Still quite possible a kiwi director would have replayed Reid’s turnover first, though.

Yes. I'm not complaining so much as observing the new reality.

I’m not so sure. There may’ve been, but the Messam one was certainly the most blatant and reckless.

Hmmm ... I looked it again and it's Messam's upper arm that strikes Burger's head. If he'd made contact at chest height I'm not sure anyone would have noticed it.

Meh, Messam led with the shoulder and the arms were an afterthought at best. He was trying to smash him. If this was talkback I could bang on about league style tackling having no place in the game and some players spending too much time hanging round with leaguie mates.

Imho A Smith looked a bit tired, as he has done in the last couple of games at times. He has played a lot of minutes this year without any backup. He got slow ball, his targets were slow getting into place, he was a half-step off his normal electric pace.

I'm not necessarily a big TKB fan but thought he looked keen as when he did come one - would have liked to see that earlier in the championship. To my mind it beggars belief that he was described as a 'brave boy' for trying to play on with that much damage done.

There was a lot of ambling into place even early on, and slowness getting up and away from rucks and setting up the defense, noticeably (to my eyes) from numbers 10 and 6 - and holes were ran thru.

EDIT: I am nitpicking tho, not nearly as grumpy about the game as the above assessment reads! : ) All credit to SA for playing that gameplan at pace, rugby was the winner on the day and all that.

I was absolutely ropeable about the incident for the reason you cite Russell, it gives an enormous advantage to the home team. It sets a very poor precedent particularly as it opens the door to players appealing to referees as Kyle notes.

The fact it was a penalty, and a pretty stupid one at that shouldn't detract from the atrocious process. And it had to involve Wayne Barnes eh? Bloke can't catch a break. (FWIW I thought he did OK)

Things get missed all the time in rugby, it's a complicated game and a lot happens at high speed. Pollard's first try stemmed from a pass from Jean de Villiers to Willie le Roux which was at least a yard forward. No-one complained about it but I noted the TV director was a bit slow, shall we say, replaying the whole move.

Anyway on balance the better side won and it was a cracking game. Don't agree with those critics of McCaw turning down kicks - it built up the pressure on the Boks with two tries & 12 points a better return than the kicks declined. A real shame about TKB's injury he was looking sharp. Maybe Aaron Smith should join Ben Smith on the sideline for the Brisbane match.

...in some home-and-away tournaments, away goals count double.

Only in the event of a tie. Away goals are the tiebreaker if the scores are level after the two games.

Hilariously, The Crowd Goes Wild always pretends that's incredibly complicated...

Pollard's first try stemmed from a pass from Jean de Villiers to Willie le Roux which was at least a yard forward. No-one complained about it but I noted the TV director was a bit slow, shall we say, replaying the whole move.

I called that forward pass when it happened and replayed it on MySky after the director decided not to. Yes, the officials missed it and as partisan TV direction goes, this game offers a prime example.

However the ABs let themselves down a few times by being slow to the breakdown and turning down those two shots at goal. Regardless, it was a great game of rugby to watch. And Fekitoa was stunning.

What this has done is it has set a precedent so that other players can call upon the referee to view the replayed footage on a stadium screen for any infringements or illegal acts, and cite Jean De Villiers' challenge to Liam Messam's high tackle as a reference point. Otherwise we would have unfair treatment and inconsistency in the sport. I find it particularly odd that a referee would listen to a player talking about an incident that happened a fair number of phases beforehand instead of continuing the game.

There are enough stoppages and breaks that disrupt the game's flow, especially during scrum time, and now this incident has only added to the slow nature of rugby these days. We don't want the sport ruined by players challenging every single ruck, lineout and scrum during a game.

During this particular game there were plenty of infringements by both teams that were missed by the officials. It seems pretty pathetic for this incident to happen without considering the other illegal plays and infringements in the rest of the game, and ultimately the referee influenced the outcome of a game in a manner that he probably shouldn't have.

Of course this goes without saying that the Springboks played a fantastic match and probably deserved to win, and the All Blacks managed to comeback spectacularly, but we must also not forget that McCaw declined multiple penalty shots at goal which unfortunately cost the All Blacks the game.

In regards to home advantage, I think that the New Zealand crowds and broadcasting crews are on the whole fairer than their South African and Australian counterparts. And I've seen a fair number of incidents in the past where they've been replayed on the stadium screen and flat out ignored by the match officials. This has been one of the few times where the referee has been requested by a captain to review a particular phase of play because of a replay on the stadium screen. There has to be a better process than this, because this is clearly just not working for anyone except the winning team.

Jonathan Kaplan's take on the role the TV director played in the final score.

The Boks dominated the first half, the All Blacks the second. In the end, the game came down to a decision by the TV producer to highlight a misdemeanor by Liam Messam on Schalk Burger, which all the officials missed in real time. After finding the clip, and then replaying it over and over, eventually the match officials decided it was worthy of review, and correctly awarded a penalty to the Boks which Pat Lambie (who has oodles of BMT) converted to win the game. The TMO himself seemed a bit confused by referring to the fact that he thought perhaps arms were used in the tackle which was hardly the point. It was a swinging arm and a dangerous tackle.

If you are a Bok supporter, you will be saying we deserved it, and how many times it happened against us. The protocol and process will mean nothing. But there is an important point to make here. I doubt (very much) whether that clip would have been brought up on the screen by producers in Aus or NZ and replayed over and over. Is it right that someone outside of the domain of the match officials can affect the outcome of a major test match? And how neutral is he? In the end, it was his alertness that drew the attention of the crowd to the high tackle, they got into it, the officials then decided to take a look, and the resultant penalty determined the outcome.