That's theoretical what scotland have is a very good case which could help Scottish rugby based on the Rugby Hierarchy themselves thus would have a case to present. What you or I think are opinions which really mean nothing it is the Rugby Hierarchy which decide and thus a case should be made. If the Irish FAI thought like you they would not have got 5mill euros in their back pocket.

When the FAI put their case to FIFA to be included as an extra team in the world cup like you Sepp Blatter laughed at the suggestion during a press conference. Yet the FAI were compensated to the tune of 5mill euros, Scotland have a genuine case don't know why you want to knock it with if's and but's. Go Scotland the brave we are behind you.

*their team

My point exactly north the fact that world rugby made their statement that it was a wrong call makes the Scottish case solid thus if you want to call it a future favour or hush money then so be it. Scotland should make their case and good luck to them, yes they would prefer to be in the semi finals as Ireland would have preferred to be in the world cup but no point whinging get what is due for the future of Scottish rugby to bring it on.

Go Scotland the brave

The final decision might have been a genuine mistake but how 4 officials could have missed the red card body check just before that is inexplicable and no I am not particularly a Scotland fan.

I'll be clear and state that I don't agree with TMO's being used at all, the refs decision is final and that's that - when it's not, you erode the respect that that official has and in ten years it'll be like soccer. Humans make mistakes, we just have to live with that and hope that they even out.
But if you are going to use it, then bloody use it. I don't see why the TMO (who would have to be a top level ref himself) can't be continually reviewing the game and bring mistakes to the refs attention at the next break in play, it's not like the game flows on for long periods of time. In this particular instance, the whistle was blown for the knock-on anyway, so where's the harm? If the game has moved on substantially, teams could have the option to decline the penalty/scrum/lineout that they would've got, like in the NFL, would take moments and certainly not as long as it takes to get a scrum set or lineout organised.

it wasn't a red or probably even a yellow card in it but surely the tmo gives a penalty at least?

https://vine.co/v/e9nv1AZXItI

TMO's don't always get it right, nowhere near it - Aussie cited after Eng game for an incident that was plainly obvious to the touch judge 2m away, was replayed and viewed by tmo but nothing done (not sure if ref asked for it) yet cited after and given 1 match ban. So all the officials (inc tmo) missed  a definite (and pretty obvious) red card yet nothing said but the IRB criticise the ref on this one?
Of course Scot would def have won the aussie scrum (that is now being said should have been the result) and wrapped the game up no doubt....

Baptist manages to drag a conspiracy out of this for the upcoming game, NZ v SA.

You can't say this bloke is anything but consistent :)

What will be the lottery numbers this week fred?

Eeternaloptimist 20 Oct 15 20:31 Joined: 28 Jun 10 | Topic/replies: 34,363 | Blogger: Eeternaloptimist's blog
Laugh What will be the lottery numbers this week fred?
Rate reply:
| report block user



You disagree with anything in there?

Pretty much all of it Fred.

Joubert was clearly buckling under the pressure in the last minutes.

You don't provide any evidence for this. Joubert has refereed higher profile matches than a world cup quarter final so it seems reasonable to ask why you assert this without any evidence? In fact if he was buckling under the pressure he would have behaved quite differently to how he did. Buckling usually leads to inertia or total irrationality as the brain finds it increasingly difficult to make clear decisions. This was clearly not the case with Joubert. Many disagree with his decision due to reference to multi angled slow motion replays played repeatedly but equally in real time many people understand why he made the decision he did. What is incontrovertible is that rightly or wrongly, and that is a wafer thin judgement call, as soon as the incident happened he saw, he called it and his arm came out to signal the penalty which is the polar opposite of what you are alleging.

Did he even ask TMO to review Hogg being taken out?


Obviously not. It seems clear that he didn't see it and once again given that some people argue it was the clearest red card there has ever been and others don't see any offence once again it depends on the perspective, bias, of the individual.

As for the knock on, from where Joubert was standing it was impossible he did not see it hitting an Aussie hand, he just had a brain freeze having already indicating Scotland knock on, just gave the penalty for offside despite clearly seeing it hit Aus hand in between times. Realising this school boy error he ran off the pitch in embarrassment at the end.

Pure conjecture and totally illogical. If it was impossible he did not see it hitting an Aussie hand, as you allege then there would have only been one decision he could and would have taken. The point is that even with multi angled and slow motioned analysis in the studio after the match there wasn't unanimity as to what had happened so what hope for Joubert? The reason for this is the Scottish and Asutralian interventions happen almost simultaneously which is what led to the debate as to what happened.

Joubert saw the incident, he made a clear call and backed his judgement on a fine margin decision. Time for some people to grow up and stop acting like the worst kind of whining round ball supporters. Part of the greatness of rugby has usually been the respect for the referee and acceptance that at speed close decisions can go either way and over the course of a match the referee is never responsible for one team or other losing. Scotland lost the game because they didn't close it out despite several possible opportunities.

You say he didn't see the Hogg penalty incident?

What kind of referee would not be watching to see if the kicker was taken out? You claim he wasn't so therefore he was buckling under pressure.


He was 5 yards away from the Aussie playing the ball looking directly at it, if the Aussie touched it once he could be just about excused missing it. But it bounced off him twice, to say an International referee did not see that is ludicrous.

Fred

Yet if you go back to the night the studio panel despite all the available angles and slow motion replay were still split 2-1 as to who it came off last. Even despite the technology all you can do is give an opinion based on what was most likely. To suggest that in real time there was only one possible explanation is what is "ludicrous." But that now seems to be exactly what you are saying and leaves no possible room for any other explanation than Joubert clearly saw it and deliberately cheated. Or was it both? Brain freeze and deliberate cheating?

You say he didn't see the Hogg penalty incident?

What kind of referee would not be watching to see if the kicker was taken out? You claim he wasn't so therefore he was buckling under pressure.

I can only assume your hysteria is yet to pass or you wouldn't be taking parts of comments and seeking to build your tawdry little case around them. This is what I said:

Obviously not. It seems clear that he didn't see it and once again given that some people argue it was the clearest red card there has ever been and others don't see any offence once again it depends on the perspective, bias, of the individual.

From that any reasonable person would conclude that my view is that he didn't see it in the way you and others do. There is a gamut of opinion on the issue and given that fact it isn't at all unreasonable for Joubert to have arrived at the decision he did. My personal view is that it was just late enough to have gone either way but there wasn't any real intention to wrap the arms in the tackle and so it should have been a penalty. Again that is a personal view which others will disagree with. The Scots need to look closer to home to why they lost. Theirs was the brain freeze.

I rarely allow others to speak for me but this comment on social media is one I feel people should pay heed to:



As a Scot living in Aus I was gutted by the loss. As the pain subsides I am absolutely appalled by the coverage of this issue in the UK media and the reaction of some ex players (Dawson et al) not to mention the way in which the administration hung Joubert out to dry.

This is rugby and the referee is sacrosanct. Rugby is also one of the most complicated sports requiring the referee to make hundreds of split second decisions per game - many of which are probably not 'right'. We could go back and dissect every minute of play and come up with multiple examples of why a decision was made or not made.

All the analysis of this penalty is in hindsight with access to multiple replays of which Joubert had no such luxury. If we applied this same analysis to the Samoa game there were several decisions that went our way that arguably cost them the game.

Rugby is better than this and it's about time we all stopped complaining and realise that decisions go both ways. Protect the ref otherwise it will become a farce like football and no true rugby fan would ever want that.

i think using words like "sacrosanct" is seriously pushing the envelope but that joubert has been treated in a shabby manner by world rugby seems to be the consensus even in Scotland.
of course you can question the competence of referees, Joubert has form and his handling of the 2011 final was way worse as an overall performance than his latest effort imo.

As for Mr Cheika it seems like he employs traditional Aussie double standards about accepting the refs decisions.
I don't think anyone in the Scotland camp went so far as to call the refs decision "pretty crooked" and Vern Cotter hasn't really commented at all.

The Waratahs coach compared Walsh's decision to umpire Aleem Dar's mistake in the first Ashes test on Friday when the Pakistani turned down Australia's appeal for a catch against England's Stuart Broad despite the batsman clearly getting an edge.

"Everyone saw it. I don't know if it was Aleem Dar proportions, but it was pretty crooked," Cheika told Reuters after the Waratahs lost 14-12 to their traditional rivals.

"He had a second look as well. It was interesting listening to the third umpire, the TMO. He was saying: 'Do you want me to comment, Steve?'

"And he said: 'No, no, no. I'll have another look.' So he didn't want him to comment obviously.

"But I think everyone saw he put his arms around him. I don't know whether they should have had a kiss or not while they were in there."

Cheika has blamed the match officials for softening up the game of rugby union.

"It's a shame because hardness is going out of the game," he added.

"There's nothing illegal about it. It's a good, hard tackle and that's what we try to get guys to do at training.

"Then in a game, as soon as someone puts in a good shot on, everyone panics. Like, 'give him the sin bin'.

"I don't know, touch footy next year maybe."

god this has been gone over plenty times but i'm bored so.......................
watch that again in slow mo on your tv and get back on that one.
i guarantee it won't be so "obvious" and if you are honest you may even change your mind.

keep a close eye on the boot of blue 8, if you are able to go super slow mo or freeze frame you will see as blue 9 bends to pick it up the boot of blue 8, with a nice clear view between the 9's legs, knocking the ball to the side (with the ref indicating a Scotland penalty btw)

if you still think blue 9 touched it keep an equally close eye on the 5 metre line, does the ball even go forward? it is by blue 8's feet just beyond the 5m line but when Laidlaw picks it up it is bang on the 5m line so if anything it goes back a bit and, just to be clear, off Denton's boot. It's not even a f***ing debate if you can be bothered watching it again rather than just take some lazy journalists word for it.
based on previous posts I'm sure you won't let the facts get in the way though.

and anyway Scotland were 3pts up with the penalty advantage 5m out so even in your knock on fantasy land they would still have been in a very strong position.

Scotland also caught another break in the scoring of their second try off the charge down from an Australian scrum.  The scrum should of been a penalty for offside not a scrum for accidental offside.

It looks to me Laidlaw has his hand on the ball when it is knocked out of his hands by his own player, obvious enough incident to have a second look via the tmo imo.  No doubt the tmo would of had a much better camera angle to consult and would of come up with the correct call. 

Why did World Rugby officials make the unprecedented move of releasing a statement saying how Joubert got the decision wrong, so quickly after the match?  Whether they believed it or not I'm guessing it was an attempt in some part to satisfy people like yourself.