15-18 July referee, AR and TMO appointments

7 Comments

1. Hello Again I think your name is Keith. I have sent the satirical comment on the incident involving the French Rugby captain – the one incident in a three test series that marred the excellent sportsmanship of an impressive French side. Because voices need to be raised against the box-ticking mandatory send-off rule for tackles “involving the head”. You may say that the mandatory nature of this punishment is, to use the words of my send-up of you, “bigger than us, mate” but this fails to take into account a number of psychological forces in play in respect of one-off match situations like these where complex human beings (and referees often seem complex with power to employ) – are out there in the middle making decisions on the spot that will, in 99% of cases turn the game and even the series – as it did in respect of Sonny-Bill Williams in the A-B /Lions 3rd test where the Lions would have had no chance otherwise) – but miraculously didn’t do so on Saturday night. The application of the policy is wrong – as is a Red Card that gives rise to a send-off for the duration (twenty minutes plus a post-match hearing is easily sufficient, as it was in this years Super Rugby). There is a strong whiff here of WR being more fearful of its own liability than any other consideration and I question the need for such box-ticking severity. Anthony Abrahams AM – Wallabies 1967-69

2. Good Morning Ex-Aussie Wallabies
   Let’s see if Word Press has the courage to publish the following:

   I was deeply upset at the poor performance of the French Captain, Anthony Jelonch, last night . I just wonder what has happened to French standards. Why, in my years in France it was entirely possible to receive the training necessary to fulfill one’s role in accordance with the highest international levels. Just what school of French Dramatic Art did Anthony attend? What were his attendance levels during the teaching of action scenes – sword fighting, swinging through trees, pouting at coffee tables in French cafes and, most of all, ……….convincingly being shot and playing dead?
   Why, in my years in France, schools like the Cours Florent or the Acting International Theatre School of Paris – or play-directors on the job at La Comédie-Française – could be relied upon to teach an actor to clutch his breast, utter twenty or so farewell lines and then fall convincingly to the boards. Admittedly, for a time, the French lagged behind the Brits in ridding their Shakespearean actors of the declamatory style of doing the classics; but every man jack exited those schools of dramatic art , diploma in hand, ready to take his place as an extra in a Gaumont Films or Pathé Cinema production, alongside all the great imitators of dying of French stage and Cinema – Alain Delon, Jean-Louis Barrault, Jean-Paul Belmondo Gerard de Pardieue and on and on.
   But what did we get from Anthony Jelonche, “Capitaine du Quinze de France” keeper of the French seal, guardian of right thinking and right acting …. un Homme d’Honneur?
   We know – or we can deduce – that, somewhere in his dark past, this “acteur” has played the “other game”; the game that barely dares to say its name. Soccer – football – is in Monsieur Jelonch’s blood. How do we know this? Well you tell me what other dramatic art school could teach an actor to give such a crummy, pathetically unconvincing performance of having been injured from a non-existent, supposedly percussive hit. As we know, when those soccer players go down, the owners of milking cows throughout Europe are on the phone next morning looking to hire a male milk maid. “Milking” is in the blood of every international soccer player. The ankle is brushed? Go down as if there was no tomorrow and one will never walk again. An opposition tackler steals the ball a meter in front of the advancing attacker? Why then, that attacker catapults himself into the ether, performs a double somersault with tuck and comes to earth with a blood curdling scream and lies writing in pain for what is just long enough for the referees whistle to “siffler” and for the red card to come out of the pocket of the tight little pantalon that the referee is wearing; and, off goes the defender for the duration of the game. Then, just as with Monsier Jelonch last night, up jumps the “permanently injured” soccer pansy and plays out the next sixty minutes, culminating in his scoring a sizzing goal.
   But here’s the difference with Monsieur Jelonch, Capitaine du Quinze de France : In the case of the soccer players, the acting may be ham but the timing is impeccable; there is no lag between the claimed offending action by the defender and the moment of bullshit by the attacker. In this regard, last night, Monsieur Jelonch had a problem. The worthy capitaine failed to remember the fundamental formula of soccer fakery and it is this: if a player is to have half a chance of convincing anyone that there has genuinely been a foul, the lapse of time between the factually harmless action of the defending player and the fake reaction of the attacker must be reduced to zero. In the case of Monsieur Jelonche, Capitaine du Quinze de France, that instant of time may have been brief but it was so far from being instantaneous that we, the spectators had time to witness the thought processes of this soccer player masquerading as a “rugbyman” (as the French call them). In fact the spectators in the Queensland stadium and millions of tele-spectators around the world were witness to a spectacle so comic in “milking” terms as to double us up in a collective guffaw of disbelief. At point-in-time number one, the shoulder of Koriebete, the Australian player, gently slipped up and kissed – or may have kissed the under-jaw of Monsieur Jelonche (images show the initial point of contact was infinitely lower). At points two through to eleven or twelve, Monsier Jelonche dances lightly on his feet in a generally backward direction; between points twelve and twenty, the devil inside Monsieur Jelonche takes a draw on a Gauloise, followed by several sips of coffee, after which Monsier Jelonche throws a dramatic hand up to his eyes – yes his eyes, far removed from his jaw and not in any way connected to the incident – and then, with our incredulity growing by the millisecond, we see the Capitaine du Quinze de France fall dramatically to the ground and remain prostrate. Back in France, the Secrétaire -General of the Fédération des Agriculteurs Francaise – Division Vaches à Lait (milking cow division) has arisen from his television chair and is already on the phone to the Federation Francaise de Rugby in order to obtain Monsieur Jelonche’s coordinates.
   With that, New Zealand referee, Ben O’Keeffe studiously gets together with the touch judge officials. Now let me take a break here and remind us all that the head-connection thing is World Rugby’s latest little toy – designed far more to protect Billy Beaumont and his merry band of trough-snouters from litigation than anything to do with player safety as such (even if deliberate or recklessly negligent high tackles should be censured). And when the match officials gather in their little huddle like this you just intuit that their sense of elevated importance in that moment is unconsciously pushing them to find against the “offending” player rather than seek exculpatory reasons not to do so. Because that is the way petty officialdom works – the world over. Afterwards, in those get-togethers where they can actually fraternise with the players – and pretend for the space of an evening that they are players and not referees – we hear them say:
   “Oh mate, believe us, mate, it was bigger than us, mate. Our bosses have told us to tick the boxes and if the boxes tick then out comes the red card. Yeah; awesome; bigger than us, mate. Sorry the game was nearly stuffed; but bigger than us, mate. And you do understand, with the ref selections for the Rugby World Cup just around the corner…….” (the voices trail off).
   There was, however, one other thing that Monsieur Jelonche failed to reckon with in respect of his poorly stage-managed performance – that may or may not have affected, in and of itself, the decision of that earnest group of huddled officials. And this was that, against all odds, in a top-tier test match like this one, it might just remain possible that a team with fourteen players still might beat one with the standard fifteen players; that there might be a one in a million chance that this youthful group of Australian players might be inspired by the ham-fisted injustice of the moment to produce a performance of the ages – to hold out for seventy five minutes as the “Quatorze d’ Australie” against the “Quinze de France” and………. prevail.
   One more thing: I think this is a good French Team and their on-field behaviour and their general body language has been excellent. But can you imagine Michael Hooper, John Eales or John Thornett doing what the French Captain did last night?
   Yours
   Ant
   PS See excerpt from one press article below
   However, the reaction of Jelonch, who held his face and dramatically flung himself to the ground in the aftermath, has drawn widespread criticism.
   Former Australia player Stirling Mortlock was incensed at the inconsistency of the officials a minute later after an apparent elbow to Australia scrum- half Tate McDermott’s face went unpunished.
   “I’m sorry but I can’t understand rugby at the moment. Red card for Koribote yet one minute later this isn’t even looked at… Aren’t these laws meant to prevent concussion?,” he said.
   Former All Black Sonny Bill Williams, working as a pundit on the game, added: “It’s very disappointing that the ref’s decision can determine the outcome of the game. We need to protect player safety, but we need to protect the game too.
   “It doesn’t make sense to me.”
   New Zealand great Andrew Mehrtens called the red card an “absolute travesty” in Channel Nine commentary while Tim Horan thought Jelonch lowering his head should have excused Koroibete.
   “I thought he got sucked into it. I thought it was a great tackle, a great shot,” the former Wallabies centre said.
   Should it have been a red card, yes or no? Let us know in the comments below
   Wallabies coach Dave Rennie made a blunt observation about Jelonch after the game, saying: “Our guys got clocked in the head, but got up and got on with it. I think that’s the difference.”
   Despite playing with 14 men for 75 minutes, Australia actually managed to pull off an impressive victory, winning the game 33-30 and the series 2-1.

3. There will be some long faces amongst the SANZAR and WR referees today as the full implications of rejection of the Ben O’Keefe/linesmen decision red-carding Koriabete are considered. Many would agree with the statement by Scott Johnson (defence coach of the Wallabies) that referees at the top level seem to be seeking reasons for imposing cards. How does one determine the conscious and unconscious mental processes going through the minds of referees as they ply their trade? It can be argued that un-apparent background factors in the pre-refereeing biography of these gentlemen play a role: their previous professional background, their sense of themselves, whether, when they prepare to arbitrate these quite technical, highly impactful decisions, they do not inordinately derive satisfaction from their power to turn destinies. Does the devil on their shoulder whisper “did you ever think that you would find yourself as a principal player on a world stage?”. To what degree does the referees’ ongoing training program serve to debarrass them of a tendency for an immature reaction in the face of this opportunity? One’s thoughts fly immediately to this very web site – set up for the unembarrassed self-promotion of referees – as if they should legitimately enjoy a certain status within the Rugby echelon of importance. Then there is the controversial role of World Rugby/Sanzar in imposing disproportionately excessive decisions – on a mandatory basis – where the capacity for the referee of the day to independently apply personal judgement in detecting exculpatory factors in respect of an infringement is radically reduced. Generally speaking, the aim of World Rugby should be to put referees back in the box a little. They should wind down the self-starring opportunities (such as this web-site); they should eliminate absolutely what everyone but the Home Unions – with their inordinate influence on WR decision-making – considers a blight on the game, namely the rolling maul from a lineout close to the defending team’s line where every conceivable potential infringement is laid at the feet of the defending team and where the attacking team is permitted to add to the “Eton Wall-Game effect” by being allowed to rush in members of their backline in order to ensure that that the attacking team prevails in this shepherding travesty. Perhaps it is about time that there was a little more turnover in the positions of authority on the board of WR and that it cease seemingly to do the bidding of the “Home Unions”. In this regard – on the subject of WR’s wrong directions – I will leave the travesty of Northern Hemisphere-favouring residency and nationality rules for another day. Anthony Abrahams AM (Wallabies 1967-69)

   • It’s getting tiresome to read these continuous diatribes about referees – yesterday’s epic wasn’t even about refs. As Ive explained to you before, this site isn’t run by any rugby body or has any support or backing from WR or respective unions. Im just a ref trying to help the game as I couldnt find info in any one place. Yet, you chose to come here and berate me for having a place to help referees and the rugby community – thanks, I really appreciate that. If you don’t like it, don’t visit the site. You chose to come here (regularly) and then criticise it for existing (regularly). Glad I can provide you with enough value to keep coming back, or are we just merely an outlet for your musings. You may find my finger hovers on the “Do not approve” button next time I see a comment. It’s not WordPress who decides what to approve, it’s me.

     Referees have been asked to administer laws reducing and removing head contacts from the game. Laws the players and coaches have brought into being to protect players like you remind me you were, from long term head injury and the consequences of that. I want my kids to play rugby and have a long life (as you have done) and if that means the game needs to change, then it needs to change. Direct your ire at World Rugby for the way laws come about – refs do their best to impelement what they’re asked to implement – maybe your Scott Johnson should speak to the Scott Johnson from Rugby Australia who was a member of the Law Review Group who brought these into being!

     One line to note from the Disciplinary hearing outcome: “The player Marika Koroibete admitted to technically committing an act of foul play worthy of a red card.”

     Keith

     • Keith
       Thank you, for once, for (partially) addressing my concerns. I come from a position of a belief in the Rule of Law in the widest sense of that term. This includes the adage that “justice must not only be done but should manifestly appear to be done”. This was in part the reason why I led the stand of the “Wallaby Seven” against apartheid sport in SA and Australia’s role in supporting it. Doesn’t matter whether we are talking about a crime, an administrative decision or…one by a ref. No test ref (for example) should be seeking out the society of players off the field (e.g golf – yes, even golf – by a number off refs I could name, including the very vain, impossibly extroverted Ed Morris of yore). No ref – absolutely none- should be calling the All Black Captain by his first name on the field – and particularly when he doesn’t do that with the opposition captain. At the limit, I don’t care as much about the rugby context of this example as I care about that of the “Issue of Justice” – the Rule of Law! Anything less is ….well …less. Your yardstick should be (ex-ref) Peter Marshall. Perhaps you’re too young to remember him. Tall (that may be important), modest, under-stated, unobtrusive with a laconic, ironising sense of humour – which you, Keith, could apparently not be accused of having after that surly/somewhat threatening response. Over the years, how many comments would you say I have contributed? Five, seven? Not more I should think – and all within a narrow field of moral issues. To read you threatening the pressing of your hovering finger will be an image that I reserve the right to “discuss” with the ex-test players I mostly write to. I am sorry if it rankles with you but you should not only be able to show that I am wrong in addressing the lack of a certain quality of “bigness” about some of you but you should be thankful for some articulate criticism. Because one thing is sure: my comments are echoed by some very noble, very big people in Rugby Union. Dont worry, Keith, we both have the good of the game at heart. But the issues I address seem a little too real for you to have the editorial grandeur to applaud. As to your comment on Koriabete, if any comment were designed to show your misconception of the mandatory Red Card it is this comment. The issue has got down to one of box-ticking – and it was entirely clear from the still images that the point of contact was well below the collar-bone let alone the jaw. The French captain’s milking of the situation was appalling and THAT should warrant a yellow card. Many, players, mostly internationals, have written to me with the view that all the pressures – including these within the refs themselves – are towards finding for a card infringement. Stop feeling sorry for yourself that you are being constructively addressed; and applaud the fact that I bother. I CARE, Keith. 240,00 words on the evils of Donald Trump are more up my alley. But in its own small way, a certain small mindedness here – and an absence of the accoutrements of justice is still worth while fighting against. Finally, I couldn’t be more on board in fighting foul play and particularly anything to do with the head or spine. Your invocation of this and Scott Johnson’s role in opposing it isn’t the question, is it. All the best As Humphrey Bogart’s character says to Claude Rain’s policeman in Casablanca “Louis, this could be the beginnings of a long friendship” Good luck to you. I admire your application to your role – even if i dont agree with the self-promotion aspects of it(wrong message).

4. Keith
   I believe I responded fairly and completely to your above email but my response seems to have been supressed. There is certainly never any abuse in the few emails I have posted on this site and my response on this occasion was no exception. It explained that my prime concern was to see a manifestation of the adage that “justice should not only be done but should clearly be seen to be done” – as it was not in the Koriabete Red Card incident. It stated that this aim (pf transparent justice) has less chance of happening where (a) referees are concerned to enhance their profile – as seems to be one aspect of this this web-site and (b) it instanced an example where confidence in impartiality might be compromised – where referees call a captain of one test side by his first name (on the field) and not the other (but it is better that the first name of neither is used).. I might add that a further example of transparency being compromised might be said to occur when you suppress emails because the sentiment expressed – serious and valid as it might be – is not what you to wish to address. debate is healthy and if it is the case that you took a unilateral decision to supress my response – in effect turning your back on what I described as a “rule of law issue” – then this is of concern. You did threaten to do this and the implication was that it was because you did not agree with the position expressed. And yet you will find the same position expressed in far stronger terms on the web site of ex players. kind regards A Abrahams AM

5. Keith please see your other email address – containing a more private explanatory note on the context in which one needs to assess the efforts to transform the image of referees – to make them celebrities – and monetise that image.

Comments are closed.