I posted this on the BBC Tom Fordyce blog but for some reason it wont actually post it on the board. I dont know if they have cancelled my account or something. But I wanted my opinion to be heard on the matter of the final.
The script was written and the offical didnt disappoint in terms of the result however what that did mean was the the final as a spectical for the neutral was spoiled. I'll happily admit that as an Englishman I had no personal preference either way, France are the historical enemy and I have no feelings whatsoever towards New Zealand having never met a kiwi nor visited their country (although I do hear both are very nice) and was looking forward to another epic end to end contest between two sides that compliment each other so well in producing exciting attacking matches. Had that final involved England or a home nation I would have been supporting one side from the off, in the end I found myself siding with the French due to the feeling of ill treatment by the offical in the middle.
As has been mentioned the rules seemed to be applied more stringently for one side than the other. I dont think that there was major bias in one direction, nor am I crying consipiracy but the referee for one reason or another was certainly more inclined to penalise the French than All Blacks. The crowd, the occasion, the pressure? Who knows. It spoiled the match as France were the better side but were never allowed to really get into gear as New Zealand were able to haul them back by whatever means necessary. The little infringements given against the French and not against the All Blacks allowed New Zealand to hold France off and prevent them seriously threatening, to clear their lines when pressure was really building and maintain possession and territory at critical times during the match.
Rugby (thankfully in many respects) is not like football and a big deal will not be made publically by many about the referees performance. However that does not mean that the performance should not be noted as a particularly poor one privately and questions asked about it. Another advantage is that Rugby is much more progressive and pro active in terms of modifying and altering the methods of decision making, and so something can be done to improve the quality and consistency of decision making.
I dotn begrudge the fans enjoying their win, after all it is not their fault if the official was poor, and they have been the best side in other tournaments and not won for one reason or another. If it was only French fans complaining about the officials performance then you could argue that it is just bitterness. Unfortunately there are a large number of neutrals (myself included) that saw a one sided refereeing performance result in a disappionting final regardless of the result.
As a side note I find it a bit silly on the part of some Welsh fans moaning about the injustice of their semi final and then baiting the French fans regarding the referee for the final. In my opinion you cannot have a justifiable grievance regarding poor refereeing if you only want the referee to make all the correct calls for your own team and not across the board.
The Rugby World Cup Final
posted on 24/10/11
Well written article albeit misguided
also as a neutral let me tell you what i saw.
I saw an absolute belter of a game of rugby. low score indeed but in a purist way that was real rugby. It was all about body's on the line. no inches given or taken. passion, respect and all the things that have made this great game great. Spoiled game.... not in this man's reality.
It will rank as one of the all time best finals hands down.
The ref did a fine job, and if you look at his stats you will find it flies in the face of you article being more or less 50/50.
If i had a complaint about the Ref i would direct it at the touch officials who for me, were anonymous when the man in the middle needed some guidance at scrum time. But all in all a ref you don't hear is a good ref.
I see your point of view but don't agree, and specially don't agree with this statement......
"It spoiled the match as France were the better side but were never allowed to really get into gear as New Zealand were able to haul them back by whatever means necessary."
That's a farcical statement. NZ were the best side for most of the game with France putting in an exceptional third quarter and indeed second half. That's not just my opinion but just about everyone saw NZ were the better side. Marginally yes but nonetheless true over the 80 mins.
posted on 24/10/11
I cannot fault the commitment and effort put in by the players. I thought, as you rightly say, it was an all or nothing effort from both sides with some bonecrunching hits both ways, good ball skills and some fine kicking for touch and territory.
However for me the referee was too one sided and did not allow the game to become the real flowing contest it should have become. I also disagree on the performance. I thought New Zealand were strong in the middle 15 minutes for the first half but aside from that France were the better team. But were never fully able to get into gear thanks to some questionable calls by the man in the middle.
posted on 24/10/11
Mate i would ask you to site an example. Fact is that the ref does not determine how a team plays. That comes down to to things. First your own ability. Second The ability of the opposition defence. Also as a game plan i saw no evidence that France wanted to play a wide expansive game. Certainly in the first half they kept trucking it up the middle most of the time they had the ball. Replays shown (on Irish TV) showed France passed up several opportunities to go wide when they had clear overlaps.
I think your beating a dead donkey with this blaim the Ref stuff. France simply didn't attack the space, and in the first half NZ were defending far too tight leaving acres of space out wide. France just failed to spot it. And even failed to spot it when there winger was screaming for the ball on a number of occasions.
France played it that way, Not the ref.
posted on 24/10/11
Even if France were 'robbed' or whatever by the official, you have to remember the only reason they were in the final was because they had the official on their side in the semi final, what goes around comes around.
Great final, never enjoyed a low scoring match so much.
New Zealand deserve it for being the best team or the tournament and of the past decade! Hope they enjoy the win because the cup has Wales' name on it in 2015!
Fantastic tournament! Thanks New Zealand!
posted on 24/10/11
"France played it that way, Not the ref."
-----
Pity too.
posted on 25/10/11
Both Rolland and Joubert had good games, so stop trying to blame others. Some decisions were not perfect but they never are, if you want to bring up specifics then how about eye-gouging:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0hXBoyGm7Y&feature=player_embedded
As for Warburton, it was the right call. People who know the laws of the game know this. The penalty that Halfpenny missed was a joke though. Actually the IRB decided that the red card wasnt severe enough and banned him for three weeks too.
posted on 25/10/11
Aristodemus (great name!)
Well i agree with you but i also sympathise with wales. I know if it happened to us (ireland) i would be beating my fist against the TV cursing the ground the ref walked on, and his immediate and not excluding his extended family :D
In a game of Rugby its unreasonable to expect a ref to get everything right considering the amount of things he needs to watch and the amount of things going on that he cant even see. E.G. Every single ruck, every single scrum etc etc, its amazing they see so much to be fair.
Sometimes you just have to build a bridge and get over it... as indeed i have with regard to the Philips try against us in the last 6 Nations.... no need to post video evidence of that as we can all agree that was a howler by the ref and or refs.
But anyway, those were obvious mistakes the ref made however the warburton card was not a mistake, despite my sympathy for the welsh, the ref can not and could not let a tackle like that go when the game was being broadcast to so many millions around. the IRB are trying to build popularity in the sport and want people to know its not a dangerous as they might think so they handed a mandate to the REFs and all managers before the world cup and that mandate said simple. That a red card WILL be awarded for such a tackle. Regardless of intent or perceived intent it was quite simple. do it and your gone. all the players knew it, all managers knew and all refs were their to enforce it. Roland did a good job.