Ireland v New Zealand - Take Two

[Flash Gordon]

Disappointing reaction from some Irish fans. Criticise a man's performance, challenge his decisions and competence, but it is absolutely appalling to not just question his integrity, but to stridently declare his integrity breached based on nothing more than what he does on the pitch. Peyper gave a massive penalty count, two yellow cards and World Rugby cited two ABs, yet it's still not enough to satisfy the bloodlust of some Irish fans. So if a referee doesn't see the match in exactly the same manner as your one eyed Irish opinion he's obviously on the take? Even some very poor examples in this this thread too, although not as bad as other venues for debate.

Reminds me of Ellie F-Sapolu calling Owens a racist merely because he was tough on Samoa, or the awful overreaction we had to Barnes in '07. A shame really.

I think Rory Best said it all when he said you need more than 9 points to beat the All Blacks and if you look at the possession and territory stats, O'Brien dropping the ball, Kearney not offloading when clean through etc we still had chances to win the game and didn't take them. I also think Rory made a mistake when he opted to kicked penalties when we were pressuring the All Blacks line and buckling their scrum. For me, those calls lacked a bit of courage.

I also think that while the ref was very poor, he got no help from his team of officials - the TMO call on the BB try is mind boggling. There is no way he clearly saw grounding.

I have to say, I think the All Blacks intimidate refs and they seem to test the resolve of officials in the first quarter and take their game plan from there. There is no question in my mind that the All Blacks deserved punishment for a range of both cynical and brutal offences. The Henshaw non-bound high tackle was appalling.

However, the nature of professional rugby is such that players will push it to the limit - I'd like to think that decent blokes wouldn't deliberately try to seriously injure players (though it does happen occasionally) but there will always be an element of cynicism in all teams, including Ireland (Stander's block in Chicago for example). In these instances it's really up to the officials to do their job. Refs have an unparalleled level of support for decision making and can take time to make those calls using video and there really is no excuse for poor decision making anymore and they need to fix that.

[All Blacks nil]

EOS made the point that the decision on Trimble's "knock-on" of a NZ pass was an astonishing one. Have to say I agree with that. It was a penalty and perhaps a card though not, as EOS suggested, a possible penalty try.

I didn't hear the programme but I am amazed about the try/no try debate for Barrett's try.
For the record I think he scored but cannot see how it was awarded by the TMO.
What should have happened is that upon not having a conclusive view of the grounding, Sexton's 'trysaving" tackle should have been examined.
He tackles Barrett around the neck in an action which stopped a try. If the try was not given it would have been hard to argue with a penalty try been awarded and Sexton yellow carded. It was an illegal and potentially dangerous tackle, it prevented a certain try.
While all the attention was on the grounding, Sexton's high tackle was completely ignored by both ref and TMO. Although we conceded seven points, a possible 10 minutes with god knows who (answers on a postcard, your choice from Ringrose Payne, Trimble, Zeno or Kearney) at out-half would surely have had a detrimental effect on our ability to stay competitive.

[waterboy]

Eddie O'Sullivan chatting with Murray Kinsella made some excellent comments regarding ref's performance and the reaction to it on The42 rugby show. His views pretty much reflect mine. His advice to look at situations with the jerseys reversed and comments about the pace of the game creating unfortunate events were both particularly instructive.

Thats the way I've tried to look at the incidents. For the Barrett try the TMO was wrong in telling the ref he could clearly see a grounding when he couldn't. Equally you'd be pissed off if the try was disallowed if it was an Irish try. Rugby league have a benefit of the doubt rule for TMO and I think Union should follow. Looking at the replays you'd be 99% certain the ball was grounded and so a try should be given.

While the ref got some stuff wrong and there should have been higher sanctions for one or two incidents he wasn't helped much by the TMO.

NZ will give penalties in their 22 rather than tries knowing they'll generally out try the opposition and therefore win, cynical maybe but every team give away cynical penalties. Paul O'Connell was admiring the Read penalty at half time for it's cynicism and how good a penalty it was to give. The question is whether NZ receive the same level of sanction other teams do so the same level or number or offences.

Unfortunately as well Peyper has some form with us.

[desperado]

Disappointing reaction from some Irish fans. Criticise a man's performance, challenge his decisions and competence, but it is absolutely appalling to not just question his integrity, but to stridently declare his integrity breached based on nothing more than what he does on the pitch. Peyper gave a massive penalty count, two yellow cards and World Rugby cited two ABs, yet it's still not enough to satisfy the bloodlust of some Irish fans. So if a referee doesn't see the match in exactly the same manner as your one eyed Irish opinion he's obviously on the take? Even some very poor examples in this this thread too, although not as bad as other venues for debate.

Reminds me of Ellie F-Sapolu calling Owens a racist merely because he was tough on Samoa, or the awful overreaction we had to Barnes in '07. A shame really.

I think Rory Best said it all when he said you need more than 9 points to beat the All Blacks and if you look at the possession and territory stats, O'Brien dropping the ball, Kearney not offloading when clean through etc we still had chances to win the game and didn't take them. I also think Rory made a mistake when he opted to kicked penalties when we were pressuring the All Blacks line and buckling their scrum. For me, those calls lacked a bit of courage.

I also think that while the ref was very poor, he got no help from his team of officials - the TMO call on the BB try is mind boggling. There is no way he clearly saw grounding.

I have to say, I think the All Blacks intimidate refs and they seem to test the resolve of officials in the first quarter and take their game plan from there. There is no question in my mind that the All Blacks deserved punishment for a range of both cynical and brutal offences. The Henshaw non-bound high tackle was appalling.

However, the nature of professional rugby is such that players will push it to the limit - I'd like to think that decent blokes wouldn't deliberately try to seriously injure players (though it does happen occasionally) but there will always be an element of cynicism in all teams, including Ireland (Stander's block in Chicago for example). In these instances it's really up to the officials to do their job. Refs have an unparalleled level of support for decision making and can take time to make those calls using video and there really is no excuse for poor decision making anymore and they need to fix that.

Have to say for me anyway you've hit the various nails on their heads. All the talk is on the hits but the cynical try preventing offences grate more. How the TMO didn't proactively call Peypers attention during the match to several incidents is mind boggling. To hear Peyper say to Rory when he asked for review of the potential forward pass that he has a team looking after him!! Masons silence throughout was deafening in a match where the citing commisioner saw fit to check 11 incidents.

[Oldschool]

Overview.
NZ influence match officials better than any other bar maybe OZ.
Our "game plan" should be to negate this influence.
If kicking up a stink about illegal behaviour by NZ players has the impact of reducing the aforementioned influence then so be it.
Outrageous indignation is preferable to tipping the cap and being regarded as good losers, an oxymoron if ever there was one.

[Lar]

Eddie O'Sullivan chatting with Murray Kinsella made some excellent comments regarding ref's performance and the reaction to it on The42 rugby show. His views pretty much reflect mine. His advice to look at situations with the jerseys reversed and comments about the pace of the game creating unfortunate events were both particularly instructive.

So O'Sullivan agreed that the ref was not deliberately unfair against Ireland. No argument. I believe there would be few on here who disagreed with that. One or two do and that is potentially understandable when it isn't the first time Peyper reffed a game where we lost a player to a dangerous high tackle. There are many on here who agree he made a lot of mistakes and O'Sullivan agreed that was highly understandable. But that isn't the same as cheating.

He didn't use the 'swap the jerseys' line on the New Zealand high tackle allegations. He used it on a couple of calls that were not questions of dangerous play or otherwise.

In fact the interviewer did not raise the question of the New Zealand approach to tackling at all in the game. They analysed two incidents only - the ones the NZ players have been cited for.

Can I ask: Do you think the New Zealand approach to the game was overly physical last Saturday and that the Irish fans are just being soft?

Or as it might be put in another way: Is it reasonable to push the laws of the game regarding player safety to their limits because you think this might gain you the edge that will win a test match?

[Dexter]

Overview.
NZ influence match officials better than any other bar maybe OZ.
Our "game plan" should be to negate this influence.
If kicking up a stink about illegal behaviour by NZ players has the impact of reducing the aforementioned influence then so be it.
Outrageous indignation is preferable to tipping the cap and being regarded as good losers, an oxymoron if ever there was one.

You can be sure that if the jersey's were reversed there would be a hell of stink kicked up by NZ, and rightly so.

[Ruckedtobits]

Eddie O'Sullivan chatting with Murray Kinsella made some excellent comments regarding ref's performance and the reaction to it on The42 rugby show. His views pretty much reflect mine. His advice to look at situations with the jerseys reversed and comments about the pace of the game creating unfortunate events were both particularly instructive.

So O'Sullivan agreed that the ref was not deliberately unfair against Ireland. No argument. I believe there would be few on here who disagreed with that. One or two do and that is potentially understandable when it isn't the first time Peyper reffed a game where we lost a player to a dangerous high tackle. There are many on here who agree he made a lot of mistakes and O'Sullivan agreed that was highly understandable. But that isn't the same as cheating.

He didn't use the 'swap the jerseys' line on the New Zealand high tackle allegations. He used it on a couple of calls that were not questions of dangerous play or otherwise.

In fact the interviewer did not raise the question of the New Zealand approach to tackling at all in the game. They analysed two incidents only - the ones the NZ players have been cited for.

Can I ask: Do you think the New Zealand approach to the game was overly physical last Saturday and that the Irish fans are just being soft?

Or as it might be put in another way: Is it reasonable to push the laws of the game regarding player safety to their limits because you think this might gain you the edge that will win a test match?

NZ told everybody before the game that they would be "up for the game". They were, but too hyped or hyper-active. Had Peyper penalised Reid for collision with SO'B from kick-off and then yellow-carded Sam Cane for no arm shoulder tackle on Henshaw, the game would have had a totally temperature. Whether it would have had a different outcome is another matter.

Henshaw was gone to be followed soon after by Sexton. The absence of both of them, regatdless of whether we also lost Stander, dramatically lowered our attacking ability and completion rate of mid-field attacking option.

However, refereeing is not about outcomes it is about actions. Peyper and Mason were a travesty of the standard which World Rugby generally get from their best Refs.

[LeRouxIsPHat]

EOS made the point that the decision on Trimble's "knock-on" of a NZ pass was an astonishing one. Have to say I agree with that. It was a penalty and perhaps a card though not, as EOS suggested, a possible penalty try.

I hate that rule but I agree. I thought it was a genuine attempt to catch it and in fairness to NZ they didn't seem to complain much but 9 times out of 10 that's a yellow card these days.

[Lar]

No issue with any of that RTB.

Its the inconsistency of refs that gets me.

But Stander knocked out Lambie in June and was at worst reckless - he was 'up for the game' attempted a charge down - had no means of avoiding the player and regrettably the player had to go off. I was disappointed at the time but understood the decision in the interests of player safety. Ditto the incident between Payne and Goode in the EC. Zero tolerance has to mean that.

Arguably Peyper is consistently lenient but if players are taken off with head injuries consistently in games he refs then World Rugby need to have a word or drop him.

[blues_fan]

So O'Sullivan agreed that the ref was not deliberately unfair against Ireland. No argument. I believe there would be few on here who disagreed with that. One or two do and that is potentially understandable when it isn't the first time Peyper reffed a game where we lost a player to a dangerous high tackle. There are many on here who agree he made a lot of mistakes and O'Sullivan agreed that was highly understandable. But that isn't the same as cheating.

From my earlier post: "Even some very poor examples in this this thread too, although not as bad as other venues for debate."

I'm not just talking about here and realize LF has not wholly been consumed by the insanity. As for the atrocious comments being 'understandable' that is absolute nonsense. Will you be so 'understanding' when Wayne Barnes screws the ABs over again and our idiots go full spastic again? I certainly won't stand for it. It is a blight on the game that we cannot keep our criticisms of refs to their actions on the field. Many feel they have to resort to basically defamation and character assassination.

Look, I think Alan 'the Shah of Iran' Lewis is the worst referee of the modern era and I made my thoughts known loud and clear on here. But I never ONCE attacked the man's character or integrity even after a long string of terrible performances. My criticism stopped where his incompetence ended. Why? Because all I need to judge a referee's performance is to see what he does on the field. How do I measure a man's integrity? I have to actually know him. I need to see evidence of bad character. Until then he's just a bloke doing an awfully difficult job, and missing those unbelievably high standards we set for referees once in a while or even regularly does not make him a bad person.

[Fan with smartphone]

Really respect your posts blues fan and is great to have an alternate voice here. Always needed. To put forward my view to you would be this.

Peyper for me seems like a nice man. He interacts reasonably well and he was shortlisted for referee of the year last year. Must have done ok with the assessors then. Not for a second do I think he is corrupt, but I think you have to question his competency on a number of counts:

1. Safety. We've had a head tackle directive/edict/underline, highlight and bold this week. Then Malakai Fekitoa played swinging arm swingball around Simon Zebo's neck. He definitely gets points for artistic impression - it was a pretty impressive salchow in the middle of it. If that is going to be punished with 10 in the bin then I don't know where we are at. Jaco Peyper also presided over repeated high tackling (the vast majority of which came from New Zealand, let's round it down to about 90%). He didn't seem to warn about it at all, other than to card one player in what was (in my view) an open and shut red card case. Now I don't agree that these were necessarily deliberate acts from New Zealand or Irish players, but at best it was a complete breakdown in technique at this pace of game. Ireland's technique generally held at that pace.

2. Repeat behaviour. This is the same refrain we were "whinging" after the France game too. I really don't think "say nahin, we might look like sore losers boys" is good enough. Joe Schmidt politely tried to point it out pre-game. What did he say? "Look I don't think the all blacks are going to land down and give an indisciplined performance," something like that? He referenced the France issues in the same quote. You don't often see Schmidt call something wrong. He sure did this time and I'm about done being polite about it, though he might have to. A trend is emerging where Jaco Peyper is behaving in an unsafe way. I think competency questions have to be arise from that game. If you were assessing his performance would you assess it as safe or unsafe?

3. Influence on the game. One team landed to play toe-to-toe fair. One landed to give penalties away as soon as they were stretched. New Zealand are entitled to choose to defend like that, but Peyper's job in my view is to apply the rules to this and make them come out and play. If Angus Gardner referees that game, in my view we win. Owens or Joubert referee it (even though they are rather starstruck at times themselves), I think we win. We won with Raynal. The other good welsh lad, slightly heavy fella, we win. Does anyone feel New Zealand gained or lost out by giving away penalties? I know where I stand on that. Now I accept Ireland did make their own mistakes close to the line, it's a real pity they didn't break em despite it. And whilst Rory best was phenomenal the 3 points in the second half was a mistake for me. That was our time to make the stand and break them once and for all. We didn't this time and no doubt our own review will be truly withering this time. You have to take the referee effect out if the game, but he was an enormous obstacle this time.

4. The question I guess you have to ask is did New Zealand decide to play like this because they prepped for this referee? If that's the case then Jaco has to look at himself. World rugby also have to look at it. I think they have to stand him down, send him for a review of training and bring him back then. If they just send him out and it happens a third time then how can they defend any concussion lawsuit that comes down the tracks? Were the rules applied in this game? Did that cause injury? What training did you provide to the referee? What action did you take to ensure it didn't happen again? I am completely and utterly in favour of respect for referees. The game is changing and it's not easy to keep up with that and it's not easy to control a game as intense as we saw, but no amount of politeness, or smokescreens about whining Irish, or blaming rte interviewers, or anything like that should be allowed to stop these issues being dealt with. Jaco Peyper may be a good referee, but he and his team had a terrible night. That needs to be faced and improved on.

[offshorerules]

Excellent piece of analysis here.

http://www.planetrugby.com/news/analysi ... -back-row/

[Lar]

So O'Sullivan agreed that the ref was not deliberately unfair against Ireland. No argument. I believe there would be few on here who disagreed with that. One or two do and that is potentially understandable when it isn't the first time Peyper reffed a game where we lost a player to a dangerous high tackle. There are many on here who agree he made a lot of mistakes and O'Sullivan agreed that was highly understandable. But that isn't the same as cheating.

From my earlier post: "Even some very poor examples in this this thread too, although not as bad as other venues for debate."

I'm not just talking about here and realize LF has not wholly been consumed by the insanity. As for the atrocious comments being 'understandable' that is absolute nonsense. Will you be so 'understanding' when Wayne Barnes screws the ABs over again and our idiots go full spastic again? I certainly won't stand for it. It is a blight on the game that we cannot keep our criticisms of refs to their actions on the field. Many feel they have to resort to basically defamation and character assassination.

Look, I think Alan 'the Shah of Iran' Lewis is the worst referee of the modern era and I made my thoughts known loud and clear on here. But I never ONCE attacked the man's character or integrity even after a long string of terrible performances. My criticism stopped where his incompetence ended. Why? Because all I need to judge a referee's performance is to see what he does on the field. How do I measure a man's integrity? I have to actually know him. I need to see evidence of bad character. Until then he's just a bloke doing an awfully difficult job, and missing those unbelievably high standards we set for referees once in a while or even regularly does not make him a bad person.

Not sure why you keep bleating on about this BF - I think we have agreed that most people here accept that Peyper is not a bad man, just a bad ref. Virtually no one has questioned his integrity.

Why are you challenging the element of your posts I agree with and not dealing with the bits I am critical of your team for? Your silence is beginning to speak for itself.

[Raydollard]

To me there were more than two instances where NZplayers used short arm so-calledtackles to assault Irish players. They should all have got yellow cards as a minimum and all cited. They were intentional back street physical assaults and irrespective of who tries them they need to be eliminated

[blues_fan]

Not sure why you keep bleating on about this BF - I think we have agreed that most people here accept that Peyper is not a bad man, just a bad ref. Virtually no one has questioned his integrity.

Nonsense. Re-read this thread and then explore other media. It is atrocious. Right up there with us vs Wayne Barnes in '07.

Why are you challenging the element of your posts I agree with and not dealing with the bits I am critical of your team for? Your silence is beginning to speak for itself.

We don't agree. You seem to think this is 'understandable'. I don't. As for the other bits, I mentioned earlier that Eddie O'Sullivan's comments reflect mine. It's a tough, fast game. Accidents happen. I think that explains everything unless further information is revealed. I'm not particularly interested in this part of the argument, I've had it out on here before and it never goes anywhere. Plus the All Blacks can defend themselves adequately unlike refs. If respect for referee integrity is gone, then the game is gone.

[Dave Cahill]

Fekitoa gets two weeks, reduced to one for past record. Effectively saying the Ref should have given him a red, which would, of course, mean he wouldn't have been on the pitch to score his try

[blues_fan]

snip

I disagree on some of it, but see your point. More of this and less of the other garbage.

[simonokeeffe]

Fekitoa gets two weeks, reduced to one for past record. Effectively saying the Ref should have given him a red, which would, of course, mean he wouldn't have been on the pitch to score his try

such is life

thats the way with almost every citing/ban for a yellow

[cormac]

No ban for Cane