Rival watch
- Thread starter Spurlock
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
He almost always looks like that, though!
He's no Mark Miserable Hughes, but he should probably work on his body language on the sidelines.
His players can hardly gain confidence when the glance over to him, can they?
Wijnaldum gets his fourth and probably starts looking for a transfer in January.
6-2. Big result.
Newcastle have some decent players, I just think that they're quite lacking at the back.
Their seem to have rather a lot of pillocks in the dressing room, too.
Might take a while to sort the place out.
6-2. Big result.
Newcastle have some decent players, I just think that they're quite lacking at the back.
Their seem to have rather a lot of pillocks in the dressing room, too.
Might take a while to sort the place out.
Three cheers for Rondon! And if he football lark doesn't work out, he and Yedlin have made a good start on a circus act.
I've disliked McClaren for ranting and raving in his first PL game. I've always believed most people need a pat on the back more than a kick in the butt--and if they don't, you need to find new people. You'll hurt your foot otherwise. Maybe that is the case with Newcastle, though.
Poor Rosler gets the boot again. Not sure where Cellino expects them to be but 11 games in with 11 points isn't terrible. If you're not expecting to finish in the playoffs then just pick a manager and stick with him unless you're in serious danger of relegation. They've played all the top 6 in his first 11 games so it's not like they've had an easy start either.
Another good example how rugby's video technology isn't stopping bad decisions as effectively as advocates of bringing it into football would have you believe.
It also seems to take an age for a lot of the decisions to be made once the video ref becomes involved. I'd rather we keep the tempo in the game wherever possible and focus on better refereeing standards.
One of the many, many counter-intuitive things about rugby refereeing is that referees only count the first offence when blowing the whistle. For example, yesterday saw Australia commit some piddling little infraction, and a few seconds later one of their players blatantly took out a Scottish player - but when the ref blew the whistle, he awarded Scotland a penalty for the the initial infraction because rugby rules state that the referee should only blow for the first offence...which gives teams who usually play the referee, such as Australia and France, free reign to get away with some nasty challenges that deserve at least a spell in the sin bin but because according to the rules the later fouls did not happen.
It's not the first time I've seen that happen at this year's RWC either, as the exact same thing happened in the New Zealand/Argentina match in the group stage.
It only didn't work because Joubert chose not to go to it! Why? Only he knows....
Given the speed he was running off the pitch the second he blew the final whistle, one can only presume it was because he was getting a few of these after the match...
You must log in or register to see images
Didn't know that. Surprised they can't still deal with disciplinary matters seperately when it's called for.
Well exactly. Would you trust Premier League refs not to do that too?
If we go by a cricket/tennis style limited appeals rule then we'll have managers abusing the system for tactical advantage. If we leave it to the refs we leave it exposed to the same incompetence that led to video refereeing to be called for in the first place. On top of that there's the subjective nature of some calls. With Sky, BT and other media outlets using ex-referees to explain decisions we've only ended up seeing more and more contradictions.
What I mean is, used properly, the fourth official clears up 99.9% of contentious incidents correctly.
IMO, Joubert should most definitely consulted him in that case. It was a massive call in a very important game and he needed to be sure of the call he was making - especially given the implications for both teams.
I haven't seen the incident, but the fact that the ref did a runner at the end suggests that he knew that he ballsed it up.
World rugby have said that he was not allowed to use TMO for the incident. I don't know why. So he was relying on what he saw with no help available.
In real time that was a pretty easy mistake to make.
Joubert shouldn't be blamed if that is the case.
In real time that was a pretty easy mistake to make.
Joubert shouldn't be blamed if that is the case.
Yes, I just saw that too. Seems like a daft rule in that situation! Obviously, the game can't be stopped for every little decision, and in normal circumstances a decision on a knock on wouldn't be that important.
Ok, Joubert got it wrong, it happens. I don't expect that he'll appreciate World Rugby saying so publicly though!
"I see Howard Webb has found a new career, blatantly cheating Scotland out of a win by awarding Australia
a last second penalty for a foul committed by an Australian player in yesterday's egg chucking."
Thought Andre Watson was the "agent Webb" (another S African) for Aus.
His refereeing of the scrums in the RWC 2003 final was similarly atrocious
(and ridiculed/condemned at the time) , as the penalties to them were the only
thing keeping them in the game.
a last second penalty for a foul committed by an Australian player in yesterday's egg chucking."
Thought Andre Watson was the "agent Webb" (another S African) for Aus.
His refereeing of the scrums in the RWC 2003 final was similarly atrocious
(and ridiculed/condemned at the time) , as the penalties to them were the only
thing keeping them in the game.
One of the weird things about rugby refereeing is that there's different standards between the Northern and Southern hemisphere. For example, Australia's usual shenanigans at line-outs (either passing to the player right in front of them, or throwing in the ball at such an angle it is almost impossible for a non-Australian player to catch it) is usually quickly stamped out by a Northern hemisphere ref, but Southern hemisphere refs just let it go on.
The obvious comparison would be Premier League refs with and referee of a good standard. For example, several Premier League teams (notably Man Utd and Chelsea) will maraud towards the ref en masse knowing they can get away with it - but they never dare do it in the Champions League as they know half a dozen yellow cards would soon follow.
The obvious comparison would be Premier League refs with and referee of a good standard. For example, several Premier League teams (notably Man Utd and Chelsea) will maraud towards the ref en masse knowing they can get away with it - but they never dare do it in the Champions League as they know half a dozen yellow cards would soon follow.
Really?
You must log in or register to see images
You must log in or register to see images
There are so many things going on in a game of rugby that it's difficult for a referee to see everything. Yes, some things are blatantly let go seemingly nowadays. The vast majority of scrums are 'fed', which is illegal. Also true that many line out throws are not straight. Some do get called, others not.
There has always been a disparity in interpretation between northern and Southern Hemisphere referees. It's nothing new.