byron says...

Piru - You missed the point! I agree with everything he said - except on the TV I watched, as far as I saw it, the hand on the ball after the TV ref signed off was a South African Hand meaning that it would have been a 22 drop-out. Grounded in the in goal area - it wasm't knocked on. Even if it was knocked on in-goal a 22 would still have been the right answer due to law 8.1 -- I'll let you look that one up :)

Posted 09:44 10th September 2009

Ryan says...

I am sorry Adam Kyriacou, but you must have been watching a different game! How many times did Elsom come into the side of the gate, plus Barnes did not even want to talk to the Captains to give his reasons why (thats just crazy). I realize that he is an englishman and you like to support him, but common, he is not good enough to ref games like these! Did you see that kick from Giteau? He asked for the replay, he was standing right next to him when he kicked it over. Do people remember the last World Cup when he robbed New Zealand? Andre Watson is the only one that can help these current referees...

Posted 21:18 09th September 2009

bruce says...

I don't see a problem with the scrum just before half time. The hooter went as the first scrum disintegrated. The ref awarded the scrum the other way, fair enough. But the hooter had gone, the ball was dead, it wasn't a penalty, so half time it is.

Unfortunate timing for the Boks, but the correct call.

Had it been a penalty, then play would have continued. But a scrum is just dead ball, and once the ball goes dead after the hooter the half is over.

Posted 16:37 09th September 2009

leslie42 says...

Problem is not the refs..its the laws. Especially at the breakdown and the offsides law around the rucks and mauls and breakdowns

It is clear that at these critical stages nobody is 100% certain that they will not concede a penalty so everyone is a little afarid. And you cannot play rugby afraid.

Posted 14:49 09th September 2009

bruce says...

In one sense he did a great job, because the game was close and exciting right up to the final few minutes. The backs got plenty of ball, and he certainly got a lot of marginal calls right.

One senses though that he is more comfortable reffing unstructured play than structured play. Not surprisingly there has been plenty of TV footage this week over his performance and some of the things he didn't blow for during the game. Particularly at the rolling mauls and with some of the rucks. Perhaps this negated the Boks approach somewhat.

The Boks did not lose because of the ref. The Boks lost because Australia played better rugby and were the better team on the day. I think that's a clear opinion running through many of these posts. On a different day some decisions may have gone the other way, but in all fairness Australia played great rugby, and probably could have put another 20 to 30 points on the board but for some amazing last-line defense.

However just because Australia played well - and the result was ultimately a fair reflection of the game - does not mean that the ref was necessarily correct all the time, or even that he caught most of the offenses. I think perhaps Barne's missed rather too many illegal events to describe it as "an almost faultless day".

Nobody wants a whistle-driven 80 minutes that never gets going. We all know it's possible to blow a penalty at just about every ruck, and that's not the goal we want. However the quality of the refereeing has to cover all aspects of the game, including the forward and back play for it to be considered faultless.

Posted 12:56 09th September 2009

rich says...

Personally I don't blame Barnes for the Bok's loss - I saw congratulations to Australia, they played better on the day and deserve the win. However, this article is a load of nonsense. You go through and pick up on the decisions the referee was correct on, and ignore all the offences he missed or the occasions where he was wrong. He was wrong on a number of occassions, and a lot of those went against the Boks. It may not have affected the outcome of the game, but it is still ridiculous to claim he had a perfect game

Posted 06:42 09th September 2009

wazsere says...

The only criticism I could lay on Wayne Barnes was he didn't play advantage for very long; fair enough for a knock-on but for the more serious offenses it was a bit annoying to have advantage called over within a very short period of time although he was consistent with this throughout the match. I watched the game off Australian TV and their commentators were complementary to him although you might argue they were happy because they were winning/won ;-).

Posted 03:01 09th September 2009

kirkwood says...

This was the best refereeing performance of the Tri Nations so far for one very simple, but the most important reason: Wayne Barnes let the game flow. Therefore, rugby was played. He applied the laws, he didn't interpret them. What other sport in the world asks referees to interpret laws? Surely that¿s not their job. They are there to apply them. Is it therefore any surprise that the most popular game in the world is the one with arguably the fewest laws?

Yes, rugby is terribly hard to referee, because there are so many laws and law variations, and the expectation that laws must be interpreted while a game is being played. What a God-awful position this is.

But remember that it was the RFU-led push to avoid even trialling the law variations that keeps rugby stuck in this morass. Sure, the ELV's were flawed and needed serious work. But to avoid even trialling them was always proof that the RFU has no idea, and assumes all is good if the coins keep dropping into the tin. Ironically, the RFU is the biggest threat to the future health of the game. In the meantime, fans south of the equator flock in ever increasing numbers to football, rugby league and AFL. Especially in the South African and NZ strongholds. With the football world cup in Africa next year, we should be very, very worried.

Posted 02:38 09th September 2009

piru says...

The ref had an outstanding game (and I am a Kiwi with every reason to hate Barnes) he communicated to the players clearly and specifically, missed very little (though Genia should have been awarded a penalty try, the two Boks were offside, however that would have been the TMO's call anyway). He kept his cool, communicated with his ARs and TMO where necessary (the dropgoal is a perfect example) and controlled the game near perfectly.

On top of that, watching at home it was always clear what he was doing and why, something that cannot be said for a lot of refs (Silent Jonathan Kaplan for example - also a great ref btw)

I would say to those arguing the point, try reffing a game of rugby yourself and see how you go.

Posted 01:45 09th September 2009

Mack says...

Bazaar justification for the performance of a ref. What about the half time turn over of the scrum. Is it not unusual for the ref to award a turnover and blow the whistle straight away. Surely you continue the play. What would have happened if it was full time of a world cup the team getting the turn over scrum needed a try to win.

Posted 21:22 08th September 2009