The Joubert Saga
In case somebody does not remember, it is about the last penalty in the match between Australia and Scotland in the Rugby World Cup when the referee, Craig Joubert, penalised Scotland for offside. Bernard Foley of Australia goaled the penalty and Australia won 35-34. Australia went on to the semifinal while Scotland dropped out of the World Cup competition.
In the aftermath there was loud anger at the penalty decision, and World Rugby, in a unique World Cup statement, said that Joubert had erred though he was a good referee.
Much of what was written in angry criticism of Joubert's decision was done so anonymously and much of it was simply obscene, Such writings are not brave at all, the modern version of writing on a lavatory wall.
Some of the loudest objectors were neither anonymous nor obscene – Matt Dawson, Kenny Logan, John Beattie and Gavin Hastings – all once international players.
There were complaints about not referring to the TMO for the decision and because Joubert ran off the field at the end of the match. The running off the field was really neither here nor there as it did not in any way affect the outcome of the match and World Rugby explained that the referee was not entitled to consult the TMO because of the protocol which they were using for this competition – a pity, for in other parts of the world the referee could have consulted the TMO. It's tough to put referees into the cauldron of the world's top matches and then hamstring them unnecessarily.
But then World Rugby did what it had not done before at World Cups when it was the International Rugby Board. It announced that Joubert had made a wrong decision.
It did not do it in 1995 or 1999 or 2007 or 2011, when there were refereeing controversies. But it did it now and the palliative at the end about Joubert's being a top referee did nothing to soften the blow.
Of course, he is a top referee – one of a dozen chosen out of thousands of referees to referee at the World Cup and then one of the four chosen from the dozen to do the semifinals. In 2011 he was chosen to referee the final of the World Cup. That is about as high as refereeing goes.
But he is singled out for making a wrong decision. It was not the only wrong refereeing decision at the World Cup but the only one singled out in this World Rugby way.
When Johnny Lacey made a right decision and Greig Laidlaw argued with him over and over about the decision, there was no statement from World Rugby saying that Lacey was right and Laidlaw wrong in law and manners.
The only statement about a refereeing decision was about Joubert's.
Six Nations disappointment is easy to understand as none of their teams went to the semifinal. That meant that they did not have much to look forward to, only matches to look back on and finding a scapegoat/whipping boy was inviting.
Scottish disappointment is even easier to understand. They had done far better than expected and had a real chance of going further, their best chance of going further since 1991 when their chances were thwarted when Gavin Hastings missed a sitter of a penalty in the semifinal, the same Hastings that had things to say about Joubert in 2011.
Nobody in 1991 said that Hastings had 'cost them the match'. But apparently Joubert did in 2015. Not the five tries the Australians scored but the refereeing decision. In 2011 South Africa was similarly up in arms about Bryce Lawrence who 'cost them the match', not a try from losing the ball, not a forward pass, not a knock-on at the line, not a knock-on with an open line, not pulling down Radike Samo in a line-out – none of those things. No, it was the referee. Just as it was Wayne Barnes's 'missed forward pass' that caused an uproar in New Zealand, a possible mistake that drew no comment for the IRB.
The World Rugby statement, unique as it is, invites questions about its own impartiality. After all the chairman of its committee dealing with referees is a Scot – John Jeffrey, the famous Scottish flank and a fine man. Such suspicion of him would be unfortunate and unfair.
And the decision?
This is entirely my own opinion after watching the replay over and over and also another clip sent to me that claims to prove Joubert right. In doing so I am mindful that the game is played and officiated by human beings and human beings all make mistakes, especially in the immense pressure of such matches as these when decisions are demanded of referees.
After watching it over and over, I end up unsure – unsure whether the decision was right or wrong for there is a confusing whirl of players at the time.
For the reason that it is so confusing, there is no clear and obvious infringement, not even clear if there was a knock-on, nor clear who last played the ball before it got to poor Jon Welsh.
Whenever a team is penalised in a match, the watch word should be 'clear and obvious'. Too often it is not clear and obvious at tackles and scrums, and certainly not here.
Because it was not clear and obvious, there could well have been two options – play goes on or a scrum to Australia if Strauss (or Dave Denton) knocked on.
Nobody minds a scrum.
But a lot of people mind a penalty which plays such a big part in deciding a match and a lot of people mind if a referee is used as a shield to divert criticism of the organisers who make a referee into a sacrificial lamb, but will not risk unpopularity by taking players and commentators to task.
If this can happen to a top referee, what will be the fate of those lower down, the men who make rugby possible but who are already in short supply? This way of doing things is simply not the rugby way. From childhood you are told to accept and respect the referee's decision.
One part of World Rugby's statement was right – Craig Joubert is an excellent referee.
This is written in the hope that the dust has settled and that this piece is, as Longinus would have it, the result of strong emotion recollected in tranquility.
By Paul Dobson
