Nigel Owens

[Jose]

He'd be a better ref if he refereed what happened rather than overlaying who did it, when they did it and what they actually meant to do at the time.

In this match -

FACT Nonu cynically pulled Haskell back off the ball with a clear professional foul when England break threateningly.
Owens did well to spot it but having done so failed to give a clear yellow card. Did he bottle the decision because it was Nonu in Auckland? Hard not to conclude that he did.

FACT England break to 3 metres out. ABs cynically kill the ball.
Owens spots it but overlays an interpretation that they thought it was a maul or some other mitigation. He's the judge not the defence counsel and didn't need to interpret. Did the ABs kill it and prevent quick ball and a potential try scoring opportunity in the red zone? Yes - so absolutely a yellow.

FACT ABs break threateningly and Yarde makes tackle, killing the ball.
Owens spots it and looks at the facts rather than interpreting or mitigating Yarde's actions by thinking he might have ripped it in the tackle or whatever other excuse and correctly concludes it is a yellow card.

I don't know whether Owens is biased or not but taking the evidence above it is not unreasonable or libellous that some people have come to this conclusion on the evidence presented by the game. He doesn't have to be perfect to mitigate this perception, just consistent. And in this case he clearly wasn't.

[Tigerref]

He'd be a better ref if he refereed what happened rather than overlaying who did it, when they did it and what they actually meant to do at the time.

In this match -

FACT Nonu cynically pulled Haskell back off the ball with a clear professional foul when England break threateningly.
Owens did well to spot it but having done so failed to give a clear yellow card. Did he bottle the decision because it was Nonu in Auckland? Hard not to conclude that he did.

FACT England break to 3 metres out. ABs cynically kill the ball.
Owens spots it but overlays an interpretation that they thought it was a maul or some other mitigation. He's the judge not the defence counsel and didn't need to interpret. Did the ABs kill it and prevent quick ball and a potential try scoring opportunity in the red zone? Yes - so absolutely a yellow.

FACT ABs break threateningly and Yarde makes tackle, killing the ball.
Owens spots it and looks at the facts rather than interpreting or mitigating Yarde's actions by thinking he might have ripped it in the tackle or whatever other excuse and correctly concludes it is a yellow card.

I don't know whether Owens is biased or not but taking the evidence above it is not unreasonable or libellous that some people have come to this conclusion on the evidence presented by the game. He doesn't have to be perfect to mitigate this perception, just consistent. And in this case he clearly wasn't.

Oh dear lord. This is the most crazy analysis of a ref's performance I think that I have read.

3 calls out of the c80-150 he made in a game and you're trying to claim some proof of bias.

What about the number of calls that went in England's favour?
Haskell landing on the kicker
x3 ball carrier not releasing for example off the top of my head

He got 1 call wrong in the 3 that you've called - I don't think the Nonu one is a shocker (It was a 50/50)

[mol2]

The laws of he game are the laws. No ifs, buts or maybes. The refs have the discretion to play advantage.
The tackle area is a farce and needs changing. Is the tackled player held or not, did the tackler release immediately, did the tacked player release the ball? It could be made very simple - you have to release immediately you land whether held or not and you don't touch the ball until you are back on side and on your feet. No rolling over to present it or squeeze ball. No hanging onto the tacked player to stop them rolling over or crawling along. Makes "killing the ball" much easier to police.

I think that there are few would be international referees who wouldn't learn from the French refs. They seem to be more able than most to ref the game without interpretation or agenda.

Of the other nations the Aussies seem to have the agenda of destroying the scrum (they'd rather it was League)
The Kiwis have blindness to forward passes and anything else that affects continuity.
The South African and Irish just seem to be old school amateurs.
The English seem to think the match is all about them and probably that applies to the Welsh too. I think Owens is a good ref but is inconsistent.

Should Nonu have been carded - yes - it was a deliberate act of cheating. Even if England had scored it should have been a card. It's pathetic soccer style cheating that has no part in the game.

[Tigerref]

The laws of he game are the laws. No ifs, buts or maybes. The refs have the discretion to play advantage.
The tackle area is a farce and needs changing. Is the tackled player held or not, did the tackler release immediately, did the tacked player release the ball? It could be made very simple - you have to release immediately you land whether held or not and you don't touch the ball until you are back on side and on your feet. No rolling over to present it or squeeze ball. No hanging onto the tacked player to stop them rolling over or crawling along. Makes "killing the ball" much easier to police.

I think that there are few would be international referees who wouldn't learn from the French refs. They seem to be more able than most to ref the game without interpretation or agenda.

Of the other nations the Aussies seem to have the agenda of destroying the scrum (they'd rather it was League)
The Kiwis have blindness to forward passes and anything else that affects continuity.
The South African and Irish just seem to be old school amateurs.
The English seem to think the match is all about them and probably that applies to the Welsh too. I think Owens is a good ref but is inconsistent.

Should Nonu have been carded - yes - it was a deliberate act of cheating. Even if England had scored it should have been a card. It's pathetic soccer style cheating that has no part in the game.

I'm afraid over 500 years of English law (not just rugby) have demonstrated that no matter how well drafted laws are there will always be a way of negotiating / interpreting those words.

I posted on another thread really simple law and invited discussion on. Within 20 mins 6 people posted with 6 slightly different readings.

Try it - pick a law - any law - and re draft it so that there is NO room for doubt. It is very hard

[welshy08]

"The laws of the game are the laws no ifs buts or maybes"?

Any Rugby fan will tell you laws are different to rules in that laws are open to interpretation by the Ref..so think you will find there are lots of "if's buts and maybe's".
That's all they are, if's buts and maybes.

How many Refs are you English supporters going to add to the list of Biased Refs BTW?

Steve Walsh.
Nige.

Please just grow up.

[DickyP]

Surely the most worrying feature of this subject in not whether NO is biased, but that the depressing frequency with which he destroys games by bad decisions can begin to give credence to such claims.

[Tigerref]

Surely the most worrying feature of this subject in not whether NO is biased, but that the depressing frequency with which he destroys games by bad decisions can begin to give credence to such claims.

Neither of these claims withstand the remotest scrutiny.

This game was outstanding and a great act of drama - it wasn't ruined.

Any claim of bias is so mind-numblingly infantile as to be rather depressing that it is repeated on here - the home of the best support club in the World.

I mean best in terms of numbers and quality.

He made a few bad calls - some for England some against, there was one CI - it went against England. That's it.

[ourla]

As ever people are losing the plot a bit. At this level in a tight match players, officials and coaches are going to be heavily scrutinised. At this level mistakes are fewer and more critical. A simple error by a player or an official can make the difference between one team winning or the other. I don't see any reason why on a forum you wouldn't debate these key moments. I don't think the majority are questioning NOs integrity. But I think it's fair to ask if he was he reluctant to card someone early in the game or why he saw a couple of knock ons so badly wrong.

[Tigerref]

As ever people are losing the plot a bit. At this level in a tight match players, officials and coaches are going to be heavily scrutinised. At this level mistakes are fewer and more critical. A simple error by a player or an official can make the difference between one team winning or the other. I don't see any reason why on a forum you wouldn't debate these key moments. I don't think the majority are questioning NOs integrity. But I think it's fair to ask if he was he reluctant to card someone early in the game or why he saw a couple of knock ons so badly wrong.

This is spot on. Trouble is people are suggesting he is biased.

[Nailsworthstiger]

He made a few bad calls - some for England some against, there was one CI - it went against England. That's it.

But that is the point in it's entirety. He makes bad calls. You don't want to be involved in or watch a game when the ref makes one howler after another and in this game he messed up big time. For me when he called the two knock on's were totally unacceptable as he was no where near the ball on either occasion and he just could not be sure that the ball was knocked on.

How many times do you see a player look bemused when they have knocked on? Very rarely because when it happens they know they have done it. But surely he could of looked at Freddie Burns's expression and thought Oh... I might of got that one wrong. No I bet he didn't because he is too sure of his own self importance. To me NO is a useless ref.

[DickyP]

Surely the most worrying feature of this subject in not whether NO is biased, but that the depressing frequency with which he destroys games by bad decisions can begin to give credence to such claims.

Neither of these claims withstand the remotest scrutiny.

This game was outstanding and a great act of drama - it wasn't ruined.

Any claim of bias is so mind-numblingly infantile as to be rather depressing that it is repeated on here - the home of the best support club in the World.

I mean best in terms of numbers and quality.

He made a few bad calls - some for England some against, there was one CI - it went against England. That's it.

If you noticed I carefully didn't say that NO was or wasn't biased. Also my point was the more that NO (who I do consider an extremely poor referee - mainly because of his capriciousness and his one-sidedness: it has actually helped us in the past - the win at Montpellier being a case in point where he consistently - and often confusingly - decided in our favour) has bad games the more people will make such claims.
Actually the game WAS ruined for a value of ruined - as was the England win over Argentina in the U20s by a incorrect refereeing decision directly causing the 'wrong' result. Nevertheless, I thoroughly enjoyed watching the game and as there are far more important things in life than rugby results it isn't going to substantively affect my life.

[Bill W (2)]

Is NO biased? Does he set out to favour one side? Likely not!

Is NO biased? Insofar as his inconsistancies frequenly favour one (usually non English) team. Almnost certainly.

[G.K]

There may well be no conscience intention to be biased on the part of NO but having seen him ref numerous matches now then it leads me to believe that his decisions are. especially concerning certain teams.

And for the avoidance of doubt I'll retain the right to comment on the refs decisions, regardless of whether anyone likes it or not. There is already too much stifling of free speech and opinion in this country!

[snoopster]

Surely the most worrying feature of this subject in not whether NO is biased, but that the depressing frequency with which he destroys games by bad decisions can begin to give credence to such claims.

I agree - I think from the point of view of neutrals who want to see rugby played with more "funny" one liners than penalties given out by the ref and an exciting end to the match then he is very good.
From the point of view of reffing on a consistent, fair, basis then I think he is a very poor ref.

He is more interested in managing, and being at the centre of, rugby based entertainment than actually reffing a match and I find his desire to win plaudits by keeping the penalty count down frustrating as it allows more streetwise teams to constantly commit niggly foul play - playing people off the ball, illegally slowing down the ball at the breakdown etc.

[jgriffin]

Walsh is seriously biased - by his own admission, Owens barely competent at times - if you want totally incompetent then try Fitzgibbon, now there's a really :censored: ref.
There are a quite a few good refs, who make mistakes, but not to the extent of repeating them time and again.