Northern Edition

Select Edition

Northern Northern
Southern Southern
Global Global
New Zealand New Zealand
France France

Alleged Luke Pearce apology to Jamie Ritchie ignites Twitter debate

(Photo by Stu Forster/Getty Images)

A claim that referee Luke Pearce apologised to Jamie Ritchie for punishing his backchat during last Sunday’s Guinness Six Nations match between Scotland and Ireland has ignited quite a debate on Twitter. The beaten Scottish skipper was penalised for the second successive game, Pearce admonishing him early in the second half: “You can’t question decisions in my face like that.”

ADVERTISEMENT

A social media comment posted during the BT Murrayfield match about this piqued the interest post-match of Jim Hamilton, the retired Scotland lock.

It was suggested: “If you’re a Scotland fan it might be of mild concern that captain Jamie Ritchie has been marched back 10 metres against both France and Ireland for giving lip to the ref. Captains usually receive leeway, but these last two games Nika Amushakeli and Luke Pearce have said he has crossed a line.”

Video Spacer

Video Spacer

Hamilton didn’t agree, posting: “Luke Pearce apologised to him after the game.” That revelation prompted numerous rugby fans to get involved in a lively debate. Here is a cross-section of what was said in the thread:

“Getting tired of Luke apologising for this. Apologising means you don’t intend to do it again. He marched Jamie back twice against Ireland after saying he regretted doing it to Billy V on your podcast. I’m sorry but I don’t believe him!”

“Pearce out of his depth – refereed the game like he already knew Ireland were going to win. At a time when we are trying to grow the game and there are more eyes than ever (Netflix), the standard of officiating has to be better. Italy-Wales game was the same.”

“There was nothing to apologise for. Bitching at refs has to stop and refs should be marching players for it more. The difference is that when Pearce told Ireland the next Irish player bitching at him for a YC would get one himself, the Irish players learned and stopped.”

ADVERTISEMENT

“Pearce gave Sexton the ‘If you come to me demanding a yellow, I will give one to you instead’ speech in the first half. Frustrating that he wasn’t penalised like Ritchie though – feels like double standards.”

“Flippin heck, guys. Scotland lost because Ireland played better at key moments. It was nothing to do with refereeing decisions. He had already spoken to Ritchie about how he spoke. It was harsh but fair.”

“Second week in a row he has been marched though. Add in that Finn was marched as well. Do Scotland have an image problem with the refs at the moment and will continue to march them?”

“He’s being diplomatic, not apologising in the sense that he was mistaken. There is a big difference.”

ADVERTISEMENT

“Did he apologise sincerely for making a bad decision or did he say something like ‘I’m sorry, but you can’t come into my face shouting’, in which case it’s not a real apology for a bad decision but an explanation of why the decision was made.”

“I can’t see the need to apologise. Ritchie got up, stomped over to him like an angry schoolboy and demanded an answer in a tone you aren’t supposed to use with referees. It is becoming a bit of a habit. Pearce had little tolerance for the Irish as well. Threatened to YC Baird.”

“Apart from not carding Hogg, I thought Luke refereed well. This is not football. Players deserved to be marched back for disrespect to refs’ decisions.”

“I know he’s a mate of the pod, Jim, but he was poor. Should have binned Hogg and maybe one more for the slapping of the ball out of the scrum-half’s hand near the line.”

“South Africans reading this thread and thinking of pots and kettles.”

“Jim, what exactly did he apologise for? I’m genuinely concerned and saddened by some of the comments here. As rugby players and supporters of the game, surely we should always respect the referee’s decision win or lose, right or wrong. As Nigel Owens would say, ‘This is not soccer’.”

“Why the hell did he apologise? If it was enough to get marched back, then Ritchie was in the wrong…becoming a habit, and Ben White is no better.

“Interesting if accurate. Truth is every game Ireland playing Sexton, POM, Biggar etc are over at the refs whining like a kid who dropped their toffee apple, so there really needs to be guidance on what constitutes being marched 10.”

ADVERTISEMENT

LIVE

{{item.title}}

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

8 Comments
M
May 643 days ago

As captain Jamie is entitled to ask for clarification and ref had a strop and marched Scotland back 10m as he wasn't prepared to say why. Brings his decision into question, is he unable to justify the penalty.

m
matt. 646 days ago

Ireland learnt when warned once, Scotland sadly didn't. Van Der merew tackle for first Irish try was no arms. That went unpunished, hogg leaning over the ruck should have been a card also, without leaning on the ruck he never got the ball.
It's a shame Scotland lost but Ireland were better on the day.

A
A Fine 647 days ago

Pearce is OK. If I had a quibble it is that he talks too much to the players. Gets into conversations. He's the ref, he's not a buddy!

m
matt 647 days ago

A) I don’t like Pearce doing this, because either 1) he’s losing his cool in games and punishing players or 2) he’s apologizing for doing his job; it’s not a popularity contest and refs should do this much more. C) they should also be marching 9s back for taking the ball when the penalty is obviously against them. First one should be 10, second should be a card. You’re telling me a pro player can’t look at the ref and recognize who’s penalty it is

2) Ritchie does have to work on his interactions, they seem very confrontational. McCaw was the best at this. Questioned accepted moved on. Players nowadays seem to be trying to intimidate the ref.

R
Rob 647 days ago

During the France game after gilchrist received his red card I heard Ritchie arguing with the ref saying “if one of their players hits me in the head do they get a card?!”. Or something similar to that effect, he seems to be an able leader on the field but lacks the subtle communication skills other good captains have had in the past. If he’s going up and arguing like that on every point there’s no wonder he was getting his team marched back.
It’s also just as easy for Irish fans to question the refereeing performance as it is for Scottish fans. Pearce wouldn’t ref the rucks for most of the game and ignored infringements from both teams, the Scottish being a bit more blatant certainly near their line. He didn’t cover himself in glory to say the least.

Load More Comments

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

J
JW 2 hours ago
Does South Africa have a future in European competition?

I rated Lowe well enough to be an AB. Remember we were picking the likes of George Bridge above such players so theres no disputing a lot of bad decisions have been made by those last two coaches. Does a team like the ABs need a finicky winger who you have to adapt and change a lot of your style with to get benefit from? No, not really. But he still would have been a basic improvement on players like even Savea at the tail of his career, Bridge, and could even have converted into the answer of replacing Beauden at the back. Instead we persisted with NMS, Naholo, Havili, Reece, all players we would have cared even less about losing and all because Rieko had Lowe's number 11 jersey nailed down.


He was of course only 23 when he decided to leave, it was back in the beggining of the period they had started retaining players (from 2018 onwards I think, they came out saying theyre going to be more aggressive at some point). So he might, all of them, only just missed out.


The main point that Ed made is that situations like Lowe's, Aki's, JGP's, aren't going to happen in future. That's a bit of a "NZ" only problem, because those players need to reach such a high standard to be chosen by the All Blacks, were as a country like Ireland wants them a lot earlier like that. This is basically the 'ready in 3 years' concept Ireland relied on, versus the '5 years and they've left' concept' were that player is now ready to be chosen by the All Blacks (given a contract to play Super, ala SBW, and hopefully Manu).


The 'mercenary' thing that will take longer to expire, and which I was referring to, is the grandparents rule. The new kids coming through now aren't going to have as many gp born overseas, so the amount of players that can leave with a prospect of International rugby offer are going to drop dramatically at some point. All these kiwi fellas playing for a PI, is going to stop sadly.


The new era problem that will replace those old concerns is now French and Japanese clubs (doing the same as NRL teams have done for decades by) picking kids out of school. The problem here is not so much a national identity one, than it is a farm system where 9 in 10 players are left with nothing. A stunted education and no support in a foreign country (well they'll get kicked out of those countries were they don't in Australia).


It's the same sort of situation were NZ would be the big guy, but there weren't many downsides with it. The only one I can think was brought up but a poster on this site, I can't recall who it was, but he seemed to know a lot of kids coming from the Islands weren't really given the capability to fly back home during school xms holidays etc. That is probably something that should be fixed by the union. Otherwise getting someone like Fakatava over here for his last year of school definitely results in NZ being able to pick the cherries off the top but it also allows that player to develop and be able to represent Tonga and under age and possibly even later in his career. Where as a kid being taken from NZ is arguably going to be worse off in every respect other than perhaps money. Not going to develop as a person, not going to develop as a player as much, so I have a lotof sympathy for NZs case that I don't include them in that group but I certainly see where you're coming from and it encourages other countries to think they can do the same while not realising they're making a much worse experience/situation.

144 Go to comments
TRENDING
TRENDING 'Tom has the potential to be better than a British and Irish Lion' 'Tom has the potential to be better than a British and Irish Lion'
Search