Northern Edition

Select Edition

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

Josh Strauss: 'I can understand why there has been a bit of an uproar'

Josh Strauss (Photo by Chris Lee - World Rugby via Getty Images/World Rugby via Getty Images)

For former Scotland captain Josh Strauss, Saturday night’s controversial Calcutta Cup denouement brought back painful memories.

ADVERTISEMENT

Strauss, who was involved in Scotland’s controversial Rugby World Cup quarterfinal against Australia in 2015, admits he can understand the frustration felt by some fans by the last passage of play between Scotland and England at Murrayfield this past weekend.

The game was well past the 80-minute mark when referee Ben O’Keefe reset a handful of scrums in Scotland’s half with England having the put in. The last scrum, was particularly contentious, with many feeling England were denied a potential match-winning penalty.

Video Spacer

ASX Sports Fantasy Rugby | A new generation of fantasy rugby is here with apps for iOS and Android!

Video Spacer

ASX Sports Fantasy Rugby | A new generation of fantasy rugby is here with apps for iOS and Android!

Post-match England head coach Eddie Jones made a tongue-in-cheek remark suggesting he was working on a Rassie Erasmus-type video to highlight the refereeing errors. ‘Wait for the video mate – we’ve got the production team on it now.’ While it was said in jest, privately Jones must have been fuming owing to the final passage of play.

“I can understand why there has been a bit of an uproar and why some supporters are grumpy about it,” Strauss tells RugbyPass. “I was quite surprised that nothing came of it because referees are normally quick to blow for scrum penalties, especially with the directive of making the game more attractive. Nowadays, you usually have one reset scrum and then it’s a penalty, so it was controversial.”

While Scotland were on the right side of the ledger this time, Strauss is concerned by the level of consistency when it comes to refereeing in the game today.

“There is human error involved in everything,” acknowledges the 35-year-old, who played at the 2015 and 2019 World Cups “but going forward there needs to be an amicable process to make it better for everyone – most importantly the referees and players.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Strauss, who is now coaching the SACS under-16 side in Cape Town three times a week, concedes refereeing at the highest level is a thankless task and he is fully aware of both sides of the argument.

“When coaches like Jones and Erasmus criticize referees I don’t think it’s to deflect in terms of any of their coaching deficiencies. They take personal responsibility and accountability for most things,” the 24-Test international says. ”I’m actually a big advocate for voicing things that are bothering you as a coach because I believe in free speech. We should all be able to say how we feel. However, it’s a bit of a juggling act because you want to have free speech and say what you want to but you also have to take into account the other side of the coin.”

Strauss says that on the one hand coaches preach the mantra of not complaining about referees but then on the other they are suitably upset when things don’t go their way from a refereeing perspective. The ex-Glasgow and Sale Sharks back rower, who has called time on his playing career, concurs that while refereeing performance is something within sport that you can’t change, the rugby fraternity can push for the standards to improve over time.

“As an ex-player, I do feel that there should be more consequences because some of the decisions are big ones and can change the dynamic of a whole tournament,” he says in reference to the contentious call Craig Joubert made at the 2015 World Cup.

ADVERTISEMENT
Scotland Strauss 2019 England
(Photo by Lynne Cameron/Getty Images)

Joubert, who is now ensconced in his role as Referee Talent Development Coach at World Rugby, awarded Australia a contentious last-minute penalty which ended up having a material effect on the outcome. World Rugby later conceded that Joubert, who fled the pitch to avoid confrontation with irate supporters, had ‘made a mistake’ and should have awarded the Wallabies a scrum rather than a penalty.

“In terms of my recollections of that passage of play, the ball touched the back of my shoulder, which is not a body part you play the ball with, and one of my team-mates picked it up,” recalls Strauss. “Joubert blew it as a penalty for Australia because he thought that I had played the ball and the other player was coming from an offside position. It was clearly not the case and in such a situation with the stakes so high, you obviously want to have a proper look upstairs with the TMO.

“That never happened and the Wallabies went through.”

“Today I have no hard feelings towards Craig but that penalty literally cost us a semi-final berth against Argentina,” says Strauss. “That flap of a butterfly wing changed the whole outcome and, in retrospect, that decision possibly denied Scotland their first-ever World Cup final appearance.”

Those moments are often referred to as ‘coach killers’ with coaches potentially losing their livelihoods owing to refereeing errors. However, Strauss believes rugby needs to find a middle ground because bashing referees isn’t the answer.

“I always find it very funny when coaches come out and point fingers at the match officials because they always preach to players that you can’t do anything about the referee. Now that I’m coaching, I sometimes referee conditioning games and when I get lip from players and coaches alike, my response is: ‘Just shut up, I’m the referee and you’re not going to swing the game on a Saturday.’ It may be a hard line but it’s something referees must do.”

Strauss, who is cutting his teeth in coaching and is based in Wellington in the Western Cape, reveals that he clashed with Gregor Townsend on a personal front throughout his time with the national team. However, he admires the man on a professional front. Strauss believes the team are on the right track after their 20-17 win over England and will break their duck against Wales in Cardiff, having last won their in 2002.

“I last spoke to Gregor three years ago so I don’t know what’s going on in terms of his man-management with the current crop of players. It’s true that there was a bit of head-butting with coaches there and it got to a point where it wasn’t worth it for me. However, he is probably one of the best coaches I ever worked with strategically and technically. Gregor is always ahead of the curve in terms of what’s going on in world rugby and in that sense perhaps Eddie can learn from him because it seems that he’s become too set in his ways.”

ADVERTISEMENT

LIVE

{{item.title}}

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

1 Comment
I
Ian 1041 days ago

An absolute savage of a backrow!

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

f
fl 16 minutes ago
‘The problem with this year’s Champions Cup? Too many English clubs’

"Would I'd be think"

Would I'd be think.


"Well that's one starting point for an error in your reasoning. Do you think that in regards to who should have a say in how it's setup in the future as well? Ie you would care what they think or what might be more fair for their teams (not saying your model doesn't allow them a chance)?"

Did you even read what you're replying to? I wasn't arguing for excluding south africa, I was pointing out that the idea of quantifying someone's fractional share of european rugby is entirely nonsensical. You're the one who was trying to do that.


"Yes, I was thinking about an automatic qualifier for a tier 2 side"

What proportion of european rugby are they though? Got to make sure those fractions match up! 😂


"Ultimately what I think would be better for t2 leagues would be a third comp underneath the top two tournemnts where they play a fair chunk of games, like double those two. So half a dozen euro teams along with the 2 SA and bottom bunch of premiership and top14, some Championship and div 2 sides thrown in."

I don't know if Championship sides want to be commuting to Georgia every other week.


"my thought was just to create a middle ground now which can sustain it until that time has come, were I thought yours is more likely to result in the constant change/manipulation it has been victim to"

a middle ground between the current system and a much worse system?

46 Go to comments
f
fl 31 minutes ago
‘The problem with this year’s Champions Cup? Too many English clubs’

"Huh? You mean last in their (4 team) pools/regions? My idea was 6/5/4, 6 the max, for guarenteed spots, with a 20 team comp max, so upto 5 WCs (which you'd make/or would be theoretically impossible to go to one league (they'd likely be solely for its participants, say 'Wales', rather than URC specifically. Preferrably). I gave 3 WC ideas for a 18 team comp, so the max URC could have (with a member union or club/team, winning all of the 6N, and Champions and Challenge Cup) would be 9."


That's a lot of words to say that I was right. If (e.g.) Glasgow won the URC and Edinburgh finished 16th, but Scotland won the six nations, Edinburgh would qualify for the Champions Cup under your system.


"And the reason say another URC (for example) member would get the spot over the other team that won the Challenge Cup, would be because they were arguable better if they finished higher in the League."

They would be arguably worse if they didn't win the Challenge Cup.


"It won't diminish desire to win the Challenge Cup, because that team may still be competing for that seed, and if theyre automatic qual anyway, it still might make them treat it more seriously"

This doesn't make sense. Giving more incentives to do well in the Challenge Cup will make people take it more seriously. My system does that and yours doesn't. Under my system, teams will "compete for the seed" by winning the Challenge Cup, under yours they won't. If a team is automatically qualified anyway why on earth would that make them treat it more seriously?


"I'm promoting the idea of a scheme that never needs to be changed again"

So am I. I'm suggesting that places could be allocated according to a UEFA style points sytem, or according to a system where each league gets 1/4 of the spots, and the remaining 1/4 go to the best performing teams from the previous season in european competition.


"Yours will promote outcry as soon as England (or any other participant) fluctates. Were as it's hard to argue about a the basis of an equal share."

Currently there is an equal share, and you are arguing against it. My system would give each side the opportunity to achieve an equal share, but with more places given to sides and leagues that perform well. This wouldn't promote outcry, it would promote teams to take european competition more seriously. Teams that lose out because they did poorly the previous year wouldn't have any grounds to complain, they would be incentivised to try harder this time around.


"This new system should not be based on the assumption of last years results/performances continuing."

That's not the assumption I'm making. I don't think the teams that perform better should be given places in the competition because they will be the best performing teams next year, but because sport should be based on merit, and teams should be rewarded for performing well.


"I'm specifically promoting my idea because I think it will do exactly what you want, increase european rugyb's importance."

how?


"I won't say I've done anything compressive"

Compressive.

46 Go to comments
J
JW 34 minutes ago
‘The problem with this year’s Champions Cup? Too many English clubs’

Generally disagree with what? The possibility that they would get whitewashed, or the idea they shouldn't gain access until they're good enough?


I think the first is a fairly irrelevant view, decide on the second and then worry about the first. Personally I'd have had them in a third lvl comp with all the bottom dwellers of the leagues. I liked the idea of those league clubs resting their best players, and so being able to lift their standards in the league, though, so not against the idea that T2 sides go straight into Challenge Cup, but that will be a higher level with smaller comps and I think a bit too much for them (not having followed any of their games/performances mind you).

Because I don't think that having the possibility of a team finishing outside the quarter finals to qualify automatically will be a good idea. I'd rather have a team finishing 5th in their domestic league.

fl's idea, if I can speak for him to speed things up, was for it to be semifinalists first, Champions Cup (any that somehow didn't make a league semi), then Challenge's semi finalists (which would most certainly have been outside their league semi's you'd think), then perhaps the quarter finalists of each in the same manner. I don't think he was suggesting whoever next performed best in Europe but didn't make those knockouts (like those round of 16 losers), I doubt that would ever happen.


The problem I mainly saw with his idea (much the same as you see, that league finish is a better indicator) is that you could have one of the best candidates lose in the quarters to the eventual champions, and so miss out for someone who got an easier ride, and also finished lower in the league, perhaps in their own league, and who you beat everytime.

46 Go to comments
J
JW 53 minutes ago
‘The problem with this year’s Champions Cup? Too many English clubs’

Well I was mainly referring to my thinking about the split, which was essentially each /3 rounded up, but reliant on WCs to add buffer.


You may have been going for just a 16 team league ranking cup?


But yes, those were just ideas for how to select WCs, all very arbitrary but I think more interesting in ways than just going down a list (say like fl's) of who is next in line. Indeed in my reply to you I hinted at say the 'URC' WC spot actually being given to the Ireland pool and taken away from the Welsh pool.


It's easy to think that is excluding, and making it even harder on, a poor performing country, but this is all in context of a 18 or 20 team comp where URC (at least to those teams in the URC) got 6 places, which Wales has one side lingering around, and you'd expect should make. Imagine the spice in that 6N game with Italy, or any other of the URC members though! Everyone talks about SA joining the 6N, so not sure it will be a problem, but it would be a fairly minor one imo.


But that's a structure of the leagues were instead of thinking how to get in at the top, I started from the bottom and thought that it best those teams doing qualify for anything. Then I thought the two comps should be identical in structure. So that's were an even split comes in with creating numbers, and the 'UEFA' model you suggest using in some manner, I thought could be used for the WC's (5 in my 20 team comp) instead of those ideas of mine you pointed out.


I see Jones has waded in like his normal self when it comes to SH teams. One thing I really like about his idea is the name change to the two competitions, to Cup and Shield. Oh, and home and away matches.

46 Go to comments
f
fl 1 hour ago
‘The problem with this year’s Champions Cup? Too many English clubs’

"Yes I was the one who suggested to use a UEFA style point. And I guessed, that based on the last 5 years we should start with 6 top14, 6 URC and 4 Prem."

Yes I am aware that you suggested it, but you then went on to say that we should initially start with a balance that clearly wasn't derived from that system. I'm not a mind reader, so how was I to work out that you'd arrived at that balance by dint of completely having failed to remember the history of the competition.


"Again, I was the one suggesting that, but you didn't like the outcome of that."

I have no issues with the outcome of that, I had an issue with a completely random allocation of teams that you plucked out of thin air.

Interestingly its you who now seem to be renouncing the UEFA style points system, because you don't like the outcome of reducing URC representation.


"4 teams for Top14, URC and Prem, 3 teams for other leagues and the last winner, what do you think?"

What about 4 each + 4 to the best performing teams in last years competition not to have otherwise qualified? Or what about a UEFA style system where places are allocated to leagues on the basis of their performance in previous years' competitions?

There's no point including Black Lion if they're just going to get whitewashed every year, which I think would be a possibility. At most I'd support 1 team from the Rugby Europe Super Cup, or the Russian Championship being included. Maybe the best placed non-Israeli team and the Russian winners could play off every year for the spot? But honestly I think its best if they stay limited to the Challenge Cup for now.

46 Go to comments
TRENDING
TRENDING Ireland centre Bundee Aki ends speculation with decision over future Ireland centre Bundee Aki ends speculation with decision over future
Search