Northern Edition

Select Edition

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

'Total nonsense' - Nigel Owens has final say on URC's most controversial game

Referee Nigel Owens during the 2020 Guinness Six Nations match between France and England at Stade de France on February 02, 2020 in Paris, . (Photo by Shaun Botterill/Getty Images)

Retired referee Nigel Owens has had the final say on arguably the most controversial game of the United Rugby Championship season.

ADVERTISEMENT

The renowned whistler has definitively addressed the controversy surrounding last month’s fiercely debated URC match between Ulster and Cardiff held in Belfast – which has been a talking point for weeks afterwards.

It even saw Cardiff’s head coach Matt Sherratt will serve a one-game sideline ban for an unpleasant interaction between the coach and the match referee Mike Adamson. An official WRU match report said the Welsh side had been ‘robbed’ on account of the refereeing calls.

Video Spacer

Jake White explains how Ospreys was beaten

Video Spacer

Jake White explains how Ospreys was beaten

The controversy revolved around three contentious calls by Adamson during the game, which Cardiff lost narrowly 19-17 despite appearing to win it with a stunning late try, which was subsequently disallowed following a TMO review.

“Let us look first at that Rhys Carre knock-on, which saw Cardiff have a late try ruled out and a penalty awarded to Ulster instead,” wrote Owens in his Wales Online column. “There is absolutely no doubt that the ball has come off Carre’s hand first and gone forward, it definitely is a knock-on.

“Whether it was a deliberate knock-on, however, comes down to the referee’s interpretation of the incident. Some officials would give it, others wouldn’t, but at the very least, it is a knock-on. Cardiff fans argue it wasn’t deliberate, Ulster fans would claim it was. It all comes down to interpretation and Adamson certainly wasn’t in the wrong to make the decision he did,” saids Owens.

“It’s the same for the Thomas Young incident, when the ball was knocked out of his hands by an Ulster player’s boot as he looked to cross the line to score. Obviously, you cannot kick the ball out of a player’s hand, but was it intentional or was the defender just trying to swing himself underneath Young to prevent the try? Again it must come down to the referee’s interpretation – that is simply the nature of the game. To be honest, I am with the referee on this one, it doesn’t look like a deliberate act to kick the ball out of the player’s possession.”

ADVERTISEMENT

“The Ulster try, where the ball looked to have been knocked on by John Cooney in the build-up, is one decision that probably could have gone either way. Your gut feeling is that the ball has gone forward, but when I look at the footage, I wouldn’t put my house on it. On another day, another referee would have given that as a knock-on, so one can certainly understand the frustration of a coach and supporters on this one.”

“Out of those three big decisions, Adamson was definitely right on two of them and the third one is certainly debatable either way. So it makes me annoyed to hear fans claim that referees like him are biased or have an agenda, which is total nonsense.”

Owens highlighted that while referees are accountable and should be open to critique, the criticisms must be constructive and respectful to maintain the sport’s integrity. His commentary comes in the wake of significant backlash from fans over the refereeing standards in the URC.

Read Nigel Owens article in full here.

Related

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

LIVE

{{item.title}}

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

1 Comment
b
bob 231 days ago

100% Mr Owens.
But who would want to be a referee.?
It must be the most difficult job on earth.

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

J
JW 3 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
LONG READ
LONG READ 'Springbok Galacticos can't go it alone for trophy-hunting Sharks' 'Springbok Galacticos can't go it alone for trophy-hunting Sharks'
Search