Thursday 11 January 2018

Annoying Commentators (RSRU discussion centred on Andre Watson's destruction of 1999 RWC final) Oct. 22, 2003

Morrissey Breen 
10/23/03
"Pure Salt" <a...@wanadoo.fr>  in message
news:<bn5a6q$pel$1...@news-reader5.wanadoo.fr> writes with feeling
about...

>
> Pierre Salviac who has never let a bit of ignorance stand in his way. For
> example the ref may be signaling a penalty for offside, he will inform us
> that the penalty is due to something else, say, handling in the ruck. And
> not to mention the insults made to the referee when the decision is against
> the French......
What did Salviac have to say about the performance of Andre Watson in
the 1999 World Cup final?  The New Zealand TV commentators (Keith
Quinn, John McBeth, Wayne Graham) were gravely disturbed by Watson's
refusal to play advantage, which cost France two tries in the first
half and destroyed the match as a spectacle.

Morrissey Breen 
10/23/03
"Donnie" <bla...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<bn6ca0$utc$1...@news-reader2.wanadoo.fr>...
>
> What I remember well after the final was the reaction of french players :
> they all accepted ref's decisions. These two tries were logically refused.
> Magne and Benazzi never claimed them.
No, Donnie, not those two near-tries.  The tries to which I refer were
these:
(1)  At 8:35 of the first half, the Australian centre Jason Little,
under immense pressure just outside his 22 metre line, throws a
forward pass which is swooped on by French winger Bernat-Salles, who
races away to score.  As he is crossing the line to score, the whistle
blows!  The referee (Andre Watson) is blowing for a scrum - for the
forward pass by Little!   The look of dismay on Bernat-Salles' face is
something to behold.
Remember, Donnie, that Australian and New Zealand "pundits" are
forever moaning about how "northern hemisphere referees" are
whistle-happy and never play advantage - unlike their SANZAR
counterparts.  Perhaps Watson was nervous.  Or perhaps he just decided
to dispense with the advantage law that day.
(2)  At 30:00 of the first half, the French forwards drove back the
Australian pack in a rolling maul of unstoppable power.  It was pretty
much an action replay of the driving maul which, in the semi-final six
days earlier, decimated the All Black pack in the build-up to
Dourthe's try.  Did I say that the French pack was unstoppable?  Well,
I should qualify that: it was unstoppable by mere FOOTBALLERS.
But not by a determined man with a whistle!  As the ball came back
beautifully to the French halfback, right under the posts, Watson blew
his whistle like a banshee.  Waving his arms frantically, he yelled:
"Use it or lose it!  Use it or lose it!!!!"  The French players looked
in exasperation and bewilderment as Watson ordered a scrum to be put
down, Australian ball.  The French halfback was a picture of anguish
and stunned disbelief.
It was not only the French players that were horrified by Watson's
bizarre behaviour.   After a long silence, a clearly disturbed TVNZ
commentator Keith Quinn said pointedly to Wayne Graham: "What do you
think of THAT decision, Wayne?"   Wayne diplomatically held his
tongue.
Not so the other commentator John McBeth.  "Well, how DO you explain
it?" he asked.
You must remember those tries, Donnie.  I recommend you re-view a tape
of that match.  If any other referee had been in charge, France would
have led by at least 20-9.  Instead, the French players went in to
halftime 6-9 down, on a substandard and deteriorating pitch, with
their spirit broken.
>
>And they all praised aussie performance.
It is a tribute to the sportsmanship of the French players that they
did not make more of Watson's outrageous performance.  Of course the
Australian team should be praised for winning the Cup.  But how would
they have fared in the second half playing catch-up football against a
confident French side?
For the answer to that question, I suggest we need only look at what
happened to the All Blacks less than a week earlier....
Michael Lightfoot 
10/26/03
Whistle a happy tune (was Re: Annoying Commentators)
Morrissey Breen wrote:
> Remember, Donnie, that Australian and New Zealand "pundits" are
> forever moaning about how "northern hemisphere referees" are
> whistle-happy and never play advantage - unlike their SANZAR
> counterparts.  Perhaps Watson was nervous.  Or perhaps he just decided
> to dispense with the advantage law that day.
Here in Canberra Andre Watson is almost universally booed by the fans when
he appears.  His refusal to allow decent amounts of advantage is notorious.
OTOH, Watson is a very good referee technically.  He rarely makes an error
(the one you quote at the 30 min mark in the 1999 final I would class as an
error) but his pedantic attitude annoys most fans.
I should also add that almost all SA refs tend to be whistle-happy.  You are
lucky that you haven't seen Tapa Henning.  Some suspect that he changes
whistles at half time to ensure the pea lasts.
For a ref that plays long advantages, try O'Brien or Marshall.  O'Brien is
IMAO, the best in the world at the moment.  Others may disagree.

No comments:

Post a Comment