Kicking king: Leigh Halfpenny
Related links
Teams
Also see
Wales downed Scotland with a 28-18 victory in a penalty-ridden goalkicker's dream at Murrayfield in the Six Nations.
A match dominated more by the whistle and boot than any real memorable moments of attacking flair, Scotland and Wales racked up a total of 28 penalties between them as both sides continued to displease referee Craig Joubert.
Leigh Halfpenny ended his afternoon with seven penalties to his name and missed three earlier in the first half, while Scotland scrum-half Greig Laidlaw also reaped the rewards from persistent indiscipline with six penalties of his own.
Neither side was able to generate any sustained tempo due to an imposing performance from the Welsh scrum and countless idiotic penalties from Scotland, in a replica of their discipline against Ireland two weeks ago.
A promising start from Wales at the scrum lead to a simple penalty opportunity for Halfpenny, handing the visitors a 3-0 lead after four minutes.
Greig Laidlaw responded with a long-range penalty that snuck over the crossbar minutes later, before Scotland took the lead when Wales were caught offside outside their own 22.
Scotland's penalty count continued to rise but Halfpenny wasted two penalty chances to let the hosts off the hook. The full-back's fourth attempt ricocheted off the post.
George North's break down the right-hand side gave Wales excellent field position, and they capitalised with a try from Richard Hibbard, regaining the lead with Halfpenny converting.
Rare field position for Scotland yielded a penalty at the scrum to the hosts, Laidlaw going for goal from the limit of his range and sending it through the posts.
Sale lock Richie Gray was stretchered from the field after a lengthy stoppage in play, causing concern for is club side Sale and also the selectors of the British and Irish Lions.
Laidlaw continued to maintain his accuracy going for goal, putting Scotland ahead just before half-time with another 40 metre effort to put the hosts into the lead.
Wales though were handed an attacking scrum in Scotland's 22 after a knock-on from Sean Lamont at the restart, winning a penalty after Jim Hamilton infringed for Halfpenny to restore the Welsh lead in Edinburgh - 12-13 to the visitors at the interval.
Laidlaw fell short of the posts with his fifth penalty attempt at the start of the second half, his first miss of the afternoon as he struggled kicking into the wind from 46 metres out.
Halfpenny had no such problem from a much shorter distance after a Welsh attack, stretching the gap to four points before Laidlaw responded in the latest chapter of the Murrayfield kicking exhibition.
Wales were presented with a chance to produce some attacking rugby from a five metre lineout, but inevitably the ball was lost forward. Another penalty to the visitors from the scrum saw Ross Ford cautioned, with Halfpenny converting.
The full-back struck again with yet another penalty to stretch the Welsh lead to 22-15 nearing the 60 minute mark. The kicking pendulum inevitably swung back Scotland's way as Laidlaw then added three more points of his own.
Halfpenny added his fifth and sixth penalties of the afternoon to open up an 18-25 gap for Wales going into the final 10 minutes as their scrum continued to ruthlessly dominate the Scottish pack. Another penalty chance, another three points for Halfpenny.
Scotland threw everything at Wales late on as they attempted to claw their way back into the match, but there was to be no breakthrough against a revitalised Welsh defence. The title decider between Wales and England next weekend is very much on.
Man of the Match: Hounded by his critics in recent weeks, Sam Warburton's work ethic was exceptional throughout with 13 tackles to his name.
Moment of the Match: After missing three consecutive kicks, Leigh Halfpenny nailed a difficult touchline conversion after Richard Hibbard's try and never looked back.
Villain of the Match: Frustrating for supporters, the high penalty count ruined the game as a spectacle. Eyes on you Mr Joubert.
The scorers:
For Scotland:
Pens: Laidlaw 6
For Wales:
Try: Hibbard
Con: Halfpenny
Pens: Halfpenny 7
Yellow Card: James
The teams:
Scotland: 15 Stuart Hogg, 14 Sean Maitland, 13 Sean Lamont, 12 Matt Scott, 11 Tim Visser, 10 Duncan Weir, 9 Greig Laidlaw, 8 Johnnie Beattie, 7 Kelly Brown, 6 Robert Harley, 5 Jim Hamilton, 4 Richie Gray, 3 Euan Murray, 2 Ross Ford, 1 Ryan Grant.
Replacements: 16 Dougie Hall, 17 Moray Low, 18 Geoff Cross, 19 Alastair Kellock, 20 Ryan Wilson, 21 Henry Pyrgos, 22 Ruaridh Jackson, 23 Max Evans.
Wales: 15 Leigh Halfpenny, 14 Alex Cuthbert, 13 Jonathan Davies, 12 Jamie Roberts, 11 George North, 10 Dan Biggar, 9 Mike Phillips, 8 Toby Faletau, 7 Sam Warburton, 6 Ryan Jones (capt), 5 Ian Evans, 4 Alun-Wyn Jones, 3 Adam Jones, 2 Richard Hibbard, 1 Paul James.
Replacements: 16 Ken Owens, 17 Scott Andrews, 18 Craig Mitchell, 19 Andrew Coombs, 20 Justin Tipuric, 21 Lloyd Williams, 22 James Hook, 23 Scott Williams.
Referee: Craig Joubert (South Africa)
Assistant referees: Glen Jackson (New Zealand), Lourens van der Merwe (South Africa)
Television match official: Giulio De Santis (Italy)
Comments
7ton says...
Foxrock
Who are these Sunday times correspondents? If one of them is Stephen Jones then I am sorry but that gives your point very little credibility.
Posted 22:54 27th March 2013
new_j4a says...
@foxrot,
Here's the punishment handed down to Craig joubert by the irb:
29 June 2013
Australia vs British and Irish Lions at Etihad Stadium, Melbourne
Referee: Craig Joubert (South Africa)
He'll have to be the brunt of more ignorant whinging from you and jonthe?.....and of course the pair of you think that the irb is part of the conspiracy, don't you?
Posted 16:27 26th March 2013
foxrock says...
The Sunday Times rugby correspondents, in their 6N conclusions, cite just one official for bad refereeing and it is, of course, Craig Jourbert - who is cited TWICE for his Scot:Wales and his Eng:France officiating. Presumably Jourbert's increasingly forlorn, and sad, apologist will now add the Sunday Times to the VERY long list of those who are out of step in failing to appreciate Joubert.
He might of course ponder the alternative conclusion, supported by an abundance of evidence, that a rational person might reach: Joubert is a woeful referee.
Posted 12:58 18th March 2013
jontheref says...
new_j4a
There, I'll you let you have the last word, as you are so ignorant.
Fancy admitting you haven't watched the game, and criticising coments from posters who have!
You really are proving your stupidity.
Not a true rugby fan but a troll.
Hating 6N, so don't watch it!
You have loads of S15 games to watch.
If I was the only one you have these pathilogical "discussions" with, you may have a point, but you getupset by anyone who has a diferent view to you.
Especially when you pin up boy is mentioned.x x
Posted 12:55 18th March 2013
new_j4a says...
@jonthewannaberef, "your covoluted analysis of anyone who disagrees with you is pathetic" Maybe from your point of view.....but it also happens to be correct. Listen, mate, I don't actually care what you think. You are too ignorant and wrong to count. But all of the reasonable people who read this (i.e. NOT bimbo et al) are going to see just how little you know about rugby....and they'll have a quiet laugh at your expense. As i said, you do provide the comedy here....go in peace....but please, please take the refresher so that there is just a smidgen of a chance that you will know what you are talking about when it comes to rugby.
Posted 17:33 15th March 2013
jontheref says...
What's thge difference with a computer and new_j4a?
You can punch information into a computer!
Take a break mate, your covoluted analysis of anyone who disagrees with you is pathetic.
Your explanation about advantage is so off beam, all it does is show you can cut and paste.
Nursery school level.
To admit to posting BEFORE seeing the game shows how stupid you are.
Get back on the meds.
That's all folks!
Posted 14:32 15th March 2013
new_j4a says...
@jontheminisref, one last bit of help for you...you say this "If he did see it, why did he not play advantage and give the kick nearer, (as you alude to, after checking the laws no doubt)? "
Had Joubert penalized the blue 5 for moving during the run up, advantage would not have been involved. The movement itself is a new offense. Here's a clue for you from the irb:
"The Law of advantage takes precedence over most other Laws and its purpose is to make play more continuous with fewer stoppages for infringements. Players are encouraged to play to the whistle despite infringements by their opponents. When the result of an infringement by one team is that their opposing team may gain an advantage, the referee does not whistle immediately for the infringement."
and another from me...
When you are leaning against the bar trying to impress all of the mini's parents (especially that single mum who you are sure hasn't noticed your acne scars), prattle on about advantage, but make sure that its a simple case where the non offending team has possession....you'll look much brighter than you are
And as for this statement from you "after checking the laws no doubt." I plead guilty. I do spend a lot of time browsing the Laws....and taking the exams. You should try it sometime. You may just learn enough to figure out that you and Jaycee are at odds.....you want every little offense blown up (immaterial accidental off side, movement during the run up, etc especially against the opposing team). Jaycee want more advantage and more consideration of materiality and a more flowing game. You do really need to try and catch up and then keep up.
Posted 11:44 15th March 2013
new_j4a says...
@jontheref, may I respectfully suggest that once again you seem to be completely confused (advantage vs. materiality). Think about what you have said here:
"Your comment about Hamilton not knowing what he was doing is laughable!
It was a deliberate play, that Joubert totally missed. As to him playing advantage, if he did not see it, how could he play advantage? If he did see it, why did he not play advantage and give the kick nearer,"
You appear to be confusing advantage and materiality. If Joubert did see the 4 instances (I think this likely), he may have decided not to act if he determined that the illegal movement did not affect the outcome. This is what is call a decision about the materiality of the offense. I recall that you were also confused about materiality with the accidental offside in the England v France. Again, I suggest you take a refresher course.
Posted 10:49 15th March 2013
jontheref says...
new_4ja
Been away for a few days, and note you only seem to post, repeatedly on the thread that contains some criticism of Joubert.
You are adept and changing tack, and it is nice to see you have toned down the abuse.
Glad the meds are helping.
You have resilience, as you do not appear to have any support for your off the ball comments.
Your comment about Hamilton not knowing what he was doing is laughable!
It was a deliberate play, that Joubert totally missed.
As to him playing advantage, if he did not see it, how could he play advantage?
If he did see it, why did he not play advantage and give the kick nearer, (as you alude to, after checking the laws no doubt)?
jaycee has shown remarkable patience with you, like trying to educate a child.
But that is what betters do, they try to help the misinformed and ignorant.
If you post something of interest, I may respond to you, but frankly, as many have said, you are an overbareing bore, who obviously has little grounding in the laws, and harp on it was not the refs fault.
Yes, a poor game, but as jaycee has explained to you, Joubert was poor, and was part of the problem.
Bye.
Posted 10:03 15th March 2013
new_j4a says...
@jaycee_111, great, enjoy the game. This will give me some time to do my homework. I have a couple of threads I want to pursue with you: 1. man management strategy, 2, the difference between what is written in the Law Book re scrum engage (engage anytime after the word set) and what happens in practice, by custom....sort of like the "crooked feed" difference between Law and practice. I am interested in the advice filtering from the RFU as I don't get this. I'll go away and do some homework items, one of which is a timeline that I hope will throw light on how effective CJs early penalties are...we see some pretty good rugby for a while after the penalty exchange...and then it all falls apart again.
One last point for later discussion, i understand that the touch is minor, miniscule even, but i wonder whether pulling that up verbally with reset--no FK!--and things like blue 5 continued refusal to stand still at the PKs, also pulling this up with a verbal warning....wouldn't set the tone and let the players know that no nonsense would be tolerated. By the way the worker/manager analogy is interesting. But lets also discuss the "new teacher, new class" analogy which I think is more appropriate because it is more adversarial and less collaborative......more next week. Thanks for your efforts.
Posted 17:50 14th March 2013
jaycee_111 says...
Hi new_j4a
Before we go any further the problem at the scrum was Wales engaging on the T of set and Scotland on the S it was a tactic Joubert missed it. An assessor I talked to pointed it out and he is right as was Scotland. Wales were clever and knew Joubert was going to look for reasons to FK or penalise scrums so they helped him, fair play to them playing the ref but poor show by Joubert for not noticing.
If you were a manager and an employee made an error do you immediately put them or report or work with them to find out the problem? I suggest all decent managers do the former but Joubert as the game manger went straight to FK, put them on report, then got worse he did not look for the problem he assumed Scotland had never scrumed before and took the easy option most of the game instead of trying to work out the problem even when they delayed late in the game to keep him happy and Wales went ¿early¿ and drove Scotland back and they collapsed due to the early shove he then penalised Scotland! He had no idea what he was doing he was free kicking and penalizing randomly without knowledge of how a scrum works and by doing that he totally ruined the scrums in the game. To be honest if he had just let Scotland engage as they did he would be amazed that on the next scrum both sides went together on the S as Wales would have realised they were not getting any easy FKs or pens
Posted 13:36 14th March 2013
jaycee_111 says...
New_j4a
You said
Talking of materiality, Joubert does nothing about the blue 3's continual refusal to touch, judging this to be immaterial, especially as he has a much bigger problem, a national side unable to perform even the rudiments of scrumming or refusing to heed the ref's instructions. In my view, he would have lost control of the game if he hadn't come down hard. But that is a matter of opinion and of style.
Blue 3s continual ¿refusal¿ to touch is so minor nobody would even think of penalizing it for Joubert not to is like saying players were lucky not to be penalised for pushing the ball back in the ruck when they have won it, mind you he did penalise Scotland for the bridging after they had won the ball which is just about the same thing. Touching is to set the gap in the scrum it gives no advantage to anybody. The reason he did not lose control was because he totally stopped the game from actually happening he started with the premise that he was going to penalise everything and never stepped back it was all about him being in charge not about having a game of rugby pure arrogance.
Have to go now am off to Paris for the weekend tomorrow to goto the game and things to do before I goto airport so cannot discuss further I am sure we can talk next week.
Posted 13:35 14th March 2013
new_j4a says...
@jaycee_111cont
You say: "He should have talked to the front rows explained what was wrong and warn them then escalate if necessary. That is the normal sequence of events..."
I agree. That is exactly what Joubert does for the step between FK and PK....as he should. The first scrum is called at 1:01; at 2:33 the scrum is reset transferring possession to Wales as they take the scrum instead of the FK--note that we have now wasted 1.5 minutes due to Scottish inability to scrum legally. Unbelievably, Scotland go early again and Wales get another FK for which they elect to scrum (no problem here; Scotland is offending multiple times and all they have lost is the put in....the rugby public has lost 2+ minutes, but hey that's not Joubert's fault....Scotland don't seem to have the basic of scrumming down). At 2:56 Joubert escalates to a warning that the next one will be a penalty ....just what you correctly suggest. We agree.
You say: "That is the normal sequence of events as the objective is not to continually stop the game and give penalties." Are you still talking about scrums here? If so, I am not sure if I follow the reasoning of "continually stop the game" since the game is already stopped from 1:01 to 3:34 where the threatened PK is awarded when Scotland again scrum illegally after being dominated by the Welsh pack on the first time that they have not engaged illegally. Talking of materiality, Joubert does nothing about the blue 3's continual refusal to touch, judging this to be immaterial, especially as he has a much bigger problem, a national side unable to perform even the rudiments of scrumming or refusing to heed the ref's instructions. In my view, he would have lost control of the game if he hadn't come down hard. But that is a matter of opinion and of style.
In my view, there is only one villain in the first 4 minutes....the Scottish pack...
Posted 23:04 13th March 2013
new_j4a says...
@jaycee_111cont
3. Joubert penalized scrums where you would have preferred resets
You say: "As would most referees in the world again it¿s about management and not starting the first scrum with a FK you have nowhere to go after that but upwards all referees know that and it can, and did ruin, a game."
I respectfully disagree. One approach to game management is to stamp your authority on the game early. The Blue 3 wasn't even following protocol by not touching. What else can the ref do. Scotland gain an unfair advantage by anticipating the call and getting a massive hit. Should the ref let play continue? Of course not. He could blow and reset if he takes the more moderate approach, but this could be viewed as weak. I say he draws a line in the sand, stamps his authority....in the interests of creating a clean fair game that will entertain. Just my 2c, your approach is fine....both work in different situations.
Posted 22:46 13th March 2013
new_j4a says...
@jaycee_111 I agree with a lot of what you say and where I disagree it is mostly about game management strategy (come down hard and stamp authority or slowly ease the pressure up...both valid...a question of style). I am going to avoid more snide remarks (NH vs SH, I can p!ss further than you, etc because I think that I may actually be able to learn something from you....obviously not possible from the other clowns with imagined elbows to the throat, YC for Ashton's ball throw away etc).
2. Joubert was technically correct
On some points yes not all. Refereeing is about not penalizing everything it is about materiality and letting the game flow so penalizing minor offences that do not effect the game is wrong ....I agree entirely....materiality is important. But refs get a lot of abuse for it from one eyed fans. @jontheref's outrage at Joubert's failure to penalize Blue 5 for taking a step forward during the run up for early Welsh penalty kicks is a good example.
Posted 22:24 13th March 2013
jaycee_111 says...
New_ja4
I am astounded at your lack of knowledge about rugby but will try and answer your questions so that you may understand more about refereeing
1. you are clearly qualified to comment
Yes more so than you I believe.
2. Joubert was technically correct
On some points yes not all. Refereeing is about not penalizing everything it is about materiality and letting the game flow so penalizing minor offences that do not effect the game is wrong and that is what he did.
3. Joubert penalized scrums where you would have preferred resets
As would most referees in the world again it¿s about management and not starting the first scrum with a FK you have nowhere to go after that but upwards all referees know that and it can, and did ruin, a game. He should have talked to the front rows explained what was wrong and warn them then escalate if necessary. That is the normal sequence of events as the objective is not to continually stop the game and give penalties.
4. Joubert, on the field, saw some different things than you saw on TV and you would have preferred he judge materiality differently....more as you would have done....
....so far a very interesting post and a useful opinion
Joubert saw things differently from all other referees and advisors I have spoken to, one advisor (a guy who writes reports on refs performances for them to be promoted incase you don¿t know) said the same as I did that it was like watching a new referee he was that bad.
5. you also make some guesses and claims to insight that you can only have invented:
a. 99% of referee would not give a penalty (sample size or just rhetoric?)
As I said every ref I have spoken too, and I know many around the world, agree with me I should have said 100% but I might find one eventually
Posted 08:20 13th March 2013
jaycee_111 says...
b. The man wants to be noticed ...(you are a referee; are you also a psychologist?)
I have watched referees for over 20 years to improve my game and you get to know the types and Joubert did the classic things on Saturday. His predecessor to the crown was Walsh but he has matured and before him I remember Bevan having the same characteristics. Arrogance is probably a better description and having met Walsh and Bevan I know I am right on both of them and since Joubert is a Saffer I am probably right on that one.
c. blows the wrong offences at the wrong time ....contradicts yout assertion that he is technically correct
No it supports it. The wrong offences I refer to are the ones that are technically correct but that do not affect the game. Again the word materiality and letting the game flow, did you really enjoy watching a referee blow up continuously for non game effecting offences turning the game in to a penalty shoot out?
d. I can tell you Joubert totally screwed that game up. It was as all about him a referee should not influence a game so much....this sounds like bitter disappointment which you are certainly entitled to feel if you support either of these teams.....or in fact NH rugby as a whole....the 6N has certainly been all about boredom....yawn!
The referees and assessors who agree with me are all English as I referee in England so they have no reason to pick sides are they equally wrong? As for the 6 Nations being boring I find SH rugby boring it¿s like watching basketball. Tries are not what it¿s all about it¿s the tactics and skills tries are just a way of moving the score board to find a winner in the SH they have elevated tries to the only reason to watch the game an odd concept but one that probably suits low attention span tv viewers not rugby supporters
Posted 08:19 13th March 2013
Bambo says...
new_j4a
'@jaycee_111, so to summarize your post,
1. you are clearly qualified to comment '
The real question, after your many posts attacking others for their opinions (inc. jaycee), is are you qualified?
By almost always refusing to take accept any criticism of Joubert, or referees generally, you repeatedly dismiss many others others inc. PR writers, other rugby correspondents across the media, ex professional players, PR posters with refereeing experience and/or knowledge, amateur players and lovers of the sport (criticism of Joubert has recently been that widespread!). You do all this with ill grace AND (love your caps habit) without ever declaring your own qualifications/experience etc.
Your many, many, many posts suggest, like Joubert and his many, many penalties, that you are a simply a blowhard.
What are your referee qualifications that allow you to rubbish all others? Tell all. Name. Links to relevant bodies etc. If none then please adopt a more modest less bar room bore tone. x
Posted 21:15 12th March 2013
new_j4a says...
@jontheref, You are right on a couple of points: 1. the Scottish 5 lacks even the basic understanding of the Laws and moves during the run up of several penalty kicks at goal For the missed kick(s?) where this happened, Joubert could/(should?) have awarded another penalty where he infringed but decides it is immaterial, I presume. Perhaps he should have spoken to the Scottish 5 since the behavior goes on. For the kicks that succeeded in spite of the illegal movement, Joubert correctly plays advantage and the score stands (what else would you recommend?) You are also correct that amazingly, frigging flabbergastingly, Joubert is reduced to threatening a YC for the Scottish hooker who persistently fails to control the scrum and ignores the escalation from resets and free kicks to penalties,....over and over again. This is a record breaking game in the number of penalty infringements the players produce....and there are 10 or twenty major infringements that are not blown (hands in the ruck, playing the ball on the ground, etc). Joubert has HUGE problems: the games produced by these 2 teams is of such an abysmally low level that we should not be subjected to it at school boy level. No wonder jaycee_111 left the game and went and watched his local team!! They were likely playing far better rugby than these two pathetic excuses for a national side. Both teams ought to hang there head in shame and take responsibility for the travesty. The problem wasn't poor reffing guys....it was pathetic rugby, abysmal rugby on an almost unprecedented scale. Go on...admit it...the penalty given away by blue 5 just before half time pretty much sums up the 73 minutes of school boy fumbling and fans were robbed by only being given about 7 minutes of decent rugby, 3 of the 7 near the end where 3 Welsh players should have been YCed, not one.
The problem is not the ref...
Posted 17:33 12th March 2013
new_j4a says...
@jonthe"ref", you are absolutely right here "As I had mentined that hamilton advanced 4 times, maybe when there was only one try in the game, you could have picked up that it was not about a conversion kick? " I haven't watched the game. I am just back from abroad and there are 7 (far) more interesting games from the SH then I'll get on to the 6N. But you are absolutely right....4 conversions would require at least 4 tries....what Scotland and Ireland achieve in a season, not a game. My mistake, must be jet lagged. Humble apologies. (do you have any further insight into YC for throwing the ball away?....just wondering...politely)
Posted 14:50 12th March 2013