Quantcast

Match Report: Barnes 25 Harlequins 6


By DOK
December 4 2014

All the pre-match chatter had been about Sam Burgess and his likely appearance for Bath in this game. The great white hope (yes, another from rugby league) was on the bench and so would we see him get some game time? There was a full house at The Rec, where Bath were unbeaten in the Premiership this season. So it was always going to be a big ask of the boys to get a result here.

It looked a bigger ask as Bath ran in two early tries, first through Matt Banahan and then Kyle Eastmond. Despite putting pressure on Harlequins, Bath could only manage one penalty more in a half which ended 13-3 as Nick Evans put Quins on the scoreboard.

Then Wayne Barnes ensured that his previously spoken wish that "the referee wasn't noticed in the match" disappeared as he sin binned 3 Harlequins players in the space of 7 minutes. How it helps the game of rugby if a prop is struggling to contain the pressure of the opposition scrum by sending him off so that a presumably less able prop replaces him, I don't know. Anyway, Kyle Sinckler, George Robson and Will Collier all got their marching orders and that was the end of the game as a contest. Further emasculated by the need to drop down to uncontested scrums.

With 17 minutes to go, Burgess finally came on the pitch. I checked and I'm pretty sure he was splashing through the puddles rather than walking on water! He produced a competent appearance, but nothing special. Given the amount of time he's had to adjust to Rugby Union that was only to be expected.

Harlequins defended heroically but the Bath numbers and the effort required meant that eventually the line was broken twice, first through Ross Batty and then Leroy Houston. Harlequins got one more penalty, but the end result was Bath 25 Harlequins 6.

I'm not going to discuss Wayne Barnes' performance here. Suffice to ask do you think it would be three yellow cards had it been a different referee?

At least we have 9 days to regroup and recover before we play Leinster at home.

Come on you Quins!

View a Printer Friendly version of this Story.

Bookmark or share this story with:

Match Report: Barnes 25 Harlequins 6
Discussion started by ComeAllWithin.co.uk , 04/12/2014 13:16
ComeAllWithin.co.uk
04/12/2014 13:16
What do you think? You can have your say by posting below.
If you do not already have an account Click here to Register.

Teddington Taff
04/12/2014 15:49
It is not a coincidence that every time Wayne Barnes referees our matches this site has numerous comments and complaints about him.

I went to a "Meet the referee Evening" hosted by Quinsa with Wayne Barnes. It was a very interesting and absorbing evening. I have to say he is an intelligent, articulate and very personable person. BUT.... I do think that he over compensates for living in Twickenham.

As a referee I think that he is inconsistent. He doesn't take proper advantage of his touch judges or the TMO. It's hard enough for any referee to be able to keep up with a fast flowing game and see everything.

I also have to admit that when he has a good game he is an excellent referee.

However, I'd rather he refereed other matches or gave us a fair break.

Nev's Left Boot
04/12/2014 16:05
Funny, i always find him to be a very good ref.
I'd rather have him than others.

Not sure what the fuss is about - Quins were terrible, he could have binned a few bath players and we'd still have been terrible!

The issue around the bindings - my only comment is thus

the third Y/C - i did feel that he could have just gone penalty Try and kept 13 on the pitch - but i think that might be quins tinted glasses

Jus-Quin-Time
04/12/2014 16:49
After years of watching the game I finally own up to the fact that I simply do not understand the scrum laws.

The IRB Definition of a scrum - "The purpose of the scrum is to restart play quickly, safely and fairly, after a minor infringement or a stoppage".

this is what I do not understand:

A scrum forms and it is obvious that one side (putting in) is much stronger than the other. The ball goes in and it is delivered to the No8's feet. It is available to play and arguably the scrum has achieved it's objective as defined above.

However the No8 keeps the ball in the scrum and the team continue to push. They push so hard the other team fragments and collapses. The referee awards a penalty against them...Why? Whatever infringement the referee declares he has seen the fact is that the ball was always available to play and therefore It appears the penalty has been awarded because the team going backwards is weaker.

It seems to me that ignoring the ball and continuing to drive into a weaker and collapsing opposition is dangerous and fails to meet the definition of a scrum on several levels.

But worse still....the referee sends off 1,2 or even 3 of the weaker teams front 8 and when it goes backwards (a self fulfilling prophesy is ever there was one) he keeps penalising them??

Is the aim of the scrum to restart the game as defined or is it a pushing competition where the stronger team will always be rewarded with a penalty?

Nev's Left Boot
04/12/2014 16:57
I think you have identified the problem and in particular the problem in the England -

If the 8 keeps the ball at the back and keeps pushing and the other team fragment, then i feel the forward pack should be allowed to keep on moving forward, as long as it is safe to do. Those of you who have been around as long as have will remember Worcester first season in the perm, where they absolutely bested quins up front at the stoop, walking a scrum from the half way line to the 22.

The refs in this country are too quick to blow up when the scrum could be completed -

i suppose a use of the 'use it' rule could help here -

And if teams feel that the ref will blow up early - why complete the scrum properly if you are losing in this contest - better to drop the shoulder, slip the bind, bore in to see if you can win the lottery.

French ref's tend to allow the scrum more time to be completed and there are a lot loss resets IMHO.

food for thought.

or we could just ban players that are reviewed to cheat - every scrum is analysed by ex players and ref after every match and player found to be deliberately breaking the rules has to miss at the next match.

Might keep things more honest.

poorfour
04/12/2014 17:10
JQT and NLB - one great example of this was the ref in the Amlin final who told Stade - dominant and marching us backwards in the scrum with the clock run down - to "use it" rather than look for a penalty. From memory it was Jerome Garces, but definitely a French ref. That, to my mind, is how a scrum should be reffed:

Is it dangerous?
If Yes
Is the ball immediately available?
If Yes
Instruct the scrum half to play it
If No
Blow up
Was one team clearly responsible?
If Yes
Award penalty - dangerous play
If No
Reset
If No
Continue play until it becomes dangerous or end of phase

That said, when I see several scrum penalties to one side, I always hope that the ref will look very carefully at what's happening. It is very rare these days that packs are so poorly matched that one side can be completely dominant, the nature of the scrums is that there is probably an infringement somewhere by that side.

So I would look very carefully at binds and body angles to check that the dominant side is not dominant because of unfair play, and if I find anything I would be inclined to penalise them to keep them honest. I think a big part of the problem on Saturday was that Wayne was so focused on what Quins were getting wrong that he only picked up anything that Bath were doing when they changed personnel (to Paul James - who interestingly even the commentators said has had a rough deal from Barnes in the past).

ianco
04/12/2014 17:12
The scrum is part of the game. But only part.

Stoquin
04/12/2014 17:15
I quite like Barnes and I agree we seem to either have good or bad games with him. What annoys me is the inconsistency across the league.

I'm sure we had a Ref earlier in the season where we were awarded a penalty after only one scrum without even a single reset so why the 4 resets last week before the penalty try!

I do understand the scrum and I think the rules but the Refs certainly struggle. They do seem to be looking for one particular thing and keep penalising , ok maybe we should be able to ensure it doesn't happen again. But I did feel last week Barnes was only ever looking one way in the scrums and the penalty court showed that - was it 21 -3

Squid
04/12/2014 20:34
Quote:
Jus-Quin-Time
After years of watching the game I finally own up to the fact that I simply do not understand the scrum laws.
The IRB Definition of a scrum - "The purpose of the scrum is to restart play quickly, safely and fairly, after a minor infringement or a stoppage".

this is what I do not understand:

A scrum forms and it is obvious that one side (putting in) is much stronger than the other. The ball goes in and it is delivered to the No8's feet. It is available to play and arguably the scrum has achieved it's objective as defined above.

However the No8 keeps the ball in the scrum and the team continue to push. They push so hard the other team fragments and collapses. The referee awards a penalty against them...Why? Whatever infringement the referee declares he has seen the fact is that the ball was always available to play and therefore It appears the penalty has been awarded because the team going backwards is weaker.

It seems to me that ignoring the ball and continuing to drive into a weaker and collapsing opposition is dangerous and fails to meet the definition of a scrum on several levels.

But worse still....the referee sends off 1,2 or even 3 of the weaker teams front 8 and when it goes backwards (a self fulfilling prophesy is ever there was one) he keeps penalising them??

Is the aim of the scrum to restart the game as defined or is it a pushing competition where the stronger team will always be rewarded with a penalty?


Agree 100%. The scrum is only a part of the game, yet the English Premiership is refferd as if 'it is the game'.

Great title to the match report and a fair question for DOK to ask at the end.

The supplementary question is 'Would Quins have won with a different ref?' We don't know, but it would probably have been a much more entertaining game.

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
We record all IP addresses on the Sportnetwork message boards which may be required by the authorities in case of defamatory or abusive comment. We seek to monitor the Message Boards at regular intervals. We do not associate Sportnetwork with any of the comments and do not take responsibility for any statements or opinions expressed on the Message Boards. If you have any cause for concern over any material posted here please let us know as soon as possible by e-mailing abuse@sportnetwork.net