Talk:Wayne Barnes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is not a forum for general discussion of Wayne Barnes.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Wikiproject Rugby union
Rugby union Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rugby union. This project provides a central approach to rugby union-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing Wayne Barnes, and help us assess and improve articles to good and featured standards, or visit the project page, where you can join and view the list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Updating article while protected

Fully understand the reasons for protecting the page, but there have been a couple of relevant developments in New Zealand: the Deputy Prime Minister has weighed in: http://www.tv3.co.nz/News/Story/tabid/209/articleID/36457/Default.aspx And NZRU chair Jock Hobbs said in a Radio NZ interview this morning that Barnes' performance had an "enormous impact" on the result and that the NZRU would be discussing it with the IRB, which according to RNZ has acknowledged that mistakes were made: http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/latest/200710090809/nzru_to_pursue_concerns_about_world_cup_refereeing

Should someone with the relevant privileges incorporate these stories? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Russb10 (talk • contribs)

Now the prime minister Helen Clark, has come out and said don't blame the ref. We should include that as well? The article has a couple of opinions, there's no need for it to have every notable persons and their dogs opinion on the subject. Wikipedia isn't for trying to resolve who was correct, by finding who has more supporting/opposing statements. The article has a paragraph that his decisions have caused controversy, if and when he is sanctioned for this controversy, then that should be added but at the moment it reads quite unbiased and until then it shouldn't change. Khukri 07:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


Although admins can edit the article, they probably won't. Under the protection policy:
"Administrators should not edit pages that are protected due to a content dispute, unless there is consensus for the change, or the change is unrelated to the dispute. However, this should only be done with great caution, and administrators doing so should indicate this on the article's talk page."
I don't think this page can be unprotected for another week at least. The topic is far too emotional for many New Zealanders -- consider the almost 500 edits to the article in the 37 hours after the match. That was more than the edits to the All Blacks in the same period. Evil Monkey - Hello 20:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
There is no content dispute; the page is protected due to vandalism. It is a pain that more can not be added on this because of vandalism and hopefully an admin will expand the page a little. - Shudde talk 20:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Shudde, there is no content dispute and the policy quoted above for administrators not to edit during editorial disputes shouldn't apply. And I agree with User:Russb10 that NZRU chair Jock Hobbs' intervention should be inserted now, as it escalates the dispute into potentially a full-blown row between the NZRU and IRB. Furthermore, quite a lot of media attention is being paid to this Wikipedia article, with the Sydney Morning Herald and BBC news mentioning the vandalism here, and leaving the article frozen without updating it will make it look as if Wikipedia's only response to repeated vandalism attacks is paralysis. I suggest that proposed amendments be inserted here for an admin's attention. Rexparry sydney 07:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I have no problems with making edits to the article in it's current blocked state. Most of what you have written above is NPOV and could be almost added ad verbatim to the article, and all I want to see is that the article remains so and is equally balanced. Make a suggestion amendment here and I'll add it quite quickly. Khukri 08:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Once the protection has come off, we'll probably need to add sources over the death threats - http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/7034858.stm Duckorange 09:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Though not brilliantly written this article Urs Meier is another example of death threats to referees etc. Copy paste the last paragraph from the barnes article here and edit a new version now, and we'll take a look. As Rex said above this article should evolve as time goes on, but trying to avoid POV. Khukri 09:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paddy O'Brien misinformation

Paddy told NZ to grow up, not that it wasn't the ref's fault. He's the head ref for the RWC, and he admitted that Wayne made some mistakes and didn't choose him for future games. Surely this is more relevant than what is currently on the Wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.80.123.40 (talk) 00:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Page protection is not an endorsement of the current version of the page. It was merely the last, non-vandalized version of the page. Evil Monkey - Hello 01:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Please watch the TV interview again and read the referenced article again, Paddy O'Brien said that the loss could not be blamed on refereeing. Khukri 07:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wayne Barnes not selected for the World Cup

This is definately important. It shows that he is not as good as Paddy O'Brien thinks - if he did a good job and one of the best, he would have been selected. There are now 3 important news articles that have not been referenced as part of his Biography. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/4/story.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10468757

It doesn't say he was dropped, just that he wasn't selected. 12 referees, 4 matches so neither were 7 other referees selected. Khukri 06:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Better? And the number of referees was no longer 12, as they had already been reduced for the quarter finals.

Not so. There were 25 officials for the tournament, 12 referees and 13 touch judges. At the end of the pool stage, the 13 TJs went home; the 12 refs remained to fulfill the roles of referee and TJ throughout the eight matches of the knockout stage. - Jimmy Pitt (talk) 16:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, he has been selected for the semi-finals. Except he'll only be the fifth official. That means that two of the other officials would have to get injured before he would get anywhere near the action. - PeeJay 16:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Apparently none of the quarter-final refs were ever going to ref the semi-finals. And he can't ref the final or 3/4 playoff because England could be in either of those matches. So while he isn't going to referee any more games in the world cup, this can hardly be blamed on poor performance.
We don't know why he hasn't been selected. He is also not being used as a touch judge remember. - Shudde talk 09:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Until someone official, namely IRB and not a newspaper editorial, comes out and says he isn't refereeing because he had a clanger, then it's always going to be an a non verifiable assumption. And in my opinion with the history of forward passes against the all blacks or by them or anyone else for that matter says no-one will be censured for it, so it won't get included in the article. Khukri 09:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paddy O'Brien link

The link to Paddy O'Brien on this page must I think refer to a different Paddy O'Brien as it doesn't sound like The NZ guy who is head of the IRB's ref panel at the moment. Is it possible to do a disambiguation page? EnnaVic 20:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Edited while fully protected -- I've changed this link to from Paddy O'Brien --> Paddy O'Brien (referee), as there does not appear to be an article on him yet. Evil Monkey - Hello 20:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Paddy O'Brian commented that the ref had made mistakes so perhjaps this section needs updating - see http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/national/mnr/referee_made_mistakes 202.49.136.42 22:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC) Mike

That even mentions this article, and the fact it's been vandalised. - Shudde talk 22:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
As I said above, I would recommend waiting a couple of days (or even better a week) before unprotecting this article. Emotions are too raw and the article will be a mecca for people wanting to vent frustrations. The loss is still very much in the forefront of news coverage in New Zealand. And definitely will be tomorrow when most of the team arrive back in New Zealand. And the article may start suffering from recentism -- giving undue weight to one event that has had a lot recent media coverage. Evil Monkey - Hello 23:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I have this page in my watchlist it appeared on wikirage. When the block gets put down to semi there will be enough of us to hopefully keep it from getting too out of hand. Khukri 07:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The article is now semiprotected

For all those people wanting to make edits -- the article is currently semi-protected (and has been for several hours without a single edit). Evil Monkey - Hello 23:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversial forward pass

There is such a thing as a non-controversial forward pass. They happen all the time without being pulled up, but they don't always have a large influence on the game. You won't see this sort of media attention for every single forward pass in an international. - Shudde talk 01:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

This could turn into a lame edit war :-) To me the forward pass itself wasn't controversial per se, it was the actions of the referee. Evil Monkey - Hello 01:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Isn't that implied? - Shudde talk 02:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Consider the alternative scenario - if the pass had been flat, not forward, but the referee from a poor angle called it forward, his whistle is drowned in the crowd noise and the try is disallowed as he brings play back. Might that have been a tad controversial too?
I am a referee and I can assure you that you can only decide on what you see. You don't have time to debate it. You put yourself in the best position you can to make a judgment and you go with what you see. When there is a quick break, the angle you are looking from is bound to make judgment difficult of passes that are close to being forward. Clearly the speed of the break meant that Wayne Barnes and his two touch judges were not in line with the ball. The TJs in such a situation would always leave it to the referee to make the call. It could also be that the referee's line of sight was obscured or obstructed momentarily by another player. These things happen. It is part of the game.
Making a wrong call from am unhelpful angle in such circumstances is not classed as a mistake, it is simply inaccurate - there is a difference. In any given game, a referee might make a hand-full of inaccurate or incorrect decisions. Each of the thirty players on the field might also make a similar number of "mistakes". Whose influence is the greater on the game? Do the maths! I am sick to death of players and coaches of all levels blaming the honest endeavour of a referee for their own inadequacies and inability to win a game. The ill-informed (and often one-eyed) TV commentators who don't even know the laws and completely fail to appreciate the referee's position are the worst. They just encourage the complainers. The referee is part of the game - try having a game without one! Those blaming Wayne Barnes for a poor display by the All Blacks should get a life. Cheers! Brendan Fitzgerald 04:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Did you actually watch the game or are you using your referee intuition again? ~ Ropata 06:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the insight, but alot of what you have written comes down to WP:OR and opinion which can't be included in the article. Also please remember this is a hotly disputed article at the moment, whether correct or not please don't inflame this talk page with comments like get a life. Khukri 09:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
It wasn't a forward pass, not because it didn't go forward, but because the ref and linesmen didn't see it. Players must play to the whistle and use that as the determinant of what has and hasn't happened. All three officials were behind the play and McCaw, McAlister and a French player were between Barnes and the pass, while Rokokoko and Michalak obscured the nearest TJ's view. You also have to remember that the officials are at ground level but TV viewers, like much of the crowd, have a slightly elevated viewpoint which reduces the chance of view being blocked. Even so, the main and reverse camera angles didn't show it clearly as a forward pass, it was only a third camera angle shown in replay which indicated conclusively that it was forward. This brings us to the real issue here: not the performance of the referee, but the fact that video technology gives TV viewers and commentators an advantage which the ref doesn't have. Controversies of the type affecting this article and causing the attendant vandalism will continue in rugby because this fundamental imbalance is unlikely to be resolved in the near future by increasing the power of video referees. None of the foregoing is appropriate for inclusion in this article, however. Rexparry sydney 14:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
From memory most camera angles showed it was a forward pass. In any case, I think what a lot of people are missing is that few people are denying the All Blacks had a poor game. What they are saying is that the All Blacks still played better then the French and therefore the primary reason why the French won is because of shoddy refeering not because they played better. I.E. the fact that the All Blacks could have won if they had been on top form (as Helen Clark said) while true seems a bit irrelevant since it's a bit unresonable to expect a team to have to play exceptionally well so they can beat a team who play significantly worse them them simply because they will otherwise lose because of crucial refereeing errors. Also, remember that the All Blacks performance really began to suffer after these refereeing errors helped the French catch up and surpass. I.E. So while it's not the referees fault for this performance, it would not have occurred were it not for these errors giving the French points they should not have had. Remember that pressure cooker matches like this one often hang on a thread (as it did) and when there are refereeing errors which signicantly affect the outcome there is always going to be great controversy and a feeling of justice by many. Of course, the threats etc are ridiculous and few people are exucising them. If anything it's the IRB's fault. They were the one's who (apparently) discouraged touch judges from ruling on offsides and forward passes and they are also the ones who stupidly decided to give 8 referees (including one who had only been refereeing Tests for a year) the final games of the World Cup rather then use the best 4. Perhaps they expected the All Blacks to be on such good form that even if the Barnes screwed up (as he did) it wouldn't matter but as it turned out, they were deadly wrong. Nil Einne 15:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, what shall I believe on the camera angles, Nil Einne, your memory, or the videotape which I recorded? And I think your analysis could only come from a very one-eyed and loyal NZ viewpoint: "few people are denying the All Blacks had a poor game . . . the All Blacks still played better then the French and therefore the primary reason why the French won is because of shoddy refeering not because they played better". Apart from being a marevellous non-sequitur, this is not what the rugby commentators and writers in Aus/RSA/NZ/UK/FR which I've read are saying. In rugby it is quite possible to play 60-70 minutes better than your opponents, and still lose: in fact, this is about the only way that the All-Blacks ever lose. But the fact is the French played better in the second half than the ABs. The ABs lost because McAlister missed a conversion he would normally make, and in the 11 minutes after the French took the 2-point lead, they turned the ball over in rucks/breakdowns three times, they made two handling errors when they had the opportunity to create an overlap, they failed to get clean fast ball from a couple of lineouts, but above all, when they had the field position, they failed to create a platform for a drop-goal. They did not lose becuase of Wayne Barnes and I think the NZRU's own investigation will eventually come to the same conclusion. To be balanced and to avoid "recentism", this article will eventually have to reduce the emphasis currently given to this present controversy. Rexparry sydney 05:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Like the template says at the top of this page: this is not a forum. If people want to discuss their opinion of the game then wikipedia is not the best place to do it; there are plenty of rugby websites out there with discussion forums. This page is for discussing the Wayne Barnes article and it's content, and it's best if we keep discussions here within that topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shudde (talk • contribs) 08:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Hacking"

lol, editing wikipedia is now.... "HACKING"!! oh my! ref Mathmo Talk 05:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that is referring to the article being locked and still edited123.255.55.27 09:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
It was unlocked shortly afterwards. Khukri 09:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Referees critique

RE:An interview with a 'top 10' New Zealand referee in the New Zealand Herald

Surely this in itself is a chronic example of the "recentism" that the editors are so concerned with in this article. While one could quote any number of non anonymous high quality sources with opinion on the performance of this referee only an anonymous unverifiable source defending the referee is being considered. I vote it be removed as un-encyclopedic. It doesn't improve the article.Stuzzo 01:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes it does. All of the comments about his performance have been from people that are not referees. I think a professional referee's analysis of it is very useful, and adds significantly to the article. If the source of this information was not a well respected newspaper, then maybe your claim of unverifiability would be acceptable. However because referees are not allowed to publicly critique each others performance, the source needs to be anonymous to avoid losing their job (or being otherwise disciplined). It seems pretty clear that the New Zealand Rugby Union also consider the source genuine, otherwise they wouldn't be trying to find out who the referee was (see here). - Shudde talk 01:26, 15 October 2007
Excuse me. Paddy O'Brien is not a referee ??!!Stuzzo 01:42, 15 October 2007
Paddy O'Brien is his boss. Paddy O'Brien also would have been involved in picking him. One could easily argue that Wayne Barnes' performance reflects on those who chose him. Hardly an impartial source really? - Shudde talk 01:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I can't agree with the retention of this section or that it is worthy of inclusion in encyclopedia content....any one else's opinion? I cannot overrule an administrator.Stuzzo 02:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Admins do not have any extra editorial powers on articles, compared to normal users. But I agree with Shudde that even though anonymous, having what a referee says it much more important that the opinions of Helen Clark and Michael Cullen. Of course we must be careful to make sure that this article doesn't become a WP:COATRACK -- ie should be a biography of Wayne Barnes but turns into an article about the All Blacks v. France game. As Shudde stated, the reference isn't unverifiable from a Wikipedia point of view -- it comes from a mainstream newspaper. If it turns out that the Herald made the whole article up, then we would of course have to remove it. Evil Monkey - Hello 04:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
It is likely that Wayne Barnes biography will be dominated by the All Blacks v. France game of 2007. That is just a fact of life. Many people gain infamy through a single event or action in their lives. Stuzzo 21:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Unlikely, it will calm down after a while and the recentism will subside. Look at Steve Walsh, two arguably bigger clangers involving bans and it's only a paragraph in his article. Khukri 21:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Shudde, the article examines his performance from an expert and critical standpoint, something that has generally been lacking throughout this saga. Kiwi Ace 09:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree as well, editors seem content to include the opinions, and lets remember they are solely opinions from members of government, then it should have some educated opinions to put the issue into perspective. I however don't think it should be included, as it just fuels the points scoring of who can garner the most supporting opinions. In a month or so most if not all of these opinions will be deleted and will be replaced with a phrase along the lines of His career met with controversy during the France v New Zealand quarter final in the 2007 world cup, in which his refereeing was called into question for a missed forward pass, and was blamed in some quarters <ref> for New Zealand's loss and exit from the cup. This is only an example, and if you look through any number of officials in any walk of life, once the recentism dies down, it becomes no more than a paragraph. Again look to Steve Walsh, his screw ups were far bigger, and it's only a paragraph when brought into persepctive. Khukri 11:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The bizarre statistics are the obvious omission from the article. Never before has a team gone unpenalised for an entire 40 minutes of rugby in a RWC competition, let alone a team who were so completely dominated in possession and territory. The number of universally acknowledged result altereing mistakes made by the referee and the therefore unjustifiable staunch defence by his boss, largely over his controversial selection of such a junior referee for such a crucial match and the impact on the worlds number 1 ranked team is the information worthy of historical retention. We can bet we this event will have an wide reaching consequences on both rugby and rugby adjudication and this is the information this article should portray. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.45.50 (talk) 00:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

No, this article should be a concise biography of its subject, Wayne Barnes. The wider effects of the mistakes he may or may not have made should be documented elsewhere. - PeeJay 00:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Nonense, that is like saying that entry on Nelson Mandella should not document the influence of his actions on African politics, apartheid or reconciliation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.45.50 (talk) 00:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, Mandela actually had a world-changing impact in those fields, whereas Wayne Barnes missed a forward pass and sent a New Zealander to the sin bin. Not exactly world-changing stuff there, if I'm honest. - PeeJay 00:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If (or when) there are changes to rugby that are directly attributable to the actions of Wayne Barnes then they could be mentioned. Also as PeeJay said this article is about Wayne Barnes not the quarter-final match between the All Blacks and France. Evil Monkey - Hello 03:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

But your argument is that the article "should be a concise biography...not the wider effects" which "should be documented elsewhere". You didn't argue that the effects were not worthy for inclusion because they were not far reaching enough. In terms of rugby it's hard to imagine a bigger impact than the most junior referee ever to oversee the finals of the tournament knocking out the favourites after a series of bad calls, then the man guilty of appointing him being hailed in the press as impartial in his defence! You don't need a crystal ball at all, the effect is already seen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.169.60.174 (talk) 20:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Such exaggerated remarks hardly help the discussion. Barnes didn't "oversee" the finals (he ref'd one quarter-final), nor did he "knock out" the favourites (that's just blatantly absurd fan talk). Barnes came into the tournament having refereed only seven test matches (but also quite a few international matches at junior grade and sevens levels); when Andre Watson refereed England v Italy in the pool stage of the 1999 RWC it was (from memory) only his eleventh test match -- and he went on to referee the final! And just to put matters in perspective, Watson himself came in for a fair amount of criticism when, refereeing his second consecutive final, in 2003, he awarded a penalty to Australia in the dying seconds of normal time in the 2003 final, thus enabling Australia to level the scores and force the game into extra time. Four years on, that's just a minor historical note and it's my guess that that's how Barnes's performance will be treated in another four years. - Jimmy Pitt (talk) 16:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not an exaggeration. He made a series of bad calls, reversing any of which would have changed the result. Your thinly veiled attack on Watson as some kind of tit-for-tat defence of Barnes is misplaced. Are we expected to believe that an English referee is entitle to be incompetent in "pay back" for a debatably bad call made against England in an earlier final? Clearly the "minor historical note" is still relevant enough for you to mention it here - not a distant memory then? For the record, Barnes' performance was far worse, and Watson clearly did not influence the result. He had refereed nearly double the number of internationals that Barnes had, and frankly "a number of junior matches and sevens" doesn't prepare a referee for a RWC quarter final any more than a number of junior matches and seven's would prepare an international player. You're talking from a greatful English perspective Jimmy. I invite you to join reality, and put aside your home land bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.177.96 (talk) 22:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)