Johnny Hates Jazz

After the luxury of several re-views, and numerous Camara Angles, this man was unable to award a try.



Stuart Dickinson is his name

Stuart (The Dick) Dickinson (born 19 July 1968. He made his international referee debut in 1997 in a Rugby World Cup qualifier between Tahiti and the Papua New Guinea.

A year later he was the referee for the international between Wales and South Africa at Wembley. He was a referee at the 1999 Rugby World Cup in Wales, the 2003 Rugby World Cup in Australia and the 2007 Rugby World Cup in France. He is Australia's most-capped referee and the only Australian referee to appear at three World Cups.

Stuart commenced refereeing at the age of 12, whilst also playing fly-half and fullback for whipping Boys High School. He has been employed fulltime with the ARU since 1996. Prior to 1996 he worked as a site manager for LinFox, a transport companym as well as with the NSW Police Force. Always generous with his time for community groups, he eats pies in Sydney with his wife and three children.

What a complete "Dick" he is

__________________
English Democrats SAY NO To European Union

English not British not European
- It's time to decide at the 2009 European Elections

Westcountryman

He robbed us of our Try. Britannist - put him in 'the file'.

__________________
Manus haec inimica tyrannis ense petit placidam sub libertate quietam - "This hand of mine, which is hostile to tyrants, seeks by the sword quiet peace under liberty."

SuperiorSteve

He is a total ******. The TV commentators showed us the try from every angle and it was very obvious they were annoyed by the decision. Rob Andrew should've approached the IRB bloke who was sat by the South African guy and asked for him to take a look at the videos. It was a try. People seem to be biaised against us. I hope when he next referees an international he gets the shits and poos his shorts in front of the whole World and the TV cameras keep showing it over and over throughout the match on the big screen.

__________________
"Remember that you are an Englishman, and have consequently won first prize in the lottery of life" Cecil Rhodes

cassie

Against a background in which the President of the Australian Rugby Union stated of his compatriots in Cricket, Rugby Union and Rugby League that "we all hate England" it is remarkable that an Australian was selected to adjudicate ANY part of this match, especially because the England team had beaten the Australian team earlier. How could fairness, justice if you will, possibly be seen to be done?

We have reached absurd lengths in a number areas of sport where what we see is being arbitrarily determined with the involvement of the latest technology. If sport is anything, it is an activity to be observed if not participated in!

In athletics for example, two or three sprinters can run 100 metres and, for all intents and purposes, cross the finishing line together in many top class races. Instead of abandoning 100 metre races as no longer providing a valid test of sprinting ability, the sporting authorities go to great lengths to attempt to measure minute differences. One hundredth of a second (out of nine hundred or more seconds) can be deemed to separate the winner from the second etc. The evidence of our eyes in a spectator sport is no longer acceptable, and we must be solemnly informed of what we have seen. How absurd!

One might be sympathetic to the use of this technology to assist in determining whether the touch down across the goal line is acceptable, but to employ it as a device to disallow a try on the basis of the scorer's toe ~ and only the toe ~ appearing to have briefly made contact with the touchline an instant prior to an undisputed touchdown is even more absurd!!!

If there was an aberration, it was merely a 'technical' aberration and not the result of any cynical action by any player. To give effect to it, in the way it was in this instance, is a gross error of judgement. It was a harsh decision made by an individual who, in this event, should not have been in a position to make it. It did not enhance either this game or the sport of rugby.

If the try had been allowed it is questionable whether it would have been converted ~ the conversion kick would have been at a similar awkward angle to that kicked earlier by Wilkinson. Even if it had been converted, it is still a matter of conjecture as to which team would have won. The result was marred.

Even so, it has to be said that the England team did not disgrace itself and was by no means the walkover it was in its previous encounter with the Springboks. I am proud of the way our players comported themselves, and we can hold our heads up high!

stathan

Grow up guys!


I'm afraid that posting a photo of a guys foot up in the air after the toe of his boot quite clearly touched the line before grounding isn't the basis for awarding a try!

The reverse angle shown time after time on TV quite clearly shows contact with the line well before the ball is touched down.

One can only hope that your party doesn't fake scenarios and twist out of sequence evidence quite as readily as you lot.

Westcountryman

Oh yes, it was that obvious that it was played over and over, and the commentators quite plainly stated 'that was a try'.

You had to make this about politics why exactly?

__________________
Manus haec inimica tyrannis ense petit placidam sub libertate quietam - "This hand of mine, which is hostile to tyrants, seeks by the sword quiet peace under liberty."

stathan

I see....English commentators award try!



To be honest anybody who watches the footage twice from down the line and still thinks that it's a try needs to seriously consider getting the best eye test money can buy.


As regards politicising this, surely that has been done by a bunch of frustrated English guys casting aspertions against an Australian guy just doing his job and calling correctly.



Fair play and graciousness in defeat is a virtue that may be worth swotting up on by some on here!

Tom Wilde

I really wanted England to win, and this was almost a great try. It is a shame it was disallowed. Nonetheless, on the replays you could clearly see the chalk fly up when his foot hit the line. No doubt about it. Crummy luck that one foot flew out at that angle (due to the attempted tackle, I think), but rugby scores often do involve luck (good or bad) as well as skill. That's the nature of the game. The refereeing decision was absolutely correct, I'm afraid. And the various England players and officials interviewed about it after the game were very gracious about it, I'm happy to say.

cassie

Roll on the day when there ARE solely English commentators! You're talking out of the back of your head as per . . .

To be honest, anyone unable to perceive and to acknowledge any other point of view, any other line of argument should stop making an ass of himself! No one doubts that the toe of Cueto's boot touched the touchline for an instant, but to use solely that as a pretext to disallow the try is both extreme and absurd, which seems entirely consistent with your position.

The politics are that, regardless of the qualities of the individual, an Australian of any kind in this situation is questionable! One of the reasons being the very recent unwanted and unnecessary remarks made by the president of the Australian Rugby Union ~ you know, the body under which Australian referees are sponsored. Only an uncomprehending clown would not appreciate this factor.

Who needs strictures about graciousness or any other decency from a clever clogs who starts off his asinine comments with 'Grow up guys'! Such a closely argued point of view, I don't think!

Westcountryman

Yes, on reflection it wasn't a Try. However, my point is, that is was FAR from obvious whether it was or not.

You attempted to make it Party political, and it was a lame attempt too.

__________________
Manus haec inimica tyrannis ense petit placidam sub libertate quietam - "This hand of mine, which is hostile to tyrants, seeks by the sword quiet peace under liberty."