Talk:Matt O'Brien

Sevens Final in Wellington

Scotty Stevenson, would like to add some criticism of O'Briens performance in this match to the article. I think it is WP:undue at this stage, but he is willing to talk and I am willing to listen to his reasons why it should be included. AIRcorn (talk) 09:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I understand that criticism of referee's should be measured. However, when a ref's performance has such a profound impact on the outcome of the game there should be some mention of it. At the moment you merely want to include the fact that he presided over the game, however, his officiating has been criticised and this must be recognised. I agree that it should not be stated that he definitely made several wrong decisions, but a person reading the article for the first time must be aware that he made several contentious decisions. I have many references from several reputable news sources which confirm this and expect more to come in the coming days.

As you, yourself have admitted both Barnes and Joubert have mention of their two contentious games. It would only be right if O'Brien has the same. World Rugby has only ever criticised a ref once (C Joubert) so if we waiting for that then we going to wait a long time. In addition, his father is Paddy O'Brien who is the head of SANZAR ref's so don't expect criticism to come from his own dad. That in itself deserves a mention. At the very least is it not suspicious that a New Zealand born (and for all intents still an AB supporter), presided over a game in which he made several contentious decisions in favour of his country of birth? in addition, his father is a ref boss and would refrain at all costs to criticise him. I think its a no brainer. There must be some mention of this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Scotty Stevenson (talk • contribs)

Hi, @Scotty Stevenson:. Please have a look at WP:UNDUE and WP:BALASPS – according to the latter, "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject." At the moment, there is one paragraph dedicated to his refereeing career. If you add a second paragraph, that means half of the "Refereeing" section is dedicated to one single match in his career. This was a high-profile match, admittedly, and should be weighted more than other matches in which he officiated, but still definitely not worth 50% of the section. This is also backed up by WP:AVOIDVICTIM. Personally, I don't have a problem with his contentious decisions being added, as long as the article remains neutral and not just a witch-hunt. While your suspicions re his relationship to Paddy O'Brien are noted, Wikipedia is not the forum to air those suspicions. Also, do you have any incontrovertible proof that "[he is] for all intents still an AB supporter" or that the reason he won't publicly get criticised is due to nepotism? TheMightyPeanut (talk) 12:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Pretty much every game that is ever played supporters of one team (sometimes both) will find something to criticise the referee about. This criticism itself is not notable and if included would make all our articles very one sided. We don't add in every mistake a player makes to their articles for the same reason. The trouble is that it is very rare for the media to compliment a referee on a good game, Owens is the only recent one I can recall and most of that came from New Zealand, so it becomes hard to balance their "bad" performances with the "good". My personal line for when criticism can be mentioned is that it must be responded to by the IRB. If they think it is notable enough to issue a statement either supporting the referee (or not) for his performance then it is notable enough for us here. So far all I am seeing criticising the referee in this game comes out of South Africa. A better place to include criticisms like this for individual games is the article about the game, not the one about the referee. AIRcorn (talk) 20:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

It must be recognised that his officiating in this match was controversial. No one knew him before this match and hence the weight given to this match in his career is warranted. I don't want to start a witch hunt, that is not my intention at all but I feel some of his questionable calls must be mentioned particularly in light of the fact that he was born and raised in NZ and that his father is Paddy O'Brien. I have also amended to ensure that it has not been given undue weight while clearly allowing for impartiality.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Scotty Stevenson (talk • contribs)

"No one knew him before this match"? Pretty sweeping statement, that. Personally, I also knew him from officiating Super Rugby matches in 2014 and 2015. Again, I don't have an issue with questionable decisions being mentioned; however, if the article just mentions his questionable decisions without ever making reference to personal achievements (which he has also had during his refereeing career), then it is simply not balanced. So, again, it is worthy of inclusion, but only if it doesn't skew the article towards a certain (in this case negative) angle. If you intend to bring in any allegations questioning his impartiality due to his country of birth or his father, that can border on libel and would have to be very, very well sourced. (I would guess you would be unable to do so).

P.S., could you please sign your comments using ~~~~? Thanks, TheMightyPeanut (talk) 14:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I too knew of him, I already had this page watchlisted. I do follow rugby and in particular the referees quite closely though. His impartiality is a no-go I am afraid, particularly basing it off one game. Your addition to the sevens page is still too one sided, but is a place where we can expand on the game to create better balance. The New Zealand born, son of Paddy O'Brien part I object to as it is casting aspersion which are at this stage unwarranted. AIRcorn (talk) 20:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)