Argentina's Albornoz charged following altercation with match officials

Referring to Ben Youngs' comments about Los Pumas, Atlberg said:

"I'd like to ask good old Ben Youngs how he felt about Henry Pollock's gestures in the middle of Avenida 9 de Julio, pointing both index fingers at the entire Argentine crowd when there were still four or five days to go before the match. I'd ask Ben Youngs what he thought of those provocations. And I'd also ask him how he felt when England scored a superb scrum try and Ellis Genge, one of their leaders and vice-captain, turned to the Argentine supporters and made a taunting gesture. Wasn't that embarrassing? Isn't that part of the rugby values you so often talk about?

I raise these questions for one simple reason: let's judge everyone by the same standard. Because if you're going to be so forceful and severe in describing the actions of an Argentine player as shameful—and a player who, incidentally, will be sanctioned as he should be—then it's only fair to ask what you think of the behaviour of your own leaders.

This all comes in the context of the moment Los Pumas are going through and the way they are being viewed by World Rugby. It also reflects the way they have been refereed, with a series of inconsistencies that we have been pointing out for quite some time.

It seems that, for the English—the inventors of the game—what Pollock did is seen as entertaining: a breath of fresh air for a sport often described as too rigid, the kind of personality that brings energy and attracts new audiences. But when a Los Pumas player reacts after growing frustration over a string of inconsistent decisions—a reaction I am not defending, but one that I do believe deserves context—it is immediately labelled shameful and disgraceful.

We're also talking about a player with an outstanding reputation and no disciplinary record whatsoever.

Draw your own conclusions. I'm speaking mainly to rugby supporters in Argentina, because I doubt these words will travel very far overseas. But perhaps, if someone translates them for Nigel Owens, he might take a moment to reflect on what he claimed not to understand when we exchanged views on Twitter.

Then everyone can decide for themselves where Los Pumas stand today and how they are being treated."

This is a copy of an editorial written by Martin Altberg which translate what we think about the issue. :To me, Nigel Owens  is the greatest rugby referee in history. He is certainly the most influential, not only because of what he did while he was an active referee—we have analyzed countless matches officiated by the Welshman, always highlighting his work and the way he managed games—but also because he has continued to work for the development of refereeing, to bring referees together as a community, and to help the Laws of the Game evolve. For that reason, he has my utmost respect.

So, when I listened to his Whistle Watch segment—a program he produces for World Rugby, under the umbrella of the sport's governing body—I was eager to hear his opinion. He usually clarifies controversial refereeing decisions from the weekend, and many times, just like my colleagues at Scrum and I do, we watch his explanations to resolve doubts about particular incidents.

That is exactly how I approached this edition, hoping to understand what he had to say about the Los Pumas match. I was surprised. The Welshman focused on the TMO, the dialogue between Angus Gardner and the TMO, and the final decision. More importantly, he was emphatic in calling for strong disciplinary sanctions against unsportsmanlike conduct.

Before addressing what is supposed to be his area of expertise—the refereeing decisions that Gardner made at the end of the match—he chose to become involved by expressing what I believe was an incomplete opinion. He focused on the exchange between Gardner and the TMO, but failed to analyze the incident that triggered everything that followed.

During the exchange on social media, he suggested that Los Pumas were trying to justify unsportsmanlike conduct. I immediately made it clear that we fully agreed on one fundamental point: unsportsmanlike conduct should be eradicated and punished.

My question to him was simple. If your role is to clarify what happened on the field from a refereeing perspective, why not explain the high tackle incidents? That is where the real controversy lies. Why not explain what the Laws actually say?

His response was that it was not his role to comment on that issue.

In other words, he believed it was appropriate to demand "fair and strict sanctions" against Los Pumas for unsportsmanlike conduct and to defend the actions of the TMO and Gardner in disallowing the play. Yet he considered it inappropriate to explain the very refereeing decision that was at the center of the controversy.

That is why I believe his opinion was incomplete, one-sided, and, frankly, imprudent.

Does anyone really think Nigel Owens is unaware of the weight his words carry? Doesn't he understand that people follow him because they see him as an authoritative voice on refereeing and the Laws of the Game? After all, Whistle Watch is produced for World Rugby. When he speaks there, many viewers naturally interpret his comments as reflecting the position of the governing body.

Whether intentionally or not, he was sending a message that those responsible for unsportsmanlike conduct should receive exemplary sanctions.

When I asked him about the high tackles, do you know what he said?

"Find out what World Rugby's feedback to the Los Pumas coaching staff was. They're the ones who should answer that question, not me."

So, according to him, he could comment on the severity of disciplinary sanctions and on the TMO's decision, but not on the refereeing mistake that sparked the entire controversy.

And do you know what World Rugby actually told the Argentine coaching staff?

Exactly what I said last week.

They acknowledged what was obvious: the correct decision should have been a penalty try and a yellow card for Slade for a seatbelt tackle.

That was precisely what I wanted the Welshman to explain.

If he preferred to focus exclusively on unsportsmanlike conduct, I respect that. But if he is going to discuss refereeing, then explaining the communication between the referee and the TMO is not what people wanted. Rugby has been played in Argentina for well over a century. We understand perfectly well what the real issue was.

The real issue was the high tackle that Gardner failed to sanction and the fact that he never opened the discussion to the rest of his officiating team.

That is what we wanted to hear explained by one of the most respected voices in world refereeing.

Even more so because he was speaking under the World Rugby banner, while a citing process was still underway. Given the authority his voice carries, he knew perfectly well that his comments could influence a matter that had not yet been resolved and would be decided in the following hours.

That is why I was upset.

As someone who understands communication, I believe the message you choose to send matters, especially in official content produced for the sport's governing body.

If the Welshman had expressed these opinions on his own personal platform—"Nigel Owens on the Farm"—that would have been entirely his right.

But when you speak in the name of World Rugby and publicly suggest what sanctions should be imposed, you are sending a message that goes beyond personal opinion. You are not the disciplinary authority, and your comments can influence an ongoing citing process.

Someone in that position should exercise greater caution, fully aware of how these disciplinary matters work.

And if there is any positive aspect to all of this, it is a limited one.

Los Pumas lost the match.

Tomás Albornoz will almost certainly receive an exemplary suspension.

But how is the damage suffered by Los Pumas compensated?

With an email acknowledging the obvious—confirming that Gardner made a mistake and that he should have awarded a penalty try and shown Slade a yellow card.

To make matters worse, other voices have joined in to point the finger at Argentina. Perhaps they are riding the wave of sentiment left over from Argentina's football World Cup success, or perhaps it is simply because this controversy involved England and such a dramatic finish.

Either way, the result is the same.

Good. S. Carreras should be charged too. He did even worse, phisical aggresive contact with the ref.

I would be upset too if the VAR conveniently didn’t see the high tackle made with tge English player to avoid the try, that would have give Argentina a try-penalty. Clearly Angus Gardner was troubled by the decision and initially he award led the try, he should have put the big pants and overrule the VAR

Regardless whether the call was correct or wrong no player should be confronting the referee like that. I’ve seen a ref give a penalty try for backchat from 30 yards out after players not keeping their comments to themselves. I love the game of rugby; used to enjoy watching soccer but I get so frustrated with the constant complaining from the players. The “worldly lawlessness “ as a fav podcast host said, must be controlled.

Perhaps its within Argentinians national pysche to be emotionally incontinent.

Decisions during a game can be controversial or wrong but that's part of the difficulty in refereeing. What Albornoz (and frankly others) were doing to Gardner was disgusting, poor sportsmanship and totally unacceptable. Big ban needed to show that rugby is better than that.

WOW. This is absolutely INCREDIBLE in my view.

The neck shot/seatbelt tackle by England not even looked at.

Sometimes this is the downside of players who are so.. brilliant.