16 players on the field: is this the latest tactic?
Roar Pro
By Bob Thomas, 4 Apr 2008 The Crowd is a Roar Pro
With several incidents of this happening on a worldwide basis, I wonder if there is a possibility of it becoming a tactic.
The Cheetahs were noticed by Mooney, the Reds coach, whilst looking at the Cheetahs last game tapes and counting players.
Maybe we should get someone to look through all the tapes to see if it has happened more than these two times.
Imagine you’re under pressure on your own line. As we all know, there is a 70% chance a defender will give a penalty away anyway.
If you were a coach of a devious nature, why not throw an extra player on the field ‘accidentally’ to reduce the chance of scoring. If they are caught, take the penalty. If not, pull him off when the threat has passed.
If you’re a South African team, you know you have a supporter in Johan Botes, the South African Super 14 director, as he is quoted on Rugby Heaven as saying about the Reds versus Sharks incident: “A penalty was awarded to the Reds. It says in the International Rugby Board’s law book that a penalty should be awarded if a team has more than the permissible number of players on the field.
“This is what happened and no more action can be taken against the Sharks.”
This is all true of course, but it does make you wonder whether in the tighter Super 14 this season, some coaches are trying it on. In which case, maybe a penalty isn’t enough of a deterrent.
The other considerations in this are that any tries scored by the team of 16 stays, any ground gained is kept, and penalties awarded remain.
So, apart from the penalty, why wouldn’t you try this one on and hope the officials miss it?
I’m sure the officials will tighten the player counting up and that it was just mistakes in the first place.
But it makes you wonder.
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby Union articles
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (201)
- Will South African rugby force a Super 21 by 2018? (173)
- The real story of how John O’Neill turned Manchester City down (70)
- Dan Parks and the unsolved questions of expat rugby (65)
- Australian teams at Super disadvantage (58)
- Pocock set to be named new Force skipper (56)
- Can the ‘Tahs win the battle after losing the Waugh? (51)
- France turns to Parra and Trinh-Duc
- Rebels look to lift for formidable Blues in rugby trial
- Mr Fix-It Lucas wants to nail down No.10
- Force roost loses ‘Mother Hen’ Sharpe
- Victory beat Mariners with Kewell winner
- Waratahs romp to 83-5 trial win over Samoa A
- Quade Cooper’s return to the Reds goes up a gear
- Wales show Southern Hemisphere how to play running rugby (29)
- What opening matches of Six Nations taught us (19)
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (202)
- Clinical Chiefs cost rusty Rebels in Corio (9)
- Six Nations shows rugby is a parochial game at heart (5)
- Goose’s Super Rugby up-and-comer XV for 2012 (29)
- What does the future hold for the Six Nations (50)
- Explore:
sheek said | April 4th 2008 @ 7:52am | Report comment
Bob,
This is almost exactly the scenario I painted to a mate of mine, if SANZAR failed to act on the latest breech. In other words, by doing nothing, SANZAR is sanctioning 16 players on the field.
I even thought if I was a S14 coach I would do it deliberately (put 16 players on) to embarrass SANZAR & smoke them out into actually doing something. Of course, it all depends on whether the linesman was aware of what was happening, or whether the Sharks made the change without approval from the linesman.
This is what happens when people in authority do nothing. Eventually down the track the incident will be repeated which will have dire consequences for one or both of the teams involved, & the need for resolution will be painful indeed.
Spiro Zavos said | April 4th 2008 @ 9:15am | Report comment
England played 16 men in one of their matches in the 2003 RWC in Australia. The coaching staff insisted he go on the field before another player had left. Nothing happened to England, not even a penalty. I think it’s a bit early to imply that this might be a deliberate tactic on the part of South African sides, although the fact that teams hard on defence when the 16 players are on the field is suspicious. This something the refeees on the sidelines should be able to handle pretty easily, you’d think.
Bob Thomas said | April 4th 2008 @ 9:45am | Report comment
You would have thought so Spiro but it is being missed by the officials. Maybe the fact that last week there were 2 teams with 16 players on the pitch might tighten it up but the assistant refs have a fair bit to keep their eyes on touch, offside, foul play, kicks etc.
Still I think it will be watched more carefully. If it happens again I may be able to claim it is a tactic.
Sam Taulelei said | April 4th 2008 @ 11:06am | Report comment
Phil Mooney has discovered another instance of a South African team playing a 16th player against the Force in round 2 this year.
http://stuff.co.nz/4463407a10295.html
Whether it’s a deliberate tactic or just negligence on the fourth official the silence and inaction from SANZAR so far isn’t going to make the situation any better. This is one area where rugby should definitely take a leaf out of the NRL book in dealing quickly and firmly with these controversies. Understandably our friends in the Republic are angered by the insinuations but curiously there is little criticism of the teams in question.
I wonder what their reaction would be from South Africa if the same thing happened against any of their sides at a critical juncture of a closely fought match?
Bob Thomas said | April 4th 2008 @ 1:13pm | Report comment
Sam we all know what screams of foul play would have come from the Republic. Whether it is a SA player facing the judiciary or a touring team in trouble in a Cape Town night club, they seem to be masters of double standards.
I still think we have to wait and see how Sanzar deals with it. It could be very interesting.
sheek said | April 4th 2008 @ 1:32pm | Report comment
My understanding is that South Africa, Australia & New Zealand take turns to run SANZAR. This year, SANZAR is being run by……….South Africa!
Apparently the tournament director is awaiting reports from the match officials. Also apparently, the SANZAR rulebook never considered this situation arising, as there is nothing governing penalties for having 16 players on the field. So they tell us.
They’re taking their time……….
stillmissit said | April 4th 2008 @ 1:47pm | Report comment
Sheek
Rule 3.2 in the 2007 rule book states:
Objection: at anytime before or during a match a team may make an objection to the ref about the number of players in their opponents team. As soon as the ref know that a team has too many players, the ref must order the captain to reduce the number of players. The score remains unaltered.
Penalty: Penalty at the place where the game would restart.
I guess the SANZAR book is different.
Seems like a little slap on the wrist if it saves and therefore wins a game for you.
stillmissit said | April 4th 2008 @ 1:48pm | Report comment
Sheek also note there is nothing in the rules about objections after the game is over.
westy said | April 4th 2008 @ 4:42pm | Report comment
This is an intentional tactic or gross ineptitude in a professional game . In League premiership game teams have lost their points. It may be the only solution to a deliberate tactic.
sheek said | April 4th 2008 @ 6:20pm | Report comment
Stillmissit,
According to the rule you mentioned, an objection can be raised, but won’t affect the outcome of the match, since it will almost certainly be after the event/foul.
In other words, there’s basically nothing stopping teams repeating the process. By the time the opposition objects, the damage may have been done, just like a professional foul.
I tell you, being the cynical, mistrustful type I am of authority, if I were a S14 coach, I would exploit this loophole in my next game, & perhaps the game after that, & force the caviar munchers, gin swillers & fellow back slappers into making the hard decisions!
They certainly couldn’t deduct points off my team retrospectively.