16 players on the field: is this the latest tactic?
Roar Guru By Bob Thomas, 4 Apr 2008 The Crowd is a Roar Guru
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.
Recommend this story.
- Explore:
April 4th 2008 @ 7:23pm
Ben from Pretoria said | April 4th 2008 @ 7:23pm | Report comment
I am sorry but 2 instances of 16 players noticed by a coach currently playing SA teams seems to be fishing for issues. And this after say 30 games involving SA teams? I would argue that what Mealamu did when he clearly obstructed Pierre Spies when the Blues scored a try is a much more pressing issue. How about fining a team if they obstruct or constantly whinge. Now THAT would be fun to watch.
April 4th 2008 @ 11:00pm
bob said | April 4th 2008 @ 11:00pm | Report comment
Spiro: “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.”
A very different scenario, Spiros, and the England action wasn’t taken clandestinely, it was open and obvious, and the fault of the officials, not the team. As I recall.
It would seem to be implied by SH press that the SA teams cheated, and if so, that’s an action that needs to be punished… of course, it may have been inevitable with the breakneck speed the games are played at under the ELV’s, the officials aren’t going to see much when they’re sprinting back and forth… a game with more set pieces and lineout etc, might have allowed the oversight to be picked up sooner… also you have to look at what the players were doing, was one down and the breaks in play so few that a team was effectively defending with just 14? That might have prompted a coach to run a man on to make up valid numbers, so was there a man down? Of couse the action is still wrong, but was it the fault of the style of play in S14?
Last season, and in previous seasons, the SA teams won, so what’s changed? Ah… the ELV’s!
April 4th 2008 @ 11:23pm
Jerry said | April 4th 2008 @ 11:23pm | Report comment
Bob what are you gibbering about?
It’s the FOURTH officials job to keep track of replacements and they don’t have to run anywhere. And having a man down is neither here nor there – there’s a procedure. It’s not up to a coach to simply say “You, get on there now”.
It’s got nothing to do with the ELV’s or the style of play, it’s just a cock up. And the SA teams are winning about as much as they always do.
And Ben – yeah, Spies was obstructed, but that sort of “clearing out” directly around the ruck happens constantly. Just as defenders around the ruch constantly crib around the fringes of the ruck. Both are illegal but both almost never get called.
April 4th 2008 @ 11:48pm
peter pumpkineater said | April 4th 2008 @ 11:48pm | Report comment
Jeewizz, you aussie buggers can whinge!
April 5th 2008 @ 2:07am
bob said | April 5th 2008 @ 2:07am | Report comment
Jerry, my point was that with less play stoppages mayeb the coaches couldn’t get the man on, I wasn’t excusing anyone of anything… and the SA teams a rwe not winning like they were… once again the one eyed SH sees what it wants and reads what it wants and then comments. At least you’re not saying the SA teams were cheating!
April 5th 2008 @ 7:25am
Jerry said | April 5th 2008 @ 7:25am | Report comment
Bob – The SA teams are winning slightly less than at this point last year. But then, at this point last year the reconditioning All Blacks hadn’t returned so the NZ sides, particularly the Crusaders, Blues and Hurricanes were playing severely under strength. This year, those teams are full strength from the get go and they’re all in the top 4 going in to this round. Some SA teams are performing – the Sharks are still unbeaten, the Stormers have had a great road trip with a home run to come..I’m just not sure what you’re point was?
SA teams aren’t losing that much more than they generally do, statistically. And, statistically, last year was something of an anomaly.
April 6th 2008 @ 10:52am
bob said | April 6th 2008 @ 10:52am | Report comment
Jerry, I didn’t see the incident, so don’t know exactly what happened, but my point is really a question… do the ELV’s mean there are less oppertunities to get a player replaced due to lack of breaks in play? The physio can still go on, but replacements have to wait until breaks in play so… if a man is down or unable to defend, do the ELV’s present coaches with perhaps having weakend squads for extended periods? I am really asking a question… if this is the case, throwing a 16th man on, and defending until found out, then suffering a penalty, might be a temptation?
April 7th 2008 @ 9:32am
Justin said | April 7th 2008 @ 9:32am | Report comment
Bob, nothing to do with ELVs, its a cock-up by the 4th official. However a penalty seems very light when it can win you a game. I would have thought a heavy fine ($30,000 or more) or loss of points is more appropriate as it would ensure that all parties get it right. Also the official should be dropped for poor performance, its crucial that the game is played on a level footing.
April 7th 2008 @ 5:19pm
Zac said | April 7th 2008 @ 5:19pm | Report comment
UPDATE – SANZAR have issued the following media release. Does this SANZAR statement finalise the issue?
========================
OUTCOME OF INVESTIGATION INTO 16 SHARKS PLAYERS ON FIELD
SANZAR has concluded its full investigation into the incident which saw the Sharks fielding 16 players for a short period of time during in their Super 14 match against the Reds in Durban last Saturday, 29 March.
The investigation was led by SANZAR Tournament Director, Johan Botes, and he was assisted by the SANZAR Regional Tournament Directors from Australia and New Zealand as well as the SANZAR Referee Managers. They studied reports submitted by the Match Referee, Chris Pollock (NZRU) and the Match Sideline Manager, Burton Hufkie (SARU).
The investigation found that the following sequence of events occurred during the stipulated period:
* In the 69th minute of the match, the sideline match officials made a substitution for each team, one of which was a request by the Sharks for their Number 5, Johan Muller, to be replaced by Number 16, Craig Burden. At the time of the substitution Muller received treatment for an injury on the far side of the field, away from the sideline match officials.
* The referee, Chris Pollock, was informed that the substitution had been completed and he therefore allowed the match to continue.
* After being treated for his injury, Muller, rather than leaving the field of play having been replaced by Burden, continued to participate in the match.
* In the 70th minute of the match, referee Pollock was informed that there were 16 Sharks players on the field. With the Reds in possession of the ball at the time, Pollock resolved to allow play to continue until play stopped or the Reds lost possession whichever arose first.
* The next stoppage occurred a few second later in the 70th minute when Sharks Number 16 Burden was penalised for incorrect entry at the tackle. The referee called Time Off and called his Assistant Referee, Bryce Lawrence (NZRU), onto the field to discuss the issue of there being 16 Sharks players on the field.
* Once satisfied that the matter was resolved and that the Sharks Number 5 had left the Field of Play, the referee restarted the game with a Penalty Kick to the Reds at the location of the original infringement – incorrect entry at the tackle by Sharks number 16.
According to the clock on Supersports live coverage of the match, the incident occurred from 69min.29sec. to 70min.20sec. Play therefore lasted 51 seconds from the time the referee was informed of the substitution to the time that the referee restarted the game with a penalty to the Reds (for infringement at the tackle).
Following the completion of the investigation, SANZAR has reached the following conclusions, that:
· The Match Referee, Chris Pollock, acted appropriately in his dealing with the situation.
· The incident arose as a result of a breakdown in communication between the Match Officials sideline management team and the Sharks management.
· The Sharks were found not to have made any detrimental contribution to the incident.
· There was no material impact on the final result of the match. Therefore, the result, score and points awarded remain unchanged.
The South Africa Rugby Union has advised that it has already addressed the issue with the sideline management officials and undertook to take remedial action in order to avoid any such recurrences.
Issued by SANZAR
========================
April 7th 2008 @ 7:14pm
stillmissit said | April 7th 2008 @ 7:14pm | Report comment
Well done Zac
Is anybody surprised at this? The only thing is the time that it happened both in terms of the Reds on attack and the time that they claim the Sharks had 16 on the pitch. I was shocked it was only 51 secs and would have sworn it was about 3 mins.
Regardless I am sure had it been a SA team penalised we would have heard a lot more and maybe more action.
Let the tactic begin and leave it up to the officials to ensure that there are only 15 on the pitch.