By Inky
April 8th 2008 @ 5:28am
Get a Roar profile
Roar tip: the most cheered 'Roar of the crowd' article each day goes to the top middle column of the homepage. So cheer articles you like and keep the best floating to the top.
---------------
Super 14: Problems with authority
At a point somewhere in the long distant past, I started forgiving referees no matter how bad their performances were. Even though I am constantly forced to re-evaluate this policy, I still know why I instigated it.
It was a reaction to baggings the referees were already receiving live on air from certain former All Blacks in the commentary booth, baggings which I saw as a terrible influence on the young players watching.
Why should we expect youngsters to respect authority if former All Blacks don’t?
The rulebook states clearly that the referee is the sole judge of fact. Right or wrong, therefore, he is right. Shut up and get back ten. This is the attitude we need to cultivate in our young players. The day we start mobbing the officials like soccer players, and chasing them up and down the sidelines whenever they rule against us, is the day I stop watching.
How good we can expect our referees to be, however, is a separate issue. While I still believe the correct response from players on the field is to live with the decisions without complaining, off-field debate is unavoidable.
On Saturday night we saw a horrendous refereeing performance cost the Hurricanes two competition points, and a referee (Paul Marks of Australia) who seemed to be laughing at his own joke as he sabotaged the outcome with impunity.
The search for interesting narratives in an environment sometimes bereft of them drives the media to examine such incidents very closely. Then comes the inevitable institutional backlash. You know how it goes.
It seems that those in charge of refereeing appointments get their knickers in a righteously-indignant twist whenever their underlings mess up, but they can expect more of the same until they start appointing men who can stand the pressure of volatile situations.
The officiating structure will have to change if they don’t. The replay facilities already in use will need to become compulsory for all scoring plays if power-happy officials cannot stop rushes of adrenaline clouding their judgement at crucial moments.
Some have suggested two referees, or even in-goal touch judges, while others have touted a challenge system similar to the one used in tennis and gridiron, but all these suggestions bring a whole new set of unquantifiables to the table. Stricter guidelines for use of the TMO will be the only way around the problem unless referees either become unerringly diligent or collectively somehow do the impossible and become emotionless.
The game was certainly dramatic, and for theatrical value was worth the admission price if not an R rating. Two ugly incidents provided plenty of feeling as the game smashed its way to a 13-13 stalemate. First Neemia Tialata of the Hurricanes was yellow-carded for a clumsy piece of obstruction and then Sharks replacement Epi Taione disgraced himself with a blatant head-butt and was sent off.
The mood was testy, but the fierce contest at every tackle was riveting.
Some rugby matches get tedious when played by two unimaginative sides. I saw some Heineken Cup quarterfinals over the weekend, and I swear one of the commentators had to wander down to the sideline to wake up one of the cameramen.
Not so in Super 14, typically, and this game in particular. You could have cut the air with a knife.
The referee was beginning to feel the pressure as he awarded a penalty try against the Hurricanes for collapsing a maul that hadn’t actually collapsed, and later when he failed to see the Sharks defensive line offside as a professional foul he appeared to be losing his grip on the match. But his decision in the final seconds of the match, when he failed to consult the television match official as the Hurricanes appeared to score the winning try, was beyond the merely bizarre.
Centre Conrad Smith had clearly been tackled early running in support of the ball-carrier, and with the tryline only spitting distance away a strong argument could have been made for a penalty try. It should at least have been a penalty. To make matters worse, the ball bounced off a Sharks player into the in-goal, where Thomas Waldrom dived on it for what may very well have been a try.
Instead of judging the complicated situation worthy of another look, Marks simply blew for full-time.
The crowd went septic, at which point I relaxed and couldn’t help but smile at the pictures of murderous looking fans in yellow jerseys. And with what I’m about to write, we’ll see if any of them have any sense of humour left after the constant desensitisation they suffer living and working in Helengrad.
Hurricanes supporters over the years have put themselves in the perpetually aggrieved category with constant one-eyed gripes about decisions that mysteriously go against them. They fail to see their beloved team as regular lawbreakers, a tag that much impartial evidence supports.
Two of the former All Blacks I referred to earlier, the two who bag referees most often, in fact… you guessed it, Wellingtonians.
Admittedly, this was different. Marks’ howler had clearly robbed them of what would have been an almost heroic victory, and the last-minute nature of his decision meant a (deservedly for once) hot-blooded reception from the Wellington crowd.
Often the bad decisions of referees will even out over eighty minutes, but all three of the decisions mentioned above went against the Hurricanes.
It will be a shame if those in charge of refereeing appointments have nothing to respond with by way of solving the current situation, and can only avoid unnecessary pressure by scheduling Marks for games elsewhere. So be it. This will go into the long Hurricanes lexicon of grievances anyway, and consolidate the Wellington rugby supporters’ collective position as this country’s most vehemently anti-establishment… which is ironic, considering Wellington is where the NZRU has its offices… and where Nanny State also has Her throne, from which these days She hands down Her politically correct edicts telling us all how to think.
Still, it was unfortunate that a weekend which had started so well got derailed. The Highlanders had ground out their first win of the season, a 29-20 result against the Lions of South Africa at Carisbrook. It was untidy, but Southlander Jimmy Cowan had celebrated his fiftieth game with a great performance, putting himself right back into contention this year for the All Blacks halfback jersey.
Then the Chiefs further lightened the mood with a 42-28 victory over the Brumbies in Canberra. The Chiefs inside backs showed more cohesion than they have for a couple of seasons, playing with close understanding and very few errors. First five Stephen Donald in particular had a good night, his steady hand giving Callum Bruce and Richard Kahui in the centres a good foil to run off. Being hit on the chest frequently with passes to run onto, outside backs like Mils Muliaina, Sitiveni Sivivatu, Lelia Masaga and Viliame Waqaseduadua made hay.
Once the Hurricanes result had left a sour taste in the mouth, though, things only got worse for New Zealand fans. The Blues were in Sydney straight afterwards, and the Waratahs were breathing fire. Their coach’s contract had been ungraciously and indiscreetly shortened only days before, and they were looking to make a point on the field.
Ewen McKenzie is already the Waratahs’ most successful coach in the professional era. He could, in fact, still be even if they lost all their remaining games in 2008. His trial by media was a very thinly disguised hatchet job, although the motives are still unclear. Maybe some of the NSWRU beards can’t forgive the fact that McKenzie once propped for the Brumbies, I don’t know, but the blades were unsheathed weeks ago and stayed out until the deal was done. Of the collected Australian press, only the great Spiro Zavos found space in his column to note McKenzie’s winning record… and he’s a New Zealander.
With the odd loss, and their team’s wins becoming increasingly shaky lately, Blues fans might have seen this awful 16-37 loss coming. Pride is something the Waratahs aren’t short of, and pride is a powerful motivation once dented. The Waratahs didn’t need every bounce of the ball to go their way, and they didn’t even need the high number of Blues errors. They played positively, were far more aggressive at the collision area, and looked to lay a platform before releasing their outsides. Their set pieces were precise, almost rhythmical, and their kicking was accurate.
It was pretty simple rugby, far too simple really for the Blues to fall apart in the face of as easily as they did. That’s what happens, however, when one side’s confidence is fractured and the other side finds its character through adversity.
With the Crusaders having their bye, two wins and a draw out of four matches is probably a good result for New Zealand teams. The Force were a bit lucky to beat the Bulls 15-14 in Perth, and the Cheetahs beat the Reds 29-14 in Bloemfontein.
No-one put in a performance to suggest they can foot it with the Crusaders come play-off time, that’s for sure.
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(19)
Loading ...
Eljay said | April 8th 2008 @ 9:39am | Report comment
I see today that referee Marks has admitted his appalling blunder last weekend — but that doesn’t help anyone, least of all the Hurricanes. While vital decisions in the last seconds of the game are not commonplace perhaps it might help in future if, as a protocol, the referee paused play to quickly check with the linesmen and the video official whether he had the all clear to end the game. Had that been done last weekend there would have been an entirely different outcome to the match.
Kenneth Mortimer said | April 8th 2008 @ 1:33pm | Report comment
Why should not SANZAR adopt a similar approach as evedenced at the NRL and AFL where after match tribunals not only make judgements on player behaviour but also decisions that referees make on the crass case of Paul Marks, do not make?
Yikes said | April 8th 2008 @ 2:02pm | Report comment
“But his decision in the final seconds of the match, when he failed to consult the television match official as the Hurricanes appeared to score the winning try, was beyond the merely bizarre.”
Beyond the merely bizarre? Marks did not go to the TMO because the supposed knock on happened in the field of play, not the in-goal. He COULD NOT have asked the TMO to rule on it. Nor the early tackle. Now we can debate the TMO protocol, and you have mentioned changing its reach in your article (plus, I like Eljay’s idea above). But for now, had Marks “broken” the rules, he would have been equally pilloried.
No one is saying that Marks did not made a mistake, as he himself has now admitted. He thought the Hurricane player knocked the ball on. He was wrong. But to suggest that he is somehow both crazy and unaccountable is hysteria.
As for your comment: “they can expect more of the same until they start appointing men who can stand the pressure of volatile situations”. Where are you going to find such people? The current people are the best, otherwise they would not be there. There is no one else. If everyone had their way, Kaplan, Walsh, Honiss, Leckie, Dickinson, Marks, Lawrence, Fortuin, Jonker, Bray, Goddard, none of these guys would ever referee again. Consider how many mistakes top players make in a game and imagine what would happen if we sacked them each week for dropping the ball or taking a wrong option. There would be noone left to play.
Mark Lawrence writes on SAreferees.co.za:
“That is why we have a referee. Much like a judge in a court of law who must decide who is right and who is wrong, so too a referee must decide or arbitrate for lack of a better word! The only difference is that the referee cannot deliberate like a judge in his chambers. He makes a decision on the spur of the moment. That way the game can continue without undue delay.
Now just because we disagree with the referee, we feel the referee must be punished or suspended. So every time we feel the referee is wrong, he must be banned. Pray tell, at the end of the Super 14, who is going to do the final? How about you, because every one else will be suspended? The answer I believe lies in understanding that there are one and a half hours for a team to dominate. One or two so called mistakes by a referee cannot compare with the forty+ mistakes of a team.
But don’t panic. Referees are measured and are held accountable .. in South Africa we have a couple already serving out suspensions. So get training my friend. We may need you in the future to do a couple of matches! Are you game?”
Matt said | April 8th 2008 @ 3:04pm | Report comment
One does feel that the intense pace of professional rugby means that one referee is simply not enough anymore.
It’s no secret that players push the letter of the law at most junctures. A ref is supposed to watch:
Offside lines for both the attacking and defesive sides
Forward passes
Late tackles, high tackles and obstruction.
This is a massive effort on it’s own, especially when a single decision can so drastically affect the outcome of a match (ala The Canes on the weekend, or the much talked about forward pass in the WC quarter) and draw intense criticism.
All without even taking into account the shambles at the breakdown!
One man is surely not enough to cover the entire field from all angles, effectively the same area that 30 players cover?
With all the money spent on devloping the game and the laws etc why have they not looked at a second referee for Pro rugby?
Jerry said | April 8th 2008 @ 3:14pm | Report comment
Yikes - here’s the play in question, and here’s the laws (Law 6.A.7) regarding consulting the TMO.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-6xWZ2_VnE
a) The referee may consult with touch judges in regard to matters relating to their duties, the law relating to foul play, or timekeeping.
b) A match organiser may appoint an official who uses technological devices. If the referee is unsure when making a decision in in-goal involving a try being scored or a touch down, that official may be consulted.
c) The official may be consulted if the referee is unsure when making a decision in in-goal with regard to the scoring of a try or a touch down when foul play in in-goal may have been involved.
d) The official may be consulted in relation to the success or otherwise of kicks at goal.
e) The official may be consulted if the referee or touch judge is unsure if a player was or was not in touch when attempting to ground the ball to score a try.
f) The official may be consulted if the referee or touch judges are unsure when making decision relating to touch-in-goal and the ball being made dead if a score may have occurred.
g) A match organiser may appoint a timekeeper who will signify the end of each half.
h) The referee must not consult with any other persons.
Yikes, you may be right - if Marks thought the knock on happened in the field of play (Terblanche was in the field of play when he knocked it back) then the TMO couldn’t be consulted. I do wonder from that clip how Marks felt he could be sure though - he was well behind the play (you can see him in the initial wide shot and he’s at least 20-25 metres behind the play) and it should be noted he could have asked his touch judge about the knock on. The late tackle was in the in-goal.
Thinking about it, there seem to be loads of occassions when the TMO rules on plays that happen within the field of play - how many times has a try been over-ruled cause the player claiming it actually knocked on before he went over the line? It happens all the time! If you follow that rule to the letter, the TMO could only call a knock on where the player was already over the line.
Spiro Zavos said | April 8th 2008 @ 4:09pm | Report comment
Roibbie Deans has called for SANZAR to allow the referees to have a press conference after their games to explain to the media why various decisions were made. Deans says this would be an education for the referees, the media and the public. The Roar has argued for this move for over a year when a referee wrote to us to explain his decisions in a particular Super 14 match and then was hauled over the coals by the SANZAR authorities.
Referees in South Africa and NZ do this for their provincial matches. They have columns in the newspapers.
Again when we requested SANZAR to allow a willing referee to write for The Roar, this was refused.
SANZAR should act on the Deans suggestion as soon as possible. The referees want it. The public want it. And some television commentators who do not seem to know anything about the laws really need it.
Finally, Paul Marks should be disciplined in some way. If a player made a mistake as blatant as this one - not consulting the touch judge about the alleged knock-on (and presumably being told there was no knock-on) and then refusing to go upstairs for a video replay - he would surely be dropped for a couple of games.
Jerry said | April 8th 2008 @ 4:20pm | Report comment
Spiro - I just wonder if in respect of press conferences, the refs would be on a hiding to nothing.
The best ref is the one you don’t notice, as they say. In the majority of games, there would be few overly contentious decisions and people simply won’t be interested in hearing from the ref when they’ve not done anything wrong. But in cases like this, the ref in the Bulls/Blues fixture, Paul Honiss in the SA/Ireland test a few years back or the Wayne Barnes 1/4 final, the ref is likely to get it from all angles all of a sudden.
Jackson, Bok in the UK said | April 8th 2008 @ 6:57pm | Report comment
Inky,
I refer to this statement you made in the above article;
“I saw some Heineken Cup quarterfinals over the weekend, and I swear one of the commentators had to wander down to the sideline to wake up one of the cameramen.”
What absolute rubbish. I watched three of them and like a hell of a lot of other people I found them equally as enjoyable as anything in the Super 14. Both Toulouse and Munster played great rugby and the performance of the Saracens team was little short of inspiring considering how vastly outmatched they were on paper against a very good Ospreys lineup.
Your constant degrading of NH rugby can only mean either two things: 1) you have finally become a boorish, anti-Stephen Jones who refuses to acknowledge quality rugby outside his own hemisphere or 2) you have a very poor abililty to appreciate rugby and are just making do with your good use of the english language. Which is it?
I’d like to think you are just pandering to your heartbroken kiwi readers who need to read about how great and wonderful NZ rugby is after yet another rubbish performance in the world cup. Crying about the refs seems to have become something of a kiwi trait nowadays. God defend New Zealand because the ref is picking on us again.
bob said | April 8th 2008 @ 10:22pm | Report comment
“Some rugby matches get tedious when played by two unimaginative sides. I saw some Heineken Cup quarterfinals over the weekend, and I swear one of the commentators had to wander down to the sideline to wake up one of the cameramen.” I don’t know what games you were watching mate, but there must be two HK comps, because the games I saw were electric… Byron Kelleher at the end of the toulose game, said that anyone who thinks NH rugby is boring needs to guess again!
But to the ref… I think the obsession with refs needs to stop… he made a call that the knock on was by the attackers, and was wrong, but it happens. He had a tough game to ref, and did a pretty okay job. The truth is that I have played in and watched games where I was sure the ref was crap and was for the opposition, and after, speaking with someone on the other side, found they thought the same… both sides sure the ref was against them!
The guy missed a knock on… so what? It happens. It’s a shame, but it’s not something to to beat him up over, unless his performances are regularly shoddy. Are they?
It’s a bit like the frenzy over wayne barnes… he did his best on the day… and without the ref we have no game, and without repsect for the ref, we have a shambles. Unless he is often poor, or is accused of willfully cheating, the ref should be left alone. That’s my final word on it… yours faifhfully, Mrs Barnes.
Andrew B said | April 8th 2008 @ 11:09pm | Report comment
Yikes,
Brilliant post. I’ve been arguing down the same line with a few people, but they just don’t seem to get it.
Inky, regarding the penalty try. The maul had 2 Hurricanes player drop in front of it, and one Hurricanes player on top of it at the back (player was just on his tippy toes). Add this to the fact the Sharks had set up and marched a number of very well constructed mauls already in the game, it was entirely probable that this one was going over (IMO).
Jerry said | April 9th 2008 @ 8:35am | Report comment
Andrew B - that’s a bit patronising isn’t it? Especially when two of those who are saying it should have been referred are Peter Marshall (head of refereeing in Australia) and Colin Hawke (top ref administrator in NZ).
Firstly - The TMO rules on knock ons in the field of play in just about every game. it’s arguable that as the knock on landed in goal (and technically it’s not a knock on until it lands - if a player knocks forward but regathers before it hits the ground or another player it’s no knock on), it falls within the ambit of the law.
Secondly - Marks failed to consult the touch judge, who was closer and had a better angle on the play.
And as regards the penalty try given - the atttempted collapse was unsuccessful and from the replay it appears the Sharks stuffed up the final part of it themselves and failed to ground the ball properly. The ref makes a decision in the heat of the moment, but given the Sharks had ample opportunity to score AFTER the infringement and stuffed it up you can’t really blame people for saying the try wasn’t probably gonna be scored.
Jerry said | April 9th 2008 @ 8:40am | Report comment
Andrew - what I’m saying is that the actual use of the TMO invalidates that logical reason. I repeat - the TMO rules on knock ons in the field of play constantly.
But even if that is accepted, it’s still clear that Marks erred in not asking the touch judge who may have indicated that Smith had not touched the ball. I wonder how confident he can have been considering how far behind the play he was.
And here’s the thing - even if Smith had touched the ball, there’s an argument to say the matter should have gone upstairs. Look at that youtube clip - when Terblanche knocks the ball back it balloons up in the air a bit. If he (Smith) had knocked the ball up in the air and caught it before it hit the ground or a Shark there’d be no knock on but Barrett’s tackle without the ball (which took place as Smith is crossing the tryline, ie within the in-goal) prevented Smith having any chance of regathering.
Essentially, even if Marks thought Smith had touched the ball rather than Terblanche, the TMO should still have been called as Smith would have been prevented from legally trying to score by Barrett’s illegal tackle in the in-goal area.
Andrew B said | April 9th 2008 @ 8:56am | Report comment
G’day Jerry,
You’ve taken me wrong if you think I’m being patronising. No-one argues that Marks made a mistake and should have used the TMO - my point is (that no-one seems to care about) is there was a clear and logical reason why he didn’t. If he was confident he saw a knock on, then he is correct to call what he see’s. Otherwise Rugby games will turn into 4 hour marathons like gridiron.
I believe the place of infringement is where the ball was lost, not where it lands - if you take it to the ‘n’th degree, if it was where the ball landed, teams could gain 20m here and there from wayward passing and fortuitous rebounds.
Yikes said | April 9th 2008 @ 9:42am | Report comment
Jerry,
The TMO only rules on knock-ons in the field of play if they were in the direct act of scoring the try (look at what you posted above). That was not the case here. I agree he should have taken more time and consulted at least his touch judge.
Re the maul - watch it again - nr 18 came in the side of the maul illegally and wrapped up the ball carrier so that he could not ground the ball. There certainly was grounds for the penalty try, even if Mark’s logic was for the collapsing movements of players on his side.
Eljay said | April 9th 2008 @ 9:50am | Report comment
Golly, what have I started? I still think a quick check with the linesmen and the TMO for the all clear to end the game is the simplest way of sorting snafus like the one in Wellington at the weekend. It also allows a little more drama for the spectators.
AndyS said | April 9th 2008 @ 11:49am | Report comment
My guess is that the one person happy with the outcome WAS the TMO - wouldn’t he have been on a hiding to nothing! One thing I am curious about…anyone who thinks Marks should have gone to the TMO, what question do you think he should have asked?
Eljay said | April 9th 2008 @ 11:51am | Report comment
Andy S
He should have asked: ‘Is there any reason why I should not end the game now?’
AndyS said | April 10th 2008 @ 6:56pm | Report comment
Except that there is no provision in law for asking questions of such a general nature. Had he done so he would be being vilified by the Sharks about exceeding the TMO’s authority and we’d all be discussing how he just ignored the laws…
Jerry said | April 10th 2008 @ 7:42pm | Report comment
Andy - I’m fairly sure that EIjay was joking.
He could have asked “Firstly, was there any foul play and secondly which team grounded the ball first and thirdly, was it done cleanly if grounded by the Hurricanes first?”. Like I said above, the fact that he thought Smith had knocked on doesn’t mean he couldn’t have referred the play to the TMO.