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.

He should have asked: ‘Is there any reason why I should not end the game now?’

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

“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.

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.

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.

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?

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?”