SANZAR referees to promote attacking rugby
By Spiro Zavos, 11 Feb 2010 Spiro Zavos is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- International Rugby, Lyndon Bray, Rugby Union, SANZAR, Super Rugby
Related coverage
- Rugby Union news
- Super Rugby news
- International Rugby Union - Six Nations, Heineken Cup, Rugby Championship news
Lyndon Bray, a good and unobtrusive New Zealand referee in his day, has made a great start to his job as SANZAR’s referees manager. And as rugby union is a game where complex laws try to impose a pattern on what really is organised anarchy, Bray’s interventions have created an environment where the Super 14 tournament should start with a bang of enterprising rugby.
The most important change to the laws this season, or more accurately to the way the laws will be interpreted by the SANZAR referees, is in the tackled ball area.
Last season, the interpretation was tweaked to allow tacklers to hold on to the ball in a tackle, even when they had their knees on the ground.
This ruling meant that the tackled player had little chance of releasing the ball, unless the tackler was knocked away. Sides became reluctant to run the ball anywhere within kicking distance, which when the South African kickers were playing meant even inside the opposition half.
The result was the aerial ping-pong which drove everyone mad.
Moreover, referees tended to further help the kicking sides by refusing to punish loitering inside the 10m circle where the ball was landing. Also, there was some unjustified indulgence given to chasers bashing into players trying to catch the ball.
Bray has got all the coaches and the SANZAR countries to agree to return to the proper interpretation of the tackled ball law, which is that the tackler must release after the tackle and if he is on the player or on the ground roll away.
He also has instructed the referees to be tougher on policing players advancing from off-sides positions during kicking phases.
Most people think that these changes will help sides that play skillful, enterprising, ball-in-hand rugby. The emphasis in the tackled ball situation, for instance, will come from the second player to ruck, rather than the first player.
Sides may now play two ‘fetchers’ or number 7s.
And the NSW Waratahs are experimenting, it seems, with playing Phil Waugh from time to time at number 8, so he gets to tackles second and can make his dig for the ball legitimately.
The protection of the catcher should enable teams, too, to run the ball back from kicks rather than kicking back themselves.
To ensure that the new intepretations work well, Bray has done something that I’ve been advocating for years – namely, he is starting the tournament with the best referees in the SANZAR countries.
In the past, the weakest referees have been given the early games in an attempt to somehow bring them up to scratch. The result has been poor refereeing that has stymied the play of enterprising sides early on in the tournament.
Thank goodness, Bray has reversed this stupid policy.
All the top referees are at work in the first round: Stuart Dickinson (Blues-Hurricanes); Steve Walsh (Western Force-Brumbies); Jonathan Kaplan (Cheetahs – Bulls); Chris Pollock (Crusaders-Highlanders); Craig Joubert (Reds-Waratahs); Jaco Peyser (Lions-Stormers); Keith Brown (Sharks-Chiefs).
The interesting appointment here is that of the Australian Keith Brown to referee the international match of the round.
Last season, the South African Andre Watson as SANZAR’s referee manager, introduced the scheme of local referees officiating for local teams, even when the opposition was from another country. So we had the nonsense of Jonathan Kaplan, a South African, refereeing the Bulls – Chiefs final at Pretoria.
Unfortunately this scheme has not been thrown away, as it should be.
For those Roarers in the tipping competition, you might like to know that in the second round, the local referee-local team nonsense starts again.
The South African Marius Jonker is refereeing the Lions-Chiefs; New Zealander Vinnie Munro, Hurricanes-Western Force; South African Mark Lawrence, Bulls-Brumbies; Australian Keith Brown, Stormers-Waratahs.
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.
- Explore:
- International Rugby, Lyndon Bray, Rugby Union, SANZAR, Super Rugby


Lee said | February 11th 2010 @ 5:03am | Report comment
The biggest problem with local referees is the perception after the game that they were a key factor in the local side winning.
I don’t believe that any ref would intentionally favour the home side when it happens but it is a handy excuse when your team loses.
Hawko said | February 11th 2010 @ 11:17am | Report comment
How do you think the Tah’s will feel when Kaplan gets appointed to ref them against a Saffa side. In all the matches he’s reffed them in Super 12/14 they have won only once. Its up to 14 or 15 losses now and this is against a team with a win/loss ratio of better than 50%.
That’s not just “a handy excuse when your team loses”. Its like the elephant in the kitchen – no one wants to do anything about it!
Referees are a key factor in the result, which is not how its meant to be but its real. How the referees directors and selectors deal with that has been the issue up till now, I hope Lyndon Bray makes a better fist of it than his predecessors.
Lee said | February 11th 2010 @ 1:34pm | Report comment
Look up the record for Dickinson reffing against a saffa team including the boks
Dan Dresden said | February 11th 2010 @ 6:24am | Report comment
Let’s just wait and see how the season goes. I’m hopeful of improvement, but it may not happen.
Getting rid of coaches might be the best solution.
Lee said | February 11th 2010 @ 7:24am | Report comment
I wonder how this change in interpretation will actually effect the game? i.e. some of the ELVs didn’t do what people thought they would entail e.g the lineout ELV cause dteams to cut numbers in their lineout and create more defenders.
My worry with the new interpretations, are that it will be almost impossible for teams to create a turnover at ruck, and they might therefore, just stop committing players to rucks, and use these unused players to sure up the defense, making it more difficult for teams to get through defenses.
I guess it depends on how the refs go with it, and players adapting etc but I hope it doesn’t completely deter the likes of McCaw, Brussouw and Smith from having a go at a turnover.
mitzter said | February 11th 2010 @ 12:31pm | Report comment
The defending side has never had to match the throwing side in a lineout – just not exceed their numbers
Lee said | February 11th 2010 @ 1:36pm | Report comment
I’m sure that’s not correct at all, you have to match numbers in the lineout.
Lee said | February 11th 2010 @ 1:41pm | Report comment
Apologies just checked the law and you are correct
Yikes said | February 11th 2010 @ 7:27am | Report comment
Well, this article is packed full of facts, and half-truths, and errors.
For a start, Keith Brown is not Australian, he is a New Zealander. He is quite inexperienced at S14 level, as is Jaco Peyper (not Peyser). So it’s not like they’re not sharing the games around the experience levels as claimed.
Last season there was no “interpretation” that allowed “tacklers to hold on to the ball in a tackle, even when they had their knees on the ground.” That’s just wrong. What there was, however, was a focus on the tackled player releasing the ball. Which led to a high percentage of penalties against the attacking team. This is why teams didn’t want the ball and kicked it away.
Spiro is right to say that the new focus on the defending team should result in attacking teams chancing their arm more without fearing a turnover.
Brett McKay said | February 11th 2010 @ 7:48am | Report comment
Yikes, you wouldn’t happen to be involved in refereeing, would you??
mitzter said | February 11th 2010 @ 12:35pm | Report comment
No, tacklers weren’t allowed on their knees but they were given latitude to come in any direction before the ruck had started.
My understanding is (if I’m not mistaken) that tacklers will not be able to do this ( must come through the gate)
Drew B said | February 12th 2010 @ 7:01am | Report comment
Tacklers still are able to come in from any direction – 15.4(c).
Sam Taulelei said | February 11th 2010 @ 7:31am | Report comment
Lyndon Bray has also introduced this season public accountability for referees for the first time where they wil be available for media questioning after a match the same way players and coaches are.
Excerpt from NZ Herald article yesterday.
New Zealand Rugby Union high performance referee manager Lyndon Bray said there was a desire to take some of the mystery out of rugby’s laws, while the referees themselves have agreed they would like to be publicly measured.
“They (referees) have probably always been slightly threatened in the past by the concept of facing up on TV after games,” Bray told Radio Sport.
“We’ve all acknowledged this is probably an important step. It brings us into line with the coaches and the players, who also have to do this.”
This is the most significant change to refereeing since they became miked up for TV. With the local game, local referee policy it will ensure greater scrutiny on their performances in relation to contentious decision that favoured the home team.
Brett McKay said | February 11th 2010 @ 11:08am | Report comment
Sam, it will be interesting to see just how long this plan lasts. It’s a great initiative, and I hope it’s received with the intent it’s offered with, but at the same time, I wouldn’t be surprised if it doesn’t make Easter…
Sam Taulelei said | February 11th 2010 @ 12:57pm | Report comment
Brett, here is a link to a rebuttal to this policy change from Dylan Cleaver also from the NZ Herald which has the same doubts as yourself.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=10625440
Brett McKay said | February 11th 2010 @ 1:51pm | Report comment
yep, pretty much exactly what I was thinking Sam. I even had the same thought – albeit I had it as Greg Growden, rather than radio – starting an article with “Johnathan Kaplan has defended his obvious howler of sin-binning Waratahs captain Phil Waugh…”
Drew B said | February 12th 2010 @ 7:08am | Report comment
These ref’s have years of experience explaining decisions to coaches and players during and after games, and whilst I expect a few cheap shots from the journo’s, I also see a few journo’s get put in their place, and exposed on the lack of technical law knowledge that many of them have. Biggest problem the ref’s will have is they will be asked about incidents that the public saw 10 replays of, from 10 angles, which the ref saw once at full speed.
MattyP said | February 12th 2010 @ 3:06am | Report comment
Seems dumb to me. Is there any precedent for this in any other major professional sports?
It seems to me that well-miked refs, along with encouraging to explain their decisions in more detail contemporaneously and having the commentators shut upwhile they are speaking, should be sufficient insight. I don’t see much good coming out of trail by media, although the likes of Spiro and his cohorts may enjoy the opportunity.
Temba said | February 11th 2010 @ 8:00am | Report comment
Jonathan Kaplan was last years best ref and if you blaming him for the Chiefs loss then you need to have your head checked.
Who should of done job? Dickinson? He is to bloody useless to ref a final.
Sorry unless there is solid proof, besides Saffa bashing that the system is flawed or favouritism is shown then I want the best to ref the best matches.
Lee said | February 11th 2010 @ 8:19am | Report comment
Best ref for the best matches…couldn’t agree more
Hammer said | February 11th 2010 @ 8:20am | Report comment
the worst home town reffing last season came from an Australian – Dickinson whistled the Warratahs to the top of the table in the early rounds
Ora said | February 11th 2010 @ 9:05am | Report comment
Ora said | February 11th 2010 @ 9:07am | Report comment
The worst performance all season in my opinion came from Goddard and the below from keo.co.za sums it up quite nicely.
” the analysis of this match would be incomplete without mention being made of its biggest negative contributor, referee Matt Goddard. The Australian killed the flow of the contest with his nauseatingly pedantic officiating, particularly at the breakdown.
He awarded 35 short or full arm penalties in the first quarter alone and binned Pedrie Wannenburg, Ma’a Nonu, Scott Waldrom and Jason Eaton harshly.
Bulls openside flank Deon Stegmann deserved his red card (a second yellow) for an horrific spear tackle on Conrad Smith, but that was one of the few calls Goddard got correct. From the outset of the match he seemed intent on stealing the show, and achieved his goal, which is a pity because this match promised so much more than it delivered”
formeropenside said | February 11th 2010 @ 11:45am | Report comment
Was that the game where everyone kept killing the ball at the ruck and he kept binning people? I thought it was a great performance, in the sense the referee was committed to quick ruck ball to allow dynamic attack. Since the death of proper rucking there has been too much flopping over the ball: its about time that kind of abuse of the laws was stopped.
Ora said | February 11th 2010 @ 12:10pm | Report comment
He did such a great game he was suspended for a week, he should of got longer in my opinion.
Mike wc said | February 11th 2010 @ 8:24am | Report comment
Kaplans best years were around 5 yrs ago – hes’ been going down hill since. (That’s not Saffa bashing -it’s true). I’ll add Lawrence has improved out of sight over last years and now deserves to be there.
Dickenson is very average at best & always has been (seems to think he’s the most important guy on the field) , good to see Walsh back … prob not available for a beer afterwards however!
Temba said | February 11th 2010 @ 8:36am | Report comment
Mike It would be interesting to know how the grade the refs to find the best of the season, it must work on some sort of points system. If so then Kaplan did not make it to the top on “good job done” 5 years ago. Maybe he is average in a bad bunch?
Mike wc said | February 11th 2010 @ 9:11am | Report comment
As to grading refs – got me beat – sometimes I think I must be looking at a different game! You see guys have shockers then they get promoted it seems.. eg Mr Jonker last year.
Brett McKay said | February 11th 2010 @ 8:41am | Report comment
Indeed Mike, it’s great to see Steve Walsh back. Too good a ref to be lost to the game, and did a great job in Sydney club rugby last year too. But yeah, strictly orange juice at the post-match….
Mr Sports said | February 11th 2010 @ 8:49am | Report comment
I think its interesting that Spiro has looked at the rule interpretation changes and concluded that teams may two fetchers now instead of one. Most of the stuff i’ve been reading has suggested the opposite – that with the rules now favouring the attacking team the defence might just forget about trying to get turnovers altogether and carry two running flankers
Sam Taulelei said | February 11th 2010 @ 9:03am | Report comment
It’s good that the game allows teams to play differing strategies to either take advantage of the laws and negate the oppositions strengths.
Sam Taulelei said | February 11th 2010 @ 9:20am | Report comment
I suppose if we were to be completely honest it’s really up to the players and coaches to promote and play attacking rugby.
The referees are only there as spectators like the rest of us and intervene when required to make a decision within the framework of the laws and interpretations.
If two teams set out to play negatively how then is a referee supposed to act. Rule to the letter of the law and they’ll be villifed by one or both teams, give them too much latitude and they risk losing control of the game, sinbin or send players off for repeated infringing and warnings and they’ll be accused of ruining the game and contest.
We all love to blame the ref whenever it’s our team that loses or a crucial decision goes against us but do we really believe that referees deliberately set out to referee negatively?
Who is really at fault here?