Sharks were robbed; Reds keep it interesting
Roar Pro
By kynang, 7 Mar 2010 kynang is a Roar Pro
- Tagged:
- Queensland Reds, Rugby Union, Sharks, Super Rugby
My prediction of a two point Sharks victory was so close to being right… 21-25 down and the Sharks had three opportunities to kick at goal in the dying minutes.
They spurned two and missed one… two successful kicks would have put them 27-25 up. Why?
And then Kanko’s penalty try! Or what should have been a penalty try – even the Australian papers are admitting as much. He had an open run in! But really, what good is it blaming the ref. Terblanche could have passed half a second earlier, or they could have just kicked at goal those few previous times… they were robbed, but ultimately they robbed themselves (and me, and all their other fans) of a great victory. But there were a few glimpses of a potential revival there… very faint glimpses.
The Reds! What a surprise… or maybe last week was the surprise. They were good against the Waratahs, great against the Crusaders, mediocre last week against the Blues, and now fabulous. Perhaps they are serious contenders… if they can only string a few wins together – 7 or 8 wins will get a semi-final place this year – losing every second week probably won’t be quite good enough. But step aside Berrick Barnes and Matt Giteau – Quade Cooper is the new face of genius in Australia – on current form he is the best choice for Aussie # 10.
And the Cheetahs… they’re a dark horse, just like the Reds – diabolical one week, sensational the next. I doubt they can sustain it, but Brussow and Smith really are beasts. They smashed the Hurricanes at the breakdown, just like France are going to do to New Zealand at the next World Cup… it’s totally unrelated, but I’ve said it: France will beat New Zealand at the 2011 World Cup in their Pool A game.
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
- Waratahs romp to 83-5 trial win over Samoa A
- Quade Cooper’s return to the Reds goes up a gear
- Chiefs continue to wait for SBW (7)
- 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:
- Queensland Reds, Rugby Union, Sharks, Super Rugby
Timmypig said | March 7th 2010 @ 5:41am | Report comment
Probably should have been a penalty try; either Beale was penalised for an infringement that denied the Sharks a certain try – OR – he was making a genuine attempt at an interception and merely knocked on. The decision was neither fish nor fowl (but was FOUL I guess from the Sharks’ supporters’ point of view!)
Enjoyed watching this game, despite getting cranky with the Tahs from time to time for their ability to throw away advantage after advantage in true Tah style. Sharks were a better side than last on the table would indicate, played more to their potential. Certainly were on the wrong end of the stick for several decisions, as were the Tahs, but the decisions that went against the Sharks cost them the game.
JK said | March 7th 2010 @ 5:41am | Report comment
The ref did’nt award a penalty try to the Tahs on the sharks goaline, why would he do it 30 metres out?
Who Needs Melon said | March 7th 2010 @ 5:51am | Report comment
It was a penalty try. I know there is a point of view that whoever wins, deserves to win but I don’t think the Tahs deserved to win that one. I think Barnes and Waugh both made comments about the conditions, the state of the players after the tough previous match and the long flight home but, as Waugh said, they aren’t excuses. I’m a Brumbies fan but at the moment it’s the Reds that are keeping me interested in rugby.
JK said | March 7th 2010 @ 6:29am | Report comment
Does a penalty try have to conclusive? that far out there are still possibilites, Beale could have been going for the intercept (I don’t think he was) pass could of been dropped, foot in touch, cover could have got there. If it was five or ten metres back would it still be a potential penalty try? five metres closer and yes it probably would be?
Apelu Tielu said | March 8th 2010 @ 1:52pm | Report comment
JK – You need to read the relevant laws of the game. It is not a matter of distance from the goal line. The question is: COULD a try have been scored had it not for the infringement? The relevant fact is that Beale was yellow carded. So in the judgement of the ref, Beale did infringe. Did it stop a possible try from being scored. If you saw Kankawski outpaced the Tah’s winger, you’d have to say yes. And that is it. Mark (the ref) had a fairly good game, but fumbled this one, and handed the Tahs a win they did not deserve.
JK said | March 8th 2010 @ 2:22pm | Report comment
Thanks for the heads up re the laws; I never thought of that……………are you telling me the position on the field will have no bearing on the ref’s decision? A penalty try more so than most rugby laws are open to the referees’ interpretation and discretion, thus it needs to be conclusive in his mind. If it happened on halfway the same result could have happened, Beale sin binned, penalty awarded. I think your knowledge of the rules is reinforces exactly what I am saying…………. COULD a try have been scored had it not been for the infringement? The Law is actually WOULD a try have been scored.
Chris said | March 7th 2010 @ 6:34am | Report comment
Iv’e seen much softer penalty tries given than that. The Tahs are very, very lucky. Should have been given as a try was more or less certain. Have lost the already very little respect I had for Beale.
Who Needs Melon said | March 7th 2010 @ 7:37am | Report comment
Steady on Chris. You can’t lay the blame solely on Beale for that. Beale was in put in a desperate situation by a poor overall defensive formation, saw the ball in front of him and flung his hand at it. But for that knock down / attempted intercept the Sharks would have scored. Should he have let the pass sail on and let them score?
Bit of a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t situation.
Chris said | March 7th 2010 @ 1:03pm | Report comment
Should have attempted to make a tackle. I guess he can’t be blamed for acting illegally when there is significant reward for doing so. Rugby really needs to get some consistency in refereeing.
Tom said | March 7th 2010 @ 11:35am | Report comment
Beale took a bullet for the team. Ultimately he had no choice than to do what he did.
Hobart Friz said | March 7th 2010 @ 6:42am | Report comment
KYNANG – own a farm? If so, don’t bet it on France to beat the ABs at the RWC. Great back row but not enough oomph in the engine room. Excellent props but if they keep bringing on Szarzewski things suffer. Backs? Trinh-Duc a journeyman, lack of thrust in the centres. Can’t see Bastareaud starring from quarters on. First class back three specially Poitreneau
Bottom line? Not quite good enough to take all the marbles.
True, France would have whitewashed them but for Thorn’s tackle on Clerc last visit, but despite the colossal pressure, the ABs will refuse to be beaten at home by any team at the RWC. It’s their park, and it’s their time.
Justin said | March 7th 2010 @ 6:51am | Report comment
I went to the match. It was a pathetic match played by teams not wanting to lose. Kick, kick facking kick. Parts if the crowd were getting very frustrated and rightly so. The Tahs have no idea how to attack and it seems Hickey has no idea how to coach. Why was Horne left on the bench so long? Carter is digsh!t, he is so slow and Barnes was furious he did run through a gaping hole to score. I cannot believe the Rebels were looking at him.
Thanks for the crap memories Tahs!
Colin N said | March 7th 2010 @ 6:55am | Report comment
How do you think Andy Goode went. For his first Super 14 game I think he did quite well. His forwards didn’t exactly give him a good platform and when he came off, the attacking line was far too lateral with Kockett and Pienaar there.
Ora said | March 7th 2010 @ 7:15am | Report comment
It was his second game Colin he got sent off against the Hurricanes last week
Colin N said | March 7th 2010 @ 12:35pm | Report comment
I don’t know why my previous point on this was deleted but what I meant to say was: “For his first start in Super 14.”
Also, he got sin-binned last week against the Crusaders, not the Hurricanes.
Brett McKay said | March 7th 2010 @ 10:25am | Report comment
Colin N, Greg Martin on the Fox Sports commentary made two good comments all night, and the first was that Goode was sporting “the only comb-over in southern hemisphere rugby.”
I actually thought Goode did pretty well, he’s good a massive and accurate boot (flat 45m drop-goals, anyone?) and his distrubution when required is sound as well. He’s definitely a kicking fly-half, but he also seems to know when not to kick. And contrast that with the Tahs currently…
Martin’s other decent comment for the night came in the middle of the second half Tahs kickathon, and Phil Kearns had said something along the lines of the captain needed to tell the players to stop kicking or get off, to which Martin then countered with “Waugh wouldn’t do that though, he’s too conservative a captain”.
I don’t particularly like agreeing with Martin as a rule, but it was hard not to in this rare case…
Colin N said | March 7th 2010 @ 12:04pm | Report comment
I usually like the Australian commentators, but in this game they acted like idiots in my eyes.
They sounded like Brian Moore on speed, with their constant reference to telling the Tahs to run it.
There was one specific example when the Waratahs turned the ball over in their own 22 and the commentators said ‘here;s a chance’ but there were four defenders compared to two attackers.
People are correct when they say the Tahs kick too much (stating the obvious), but there are times when you have to kick.
In the first-half, when they got field position, they got quick ball and scored two tries. In the second-half, they didn’t get enough front foot ball to attack effectively therefore you have to kick for territory. Yes, there were times when sending it wide would have been the answer, but it’s about finding that balance (which you make reference to).
tarpo said | March 7th 2010 @ 1:05pm | Report comment
Brett, Colin,
Apart from the yellow card I though Goode did quite well.
He sized up a 45 metre drop goal attempt with about a minute to go before half time with the Sharks having endured two yellow cards, were 4 points down & nothing else on. Phil Kearns commented “we don’t want to see this rubbish”, showing his complete lack of tactical nouse & understanding. Who appointed this sh*tforbrains as a Wallaby captain? For rugby’s sake please keep him away from the microphone!
Brett McKay said | March 7th 2010 @ 1:30pm | Report comment
Tarpo, you almost wish Rod Kafer was given more opportunity to give his analytical comments, which on the whole are generally pretty good. Hell, I’d even take him sledging Martin and Kearns. The worst thing about the Martin and Kearns sideshow is that Greg Clarke more often than not feeds them the chance to say something (stupid).
Someone mentioned enjoying hearing Ian Jones during the NZ games, and I have to agree. Grant Fox is another one who just speaks with good sense and good observations.
Last night we got Martin and Kearns telling us how it’s always a good time when they run into the du Plessis brothers. Well, that’s just dandy…
Blinky Bill of Bellingen said | March 7th 2010 @ 4:10pm | Report comment
Agree completely.
Kafer is best used in the commentary box with Greg M to add something other than just mindless banter.
Phil K is more suited to down on the pitch to report on conditions and other stuff not requiring thought.
Seems even Fox Sport are playing people out of position.
OldManEmu said | March 7th 2010 @ 8:19pm | Report comment
LOL BBOB – LTIC (laughed till I cried). Much rain upthat way old fell? Paarrssssing down in the jewel of the central west, although the grape growers are crying into their wines.
Elbusto said | March 7th 2010 @ 7:07am | Report comment
That was a penalty try. And I quite enjoyed the game. The Sharks were robbed – the officials are paid to make those judgments and that was blatant.
Even looser said | March 7th 2010 @ 1:26pm | Report comment
Why was it a penalty try? Because your team lost maybe? Hopefully not.
It could equally be argued that it was an attempt at an intercept that didn’t come off. Therefore knock-on, Sharks scrum feed.
Beale getting a Yellow says Marks saw it differently but then he saw loads of things differently last night including forward passes, missed knock-ons & that was against my team.
I’m still unconvinced the first Shark try (the intercept) wasn’t offside. We could argue the toss for ever but I fail to see why people are convinced it should have been a penalty try.
Personally I’d have been okay for him to allow play-on when the Sharks won the lineout & were penalised. To me that was pedantic.
steve said | March 8th 2010 @ 6:46pm | Report comment
The sharks hadn’t formed a line out(they were still walking to it), so therefore it was deemed to be a quick through in(you need players from both teams at a line out for it to be formed.)…..so ryan running up an intercepting the ball was perfectly legal
Atawhai Drive said | March 7th 2010 @ 7:11am | Report comment
One of the weaknesses of rugby is that so many “laws” of the game are open to interpretation by referees.
Dear old Clive Norling would definitely have awarded a penalty try if he’d been in charge last night. So would Derek Bevan. I reckon Stu Dickinson would also have headed straight for the posts.
The Waratahs were dire. Surely they can only get better.
Sam said | March 7th 2010 @ 10:41am | Report comment
I think the intentional knock-on is one of the harder things for a referee to pick up. I mean they have to know what the player *intends* to do. Hard, but generally they get it about right I think.
Angus said | March 7th 2010 @ 2:21pm | Report comment
He picked it up and gave a yellow card. which was correct he had top decide
if the knock on prevented the certain try. the ball was on its way to Kankowski but would he have knocked it on . I think his ruling was correct.
Did anyone else pick up the Martins and Kearns call Kankowski “Kankofski” all night long.That is just so unprofessional.
Lindommer said | March 7th 2010 @ 4:55pm | Report comment
If he’s of Polish origin, pronouncing the “w” as an “f” is quite correct. Similar to the “wh” sounding like an “f” in Maori.
OldManEmu said | March 7th 2010 @ 8:21pm | Report comment
Yeah! That’ll learn ya Angarse.
Angus said | March 7th 2010 @ 9:08pm | Report comment
Childish OldManEmu Grow up