Aussie teams complete rare weekend winning sweep
By Adrian Warren, 8 Mar 2010 Adrian Warren is a Roar Pro
- Tagged:
- ACT Brumbies, NSW Waratahs, Queensland Reds, Rugby Union, Super Rugby
A heroic Queensland team provided the highlights as Australia enjoyed its first unbeaten round of the Super 14 rugby era.
For the first time since the competition expanded to 14 teams in 2006, all the Australian teams in action won, though the winless and bottom-of-the table Western Force had a bye.
While no Australian team has to yet crack the rarefied air of the top four, the Brumbies, Reds and NSW Waratahs all remained in touch after important wins.
With the Chiefs and Hurricanes both losing, the defending champion Bulls (15), who had a bye, are the only unbeaten team after four rounds.
Of the Australian contingent, the Brumbies (12 points, 6th) lead the way following a 24-13 win over the Lions (two, 13th) in their first home game of the season.
The injury-hit Reds provided the Australian highlight of the competition to date, and the boilover of the season, with a stirring come-from-behind 23-18 win over the Chiefs (15, 2nd).
The Waratahs (nine, 10th) snapped their losing streak at two with a hard-fought 25-21 victory over the winless Sharks (three, 12th).
While the Reds recovered magnificently from an early 15-0 deficit to record a victory described by coach Ewen McKenzie as “a pretty incredible win in Queensland rugby history”, the Brumbies and Waratahs both produced patchy performances.
The failure to pick up bonus points has cost the Brumbies dear in previous seasons and is looming as a factor again this year.
The points-less Force apart, the Brumbies are the only other team in the competition yet to record a bonus point.
They had over 20 minutes to find a fourth try against the Lions, but were let down by some poor execution.
“As a side, we’ve got to be hard on ourselves,” Brumbies five-eighth Matt Giteau said.
“It was a good win, but we’ve got to start getting bonus-point wins.”
The Waratahs also finished one try shy of a bonus point, but were happy just to win after a controversial climax to their SFS clash with the Sharks.
The visitors were adamant they should have been awarded a match-winning penalty try inside the last three minutes when NSW replacement back Kurtley Beale knocked on a pass which could have allowed Sharks No.8 Ryan Kankowski a passage to the Waratahs line.
“That was a cynical decision right at the end there. It should have been a penalty try,” Sharks coach John Plumtree said.
His Waratahs counterpart Chris Hickey said on first viewing he thought Beale had tried to knock the ball up not down.
“I thought Kurtley had actually gone for the intercept rather than knocking the ball down,” Hickey said.
The Brumbies and Waratahs reported no major injuries, while Queensland were hoping a couple of their outside backs would return for next Sunday’s derby against the Force in Brisbane.
Digby Ioane is expected to return, while Reds officials are optimistic Peter Hynes will also be available.
In other round four fixtures, the Crusaders (14, 5th) scored a 33-20 home win over the Blues (nine, 10th) in Christchurch, the Cheetahs (nine, 8th) notched a 28-12 upset victory over the Hurricanes (14, 4th) in Bloemfontein and the Stormers (14, 3rd) inflicted a 33-0 drubbing on the Highlanders (five, 11th) in Cape Town.
© AAP 2012Enjoy 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.
The Crowd Says (12) | Page 1 of Comments
Have Your Say
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 (2)
- 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:
- ACT Brumbies, NSW Waratahs, Queensland Reds, Rugby Union, Super Rugby
eric said | March 8th 2010 @ 8:32am | Report comment
I thought Stefan Terblanche was lucky not to get penalised or carded for his persistant, in-your-face carrying on to the ref, and not for just the penalty try decision. Beale’s arm clearly tried to hit the ball up, but it is a strange law. When does an unlikely attempt at intercept become a deliberate knock on. Terblanche held the ball too long before passing. He stuffed the try.
Hoy said | March 8th 2010 @ 8:44am | Report comment
I think we have had this argument on this site before haven’t we?
I have only seen the knock down/knock on once on the news, and at best, I was glancing when I saw it, but I am going to go through my thoughts here:
In this instance, if Beale was carded, wouldn’t that be the ref saying he though Beale deliberately knocked the pass down to prevent a try? So wouldn’t that make it a must for a penalty try? Had Beale not done that, the try would mostly likely have been scored?
There is always a fine line between knocking the ball down, and trying to intercept. In my mind, you can generally tell what the player is trying to do, because the intent is different, and therefore the action is different.
I thought we were going to have interviews with refs after the games? It would have been good to pick the refs brain about what he thought in this instance, and justify his decision, one way or another.
Hammer said | March 8th 2010 @ 8:56am | Report comment
Well we were told at the start of this season that refs are to be held accountable for poor games – so I expect not to see Marks on the scene for the rest of the season …. in the first 3 games of last season the Tahs were given a free ride to the top of the table from Dickinson and this year Marks wrangles them a win with the worst home town display I’ve seen since 1970′s SA …
New Reds Recruit said | March 9th 2010 @ 11:13am | Report comment
Agree with you whole heartedly there Hoy.
Regardless of whether we think he knocked the ball on or down the ref yellow carded him and should have followed through with the penalty try!
ballboy said | March 8th 2010 @ 12:00pm | Report comment
You’re spot on Hoy. The fact that Marks gave a straight arm penalty and sent Beale from the field indicates he thought it was a deliberate knockdown. So why wasn’t the penalty try awarded? I was dumbfounded and still am. Personally, I thought it was a deliberate knockdown but that’s not the point. the question Marks needs to answer is, “Why did you send Beale off? Answer should be, “He deliberatly knocked the ball down.” Question 2. “Then why not award a penalty try considering they were at full tilt with no-one in front 20 metres out?” Response. “I’m a moron.” I haven’t seen a worse or more perplaxing decision this year.
Yep, filthy cos I backed the Sharks to win whilst playing my joker in Fantasy Tipping. Cost me about 160 points.
JohnB said | March 8th 2010 @ 12:52pm | Report comment
Hoy, Ballboy – I think this is one of those areas which makes people complain about the complexity of the laws. If foul play prevents a try being scored, a penalty try must be awarded and a card must be given. It seems logical to say if the referee has given a card he must have concluded that scoring the try was prevented, and therefore the penalty try also should be given. However, you have to remember that it is possible to give a card for other reasons as well.
Here, the referee (if we assume he didn’t just balls it up) must have concluded that (a) a card was warranted on some other basis (repeated offences?) but (b) a try probably would not have been scored. Since giving the yellow card is not then predicated on scoring a try being prevented, he is not required to give a penalty try after giving the card – the two are unrelated. Ballboy, the questions as you have set them out for the referee to ask himself are not the only way the sequence can go. They can also be something like Did he deliberately knock on? Yes, therefore penalty. Would a try probably have been scored? No, so no penalty try, and no automatic card. However, having asked and answered those questions, is there another reason to give the offender a card? Yes, so give card.
Incidentally, I haven’t seen the game, so I’m not commenting on the incident or the rightness or otherwise of the decisions – just trying to set out the laws. Also incidentally, I’ve always thought a deliberate knock on should not be a penalty. It should be up to the attacker to keep the ball away from the defender.
ballboy said | March 8th 2010 @ 2:08pm | Report comment
Sorry John, you’ve put a good case forward but the basic question still remains, “Was there a reasonable chance a try was prevented because of fowl play – deliberate knockdown, repeated offence etc.” So following your arguement, the ref must have concluded that there wasn’t a reasonable chance the try would have been scored. So he either thought that Kankowski wasn’t going to catch the ball (the pass was at the right height and seemed to be headed in the right direction), or that Kankowski was going to be run down from behind. Earlier Kankowski scored a great try by slicing through the Tahs defence, turning the cover inside out and then outpacing the backs who were trying in vain to chase him down. I’m happy to put this one to bed but I think the benefit of the doubt has to go to the attaching team.
JohnB said | March 8th 2010 @ 3:01pm | Report comment
Ballboy – please see the final paragraph of my first post (regarding not attempting to argue any facts, just setting out the law). Probably worthwhile to note the assumption in the second paragraph also.
What I am saying is that he gave card does not necessarily automatically mean a penalty try.
Hoy said | March 8th 2010 @ 7:56pm | Report comment
Completely agree with this, and understand the laws, even while I posted, however in this case, again, I would have liked to have heard the Ref’s explanation for the incident and his actions.
ballboy said | March 8th 2010 @ 3:34pm | Report comment
Yes John, in no way arguing with you. I read your post a couple of times and thought you made a valid point. And agree – a yellow card doesn’t automatically mean penalty try. however, any infringement by Beale, yellow card or not, still resulted in a pass going down and not to an unmarked man within scoring distance from the line. Therefore, the only conclusion I can make from that is that he didn’t think Kankowski was going to score the try had the ball gone to hand. A decision he could have quickly explained post match or even at the time to the gesticulating Sharks players. the fact that he hasn’t provided us with an explanation is why we’re now probably spending more time than we should on an event that won’t be changed and still cost me 160 odd points in my Fantasy Tipping – which is the real crux of my arguement.
I’m done.
Loftus said | March 10th 2010 @ 4:58am | Report comment
I reckon he didn’t have the bottle to award a penalty try against the home team in the last movement of the game.He knew exactly what happened and he could see clearly there were no defenders infront of Kankowski.Thus,it should be a penalty try.Anyone and everyone know this,the ref too.He bottled it.
AndyS said | March 10th 2010 @ 1:14pm | Report comment
Maybe, but I also thought it was a pretty poor pass. If you watch the replay, you can see Kankowski twisting his upper body to try and catch the ball behind his shoulder even before Beale touched the ball. Even so, it must have been close and was certainly far more a penalty try than the one awarded to the Brumbies.