Australian rugby Referee Paul Marks has paid the price for his controversial decision not to award the Sharks a penalty try in the final minutes of their Super 14 loss to NSW last Saturday night.
The Australian newspaper has reported that Marks has been sacked indefinitely, with SANZAR referees boss Lyndon Bray conceding a penalty try against Waratah Kurtley Beale should have been awarded to the visiting South African side.
The decision to stand down Marks comes after Sharks coach John Plumtree and his players voiced their dismay at the officiating after their 25-21 loss to NSW, their fourth successive loss of 2010.
© AAP 2012Recommend this story.
The Turkey 10
The Turkey 10 teams have now been selected, as Wild Turkey Bourbon's sport sponsorship kicks into the next exciting phase.
Choose which side you're going to support and get in the running to win $2,500!
Simply visit Wild Turkey Australia on Facebook for your chance to win.
Find out more.
- Explore:
- NSW Waratahs, paul marks, Rugby Union, SANZAR, Super Rugby
March 11th 2010 @ 11:30am
Ben C said | March 11th 2010 @ 11:30am | Report comment
Ora
I have a certain sympathy for your view as I suspect Beale did knock it away deliberately rather than go for the intercept and the Sharks were perhaps hard done by. Then again the AB’s were hard done by in 07RWC, the Waratahs are hard done by whevever refereed by Kaplan and so on and so on. There are always disputed calls because the referees and assistant referees are only human and sometimes make split second calls based on a limited view of events and under time pressure to make a decision and keep going. There is always a lingering sense of unpleasantness if a referee’s call determines the outcome of a match and I think the Sharks have some basis to feel aggreived.
However, the trouble with your idea is: where does it end? Sure the penalty try is a pretty obvious matter for review. But then does the after match judiciary look at whether Kankowski was offside for his try? Were there missed knock-ons/forward passes in the other tries for the Tahs? Should du Plessis have been red carded and how is that taken into account? Etc
Once you open one decision in a match for scrutiny you open up every decision in every single match. This way lies endless litigation and madness. I speak with some experience here.
The outcome is the final score when the final whistle blows. Unless there is some specific reason that does open the referee’s decisions open to scrutiny, like 16 players in use, the referee’s decision should the final criteria whether it was good, bad or indifferent.
Cheers
Ben
March 11th 2010 @ 2:32pm
Ora said | March 11th 2010 @ 2:32pm | Report comment
Ben re read what i wrote I have answered all those questions already, I have already highlighted the downsides of what awarding a draw could bring. I was simply raising asuggestion to see what people think. I have never stated that it should be a draw and thats final… I have offered a reasoning as to why I think it could’ve been awarded a draw but I also highlighted that this would set a dangerous precedence
March 11th 2010 @ 11:36am
AngryAnt said | March 11th 2010 @ 11:36am | Report comment
I have some serious sympathy for the Sharks here. I have little doubt that they probably would have won the game had the penalty try been awarded. While it is possible the Tahs would have scored again I personally doubt it. Having said that I do not believe the result should be overturned, or in anyway altered after the game has finished, irrespective of what Lydon Bray thinks or has said. I say this for the following reason.
What would happen if they did change the result after the fact, and the Tahs subsequently produced four or five referees mistakes during the course of the game that had a direct and material impact on scoring opportunities. Do we then change the result again based on the impact these decisions had? Would the Sharks them point to another series of decisions that they believe “robbed” them of points or potential points? Where would it stop? The result must be the result.
I do have a problem with Lyndon Bray coming out in the press as he has. It has a couple of negative impacts.
1 – Lets team know it is ok to challenge refs in the press. Doesn’t help retain and recruit refs, and sets a bad example that will unfortunately be followed at lower levels of the game.
2 – This is the second case of a refs boss publically “slapping” one of his charges (other being Dickinson/O’Brien) for incorrect decisions. In both the Autumn internationals and the S14 to date, these are in no way the only instances of serious mistakes being made by refs. Yet they are the only ones that the refs boss has gone public. Why? I suspect it is because of the “noise” being made by the coaches (Plumtree and Henry et al). What message does this send? Bad ref’ing decisions will only be addressed publically if a coach makes a significant public protest? I suspect not what SANZA/IRB want, and I don’t think it is great for the game.
I believe that Marks was wrong about the penalty try decision. If he had decided that Beale did deliberately knock the ball down (and he must have because he penalised and sinbinned him) then I would have awarded the penalty try. I am not convinced that Beale did deliberately knock on though, although he certainly went for the ball. It is impossible to be sure though, and this is a problem. Irrespective of the right or wrong of Marks’ decision, I do not believe that Bray should have discussed his views in public.
I note that there was also talk regarding Marks’ breakdown rulings and about the last penalty. I personally did not think Marks’ had a great game at the breakdown, and if anything seemed to be ref’ing a little like last year (a couple of the refs seem to have moderated their stance at the breakdown since the early weeks – Steve Walsh in particular I thought). I am not sure if this is a directive to the refs, the refs employing more “game management” in their interuptations, or if the teams have just got more used to the rules. Interested in anyones thoughts. On the last penalty, I think it is clearly obstruction. However, I can understand Sharks players/coaches/fans frustration as they did absolutely nothing differently in that Lineout and drive than they had been doing alnight without being penalised. It is obstruction, the lifters and other support players are taking positions a good metre or so ahead of the jumper and preventing any attempt to tackle the jumper. But to get away with it all game and only be penalised in the last play of the game seems strange/wrong.
March 11th 2010 @ 5:04pm
CaughtOffside said | March 11th 2010 @ 5:04pm | Report comment
This is the new SANZAR way. if you remember back to round 1, High V Crus, an Asst Referee was sanctioned for an incorrect decision that led to points.(or non awarding of points)
They are attempting to be “transparent” by voicing and publishing their decisions in the media, rightly or wrongly. I think Referees are also expected to be available post match for interviews.
The demoting and promoting of referees I am sure has always occured, however just not in such a public fashion. Clearly there will be reviews of performances and as we have been told over the years, this is a merit panel that referees at this level, and like it or not, they are the best available.
Now lets be clear, the referee is not there to get 100% right according to the letter of law. That would be stupid, and result in 180 stoppages a game. He is there to manage and lead 30 players using the law as he sees to provide enjoyment and entertainment to both the participants and spectators. This is clearly written even in the Law Book. “the principles of the laws” states that the laws are applied in such a way to ensure fairness consistency and at the highest levels management. It is the over ridding obligation of the PLAYERS to observe the laws.
However, we all know that players are not going to stop trying to get away with whatever they can, so referees have to apply management, whether it be letting an immaterial line out offence go, to ignoring a player off feet who has no effect. If you look deeper into the Paul marks issue, it is not the ONE incident that has him having a break, it is a reveiw of his two games in entirity to date.
All in all, I think the referees do an adequate job. Are you not entertained? I am this year. However, this public airing of foul performances isnt needed, and a short note each week rather than a public airing of deficiencies would be a better method. You are right to say that we dont want coaches/players etc blaming refs, nor do we want a review of results post game,
there will always be referee mistakes, there will be bad performances, just as there will be player mistakes and poor player performance. its part of the game, the best way forward is continue to strive to be better, and accept that we will have error, and they we can enjoy debating those controversies.
March 11th 2010 @ 11:36am
pothale said | March 11th 2010 @ 11:36am | Report comment
Oh good. We get to revisit every malign result against our team.
Not.
The result can’t be changed. Period. End of discussion.
March 12th 2010 @ 3:34pm
MarkR said | March 12th 2010 @ 3:34pm | Report comment
pothale, don’t you want Ireland to beat the ABs ? Just kidding %-)
March 11th 2010 @ 11:41am
mattamkII said | March 11th 2010 @ 11:41am | Report comment
“To add to this there is absolutely no clear evidence to suggest a try would have been scored.”
Chris exactly right. I have noticed over the last few years the world has gone penalty try mad. It used to be that the had to be no doubt at all a try was going to be scored….So, someone actually having possession of the ball might help!
Its amazing that Bray doesnt get this.
Ora, just admit it mate…calling it a draw or giving the win to the sharks is one of the silliest ideas in a while.
March 11th 2010 @ 2:37pm
Ora said | March 11th 2010 @ 2:37pm | Report comment
I have never f@RKing siad it shoyuld be a draw I was simply asking a dam bl,oody question, I haver said repeatedly that i am neither here nor there. By coming out like they have Lyndon Bray and SANZAr have opened up a huge can of worms as can be seen right here in some of the posts being made. What I did was bring up a topic to see what people think. By saying a penalty try should’ve been awarded bray and his colleagues are indirectly saying that Marks cost the Sharks the win. So how about you stop trying to say that I have stated it should be a draw out and outright. Sadly for you all you missed the first few posts where Wavell and I talked about this admittedly in another thread, so I can see where you have all gone very awol with your interpretation of what I have said.
And Mattr just for your own knowledge I have Never and I repeat this NEVER said that the win should be awarded to the Sharks, so please stiop implying such lies!!!
March 12th 2010 @ 8:21am
Fuchal said | March 12th 2010 @ 8:21am | Report comment
Ora: “I have never f@RKing siad it shoyuld be a draw…”
True, you have never said it should be a draw. Instead you have said that the game should be post-match awarded to the sharks. Here is a quote from your first post:
“Lyndon Bray has admitted that a penalty try should have been awarded and therefore the Sharks should have won.
It would be a big call to make but surely it is the right thing to do.”
Re-read that last sentence, Ora. Sorry to use your own words against you.
D
March 11th 2010 @ 12:46pm
PastHisBest said | March 11th 2010 @ 12:46pm | Report comment
matta, that’s not what the law says.
“A penalty try must be awarded if the offence prevents a try that would probably otherwise
have been scored.”
Would a try ‘probably’ have been scored? Yes.
Marks erred and pays the appropriate price.
March 11th 2010 @ 1:30pm
Mick Gold Coast QLD said | March 11th 2010 @ 1:30pm | Report comment
“Marks erred and pays the appropriate price.”
And that’s about it – as John Smit said, acceptingly, in the post match “We are not getting the rub of the green.”
It’s a shame the poofteen other officials wired up to the referee via real time Facebook cannot whisper in his ear “Reckon that is a penalty try, mate”, but we cannot have such independence of authority without a 328 page work method statement, Broadcasting Tribunal voice analysis and parliamentary committee oversight.
I thought it was a penalty try, especially so when Beale the Useless was penalised and yellow carded. All this forensic analysis to determine yesterday’s wonder boy was sincerely attempting an intercept, à la Law & Order “the murderer was left handed – we can tell by the upward motion of the blood splatter”, is subjective clap trap; more so when the bloke with the whistle said not.
In any event Beale’s refusal to tackle pretty much limits his options when real rugby players approach him at speed.
The referees make mistakes, like players (little acknowledged, that) yet the players contribute mightily to their own misfortune by continually Greganising them on the field, offering advice that MUST be heeded; demanding coronial enquiries into their very own knock ons; acting as QCs when a try is scored – “he lied about grounding it in the 5th round last year – do not be deceived, sir”; and constantly Mitchellising them with petulant cry-baby dissension. Did you see Tellytubby in Round 1 debating Steve Walsh’s several decisions long after the whistle blows and whingeing like a useless fat never-was until he was pulled after 30 minutes?
Some of these players cannot walk and chew gum simultaneously, or throw a straight pass whilst in motion, but they expect the ref to operate effectively while they are all chirping like a budgerigar cage.
So, Marks made a blue and has paid the price. I cannot recall his previous mistakes – if they are a problem then he should be dumped. It’s a pity we don’t see some of the more deserving non performing players dispensed with so readily.
March 11th 2010 @ 5:08pm
CaughtOffside said | March 11th 2010 @ 5:08pm | Report comment
Here here… well said
March 11th 2010 @ 12:46pm
CK said | March 11th 2010 @ 12:46pm | Report comment
Maybe the ref’s should be fronting the press at the end of the game and have questions asked of their performances, in the same manner that the players do?
When did they become a protected species? Players and coaches are fined if they criticise the ref, but if they influence the ref before a game it’s ok? Surely everyone should be able accountable?
Certainly Jonathon Kaplan would have copped a bit of heat from Sydney media in the past over his referreeing of Tah’s matches!
March 11th 2010 @ 12:51pm
Brett McKay said | March 11th 2010 @ 12:51pm | Report comment
Wasn’t it announced in week 1 that the Refs would front the media in the post-match?? Did it ever happen, or was it killed off before the first attempt??
March 11th 2010 @ 1:07pm
Sam said | March 11th 2010 @ 1:07pm | Report comment
I’ve seen it a couple of times, not sure if they are still doing it though. Seems a few people here are upset that Bray is criticizing Marks, but isn’t that his job?
March 11th 2010 @ 2:27pm
AngryAnt said | March 11th 2010 @ 2:27pm | Report comment
Not publically I would argue
March 11th 2010 @ 1:16pm
cm1 said | March 11th 2010 @ 1:16pm | Report comment
I haven’t read all the posts, but no one seems to have mentioned Kankowski’s blatantly offside “intercept” that produced a try for the Sharks. Yet another example, in my view, of a refereeing error in that game. (What DO the touchies, or whaterver they’re called, do these days???)
As far as I can see, there’s sufficient doubt that Beale’s action was deliberate. After all, we keep asking the players to “play what’s in front of them” and use their instincts. In this case it didn’t come off for Beale, but it didn’t look in any way to me like a deliberate knockdown.
But, even assuming it was, would a try have “probably” been scored? Well, the comment about actually having the ball in hand is a good place to start.
So, to sum up:
1. the ref’s error evened up an equally egregious mistake that favoured the Sharks
2. I’m not convinced Beale deliberately knocked it down.
3. I’m not convinced that it’s even “probable” the Sharks would have scored from 30 metres out with no ball in hand.
As for Terblanche’s hectoring of the ref to immediately demand a penalty try, if I were Marks I would have been inclined to do anything other than give in to that sort of behaviour.
March 11th 2010 @ 1:37pm
Mick Gold Coast QLD said | March 11th 2010 @ 1:37pm | Report comment
Was E Gregious playing that night?
March 11th 2010 @ 1:41pm
Troy said | March 11th 2010 @ 1:41pm | Report comment
cm1, Kaffe went over this try on the Rugby Club last night in slow mo, by his analysis – not offside.
March 11th 2010 @ 2:04pm
Blinky Bill of Bellingen said | March 11th 2010 @ 2:04pm | Report comment
That Kankowski try looked like off-side to me too and I’ve said as much. However the officials actually got it right on this occassion and as mentioned by Mick from Surfers, Kafer showed it in his segment (yes I have Fox) and the bugger was on-side.
On Terblanche – I think most refs would act as you suggest but I actually agree with Terblanche appealing as he did. Yellow card given (which by the way I disagree with), logical progress is ‘what about the penalty try’?
After all, playing the ref has unfortunately become almost as important as playing the game.
March 12th 2010 @ 11:19am
Hawko said | March 12th 2010 @ 11:19am | Report comment
Not a ref myself, but I think Kankowski should have been offside as he wasn’t in the lineout (1 metre to the side of the centreline). The Sharks were deliberately trying to slow the game down, Kankowski et al were not at the lineout when it was taken, Marks allowed the lineout to go ahead to give the Tah’s the advantage, any player not at the lineout when it was taken had to retire. Ergo he was offside when he ran through.
Or am I mistaken?
March 11th 2010 @ 1:17pm
ballboy said | March 11th 2010 @ 1:17pm | Report comment
This is the sequence of events as I saw them.
1. Beale, with his arm and palm in an upward motion, played at the ball. This is not a knockdown but an attempted intercept. If his palm was facing down it would have been. Lee, this is an answer to your question. It really does depend on where the palm is facing.
2. Marks incorrectly awards a penalty (first mistake) to the Sharks when it should have been a knockon, scrum, Sharks feed 20 out with 3 minutes to play.
3. Marks then makes his second mistake. After sending Beale from the field for what he deemed to be a deliberate knockon, he then decides not to award the penalty try. If he thought it was deliberate it should have been a PT.
and then I’m guessing…
4. He realises that he should have packed the scrum, not given a penalty to the Sharks, so penalises them in the lineout for a technicality when clearly they did nothing different in that lineout than what they had done in the previous 16 lineouts.
3 stuff ups in the space of a minute.
Ora, I hear what you’re saying and it’s a fair debate, but when all is said and done, when the whistle blows, that has to be the end. As Pothole and a few others have said, it would destroy the game if decisions were overturned. there is no saying what would have happened in the last 2 minutes had the penalty try been awarded. well that’s a lie. The Tahs would have won the ball on the 40 metres with 60 seconds to play and kicked it out. Ok – give the points to the Sharks…
March 11th 2010 @ 1:26pm
Hammer said | March 11th 2010 @ 1:26pm | Report comment
ballboy – don’t forget the poor decision not to card Kepu from the first lineout from the penalty resulting from the Beale incident – the sharks pulled down the ball – get set to commencement a rolling maul – and Kepu comes straight in from the side and hauls it down …. deliberate, cynical infringement …
and I agree with you – a premediated penalty in the second lineout against the sharks
March 11th 2010 @ 1:20pm
Hammer said | March 11th 2010 @ 1:20pm | Report comment
Why can’t people see that Bray is simply doing his job – to try and compare what’s happened to Marks to what O’Brien said about Dickinson is way off base …. this is not the first time this year a ref has been stood down – a touch judge in one of the earlier rounds was similarly dealt with …
The question that needs to be asked is the one posed by Even Looser above … why has Marks been allowed to continue on when he’s been clearly sub-standard for a number of seasons now … outside of Tah fans are there any other supporters out their who want to see this bloke running around with a whistle this weekend in charge of their teams game
March 11th 2010 @ 2:42pm
Ora said | March 11th 2010 @ 2:42pm | Report comment
Haven’t people been screaming for Refs to be held accountable for years many of the same posters now screaming for brays neck. Oh thats right some people need someone to crucify every week right silly me i forgot that
March 11th 2010 @ 1:32pm
ballboy said | March 11th 2010 @ 1:32pm | Report comment
Good point Hammer – had forgotten about that as well.