Super refs boss defends Reds penalty
By Chris Barclay, 1 Jun 2011 Chris Barclay is a Roar Guru
- Tagged:
- Lyndon Bray, Reds, Rugby Union, SANZAR, Super Rugby
128 Have your say
SANZAR referees’ boss Lyndon Bray has defended Australian referee Stuart Dickinson’s controversial decision to penalise Crusaders captain Richie McCaw in the last-minute of Sunday’s Super Rugby thriller in Brisbane.
Dickinson’s call to award Queensland a penalty in front of the posts at Suncorp Stadium after McCaw was ruled to have used his hands in a ruck allowed Quade Cooper to seal a potentially season-defining 17-16 victory.
McCaw’s infringement has been dissected from the moment it was penalised and is destined to be one of the most talked about refereeing decisions of the season.
McCaw argued he legitimately picked the ball up after Ben Franks had successfully counter-rucked.
Bray reviewed the match today and felt the penalty was warranted, particularly after Dickinson warned McCaw not to touch the ball.
“Once you’ve said that there’s no going back,” he told NZPA.
“He’s made it clear that he’s ruling that as a ruck. If you slow it down frame by frame the ball’s stuck in a ruck. I’m loath to say Stu’s wrong, technically you can justify the penalty.”
“It’s a tough call to make on whether the Crusaders have driven far enough and cleared the traffic well enough to say it’s now their ball. It’s not an easy decision to make in real time.”
However, Bray was critical of the match official’s failure to notice a knock-on by Reds wing Digby Ioane in the lead-up to the final penalty.
Bray and Crusaders coach Todd Blackadder discussed Dickinson’s officiating on Sunday night and were set to have another phone conference on Tuesday.
© 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:
- Lyndon Bray, Reds, Rugby Union, SANZAR, Super Rugby
June 1st 2011 @ 7:54am
johnny-boy said | June 1st 2011 @ 7:54am | Report comment
Well well well. Not that this will satisfy the whineys looking for an excuse as to why their team didnt win. There’s none so blind as those who choose not to see. You can never look at one incident in isolation, no matter how painful it may be. In every game there a lots of decisions the ref could have pulled up and lots they didn’t pull up, for both sides. Thats why we have full time, to see what the wash up is of all those incidences, not just a couple of them at specific points in time, and the performance of the ref is part of the game, just as it is for the players, which is why only whineys rely on favourable decisions in the last few minutes or at particular times in the match to get them over the line. To McCaws infinite credit he took it like a man and knows you cant rely on the ref giving you a favourable run all the time (tho goodness knows he gets s good %), especially in tight situations and consequently you have to be good enough to make sure that if the ref isn’t perfect all the time that day (are they ever, or is anybody), you’re stil going to win. The most ridiculous comment I have heard recently is that referees shouldn’t be allowed to give away penalties in the last few minutes if it could affect the outcome of a game. That I’m afraid to say, is just plain silly. Think of the consequences.
June 1st 2011 @ 8:42am
ohtani's jacket said | June 1st 2011 @ 8:42am | Report comment
A penalty that occurs at any other point in the match is not the same as a penalty that occurs with no time for anything but a restart. We wouldn’t be having these discussions if it had been part of the wash up.
June 1st 2011 @ 8:49am
formeropenside said | June 1st 2011 @ 8:49am | Report comment
No, its exactly the same.
June 1st 2011 @ 9:22am
ohtani's jacket said | June 1st 2011 @ 9:22am | Report comment
No, it is not the same.
If the exact same thing had occured right before half-time, we would not be having this discussion whatsoever because nobody could justify that the Crusaders were “screwed” with forty minutes of football to play.
June 1st 2011 @ 9:30am
soapit said | June 1st 2011 @ 9:30am | Report comment
so what are you proposing, they ref differently depending what point of the game we’re at?
June 1st 2011 @ 9:46am
ohtani's jacket said | June 1st 2011 @ 9:46am | Report comment
No, I’m saying that you can take that incident in isolation because it clearly decided the game. If it had happened in the first minute it would be entirely different.
My argument isn’t that refs shouldn’t award penalties at the end of the game, it’s that they ought to be correct.
June 1st 2011 @ 11:28am
soapit said | June 1st 2011 @ 11:28am | Report comment
i think we all agree with your last sentence. i just accept that refs do make mistakes, they dont do it on purpose and its just as likely to happen in the 78th minute as the 1st.
i can understand people being annoyed at it but thats sport. like i said earlier in the week the crusaders had opportunities to put themselves in a position where it wouldnt have mattered and they didnt so they have to accept what fate dealt them. very zen.
June 1st 2011 @ 1:29pm
soapit said | June 1st 2011 @ 1:29pm | Report comment
and the 78 minutes leading up to it had at least as much to do with deciding the game as that penalty (2 bombed tries by the crusaders for example).
June 1st 2011 @ 2:03pm
ohtani's jacket said | June 1st 2011 @ 2:03pm | Report comment
The 78 minutes leading up to it amounted to a two point lead with two to play. Yes, the match could’ve been different if one side had scored more or less points but that’s not what happened. The Crusaders had two things to worry about in that match: finding a way to take the lead and closing the game out. Obviously, there is merit in looking at the game as a whole but the idea that they lost because they didn’t play perfectly is a bit much. Both sides applied pressure and pressure leads to mistakes. I mean if you want to take this to it’s extreme both Reds tries were scored despite pressure on the set piece. Should the Crusaders have pressured the set piece? Genia and Cooper have shown on numerous occasions that they can score from their own scrum going backwards, yet the Crusaders won a tighthead in the game. I don’t see the point in retracing all this when the game was clearly decided on a ref’s call. If I was going to argue that the previous 78 mins had a bearing on the final penalty it would be that it was a direct result of Dickinson’s handling of the breakdown all game long.
June 1st 2011 @ 2:37pm
soapit said | June 1st 2011 @ 2:37pm | Report comment
you are just allocating far too much weight to this one scoring opportunity that the reds had (and took) over the many other opportunities both sides had (some taken, some not). as i say below if you only manage to be 2 in front with a couple of minutes to play you leave yourself open to this kind of thing. penalties at the death happen all the time, you just dont notice because it generally doesnt affect the final outcome
to take your example further yes the penalty might not have been awarded “but thats not what happened”. it applies to this just as well as the many equally important points you listed that helped decide the final outcome in such a close game so we can see its just like the others.
aside from getting every decision right (which i’m sure he did at least try to do) i’m not sure exactly what you would like to happen
(btw pls note – from my post “the 78 minutes leading up to it had at least as much to do with deciding the game as that penalty”, you seem to have misunderstood what i was saying, i wasnt saying the 78 minute leading up to the penalty has anything to do with the penalty itself, just the final outcome)
June 1st 2011 @ 7:05pm
ohtani's jacket said | June 1st 2011 @ 7:05pm | Report comment
Of course the last penalty has the most weight attached to it. It was the final scoring opportunity possible barring a minor miracle at the restart.
You simply cannot say that Heinz butchering the try or any other missed scoring opportunity had as much bearing on the outcome as the penalty at the end. It’s the same as a football match decided on a penalty or a basketball match that comes down to a foul. What happened in the previous 90 or 48 minutes is irrelevant at that point.
What I would have liked to have seen was Dickinson make the correct call, but he mishandled the breakdown from the get-go so I don’t know why I’m surprised. The day before the game I said I hoped the match would rise above the spectre of Stu Dickinson and it didn’t. It’s a shame that someone like Craig Joubert didn’t ref the game. Matches like these need a guy who can communicate.
June 1st 2011 @ 7:16pm
PeterK said | June 1st 2011 @ 7:16pm | Report comment
dickenson handled the breakdown really well IMO. Best facet of his reffing that game.
Finally someone who doesnt allow players to seal off, and leave their feet all the time. The crusaders could not counter ruck, and then fall over on the wrong side and stay there stopping reds players competing for the ball.
June 1st 2011 @ 7:37pm
ohtani's jacket said | June 1st 2011 @ 7:37pm | Report comment
That’s not reffing the breakdown well. That’s coming into the match with a pre-established bias. I thought you were a referee. If you care about refereeing then surely you want to see the right call made at the pivotal time of the match not some childish comeuppance.
June 1st 2011 @ 8:19pm
PeterK said | June 1st 2011 @ 8:19pm | Report comment
OJ – I was referring to the breakdown in general. You think he reffed it poorly I thought he did it well.
How on earth would you know Dickenson was coming in with a pre established bias?
Stu applied the law and penalised a team for offending, he controlled the breakdown very well and stopped a lot of illegalities.
Of course I want the right call made at a pivotal moment, I would like the ref to make every call right everytime, BUT i know thats not going to happen. Just like a player can make a mistake in the last minute so can the ref. I agree with Lyndon Bray, Dickinson had clearly told Mccaw to stay out of it he didnt so he deserved a penalty and can only have himself to blame. McCaw far more at fault than Dickinson.
If McCaw HAD listened and left it alone play would of continued, no penalty, and Crusaders stayed ahead, and they may have caused a turnover later. So the PLAYERS mistake in the last minute in this case was far bigger than the refs mistake which is being debated anyway.
June 1st 2011 @ 8:52pm
Jerry said | June 1st 2011 @ 8:52pm | Report comment
This isn’t a criticism of Dickinson*, but the argument that McCaw was warned is just bogus. McCaw was already in the act of picking the ball up before he’d even finished saying the “No” part of “No, stay back don’t touch it”. There was no time to react to the warning, realistically.
*after all, ref’s don’t actually have to tell people when and when it isn’t a ruck.
June 1st 2011 @ 8:52pm
Hollywood said | June 1st 2011 @ 8:52pm | Report comment
well according to mr bray his decision was correct…
So end of story…. start talking about the missed knock on, not the correct call at the breakdown
June 1st 2011 @ 8:54pm
Jerry said | June 1st 2011 @ 8:54pm | Report comment
Bray never said the decision was correct. In fact, given how he much he skirts around the issue you can pretty much infer he thinks it’s the wrong call but understands how it could be made.
June 1st 2011 @ 9:19pm
PeterK said | June 1st 2011 @ 9:19pm | Report comment
Jerry – McCaw had time to react, thats a real furfy that he didnt. McCaw continued grabbing at the ball, even if your version of timing is correct as soonas Dickinson finished he had time to release the ball instead of digging for it. McCaw is more at fault for losing the match at a critical time.
June 1st 2011 @ 9:55pm
Jerry said | June 1st 2011 @ 9:55pm | Report comment
Agree to disagree – from what I saw, he basically has the ball in his hands before Dickinson has even said ‘No’. That’s not really time to react. But then again, I support horrible cynical types, so what would I know.
June 1st 2011 @ 10:17pm
ohtani's jacket said | June 1st 2011 @ 10:17pm | Report comment
You keep lauding him for finally penalising the Crusaders for their systematic cheating as though no ref has ever penalised McCaw, the Crusaders or All Blacks. Perhaps you shouldn’t imply that he did it intentionally. Personally, I’d love to know where it was a week earlier when he reffed the Crusaders/Chiefs game. The Crusaders must have been well behaved in that game.
Ii think it’s obvious that Dickinson’s failure to communicate and his running debate with Richie McCaw led to the last penalty. If you warn a side but don’t card them, you’re more likely to penalise them in that situation than if you hadn’t. I don’t believe for a second that he would’ve made that call if it had been the other way round because he barely concentrated on the Reds at all.
And Jerry is absolutely correct, there’s no way that McCaw could’ve heard Dickinson before touching the ball. Dickinson only cried hands off when he saw McCaw swoop in.
June 1st 2011 @ 10:35pm
PeterK said | June 1st 2011 @ 10:35pm | Report comment
so even if your version was correct then McCaw is still more to blame than Dickenson. If a player has a running debate witht he ref during the game, has been warned and penalised often then gets told to leave the ball as he swoops in (your words) then not so smart to continue.
McCaw should of realised the ref was keeping a good eye on him that game and not given him any chance to penalise him in the crucial final minutes. He did not, so Mccaw made a mistake, was wrong and lost the game for the crusaders since the final minute is the pivotal moment.
June 1st 2011 @ 8:50am
arbitro storico said | June 1st 2011 @ 8:50am | Report comment
Then if you’re a coach, you’d better make sure that your players don’t put themselves into a position where they can be penalised. This discussion should be about consequences for illegal play, not about turning the decision-maker off for the last five minutes. That’d be anarchy with pike.
June 1st 2011 @ 9:03am
BennO said | June 1st 2011 @ 9:03am | Report comment
June 1st 2011 @ 9:27am
ohtani's jacket said | June 1st 2011 @ 9:27am | Report comment
The discussion is about whether refs making incorrect calls at the end of the game is more important than the previous 75 minutes. There was no illegal play.
June 1st 2011 @ 9:35am
Jiggles said | June 1st 2011 @ 9:35am | Report comment
The ruck was still formed in the Ref’s opinion, the Crusaders were told to stay out of it, and McCaw came into it from the Side.
Even if you have won the ball you cannot come into the ruck from the side, it is that simple, the penalty is fair.
June 1st 2011 @ 9:53am
ohtani's jacket said | June 1st 2011 @ 9:53am | Report comment
The ruck still being formed in the ref’s opinion is no more meaningful than McCaw believing the ball was out. It’s either a ruck or it’s not and Dickinson is either right or he’s wrong.
The penalty was not for McCaw coming in from the side, the penalty was for hands in the ruck. Dickinson said there were still men over the top which there clearly weren’t.
June 1st 2011 @ 10:09am
Jiggles said | June 1st 2011 @ 10:09am | Report comment
Franks was still over the ball.
June 1st 2011 @ 11:22am
ohtani's jacket said | June 1st 2011 @ 11:22am | Report comment
It was obvious that he didn’t see the clear out.
June 1st 2011 @ 11:34am
soapit said | June 1st 2011 @ 11:34am | Report comment
its more meaningful as the ref is the one holding the whistle.
June 1st 2011 @ 11:44am
ohtani's jacket said | June 1st 2011 @ 11:44am | Report comment
Saying that the ref’s opinion is all that matters is what allows for Dickinson to get away with this without so much as a slap on the wrist and allows standards to drop. If a different ref had allowed the Crusaders to counter ruck and McCaw had come in from the side would the ref’s opinion be the only thing that counted for Reds fans? Nobody wants to hear about it when their team wins but it has a bearing on all teams.
June 1st 2011 @ 12:09pm
Sam Taulelei said | June 1st 2011 @ 12:09pm | Report comment
Whether or not that final penalty was correct or not, the crucial ruling that cost the Crusaders a chance to win the game was the missed knock on in the lead up to the Reds position in front of the posts.
There was no ifs, buts ands or maybe’s about that call it was missed by the linesman and Dickinson who to be fair may have been unsighted as he was on the open side of the field when it occurred.
June 1st 2011 @ 1:14pm
Jerry said | June 1st 2011 @ 1:14pm | Report comment
He did bloody not come in from the side, and Franks wasn’t over the ball.
June 1st 2011 @ 1:24pm
soapit said | June 1st 2011 @ 1:24pm | Report comment
didnt say it was all that mattered, just that it was more meaningful. if richies opinion was as meaningful as the refs the crusaders would have won.
June 1st 2011 @ 9:57am
arbitro storico said | June 1st 2011 @ 9:57am | Report comment
Read Lyndon Bray’s comment – the decision against McCaw was not incorrect. McCaw’s action was illegal. QED.
June 1st 2011 @ 11:18am
ohtani's jacket said | June 1st 2011 @ 11:18am | Report comment
No, he said that he couldn’t say whether Dickinson was right or wrong but that because he had told the Crusaders to leave it alone he had no choice but to penalise them.
June 1st 2011 @ 1:41pm
RedsNut said | June 1st 2011 @ 1:41pm | Report comment
Typical poor looser’s whingeing – imo. And I’m entitled to my opinion, as is anybody
June 1st 2011 @ 3:09pm
Big Steve said | June 1st 2011 @ 3:09pm | Report comment
Jerry there is no way you can say he doesnt come from the side. he physically walks along the 22 line. thats along the white line from one side of the field to the other. you cant be more from the side. Franks comes at an angle( about 45 degrees) as well.
June 1st 2011 @ 3:26pm
Jerry said | June 1st 2011 @ 3:26pm | Report comment
When he enters the ruck, after Franks counter-ruck, no player who is part of the ruck has a body part on the Crusaders side of the 22 (there’s a Reds player on the deck but he’s not part of the ruck). McCaw comes from behind the hindmost part of the ruck as does Franks.
The guy on the deck isn’t bound to anyone or caught up in the ruck – he’s irrelevant. You can’t just lie on the ground on the defensive side of a ruck to move the gate and offside line back 6 feet.
Also, a tangental point – having watched again, the argument that Ioane is still on his feet is irrelevant too. He’s never bound to the ruck in any way. He places a hand on Horwill, but is basically one of those offside guard dogs people talk about.
June 1st 2011 @ 3:45pm
Jiggles said | June 1st 2011 @ 3:45pm | Report comment
Jerry the ruck isn’t over until the half back (or the player playing half back) picks up the ball from the rear. It is irrelevant how far past the ball a player is still an opposition play on the deck (which there was) as part of that ruck. Richie came in from the side and used his hands. If he came from behind and used his hands I am sure it would have been fine.
June 1st 2011 @ 3:58pm
Jerry said | June 1st 2011 @ 3:58pm | Report comment
Where exactly do you think McCaw was supposed to come from – he’s behind the hindmost part of the ruck. A player on the deck is irrelevant if he’s not part of the ruck.
Besides which, McCaw is effectively being the halfback here. How often do you see the halfback have to reach across an opposition player on the deck to clear a ball? It happens constantly. I really don’t see any merit in your argument at all.
June 1st 2011 @ 4:07pm
Jiggles said | June 1st 2011 @ 4:07pm | Report comment
Jerry look at the replay. If he came in from the rear like he should of, his bum would be facing to the try line, it’s a very easy indicator of where a player is entering. Further to this he started off in a defensive position about 2m from the ruck and to the left, he definitely did not run around behind the ruck and enter it, he went straight into it as the crow fly’s.
June 1st 2011 @ 4:29pm
Jerry said | June 1st 2011 @ 4:29pm | Report comment
There’s nothing that says you have to enter the ruck on a completely parallel line with the touch lines, you just have to be behind the hindmost part of a team-mate, which you can do even if you’re entering on a 45 degree angle. Both McCaw and Franks come from an onside position and enter* from behind the hindmost foot. You’re displaying a basic misunderstanding of the laws.
*to be perfectly clear, in my opinion, McCaw doesn’t actually ‘enter’ the ruck at all, he approaches it from an onside position and takes the ball out.
June 1st 2011 @ 6:32pm
Jiggles said | June 1st 2011 @ 6:32pm | Report comment
Yep look at where franks foot is and thats the offside line, McCaw doesn’t come through that. of course this is presuming this is still a ruck.
Also i might add, look at McCaw being a general pest in the last Reds attack that lead up to the penalty. He could of been pinged at a couple of rucks but my favourite is at 78.06. rolls out on the wrong side and try’s to walk through the ruck taking out a few reds players, how did Dickinson miss that??
June 1st 2011 @ 7:50pm
Jerry said | June 1st 2011 @ 7:50pm | Report comment
McCaw’s feet are behind (as in closer to his own tryline – not directly behind) Franks’ feet before McCaw enters the ruck area. You can’t enter from in front of the hindmost foot, you don’t actually have to be standing directly behind the ruck.
June 1st 2011 @ 8:55am
johnny-boy said | June 1st 2011 @ 8:55am | Report comment
As long as it happens before the final whistle I’m happy with it. Actually I may not be happy but I guess I’ll just have to grin and bear it.
June 1st 2011 @ 4:44pm
jameswm said | June 1st 2011 @ 4:44pm | Report comment
Jerry you have to enter through the gate. Enter through the gate and run at a 45 degree angle and you’ll miss the ruck!
June 1st 2011 @ 4:49pm
Jerry said | June 1st 2011 @ 4:49pm | Report comment
You do know that people can turn corners, don’t you?
June 1st 2011 @ 10:15am
thurl said | June 1st 2011 @ 10:15am | Report comment
……which is why only whineys rely on favourable decisions in the last few minutes or at particular times in the match to get them over the line……..
You talking about the Red’s or just the Red’s supporters …
June 1st 2011 @ 10:21am
johnny-boy said | June 1st 2011 @ 10:21am | Report comment
In hindsight thurl I knew that was a comin …
June 1st 2011 @ 1:56pm
Nathan said | June 1st 2011 @ 1:56pm | Report comment
let’s let this one go eh? decisions, decisons, can’t do anything about it now. roll on next week’s games eh?
June 1st 2011 @ 7:55am
stillatragic said | June 1st 2011 @ 7:55am | Report comment
Can someone, preferably a Crusaders’ fan, please explain why Whitelock’s grabbing at the ball why Genia tried to clear it when the Reds were on the Crusader’s tryline, has not been mentioned at all? The ball came out of Genia’s hands and was ruled a knock-on, when it was a deliberate foul in a try scoring situation. It is there to see. Whitelock was lying over the ruck and his hand was on the ball, and lunged at it as Genia picked it up. Dickinson was behind Whitelock and had no view. Isn’t it funny that only decisions that favour the Reds get scrutiny.
June 1st 2011 @ 7:58am
johnny-boy said | June 1st 2011 @ 7:58am | Report comment
I have to say that Whitelock guy is one of the most brazen luck pushers I have ever seen. He’s right up there with Stephen Larkham whom it has to be said, was completely shameless
June 1st 2011 @ 8:52am
allblackfan said | June 1st 2011 @ 8:52am | Report comment
It’s not funny when you get so many bad calls that were so blatant and, in the end, proved crucial.
Although I willingly admit that some calls favoured the Crusaders as well. Which comes back to the original point. Dickinson (and TMOs) was consistently bad in this game (given he wasn’t even the original choice of ref).
June 1st 2011 @ 9:14am
johnny-boy said | June 1st 2011 @ 9:14am | Report comment
You’re nearly there ABF
. It’s the same with missed tries etc etc – it is what it is – we blew a try, they missed a try, they knocked on, we may have knocked on ? It would be interesting, maybe, if someone like Ruckin Good Stats did an analysis of all the missed opportunites and should ofs if could ofs if would ofs of both sides but it might be highly subjective and take weeks so I guess we’ll just have to settle for the final score
June 1st 2011 @ 1:01pm
mattamkII said | June 1st 2011 @ 1:01pm | Report comment
ABF, agree.
Stu, who I have had a few beers with and is a cracking bloke, had a bad night.
The scrum penalty he gave the Saders to take the lead was bullsh!t. Saders won the hit and first drive but the Reds locked out and had stopped the movement. Crockett (Saders LH) pops up under the pressure and Stu gives a popping up penalty against the Reds… How he made that call is beyond me.
So yeah, decisions go each way and its part of the game, but Stu had a shocker.
June 1st 2011 @ 1:17pm
Jerry said | June 1st 2011 @ 1:17pm | Report comment
If you watch the replay closely, the Reds hooker actually comes up first. He doesn’t stand all the way up, but his head pops out.
June 1st 2011 @ 1:30pm
mattamkII said | June 1st 2011 @ 1:30pm | Report comment
ah you’re right…easy to miss.
fair penalty.
June 1st 2011 @ 2:28pm
Jerry said | June 1st 2011 @ 2:28pm | Report comment
To be fair, I think it was kind of a harsh call. You can argue that ref’s are gonna be a bit more harsh on such incidents with a scrum that close to the line, but then you could just as easily argue they’re gonna be more vigilant for ruck offences when a team is hot on attack in the final minutes.
June 1st 2011 @ 9:37am
Jiggles said | June 1st 2011 @ 9:37am | Report comment
That phase of play (when McCaw made the try saving tackle on Genia) had about three or four yellow card offenses in it. The Ruck before had a couple of players off their feet, lying on top of the rucks and having big grabs at the ball.
June 1st 2011 @ 1:16pm
Jerry said | June 1st 2011 @ 1:16pm | Report comment
And both Qld tries could have been blown up – the forward pass for the first one, and Beau Robinson coming in from the side to prevent a turnover immediately before Genia makes his break for the second one.
June 1st 2011 @ 3:49pm
Jiggles said | June 1st 2011 @ 3:49pm | Report comment
That pass was in front of me and it was flat, the Genia try however I think Crusaders fans definitely have a case there to feel aggrieved. There was a fair bit missed in that game. My favourite was McCaw holding back Higganbotham from reaching the ball player (Carter?) off the scrum just before Guildford’s almost try. Of course it meant nothing in the long run so has gone ignored.
June 1st 2011 @ 8:28am
Darwin Stubbie said | June 1st 2011 @ 8:28am | Report comment
Loved the “… I’m loath to say Stu’s wrong, technically you can justify the penalty” .. now that’s a cop out if I’ve ever heard one
.. but really do we need another blog on this – it’s Wednesday – time surely to focus on the weekend
June 1st 2011 @ 8:57am
johnny-boy said | June 1st 2011 @ 8:57am | Report comment
Good to see you’re still enjoying the sunshine on the light side DS (i’ve been saving that)
June 1st 2011 @ 9:31am
Darwin Stubbie said | June 1st 2011 @ 9:31am | Report comment
Very perceptive JB I have been on the light side for awhile as work has had me enjoying the fruits of the Hawkes Bay region … but that’s coming to a close so the tropical warmth and darkness of the north soon beckons
June 1st 2011 @ 9:06am
BennO said | June 1st 2011 @ 9:06am | Report comment
Agreed. But I reckon this has the potential for 100+ comments.
June 1st 2011 @ 9:13am
Harry said | June 1st 2011 @ 9:13am | Report comment
Bray’s still got to live in NZ doesn’t he, or at least presumably has significant family there.
Anyway DS before we all rightfully move on do you now agree that there is a clear case for neutral refs in all S15 matches … it is not a perfect solution to contentious refereeing, but I believe a genuine improvement to the current system, which has caused many many hassles – not just this one – this season.
June 1st 2011 @ 9:21am
allblackfan said | June 1st 2011 @ 9:21am | Report comment
I agree. That would remove some of the sting out of debates like this especially given that the RWC will have neutral refs (and most of them from NH — be worried, Wallaby supporters. Be very, very worried
.
June 1st 2011 @ 9:40am
Jiggles said | June 1st 2011 @ 9:40am | Report comment
I am worried indeed!
We will see those nasty cheating All Black, Italian and English front rows boring in at all angles and those saintly men in gold copping the penalties!!
June 1st 2011 @ 9:41am
Harry said | June 1st 2011 @ 9:41am | Report comment
I see your lot’s favourite Wayne is also coming down.
As I said on the other thread, think we have more to worry about – Ireland, England, the fact that the Walalbies haven’t won in NZ for nigh on a decade – before any concerns about refs.
June 1st 2011 @ 9:28am
Darwin Stubbie said | June 1st 2011 @ 9:28am | Report comment
I’ve always thought that the logical thing was appoint a neutral … takes away the bias angle … but that in reality wouldn’t stop the arguments and counter arguments .. all it’ll mean is the masses will focus on perceived (or justified) incompetence (aussies will have their Kaplin’s and kiwis their Dickinson’s or Barnes’ etc) …
June 1st 2011 @ 10:12am
Jiggles said | June 1st 2011 @ 10:12am | Report comment
Agree, it was clearly absurd when they moved away from neutral refs to the “ranked refs” system. And how was Steve Walsh (who was penciled in for this match) the top ranked ref be managing this game, which was the game of the round? It should have been Mark Lawrence if anything.
June 1st 2011 @ 10:26am
thurl said | June 1st 2011 @ 10:26am | Report comment
It’s not a neutral ref issue at all. Its about compentence, or lack of. Stu has shockers all over the world as do other refs. I don’t think S15 refs are biased towards their own country but I do wonder if some of them have hang ups with particular teams. Kaplan and the Warratahs for example
June 1st 2011 @ 3:48pm
Jack Petro said | June 1st 2011 @ 3:48pm | Report comment
thurl – interesting comment, esp re: Kaplin – his last officiation of the Tahs was quite good. Also, I must be missing somehting as I thought Stu ref’d OK – i’ve seen much worse this season and to say he was biased is BS! If you did your research of referee’s though you’d know where to go at the end of a match if someone was officiating … and for Stu, that’s the middle of the posts. If the Saders had the ball and were going at the Reds line, there would have been a penalty in there for them. Not Stu’s fault, he just looks for marginal play by the defending team in their red zone. Live with it people!
June 2nd 2011 @ 10:34pm
Rugby Diehard said | June 2nd 2011 @ 10:34pm | Report comment
Jack – I’m with you mate. Didn’t we watch a cracking game of rugby with a slippery pill. Is everyone saying the reffing was bad because he failed to blow some penalties and blew other marginal ones????
Welcome to Rugby (and for that matter sport).
June 1st 2011 @ 9:32am
MR said | June 1st 2011 @ 9:32am | Report comment
Johny-boy your right you can never look at one moment in isolation and it is on that basis that Dickinson is being critisised for yet another shocking game, read the quote above Bray’s defence is luke warm at best effectively saying Dickinson decision is justified bc Dickinson called ruck, he then says that it was irrelevant as he should not have missed forward pass – I will bet a case of SM that Dickinson ref performance will be reviewed by super15 in next month
Here is a clallenge, review last three games and let me know how many of reds tries have come off forward passes, knockons and illegal play by forwards on ground? The problem Reds have is that they will get penalized off park with good nuetral ref (which I am sure will be equally controvercial with reds supporters)
June 1st 2011 @ 9:43am
Jiggles said | June 1st 2011 @ 9:43am | Report comment
Since when have forward passes been penalized?
June 1st 2011 @ 9:45am
johnny-boy said | June 1st 2011 @ 9:45am | Report comment
The problem MR is that you are only focusing on some things the Reds might have got away with but you’re not being fair and reasonable because your’re assuming the Crusaders didnt get away with anything. It’s the overall thing I’m saying. You could criticize any refereee anytime and any game for numerous decisions, as is done but I would rather accept they are not perfect like all of us and am just damn thankful they actually do it. Otherwise we wouldnt have a sport. Have I sucked up enough for the Wallabies to get a good run at the Cup yet Lyndon
June 1st 2011 @ 10:38am
thurl said | June 1st 2011 @ 10:38am | Report comment
JB, surely you were being fair and reasonable when you argue that the Crusaders only got what they deserved because of their constant infringing …
June 1st 2011 @ 10:46am
Shaun said | June 1st 2011 @ 10:46am | Report comment
Reffing decisions aside. Is it just me or was anyone else totally perplexed as to why Carter chose to kick his restart so deep with no time left, giving the Crusaders absolutely no possibility of even competing for the ball. I was shocked!!!!!!
June 1st 2011 @ 11:38am
soapit said | June 1st 2011 @ 11:38am | Report comment
absolutely, that seemed like the one blip in an otherwise great performance. i’ll bet the reds were mighty relieved when they saw it coming long
June 1st 2011 @ 10:54am
jameswm said | June 1st 2011 @ 10:54am | Report comment
We’re still talking about this?
It was just too funny that the game was decided on a penalty against McCaw, esp a dodgy one.
The ref was saying “hand off” repeatedly, so ruck or no ruck, it was silly by McCaw.
I watched a replay of some of it with an English mate – and even he thinks McCaw is the biggest cheat in history. That’s something coming from a Pom. We watched on a massive screen and the number of times the Crusaders played the ball off their feet, failed to release the ball, failed to release the tackled player, blocked, came in through the side etc…it seemed like you could penalise them almost every phase. That Whitelock one (on own line, hands on the ball in a ruck) was one we saw – clear yellow card offence.
Fact is if you push the boundaries that much, you can hardly complain about the odd dodgy penalty going against you. Poor old Steve Walsh had to leave NZ because he dared to penalise McCaw (OK the other thing idn’t help).
Having said all that – neutral refs – clearly yes. It just takes the home town bias argument away.
June 1st 2011 @ 11:02am
Roscoe said | June 1st 2011 @ 11:02am | Report comment
Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. That’s life. If the Crusaders were/are clearly superior to every other team than why have that been beaten several times this season? Great game, let’s hope there’s more of them to come.
June 1st 2011 @ 12:58pm
Bayboy said | June 1st 2011 @ 12:58pm | Report comment
Lets see how well the Reds , Blues and Stormers do in a season of constant away games?
The Crusaders have done exceptionally well considering not a single game has been or will be played in Christchurch, noting that all the players live in Christchurch over the course of the super rugby season. Whilst games are still being played within the region where possible they are still in all effects away game as travel is involved for every match that they play.
The Crusaders were ripped off in that match against the reds and it wasn’t just in the final few minutes either the whole game was an officiating farce. Yes decisions went both ways however the reds seemed to rack up points off many of the poor calls made by Stu Dickinson. Like it or lump it the Crusaders lost but your putting your head in the sand if you believe Stu did not have a poor match.
June 1st 2011 @ 11:06am
Gary Russell-Sharam said | June 1st 2011 @ 11:06am | Report comment
I’m absolutely amazed that we are criticizing the ref to this extent. I agree he had a shocker and made some mistakes. But I’d like to see in my life just one Rugby player that plays a game of rugby not make an error during the entire game (and they only have to worry about themselves) Lets put this into perspective nobody is perfect (exception being John Eales) we all make mistakes. Dickinson is no better than McCaw or Robison both who got pinged repeatedly for making mistakes during the game (some call this bending the rules) So at the end of the day one team won against the other and the ref made a decision that to some was not right and to others was right. It is a normal game of rugby full of errors of judgement and mistakes, that’s what makes it a game of rugby, the side that makes the least amount of mistakes normally wins and the same for a ref, if he makes the least amount of mistakes he gets to do it all again, and be criticized by the team that lost. What a reward for a job well done
June 1st 2011 @ 11:31am
ohtani's jacket said | June 1st 2011 @ 11:31am | Report comment
Why are you amazed? It happens after every single important match, or have you forgotten the scrum penalties against Baxter, Mitchell’s red card, Carter’s penalty to win it in Sydney or McCaw’s try from the scrum last year?
June 1st 2011 @ 11:40am
Harry said | June 1st 2011 @ 11:40am | Report comment
Or Eales penalty after the bell in 01 Wellington (blown by Kraplan of all people).
Personally I’m still hacked off at the injustice over the ref blowing a forward pass (that clearly wasn’t) when the Wallabies were clean through in the Bledisloe decider in 1982.
June 1st 2011 @ 11:50am
ohtani's jacket said | June 1st 2011 @ 11:50am | Report comment
The Wellington match is a classic example. I doubt many people remember the other penalties he blew in that match but they sure as hell remember the injury time penalty. That’s what makes it controversial.
But that’s sport and part of what makes it theatre.
June 1st 2011 @ 12:13pm
Harry said | June 1st 2011 @ 12:13pm | Report comment
And its only a game.
The other one that seared into Queensland rugby suporters is the penalty try awarded to New Zealand at Ballymore in 1968 (NZ19 Aus 18).
Can only imagine the kerfuffle that would result if something similar happens nowadays – though thinking about it far more likely in this day and age with modern teams regualrly laying seige to an opponents line or constantly resetting 5m scrums plus more “professional” fouls.
June 1st 2011 @ 12:13pm
Jiggles said | June 1st 2011 @ 12:13pm | Report comment
I remember thinking that Kaplan wouldn’t get out of Wellington alive. Even back then Kaplan made ridiculous decisions to stamp his own authority on a match yet he has kept his job for over 10 years.
June 1st 2011 @ 12:18pm
jameswm said | June 1st 2011 @ 12:18pm | Report comment
Remember the non-forward pass call in the France v NZ WC match? The Kiwis still bleat about that one, how many years later?
June 1st 2011 @ 1:34pm
soapit said | June 1st 2011 @ 1:34pm | Report comment
do you remember what is was for though?
June 1st 2011 @ 2:41pm
Jerry said | June 1st 2011 @ 2:41pm | Report comment
Craig Dowd hands in the ruck, I think.
June 1st 2011 @ 3:39pm
soapit said | June 1st 2011 @ 3:39pm | Report comment
impressive stuff. i’d like to assume you didnt resort to google.
June 1st 2011 @ 3:46pm
Jerry said | June 1st 2011 @ 3:46pm | Report comment
Nah, I was sooooo pissed off with Dowd for that, it’s hard to forget.
The “Kaplan Time” thing wasn’t a big deal for me, there’d been a few injuries and that last passage of play was pretty long so the ’7 minutes’ may have been more like 5, it’s just that there was no break in play until the penalty.
What really lost the match for the AB’s was the 2 lineouts the Wallabies pinched that got them within kicking distance. They were so confident they could win against the throw they were kicking for touch when behind with minutes to go.
June 1st 2011 @ 12:39pm
ooaahh said | June 1st 2011 @ 12:39pm | Report comment
This weekend in Super Rugby threw up several questionable refereeing decisions. In addition to the Richie brew above the others observed are below for additional discussion.
Incident One
Force vs Canes during a ruck meters out of their line with the siren gone and hard on attack are given a scrum that ends the match due to the refs decision that the ball is unplayable. Reality is in that position (red zone) at that time (game over), with all momentum behind the force, the canes revert to cycnical play – should be a penalty not a scrum letting the game continue. Maybe the force score maybe they don’t, but they can feel equally ripped of by Glen Jackson home town ref decision (former NZ player’s reffing debut)
Incident Two
Waratahs v Sharks; Alfa Pakalani misses grounding of ball from Beale Kick. If scored tahs hit the lead and get to defend out the match with a few minutes left. Touchy clearly indicates to Kaplan that it was a sSharks knock on (Mvovo reached through). Kaplan goes to TMO for grounding decision. TMO (Safa) ignores this ruling call and says “Waratahs knock on”, Kaplan duely gives the sharks the feed 5 out from there line. Two questions are raised here; 1. Can the TMO rule on Knock ons? 2. Can the TMO decide what he can answer (ignoring the direct ref question)?
All three decisions by home town refs, altered the result of the games. Nuetral has to be the only way to go.
June 1st 2011 @ 1:21pm
soapit said | June 1st 2011 @ 1:21pm | Report comment
incident 1 – agree to an extent in that it shouldnt have been a scrum. should have been a penalty to one side or the other as the only reason it wasnt coming out were the hands on it. so either holding on penalty to the canes or hands in the ruck penalty to the force.
incident 2 – 1 pretty sure they can, 2. no idea but i hope they can overule and not be constrained into choosing an obviously wrong because of the on field officials got it wrong a few minutes earlier.
June 1st 2011 @ 1:50pm
ooaahh said | June 1st 2011 @ 1:50pm | Report comment
If the TMO can over rule and comment on in goal matters why not extend it then to general field. Maybe NFL has it right that coaches can call one decision to the TMO in a match?
June 1st 2011 @ 2:13pm
soapit said | June 1st 2011 @ 2:13pm | Report comment
well in my opinion its because the game is stopped anyway and awarding tries is the most crucial decisions in the game so thats the only time the tmo gets any opportunity to say anything. otherwise dont hold the game up any more than it already is. they tried it in the nrl where the tmo could over rule on field penalties but it didnt stay in. imo because it interrupted the flow of the game. my opinion as always might be off the mark as to the real reason
June 1st 2011 @ 1:06pm
mattamkII said | June 1st 2011 @ 1:06pm | Report comment
so we are in general agreement then?
1) Stu had a shocker
2) To focus on one penalty is stupid
The biggest stinker of the weekend was the results of the Rhodes (6 weeks) and Piutau (zero) situation.
Dont get me wrong, Rhodes actions were horrid and I dont blame Piutau for punching him. But letting Piutau off with nothing certainly sets a hard benchmark.
June 1st 2011 @ 1:10pm
BennO said | June 1st 2011 @ 1:10pm | Report comment
I dunno, it just says you’re allowed to be angry and punch a guy in the chops if he clearly tries to rip your head off. I think it’s more than reasonable.
June 1st 2011 @ 3:50pm
Funk said | June 1st 2011 @ 3:50pm | Report comment
Brings me back to the 1999 WC when Kefu retaliated after being punched by Brennan and ended up with a longer suspension than Brennan.
How does Piutau get let off for retaliation, when others do not? Ok, I accept that Kefu gave Brennan an absolute pasting but still it was retaliation just the same as Piutau.