During the half-time break at the absorbing NSW Waratahs – Crusaders match, I remarked to a refereeing expert that the game was being very well-refereed without the need of Chris Pollock (NZ) having to throw out a poker hand of yellow cards.
My expert smiled and replied: ‘That’s always possible when you get two teams trying to play positive rugby.’
I got the point. The Waratahs and the Crusaders were trying to win the ball at rucks and mauls while the Hurricanes and the Bulls were essentially trying to stop the other side winning the ball.
Moreover, according to the expert neither side would listen to Matt Goddard, even when he told one of the Hurricanes players: ‘You’re not slowing down my ball.’
It appears, too, that Goddard had been told at a referees’ review meeting that he’d been too soft on infringements.
Put these factors together and you got a match where the referee dominated proceedings, something that the ELVs with its short arm sanction for all but three offences at the ruck and maul were intended to stop.
My point is that if the teams are recalcitrant, as the Hurricanes and the Bulls were supposed to be, then there are ways and means with the laws and refereeing techniques to get around this and get a flowing, skilful and fast game that the players and spectators want.
Exhibit One to back up this assertion is the Lions – ACT Brumbies match, won splendidly by a game and tenacious Lions side, and refereed by one of the top referees in world rugby, Jonathan Kaplan.
Kaplan had trouble initially getting the Lions to be positive in the rucks and mauls. He awarded the Brumbies a number of short arm penalties and when the Lions continued lying on the ball warned them officially that he was moving into yellow card territory.
The Lions skipper Cobus Grobbelaar was duly given a yellow card. Kaplan punished ‘cynical’ play with long arm penalties (which is a correct response), penalised the Brumbies when they infringed and was accurate in his rulings.
This last point is crucial, I think. Too many referees give calls on what they don’t actually see. We know this because the replays underline the fact that the call has been wrongly made.
The game was a cracker and interestingly the Lions actually played very well when they fell into line with the referee’s determination (which was not expressed, correctly) to have a real rugby contest.
Exhibit Two is the NSW Waratahs – Crusaders game. There is an article on The Roar from a Waratahs supporters written up after the match that he found the contest dull and boring.
This was not my feeling at the ground.
The game had the 32,000 or so spectators highly engaged with both sides launching break-outs that went from one 22 to the other 22.
There was one yellow card against the Crusader’s Isaac Ross for cynical play in coming back too slowly (lazy running, in the jargon) and forcing Kurtley Beale to drop a pass in a movement that might have led to a Waratahs try.
One of the features on Kaplan’s and Pollock’s refereeing is that both allowed a contest at the ruck and maul. One of the principles of rugby, which is enshrined high up in the IRB Charter of Playing Rugby, is that it is a game where there is a continual contest for possession of the ball.
By allowing vigorous, hard-shouldered mauling and counter-rucking, the referees honoured this basic principle of the rugby game.
This continual contest principle sometimes, often perhaps, allows for messy rugby. But it is the distinctive aspect of rugby union and when the game is well-refereed to allow a fair contest for possession, allows for an unpredictable and therefore often exciting spectacle.
The second Crusader’s try, for instance, in the second half came from a Waratahs attack from a scrum inside the Crusader’s 22. Kurtley Beale and his runners missed the timing of their move. The ball spilled. The Crusaders raced away with it, with Ross the big second-rower running like a winger, and seconds later the ball was being planted behind the Waratahs’ posts.
Despite their loss the Waratahs remain in the top 4 in the table, only 2 points adrift of the Sharks in second place and 3 points from the Bulls (who have a game in hand having already had their bye).
The Bulls with their kicking and chasing game, which is backed by a ferocious defence (they’ve conceded the fewest points in the tournament, 79) got a valuable away win against the Hurricanes. Even without Bryan Habana and Victor Matfield they look, at this stage, to be certainty for a finals spot.
And so do the Sharks who demolished the Western Force at Perth, especially in the second half, in another entertaining and fast-paced match (like all the other matches in the round except the Hurricanes – Bulls debacle).
Although the Lions and the Cheetahs are bottom of the table, both these sides are at least running the ball and playing as expansively (if not too expertly right now) as you can expect South African sides from the high-altitude veldt to play.
The Stormers who were sitting out their bye round have not lived up to their high expectations at the start of the Super 14 season. But they are likely to prove a difficult side to defeat for a number of other aspiring finals teams.
Why are the South African sides going so well?
I think that it is the British and Irish Lions factor. The Lions tour will be the great rugby event of 2009 (as it will in 2013 when the Lions tour Australia). There is a tendency, if the tours of 2001 and 2005 are any indication for the Lions to concentrate the minds of the local players.
In 2001 Australia, which enjoyed a Lions tour that year, produced a Super Rugby champion with the Brumbies and won the Bledisloe Cup – and defeated the Lions. A vintage year for Australian rugby.
In 2005 when the Lions toured New Zealand, it was the same story.
There is a sense of history repeating itself this year with the Lions’ trek through South Africa. The Sharks and the Bulls are making their strong Super 14 challenges. And the abundance of talent in South African rugby in every position (except five-eights perhaps), the Springboks should defeat the Lions and probably win the Tri-Nations.
But let’s not get too far ahead of ourselves.
The Sharks and the Bulls look like good things right now for the finals but we are not yet at the halfway mark in the tournament. The Waratahs are well-placed. There are five New Zealand teams directly behind them, and the Brumbies just a point behind the last of the New Zealand.
In racing terms, we have made the first circuit of the track. There are two clear leaders. But the field is bunching up in the middle. The chase is on to catch the leaders. And we are a long way away from final stretch to the run home.
If you freeze the shot of the field at this point, you’d fancy the chances of the Sharks and the Bulls. But after next week when the the shot is unfrozen?
The Blues play the Waratahs at Auckland.
The Highlanders play the Bulls at Palmerston North (making the Dunedin-based Highlanders the visiting team, in a sense).
The Crusaders play the Stormers at Christchurch (with the Stormers having a bye week last week to get to New Zealand before the Crusaders).
The Queensland Reds play the Chiefs in a match that features two teams playing ultra-expansive rugby which might need a cricket scoreboard for the points tally.
The Sharks play the Brumbies at Durban, with the Sharks travelling back from Perth (on cloud 9 presumably) after their devastating victory over the Western Force.
The Lions play the Hurricanes at Johannesburg with the home side rampant and the Hurricanes, one would think, somewhat down after their stupid and losing play against the Bulls at Wellington.
pothale
Guest
As I said elsewhere Barnes was punctilious in my view for such an important match. I recognise that he has to set the tone, but some of his pinging was unecessary. The penalty against Donncha O'Callaghan was for a mild push/barracking on Phillips which he said to DOC and O'Connell who protested that he didn't want to see any of that. He had talked to both captains previously about it. It was mild, but if he felt the need to be officious, so be it. Ireland suffered three points. Ten minutes later, just outside the Welsh 22, and well within O'Gara's kicking range, Adam Jones barracked an Irish player - I think Flannery - and tapped/patted him on the head. Barnes response was to say 'now, now' like a mother hen, allowed the scrum to continue in Wales favour. Inconsistent reffing at the very least. And costly to the away side. Some of his warnings were quite clear, and the subsequent penalties awarded were merited. Witness O'Connell getting up off the ground after holding on and acknowledging as much to Barnes. The penalty count was 16-5 against Ireland. Even allowing for some deserved indiscretions, and Ireland having the greater amount of possession in both halves, I reckon the count should have been more balanced.
Colin N
Guest
KO, the ref for the England game was Marius Jonker, yet another poor, inconsistant South African ref. What annoyed me about him was he rightly penalised Ellis for not rolling away early in the match, yet didn't do it for other such occasions, until a Scottish player was done for not rolling away, yet he was clearly moving away and England could easily get the ball out. He also pinged Tindall for carrying on when apparently held. Replays suggested he wasn't held but was penalised anyway. Tindall does the same again, but replays suggest he was held, but was not penalised. Also, Nick Easter's high tackle was a bit harsh, but I could see why he gave it. Stu James, I was also watching as a neutral (if anything I had a slight affiliation with Ireland), but I didn't see much that Barnes got wrong. Re: not rolling away, if you watch the Magners League and HEC that involve both Welsh and Irish teams then you'll see how cynical some of them are in not rolling away, yet they aren't penalised. Munster are arguably the worst for it and when the majority of the Irish pack is Munstermen, then they are likely to do just that. Again, I'll probably have to watch it again, but from first viewing I was impressed by Barnes' performance.
Stu James
Guest
Colin, I was in the stands so didn't have the benefit of tv viewing for close-outs of the ruck infringements. However, even viewing on the big screen I recall one penalty for holding on when the Welsh playing going for the ball was clearly not supporting his own body weight, and some other penalties at the ruck that were overly "officious" if not plain wrong. I haven't seen a replay, but I also remember thinking during the game that "roll away tackler" wasn't enforced very well either, at least not to the same extent as the S14 games I had watched live on Sky that morning. This prevented quick ball which, generally for Ireland, prevented them from capitalising on overlaps in a number of circumstances. I was an impartial supporter at the start of the game, but as the Irish began to play a more inventive game they garnered my support, particularly as I felt that Barnes was giving them the short end of the stick (that would be short arm of the stick under the ELVs...)
Knives Out
Guest
Who was the ref in the England v Scotland game, Colin? I wasn't particularly impressed by him.
Colin N
Guest
"Barnes is an officious referee, who tends to referee against one side (against Ireland in the Six Nations decider) and who makes mistakes which doesn’t seem to stop his arrogant manner of refereeing." And yet you say Kaplan is a world-class referee, who only refereed one side in the England-Wales game. I thought Barnes was very good in the Wales-Ireland game. A lot of the penalties were also for holding on due to the brilliant Jenkins and Williams. The reason DOC was penalised for barracking Phillips was because he constantly caused trouble in the first-half.
Spiro Zavos
Expert
Unfortunately, Wayne Barnes is being groomed by Paddy O'Brien to be the referee in the 2011 RWC final. He tried to get him up for RWC 2007 but England in the final stymied this. In my opinion, Barnes is an officious referee, who tends to referee against one side (against Ireland in the Six Nations decider) and who makes mistakes which doesn't seem to stop his arrogant manner of refereeing. If Stephen Jones had kicked that last penalty, given for something that, in my opinion, did not happen, Irish supporters would have felt the way the New Zealand supporters did after the quarter final at Cardiff in the 2007 RWC. Ireland were the better and more deserving side on the day. They played hard-nosed and effective rugby, with Brian O'Driscoll being inspirational in the backs and Paul O'Connell magnificent in the forwards. They did more with the ball than Wales. And they had to put up with the brunt of the refereeing decisions going against them.
Knives Out
Guest
I can read LAS. And I'm sure Spiro can stand up for himself, although I'm also sure that he has a sense of humour. You keep mentioning cynical foul play as if it can be eradicated. Honestly, are you new to the game?
Stu James
Guest
"This last point is crucial, I think. Too many referees give calls on what they don’t actually see. We know this because the replays underline the fact that the call has been wrongly made." Spiro, this is an excellent point. I was at Cardiff on Saturday for Wales v Ireland and I was astounded at some of Wayne Barnes' decisions. Midway through the match I (and I think the players) had lost complete confidence in his decision making. His reversing of a penalty for a push by one of the Irish players on a Welshman after the whistle was ludicrous considering Jones then banged over a penalty bringing the Welsh back into the game when they were clearly on the back foot after 2 brilliant Irish tries. Surprising really that Barnes gave penalties to both sides. We were at Cardiff after all...
LeftArmSpinner
Roar Guru
OJ, Okay so perplexing. well try, this one on for size. During the game, the cynic gives away a free kick or a penalty but the game goes on. So no change there. BUT put cynical play at the breakdown by either team, in the hands of the review committee, post match. Then, when they get suspended for a game, maybe they will learn. just a thought. What do you think?
LeftArmSpinner
Roar Guru
mark, i agree and know the same. it is also the case of the devil you know!!!
Mark
Guest
LAS - Don't worry, I'm from Canterbury so I don't need blinkers with only one eye......I must admit, it's taken years for me to watch & realise my team was actually infringing ! Saint Fitzpatrick was probably the first to get canonised for it. Seriously though, I thought I was watching the swimming at times with the dioves over teh rucks from both sides. "Clearly, the tradeoff is between having the SA teams and their difficult to deal with administrators or not having the teams (but maybe having some of the players) and having easier admin and less timezone problems" The problem is that SA have the power when it comes to the $$. NZ & Oz are junior partners from a financial drawcard perspective despite what we like to think. In the end SA have the power & will use it however they see fit, NZ & Oz would be exactly the same if either of them had the majority of power.
LeftArmSpinner
Roar Guru
Mark, apologies for the blinkers. My observation was just that. the concept is much more important. If you slow down the breakdown ball of the opposition illegally and cynically, then, lets get to yellows sooner than later, whether it is for Crusaders or Waratahs. Stillmissit, a watered down version will be all that is necessary if the players and coaches get the message early. So, the refs should send a communique to the s14 coaches and captains saying that cynical breakdown infringements will be immediate yellows. you have been warned and then get the refs to implement. Its a cultural thing and it will take some time, because it is so ingrained. The game, and all of us will benefit. it will be more fun to play and more fun to watch. Sluggy, the tactical nous is so important but I would not be looking to Tuqiri for it. He struggles to run straight, not drop it, recycle it and, not get run down with a man open and next to him. That was a 14 point turnaround. OJ, perplexing???? what do you mean? Just changing the culture. The Bulls look good so far, but, they only just got up against the stormers and Lions and got the reds early, and the Canes self destructed and the blues forgot to tackle. None of these were hard games like a top of the table clash or semi final is!!! Sure, its not even half was through the season. They initially looked very good to me, undefeated, and despite the bye, on top of the table. In my view, good but not as good as it looks. Clearly, the tradeoff is between having the SA teams and their difficult to deal with administrators or not having the teams (but maybe having some of the players) and having easier admin and less timezone problems. But, I am learning to appreciate, it affects all teams, not just the NZ and Aust teams. e.g. when the sharks return this week to SA after a month away, they will play the Brumbies who have already acclimatised to SA and the trip because they arrived last week. OJ, home advantage in semis is so important. Look a t two years ago, two SA teams. And the 2008 final with Tahs against the Crusaders.
ohtani's jacket
Guest
Don't wanna get dragged into the debate over who cheated more or LAS' perplexing vision for the future, what I wanna know is if the South Africans have the first and second best team and are still difficult to beat in the Republic, why do people wanna throw them out of the competition? If the SA teams get home semis, who'd bet against a South African champion? Boy that'll look good if we go off down our own merry path. RE: Super 14 success -- the kick and chase game. We saw it from the Bulls and Crusaders. We also saw it from England.
Mark
Guest
Just the word I was looking for. I kept expecting one or other team to break away, & both had their opportunities. The something stupid would happen & it was back to grinding it out.
Mark
Guest
Melon,
Who Needs Melon
Roar Guru
I didn't think the game was dull and boring. But I did think it was INCREDIBLY frustrating. I wasn't at the game - alas I cannot make them these days - and had my finger often creeping towards the 'off' button when I felt I couldn't take it any more. But then I'd think 'the tahs are still in this'. And I kept thinking that right up until after the hooter had sounded... I'd been waiting/wishing for the tahs to get the ball off the crusaders for one final attempt. AND THEN IT HAPPENED! Miraculously, somehow we got the ball when all seemed lost. The commentator shrieked "This is it!" and the first thing that happened, after all that effort to get the ball, the first guy to touch it - Palu - coughs it up in the tackle. And my finger finally spasmed involuntarily into the off button. Again: Attitude. You've been BUSTING YOUR GUT for minutes to get that ball. You've got ONE CHANCE. The hooter has gone but - one of the good things about rugby- the game will go on so long as you hang on to the ball. You're in with a shot! Wouldn't you, being in this position, be gripping that ball like grim death - even more than any other hit up? Wouldn't you be supporting the player even closer? Wouldn't you be piling into those rucks to make sure it comes out your way? But it wasn't me or you with the ball - it was one of the biggest guys in the squad. One of the biggest guys in the world! So why, in a simple one-on-one tackle, when he's seen the defender coming, the defender hasn't surprised him, when the defender isn't some big Tongan with a run-up, would Palu have dropped that ball? I don't mean to pick on Palu in particular. It was hardly that one incident that cost them the game. But it encapsulates all that is frustrating about the Tahs at the moment.
Sluggy
Roar Guru
Spiro, I was watching this on the TV, and came away with the impression that the Waratahs have lost their handling skills somewhere. they simply didn't hang on to the ball, chase the kicks as well as they should, missed too many tackles, and failed to adjust to the Crew's backline defense tactics. I had the impression they were abysmal. It was so frustrating watching it that I switched over to the finale of Battlestar Glactica on the sci-fi channel. Did the Crusaders execute a cunning game plan that forced the 'tahs into error? There did seeme to be a bit of that in the backs. But they didn't drop the ball for them. That last bit raises a query - is part of the secret of S14 success not only to play positively instead of cynically, but also to have some leadership (in the inside backs) which is able to assess, adjust, and counter the tactics the opposition are using? Phil Waugh is lauded as an inspirational captain but he's not a 10 or 12. Burgess/Beale/Carter/Tahu/Horne all are second season in s14 or thereabouts. It was I thought interesting that at one point Lote came across behind the backs and did a lot of talking and, IIRC, shortly afterwards a try was scored, also IIRC because they took advantage of the Crew undercommitting to the ruck and rushing out wide and kept it tight. Was this a clever ploy... "Lote, come off the blind and pretend you're getting it, [wink]"? I hope somebody called it, and I hope it was Phil Waugh. But that doesn't cure the problem of needing a 10, or 12 to tell him what to do, Mauger A/Carter D style, who can make snap decisions as the ball is delivered by the halfback and he sees what the defence is doing... and they don't have to be right all the time but if the execution of your game plan in the backs is being stymied by a rush defence then change to plan B, or C, or D.
Mark
Guest
stillmissit - that was my point to LAS, BOTH sides were doing it.
stillmissit
Roar Guru
Mark - I think the blinkers are on all round as I noted at least 4 occasions where the Crusaders were at least 2m offside from ruck and this helped A LOT at the rush defence they were adopting. At one time a Crusader attacked the ruck from the side, pulled out and did it again in front of Pollock. This is normal S14 reffing ie Keep the game going and let it flow. The players have learnt how to play this one off a break. LAS - I believe that a watered down version of what Goddard did is what the S14 needs right now. Lets get back to the rules and leave the speed of the game up to the players.
Mark
Guest
LAS - The Waratahs were as cynical as the Crusaders if not worse, take your blinkers off.