This is why I dislike the SANZAR local referee system in the Super Rugby tournament.
The Reds, through a penalty goal by Quade Cooper (his fifth, with a couple missed), have finally taken the lead 15-14 over the resolutely defensive Stormers. There are about 12 minutes of play left.
The Stormers kick off. They rush the catcher. The Reds scramble a ruck. It’s a mess. Referee Jaco Peyper blows his whistle for a Stormers penalty, which is converted. The scoreline is now 17-15 in favour of the Stormers.
Another ruck penalty minutes later enables the Stormers to take their lead to 20-15.
The Reds then mounted a long siege inside the Stormers’ 22 in an attempt to force a try and the possible conversion for a win. There is a penalty to them in this siege.
With time up, the Reds continue with a 20-phase attack which ends up under the Stormers posts, only metres out, and with a penalty to the Stormers.
Let’s be clear about this. The referees are not biased. However, they should not be placed in the situation where their neutrality is in any way questioned.
As someone suggested to me recently on the matter of local/neutral referees issue, justice should not only be done but needs to be seen to be done.
I have argued for years, ever since SANZAR scrapped its neutral referees system, that the local referees system does not allow justice to be seen to be done as far as partisan supporters are concerned.
And, just as importantly, it places referees like Peyper in a terrible position when they referee as they see it and then find themselves having to give crucial penalties to the local side.
So this is a plea to Lyndon Bray, the boss of referees and to SANZAR, please, please abandon the local referees system for some of the round-robin matches and all the finals in next year’s Super Rugby tournament.
Use local referees for all the inter-conference games, if you are worried about the costs involved with this change.
We’ve had Sir Graham Henry blowing up about referees recently, more like a rabid fan than as one of the greatest coaches in the history of rugby.
And this weekend we have had Dylan Hartley allegedly (and denied by Hartley) accusing referee Wayne Barnes (a Henry bete noir from the RWC 2007 final) of being a ‘f—— cheat’ during the Northampton – Leicester final.
Refereeing rugby is extremely difficult. The rugby game is chess plus body contact. The law book is overly complex, nearly 200 pages long. Bodies are being thrown in contact areas from all sorts of angles. High emotions are in play, on and off the field. A referee has to have the precise judgment of a chess master without the compensation of having plenty of time to cogitate on his decision.
He is going to make mistakes, and supporters and coaches are going to make mistakes.
Referees do not need the sort of pressure that comes from having some supporters being suspicious of their decisions. The least SANZAR can do is relieve the referees of this pressure.
The system of neutral referees worked well in the past, and there was never a good explanation why it was revoked. The only explanation offered was that the best referees should be available for the top-ranking matches.
This rationale has never been practised. Otherwise someone like, say, Craig Joubert would be refereeing the top match every round. This rarely happens, in fact.
In Round 16 next weekend, for instance, we have Glen Jackson, a very good newish New Zealand referee, handling the Crusaders – Waratahs match.
In many ways this is one of the most crucial matches in the round. A loss by the Waratahs means the end of their virtually impossible dream anyway of making the finals. The Crusaders need a win, too, to stay in contention.
Why isn’t Joubert refereeing this game?
Jaco Peyper is handling the Brumbies – Hurricanes, which makes sense. This is another crucial match with the Hurricanes, who are a point behind the Waratahs, absolutely needing a win to stay in contention for the sixth place in the finals.
The Brumbies, who are on 50 points and leading the Australian conference (with the Bulls 50, Chiefs 52 in the overall standings), need a win to consolidate their position.
The rest of the round involves local derbies which are all being handled (as they should be) by local referees: Highlanders – Blues (Jonathan White), Reds – Rebels (James Leckie), Stormers – Kings (Craig Joubert), Cheetahs – Bulls (Jonathan Kaplan).
The Blues, Reds and Cheetahs for various reasons – the Blues to have an outside chance of the six, the Reds to maintain their challenge on the Brumbies and the Cheetahs to challenge the Bulls for top of the South African conference – need victories next weekend.
But with the Australian Conference being our main interest the Reds, for me, are a more likely team to make progress in the finals than the Brumbies.
The Brumbies had perfect conditions for their negative game at Auckland. The rain was pelting down making handling virtually impossible.
The referee, the South African Lourens van der Merwe, allowed 20 minutes for endless setting and re-setting of scrums. In my opinion, the Blues generally had the dominant scrum. But when scrum penalties were handed out, they went against them. To be frank, I found this difficult to understand.
The Crusaders exploited the weakness in the Brumbies’ scrum in their convincing win over them some weeks ago. When the Brumbies play in the finals their opponents, whoever they might be, will, in my opinion, do the same to them in the scrums.
The Reds’ scrum is stronger than the Brumbies’ scrum. This is why I believe they will do well in the finals, if they can make the six. They also have far more intention to play the sort of expansive game that wins finals, as they demonstrated in 2011.
I know this is not reflected in the statistics which show the Brumbies have scored 33 tries and let in 24, while the Reds have scored 26 tries and let in 19.
Why the Reds aren’t getting the tries in the numbers they expect or deserve is something of a mystery.
But I raise this point gently knowing that the wrath of many Roarers will descend on my venerable head for even suggesting it.
Is Quade Cooper trying to do too much? Is he too much of a one-man band for the Reds? Is it relatively easy to close the Reds down by merely concentrating on closing Cooper down?
His game against the Stormers was this season’s usual confection of the brilliant, the unorthodox, the irresponsible and the uncanny.
A couple of his kicks, one made in the first phase of the match, almost released chasers to attack the Stormers try line. At times, too, his passes were things of beauty that put runners into holes they were steaming through.
Other times, though, he lost the ball or made poor choices with his passes. The mark of a great player is that he improves whatever ball he gets. Cooper sometimes does this in spades.
But at other times he shovels the ball to his team-mates who are then flattened by the surging defenders.
The Stormers concentrated on his runners, a tactic that worked to keep the Reds tryless.
And Cooper when he did run didn’t have the zip of former years.
One thing I did notice was that when other backs very occasionally acted as playmakers, the Reds backs looked potent. My suggestion here is that Cooper is perhaps over-playing his hand.
He is a bit like a rugby league playmaker, in that he is the only one in the side doing the tricks. The Reds might do better to spread the playmaking around a bit more.
I still believe the Reds will make the finals. But don’t ask me how the permutations are going to work out. And, as I say, if they make the finals they will give teams above them a torrid time.
Jerry
Guest
Well, leading into the RWC semi, the AB's had lost 2 of their last 3 to Aus - both losses with their full strength side. Whereas they'd only lost 1 of their last 5 to the Boks and that was with an understrength side. So, I'm not really so sure they'd have viewed the Wallabies as a preferable opponent.
Coconut
Guest
Nah - its was a Claytons victory, you're just being nice. I think what the Crusaders achieved that year was simply incredible.... they were the best team for mine, even though they failed at the final hurdle... I'm not saying this to be provocative, the Reds won fair enough.... but it was a Claytons victory.
Pete
Guest
I completely agree neuen. Stormers played a hell of a defensive game and deserved to win. They have had a tough year with injuries. Reds played well but any half chances were snuffed out by the stormers. Refs were good and i can undersrand the crowd may sway them a bit but the tmo's are most at fault. Why they dont play the replay for the on field ref like steve walsh did is beyond me...
There are still nights I cry myself to sleep. :(
GWS
Guest
Cooper is no longer the only ten defending at the back. Others are doing it also from time to time. Have seen it in junior footy too. Interestingly i have also seen it done in junior league.
fredstone
Guest
That's just cause aus has really crap refs, I mean they had to import a new zealander, and we know how poor the standard of reffing is out there.
Suzy Poison
Guest
As a Stormer's fan, I am not going to gloat. This year, without a doubt the Reds are a better team, than the Stormers. The result could be seen as an upset. Although the Bookies had the Stormers marginally ahead, due to home ground advantage. Or perhaps it's home ground refereeing. I don't doubt that the refs try to be fair. But the noise at the ground from the home crowd definately influences your decisions. It's only human. And that's why the Rebels were awarded a penelty try the week before. Did I complain about that try that Paddy O'Brien has come out and said should never have been awarded. No. The Stormers only had themselves to blames for taking three shots at the posts before that. They arrogantly instead went for the forth bonus point try, and did not respect the opposition enough. It seems to me, the Reds do the same a lot as well. Particularly in that draw with the Brumbies. Besides all that it's good to see the Rebels fans rewarded with a win, and it seems like it has lifted them. I have never rated Higgers. i always thought he was a bit of a seagull in the backline and avoided the tight stuff. But he is playing some good rugby this year. The leadership has brought out a maturity to his game. I rate him now. Stoked for the Rebel army in Melbourne and it's overall good for the game. Am I surprised that the Stormers won. Look I tipped the Reds, but I expected the Stormers to improve by 50% on the Rebels game. Even with 16 of thier players injured, i knew the core of the young players, all played in the winning Currie Cup final and won. The Reds wouldn't have heard of half of them, but the Western Cape region has a lot of depth. Siya Kolisi replaced Shcalk Burger last year, and man he hasn't put a foot wrong. I am sure a Bok jersey is nor far away. As for the Cooper debate, I didn't think he played badly. Yes, two years on, from the famous 2011 Reds Championship year, teams have picked out his inside runners. He has become predictable. But more worrying for Australian fans is Genia's form slump, at the business end of the season. I seriously don't know why Link hides Cooper at fullback in defence? Not only is it harming his Lions chances, Cooper is a boxer and not a small player? Why does he defend there? He needs to man up, every other 10 in the comp, defends that channel, and almost all of them are smaller than him. You only have to look at the lightweight Stormers backline, and see it's all about attitude. Gio Aplon, Joe Piertersen, Elton Jantjies, none of them more than 80kilos, yet it's the best defnce in the comp. What's wrong with Cooper that he gets special treatment?
fredstone
Guest
Well it's happened in a wc hasn't it?
Jarred
Guest
Regarding your 1st point, I fully agree.....this is typical of the ever-bias SPIRO. Go back over all his rugby articles of the past and present and u will notice that he finds it exstemely hard to give credit to SA teams (only does so when he has to) but are always full of excuses and blaming when "his sides/countries" lose to the 'Jaapies' as he calls SAFFAS behind their backs. I simply call it "bad sportmanship" FULLSTOP
I still see it as something that should be stopped, this isn't American football.
Sylvester
Guest
"All they ensure is that they don’t run into a defender, they stop just before contact, hence taking the defending backline out of play as they are obscured of where the ball is going and they now have to find gaps between those big forwards to join the defence." A tactic that pretty much all teams use these days due to backlines being pretty hard to unlock without some trickery. I've got no issue with it if defenders aren't physically blocked. As you say, that's not illegal.
Train Without A Station
Guest
That makes no sense though when you consider our attacking improving as soon as Taps was replaced with Finger.
Has to be more South :)
ant
Guest
While i didn't watch the game i did listen to the nz sports radio feed and followed the roar blog - both were in agreement the brumbies scum was dominant and should have got a few more penalties - come scrum time - the brumbies held the ball a lot at the back waiting for the ref to blow a penalty - so not sure how that fits with the suggestion the blues had a dominant scrum?
bennalong
Guest
It is difficult being a ref and they should be trained well and paid handsomely. But the elephant in the room is betting and match fixing! Read about it ? If I was a scammer I'd look at rugby and see how it's set up for a ref to penalise whoever he wants at the breakdown. It's not an amateur game now so why so precious about refs being honest? Refs must be scrutinised heavily and given a report card. Good, acceptable, could do better or poor. Every bloody game someone is hanging onto the ball but is ignored until he's bashed senseless to get him off it, so the ball stays with the attackers. Yet 5 minutes later the same number seven is then penalised for hands in the ruck, even though he was onto the ball before a ruck formed. Conversely, a ruck is formed and a player grabs the ball and isn't pinged, or a tackled player is not allowed to play the ball and is penalised for hanging on Now we can add player going PAST the ball in the ruck becoming an obstruction, as opposed to cleaning out, or entering a ruck from the side, even when the run is perpendicular to the offside line and next to the grounded player Sorry, but the breakdown is a farce, a blight on the game. Rucking wouldn't resolve everything but it would be a damn side better than this mess, and it gets players off the ground. You can't tell me nylon sprigs are dangerous compared to a brutish lock cleaning out an unsuspecting attacking foreward on the fringe of the ruck. The breakdown is a farce BRING BACK RUCKING!!!!!!!
Shane
Guest
Full moon that explains your crazy views you need to take your meds
Ian
Guest
Veldsman, in my view, has never been competent. Agree regarding the TMO's-they have no excuse.
Maxt
Guest
Spiro I normally agree with (most) of your views, but your take on the brumbies scrum is seriously off.
chris
Guest
I laughed... This is what Spiros actually said: Home-town refs are biased, for purposes of this argument I'll ignore the evidence. The reds are a great attacking team, for purposes of this argument I'll ignore the evidence.
Jarred
Guest
Agree! All this dribble and whining and no credit to a injury-ridden Stormers side who deserved the win.... Spiro buddy, your bias is getting a bit yawn-yawn, if u know what I mean! If the shoe was on the other foot u would have written a 2 page article on the Reds' fantastic team....too bad they lost. Sorry