In recent times it seems my assertions and credibility have been attacked. Now I’m all for admitting that I am at times not entirely credible, being somewhat of a stirrer as well as someone who firmly believes that making a decision, even a bad one is usually preferable to making no decision at all.
I was in fact voted Class Clown several years running, the phrase “water off a ducks back” was coined especially to describe my grace under fire.
Just this week, in my home, my assertions that at least half the empty beer cans found of a morning were the result of either a problem-drinking maid or ghosts (perfectly acceptable here), were rejected with a finality that put me well on the back foot.
Luckily my back foot was in a position to quickly and quietly edge an empty bottle of Jacks behind the fridge before it was noticed.
If that wasn’t enough, I have been labeled a ‘Ref bashing Reds crybaby’, or words to that effect, on The Roar!
This for decrying the referees inability or unwillingness to crack down on a developing trend of illegal (cynical if you want to be kind) defence of the line. But let this be clear, this isn’t about the Reds, nor any team in particular. The issue is much bigger than that.
You all know who we are talking about. So, with their league defence coach, the Brumbies and Jake White have cottoned onto the perfect defence.
It’s a tactical innovation of breathtaking proportions and relies on a single fact: that the referees will not punish illegal defence in the 22 in proportion to its damage.
And so when forced to defend their line the Brumbies will deliberately and continually infringe without fear.
This is not the desperate or brain fade act of a single player, but a team-based tactic. Jake White is, in effect, coaching them to infringe, and in doing so moves the offence into the realm of organised professional foul play.
It’s akin to playing against a team of Sir Ritchies, the only difference being that the Dark Knight made an art out of playing to weaknesses in the law, rather than weaknesses in the referee.
Law 10 Foul Play is defined as anything a player does that is against the letters and spirit of the laws of the game. It includes obstruction, unfair play, repeated infringements, dangerous play and misconduct.
The call of advantage when the Brumbies defend is near continuous.
In this case, the Law is unequivocal. The fouls are deliberate and continual, either from individuals or the team, and the fouls have prevented tries being scored. Yet referees will only rarely card and will not award a penalty try.
The result is ugly rugby and a match where the only chance of scoring is a line break.
People will say ‘Play the ref’, or ‘Take your points’. This is shallow thinking and is in effect criticism of the team that is trying to do what we all want; scoring tries.
Both sayings might have been apt in years gone by when Mr Rodgers the third form maths teacher was the ref, but they don’t apply now. The referees are paid professionals and should do their job to the standard required for Test level rugby and ensure a fairly and consistently adjudicated game.
What is a fair response? It’s obvious that continually calling advantage when you haven’t moved the ball closer to the line is no advantage at all.
A penalty, taking the points? When you have been illegally denied a seven pointer, three points and the possibility of having the ball back on your 22 is poor reward.
A card? Nice as the idea sounds, a better chance at scoring for 10 minutes is again, a poor substitute for a certain seven you’re just done all the hard work for. Particularly if you are fighting from behind on the scoreboard.
A penalty try and card? The WMD of the referee arsenal, a game changer. And that is probably why refs are loath to award one.
The greatest danger in doing nothing is that, as new season rolls on, other Super Rugby sides will see the inherent advantage this defence gives and will do likewise.
It is already spreading. Ask yourself, will you be happy with the spectacle when all Super Rugby matches are played with this tactic?
Within the current rules the referees need to be hard, it would be better if they could just award the try? It’s simple: if you can’t defend your line legally, you cede the try the other side would have scored but for your foul play.
But with the laws as they are, if a little pain is required to get coaches to toe the line then perhaps that is what we need to have.
A few early penalty tries will get the message across.
Jerry
Guest
"Maybe everyone else chose to ignore it because it was a desperate attempt to justify a loss." Or maybe everyone else just likes throwing the 'choker' tag around cause it makes them feel better about their team getting hammered year after year.
Blackness
Guest
Maybe it was food poisoning maybe it wasn't. Maybe everyone else chose to ignore it because it was a desperate attempt to justify a loss. But you have taught me that you guys are better than that, so i guess everyone knows now that the team wasnt just trying to calm down people who aren't very good losers. While Ive got you, Graham Henry had a bit of a melt down the other week saying that the ref was hopeless and players that he used to coach got away with murder. He's a Kiwi and Kiwis always accept losses, we know that now but the players he was attacking were Kiwis too and they don't do anything wrong they are just better players than everyone else, what's going on there?
Hoy
Roar Guru
Oddly though, the Wallabies weren't getting pinged too much in the 22. They may have been infringing, but not being penalised much for it. Different to what is going on at the Ponies, where they are being pinged for it, but nothing further, even after repeated penalties and warnings. You would think that when the Ref finally sends one player off for a rest, the next person penalised for similar should go as well. Harsh? Maybe. But if it is as soon as what happened against the Reds, then probably warranted as well.
Jerry
Guest
What a rubbish argument that is. That's two matches, and not just any matches of course, in 100 years of AB history. Leaving aside that tose matches were a bit out of the ordinary, what about 99? What about 03? What about the TN & Bledisloe and all the other losses over the years?
richard
Guest
You mean like Australia v Ireland in the last WC? btw,the ABs were suffering the effects of food poisoning in that '95 final,that's not an excuse,that was reality.And if it had happened to any other team,world rugby would have screamed blue murder.But,since it happened to NZ,everyone chose to ignore it.
frisky
Guest
Maybe, just maybe, the Brumbies are sucessful because they have scored more points than any other side in the comp. −415 as of today. Yes I know that they have played more games, but will finish top or near the top anyway. The excellent defense records is obviously a factor, but it would be irrelevant if they were not also an excellent attcking team. Where is the credit for that? I hate the way they often shut up shop when ahead and rely on defending theoir line, legally or otherwise. They have lost 6 points because of that (losing a game and drawing another ) when they were ahead with just minutes to play. With regards to the Reds game - their defense of their line was magnificent. I did not think at the time that they could hold out. Only a Reds supporter would still be complaining.
saus
Guest
Can't read three lines? You must have the attentions span of qc. The darkness, lions, brumbies all push the law. All in the winners circle this week.
AdamS
Roar Guru
Didn't bother to read the whole comment, but I believe you may be the new Well Ruck Me.
saus
Guest
Did not bother to read the complete article however I think you maybe the new Greg gowden
Bakkies
Guest
The Brumbies haven't made the Finals for 9 years, apart from a couple of dead seasons have just finished short of the Finals in that time frame. You can't blame White for getting his team to play Crusaders Rugby to get over the line in games (that's how they won the 2000 Final).
PeterK
Roar Guru
I understand that viewpoint, however mixed in with players infringing taking the gamble they do not get caught is cheating IMO. Either way you should not benefit from infringing the punishment should always be more than the benefit received. The trouble is the punishment is too lax and furthermore the laws do not take into account repeatedly infringing, nor do the refs actually enforce the laws that are there. They should try zero tolerance and see how that goes.
Blackness
Guest
Isn't it also common knowledge Richard that when the AB's lose, it was because they were poisoned or Wayne Barnes cheated them..., not because they were simply outplayed by a better team?
Lex
Guest
I don't think deliberately infringing is cheating. If a player decides that in a particular situation it is to his team's advantage to offend and suffer the consequences, it seems to me to be perfectly rational to do so. Think of examples of game theory, like the Prisoner's Dilemma. Cheating implies moral turpitude. To take a couple of examples from soccer. If a player pretends to have been tripped to milk a penalty that is cheating. If a player deliberately handles the ball to stop it going into the goal, that is a rational decision, as there is a chance that the resulting penalty will be missed - a probable goal is better than a certain goal. In golf if you hit the ball into the trees you can play it as it lies with no penalty, or drop it out and take a penalty stroke. Taking the drop is not cheating - it is voluntarily accepting a penalty within the rules because that is the rational decision in the circumstances. The rules and the way they are enforced determine how a game is played. If they are changed, then the trade-off calculation may change, but the best teams will still be the ones making the rational decisions.
Chivas
Guest
Yes, yes... much more interesting than Quade or Deans and I appreciate the levity of it. I understand the frustration having been on the receiving end of it as a fan supporting Waikato over Auckland for many years when Auckland used this tactic. You do have to remember the Brumbies have to score points too for this tactic to be effective.
Chivas
Guest
Firstly, show me a penalty try award on probability. What is the difference between probability and possibility. Who assesses the degree? My ankle tap on the other kid should have been a penalty try because he had an ipen line and was going in under the posts. There was virtually zero chance he would screw it up. That is probability refs work with. Not if they had cleared that ruck they had someone open on the wing which they could've passed and he likely would have scored. That is called possible. So your penalty try is largely out. Repeat infringements do deserve a yellow card and penalty. The fact that the reds didn't take the points is still their fault and pretty dumb rugby, when it's clear what the Brumbies tactics are. So stupidity doesn't deserve to win any more than continual fouling. I trust the refs to penalise and yellow card to best manage the game and if cynical fouls start becoming prevelant I guess a mandate and guideline will be provided to the refs to tighten up this area of the game. South African sides for the record have been doing this ever since they found the big plonkers they produce couldn't get around the park as effectively as their opposition counterparts. But they a bit like the reds supporters always look through their favourite parochial lense for the purpose of all discussion and expressions of disappointment.
AdamS
Roar Guru
We have Setanta on satellite. Unless its too rainy. Or too sunny. Or a cobra goes to sit in the dish. All very civilised my bit of jungle is. Just because its always happened doesn't mean it shouldn't be stopped now. In any event, just something to write about. Better than another Quade or Deans article, no?
PeterK
Roar Guru
and where are the rebels on the ladder? In general you will find the most cynical , systematic cheating teams perform the best, so it is clear that the punishment does NOT fit the crime, it is more beneficial to cheat.
Chivas
Guest
Well there's no rugby going on there. You have fox in the Asian jungle? Things have certainly improved in some places. In the outback of Australia lucky to get a phone signal. Point doesn't change. I was responding to your comment, suggesting it's a slippery slope. Nothing has changed in the last 30 years and Jake White didn't come up with the strategy. So why the angst now? It just has the hint of a whinge about it because the reds are about to be sunk without trace again this year and captain Cooper will be leading them to the bottom. First stop Lions. I don't deny the point but unless you are coming up with a new idea what are we rehashing. Pretty sure you would be crying in your JD's if the reds gave up a penalty try early on in a game. Add that to the standard 10 to 20 points you will be behind when Quade has made his usual couple of mistakes. Might find it's enough to make a reds fan's eyes water. :-)
AdamS
Roar Guru
You're right, I have singled out the Brumbies when other teams do the same thing. Crusaders are permanently a meter offside in the same situation for example. It just seems to me that the boys from the city of the big hot air are doing a more complete version of it, and doing it constantly. It has become the norm. Not all teams do it, and not all that do do it constantly. Rebels defended the Tahs under constant pressure without any sign of it and succeeded. It's just unnecessary.
PeterK
Roar Guru
adam s- good article. Only issue with it is it is targetted at the brumbies. This type of systematic cheating is viral and spread far and wide not just the brumbies. The lions did it both games despite being well ahead. I think the players do it out of habit and do not think twice about it, sometimes they even look dumbfounded and / or shake their head when actually penalised despite it being an obvious infringement. It is a true blight on the game, and is ruining it a bit. It really leads to a penalty heavy game, defence dominates over attack. My solution is mandatory yellow cards which I posted above. Who cares if players get binned sometimes incorrectly I would much rather that and see far less infringing that we have now. Also if teams actually start infringing less, like they would, then guess what there would be less yellow cards, and a cleaner better game, where better attacking teams get rewarded over cynical infringing defensive teams.