SPIRO: Cheika must control his temper to continue his coaching career

One of the most insightful comments about the Michael Cheika-Jaco Peyper incident came from Wayne Smith in The Australian: “Michael Cheika is one angry exchange away from a six-month ban.”

The point here is that Cheika’s record as a coach suggests he has trouble controlling his temper and that this temper impels him, too often, to question referees during a match. Sooner or later, if there is a repeat of this conduct, Cheika is going to banned from coaching for a career-threatening period of time.

This may well have happened after Cheika exchanged words in the referees’ room with the South African referee Jaco Peyper at half-time (after Peyper had been booed off the field) about his refereeing of scrums during the Waratahs-Blues match at Allianz Stadium.

But SANZAR effectively cleared Cheika and Peyper of serious wrong-doing in a matter that was clearly a serious wrong-doing.

Both Cheika and Peyper were ordered to apologise. Cheika was cleared, with no explanation, of breaching SANZAR’s Code of Conduct (which would have triggered a ban) and no further action was taken, no fines, no suspensions, nothing.

Talk about being thrashed with a feather. Cheika avoided a fatal breach of the Code of Conduct. Peyper was appointed to the panel of referees for the 2015 Rugby World Cup tournament by a group that included SANZAR’s Lyndon Bray a day before SANZAR was shamed into making the Cheika-Peyper incident public because of a New Zealand Herald story suggesting a cover-up.

Was the delay in publishing any details of the Cheika-Peyper incident intended to protect Peyper, as well as Cheika?

The key to this thrashing with a feather approach lies in SANZAR’s explanation that the exchange in the referee’s room was ‘short and polite.’

Most rugby people would argue that one of the worst things a coach can do is talk to a referee in the sanctuary of referees’ room at half-time. Certainly Dave Rennie insisted this was so. It beggars belief that SANZAR can treat this serious matter in such a dismissive way as to encourage Cheika to argue that Rennie’s comment show disrespect to him.

The point here is that talking to a referee in his sanctuary is a hostile, belligerent action. It is immaterial whether Cheika’s demeanour was ‘polite.’ His conduct breached a fundamental rule of the game that coaches do not talk to referees during a match. This rule goes to the heart of the integrity of the game.

If Cheika wanted to find out something about Peyper’s scrum rulings, why didn’t he send out instructions to Dave Dennis to take the matter up with Peyper.

By not taking this legal and time-honoured approach and making a journey into the referee’s room at half-time, Cheika was making a hostile statement to Peyper.

This brings us back to Wayne Smith. He clearly isn’t buying the SANZAR whitewash. He argued that Cheika has a ‘vulnerability’ about approaching referees during matches. He has a history, in other words, of losing control over his emotions and then approaching the referee to let out steam, politely some times and impolitely at other times.

Smith instanced the Amlin Cup final between Cheika’s Stade de France side and the Harlequins in 2011 when the Irish referee George Clancy was approached by Cheika at half-time. Clancy turned Cheika away, despite repeated attempts by Cheika to confront him.

Cheika later sent Clancy a note accusing him of being ‘too scored to face him.’

Cheika was heavily fined, half of which was suspended.

Wayne Smith then goes on to document that this incident was one of three other approaches made by Cheika to confront referees while he was coaching in Europe.

There clearly is a pattern here.

One part of this 2011 finding against Cheika intriqued me: “He has been coaching at the highest level in the Heineken Cup for a number of seasons and would have known before speaking to the referee that this was not permitted.”

This is intriquing because the Waratahs CEO Greg Harris explained away Cheika’s approach to Peyper on the grounds that he did not know this was not allowed. Smith calls this explanation “a little mischievous .. a stretch.” I would call it misleading nonsense.

But here’s the point. SANZAR made no reference to this past history in his statement about the Cheika-Peyper incident. How thorough was this investigation? You would have to say that it was once over very, very lightly.

Cheika’s ‘vulnerability’ alluded to by Wayne Smith, I would assert, is a seeming compulsion to challenge referees directly during a match when things are going wrong for his side.

One of The Roar readers sent a link to an article in the Herald Sun, 2 March 2013 written by Leo Schlink High hopes dashed by Waratahs’ comeback win but Rebels regroup.

The article, which is a well written and detailed, is an account of the the Rebels playing the Waratahs in Sydney, at the beginning Cheika’s coaching stint with the Waratahs. The Rebels lost 31-26, after leading by 10 points at half-time.

Remember these details. The Rebels were leading by 10 points at half-time, and lost 31 – 26.

We move on to around half-time in the match. Schlink writes this: “In the tunnel outside the Melbourne rooms, there is an intriquing encounter as NSW coach Michael Cheika appears to single out referee Rohan Hoffman.”

“Cheika is unhappy with the officiating. It is clear he expects better treatment … (The Rebels prop) Weeks is marched to the sin bin … The 50-50 balls, and calls – suddenly go the wrong way … NSW is celebrating its first win since April last year …”

Remember, too, that SANZAR found in its investigation of the Cheika-Peyper incident that “there is no evidence that the referee was influenced by the exchange in his handling of the match.”

This heroic verdict was offered without any evidence and without even an acknowledgment that the penalty count was (SANZAR’s statistics) 8-1 in favour of the Blues in the first half and, after Cheika’s polite discussion at half-time with Peyper, the penalty turned to 9-1 against the Blues.

One further point needs to be made here. The South African Referees blog points out that Cheika’s query to Peyper about his refereeing of the scrums in the first half of the match was based on a wrong interpretation of the law.

Just before half-time, the Waratahs had two scrums near the Blues line. The first scrum collapsed and Peyper penalised the Blues.

The Waratahs opted for a second scrum. The Waratahs won the ball. They kept it in the scrum. The scrum was static. Peyper told the Waratahs to use it. This command was made three times. When the ball was not used, Peyper stopped play and awarded the ball (according to the blog) to the Waratahs, but it is clear that the blogger meant the Blues.

The blog mentions Law 20.4 (e,f) The Team Throwing The Ball Into The Scrum. When a scrum remains stationary and the ball does not emerge or does not start moving immediately, the ball must emerge immediately, and if it does not, in both cases, the ‘ball is thrown to the team not in possession at the time of the stoppage.’

The blog sums up the conversation about the scrum interpretations between Cheika and Peyper this way: “The referee’s decision was right and Cheika did not dispute it.”

None of these many incidents and details were discussed in SANZAR’s short explanation of its findings concerning the Cheika-Peyper incident.

The New Zealand Herald has reported that the Blues have video evidence that the scrum interpretations were different in the second half than they were in the first half. Why hasn’t SANZAR tried to establish whether this is true or not, given that Peyper’s scrum calls in the first half, which were a concern to Cheika, were correct?

The SANZAR findings in the Cheika-Peyper matter do not acknowledge, either,that Cheika is a serial offender when it comes to putting pressure on referees by talking to them at half-time. It clearly did not inquire into the Waratahs-Rebels match in 2013. This is at variance with the 2011 inquiry that recorded Cheika’s history of approaching referees during matches that are not going well for his side.

You could argue from all of this, from psychological point of view, that Cheika seems to feel impelled to confront a referee during stressful and important matches. He gets a rush of blood to the head and away he goes. And if a referee is not available then perhaps an aberrant cameraman will do.

This type of behaviour must end now, or else Cheika will have a short career with the Wallabies.

That is for the future, on Saturday night Cheika is going to find plenty of things to force a rush of blood to his head when the Waratahs play the Hurricanes at Wellington.

The referee is the New Zealander Glen Jackson, like Peyper recently appointed to the referees panel for Rugby World Cup 2015. Jackson, a former sound number 10, referees in the New Zealand manner which tends to favour teams that are positive in their attacking and defensive play.

This is a must-win game for the Waratahs. Last season they had won five out of their first nine matches. They then went on to win all the rest of their matches, including the grand final against the Crusaders.

This season the Waratahs have already lost three out of their first seven matches, with the Brumbies (admittedly having played an extra match) ahead of them on the Australian Conference table with 25 points to the Waratahs 18.

And, just as importantly, the 18 points accrued by the Waratahs make them only 10th on the Super Rugby table.

Any more losses, therefore, and the Waratahs are going to find it difficult to win the Australian Conference ahead of the Brumbies, and make the final six behind the Brumbies.

The frustrating aspect of all this is that the Waratahs have played impressively this season, from time to time. The Waratahs average 90 tackles a match compared with the 146 tackles averaged by the Hurricanes, 130 carries compared with 109, and 528 metres gained a match compared with 464. These statistics suggest that the Waratahs have won a lot of possession and used it effectively.

The Waratahs have conceded 11 penalties a match compared with 12 by the Hurricanes, 84 per cent lineout success compared with 83 per cent, and 84 per cent with their scrums compared with 92.00 per cent from the Hurricanes

The only statistic against the Waratahs here relates to the scrum. How will Cheika control his emotions if Jackson rules in the same correct way as Peyper did in the first half against the Blues?

Nick Phipps has suggested that the Waratahs will stick to their ‘have a go’ mentality against the Hurricanes. And so they should. But they will have to be smarter than they were against the Stormers when the Waratahs big men continually tried to smash through the middle of the field where the Stormers had concentrated their defence.

The Waratahs have a good record against the Hurricanes, winning five of their last seven matches. Four of the Hurricanes wins, out of their seven on the trot this season, have come with a margin of a converted try or less.

The Hurricanes, in other words, are not over-powering all their opponents. In the first half of their last match against the Stormers the Hurricanes were irresistible in the first half before being smashed in the second half.

One final OPTA statistic. The Hurricanes have scored nine tries in the last quarter of play this season and the Waratahs have scored seven.

If the Hurricanes win this match, they will confirm the fact that they deserve to be a leading team. Given the brilliant but erratic nature of many of the Hurricanes Super Rugby campaigns, there has to be some scepticism about their true value as the tournament leaders.

If the Waratahs win, it will create the conditions for a repeat of the 2013 season when around the halfway mark in the tournament all the systems came together and produced an inevitable and dynamic momentum towards the finals and Super Rugby glory.

As they say, both teams have everything to play for.