Jaco Peyper, the referee for the Stormers-Brumbies match and the TMO, Marius Jonker, made a fine mess of things with some controversial rulings and one truly bizarre decision.
Peyper seems to have survived this officiating debacle but Jonker is not on duty for this weekend, at least.
I will say at the outset that rugby referees have an incredibly hard job. The law book is thick with clauses and sub-clauses. Referees have to have the clarity of mind of a judge, who has months sometimes to rule on a complex issue, when they have only couple of seconds sometimes to come to a ruling.
Experts talk about the fog of war that making deconstructing what happened in a battle virtually impossible, even given an extended study of the contest. Referees operate in the fog of the rugby where at any one time there may be a dozen events occurring.
We expect referees, therefore, to make mistakes. All we want from them is a knowledge of the laws and an ability to apply that knowledge without fear or favour. But most importantly, referees should not show favouritism, or even a perception of favouritism.
But TMOs are different. They are expected to be correct 100 per cent of the time in their decisions. There will be mistakes because the TMOs are human and ‘to err is human’. But the tolerance for mistakes by the TMO should be very much lower than that for referees.
The fact is that the technology available to the TMOs should ensure that there are no mistakes. Mistakes by TMOs should be like a properly cooked steak – rare.
The corollary to this is that referees should not accept advice from the TMO that appears to be wrong, in their view.
The proper servant-master relationship between the TMO and the referee was exemplified during the recent France-England match.
The TMO queried referee Nigel Owens’ decision to award a try to England when two forwards ploughed forward to score a try. One of the forwards forced a tackle from a French defender.
The TMO was adamant that there had been obstruction against a French defender. Owens took a look at the replays, rather briskly dismissed the TMO’s objections and went ahead with awarding the try. This was the correct decision.
Craig Joubert, too, when pestered by the TMO will say: “I’ll tell you what I am seeing.”
This approach reinforces the referee master-TMO servant relationship, which is how the review system should operate.
If this system is in place, if the referee can see what needs to be seen and knows the laws, there shouldn’t be the fine mess that Jonker and Peyper got themselves into last weekend.
This bring me to an important question that needs to be raised: why was Jaco Peyper refereeing this match?
Last Friday, Glen Jackson, a New Zealander, refereed the Bulls versus Sharks match at Loftus Versfeld, Pretoria.
Why wasn’t the South African Peyper given this local derby to referee?
Why wasn’t the neutral Jackson given the South African Stormers versus the Australian Brumbies match to referee?
SANZAAR always replies to questions like this with the meaningless mantra that there are three key criteria to be fulfilled: overall performance throughout the Super Rugby tournament, accuracy in the big calls and “the right fit for the game”.
Jackson, like Peyper, is an up-and-coming international referee with some Test experience. Surely, he fulfilled all three of the key criteria to referee the Stormers-Brumbies match?
And this is, presumably, why this weekend he is refereeing the Cheetahs-Brumbies match at Toyota Stadium, Bloemfontein.
Peyper has been given the Sharks-Crusaders match at Kings Park, Durban. Jonker is not on TMO duty over the weekend. The TMO assisting Peyper is Johan Greef.
I don’t believe the Crusaders will be doing hand-stands of joy over either of these appointments.
Admittedly it was back in 2012 when Peyper was an inexperienced Super Rugby referee but his handling of the Bulls-Crusaders pool round match at Pretoria had Todd Blackadder fuming. With the Crusaders in rampant form and running away with the game, Peyper allowed the Bulls to allege, on no evidence, that two of their players had been eye-gouged.
Penalties flowed strongly to the Bulls after the allegations. Morne Steyn kicked eight out of ten penalty attempts and the Bulls won a match they should never have come close in 32-30. Incidentally, towards the end of the match, Peyper ruled a shepherding decision against the Crusaders disallowing a try, on the advice of the assistant referee.
When Keiran Read pointed out to Peyper and the assistant referee that teammates are allowed to run alongside the ball-runner, as long as they don’t block in front of them, he was told to go away.
Given this sort of history, it is hard to see how Peyper fits the three key criteria to referee the Crusaders in South Africa.
Johan Greeff, too, was involved as a TMO (with referee Stuart Berry) in a bizarre decision a couple of years ago when the Lions were awarded a try against the visiting Blues after a blatant knock-on that went metres forward.
That decision so bewildered Blues coach Sir John Kirwan that he contacted SANZAAR’s boss of referees Lyndon Bray.
As a consequence of a number of other bewildering decisions, including decisions affecting the Reds in their loss to the Sharks, Bray announced a crackdown on match officials:
“There is a lot of pain to come for referees. The fact is, they’re either going to get dropped out of the team, which is a significant consequence obviously, or suffering from the point of view of number and quality of appointments.”
With the current spate of plainly wrong TMO decisions in South Africa, New Zealand and Australia, it is surely time for Bray to start another crackdown.
I repeat the point that TMOs should not make any mistakes. This is a doctrine of perfection. There will be mistakes. But there have to be consequences from these mistakes. Moreover, when these mistakes involve a referee just going with the flow with the TMO then that referee needs to be made accountable too.
Scotty Stevenson in The New Zealand Herald has argued for SANZAAR to be required to explain rulings that are clearly controversial:
“Acceptance of the human element in decision-making is all well and good, and it is quite legitimate for rugby to pound this message home at every opportunity, but how can we get a better understanding of the game’s myriad confusing laws if contentious decisions are not openly discussed?”
This is a very good question. It deserves an answer from SANZAAR.
I would suggest that Lyndon Bray do what the citing commissioners do when announcing a decision, as in the matter recently of Sam Cane.
SANZAAR’s ruling clear Cane on the grounds that he entered the maul in question “in a permissible manner”. At the same time, the Jaguares prop Nahuel Tetaz Chaparro “fell rapidly to the ground”. The contact between the two players was “unintentional” because Chapparo “was not carrying the ball”.
Why can’t SANZAAR give this sort of explanation for some of the controversial decisions over the past couple of weeks?
And will SANZAAR please explain why Peyper and not Jackson refereed the Stormers-Brumbies match?
Ben
Guest
What piffle. Peyper is nothing short of a cheat. He has repeatedly reffed some of the worst performances since Andre Whatson had a whistle. Much ado about everything! He should lose his job but will not.
2211
Guest
Dave, you are spot on regarding the difference between home town refereeing and poor refereeing in general but I would suggest Lees' record in Australian teams v NZ teams would point to a bias. This of course doesn't mean he might also just be a poor ref ? My point was that despite the Leyds try shocker, Peyper had a fair game and didn't seem to favor either side and yet is held up as an example of home town bias. As much as I enjoy Spiro's articles I often find a similar bias angled against the South Africans (wether teams or refs). In the case of last weekend the worst example of home town (or country) bias was from an Australian referee and yet didn't rate a mention which somewhat undermines the worthiness of the discussion around neutral referees for the sake of pushing a fairly poorly disguised agenda...
taylorman
Roar Guru
Geez if thats the case the tahs players must be lining up to propose to Joubert. I mean a second date even!?
RedandBlack
Guest
For mine the key words are clear and obvious. The ref should state an opinion at the outset - the TMO should quickly check the angles and then a decision should be made. By definition if an action requires multiple viewings for an experienced official to make up their mind on what they are seeing then it is not clear and obvious and the ref should follow his original opinion. Nigel Owens is the closest we have to this at the moment and it certainly helps his claim to be the Worlds best ref. Better yet - kill the replays all together and get on with the game.
stillmatic1
Guest
agreed rhino. I still struggle to understand how grown men and women continue to make things up or not just because it has or hasn't benefitted their team. I have no problem watching a game between any teams and calling it how it is, irrespective of allegiance. does this mean I scream from the rooftops about howlers against oz or s.a sides? no, not really, but I can at least admit they happened. a forward pass is a forward pass, a knock on is a knock on, offside is offside, so why not watch both teams instead of just your own? sheepish nod when it benefits you, outlandish squeal when it doesn't, but at least there is a semblance of truth and honesty and sportsmanship in the conduct. go to keo, a nz site or the roar and people still hold onto their bias, days after the fact, and still wont admit to the evidence. human nature isn't really all it is cracked up to be it seems. maybe we should just study math and play chess or something.................. on the topic, I don't care about fans perception about perceived bias, I want the best refs officiating the games and that is what professionalism is all about.
Charging Rhino
Roar Guru
Jeepers Margaret....!! Another article on a debatable refereeing decision that had absolutely no impact on the outcome of a match, or even whether the losing side received a losing bonus point or not!!?? Flippen heck... I just hope that the same uproar and hoo haa occurs when yet another South African team is once again absolutely shafted in Australia or New Zealand this year ... Otherwise you'll ALL a bunch of big hypocrites. I agree with one thing, which is what I've mentioned before on this site and maybe Mr Zavos took it form me.... a lot of it has to do with you own perception... perceived bias. But maybe I'm expecting too much... Will be swept under the carpet yet again.... No-one will blink an eyelid... as in 2015...2014....2013...2012... etc etc etc..... That's all.
ClarkeG
Guest
Soapit. The link you have provided provides the same coverage as that provided by Carlos. I've viewed the incident and given a reasoned conclusion so I'm not sure of the necessity for the reference to my brain. The second angle gives a completely deceptive view of the incident. Cole is of course running forward but he is taking an arced course meaning he is travelling sideways as well. As Vunipola is taking a direct line they clearly come into contact. Is Vunipola in front? Maybe. Clear and obvious? No unless there is another angle that provides a truer perspective. You yourself have used words including smidge, some degree, small amount, beside and marginally. Those descriptions don't provide an overwhelming case for disallowing the try.
Dave_S
Guest
2211, there has been a fair bit of forum comment on Lees, none of it favourable (including from me, a Reds supporter). Problem is, it's hard to know what is home-town refereeing or just poor refereeing. I guess it needs to be shown he consistently favours certain teams before we can make an accusation like that. It did seem to be the case that Lees had a bias towards the Reds scrum, but perhaps because they were generally dominant and therefore assumed to be dominant all of the time. But he is hardly alone among refs on that point. There does seem to be a huge problem in refs not really understanding what is going on in scrums (not that I know either ...)
2211
Guest
Armand, to the point you have been making, I have been somewhat surprised about the howls of outrage surrounding the officiating in the Stormers v Brumbies match but very little mention of the very poor effort of Andrew Lees (another non-neutral, but and Australian one...) in the Reds v Blues match. Admittedly there have been a handful of comments in the forums but no mention from Spiro here despite being a far more egregious example of poor home town refereeing. Or maybe it's just the South Africans that are guilty of that...
Cadfael
Roar Guru
We have had some odd decisions at times. I would prefer that they appoint neutral referees. In other NH competitons, neutral refs are the case as it is in internationals. Now with five nations involved in Super Rugby, we need to have neutral refs and also referees from both Argentina and Japan. Super Rugby is ised by teama sand countries to play their best against the best. The long term is that this aids the national team. Why shouldn't referees get the same treatment.
ClarkeG
Guest
yes soapit I see your point.
ClarkeG
Guest
Angus it’s not my intention to be disrespectful of your view in any way but what you mean is that you went back to the law book and could not find any reference that contact is suffice as I asked. The law is not at all vague. The law requires the ball to be either, held and grounded, or grounded by pressing down on it. Perfectly straight forward. Whether or not he loses contact with the ball is not relevant. Unless there has been some directive/guideline/clarification of law somewhere at some stage issued by the refereeing power brokers then this issue of contact is a misnomer / red herring / diversion – or whatever. Why is it not a knock on? It is a knock on. The player has lost possession – he is no longer holding the ball – it has moved forward – he has lost contact – he has not caught the ball before it touches the ground which would avoid the knock on. Catching the ball is very important when avoiding a knock on because that is the law. But let’s say for arguments sake that he did not knock the ball on. He loses possession – the ball goes straight down and not forward and part of his arm / hand stays in contact. Even then he has still not scored a try. He is not holding the ball so he can’t ground it in that manner so the only other way he can score a try is to press down on it while the ball is on the ground. He didn’t do that either. So whatever way we want to skin this cat Leyds did not score a fair try. Kafer is right in that a try can be scored with your little finger. Holding the ball and grounding it with your pinky would be difficult but if a ball is in goal on the ground and an attacking player presses down on it with his little finger then yes that would be a try. Kafer however is stretching a long bow to suggest that a try could be scored in circumstances such as the Leyds try by merely retaining contact with the ball with a little finger.
Jerry
Guest
Get over it, the Wallabies lost by 17 points, blaming the ref for that is pathetic.
Dave_S
Guest
Always a subjective call, but when I saw it live I thought "hang on, what about obstruction" It was not a clearly dud call.
Dave_S
Guest
I agree, challenge refs to be impartial (it's a skill to learn) and they are more likely to be. And it is also quite possible a 'neutral' ref will be biased against one side regardless of the identity of the other side. A true Qlder will always look to stick it up the Tahs any way he can, for eg. A ref with Lees' attitude will always be a poor ref, regardless of the sides he refs. Anyway all that is a bit silly. As moaman says, lets just concentrate on competence, full stop. If all the best refs come from SA and NZ and none from Oz, so no Ozzie refs in SR at all, I can live with that.
Harry
Guest
I feel that Owens has a massive ego. He seems to believe that the game is about him. He also seems to have a predetermined view of what the result should be and, in my opinion, referees accordingly
ClarkeG
Guest
That's it of course. The love will remain forever.
Jerry
Guest
He can still knock on if he's still touching the ball. Is he holding the ball? No - so 22.1 (a) doesn't apply. Does he press down on the ball? Not really, so 22.1 (b) doesn't apply. So he hasn't scored a try, IMO. He's lost possession and the ball has hit the ground. Knock on. You do see situations like that where the player is no longer holding the ball, but their hand/arm or even chest is clearly on top of the ball and presses down. That's a try under 22.1 (b), but in this case there was no downward pressure from the arm.
Angus MacMillan
Guest
Hi ClarkG I went back to the law book and it is a bit vague. Tell me though why it's not a try does he knock the ball on? He never losses contact with the ball so he couldn't have. Kafer said at no time did he lose contact with the ball and that even if you touch the ball with your pinky it is still a try.
Phil
Guest
Totally agree,MH01.Peyper,I believe,is one of the better refs running around and I would not mind him reffing my team any time,but he definitely did not handle his TMO very well in this game.Also,his interpretation of what constitutes grounding when scoring a try was very strange for a top level ref. Jonker is a totally different kettle of fish.If he was selected TMO when my team was playing,then I doubt if I would watch or,if I did,would pray for no need to refer anything to him.Two ridiculous decisions,showing total bias against the Brumbies(I don't follow them,by the way),although Mann-Rae deserved to go for stupidity.