There is plenty to admire about the Chiefs in 2016. The top side in Super Rugby at present has scored more tries than any other franchise and boast the competition’s most exciting new star in Damien McKenzie.
However the strange climax to their thrilling 28-27 win over the Hurricanes on Saturday exposed a cunning and cynical side that has surprisingly gone unnoticed.
Saturday’s game at the Westpac Stadium ended in uncontested scrums – a crucial advantage for the visitors who were hanging on grimly to their slender lead and a situation that wasn’t adequately explained by the press, players and officials after the game.
Here is what transpired.
In the 38th minute Chiefs tighthead prop Atu Moli left the field and was officially replaced injured at halftime.
The reserve tighthead Siate Tokolahi was injured in the 75th minute.
The Chiefs attempted to replace Tokolahi with Siegfried Fisiihoi. The Chiefs advised substitutes controller David Walsh, Fisiihoi can’t play tighthead which is curious because Fisiihoi played tighthead for Bay of Plenty in ITM Cup.
The Chiefs management wanted Fisihoi on the field, but not to contest scrums. Under the rules he cannot enter the game without competing in the scrums so the referees advised the Chiefs management unless he competes in the scrums he doesn’t play at which point the Chiefs chose not to bring him onto the field leaving the referee with no choice but to go to uncontested scrums.
Law 3.6d states: “In a squad of 23 players, or at the discretion of the union/match organiser, a player whose departure has caused the referee to order uncontested scrums cannot be replaced.”
These facts have been verified to me by the officials and explain why the Chiefs finished the match with only 14 players.
Given the Chiefs had conceded a tighthead when the Hurricanes scored their fourth try and were back-peddling in the scrums, this was a calculated gamble that paid off. The Chiefs risked conceding penalties if contested scrums had occurred in the last five-minutes.
However their decision raises a number of questions.
Why can’t a professional player with previous first class experience at tighthead be trusted to uphold his end of the scrum in a crucial stage of the match?
Why do the Chiefs regard Fisihoi so lowly?
How many more games will Fisiihoi play this season and will he appear at tighthead?
Wasn’t the increase in front row reserves designed to reduce the prospects of this type of thing happening?
Why have the Chiefs brought the spirit of the game into disrepute by openly attempting to manipulate the laws to their advantage?
Isn’t a contest for the ball the essence of the game? Deliberating degrading the ability of their reserve prop to compete runs contrary to that ideal.
The Chiefs are a very good side. They deserve their successes this season, but their behaviour in the last five-minutes on Saturday was disappointing and cynical.
CUW
Guest
ok i stand corrected and bow to superior knowledge on the laws of rugger (Y). we learn something new every day :) then in this case i can only assume what Clarke says - that Joubert thought all was well in the pass and did not instruct the tmo to look at it.
ClarkeG
Guest
Some may be interested to read the StuffNZ article (Aaron Goile) which covers some of the points raised in this Roar article and views and questions raised by many posters. Chiefs Coach Rennie has rubbished claims that the injury to Tokolahi was not genuine. Also SANZAAR has confirmed the team sheet only listed the Chief replacement props as Front Row and not specifically TH or LH. This is in line with competition regulations. Regards Fisi’ihoi suitability for TH, Rennie has said that he has battled when tried in this position. http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/79342087/chiefs-deny-allegations-of-manipulating-rules-in-super-rugby-win-over-hurricanes
ClarkeG
Guest
Knick - did you miss the bit where I said the referee is able to shortcut the process where stadium screens are present? I have listened to the conversation between Coles and the referee. You didn’t hear the ref speak the letters TMO and explain the process and the reasons why the try was over turned?
CUW
Guest
the Owens case was funny and am not sure if u saw the match , but he was all over the place . in fact he was being prima donna in that match - being euro semi and all - taliking a hell of a lot more than usual and playing to a partisan crowd. from tell it looked as if there were 20 050 fans at the ground of which 50 were from france ! he saw it on telly , becoz before going to tmo, he awarded the try. then he said to tmo to look at the first pass (from Masoe to Mac). this is where i think the so called best refs in the world get away with anything. the tmo could have told him it was way too back to review - but who the eff r u to argue with nigel owens ? right!!! on the other hand , a few weeks back the tmo in a super match was always arguing with the RAStaman, and at that time i wrote here , that maybe becoz he is new to super rugger players and officials are not giving him the respect his position deserves. when owens really effed up the so called knock on and the scrum , the tmo shud have said ur wrong . but then nigel owens is never wrong !!!
ClarkeG
Guest
Yes CUW. It is not passes - it is phases (rucks/mauls). If what you say is the case then no one told ref Nigel Owens who over turned a try last weekend after about 6-7 exchanges in the European Cup semi between Leicester and Racing 92.
Knickradamus
Guest
I've got u CUW... Christies (highlanders) disallowed try against the Reds Osbourne puts a grubber through in which Christie was in front... Christie is put on side by Osbourne and faddes highlanders tackle the claiming Reds player and turn the ball over at the breakdown... Ball gets passed to Christie and he scores in the corner but the try was not awarded as he was infront of Osbourne and didn't stop advancing..... That's more then 2 of ur plays
Knickradamus
Guest
Shields non try Dane Coles went over to the ref asking what was happening and the ref said I saw it it's not a try then called a line out, ref never referred to the TMO... What happened was the argentine player stood on the line and the Hurricanes crowd were hollaring and the broadcasters showed it on the big screen after the try was awarded which is where the ref saw it and said no try.
Knickradamus
Guest
CUW - what are u on sir? It's not counted on passes it's counted on phases of which a breakdown resets the phase... CG was saying you can't go back 2 phases of play being from the breakdown..... So let's count the breakdowns? Well it started at a line out turnover and then..... None It was just the same phase no breakdowns nothing so could the TMO looked at it? Yes they could have..... They even went to the TMO and only looked at the grounding....
Zero Gain
Guest
I never said they cheated, I was commenting on the relies that were on here when I posted, not the many that have been added since.
CUW
Guest
@ Knickradamus. try counting the plays. horrell to seta = 1 seta to pulu = 2 pulu to seta = 3 then seta scored the try so the forward pass occurred more than 2 plays before the actual scoring of the try therefore the tmo cannot go back and look at the pass. the tmo protocol was clearly defined to say they can only go back two plays,; sorry i cannot recall the exact incident that led to this edict from world rugby. however i am sure it came only recently after an incident in a match. it was not there when tmo was first introduced.
ClarkeG
Guest
I thought you said it mattered not as the officials can go back as far as they want but anyway I agree the pass of Horrell’s, that you allege was forward, could have been referred to the TMO. The pass itself I have already commented on. You say the Shields non try was not referred to the TMO. That claim does not tie up with the conversation between the referee and the Hurricanes captain where the referee explained the role of the TMO. However, it is within the referee’s authority nonetheless, under the TMO protocols, to shortcut the process where stadium screens are present. How can a referee simply over turn a try because “they feel like it”. They have to have grounds and that would need to be upheld by the TMO process.
Knickradamus
Guest
The point here was that the Chiefs second try off the forward pass was in the the same phase of play so the TMO would have been able rule on it... There's no doubt the pass was forward im looking at it now it came forward out of Horrells hands and continues to move forward... In shields try TMO was never referred to the ref just saw it on the big screen and unawarded the try.... the formalities for refs are quite ambiguous as they can unaward a try prior to the conversion being taken if they feel like it.... I know I've had quite a few moral issues with the refs and TMO's this season as I feel their decisions/powers are used inconsistently and over/understate the interests in the game...
ClarkeG
Guest
No that is not correct. TMOs can not be asked to consider potential infringements as far back as officials wish. If it is more than 2 rucks/mauls (phases) then it can't be considered. The over turned try by Shields against the Jaguares was dealt with entirely within the TMO protocol. There was 1 ruck between the infringement and the scoring of the try. Regarding foul play I think (not absolutely sure) the match officials can consider any potential incident before the next restart in play. So a player could be penalised for any incident in the previous play irrespective of a try being scored. So if it is found that a penalty offence has occurred then obviously the try would not stand.
ClarkeG
Guest
try 2 - the match officials might have missed it because it might have been ok and not forward at all. Even if it had been referred to the TMO it is unlikely it would have been over turned.
ClarkeG
Guest
I'm not talking about a finger touching the ball. Forget about downward pressure. The player only needs to ground/place the ball to score a try. The player did this. You just can't be sure Horrell's pass is forward from his hands from the coverage I've seen. But we agree to disagree. Life is beautiful. Two people can watch the same thing but see completely different things. :-)
Knickradamus
Guest
In the second try Horrells break and the try are in the same phase of play not that it matters as the TMO and ref can go as far back as they want... Eg Brad shields try against the Jaguars where the ref didn't even go back at all he just saw it on the big screen there was also one against the highlanders against the Reds I think for dangerous play at the breakdown a few phases before the try and subsequently the try was disallowed... Tamanivalus first try is a bit of a joke there wasn't any down ward pressure applied at all just a finger touching the ball....
Carlos the Argie
Roar Guru
Thank Goodness that Craig Joubert, poor chap, didn't leave the field running to the sheds. Twice with controversial calls for the nice South African.
taylorman
Roar Guru
Me too Brett, that's why some of us backs stay out of these discussions. You need a degree to know what's going on up front and I'd prefer to take the simpler view ...'FFS...just get on with it and give us the dam!n ball why don't you' ?
Knickradamus
Guest
He lost the ball prior to scoring the only question is.... Does a finger touching the side of the ball at the exact time the ball touches the ground equate to downward pressure? You wouldn't think so... I'm watching a replay at the moment and it's pretty clear he lost the ball and never regained control he may have scraped the side of the ball with a finger but even that's unclear... Horrells forward pass is forward it comes forward out of his hands and stays going forward... Don't want to take anything away from the try... It was pretty good... In any case wasn't picked up canes had other opportunities to win the game.....
Old Bugger
Guest
Neither do I CG - perhaps it was my stubbornness to argue the Chiefs are not cynical as this article implies....typical response from a Chiefs supporter. Anyways, it was a banter on both issues and if you are an SR coach, then who am I to tell you, how you select your team.