It honestly couldn’t have come at a better time. There’s been so much confusion, angst, dunderheadedness, indecision, procrastination, and annoying silence in rugby this season that the Super Rugby Final delivering the best two teams all season was a very welcome gift.
And that’s not at all to say the Hurricanes wouldn’t have been deserved finalists, had they gone on from their 22-3 lead late in the first half. Their three tries inside half an hour silenced the Ellis Park crowd, and it was pretty quiet on my couch at the time, too, with some serious thinking under way about yet another tip going south.
I still can’t quite pinpoint the exact turning point in the second semi-final, but I do recall thinking after a long Ruan Combrinck kick downfield early in the second half, followed a few minutes later by an equally long Andries Coetzee kick downfield, that the Lions were starting to pin the Hurricanes down in their own half – something I can’t really recall happening too much in 2017.
That the Lions were able to storm home as they did says something for half time sprays. Johan Ackermann was measured when he spoke to local broadcasters Supersport after the halftime break, but I’m pretty sure there was a hint of neck vein still pulsing angrily.
It also says something for coming home with a wet sail. For all the talk about the Hurricanes’ record season in attack, the Lions scored only six points fewer across the regular season. Noted second-half finishers, they were always going to come home strongly, and that, coupled with the Hurricanes playing at altitude meant that the threat of a second half run-down was always a threat.
The ‘Canes needed a big lead early, and you sensed that was going to be the Chiefs best chance of toppling the Chiefs as well.
And it’s not like they didn’t have plenty of ball; upwards of 70 per cent of possession in the first half, as the Crusaders from the opening minutes showed that they were more than happy to tackle their way into the Final.
Would the result have been the same if Tim Nanai-Williams didn’t lose control of the ball while grounding it over the line? We’ll never know. But what we do know is that from that point it would be another 57 minutes before the Chiefs broke through the red-and-black wall in front of them.
They had chances, for sure, and looked seemingly certain to score on a couple of occasions. But they couldn’t, and that kind of reflected their season in the New Zealand conference too; they threatened numerous times, but they were never able to stand out as the top team over the ditch.
The Lions’ second halves this season have been something to behold. Even just since the June International break, their record after halftime is 127 points to just 21 points and three tries conceded; and average second forty of 31-5. And like they were against the Hurricanes in the Semi-Final, the Lions also trailed the Sharks in the Qualifying Final.
They were always going to be a fast-finishing side. The ‘Canes even forced plenty of mistakes, but were let down by uncharacteristic execution errors, and their decision-making at times failing under pressure. The Lions missed every third tackle they attempted, yet through sheer weight of possession and territory, it didn’t matter.
(AP Photo/Mark Baker)
Traveling to South Africa was going to be a mere detail for the Hurricanes, some sections of the Kiwi media were insisting upon us last week. Those same sections were blowing up deluxe on Sunday, not because an on-field official got a decision right, but because an on-field official made an immediate and decisive – and correct – decision on his own. In a day and age where we deplore the game being unnecessarily held up by TMO referrals, the New Zealand Herald insisted “a more considered approach might have been appropriate”.
That more considered approach would’ve come up with the same result, of course, but never mind. Also, you know, home town refs. That old chestnut. No-one bring up the inconvenient point of who blew the whistle in last year’s final in Wellington.
The neutral refereeing argument comes up at this time of year every year, and even if you subscribe to the theory that professional referees’ livelihoods and future employment rests on their impartiality – and I do – it’s certainly true that SANZAAR brought this upon themselves the day they went away from appointing neutral referees. Regardless, it shouldn’t be an issue this weekend, with Australian ref Angus Gardner widely tipped to get what would be a well-deserved nod for the Final.
But then again, we have rather astonishingly learned in the last week that ‘four weeks’ actually means something closer to seven weeks, despite numerous examples in recent years of a ‘week’ within a suspension including no games at all. And never mind that ‘matches’ was clarified to become ‘weeks’ a few years ago after the Wallabies somehow argued that Michael Hooper was always going to make a rare-as-hen’s-teeth appearance for his club side Manly during a Rugby Championship bye week.
Nope, now ‘weeks’ means ‘matches’ again, and Sonny Bill Williams’ fourth ‘match’ of his suspension will come nearly two months after he was sent off against the British and Irish Lions.
Honestly, if I wasn’t so used to rugby at the top level only refraining from shooting itself in the foot when forced to reload, it would all be quite laughable.
And that’s why a first versus second final is one to be celebrated.
After the season Super Rugby has had in 2017, it’s actually quite remarkable that like always seems to be the case, the best teams in the comp will again face off on the last weekend of the competition. And thank goodness for that.
G Slacker
Guest
Oh booooohoooooo. How sensitive and bu-thurt can you get. waaaaa the Wallabies posted a clothing ad from one of their sponsors, and it only features players from the Waratahs. Go back to your safe place Fionn. Or maybe the ARU can implement a trigger warning, into all their social media postings so that princesses like you don't get their feelings hurt.
ClarkeG
Guest
Yes anything can be argued - something to do with human nature I guess - but I'm not discussing the quality of any argument about theoretical match appearances counting towards any player suspension. The point that I made is that there is integrity in the concept on which the foul play regulations are presently based i.e that all matches are equal.
Sylvester
Guest
The Crusaders, for example, only lost to NZ teams. Two of the Canes' 4 losses were to NZ teams. Same with the Highlanders and Chiefs, from memory.
soapit
Guest
anything can be argued. wouldnt think most would see much quality in an argument that counting a theoretical appearance for a team that someone hasnt turned out for in 12 months or more as equal enhances the integrity of the penalty system. no doubt some would try for a variety of potential reasons.
ClarkeG
Guest
Yes Sage I recall the exchange and you no doubt recall my response to you and other comments I made. What I said the other day ...you have just gone and done it again. Anyway who are we talking about today...Gregor Paul or Marc Hinton? I'm assuming it's Hinton in your case. Seeing you have made such an issue about Hinton's article I took a moment to have a quick look at it. Didn't read all but there seems way more than plenty of dissent (accompanied by a large number of thumbs ups) for the article. Perhaps a case of you finding what you are looking for? Thanks for clarifying Neutral's point however even if it is not what he said exactly.
cuw
Guest
yes the "PUSH" is what im wondering about. if u recall there was a simillar try by crusaders , where it seemed the prop ( was it moody?) had initially landed short , but then pushed the ball over in the ensuing mele'. i have no indepth knowledge of the Laws , but i thought shuch pushes were considered as double movement or what ever they call it , once upon a time. also i am of the view that when ever there is too much happening near the try line , it is best to use technology - unless it is 200% clear cut. for eg the TNW try was almost given , only for the tv to show the ko. there was one fantastic tv referell in the INDIA v SRI LANKA test match. Upul Thranga was hammering away to a run a ball fifty , when he stepped out to drive. the silly mid off caught the ball and flicked it to the keeper who took bails off. Tharanga dived back. the leg ump referred it to tv ump. the first replay showed in normal speed he was well inside and Indians went back to their fielding positions. the next slo-mo showed that while Tharanga got his bat inside the popping crease, it had jumped up at the time bails came off. so although the bat was well inside the crease , at the moment bail is lifted there is nothing touching the ground - AND OUT !!! that is the beauty of tv slomo. that is why i say refer it unless it is clear cut.
ClarkeG
Guest
Could be argued that there is very much a good sense of integrity in the concept that all matches are equal.
zhenry
Guest
Correction Lions got penalty but got away wth yellow card - that's one instance only. Have to say the NZ response to Peyper refing final, is a typical 'wet limp rag' NZ response: Your not that good NZ, your not so far ahead of the pack, wake up NZ, start confronting NZ you are never going to play perfect; sure review what you could have done better but confront discrepencies by others as well.
zhenry
Guest
What about infringements in the red zone by the Lions. Don't even mention it. I have not checked what the Lions did when they were in their own 25, but at least one Commenter on here has observed they got away with a yellow card and a penalty, and again 'timber's' evidence by 'planet rugby' re neutral refs; indisputable, except to SA's. Of course Gardiner should have the super final, and re gardless of Jackson last year (NZ refs don't er as much as SA refs - re 'timber' above) Peyper's performance last week favored the Lions, even though arguments can be mounted against, if Peyper had been consistent with both teams the outcome would have been different.
Jerry
Guest
Except that data isn't broken down to SA refs vs NZ, it's SA refs vs Aus/Jap/Arg/NZ etc.
Sage
Guest
Didn't we already comment on this? Yes it was his opinion but it was the comments from the public afterward, the feedback on what he said - which then makes it more of an overall opinion than just his. I think that is the point being made. He received a lot of support for his conspiracy ramblings.
taylorman
Guest
Probably the best reason for assigning a neutral Ref is to take pressure off the man in the middle. He's now going to be scrutinised for bias to the nth degree unnecessarily to the point he could make some really misguided calls. Good on SANZAR for picking their 'best' Ref, but is the next best Neutral really so bad that it doesnt make just as good an option? And if bias really does exist at least someone like Gardner would have to actually choose a side to favour and what are the chances of that being important to him when it hasnt been all along.
Fionn
Guest
Highlander, you're probably right. It just irks me that some people (not only Kiwis mind, some Aussies also) are preemptively rubbishing the Lions to the point that, if they win, it will only be the "fault" of "biased" refereeing and an "unfair" draw. Others have said that poor refereeing is what allowed for the Lions to beat the Hurricanes. It just seems incredibly disrespectful towards the Lions, and it makes my heart ache for the time that this competition was a shining light of cooperation and contest between rugby nations who had great rivalries, but also a great deal of respect for each other.
Winston
Guest
Exactly
Digby
Roar Guru
While I agree that SANZAAR do not help themselves at times, especially around perception appointing non neutrals, there has been some consistency in appointing the best ref, example Peyper in 2015 for an all Kiwi clash. Ironically in amongst all the whinging about it, the last final I can remember shrouded in a bit of controversy about the ref performance or decisions made was indeed a neutral in 2014, Joubert with the Tahs and Crusaders. Go figure. I have come to the conclusion that for the majority, the ref will simply get both barrels if some fans don't like it, right or wrong and irrespective of where he comes from. Its rather sad. Anyhow, its a sell out, two good teams, looking forward to it. Thanks Brett.
Fionn
Guest
'they would be more even surely.' Perhaps. But I'm not at all certain? I would think that the data does worth internal investigation by SANZAAR though, even if it means looking through at ALL the penalties. That being said, I think it is fair to say that the Kiwis do indeed push the boundaries.
Highlander
Guest
good points OB, I always worry about the selective director way more than the man in the middle - unless its garces then all rights reserved
Highlander
Guest
was appointed as attack coach then cuw, just got the head gig yesterday
Highlander
Guest
if that were the case, nz sides concede more penalties, then the number would not have the domestic skew we see here, they would be more even surely. These numbers are, apparently, SANZAAR sourced, and if true, given the huge skew, should not be ignored.
Highlander
Guest
got it - but addressing ourselves at length to the 'whinge fringe' sadly achieves little