It was one of those moments in a game where as soon, as it happened, you could see and hear the conversations starting.
‘Ruined the contest’, ‘complete accident’, ‘he can’t disappear’ – the hot takes were flying thick and fast from pretty much the instant Lions flanker Kwagga Smith was shown a red card in the Super Rugby final on Saturday night.
My immediate thought was that Jaco Peyper and his assistants made the only decision they could, and even then you could hear the resignation in his voice as he worked through all the indicators with TMO Marius Jonker. Peyper didn’t really want to have to make the quite likely match-changing decision, but as he worked through the contest, the contact and the landing, the result was crystal clear.
“I’m thinking it’s the ultimate sanction,” he offered before Jonker concurred.
Smith, for his part, looked like he knew it couldn’t end well for him, too. The look on his face as he clattered into Crusaders fullback David Havili’s airborne legs said it all. And neither Smith nor his skipper, Jaco Kriel, attempted to reason with Peyper when called out. They knew what was coming as much as Peyper didn’t want to deliver it.
But the red card was correct, of that there should be no debate. And it might only be for Havili’s flexibility in landing and bouncing back to his feet that nothing came from the “seriously dangerous position” in which he landed, as Peyper colourfully described it while drawing the red card from his pocket.
“The rule needs to be looked at, Havili literally jumped into him,” came a reply on Twitter to my stated position that Peyper had got this tough call exactly right.
Ignoring the idea that Havili would ignore the contest and jump straight into the path of an opposition player’s head and bring whatever consequences that follow onto himself, this could not be left unchallenged.
The rule (sic) doesn’t need to be looked at because the laws are very clear on this.
“A player must not tackle an opponent whose feet are off the ground,” says Law 10.4(e), ‘Dangerous play and misconduct’.
“Tackling the jumper in the air: A player must not tackle nor tap, push or pull the foot or feet of an opponent jumping for the ball in a lineout or in open play,” continues Law 10.4(i).
(Image: Christiaan Kotze/AFP/Getty Images)
The Laws of the Game are clear, the laws are known and more importantly, the players know the consequences of their actions – even if accidental – in this instance. And what’s more, such is the (unfortunate) depth of examples and precedent for red cards under this law that we as rugby people all know what looks bad. In this case the only part of the incident that didn’t look bad was Havili’s almost immediate recovery.
Furthermore, if this type of incident is a red card in Round 2, then it has to be a red card in a final, too; there can’t be allowances to water down a sanction just because of the scale of the game nor any desire to preserve the aesthetics of a contest between two teams.
And I’ll say this upfront, too: no forthcoming comment today on this incident is going to change my mind, just as no Twitter conversation did in the early hours of Sunday morning. Peyper got it right, pure and simple.
Sadly there’s no doubt it had an impact on the final result of the game. The Crusaders were certainly well on top by that stage, leading 12-3 just before halftime, but in complete control of the contest.
For the second week in a row the Lions were cruelling themselves with turnovers and at times horrid execution and decision-making. Aside from his 51-metre penalty ten minutes earlier, Lions flyhalf Elton Jantjies was virtually invisible, unable to get into the game by virtue of the Lions not able to make ground and some pretty ordinary service from scrumhalf Ross Cronje.
Faced with the prospect of playing the remaining 41 minutes a man down was going to take much more than their miracle comeback against the Hurricanes in the semi-final – though if any team could call on divine intervention, the Lions don’t hide from the fact they have a strong connection with a higher being.
If He was able to help them get back into the contest – and maybe pilfer a bit of ball and push on the open side of the scrum while He’s there – then praise be to Him indeed.
(Image: AP Photo/Phil Magakoe)
Yet the Lions were too slow to react after halftime. I really think it was in those ten or so minutes where the game was lost.
At the time when the Lions needed to lift their pace and play wide, they stayed narrowly focussed and remained slow. Why Faf de Klerk wasn’t injected into the game at halftime is something only departing coach Johan Ackermann can answer, and while the Lions pondered and dithered, the Crusaders added ten more points and had most of their bench on by the 55th minute.
When de Klerk finally entered the game in the 61st minute even Lazarus himself would’ve struggled to get back up. But the Lions did manage to find some pace in the game and started asking some serious questions of the Crusaders defence. Jantjies was now into the game and playing a lot better with front foot ball, and two tries in the ten minutes brought the gap back to eight points with seven minutes to go. I know I was starting to think the Lions’ heavenly devotion was starting to pay off at this point.
From here the champion team of Crusaders confirmed their champion status for 2017. The Lions had three attacking lineouts in the closing stages of the game but ambitiously – ridiculously, really – threw to the back and brought Crusaders skipper Sam Whitelock into the contest, wehich he won of course, as he always tends to in those big moments. Ryan Crotty won the player of the final award, but I’ll wager that Whitelock wasn’t far behind him.
Ultimately that kind of 80-minute consistency from the Crusaders was the difference between the two sides in what was a really entertaining game despite the numerical disadvantage the Lions found themselves facing.
I’m not sure I’d go as far as Spiro’s headline suggested yesterday and say that it was a competition-saver, but it was certainly a suitable high water mark for what has been a frustratingly up-and-down season.
Scrumma
Guest
Hold your horses, to jump is to negate the spot tackle and don't be hypocrites because the lions themselves have been leaping for the ball when a bomb has been hoisted by the opposition.
Scrumma
Guest
Sounds like you read womans day ????
Sylvester
Guest
I'd be surprised if this is true, knowing they'd be walking off the plane into a large crowd of fans and media at the airport.
Hannes
Guest
Jibba Jabba, I know you are stirring, however I can test your hypothesis that "altitude give the home side such an advantage that a fair contest is not possible". First you need to remove the impact of traveling over time zones, so let us only consider the impact of altitude on South Africa's premier domestic competition, the Currie Cup. We also want to eliminate the impact of one good team, so lets consider more than a century of games. If altitude is an unfair advantage, you would expect that over this period the Highveld teams should dominate the Currie Cup, especially if you take into account that there are more players and teams from the Highveld than the Coastal regions that are competing for the Currie Cup. The Currie Cup has been played since 1892 and the teams that regularly compete include teams from the Highveld (Griqualand West, Transvaal/Golden Lions, Northern Transvaal/Blue Bulls, Free State/Cheetahs) and coastal areas (Natal/Sharks, Western Province/Stormers, Eastern Province and Border). Of the 78 winners, 39 were from Coastal areas, 37 were from the Highveld, while the cup was shared twice by teams from a Coastal area and the Highveld (1979 and 1989) . There is no evidence of a bias towards teams that enjoy an altitude advantage in the results, so your hypothesis is rejected!
Next year!
Guest
All I can say that it was someone on the flight who witnessed it all and had to clean up after them......
Jibba Jabba
Roar Guru
If true that is disappointing to hear and i hope the admin in the 'saders sorts it out. I am surprised they would be permitted to fly if that intoxicated tho team members could hide them when getting on the plane. Hopefully the reason you have not heard about it is because it didn't happen. How did you hear about it ? And identify the source or general field he/she works in that would provide them with reliable and verifiable knowledge .
Jibba Jabba
Roar Guru
Really ?? maybe thats whats saved Havili from a broken neck...
Next year!
Guest
They may be a great team or Rugby players but from what I have heard from a very good source who was on the flight they are not a team of gentlemen. Reports of drunken players on the flight home from Jo'burg where players where drunk, vomiting and ignoring the flight attendants does not reflect well on the team, NZ Rugby and the game. Apparently one player who will remained unnamed had trouble walking up the stairs he was so drunk. I always try and stick up for the game and the players, however from what I heard I cannot support or defend them despite cutting them some slack as they had just one the title. Being fair I heard that some players where exemplary and quiet however my question and particularity to senior players is why did they not bring the poorly behaved players into line? If this were Rugby League players it would be all in the news - however it's interesting to date that no one has mentioned it ...... Very disappointing
Joe Carter
Guest
As he was chasing the ball, Smith looked forward twice to see where the fullback was, i suspect that Smith was surprised by the height & distance of the Havilii's jump to catch the ball.
Hannes
Guest
You need to explain why South African teams at sea level such as the Kings, Sharks and Stormers do well on the highveld while the Saders and Canes faded away in the second half. The answer is either that they are fitter than the Kiwi teams or that the Kiwi teams travelled further and are still suffering from yet lag. The latter is far more likely. Altitude is a factor but has been blown out of proportion by the Kiwi media. It is only 1,500 metres above sea level while 18 hours in a plane travelling over timezones take a lot out of you.
Hannes
Guest
No I am not climate change sceptic. It is irrelevant. If you believe altitude is an issue, argue your case if you can.
Hannes
Guest
You have not explained why South African teams at sea level has no problem with altitude year in and year out while your Canes and Saders did have problems. Either they are not as fit, or it is the travel.
ClarkeG
Guest
The only way around it? around what? SBW was suspended for 4 weeks/matches and he will not play in 4 matches. Whatever date is set is based on the matches missed so at the end of the day it all means the same. For example if a Lions player had been suspended for 1 week / match following a Saturday game on the recent tour and there was a midweek match following that match then his suspension would be served in the midweek match. I don't see how there is ambiguity. A player can't be suspended for more weeks than the matches he is suspended for.
ClarkeG
Guest
yes Cuw but it is obvious the intent of the law about tackling players who are in the air has absolutely nothing to do with tackling a player who is simply running.
Buk
Guest
Ok a purely hypothetical $10 million will be credited to your bank account. Enjoy the purely hypothetical spending :)
Brett McKay
Expert
Well, since your comment came a day after what was referred to in the column as 'today', I say hand over the $$$, Buk! !! ?
rebel
Guest
What about mid week matches. The only way around it is to put a date on it. That takes out any ambiguity.
johnr
Guest
Absolutely agree regarding boring in. It is not that hard to spot,either. My personal theory is that any side that gains a serious advantage at scrum time at international level is cheating. The front rows are all about the same size, about the same level of fitness and all trained by the same gurus or their disciples. The situations where you can get a real advantage (e.g a really short compact front row) rarely happen in internationals these days.
Buk
Guest
I agree with your article except for one thing Brett: 'And I’ll say this upfront, too: no forthcoming comment today on this incident is going to change my mind, just as no Twitter conversation did in the early hours of Sunday morning. Peyper got it right, pure and simple.' What if to change your mind I was to offer you two alternatives: (1) change your mind and be $10 million richer tomorrow morning (2) don't change your mind and wake up tomorrow morning with the head of your favourite horse (dog/cat/emu) on the pillow beside you? (Purely hypothetical of course - I don't currently have your horse/dog/cat/emu)
cuw
Guest
the Law needs very careful wording - simple reason being anyone running is in the air. the difference between running and speed walking (which is also a sport) is that one foot has to be always grounded in speed walking, meaning that both feet are off the ground when running . ( this is not my definition - it is the international definition and how the sport is ruled). so basically every runner who gets tackled is in the air :) maybe u have heard the proverb " a clean pair of heels" - it stems from the fact that sprinters use the front portion of the feet and do not plant the heel ( that is why in sprinting boots , there are spikes only in the front and not the heel , which is not the case for high jumpers , who plant their heel at take off - so there is one or two spikes in high jump boots)