You know a rugby issue is serious when All Blacks coach Steve Hansen intervenes with a statement from on high.
So the rugby world pricked its ears last week when Hansen commented this way about the curious fact that, with South African referees and playing at home, the Lions had won their last three matches with a combined penalty count of 43-6 in their favour:
“I don’t know any team that’s only given six penalties away in three games. I’m not saying the penalties they’re giving aren’t right, but they’re obviously missing a few.”
It is hard to disagree with Hansen’s statement.
In fact those of us with long memories about what has happened in the past with Australian sides in South Africa could embellish Hansen’s comment with some scarifying details.
There was a lot of other commentary too about a curious decision from South African television match official Marius Jonker that denied the Crusaders a try, probably the winning try, in their drawn match at Cape Town against the Stormers.
Crusader Braydon Ennor made a break and passed to flying winger Sevu Reece to run through and score.
The referee, Nic Berry, along with fellow Australian Angus Gardiner, a designated referee for the 2019 Rugby World Cup tournament, immediately awarded a try.
Then came a remarkable intervention from Jonker. “I’m going to show you a forward pass,” he told Berry.
Jonker showed a couple of replays that revealed the pass was not forward. He then doubled-down on his original assertion even though the replays showed the ball being released backwards by Ennor.
“So, we have a forward pass, it’s clear and obvious evidence of a forward pass.”
I use the word ‘remarkable’ because the very wording used by Jonker forced Berry to agree with him. Which he did with obvious reluctance.
It is hardly surprising that Jonker was dropped from his duties for the round of matches over the weekend. It remains a mystery, though, why he has not been dropped from the TMOs panel for the 2019 Rugby World Cup in Japan as well.
What Jonker did was unacceptable. The very wording of his intervention essentially begged the question of whether the pass was forward or not. It is not the job of the TMO to force the referee to agree with his own contentious version of what did or did not happen.
Now, in our house we make a point of watching Dr Michael Mosley’s TV programme Trust Me, I’m a Doctor. In the programme Dr Mosley does small investigations into what remedies doctors recommend and how effective they are. The investigations are less rigorously scientific and more anecdotal in their nature, but they do give a quick and useful overview of contentious practices and remedies.
So I thought I would look at some of last weekend’s matches with a sort of ‘Trust me, I’m a referee and TMO analyst’ approach.
The first match to be examined is the Sharks versus Lions encounter at Durban.
(Steve Haag/Gallo Images/Getty Images)
This was an away match for the Lions, the first after their remarkable virtually penalty-free series of home matches. The referee was a South African, Marius van der Westhuizen, and the TMO, Christie du Preez, was also a South African.
The Sharks, a team that has lost four of its six matches at home this year, defeated the Lions comfortably, 27-17. This stopped a run of three Lions wins.
The penalty count was eight penalties conceded by each of the teams.
It is interesting that this relatively low penalty count against the Lions in an away match represented two more penalties than they had conceded in total in their three previous winning home matches.
Marius van der Westhuizen was a calm and effective referee. He was in control at all times and encouraged the players occasionally with calls of “great scrum” and “great turnover”.
Now we move to the Stormers versus Highlanders match at Cape Town, which was refereed (splendidly) by Nic Berry, the referee of the contentious (no fault of his) match two weekends ago between the Stormers and the Crusaders.
Berry made it clear throughout the match that he was not going to be railroaded into making a home-town decision if he believed it was not a correct one.
There was a compelling moment that tested his resolve when the Stormers ‘scored’ a try from a kick and chase in which it appeared that the chaser was slightly offside when the kick-through was made.
(Dianne Manson/Getty Images)
When Berry, who was right up with the play, noted this, the TMO, Willie Vos, a South African, told him: “There is no compelling evidence” why a try shouldn’t be awarded. When Berry asked for another camera angle he was told by Vos that there were no other angles.
Finally a shot was shown that revealed that Berry was correct and that the chaser was offside when starting to chase down the ball to the try line.
“Looking to be in front, Willie,” Berry said when the shot was shown. Vos agreed with Berry.
Berry was also very quick to declare a yellow and not a red card when Matt Faddes lifted Damian de Allende ‘above the horizontal’.
I’m wondering now whether Vos will be stood down next week following the Jonker precedent.
Nic Berry made it clear that he is not going to be manipulated by TMOs who might try to convince him into making a decision he feels is not the correct one.
The penalty count in the match was eight conceded by the Stormers and seven conceded by the Highlanders, a terrific difference from the lopsided counts that South African referees have been awarding against overseas teams playing the Lions at Johannesburg.
This rather even penalty count by a neutral referee in a match involving a home side and an away side led me to consult my notes on a similar match, the Waratahs playing in Sydney against the Jaguares.
(Steve Haag/Gallo Images/Getty Images)
The referee for the match was Paul Williams, a New Zealander, so we had, as was the case with the Stormers versus Highlanders match, a neutral referee in charge.
The Jaguares won 23-15 and were the dominant team for most of the match. The penalty count was six penalties conceded by each side. A penalty try and yellow card for the offending player was awarded against the Jaguares. But there was no sense of any home-side advantage. There was not even a sniff of it in the even-handed and pleasant control that Williams exercised.
The Jaguares totally dominated the first half and virtually won the match in these 40 minutes. The Waratahs came back in the second half but their play lacked flair and pace.
The thought struck me as I watched yet another recent Waratahs defeat that Michael Hooper showed no class or rugby intelligence when he said he didn’t want to play rugby again with Israel Folau. The Waratahs clearly need Folau’s diversity of talents on and off the field.
A third match, this time involving a New Zealand referee, Nick Briant, a designated assistant referee at the 2019 Rugby World Cup, but again featuring two sides from other countries, the home side Sunwolves (7) and the Rebels (52), is also worth a look.
The penalty count went against the Sunwolves, the vastly inferior side on the day, 9-15. The Rebels achieved their highest score out of Melbourne.
(Quinn Rooney/Getty Images)
Now we look at two matches for which the referee was not a neutral but refereeing an away match involving a team from his own country. In Canberra for the Brumbies versus Bulls match the referee was South African Jaco Peyper. The Brumbies won 22-10, putting on, as Morgan Turinui explained, “a complete performance”.
When teams play well and showcase their skills the referee deserves some of the credit. Peyper, a referee who occasionally becomes obsessed with protecting rolling mauls, exercised a practised control over the match. He let it flow, which was in fact to the advantage of the Brumbies, who unveiled their all-field game to good advantage.
The Brumbies were penalised ten times and the Bulls nine times.
Finally, we take a quick look at the first round of the match, the Chiefs (19) against the Reds (13) at Hamilton. The referee was Australian Angus Gardiner. The penalty count was 15 conceded by the Chiefs to two conceded by the Reds.
At first glance this statistic seems to suggest some sort of payback by an Australian referee against the side playing against an Australian team, but this was not the case. The lopsided penalty count reflected the lopsided way the game panned out, with the Reds being in possession and on the attack virtually throughout the entire match and the Chiefs hanging on desperately.
The Chiefs made over 240 tackles – three tackles every minute of the match!
(Albert Perez/Getty Images)
The Reds were twice overruled on tries by the TMO, New Zealander Glenn Newman, but his decisions were correct in both instances. Ironically, his decision to overrule a Chiefs try was, it seemed to me, not correct.
The very promising Chiefs winger Etene Nanai-Seturo had plunged over the try line and planted the ball with one hand. The on-field ruling from Gardner was for a try. This meant that “clear and obvious evidence” had to be found by Newman to overrule Gardner’s decision. Newman did this by finding a slow-motion frame shot that revealed a possible separation of hand and ball before it was planted on the ground.
When photography was first started viewers were amazed to see that a galloping horse shot in slow-motion had all four hooves off the ground from time to time. I reckon that a number of one-hand plants involve, just before the ball hits the ground, a tiny separation from the hand. It is technically very difficult to plant a ball one-handed from any sort of height without some separation. Just think about it.
Curiously, in the Crusaders versus Blues match at Christchurch, the TMO New Zealander Aaron Paterson tried to disallow a Reiko Ioane try for the same reason of separation. Ioane had his hand curled around the ball, but Paterson somehow discovered – in his eyes anyway – the slightest of separations. The try was allowed. Shots were shown of Ioane expressing bewilderment, with hand motions, at the suggestion he may have dropped the ball.
Putting on my Dr Spiro hat to detail our little experiment, I would make these points.
First, neutral referees are the preferred option for all Super Rugby matches.
Second, if we can’t have neutral referees, Sanzaar should try to balance out the home-ground advantage by appointing referees from the same country as the visiting team.
Third, if we can’t have TMOs from with a degree of neutral status, they should at least try not to bully referees and stick to picking up foul play and off-the-ball play and leave the refereeing to the referees and their assistants on the sideline.
Finally, the Lions go back to their home den, Emirates Airlines Park, next weekend to play the Stormers.
It will be interesting to see how many penalties they concede against a South African rather than a visiting side.
The Neutral View From Sweden
Roar Guru
Again, you just refuse to see all the "evidence" that contradicts your "evidence". This is pointless. The defender kicked the ball dead instead of touching it down in goal and this does not result in a dropout. Did we hear from Sanzaar about this? No. No, we did not, but you realize SANZAAR and World Rugby are not the same? And overall, World Rugby (or SANZAAR) come out and comment if there is a lot of noise (usually only happens when AB's or Kiwi SR side lose, the rest of the world are not that obsessed with ref bashing, at least not at the same high pitch note you and some others apply) something is wrong and/or controversial has happened. Sure, AB's fan has created the noise, but if nothing is wrong, they will not comment. Is that so hard to accept for you? Have you asked your "mate" Gats what his opinion is? Somehow I doubt you would even dare to whisper a percent of all things you bombarded with here unless you have the safe protection of the keyboard and anonymity.
Lindsay Amner
Roar Guru
I'm starting to think you're pretty obtuse. Especially since the Laws of the game gave them every right to do what they did. I've provided pretty clear proof that what they did was not in keeping with the laws of the game. Your only point is that since World Rugby didn't comment, they got it right. The pattern is actually that World Rugby don't generally comment on referees. The comments on Mr Joubert in 2015 were astonishing. Where were the comments after a ref error gave SA a win over France in 1995? Or what comment was made following Mr Barnes interesting QF performance in 2007? Did we hear from WR about Mr Lawrence and his perplexing decisions in the 2011 semifinal or even Mr Joubert's performance in the final, which many consider gave the All Blacks the win? No, the norm is dignified silence with an occasional strange comment to throw a ref under the bus. There is no rhyme nor reason to the comments they do make. There is no policy to correct errors or comment on errors. Sanzaar make occasional comment such as saying the latest Crusaders draw should not have had a try ruled out. But in their previous draw, Mr Pickerill made a bad blunder to rule a 22 dropout instead of a 5 metre scrum to the Crusaders hot on attack. The defender kicked the ball dead instead of touching it down in goal and this does not result in a dropout. Did we hear from Sanzaar about this? No. So your evidence is tenuous at best, in the face of me providing the laws of the game which did not allow for an accidental offside ruling following a knockon. Ive also no idea why you think that I cry about All Black losses or look for someone to blame. The All Blacks had a pretty poor Lions series, playing completely the wrong way in game 2. The Lions made a superb reassessment following the first test and turned around what was looking like a disaster to at least match the ABs for the rest of the series. Well done to them. I was very pleased for my old school mate Warren Gatland, as he was treated pretty badly by the media here. Perhaps you should maker fewer assumptions and try to actually back up your points rather than being abusive. It's usually the case that people losing an argument, become personally abusive. You're pretty much proving that.
The Neutral View From Sweden
Roar Guru
What bias? You extreme Kiwi bias. It is embarrassing. I thought you were a rugby tragic, but all you are is another All Blacks fan with a keyboard with a poor attitude and an open relationship to the truth. But when he realised that he was going to give the All Blacks the chance to win the series, he chickened out and decided not to be that guy. So you say, but you have zero proof. How you can know what refs thought and what Garces and Poite talked about in French... well that is pretty amazing. Especially since the Laws of the game gave them every right to do what they did. What you are doing, spreading lies about honest and hard-working refs is not only illegal, it goes against everything that rugby wants to be. Your big problem is that you only want to see what you wanna see. And no one is blinder than the one who doesn't wanna see. t’s interesting that they didn’t change that law after the 2015 RWC quarterfinal when Mr Joubert applied the same law to give Australia the win over Scotland But World Rugby did comment on that, but not on the Lions series. Are you so deep in your little cave that can't see a "pattern"? Unarguably wrong. In your little world, I am sure it is, in the rest of the rugby world; the right call was made in the end, let's move on and don't worry too much that some All Blacks fans cry for milk and cookies. They always scream foul play whenever they lose (while being totally blind every time they get the rub of the green).
Lindsay Amner
Roar Guru
What bias? I’m not debating that one side was better or should have won the series. I’m merely pointing out that the referee blundered. I think he made his original call while in his normal officiating mode, which is to be officious and referee the letter of the law. But when he realised that he was going to give the All Blacks the chance to win the series, he chickened out and decided not to be that guy. He looked for a way out and Mr Garces gave it to him. He didn’t think about whether it was the correct decision, he was just looking for any way out. I believe World Rugby, liking the drawn series, agreed with his decision, in spite of it being against the laws, so much so that they removed that particular law. It’s interesting that they didn’t change that law after the 2015 RWC quarterfinal when Mr Joubert applied the same law to give Australia the win over Scotland. This decision showed it was a silly law when applied correctly but they didn’t change it until Mr Poite actually showed how it should be applied, even though at the time he wasn’t allowed to apply it that way. My point is that if Mr Poite had decided to penalise Read, i couldn’t argue with that. That’s a subjective call he was entitled to make. Personally I would probably have preferred that as the end to the series. But the farcical conclusion of changing decisions, ending up with a sanction that was not in the law book, is not just mildly debatable, like penalising Read would have been, it is actually wrong. I’m not sure why you’re arguing that it’s not wrong. It’s completely black and white – written in that immutable thing that is the laws of rugby. Unarguably wrong.
The Neutral View From Sweden
Roar Guru
I am sorry Lindsay. I enjoy discussing with you usually, but this "debate" is a complete train wreck. Usually, you come through as both reasonable and thoughtful, but this time you are all over the place in one of the most embarrassing shows of bias I have ever seen. You just repeat the exact same argument over and over and over again, you reckon me and World Rugby gonna change view if you just repeat a couple of your lies a few more time? Good Luck!
Lindsay Amner
Roar Guru
So effecfively what you’re saying is, that a referee decision is only ever wrong if World Rugby say so publically? I could certainly go back and assess every decision, but in this case I’m just questioning why a ref was unable to make two consistent decisions consecutively less than two minutes apart. I don’t need to hear all that the refs said to each other. Mr Poite originally awarded a penalty and said it was for offside after a knock on. After review, he didn’t change the offside call, he merely changed the sanction from the correct penalty, to an incorrect scrum. No matter what World Rugby says or doesn’t say, this is a wrong call. The laws at the time did not allow for it. Kieran Read was quite within his rights to say he didn’t know the rules. Mr Poite was clearly demonstrating that he either didn’t know, or was deliberately ignoring the rules. For all your declarations of your righteousness and putting down of anyone who disagrees, in this instance you are completely wrong.
The Neutral View From Sweden
Roar Guru
Noooo mate just smells bad. Trying to be helpful.
One Eye
Roar Rookie
Your preoccupation with my breath is more than a little worrying, you should see someone about this fetish.
The Neutral View From Sweden
Roar Guru
This comment has been removed for breaching The Roar's comments policy.
One Eye
Roar Rookie
That deserves a slow hand clap...
The Neutral View From Sweden
Roar Guru
Sorry pal, as always, nothing you say or claims fly. Just hot air. And bad breath.
One Eye
Roar Rookie
And it's staring you right in the face but you keep your eyes screwed shut...
Big Dipper
Guest
There should be an investigation into whether there was some sort of gambling corruption going around those Lions games. This is not the first time SA refs have completely wiped out visiting teams in Super Rugby -- Stuart Berry did it a few years ago too.
The Neutral View From Sweden
Roar Guru
The truth is out there.
One Eye
Roar Rookie
Wow, showed your true colours here – from applauding and praising a poster to abuse in a matter of hours simply for having the temerity of correcting your misconceptions… Pure Class
The Neutral View From Sweden
Roar Guru
Thanks, Carlos. Have been following Jaguares for many seasons. Have a couple of impressions I would love to check with you. With Creevy "liberated" from leadership duty, he can just focus on being a prop with grinta. That is his element and he looks great on the field. I say almost world-class. What do you say? Boffelli. Everyone that follows the Jags with one eye, knows that Boffelli is a class player. We who watched him in every game for many years say he is world class. On pure performance, he has been better than Ben Smith in the last two years. Jags are lucky who have him on a long term contract. But he can probably be a star even if he plays in Argentina. What is your take on Boffelli? What do you know about the boy? To me. he just oozes class. Future captain. Will Los Pumas have the world strongest back row 2019? Matera and Isa are probably number one in the world in their positions, Undeniable world class even for lazy supporters and Aussie media (who are terrified). And behind them 3-4 really solid players, Workhorses. How do you rank LP's back row? What can you tell us about Matera? His father was the German Ambassador in Argentina? He speaks really good English, so I reckon he has been brought up in the top schools in BA? Proper upper class?
Carlos the Argie
Roar Guru
It is illegal.
Carlos the Argie
Roar Guru
Did you understand my post? I was ironic with Harry.
Hazzmat
Guest
Lopsided penalty counts such as what this article refers to only attract more scrutiny when the referee(s) involved aren't neutral and in my opinion, that's the whole issue with SR's current refereeing system. When the 'current' system was first introduced, it was also an attempt to cut back on the costs of flying 'independent' referees to specific matches, but then you have, as an example, an Australian refereeing a match between two SA sides. How does that cut costs or make any sense? The competition already lacks credibility due to the conference system. SANZAAR have finally woken up to that debacle. Maybe it's time they paid more attention to what the fans really want with regards to truly impartial referees.
The Neutral View From Sweden
Roar Guru
Mr Poite did get it wrong and World Rugby should have put out some clarification. Your first line is hilarious. You just can't let go. And this is the problem. You and a fair few other think you know rugby better than anyone else in the world, even the ones that are appointed to be number one experts. He clearly stated the infringement he had seen but then applied a sanction that was not in the law book at the time, therefore he was not permitted to change his original correct decision to a wrong decision Aaaah, so you know what Poite and Garces talked about in French before he made his final decision? Very impressive! Tell me more please. And you seem to forget law A1, the ref has the final word, no matter what you, Read, Peyper or the TMO says. This should have been explained by World Rugby. Newsflash: World Rugby explain themselves when they think something is wrong, not than you think so. Additionally, remember that all we want is consistency from referees. But moments earlier, Wyatt Crocket was lying at the back of a ruck on the Lion’s side. He made a good attempt to roll away and was not interfering with play. Please rewatch the full Test series and come back with an assessment on EVERY call that was made and EVERY call that should have been made. So in two rulings within two minutes, Mr Poite demonstrably got it wrong both times. He did not, if he had, World Rugby would have come out with a statement, they did not. This comment has been edited by The Roar's moderators.