Blues winger Rene Ranger will face a Sanzar tribunal for his dive on Bulls winger Bjorn Basson in the last minute of the game at Loftus Versfeld on Saturday.
Ranger became the first player to be cited off a white card after referee Steve Walsh gave an automatic yellow card to the player and an extra white one for the incident to be reviewed by the citing officer afterwards.
“Ranger is alleged to have contravened Law 10.4 (e) Dangerous tackling. A player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously, when he made late and dangerous contact with Bulls player Bjorn Basson in the 79th minute of the match between the Bulls and Blues at Loftus Versfeld in Pretoria on Saturday 10 March 2012,” a Sanzar statement read.
“Upon further review of the match footage the Citing Commissioner deemed in his opinion the incident had met the Red Card threshold for foul play.The Citing is to be considered in the first instance by Sanzar Duty Judicial Officer Mike Heron.”
But the fact that it was deemed a red card offence begs the question if the Bulls should have been given a penalty on halfway after the conversion, something Walsh denied the Bulls despite some desperate pleas by captain Pierre Spies?
Ranger will have to decide whether to accept a guilty plea and thereby get a lesser sentence or face a disciplinary hearing this week.
A lot of journalists questioned the fact that no penalty was awarded to the Bulls after the dive, was it correct?
Like i said during the game Andre Watson will most probably answer us again and dont expect him to say anything against he colleague.
Brendon Nel said-
The Bulls scored in the last minute, Basson being cruelly hit by Rene Ranger as he dived over, the illegal tackle costing the latter a yellow card.
But while a yellow automatically means a penalty, referee Steve Walsh refused to give the penalty because time was up, despite some desperate pleas from Spies at the death.
OLD News and a buried cow, but just to show the refs do answer questions.
There has been a lot of talk about a decision in the match between the Cheetahs and the Bulls in Bloemfontein on Saturday.
This was the award of a try to the Bulls when Dean Greyling drove at the line, was brought down short but eventually delivered the ball over the line.
The referee, Craig Joubert, came into ingoal to see the ball grounded in ingoal and asked the TMO, Johann Meuwesen, if there was a reason not to award the try.
Johann tried to broaden the scope of his replay but, as in accordance with the IRB’s TMO protocol, Craig brought him back to answering the question.
This has given rise to some questions by readers.
Craig answers three here.
The questions:
1. Name: Riccardo Popham
Question: Hi,
In Saturday’s Game, Craig Joubert was the referee. Once again the TMO comes into the spotlight. Craig asked the question “any reason why I should not award the try”. There was evidence of double movement.
When can a TMO tell the referee “I see an infringement – no try”?
2. Name: Hennie van Staden
Question: a. Is die eerste drie van die Bulls wedstryd korrek toegeken? Ek glo nie.
b. Wie het fouteer? Indien wel, was dit die skeidsregter vir wyse van vraag of TV skeidsregter?
Dankie
3. Name: Rudolph Groenewald
Question: Hi, Duty Ref.
The weekend’s game between the Bulls and the Cheetahs Dean Greyling busted over the try-line with three defenders on his back. It was referred to the TMO and the try was awarded. My question is not about the TMO decision because he can only look at what is asked. What i want to know is if that was double movement or not when he scored the try or was it momentum according to the laws.
Thank you and I really enjoy your site!
The Reply
Hi Riccardo, Hennie and Rudolph,
I’m not surprised to see you all asking variations of the same question around the same incident. TMO protocol allows for the TMO to advise on grounding in the ingoal area. It does not allow for the TMO to advise on incidents in the field of play even when those incidents precede a try. In the Greyling incident in Bloem over the weekend the TMO was not entitled, under protocol, to advise on the double movement in the field of play prior to the try being scored.
From my position in ingoal – out of the way of any traffic – I was absolutely blindsided around the possibility of a double movement and only saw the clear grounding over the goal line.
I asked the question ‘is there any reason not to award this try’ since I had seen a grounding (sometimes the TV cameras don’t catch the actual grounding of the ball and in cases where a legit try has been scored asking the question in this way can be very helpful in arriving at the correct outcome). I appreciated Johan (the TMO) trying to explore whether there was any way within protocol that he could help me arrive at the correct decision but the fact remains that it would have been a clear and deliberate move outside protocol by me had I encouraged him to advise me around the double movement. This would have compromised us both. Clearly and deliberately going outside of the very laws I’m there to implement would not have been honest. As it stands it was a regrettable error in live play by myself, and not the TMO or anyone else. To err is human?
Trust you now understand the process and the pressures we are under?
Cheers,
Craig
IRB Television Match Official Protocol
1. Introduction
International matches to which the IRB Selection Committee select the match officials will make use of a Television Match Official (TMO) save for exceptional circumstances.
2. Laws of the Game
Law 6 permits the referee to consult with an official using technological devices to assist the referee in making decisions.
The referee may consult with an official using technological devices who has been approved by the Union having jurisdiction over the match, when the referee is unsure, when making decisions relating to:
The scoring of points through try, conversion, penalty goal, dropped goal
Correct grounding of the ball for try and touch down
Penalty Try as a result of foul play that occurs only in the in-goal area prior to or during the act of grounding the ball
Touch / touch in goal / dead ball during the act of grounding the ball.
3. Area of Adjudication
The areas of adjudication are limited to Law 6. 8 (b), 6.8 (d) and 6.8 (e) and therefore relate to:
Grounding of the ball for try and touch down
Touch, touch-in-goal, ball being made dead during the act of grounding the ball.
This includes situations where a player may or may not have stepped in touch in the act of grounding the ball on or over the goal line.
The TMO could therefore be requested to assist the referee in making the following decisions:
Try
No try and scrum awarded five metres
Touch down by a defender
In touch – line-out
Touch-in-goal
Ball dead on or over the dead ball line
Penalty tries after acts of foul play in in-goal
All kicks at goal including dropped goals.
The TMO must not be requested to provide information on players prior to the ball going into in-goal (except touch in the act of grounding the ball).
The TMO must not be asked to assist in any other decision other than those listed.
The referee must make an effort to make an adjudication. If he is unsighted or has doubt, he will then use the following process (4).
Process
i) The referee will blow time out and make the ‘time out’ T signal.
ii) The referee will make a ‘square box’ signal with his hands and at the same time inform the video referee through the two way communication that he will require his advice.
The referee will then outline to the video referee the exact nature of the problem and the advice required. The video referee should repeat the referee’s request to ensure the message is correct.
iv) In the situation where assistance is required regarding the scoring of a try, the referee may ask the TMO in the following way. Eg. My feeling is that this is a try, please have a look and advise me of any reason why I should not award it.” (Doubt excluded – facts are needed here.)
vi) The TMO will then liaise with the TV Director and look at all available footage in order to gather enough information in order to provide informed advice.
When the TMO has concluded his analysis he will provide the referee with his advice and recommendations. The match referee should repeat the TMO’s recommendation to ensure that he is absolutely satisfied that he has heard what has been recommended.
The referee will then communicate his decision in the correct manner and play, and time on, will continue accordingly.
It is imperative that the referee of the day meets with the TMO at the same time as he has his pre-match discussion with the touch judges in order for all role players to be clear on their respective roles and what is required according to this protocol.
5. Communication
Where large on-ground video screens are available the TV Director will also communicate the decision.
In the absence of a video screen some grounds may use -other methods of communication.
The important method and primary of communication still rests firmly with the referee who will indicate in the normal way after receiving the TMO’s advice.
6. Technology Requirements
i) The TMO should, wherever possible, be located in a booth or space that:
a) Allows no access by the public or media
b) Has a monitor installed but no audio feed from the broadcaster. The TMO must not be able to listen to the broadcast commentary.
c) Prevents the TMO from being seen by the public or TV cameras e.g. one-way glass. (At some venues this will not be possible but the host should ensure, as far as possible, privacy for the TMO.)
ii) The TMO must be in two-way communication with the referee and the broadcasters technical director. The minimum standard for communication systems is attached as appendix 1.
There must be two cameras located close to the corner flags at each end of the field in addition to all the other cameras used by the broadcaster for its normal transmission, including roving cameras on each side of the field.
The service provided by the broadcaster must include slow motion replays, freeze frame and the ability to repeat
Wherever possible the broadcaster should provide a camera location layout with camera numbers.
7. TMO EXAMPLES: (For reference purposes only)
Explanation of:”I believe a try has been scored. Can you give me a reason… ”
An example of this may be where a rolling maul moves into in-goal and the referee is aware that a try is most likely to have been scored, however, there are now a large number of bodies lying on top of it. This process will allow the TMO to advise the referee if there is any reason why he should not award the try… The TMO can only state things that he can see and should tell the referee that the ball is unsighted and that there is no infringement that disqualifies a potential try. The TMO must use his discretion in advising the referee. Referees are to then make the decision
Checklist for TMO
Look for clear evidence that try cannot be awarded according to above protocol.
The fact that he may not be able to see the actual grounding of the ball is not clear proof that the try was not scored. He then advises the referee that he has seen no infringement, that the ball was unsighted and the decision becomes the Referee’s responsibility.
Further Communication Examples: “The maul went over the goal line. I did not see the ball touch the ground and I did not see which team was in possession could you please advise.”
or
“I am entirely happy with the touch down, please can you check if the players foot was in touch prior to grounding and please advise.”
or
“I believe that a defender touched down and I believe I award a 22. Please advise.”
or
“I believe the attacking side grounded the ball and scored a try unless you tell me otherwise.”
To this last request the TMO may respond accordingly:
“You may award a try.”
“NO there was a foot in touch, line-out.”
“NO there was a hand under the ball, five-metre scrum.”
Ranger admitted guilt and has been banned for two weeks.
Look at this explanation, i wonder after all this theories(sic) if the guy was really guilty. Heron handles it like a high court case. OK GBS i know little about Law, but still the Rene tried to use his hands
SANZAR Duty Judicial Officer Mike Heron has accepted a guilty plea from Rene Ranger of the Blues for contravening Law 10.4 (e) Dangerous Tackling. A player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously, after he was Cited during a Super Rugby Match after he made late and dangerous contact with Bulls player Bjorn Basson in the 79th minute of the match between the Bulls and Blues at Loftus Versfeld in Pretoria on Saturday 10 March 2012.
Rene Ranger has been suspended from all forms of the game for two weeks up to and including the 25th of March 2012.
The incident occurred in the 79th minute of the match between the Bulls and the Blues played at Loftus Versfeld in Pretoria on Saturday 10 March 2012.
SANZAR Duty Judicial Officer Mike Heron assessed the case.
In his finding, Mr Heron ruled the following:
“Rene Ranger was cited for a late and dangerous tackle in the final moments of the Blues v Bulls match on Sunday 11 March 2012. After following the Duty JO process with the player and his coach, the player accepted my indication of penalty of two weeks’ suspension. Accordingly, Rene Ranger is suspended from all forms of the game for two weeks, to and including Sunday 25 March 2012 (covering the two scheduled matches on 17 and 23 March).
My reasons in summary are:
I reviewed the footage on the intranet and the live feed. I discussed the same with the player and coach (and later discussed the case with his counsel Mr Weyers).
It shows Rene Ranger diving towards the other player, who was also diving to score the try, and ultimately hitting the player with his shoulder on the back of the player. At that point, the tackle did not involve his arms and was late. A careful review of at least one angle shows that Ranger initially was attempting to use his arms and appeared to launch towards the other player while that other player was in the air. In my view, Ranger was initially attempting to tackle the Bulls number 11 but had to pull out as the Bulls player was too close to the ground. The result was that Ranger’s arms were not used in the tackle.
In my view the tackle was reckless, and late (but this was a dynamic and very fast moving situation). I accept Ranger’s account that he was attempting a legitimate tackle and had no intention of injuring the Bulls player. The referee and AR’s report reflect a similar impression as the citing commissioner, although concentrate on the lack of attempt to use the arms and the use of the shoulder. I note that the player was issued a yellow card and a white card was also issued.
I have an informal medical report to the effect that the Bulls player has injured ligaments in his left shoulder and has bruised ribs on the left side (I am unable to determine whether these resulted from the tackle although that is a fair inference). The Bulls player walked off the pitch with the other players and I am told that the players met after the game and the relationship between the teams was amicable.
I find that the tackle was late and dangerous (as cited). I am satisfied that the player did not intend to carry out such a tackle and the footage confirms his original intention. I find, however, that he was reckless as to the safety of the tackle. In all the circumstances, I find that the tackle was lower end in terms of the entry point for Law 10.4(e). That gives an entry point of two weeks. The player has one previous disciplinary matter of a similar nature. By coincidence it occurred at the same ground against the same team in 2009. He received a one week sanction. He does not, therefore, have the benefit of a completely clean record. The effect on the Bulls player and the need for general deterrence provide some aggravation, albeit modest in the circumstances. The player was contrite and sensibly accepted that the tackle was dangerous. He and the coach put forward an explanation, which was supported by the footage.
Rene Ranger is a respected member of the Blues and is held in high regard both on and off the field. He deserves full credit for his attitude and for his early plea of guilty. In summary, I find that the aggravating factors (described) are counterbalanced by the mitigating factors and they are approximately equivalent. I am left with the entry point of two weeks and that is the sanction I impose. Accordingly, Rene Ranger is suspended from all forms of the game for two weeks, to and including Sunday 25 March 2012 (covering the two scheduled matches on 17 and 23 March).”
I personally think the yellow/white card was a bit rough. Ranger was committed. Had the tackle been elsewhere on the field and body positions different, nobody would hace blinked an eyelid.
Not having seen the TV footage, I was at Loftus at the time and in the Press Box, on the opposite side of the field, quite far from the incident, I will comment on this once I’ve seen the TV footage.
But, let’s not make a mountain from a molehill… the Bulls deserved to lose, despite the fact that Steve Walsh did not have a good match as referee either.
grootblousmile wrote:
Boeeeeeeeeee, gravy train comes to mind. Jy weet ou GBS vandat jy daar uit die Keiser se potte vreet het jy darem uiters blunt geword, ek onthou die ou GBS op Voldies baie meer guts gehad, selfs paleis revolusies gelei.
Maar nou ja ek bevraagteken die dinge wat alle ander gewone toeskouers bevraagteken , ek hoef nie daar in n losie te sit en my agterent watch nie. Die feit is ander vra vrae ek ook maar ek besef die eind fluitjie het geblaas en niks sal verander nie.
Maar ek kry tog berusting as die waarheid wel uitkom. Die uitslag sal nie aangepas word nie maar die morele berusting beteken tog vir my iets. Wat het vandag hier gebeur, wat se Watson, moes die strafskop gegee word??
8 @ superBul:
Ag jy kan gaan kak man… daar’s fokkol gravy nie!
Dis hoe ek voel!
Flok tog, gaan irriteer iemand anders…
@ grootblousmile:
iriteer ek jou nou, waar is jou wedstryd verslag, uit die pen van die joernalis? At least doen JFK n behoorlike een.
nee ou maat ek moet se baie maal moet mens maar na Bobbie van Jaarsveld luister en voor die spieeltjie gaan staan.
Se jy my nou sender verdere beledigings, het jy en jou mede rugby joernaliste gepraat oor die laaste minuut in die game. Nou se jy vir MY wat se jul daaroor , nie wat ek en my mede leke toeskouers bespreek het op die verskillende web blaaie nie. Jy was daar ek vra wat se die wat mos alles moet weet. Die web word baie deur my besoek en JA daar is mense wat vrae daaroor vra, waarom moet ek nou tot Woensdag wag vir Andre Watson om te reply.
10 @ superBul:
Kyk man, NIEMAND beledig of beskuldig my van Gravy Trein ry nie….
Jy het verander in ‘n ou Sad Sack….
@ grootblousmile:
ek mag wees wat jy my toesnou (sad Sack) maar waar is daai lekker wedstryd verslae waar jy persoonlik vrae gevra het , gese het wat die coach se , wat die kaptein se. Ons genooi het om vrae te stel wat jy dan sou vra. Hoe die gemoed was van die afrigting spanne. Daai was spesiaal, was jy dalk gevra om nie daaroor uit te praat nie. nee ou maat as jy jou moer strip oor n ou onskuldige stelling wat ons in SA aan amper almal se dan moet jy maar jou toys uit die kot gooi. Dit is net jammer jy gooi beledigings na my. Dankie man, kry maar vir jou n mooi skoon spieel.
@ superBul:
wat snaaks vir my hier is is dat die ondersteuner op die veld gekom het om Bjorn te help , wel so lyk dit. Wat daarna gevolg het was verkeerd maar die botel is ook so as n after thought gegooi. Ek het tans nie speakers op my PC nie so ek hoor nie die klank nie, dus sien ek net wat die video wys. Ek sal maar kyk op my laptop om te hoor wat alles gese is.
12 @ superBul:
Jy probeer met die verkeerde beetjie se balle te speel…. jou misplaasde aggressie laat jou net simpel lyk.
Gaan kyk liewers wat ek oor die perskonferensies kwytgeraak het in die Super Rugby: Review – Round 3 Artikel se comments…. en druk daardie selfde spieëltjie in daar waar die son nie skyn nie.
Vir maande en maande is jy nou al op my case, en ek is nou moeg daarvoor dat jy so bitsig en aanvallerig is.
Soos ek gesê het, jy is ‘n ou Sad Sack…
Ag nee man julle tweetjies…….dis mos nou nie reg nie…..stuur eerder vir mekaar mails jong!!!!!
@ Tripples:
Sad sack resigns rather, die ding wat hy my van beskuldig , dat ek glo hom aanvat is n joke, maar ek het nog nooit vir n predikant, n generaal, n samajoor of flippen enig iemand my bek gehou nie. As ek nou in sy oe n sad sack so be it, ek voel n veer. Hy weet hoe lojaal ek aan hom was. Ek dink ek het my deel gedoen , maar as iemand my mening wil dood druk , nee nooit sal ek n saamprater word nie. Moet ook nie dink ek dink ek is altyd reg nie. Maar almal wat my ken weet ek is nie n fanatiese Bul/mens nie. Ek het baie mense wat my aangeprys het omdat ek anders is so level headed.
Aag los dit ek is mos uneducated met geen graad en n bleddie sad sack. Geniet die blog ek voel in elk geval ek mors my tyd hier. Rugby is n sirkus en ek is besig om mooi my voete te vind in die sake wereld. Ek is uit my kripvreter dae. En besig met studies, miskien kan ek ook n titel verwerf.
Ek sal n vaarwel artikel post en dan is ek klaar.
@ superBul:I didn’t understand everything you said in the last post, but I think it would be very sad if you decided not to contribute further on this site. I personally really enjoy your contributions, but more so your banter. I think you are a passionate person, and have strong feelings that even we – you and I don’t agree on, but I always respect your input and thoughts – even if I don’t necessarily agree with them (but then, I am sure, you don’t always agree with mine – thats what makes us human). You would be greatly missed even more so by me in the cricket – my other passion – I don’t think anyone else shares your passion on this subject, and again our discussions and disagreements (especially on Cappie Smith, Hahaha).
Please therefore reconsider before you log out, ignore comments that may seem offensive, and continue, along with the others, in tearing my beloved Stormers to pieces – I enjoy the company, and know that you’re all wrong!!!! Hahaha
Users Online
Total 112 users including 0 member, 112 guests, 0 bot online
Most users ever online were 3735, on 31 August 2022 @ 6:23 pm
No Counter as from 31 October 2009: 41,853,256 Page Impressions
_