We have two incidents from Super Rugby in the last two weeks which are worth looking at, both incidents which caused debate and argument and even acrimony.
We are dealing with decisions by top referees in top matches when speed is an essential ingredient, including the speed match officials need to process the information, even when they have help from the replays provided by the TMO.
There is never a rest from debate and argument when it comes to rugby football, certainly not in the application of the most complex set of laws of any sport – a contact sport played by 30 vigorous young men in physical contact in a confined space.
rugby365
That there is such debate can be fun, unless we let our emotions run away with us.,
The incidents are both taken from matches played by the Lions – against the Sharks and then against the Blues.
1. An air crash.
Franco van der Merwe, the Lions’ lock, kicks downfield. He kicks it high and the Lions’ centre Stefan Watermeyer chases the ball. Lwazi Mvovo of the Sharks comes forward to catch the ball. Both players have eyes fixed on the ball. Mvovo jumps. Watermeyer jumps. Mvovo catches the ball. Watermeyer collides with Mvovo who falls heavily to ground.
The referee penalises Watermeyer. The referee says to his captain in the Watermeyer’s presence: “I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt. He had his eyes on the ball the whole time but that player [Mvovo] was in the air first. So there’s the responsibility of safety.”
There is nothing in the law book about who is airborne first. There is something about tackling a player in the air. Watermeyer certainly did not tackle Mvovo and the collision was entirely accidental. It does not seem that Watermeyer even knew where Mvovo was, such was his concentration on the ball.
The penalty was wrong and perhaps a reaction to the way Mvovo fell. It would have been more prudent to have consulted the TMO in this incident to get a fair decision. But bless the referee, he was circumspect enough not to issue a sanctionary card.
2. Knock or not.
The Lions attack the Blues. It starts when Marnitz Boshoff counterattacks and they race down the field – Courtnall Skosan, Jaco Kriel and Warren Whiteley. Close to the Blues’ line Whiteely passes inside to Deon van Rensburg of the Lions. He catches the pass and heads for the line but Charles Piutau of the Blues, across from the left wing, grabs Van Rensburg. The ball leaves Van Rensburg’s grasp and rolls into the Blues’ in-goal where Coenie van Wyk of the Lions falls on it.
The referee and the TMO examine two things. First they want to see if the pass from Whiteley to Van Rensburg was clearly and obviously forward. It was not clearly and obviously forward and then they took the next, more interesting, examination.
They wanted to examine the way Van Rensburg lost the ball.
Law 12 DEFINITION – KNOCK-ON
A knock-on occurs when a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, or when a player hits the ball forward with the hand or arm, or when the ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, and the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it.
‘Forward’ means towards the opposing team’s dead-ball line.
Van Rensburg lost the ball.
The ball went forward.
It seems clearly a case of a knock-on.
But heaven forbid that the laws of rugby should be only what they say.
There is an IRB clarification made in 2011 in response to an Australian query.
In it the Australian ask about the ball being ripped from a player’s grasp. He loses it but not of his own volition. He is robbed of it The IRB clarification, which has the force of law, states that when is ripped from the ball-carrier and it goes forward there is no infringement and play should go on. In other words it is not a knock-on. It is an opponent’s play on the ball that causes it to act the way it does and so there is no knock-on.
The ball is not ripped from Van Rensburg’s hands but the decision here is analogous.
The referee and the TMO decide that it is Piutau’s hand that knocks the ball from Van Rensburg’s grasp and so it is not the player’s loss of the ball but the direct action of Piutau on the ball that shot it out of Van Rensburg’s grasp and so a try is awarded to the Lions.
It’s not an easy decision, but then referrals to the TMO are, by their nature, difficult.
If it is Piutau’s hand that grabs Van Rensburg’s arm that causes Van Rensburg to lose the ball, then it is a knock-on.
If Piutau’s hand that knocks the ball from Van Rensburg’s grasp then there is the possibility of the argument that Van Rensburg did not lose it but Piutau knocked it from his grasp and the decision is then similar to the ripping of the ball.
It may just be that the Lions were unlucky in the first of these incidents and lucky in the second one.
And Guess what Andre Watson refers it to the TMO ( aaagh i mean the IRB)
General Manager of Referees at SARU, André Watson, says they have asked the IRB to rule on a contentious decision to award the Lions a try in their Super Rugby clash against the Blues last weekend.
VIDEO: Lions try from Piutau ‘knock back’
INTERVIEW: André Watson chats to Sport24
While attempting to score, Lions centre Deon van Rensburg lost the ball when he was tackled by Blues wing Charles Piutau.
The ball spilled forward into the in-goal area, with Lions fullback Coenie van Wyk falling on the loose ball for the “try”.
South African referee Stuart Berry initially referred the incident to the TMO (Johan Greeff), asking whether Van Rensburg knocked the ball forward or whether it was the Blues player that knocked it out of his hands.
While replays showed Van Rensburg was carrying the ball before losing it in the tackle, Berry awarded the try.
The Blues, who ended up losing the game 39-36, questioned the decision and asked for SANZAR to provide clarity on the call.
SANZAR’s referee manager Lyndon Bray then responded by saying it was an illegitimate try.
“Lions No 13 (Van Rensburg) is carrying the ball and about to attempt to score a try. Blues No 11 (Charles Piutau) effects a tackle and Lions No 13 loses possession as a result, ” Bray said via a statement.
“While the Blues player does jolt the ball out of his possession, he is not trying to deliberately ‘rip the ball’ out of the player’s possession. The onus is on the ball carrier to maintain possession while being tackled. Therefore, this should have been ruled as a knock on and subsequently, no try,” concluded Bray.
However, Watson suggested that SARU felt differently on the matter and that there’s still uncertainty.
In an exclusive interview with Sport24, Watson said it was not clear that Van Rensburg had lost the ball or if it was dislodged.
“I believe it was not a contentious issue from a refereeing point of view but rather from a law perspective. The knock-on law is very clear: a player needs to lose possession, with the ball then travelling in a forward direction.
“However, the debate with regard to this specific incident revolves around whether the ball-carrier lost the ball or whether the ball was dislodged from his grasp as a result of the action of the tackler.
“While SANZAR have issued a statement saying the try should not have stood, we at SARU have referred the matter to the IRB and are awaiting a ruling. The debate is currently hanging in the air as two contrasting opinions currently exist,” said Watson.
Then they should withdraw the ref and TMO in question until the appeal ruling, not let them loose against another foreign side at the same “scene of the first crime”
Former international referee and current General Manager of Referees at SARU, André Watson, answers YOUR questions. He talks illegalities at ruck time, new innovations and how referees are held accountable…
Gcobani Gqibelo asked: What is your take on the award of such a dubious try in the Lions v Blues match? What can you say to defend Stuart Berry’s decision?
André Watson: I believe it was not a contentious issue from a refereeing point of view but rather from a law perspective. The knock-on law is very clear: a player needs to lose possession, with the ball then travelling in a forward direction. However, the debate with regard to this specific incident revolves around whether the ball-carrier lost the ball or whether the ball was dislodged from his grasp as a result of the action of the tackler. While SANZAR have issued a statement saying the try should not have stood, we at SARU have referred the matter to the IRB and are awaiting a ruling. The debate is currently hanging in the air as two contrasting opinions currently exist.
Jodi Marais asked: In the Chiefs v Stormers match we saw a unique incident whereby Aaron Cruden appeared to deliberately miss a penalty kick in order to set up a try-scoring opportunity. Legal?
André Watson: It was an interesting scenario. The law states that when a player kicks a penalty he must at least aim for goal. If the referee on the day deems that the kicker did not make a valid attempt to slot the goal, then it should be blown up as it’s basically against the spirit of the game. Craig Joubert was spot on in this instance.
Fred Steinberg asked: Why are referees seemingly untouchable? Why can’t they, like other employees of any organisation, be held responsible for performing their jobs poorly?
André Watson: That is the common misconception. Referees are held accountable. At SARU, for example, we have a highly robust and scientific programme whereby every one of our referees is assessed. Each error and non-decision is marked by a panel of assessors. If there is a flag, meaning that a referee is out of form, he gets spoken to, subsequently receives remedial action and, if necessary, is even demoted to a lower level of competition. The process is both transparent and scientific and I must state categorically that we take responsibility and ownership thereof.
Chris Cook asked: The constant scrum resets destroy the flow of the game and are a real bore to spectators. What would you suggest to sort out the current farce at scrum time?
André Watson: While the scrums are obviously far from perfect, I believe recent statistics prove there is a marked improvement in terms of the number reset scrums. I’m aware the public’s focus is often fixed on this area but they need to be patient as it’s still a work in progress. That said, there is no doubt that the 2014 product come scrum time is a much improved one than a few years back.
Derek van Breda asked: Has the time come in rugby that just like in American football the referees can be heard on the stadium PA system thus informing the crowd in attendance of their decisions?
André Watson: Absolutely. While I don’t want to let the cat out of the bag, I can tell you that we’re working on a similar system at SARU. My colleague Andy Marinos is piloting the project. At SARU, we are all for innovation which can improve clarity for spectators and thereby enhance the oval game we all love. I must add that we already have the RefLink radio device available at stadiums across the country so that spectators can hear the referee’s on-field decisions and their explanations first-hand.
Arthur S Taylor asked: In light of the Jannie du Plessis incident, it appears that professional rugby players are becoming more arrogant with referees. I’m curious to get your views on this matter…
André Watson: I have no problem with players challenging referees, as referees challenge players all the time. While the public can decide for themselves if they enjoyed the exchange between Du Plessis and Lourens van der Merwe, personally I would have preferred to have seen the incident handled in a different way by both parties. I’m not suggesting that the conversation should have taken place behind closed doors, but we have a phrase known as ‘dead-time communication’ whereby officials and players can address each other on-field without the whole world hearing their dialogue.
Christopher Zoony De Croes asked: Will rugby introduce a referral system similar to that used in cricket so the captains of a team can, for example, challenge a TMO or refereeing decision?
André Watson: Although this is a good idea and has notable plus points, I believe a lot of water still has to pass under the bridge before we get there. While the white card concept was trialled in the Varsity Cup, you can’t take concepts still being trialled and implement them at the highest level.
Schalk Burger asked: Why are off-the-ball tackles on players around the ruck allowed and why are those tacklers permitted to remain offside thus causing obstruction and disruption to play?
André Watson: There have clearly been too many incidents in the early rounds of Super Rugby whereby players have held their opponents back at ruck time, loitered around that area and occupied space illegally. With the more stringent directive, I believe we’ve already seen an improvement in this area and am hopeful that there will be a continual improvement. In this regard, the referee’s job is easy; if players are caught transgressing in this facet of the game, they will be dealt with accordingly. We will continue to stress that after a player/s have performed the clean out, they have to get back on-side and then play from that point.
Barry Colyn asked: Why are referees not penalising the scrumhalves for feeding the ball in skew?
André Watson: I would respectfully disagree. If anything we have now been criticised for being over-efficient in this department. There is definitely a strict enforcement of that area of the game by the referees. If the scrumhalf fails to feed the ball in straight, a free kick will be awarded to the opposing side. If the player in questions further transgresses, a full arm penalty will come into effect. The next step would be to award a yellow card to repeat offenders, but hopefully it doesn’t come to that.
Liza Lucani asked: What do you most and least enjoy about your job?
André Watson: I feel blessed to be permanently involved in my passion. What I enjoy least, however, is that the general public don’t seem to realise how hard referees work. From a SARU perspective, our referees are strictly scrutinised and measured. There is a misguided perception that referees do things and just get away with it. Nothing can be further from the truth. However, we’re aware that it’s a two-way street in terms of communication and will continue to work hard on clearing up misperceptions.
http://www.sport24.co.za/Multimedia/Rugby/Super15/Jannie-du-Plessis-backchats-ref-20140317
@ superBul:
Tank Lanning
The Jannie du Plessis’ “Moenie vir my kom lecture nie” clip will no doubt go down in rugby folklore – much to the embarrassment of the Bok tighthead prop – who is rightly contrite and apologetic about the incident.
It certainly had me, and plenty others, based on comments seen on Twitter and on this very site, scrambling for the rewind button on the PVR remote, even if just to make sure it had really happened!
I guffawed so hard, the beer came out through my nostrils!
So I found it pretty intriguing to see that a story about Du Plessis’ post match apology call to referee Lourens van der Merwe had made it into the “Most commented” list here on Sport24, and then found the vitriol slung the way of the Bok stalwart via comments asked for by the editor fairly surprising.
Sure, I am looking at the incident as a former tighthead prop who has suffered at the hands of a few referees, and a current coach who gets to see these huge men close to tears at the half-time chat given the frustration at how the ref on the day is interpreting the scrum engage, but let’s throw in a little perspective…
Firstly, this chat took place during a long pause in play for an injury and it is fairly common place for players and referees to discuss elements of the game.
Were the ref’s mic to have been muted while the commentary team analysed the game, we would not even have known that the chat had taken place.
Secondly, it was about an incredibly technical part of the game that often gets overlooked by referees given how difficult it is to comply with the law, which states that both props have to bind on the side of the opposition prop’s jersey – and NOT on the arm, which is what Du Plessis was doing, and what Van der Merwe was taking issue with.
These are huge men, with massive arms, dressed in body hugging canvas – hence the Varsity Cup trialling these grip pads on the prop jerseys. If both props go for the short bind with elbows up, it is actually sometimes impossible for the tighthead to reach past the arm of the opposition loosehead, whose arm goes inside the tighthead’s. Hence most refs letting this one slide.
Thirdly, Du Plessis probably has been told by all of Paddy O’Brien, Lyndon Bray, Balie Swart, Pieter de Villiers, and all other IRB “experts” called in to chat to the players, that his technique is fine.
Yes, Du Plessis was technically incorrect by binding on the arm and not the body, and yes, he chose a tone and set of words that was disrespectful to the referee, but try and see it through the eyes of a frustrated player.
Users Online
Total 101 users including 0 member, 101 guests, 0 bot online
Most users ever online were 3735, on 31 August 2022 @ 6:23 pm
No Counter as from 31 October 2009: 41,359,467 Page Impressions
_