Jonathan Kaplan
This weekend saw the finale of The Rugby Championship and we saw two very contrasting games. The All Blacks won the trophy… again. Deservedly.
The Pumas won their first ever fixture in this tournament, a historical moment and one they will never forget… I certainly won’t, but the highlight had to be the bromance in the coaches box after the game where their Latin exuberance, warmth and hot blooded nature got the better of some of them… Put it this way, there was lots of lovin!!
Rate the Ref
The Springboks finally beat the All Blacks after coming quite close over the past couple of years.
From a parochial SA viewpoint it was a great win. Even, I suspect from a neutrals point of view, it was good to see a team challenge the best team, and beat them. There wasn’t much to choose between the teams, and the respect between the players and coaching staff is evident for all to see.
It is a beautiful thing of the sport of rugby union and one which we should cherish, as it doesn’t permeate through all sporting codes!
The Boks dominated the first half, the All Blacks the second. In the end, the game came down to a decision by the TV producer to highlight a misdemeanor by Liam Messam on Schalk Burger, which all the officials missed in real time. After finding the clip, and then replaying it over and over, eventually the Television Match Officials decided it was worthy of review, and correctly awarded a penalty to the Boks, which Pat Lambie (who has oodles of BMT) converted to win the game.
The TMO himself seemed a bit confused by referring to the fact that he thought perhaps arms were used in the tackle which was hardly the point. It was a swinging arm and a dangerous tackle.
If you are a Bok supporter, you will be saying we deserved it, and how many times it happened against us.
The protocol and process will mean nothing. But there is an important point to make here. I doubt (very much) whether that clip would have been brought up on the screen by producers in Australia or New Zealand and replayed over and over.
Is it right that someone outside of the domain of the match officials can affect the outcome of a major test match? And how neutral is he? In the end, it was his alertness that drew the attention of the crowd to the high tackle, they got into it, the officials then decided to take a look, and the resultant penalty determined the outcome.
I thought Wayne Barnes had a decent match. He walks a lot. He talks a lot.
And I wasn’t that impressed when he penalized Jan Serfontein for not rolling away when he could not (unplayable was the right call) or Jannie du Plessis for side entry on the All Black line when his action had no influence on the play at all (he attempted a clean and missed his target) or the resets of scrums when Franks’ feet are so far back on the touch, that he is almost certainly hanging over the cliff (not supporting his own body weight) and the last penalty… A brave call! BUT, he let the game flow with the right amount of empathy and game management. He was even handed in his approach.
He is a superior communicator. And he is smart!
He showed his experience in this toughest of environments when the reffing in this tournament has been quite ordinary, and deserves credit for that (and he was excellent at my braai on Tuesday with his singing of “Bye bye miss American pie”. So much for those people who regularly say the Northern referees are not up to it!
Argentina vs Australia:
Argentina beat Australia 21 – 17 after being down 0 – 14. They worked hard for this win, and worked hard for each other in the fixture. Their carry was excellent and they seemed to get rewards when they were in the Australian half.
Their tries were well constructed and I am really happy for them that they have finally won a game. Hopefully they will become even more competitive in the years to come and win an away game or two.
Australia will bemoan the fact that they let slip a biggish lead, but the real story will perhaps be the 3 Yellow Cards that the Wallabies received on match day.
Last week I was singing Nigel Owens’ praises after the match at Newlands. He has really shot to the fore after the 2011 Rugby World Cup in New Zealand but I thought he was poor on Saturday.
He was strangely hesitant in his decision making, once even asking the Assistant Referee whether there were hands in, after he penalized Australia and had pulled his Cards out already. He then put the cards back in his pocket. What was the point?
Not so lucky was the Australian No 9, Nick Phipps, who received a Yellow Card for a brilliant piece of play where he was the tackler and didn’t infringe at all.
What should have been a turnover to Australia, resulted in a Yellow Card which was a disaster for the Wallabies who then conceded a penalty and a try in his absence. Not great!! They would have been spitting mad as that decision had huge consequences for this test match.
Towards the end of the fixture, with the game still in the balance, the referee stopped the game when Hooper attempted a charge down, was airborne and in the process fell on top of Sanchez, the kicker.
He was also carded (incorrectly, as there was little he could do once he was airborne). Argentina converted the penalty and wound the clock down to record a historical moment for them and the tournament.
My opinion of Nigel hasn’t changed.
To say he was poor would be an understatement, but I know from personal experience that we all have these days (I had my fair share), and he will bounce back. I do feel for the Wallabies though and I thought they deserved better.
The Currie Cup:
On the Currie Cup front, the Blue Bulls dominated the Pumas in Nelspruit, where Peyps (Jaco Peyper) had an excellent game.
They are back in the mix! The Free State Cheetahs were very stiff against WP, who somehow managed to hack through a loose ball and fall on it.
To be honest, they shouldn’t have had a prayer at that stage of the game. Sarel Pretorius had a brain fart by taking a quick throw when his team were in the ascendency, instead of slowing everything down and winding the clock down.
That was far too adventurous for that stage of the game and perhaps ended up costing them the game. I still think he is a champion though!
Griquas predictably smashed the EP Kings 45-25, as I thought they might. Quite simply, they are tougher and want it more.
It was a happy and sad night for Jacques Botes, the most capped player in the history of the Currie Cup.
It was perhaps his last home game and he was given a rousing send-off by the crowd and by his fellow team mates. He is a model professional and a genuinely good guy.
He made a huge contribution to the game and earned his respect from teammates and opponents alike. He will be remembered as a workhorse who had an uncanny knack of appearing at the right place at the right time, scoring an inordinate amount of tries for a loose forward!
I thought Pro Legoate had a tough time on the night.
He looked ill at ease and flustered and most of the calls appeared to go the way of the home team.
The decision to card Derick Minnie with about 14 minutes to go was completely inaccurate as he complied totally with law.
Pro could not have seen the incident clearly and the net result was that the Golden Lions were reduced to 14 players for the remainder of the game, barring the last 2 minutes. I feel for Pro as he is one of the genuinely good guys on the circuit, but that effort simply is not enough at this level.
The Rugby Championship referee wrap up:
I have had a good look at the Referees in The Rugby Championship and think they will concede that there is much room for growth, even the best of them had an off day, so I will say the alarm bells are ringing, but not sure if anyone is listening… Yet!
My top 3 performances were :
- Nigel Owens – South Africa vs Australia at Newlands
- Jerome Garces – New Zealand vs South Africa in Wellington
- Craig Joubert – Argentina vs New Zealand in Buenos Aires
- I thought Gauzere (New Zealand vs Argentina), Clancy (Australia vs South Africa) and Owens (Argentina vs Australia) had off days.
Is it not time for a revamp of the system to help these moments where referees are not having good days at the office?
240
the earliest articles and discussions around the issue SUGGESTED THAT …. (sorry about that!)
@ gunther:
“It’s just odd that you only get excited about it now.”
What do you mean? You were not in my company on Saturday, were you? 😀
@ Nama:
Look I’m sure you were very excited on Saturday but that’s not what I’m talking about.
I’m talking about all those previous incidents where foul play or dodgy tackles appeared on the big screen.
And you never said a word.
Not one.
😆
ok guys this is just to get another perspective ok? I don’t want discussions around my sex life or my need to see a shrink, nê?
sigh, ok here goes?
say I work at a morgue ……. which I don’t
and have sex with a cadaver ……… which I wont
and manage to wake up the dead in the process
..
was my actions right or wrong?
@ gunther:
Maybe there was something else to discuss back then.
A kak game plan, bad team selection, a great try, great performance by an individual etc. Maybe I was too busy discussing those things that I forgot to mention the incidents which were shown on the big screen. Or maybe it was because the incidents did not have a massive influence on the outcome of the match.
Who knows why I never said a word about it in the past? Maybe you can help me here. 😉
Fellas, check out our New SuperBru Pools… and join up, please!
Ashley wrote:
It was shown repeatedly AFTER the ref saw it on the big screen DIRECTLY after the run of play, look at the video on post 209, did they show it repeatedly during a live run of play? UNLIKELY.
Nama wrote:
Again, it was not wrong 😀
macro @ 248
I don’t know. that’s why I said the impression that I got from (mainly south African) sport reports was that that was the case and that the crowd reacted to seeing it repeatedly (while the game was still on). I wasn’t there, so I cant be sure!!
Ashley wrote:
It is for a judge to decide while taking the footage into account 😀
246 @ Nama:
Namaskara,
On a few points or order, dear sir… the following:
1. It is natural for the TV Producers to show Replays of tries and nice play as well as fouls on the Big Screen, right.. every stadium does so!
2. The TV producer, in the normal process of showing replays, showed the Schalla incident ONCE, before the TMO / Jean de Villiers alerted the referee to the incident, not so (Go have a look at the clip Macro posted if you do not believe me).
3. The Referee then ASKED for more REPLAYS to be able to adjudicate it, right!
4. The TMO and Referee then adjudicated the incident, as they ALWAYS do and as ALWAYS with more replays shown on the Big Screen, right!
5. The Referee then came to the correct decision in communication with the TMO, that it was a penalty but in my opinion erred in not also giving Messam a Yellow, right!
So, was there undue influence, or colluded influence from the TV Producer and was the whole process even flawed to the tiniest extent?
Surely NOT!
macro @ 251
@ Ashley:
The crowd reaction from the video was after the ball went dead (From the Youtube clip)
I was not there either, so i don’t know if the incident was shown repeatedly while live rugby was ongoing, it is possible, but it wont make sense.
gbs @ 252
will have a look at the clip now!
254 @ MacroBlouBul:
It was’nt… I was there at the stadium!
The Youtube clip also shows that it was’nt previously shown repeatedly… I mean the incident is 1 minute something into the youtube clip… shown ONCE in the break of play (where replays are always shown), then reacted on by the Ref in that same break of play!
Then only, after the referee asked for more were the numerous replays showed, to enable the Match Officials to adjudicate it!
From the clip the referee did not even look at the big screen he was alerted by JDV,
Players have alerted referees about foul play for a couple of years now, and if the allegation is serious, the referee will almost always have a look in.
Forken glas half leeg club.
@ Ashley:
I dunno.
Was there a replay on the big screen?
204 @ Nama:
205 @ Ashley:
TV production companies most certainly have the right & the commercial obligation to transmit & record the SALIENT moments of the game, such as, inter alia, exciting play, tries being scored, serious injuries, yellow & red cards being issued, blatant oversight by the match officials of mistakes/transgressions by players, & potentially outcome altering foul play by a player, etc.
The TV production company is merely the messenger, the conduit of reality. It is its function to make the match as real, as relevant, as exciting as possible, notwithstanding that in fulfilling this important function of ACCURATELY informing its viewership of the state and nuances of the game it may have POTENTIALLY outcome altering and / or controversial consequences. This is the Press/Media – whilst operating within the ambit of the law, their discretion must be unfettered – it is called press freedom, a pillar of liberty.
Having then performed their task it is for the viewers to form their own opinions, & then, ultimately, incumbent upon the match officials to do as the please if they were to see what is being transmitted on their private screens or on the public big screen – i.e. to act or not act, & that in turn is their right & duty. The buck REALLY does stop with the match officials, irrespective of what is beamed on the screen.
errr … don’t blame the messenger!
And that’s that ….
So what’s the problem?
You rather want a self-censored, emasculated, boring TV transmission of a match?
You’ll soon stop watching, & TMO intervention & post match citing will soon become obsolete because TV production crews will focus on the sterile, non controversial aspects of the match, fearing to cross the line into the realm of the officialdom, a la your reasoning.
Neeman!
258 @ gunther:
The crowd’s first reaction can be heard when the REPLAY is shown for the FIRST TIME, during the break in play… and as I said, I was there and it was’nt shown before the break in play!
So the answer is an emphatic NO!
The evidence is CLEAR!
What about the Keeewee producer when Bakkie’s head “accidentally” made contact with their scrummie in the test there couple years back.Get over it.
The soup of the day in my pub on Saturday was: “The tears of our enemies” Go Bokke!
sorry guys, nearly convinced but still not sure
I listened to the clip to try and establish whether something other than the rugby was shown on the screen. theres a bit of booing when the scrum is awarded nz’s way, but it could easily just have been as a result of us losing the ball. if the screen however was showing everything like we would see on tv, then sorry, there’s nothing wrong there and vastly different from what the reports made it out to be!
@ grootblousmile:
Correct me if I’m wrong here, dear Sir.
A referee awards a try after the try scoring team have run from the half way line. Both the ref and the touch judges have not seen anything wrong in the lead up to the try. While the FH walks back with the ball to take the conversion, the opposition captain sees on the big screen that one of the passes leading up to the try, was forward. He walks up to the ref and alert him to that fact. The ref then stops the FH from taking the conversion because he wants to have a look at the footage. Upon seeing that there was indeed a forward pass, he can cancel the try?
263 @ Nama:
THAT or similar, dear sir, has happened umpteenth times… and yes, certainly he can… and that once again has happened on many occasions too, all over the world!
Fact is, we want correct decisions and fair results, right… so this is one of the means to get to it!
@ Nama:
he should! much less controversial than completely ignoring it.
@ Angostura:
“So what’s the problem?
You rather want a self-censored, emasculated, boring TV transmission of a match?
You’ll soon stop watching, & TMO intervention & post match citing will soon become obsolete because TV production crews will focus on the sterile, non controversial aspects of the match, fearing to cross the line into the realm of the officialdom, a la your reasoning.”
Now, there’s a spurious argument if I’ve ever seen one.
Nama wrote:
We consistantly have shit rulings with all the technology available to the refs anyway, but we are still watching. Again i refer to the Bismarck incident.
Jeeez, a looong discussion on something that a Kiwi Supporter (with a seriously soiled nappy) raised… in a fit of an embarrassing and shameful whinge….
Stooping low now has a new meaning in the dictionary, I am sure!
Nama wrote:
Ja ou swarrie
Altemit in Namakwaland, en beslis in Nkandla, mag persvryhied dalk ‘n vreemde konsep wees, maar darem nie hier in Durban nie…
@ grootblousmile:
Not entirely correct, GBS.
It happened umpteenth times all over the world when either the ref or one of his touch judges saw something wrong during the play. Upon a try being scored the ref will asked for clarity from the TMO, on the advice of his assistants or because he himself saw something dodgy, BEFORE he awards the try.
I don’t know of any case where a ref has cancelled a try because the captain of a team told him about a forward pass in the lead up to a try… one that he saw on the big screen during the slow mo, nogal.
“Fact is, we want correct decisions and fair results, right… so this is one of the means to get to it!”
Let’s put it in the laws then.
Users Online
Total 374 users including 0 member, 374 guests, 0 bot online
Most users ever online were 3735, on 31 August 2022 @ 6:23 pm
No Counter as from 31 October 2009: 40,014,867 Page Impressions
_