SANZAR’s referee manager Lyndon Bray has ruled that the Lions were awarded an illegitimate try in the second half of their Super Rugby clash against the Blues at Ellis Park last weekend.
While attempting to score, Lions centre Deon van Rensburg lost the ball when he was tackled by Blues wing Charles Piutau.
Sport24
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 CLEARLY showed Van Rensburg was carrying the ball before losing it in the tackle, staggeringly Berry awarded the try!
SuperSport commentators Hugh Bladen and Joel Stransky were baffled by the decision, with Stransky going on to say “that is not how the laws of the game of rugby union work.”
The Blues, who ended up losing the game 39-36, questioned the decision and asked for SANZAR to provide clarity on the call.
The Blues picked up two points in their defeat (one for scoring four tries or more and one for losing by seven or fewer points). Had the “try” not been awarded, they’d have picked up a full-house of five log points. Whether those three “lost” points come back to haunt the men from Auckland remains to be seen…
Bray on Wednesday cleared the air, saying the WRONG call was made by the officials and that a scrum should have been awarded to the Blues instead.
He wrote the following on the SANZAR website regarding the incident:
“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.
“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.
Ironically, Berry and Greeff will again be on duty this coming weekend when the Lions host the Reds at Ellis Park on Saturday (17:05 kick-off).
What we all knew in any case, but to late for the Blues or my SuperBru.
Now I see that he is again in action for the Lions this weekend, I wonder if SuperBru will change my pick if I explain that I picked before I knew the ref appointments?
http://www.irblaws.com/index.php?domain=10&year=2011&clarification=82
Its a matter of interpretation.
A straight knock or a rip. The referee called it a rip, ZANZAR calls it a knock. Just make your pick.
@ Lion4ever:
That law is not what happened I’m sorry, according to that interpretation it had to be a blues knock on…
The question I would like answered is what if this tackle and ball losing forward happened on the half way line and didn’t lead to a try?
I honestly believe any right minded referee would have blown for a knock on without second thought and deliberation.
@ nortierd: I haven’t seen the incident – rugby is taking a backseat to my doctoral work until the international season – but I agree with you from all the descriptions about it on news24.
mikeybrass wrote:
Good luck with that.
You aren’t really missing much by skipping the SR
@ MacroBull:
That law clarification has 2 scenarios. One where the tackling player loses the ball backwards to his own goal line, and the other one where the tackling player loses the ball to his opposition’s goal line. In this case, the Blues player hit the ball out of Van Rensburg’s hands toward the Blues goal line. The replay clearly shows that ball Van Rensburg did not lose the ball. It went backwards from the Blues player, and Van Wyk had the presence of mind to dot the ball down. Kaplan agreed with Berry and Greeff. Apparently a similar incident happened against the Stormers.
There were 2 similar TMO incidents like this last weekend.
To me if a players gets tackled or his arm pulled back or whatever and the ball is dislodged forward it is a nock-on, end of story. Even if the tackling player dislodges the ball from the attacking player towards his own try line he did not knock it backwards, thing is the direction of the ball from the attacking player. It is the attacking player’s responsibility to protect the ball
Really don’t see the issue here or even why a ref and TMO could possibly rule wrong on this
see this is just out on super15.com
http://www.super15.com/41873/1/bray-sanzar-refs-made-wrong-calls-against-blues#.Uymk7c6LUS4
@ Lion4ever:
2. Ball-carrier A from the red team runs towards the blue team’s dead ball line. Opponent B approaches A from behind and rips the ball out of A’s hands such that neither player has possession of the ball and the ball travels towards the red team’s goal line. (WE OFTEN SEE THIS EITHER RULED PLAY OR A KNOCK-ON BY B).”
In scenario 2 the player ripping the ball out of the ball carrier’s hands is effectively throwing the ball towards the OPPOSITION TEAM’S goal line and this is an INFRINGEMENT which requires the referee to AWARD A SCRUM with the non-offending team throwing in SUBJECT TO ADVANTAGE.
In other words for this to have been the same situation the blues player would have had to approach from behind, knock the ball out of lions hand BACK to the lions own try line (where they defend, where the blues score), this is not applicable the what happened on Saturday…
Why would there be a “subject to advantage” if the link you posted was applicable to this? whos advantage would it be then?
Maybe there is another law that could make the try legit, but this link being posted around is not applicable.
The link describes this
(blue)———>(red) (goal posts=5pointer for red)
(tackle)
(red) (goal posts=5pointer for red)
(tackle)
(ball)—>
knock on (red)
wow epic character fail, even had a nice drawing
@ nortierd: It’s more of the same and AC inspires ZERO confidence from me. He cannot formulate an attacking game at this level to save his life. Look at what Jake has done in such a short space of time.
@ mikeybrass:
Well you cant really compare the players Jake has with the Stormers backline.
Users Online
Total 295 users including 0 member, 295 guests, 0 bot online
Most users ever online were 3735, on 31 August 2022 @ 6:23 pm
No Counter as from 31 October 2009: 41,812,002 Page Impressions
_