It should not paper over the obvious cracks, but it would seem that the Stormers were pretty hard done by the officials on Friday against the Rebels.
Conspiracy theorists amongst you might see this as a little “Revenge” from officialdom given the way the Stormers treated the match officials during their match against the Hurricanes a few weeks back, or perhaps it is just a little rugby karma …
Either way, when the Rebels played the Stormers in Melbourne on Friday, there were two incidents that provoked discussion, and in both instances, the Stormers seemed to be hard done by.
The one concerned the retake of a penalty, the other a penalty try.
Below from www.sareferees.com :
(i) Retaking the penalty
Deon Fourie is penalised at a tackle. The Rebels’ captain Scott Higginbotham tells referee Mike Fraser of New Zealand that they are going to be kicking at goal. Jason Woodward of the Rebels places the ball on the kicking tee and takes careful aim at the posts.
Meanwhile the Stormers gather in a close group.
Woodward comes forward to kick and at the last minute, kicks it toward the corner flag, with two Rebels and a Stormer racing toward the ball.
The referee stops play and tells Woodward that he had indicated a kick at goal and was required to make a genuine attempt to kick at goal.
Then he tells the Rebels to take it again.
Right?
Law 21.5 (b) – If the kicker indicates to the referee the intention to kick at goal, the kicker must kick at goal. Once the kicker has made the intention clear, there can be no change of the intention. The referee may enquire of the kicker as to the intention.
Sanction: Unless otherwise stated in Law any infringement by the kicker’s team results in a scrum at the mark. The opposing team throws in the ball.
There is nothing in the law that suggests that ‘take it again’ is an option to the kicker’s team. It should have been a scrum to the Stormers. Referee error.
(ii) Penalty try
Nick Phipps of the Rebels gets the ball and passes it to Higginbotham on his right. Higginbotham kicks low with his left foot. It strikes the foot of Deon Fourie of the Stormers and bounces back towards Higginbotham. The ball strikes Higginbotham’s foot and rebounds forward. Martin Bezuidenhout gathers the ball. Higginbotham tackles Bezuidenhout, his left hand and arm going round Bezuidenhout’s front. Bezuidenhout drops the ball as he is tackled by Scott Higginbotham. Phipps foots the ball through towards the Stormers’ in-goal. Phipps goes to chase it but is held back by Bezuidenhout pulling on his jersey.
The ball goes into the Stormers’ in-goal where three players dive for it – Bryan Habana, Gary van Aswegen and Nick Phipps. Habana seems marginally ahead.
Referee Mike Fraser consults the TMO asking: “Please advise try, no try. And just go back to the last passage.”
TMO Matt Goddard of Australia examines the incident and says: “I’ve got confirmed foul play on a pull-back. Otherwise a try would probably have been scored.”
The referee repeats the information and then says that in other words Goddard was recommending a penalty try and a yellow card for Bezuidenhout – which is what happened.
Bezuidenhout’s foul play is clear and obvious.
Law 10.4 (e) – Playing a player without the ball is dangerous play.
Law 22.4 (h) – A penalty try is awarded if a try would probably have been scored but for foul play by the defending team.
Goddard used the word probably. That was his judgement and comment on www.sareferees.com suggests that he was probably right, given that Habana just beat Phipps to the ball even though Phipps had been held back. It seems probable that he would have beaten Habana to the ball and thus scored a try. Some might disagree … (Grunt editor Tank Lanning: “I would certainly disagree”)
But what about the possible knock-on by Higginbotham? As it turns out, Goddard was right not to have examined them.
The expanded TMO functionality includes identifying foul play, and clear and obvious infringements in the last two phases before a try is scored. This would include a possible knock-on but applies only to a case where a try is scored. In this case the try was not scored. So, according to the IRB’s protocol, the possibility of a knock-on could not be considered.
Logic says make an exception, but the IRB made the call to draw the line somewhere, lest the number of TMO referrals escalate even further.
So referee Fraser missed the knock-on in Higginbotham’s tackle, but it would not have been easy to see where his left hand made contact with Bezuidenhout – the forearm, the hand, or the ball.
Foul play may be examined anywhere on the field and at any time during play. It is not limited the way the examination of infringements is, which is limited to only being investigated if a try is scored.
In the first half the Stormers had a ruck just on the 22. They kicked it direct when the ref didn’t say whether it was inside or outside. At the subsequent line out the Rebels knocked it on…. therefore advantage to the Stormers. The Stormers secured the ball at a ruck at which the ref called “USE IT” and 3.5 seconds later awarded the scrum turnover to the Rebels. How that constituted “advantage” isn’t clear…..
Tank, if you don’t include something in this article about the officiating in the Bulls and Cheetahs matches it comes across as sour grapes.
The use of the TMO has been a joke. A great idea gone badly wrong.
The bigger joke is that no one is allowed to discuss these things in the open. SANZAR has it’s own African dictator style censorship. It’s worse than the dark days of apartheid. If you speak out they cripple you.
I posted this before watching the Bulls and Cheetahs games … As it turns out, both suffered the same ineptness sadly. I agree with you – it is a great idea gone badly wrong …
Quick question, given the limits to the TMO, in the Cheetahs game with the first disallowed Reds try, TMO said ball was lost forward in goal by Reds, ie. no try scored, surely ten the correct call would be to disregard the midfield obstruction and award 5m scrum? Or is obstruction considered foul play? Does the on-field refs question (try no try/look for foul play) not direct the TMO?
Seems a lot of flaws to be sorted in the sytem, unfortunately seems like a lot of justifiction being scratched up for illogical decisions.
TMO should be allowed to ensure the correct decision is made for the game, not the “by the book” decision if that decision is totally illogical!
Thanks Tank
Yes, definitely need a tweak to the protocol. In asnwer to your question, yes obsctruction is foul play, but also the TMO was looking at the act of scoring a try, so can then look back 2 phases …
Also as Naas said at half time, the TMO called it a knock on therefore no try but the only place he could have knocked it was in goal when he was going for the try therefore if there was any contact it would’ve been downward pressure therefore it could’ve been a try if it wasn’t for the foul play further back.
It’s either a try or foul play but knock on can’t possibly come into the equation. And IMO there was no ways the Reds player that was penalised altered his course and the 2 tight forwards that were “impeded” would’ve been dreaming if they thought that they would’ve got to him. And I say that with respect and on field experience having been a prop and hooker all my playing career.