Stormers: Will super defence will the title?
This week we will mostly be concerning ourselves with official calls, payoffs, acts of rank stupidity and an old rugby adage...
Is it just us, just the heightened intensity of the contexts or has the officiating in Super Rugby nosedived the past couple of weeks?
The Rebels and Lions were both understandably frustrated by a number of decisions which went against them, with even Stirling Mortlock - not often one to speak out - feeling compelled to bemoan his team's miserable luck against the whistle in Cape Town.
Across the globe and the Chiefs have managed to keep admirably quiet in the face of definitely one, probably two, atrocious TMO decisions which have derailed their campaign. Bryce Lawrence's appalling call last week in Hamilton was a shocker every bit on a par with those he condemned South Africa with at the World Cup, and there were many mutterings in Wellington on Friday about TMO Mike Fraser's lack of a definitive view of the 'Canes' winning try.
It had fewer repercussions, but how any TMO worth his salt could possibly conceive of allowing Israel Dagg's opening try against the Force was beyond most observers.
Meanwhile in Durban, the Cheetahs were left floundering by an inexplicable miss of a knock-on by both referee and touch judge, leading to a key try, while a Sonny Bill Williams tackle that came close to being a bona fide clothes-lining of Cory Jane was casually glossed over by the touch judge.
That's too many critical mistakes in so few games. Far too many. We've long preached that referees are not perfect, but it is too much to expect TMOs, with all the benefits of slow-mo video, varied angles, as much time as they like to consider and possibly even a rule-book to hand, should be hitting the nail on the head every single time?
While on that subject of bad decisions, how about two awful tackles the officials did manage to pick up, one from Quade Cooper, the other from Ben May.
May's indiscretion seemed almost personal, given the lapse in time between the tackle and the departure of the ball from SBW's hands, but at least May can sit back and reflect that it will not cost his side in the off-season.
Quade Cooper's was just rank idiocy. With the Reds having fought so hard from a desperate injury crisis and burgled a play-off spot, for Cooper to do what he did when he did is close to unforgivable. He will now pay the price, watching from the sidelines as his team squares up to the Sharks next Saturday.
Ewen McKenzie may choose to discipline him further, he may not, but either way, it's an unwanted disciplinary blight on Cooper who had managed to keep his act clean for so long.
So the Southern Kings have not been bought out of Super Rugby next year, and we still have to wait for the unscheduled extraordinary meeting to find out exactly how SARU intend to sort out the ludicrous mess they have contrived to create, trying to fit six franchises into five spots.
The whole disgraceful episode thus drags on and on... wouldn't it be great if someone did have ZAR40m and just put an end to the charade once and for all?
Finally, it's an old maxim, but one that will never be invalid: attack wins you the games, defence wins you the championships.
There is very little now standing in the way of the Stormers and a Super Rugby title. The Chiefs, a pleasure to watch, have lost their way a bit - with a little help from the TMO - while of the others in the play-offs, you'd only back the Crusaders to possibly travel to Newlands and grab a win.
Two losing bonus points in 16 matches, not once have they scored four tries in victory. But they sure as hell can defend... and they say Super Rugby is the most open and enthralling competition in rugby!
Loose Pass compiled by Richard Anderson
Comments
APV1 says...
@ new_j4a - thanks for the site - an interesting read.
@ Stellenbosched2 - be gentle, he's all alone with us mean Poms and conflicting loyalties. Bless.
Posted 10:17 19th July 2012
new_j4a says...
@sandal, by "post the minute" I meant could you put the time of the try so that I could find it quickly...but I found it myself by looking at the match report. And as I said from my understanding of the law, it was NOT a try because he wasn't holding the ball. I don't think being in contact counts at all as a mitigation (except in case 2 where the ball is on the ground....and downward pressure is required)
On the question of whether saffa teams roll over to allow another Saffa team to progress, my answer is an emphatic no. I do not for minute believe this to be true. It would be very surprising to me if the local rivalries and animosity did not far outweigh any feeling saffa-ness. I think this might be different for all the saffas living long term overseas (we tend more to support all SA teams), but the local blokes all seem to detest the local rival teams...(I give you martinmarias78 as an extreme example). Anyway, it would be extremely bad sportsmanship if anyone ever did something like that in any country. I was even uncomfortable with suggestions by some fans that the Bulls should have taken their foot of the gas to manipulate the final standings....and I am happy that they did nothing of the sort. This is just my view....hard to prove either way......but the suggestion will be taken as insulting by many Saffas,...and maybe that is an answer in itself?
Posted 08:49 19th July 2012
new_j4a says...
@Stellenbosched2, but I am still thick and still a Saffa at heart....you know the story: you can take the Saffa out of the bush but not the bush out of the Saffa...:)
Posted 08:17 19th July 2012
Stellenbosched2 says...
Hi sandal,
New day and I have calmed down. I had been reading the trash spewed out by Spiro Zavos just before I saw your post about SA derbies. I would have to say that you are the one that made the allegation, so I think it is up to you to provide proof. As I said, the leading sides will always have a benefit near the end of the season based on their momentum plus having more to play for. You only seem to be looking at the games involving front-running SA teams and those SA sides who are out of contention. You need to look at the results of two front runners playing each other near the end of the season as well. SA derbies are well-known for their intensity, as are those between NZ sides, so please don't be so selective in your 'research'. Cheers.
Posted 07:02 19th July 2012
Stellenbosched2 says...
Hi new_j4a,
I think I know the difference between trolling for a bit of a laugh (APV1) and trolling with a bit of venom (trinats). In my opinion sandal was being serious. Either that or I am a thick Saffa living in SA, as opposed to a thick ex-Saffa living in the UK.
Posted 05:43 19th July 2012
new_j4a says...
@APV1, to see ref education in action, take a look here:http://www.sareferees.com/ref-replies/duty-ref-418--mark-lawrence/2829546/ For those interested in the Chief's first try (Kaplan's "obstruction"), there is a clip and interesting opinion. This is of course a top flight ref teaching the rest of us, but as those of you who have every taught anything will know, there is no better opportunity to learn than when answering questions.
Posted 05:06 19th July 2012
sandal says...
@new_j4a
Hi. I'm afraid I don't know what you mean by "Can you post the minute?".
But thanks for posting the section from the law book. I note that it omits one circumstance in which tries are commonly scored. That is, when a player in possession of the ball reaches out with one hand and places it over or on the line. The hand is on top of the ball, and therefore cannot be said to be holding it. But if the hand remains in continuous contact with the ball the ref will always award the try, though it isn't covered by your points (a) and (b).
That was the circumstance of Dagg's try against the Force. Personally, I wasn't comfortable that Dagg was awarded the try, because I thought he lost contact.
(There are many complications, of course, such as whether dropping the ball is the same as knocking on, and whether losing contact is the same as losing control, but they cloud the issue.)
As for the Saffa stuff, I was uneasy about posting that, because it reeks of conspiracy theory, and the Lions have demonstrated this season what we all know: these people are righteous. But my perception remains: South African derbies in the final round always produce the result needed to get a team through to the playoffs. Or am I wrong? That is why I asked the Saffers here if they knew of any instances in 17 years of Super rugby that proved me wrong.
All I got was a couple of angry retorts from Stellenbosched2, but no answer to my question. Maybe it didn't deserve an answer.
Posted 02:22 19th July 2012
new_j4a says...
@sandal, I saw the Dagg "try" Wow, I would have bet my pension that no qualified ref would call that a try. I must wait for the discussion that will no doubt result. That was either a big mistake or I need a serious retread.
Posted 00:22 19th July 2012
new_j4a says...
@sandal, who says this: "And why does so much talk about Israel Dagg's TMO try against the Force mention that he was not in control of the ball? Since when has a try scorer had to be "in control" of the ball? If the TMO judged that Dagg never lost contact with the ball before touching down then the try was legitimate. Of course, the issue is: did Dagg lose contact? "
Can you post the minute? In the meantime have a look at this from Law 22.1: the player is either holding the ball (does this equal "in control?" I would have thought so) or the ball is on the ground?
There are two ways a player can ground the ball:
(a) Player touches the ground with the ball. A player grounds the ball by holding the ball and touching the ground with it, in in-goal. ¿Holding¿ means holding in the hand or hands, or in the arm or arms. No downward pressure is required.
(b) Player presses down on the ball. A player grounds the ball when it is on the ground in the in-goal and the player presses down on it with a hand or hands, arm or arms, or the front of the player¿s body from waist to neck inclusive.
You're just stirring with the Saffa stuff, right? Kind of like Red-baiting on Cooper's burglary and tackle record (lots of one, hardly any of the other) or all that silliness about NZ choking? Please tell me you just reeling in a few thick Saffas. You always seemed so sensible? Well you almost have me hooked, but lets talk Law and not conspiracy.
Posted 20:23 18th July 2012
Stellenbosched2 says...
And another point sandal, the Bulls would perhaps have benefitted if the Lions had not deliberately slowed down in the second half (as you claim). But that doesn't fit your poisoned theory does it?
Posted 13:51 18th July 2012
Stellenbosched2 says...
Hi sandal,
Please back up your insult to SA rugby sides. You accuse them of cheating and then just leave it at that? The leading SA sides will beat the weaker SA sides because they are the....leading sides. The same applies to the NZ and Ozz conferences, but please don't let the facts destroy yet another dig at SA.
Posted 13:37 18th July 2012
latehit says...
I do so love your comment re "Cooper who had managed to keep his act clean for so long" - Only by running away a la Monty Python's Knights. When was the last time Cooper was in a position to make a tackle and hence do a high one? When was the last time he was in a ruck where he could be penalized for a physical indiscretion? The guy is a softy and it was only that someone ran at him and he was trying to get out the way that he accidentally made contact.
Dancing feet maybe but no heart.
Posted 11:07 18th July 2012
sandal says...
I am glad to see PR addressing the issue of poor refereeing. As I keep saying, we are no longing talking about amateurs who freely give of their time for a runaround in the park. Too much bad refereeing gets swept under the carpet, not least by PR.
But our comments do have to be accurate, and cognisant of the laws of the game.
In New Zealand, the programme Re:union was told by a ref that the tries by Andy Ellis and Dane Coles, awarded by TMOs in successive weekends against the Chiefs, were legitimate.
And why does so much talk about Israel Dagg's TMO try against the Force mention that he was not in control of the ball? Since when has a try scorer had to be "in control" of the ball? If the TMO judged that Dagg never lost contact with the ball before touching down then the try was legitimate. Of course, the issue is: did Dagg lose contact?
I was more concerned about the competitiveness of some games in the final round, rather than the refereeing. The Lions and the Cheetahs appeared to have a licence to play till halftime. The Cheetahs, in particular, seemed uninterested after the break.
I have a question for the South Africans here. Has a South African side poised for the playoffs ever been denied in the final round by another South African side that had no chance? Year in, year out, the leading SA sides always get what they need in these circumstances.
Posted 07:04 18th July 2012
Kiwidiver says...
@ Pikes. I guess we're wearing opposing eye patches on the subject of this year's earlier match up of the Stormers and the Saders.
While I agree with you that the Stormers were definitely injury-depleted, so were the Saders (McCaw, Carter).
You'd have a much more compelling argument if you cited the one-sided penalty count as the reason for the Cape-towners demise.....I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin' :-)
And is that really someone from the northern hemisphere claiming that southern hemisphere rugga is boring?!? (APV). Thank god England and Wales have some younger, more entertaining players in their national sides now. With the exception of France, the Six Nations runs a close second to the Chess Grandmasters as the world's biggest snore-fest.
I do however, like your idea for a ref academy. Consistency has to be the key. Not just within various competitions, but across the globe.
Posted 20:24 17th July 2012
Waz4before says...
The Reds being written off yet again, it's amazing what being Australian can do for you ;-)
Posted 12:51 17th July 2012
APV1 says...
@ philipjfry - the problem with your plan for world peace, is your assumption that you'd play the leading man in the film version of Shades of Grey. I heard a rumour that you're just not... erm... "built" for the task.
;-)
@ new_j4a - thanks for that - once again showing my ignorance. But it does then beg the question, why are there still so many anomolies and inconsistencies? A mistake is one thing, we all make them. But inconsistent reffing is the real issue.
Posted 11:38 17th July 2012
FrazermaCkie says...
The May yellow card was a joke. 120 or so kg and he just bumped SBW. I'm sure if it was personal he could have done some damage! QC tackle was unlucky in my view. There looked to be a slip into the tackle.
Posted 07:08 17th July 2012
JayStarr says...
Can somebody at PR please tell me: what happens if the Crusaders and Reds win this weekend - who will the Stormers play?
The whole idea of finish 1st and not 2nd is that you get to play the weaker qualifier... But normally this is determined by seeing who finished lower on the log. Well, with this wonderfully fair system we have in Super Rugby, we have a situation now where the team in 3rd has as many season points as the team in 7th...
So will the Stormers actually face the weaker team (who happens to be 3rd), or will they have to face the Crusaders because they "finished" 4th?
The absurdity of this system has already been exposed with the Reds finishing 3rd on the log. I hope the absurdity doesn't get extended to the point where the Reds get a further unfair advantage of playing their semi in Australasia, while the Stormers have the disadvantage of playing the Crusaders...
Does anyone know what the official rules are on this?
The editor says.... Should the Sharks beat the Reds, the Stormers play the Sharks at Newlands in the semis. Should the Reds win, the Stormers will play the winners of the Crusaders/ Bulls match.
Posted 03:51 17th July 2012
melkdave says...
Stormers defence has been good all season ,but they have struggled to win outside SA .Also i always thought the old adage was the best defence is a great offence.Just aswell the Stormers toped the table ,as i feel they would really struggle outside of SA ,with the traval ect and lack of tries.Now home advantage and a partizan crowed ,they just might be champions.Myself hoping the Chiefs ,can refind their form ,as inho they have been the pick of the S15 teams this season
Also have to say that the standard of refering has seemed to have slipped,over the last couple of years,masybe it was all the directives comming from P;O'Brian saying look at this and that ,then something completly different later.After all they are human ,and like everyone have only 2 eyes ,how they can watch the offside ,illegal entry and player releae and players relessing the ball all at the sametime and a myrid of other things like players supporting themselves ect at the breakdown ,has always amazed me .Assitant referees imo dont realy help enough .Surly they should be keeping an eye on their side of the scrum for one and pointing out feeds ,after all SH sheild the ball from the referees view .
As to the Kings mess ,well SARFU have only themselves to blame ,its just a shame some franchise is going to be put out of bussiness ,because of their ego trip
Posted 01:13 17th July 2012
Carpelone says...
APV1
The AVIVA premiership is second only to the Top14. The Celtic League is irrelevant. Stick with your forward based, dull, boring rugby and tell yourself that it is only because of the weather.
Posted 23:35 16th July 2012