Loose Pass

This week we will mostly be concerning ourselves with choking, breaches of protocol, economics and World Cup form notes…

This week we will mostly be concerning ourselves with choking, breaches of protocol, economics and World Cup form notes…

Has anybody noticed how it happens at every World Cup? How a great team heads towards the tournament looking in decent shape and with the expectation of kicking on to better things, only for doubts to surface as they get there and ultimately, the end result only being disappointing exit?

Theirs is currently a great generation of players, very much in the twilight of its era but still with all the talent to mostly dominate its annual international competition and put up good runs of cross-hemisphere Test results.

In at least two of the positions on the field the team has true legends of the game, names of players which will be passed down the annals of history with misty eyes and fond memories.

New Zealand? No, we are referring to Ireland, who head into this World Cup on the back of three straight defeats and once again just don't look anything like their usual tight-knit and belligerent selves. Even Brian O'Driscoll looked flustered and confused; at times he looked downright angry.

Ireland's has been a slow downhill path since the Grand Slam of 2009, with old guard finding it difficult to blend in with the newer talents emerging. Occasionally it's a question of quality, but there are also times when the team looks split between old guard and new, the two factions on completely different wavelengths.

Declan Kidney has a huge job on his hands, and at least one more shot at a win before heading down under when they play England next week. But for Ireland, the World Cup is in danger of becoming a curse just as much as it has been for the All Blacks.

Last tournament Ireland had a similar off-kilter warm-up run and ended up beating Georgia by a blade of grass before crashing to Argentina and France and out of the competition altogether.

Italy will rightly see Ireland for the taking in the pool round now, while Australia must be rubbing hands in anticipation. What price for another Irish pool exit? Both the USA and Russia have the physicality to trouble Ireland just as Georgia did…
_________________________________________________________________

Controversy ruled supreme in bars and grandstand seats everywhere after Saturday's TMO ruling of the forward pass in the build-up to Jimmy Cowan's non-try.

Referee George Clancy – left flat-footed by Israel Dagg's searing break – asked the TMO 'Try or no try?'. He was met with the response: “There is no problem with the grounding. Do you require any information before the goal-line?”. Clancy answered in the affirmative and the forward pass from Dagg to Cowan was thus called. It was a pivotal moment in the game – it would have brought the All Blacks back to within one score of the lead at a time when they were pressing hard.

Some AB fans were understandably furious. The TMO's act was a clear breach of the IRB protocol which dictates that TMOs can only rule on situations pertaining to grounding of the ball and situations where a player may or may not have stepped in touch in the act of grounding the ball on or over the goal line – including touch in-goal. The pass from Dagg to Cowan is none of those.

Moreover, the TMO's question was pregnant with the weight of missing info to the referee – had there been nothing to add, why would he have asked it? George Clancy was almost backed into a corner by it. In this moment, the TMO ruled the situation entirely and clearly went outside of his protocol.

Graham Henry took it all philosophically, saying: “If the officials can make good decisions on the evidence they have got, why not? I know it's outside the laws of the game – they should only adjudicate over the goal line. But I have no problem with it,” probably the most neutral philosophical stance.

What Henry did not mention and what had the AB fans most up in arms was that the TMO in question was South African, which lent an understandable whiff of bias to the situation for many observers.

Do we say he was biased? We're only going to say that going on the available evidence – that includes several other decisions this year, think Stu Dickinson for the Reds and that bizarre sending-off of a Waratah against the Bulls – blood runs thicker than water when it comes to high-pressure officiating situations. Take a look at these other responses to the situation:

“What we want is the right decision. It was clear that the pass was forward and if the try had been allowed we [referees] would have looked a bunch of fools. Protocols are important and we should try to stick to them but they are essentially guidelines and I'd rather apologise for what happened than get the wrong answer.”

Against:

“They were wrong. I've asked for a reply from both of them and I haven't received one, as yet. They are expected to stick to our protocols and the message will be loud and clear come the World Cup, or come this week's Test matches, that there will be consequences for officials that go outside the protocols. That's why they're in place.”

The first from Andre Watson, the second from Paddy O'Brien. The two most respected officials of the professional era. Are you going to tell me either argument did not stem from a patriotic standpoint though?

Finally, our thoughts on the protocols: they are there principally to stop a precedent being set for captains and players asking for rulings on things that happened way back and to keep the game moving so you don't get an NFL-type video review scenario. As such, they are extremely effective. They ensure players play to the whistle and that referees can feel free to make on-field decisions as they see fit.

But we do think that the speed of the modern player is such that the referee could occasionally also use some back-up regarding the scoring pass if he is out of position – such as in a breakaway scenario like this one here.

So perhaps Meuwesen has set the wheels in motion for a slight rethink of how useful the TMO can be, no bad thing. We just wish this hadn't come up in the context of a TMO going outside the protocol to help his own country, as the usefulness of what Meuwesen did is now tainted by questions of objectivity.
_________________________________________________________________
Onto other things, and over to the USA where an interesting document has surfaced.

The New York Metropolitan Union, often given short shrift in rugby's fight for space among New York's over-subscribed and limited sports areas, has conducted a study outlining rugby's economic impact on New York in order both to attract sponsors and to win more support from the local authorities.

It's fascinating reading, particularly the bits about the amounts of money spent at post-training or post-match social events (kind of explains why I am always so broke if nothing else), but as a microcosmic example of how rugby is sitting up and being noticed