SANZAR : Referee cost Brumbies the Bulls match

[TRF_stormer2010]

http://www.superxv.com/news/super15_rugby_news.asp?id=34905

Fair enough. My question though is how does one address this and why mention it in this match but not others; IE where is the consistency? You can't award/deduct competition points because you can't predict how the match would've transpired had the mistake not been made; in other words, if the Bulls weren't allowed that non-try, wouldn't they have kept up the pressure and not let the Brumbies back into the game and a thousand other considerations to factor in. Do we just accept that every now and then a result will be skewed by referee decisions but then why raise it now? All just reaffirms my notion that SANZAR is nothing but a circus.

 

[Hairy Scot]

I think that SANZAR should rethink how they determine which officials handle which games, if only to prevent any suggestion of "home-town bias" on the part of officials when errors occur.
In fact, in view of what appears to be an anti-SA bias on the part of some antipodean refs, perhaps they should not have officials from any of the SANZAR countries.

 

[Feicarsinn]

I think that SANZAR should rethink how they determine which officials handle which games, if only to prevent any suggestion of "home-town bias" on the part of officials when errors occur.
In fact, in view of what appears to be an anti-SA bias on the part of some antipodean refs, perhaps they should not have officials from any of the SANZAR countries.

Where do you propose to get ref's from then?

 

[smartcooky]

I think that SANZAR should rethink how they determine which officials handle which games, if only to prevent any suggestion of "home-town bias" on the part of officials when errors occur.
In fact, in view of what appears to be an anti-SA bias on the part of some antipodean refs, perhaps they should not have officials from any of the SANZAR countries.

I agree with the first part of your post. The merit referee system is simply a money saving measure, as well as having been brought in at a time when SANZAR realised that Australia didn't have any referees that were up to the standard required, other that Stu Dickinson. We all saw the shortcomings of James Leckie, Matt "its my ball" Goddard, Paul Marks and George Ayoub. Leckie is now on the third tier ARU "B Panel, and Paul Marks has disappeared from sight altogether.

As for Jonker, he really is a shocker, and I have never felt he was up to this level. I'm not surprised that he has been dropped from the iRB International Panel along with Wayne Barnes and Bryce Lawrence.

The knock-on error he and his AR's managed to concoct was a fundamental schoolboy-level mistake. Even if none of them saw the knock-on, it was a poor example of game management. When everyone stopped, allowing play on was always going to unfairly disadvantage one side or the other. When that happened, he should have blown the whistle and awarded a scrum to the attacking side... its Refereeing Game Management 101!

However, the second part of your post is pure ********. The is no anti-SA bias on the part of any referees in SANZAR. In fact, you could argue it is the other way around... Jonker has refereed the Bulls nine times since the merit system began.... the Bulls won all of those matches, including penalty counts in well in favour of the Bulls in every match.

IMO, SANZAR, Top14, Pro12 and Premiership organizers should get together and arrange a referee exchange program so that Welsh, Irish, Scottish, French and English referees do some Super Rugby Games, and SANZAR referees travel north to do Premiership, Heineken Cup, Pro12 and Top 14 matches. If we ever want to get referees to manage games in a consistent way over the whole world, then something like what I suggest needs to happen.

 

[Hairy Scot]

Where do you propose to get ref's from then?

From any other rugby playing nation: Argentina, France, UK, Italy.

Given the money Super15 pulls in this cannot be impossible. Maybe they could arrange a swap scheme with the northern hemisphere refs.

There are only 2 good refs in the current crop used by SANZAR, and there are no prizes for guessing who they are.

 

[Hairy Scot]

However, the second part of your post is pure ********. The is no anti-SA bias on the part of any referees in SANZAR. In fact, you could argue it is the other way around... Jonker has refereed the Bulls nine times since the merit system began.... the Bulls won all of those matches, including penalty counts in well in favour of the Bulls in every match.

I agree Jonkers is not up to par, and I agree that he should not referee games involving one SA team, or even any SA team.
As for the antipodean (Aussie and Kiwi) refs it often appears to my untrained eye that they tend to be harder on SA teams.
Perhaps my view has become jaundiced due to the performances of dimwits like Dickinson, Walsh, and Bryce Lawrence.

It may be ********, but it's my opinion.

 

[Dizzy]

man, where have you been?.. Referee's are consistently inconsistent!!! haha.

What Rugby needs is a Video Referee who has more control. Perhaps THE MOST control of the game, where he can make a call which goes through the referee's earpiece and he can blow it up... what I'm trying to say is that the video ref needs to have the last say overall. This is where League is MILES ahead of Rugby Union. Most games are daunted with poor calls, we need this to happen especially with the way technology is today. Too many bad calls determine the outcome of many games it's atrocious.

 

[Hairy Scot]

man, where have you been?.. Referee's are consistently inconsistent!!! haha.

What Rugby needs is a Video Referee who has more control. Perhaps THE MOST control of the game, where he can make a call which goes through the referee's earpiece and he can blow it up... what I'm trying to say is that the video ref needs to have the last say overall. This is where League is MILES ahead of Rugby Union. Most games are daunted with poor calls, we need this to happen especially with the way technology is today. Too many bad calls determine the outcome of many games it's atrocious.

With you 100% on that.

 

[smartcooky]

It may be ********, but it's my opinion.

OK, so to be fair, I decided to test your theory/opinion with some stats.

So far this season, there have been 24 matches involving South African teams; some were refereed by neutral referees, some were refereed by South African referees and some by "opposition" referees, i.e from from the country of the team the South African team played against

Eleven matches had neutral referees, five won by the South African team, six won by the opposing team
Five matches had "opposition" referees, two were won by the South African team, three were won by the opposition team
Eight matches had South African referees, SIX of them were won by the South African team and only TWO were won by the opposition team

I think this shows that the reality is the opposite of what you believe it is!

I might go through the remaining matches and compare them.

man, where have you been?.. Referee's are consistently inconsistent!!! haha.

What Rugby needs is a Video Referee who has more control. Perhaps THE MOST control of the game, where he can make a call which goes through the referee's earpiece and he can blow it up... what I'm trying to say is that the video ref needs to have the last say overall. This is where League is MILES ahead of Rugby Union. Most games are daunted with poor calls, we need this to happen especially with the way technology is today. Too many bad calls determine the outcome of many games it's atrocious.

You can't have the TMO as the final authority, otherwise we'll end up with an NFL type stop/start game that could take three hours to go through 80 minutes of footy, and we'll lose the dynamic nature of the game. Remember that the TMO does not always have the best view. He is seeing a three dimensional world on a two dimesional screen.

What I would support is the TMO having the same powers as the Assistant Referee, able to "call in" what he sees.

In the case in point here, the TMO should have been able to call Jonker after the knock on and said "Don't award anything yet Marius, I need to look at a possible infringement during the last play"

 

[Sker]

Yeah like that ******** where the TMO said the try can't be allowed because of a forward pass or knock-on, everyone moaned and said "but the TMO is not allowed..."


Ag what was the incident... RWC maybe?

Really, I mean really. I MEAN REALLY.

Why is he not allowed, I mean why? Maybe I'm just a bit too worked up over it, but why?

 

[smartcooky]

Yeah like that ******** where the TMO said the try can't be allowed because of a forward pass or knock-on, everyone moaned and said "but the TMO is not allowed..."


Ag what was the incident... RWC maybe?

Really, I mean really. I MEAN REALLY.

Why is he not allowed, I mean why? Maybe I'm just a bit too worked up over it, but why?

I don't know why it not allowed sker.

The incident you refer to was in the Tri-Nations match in Port Elizabeth last year, a forward pass from Israel Dagg to Jimmy Cowan.

Legally, the TMO, Johan Meuwesen was not allowed to offer any additional advice to referee George Clancy - clear breach of protocol.

Additionally, Clancy was also not allowed to ask for it, or take that advice, another clear breach of protocol

However, the important thing for me is that the CORRECT DECISION WAS MADE! The try should have been disallowed and it was.

This is exactly the sort of thing that the TMO should be able to call, BUT with the proviso that such incidents must be CLEAR and OBVIOUS. I would not like to see the TMO have to spend two minuted going through 10 different angles trying to determine whether a pass was marginally forward or not. You also have to take into account the momentum, the fact that the iRB officially recognises that a ball that travels forward is not necessarily a forward pass.

Now momentum does not apply in this case because Dagg was stationary and the passing action was definitely in a forward direction. However, I can see other situations where there would be vigorous debate among opposing fans who don't understand the Law.

 

[Larksea]

yeah, interesting. Could also say that a really bad call like this cost the blues the game against the sharks as well, so it's not the only one we have seen. Refs will always impact teh game with their calls and at times bad calls but the a problem is the amount they are affecting it and how often they have impacted results and it's nothing new

I think they need to trial more powers for the Video ref, but we already know how that would work because they use it in the NRL and for the most part it works.

For me though the main problem with Rugby and Reffing is the breakdown. It's more of a lottery now than it ever has been. Early in the season the refs were nailing players off their feet now they dont seem to give a crap - none of the players know where they stand. And so often in situations where both teams infringe at a breakdown it will be he defending team that wins the penalty which I think is bad for the game - advantage should go to the attacker and patient accurate defenses should be rewarded - overall really it's just a complete and utter mess.

 

[Dizzy]

You can't have the TMO as the final authority, otherwise we'll end up with an NFL type stop/start game that could take three hours to go through 80 minutes of footy, and we'll lose the dynamic nature of the game. Remember that the TMO does not always have the best view. He is seeing a three dimensional world on a two dimesional screen.

What I would support is the TMO having the same powers as the Assistant Referee, able to "call in" what he sees.

In the case in point here, the TMO should have been able to call Jonker after the knock on and said "Don't award anything yet Marius, I need to look at a possible infringement during the last play"

There is only a few poor calls per game so it wouldn't take 3 hours Smartcooky. It will only take a minute at the most to watch the footage and call a forward pass.

The second bit I bolded, was kinda what I was getting at, but what I mean was that the TMO calls can override the main referee's.

 

[Hairy Scot]

OK, so to be fair, I decided to test your theory/opinion with some stats.
So far this season, there have been 24 matches involving South African teams; some were refereed by neutral referees, some were refereed by South African referees and some by "opposition" referees, i.e from from the country of the team the South African team played against
Eleven matches had neutral referees, five won by the South African team, six won by the opposing team
Five matches had "opposition" referees, two were won by the South African team, three were won by the opposition team
Eight matches had South African referees, SIX of them were won by the South African team and only TWO were won by the opposition team
I think this shows that the reality is the opposite of what you believe it is!
I might go through the remaining matches and compare them.

I'm not saying that the refs being "hard" (as I see it) on SA teams always results in a defeat. In lots of cases it doesn't. However there have been one or two incidents where a 50/50 call going against a team has influenced the result.
So far this year there have not been many, and certainly none as blatant as Bryce Lawrence's famous penalty given for dangerous play when the packs were just forming up for a scrum.

It is of course possible that the levels of discipline in SA teams is not always as high as it could be.

 

[Cave Dweller]

I did the following with 2 applications under 5 minutes with a computer worth less than Mr. Bray's shirt

Does that look like a clear knock or did it go straight down? If straight down not a knock

Then there was no fuss made about this incident

That scrum wheeled and should have been a reset right there. Ref did not and gave the Brumbies the match winning penalty.

 

[Cave Dweller]

yeah, interesting. Could also say that a really bad call like this cost the blues the game against the sharks as well, so it's not the only one we have seen. Refs will always impact teh game with their calls and at times bad calls but the a problem is the amount they are affecting it and how often they have impacted results and it's nothing new

I think they need to trial more powers for the Video ref, but we already know how that would work because they use it in the NRL and for the most part it works.

For me though the main problem with Rugby and Reffing is the breakdown. It's more of a lottery now than it ever has been. Early in the season the refs were nailing players off their feet now they dont seem to give a crap - none of the players know where they stand. And so often in situations where both teams infringe at a breakdown it will be he defending team that wins the penalty which I think is bad for the game - advantage should go to the attacker and patient accurate defenses should be rewarded - overall really it's just a complete and utter mess.

No it did not. The Blues were given 2 tries that should have not been tries while the Sharks were given 1 try that should have not been a try. There is a difference between rugby laws and spectator laws.