The Heineken Cup is a great competition. It has great atmosphere, courtesy no doubt of the ‘international’ nature of the matches and the tribal support for the clubs, which is the nature of European rugby. It is exciting to play, or coach, or indeed support these teams in this, the prestige competition of northern hemisphere rugby.
It is an ideal proving ground for players in search of international caps. The games are tough and intense – no quarter given and none sought. The set-plays are of international standard – as we have come to expect from Europe. The defence is tight and powerful. All competition points which come to any team are well earned. There is a pragmatism about the approach of all of the top teams, which ensures that everyone, the player and the referee, is ‘on his toes’ at all times.
Given that I have talked, for the last two weeks, about the role of the referees in ensuring that the laws of the game are accurately applied, I took the opportunity this week-end to see how they shaped up in a couple of key matches – Ospreys v Munster, in Pool3, with Romain Poite in charge, and Leinster v Clermont-Auvergne, in Pool 2, under Nigel Owens.
I spoke about M. Poite’s poor effort last weekend and I was interested to see whether he had benefited from any ‘coaching’ from his support team – if indeed they agreed with my assessment. It appeared not, since, once again, ALL of the early scrums resulted in free-kicks or penalties. The first three followed last week’s pattern – all resulted in free kicks for ‘no engagement’ (a new one) or ‘early engagement’. The ref fooled the players again – I wonder if he gets a ‘tick’ from his assessor for this. He must have thought that he had passed muster on this ‘area of concern’, because he stopped refereeing this and most other laws for most of the match.
Having seen M. Poite in action a number of times, I wonder how teams prepare for the match when he is appointed. Munster quite like making a ‘bun fight’ out of the contest most of the time, so I guess that it’s ‘all systems normal’ for them, but the Ospreys can be quite constructive and creative, at their best – not so easy for them. The Independent summed it up in one report on this match by commenting that “refereeing is now reaching crisis point in the Heineken Cup”.
Indeed it could well be a crisis for Ospreys, because Munster’s losing bonus point sees them in second place on the table, one point ahead of Ospreys. This bonus point was earned by Keith Earls’ try, made possible by a clear push in the back of a defender about to claim the loose ball, by Munster’s Doug Howlett. This was an obvious transgression, apparently missed along with most others. Further, the explanation given by the Ospreys’ captain, Alun Wynn-Jones, for his failure to take advantage on the stroke of full-time, of his team’s massive scrum advantage – even more strange given that Munster were down to 14 men! If reports are accurate, he was informed by the referee that there would be no time for a scrum reset in the event (certainty) of a scrum collapse. This is clearly not in accordance with the laws and, if true, is yet another in a long line of inaccuracies!
Ospreys were clearly the better team and the only reason that Munster stayed in touch was that the game was a shambles.
The other match that I watched, Leinster v Clermont-Auvergne, at the spectacular Aviva (Lansdowne Road) Stadium, was refereed by Nigel Owens, and, to begin with, I was most impressed. He controlled the scrums with clear, precise – but not exaggerated – commands. Result – no ‘early engagement’! Well done. He stood no nonsense at all – which is normal for him. Well done again!
Leinster were very keen for quick recycles – ‘pass before contact’, ‘off-load’ out of the tackle, ‘long place’, strong leg drive, were all parts of their plan. It worked excellently for them, as such an approach always will, and they scored early through Cian Healy. They ran straight and passed in front of the receiver. The home team were clear winners, 24-8, and would have been further ahead had Mr. Owens continued to insist on the ‘new interpretation’ – read, ’laws of the game’ – at the tackle contest.
Leinster are a good team, with many very good players, and they are well coached. Clermont-Auvergne’s attack was always across field and subsequently went nowhere.
Please Paddy! We want the laws of the game applied – consistently! We want the good refereeing performances rewarded and the poor ones punished. Just like it is for the players!
