Brumbies v Cheetahs Super Rugby R3 2012

[PaarlBok]

Doesnt matter if you throw the dictionery at me , they were lucky and they know this.

 

[Newter]

Doesnt matter if you throw the dictionery at me , they were lucky and they know this.

Maybe, if you mean they were lucky the Cheetahs went to shit so rapidly at the 60 minute mark. But I think the Brumbies were in total control of their own game and would have won even if the Cheetahs had got their act together.

 

[PaarlBok]

Maybe, if you mean they were lucky the Cheetahs went to shit so rapidly at the 60 minute mark. But I think the Brumbies were in total control of their own game and would have won even if the Cheetahs had got their act together.

Looks who back, Mr Arrogant. Maybe your Tah arrogance is enough, but the Brumbies makes it even more difficult to swallow and maybe I should know better not to react to your usual dribble.

 

[Brumbies Guy]

Looks who back, Mr Arrogant. Maybe your Tah arrogance is enough, but the Brumbies makes it even more difficult to swallow and maybe I should know better not to react to your usual dribble.

Obviously not wearing that 'Yellow Scarf of Friendship' tonight Paarl

 

[PaarlBok]

Obviously not wearing that 'Yellow Scarf of Friendship' tonight Paarl

Boet I am a friendly Boer, like per always.

 

[cyclopath]

The 'new black' descriptor for very close 2012 S15 wins right at the death or near to it seems to be an acute abuse of the word 'lucky'.

Here's a dictionary definition of the word 'luck': "...success or failure apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions..."

There is nothing 'just by chance' about most if not all of these tight death wins. They typically emanate from a team skilful, gutsy, fitter (mentally or physically) or simply tough enough to eke out a final situation where they legitimately scored more points upon 80 than the other lot, namely they made a win happen. Chance/luck is, for example, a completely random, totally idiotic ref error, or a try being obtained as the chasing tackler gets a sudden spontaneous injury that prevents him stopping the try he otherwise would clearly have stopped, or a freak wind gust blowing an absolutely wayward drop goal suddenly between the posts that never would have occurred otherwise, or such like things.

As much as I love a good bit of pedantry, RH, we all know that "luck" is used in many ways. In rugby, there are so many variables - bounce of the ball, slip of a boot on dewy ground, the decisions ( and impact of those decisions ) of 30 players and 3 refs, not to mention all manner of meteorology, spontaneous combustion, acute delerium and geological ephemera.
When there is no time left, and all things align, it is down to more than just the actions of the team that prevails.
Say the Brumbies and Cheetahs packed that scrum exactly the same, the scrum broke down exactly the same; the actions of the Brumbies have not changed, but the ref decides the Brumbies infringed (which, given the discussion here could easily have happened). The Brumbies have now lost. Did they "make the loss happen"? Or did the Cheetahs "make the win happen"? What if Lyndon Bray now concludes the decision was wrong?
I think all the variables, in this type of situation, being in alignment would be regarded by many as chance, or luck, as no one player / side in the game can control all of them.

 

[Sgt Chumpy]

IIR correctly it seemed to me that the Cheetahs "fatties" may have been pinged for balking just prior the "engage" by moving their heads to entice the Brunbies into engaging early. I believe the Ref may have even made mention of it during the game. Not sure if was a deliberate tactic or not.

 

[PaarlBok]

IIR correctly it seemed to me that the Cheetahs "fatties" may have been pinged for balking just prior the "engage" by moving their heads to entice the Brunbies into engaging early. I believe the Ref may have even made mention of it during the game. Not sure if was a deliberate tactic or not.

I heard that, sound pretty stupid to be honest. Maybe he need a few scrumming sessions to understand fatties work.

 

[RedsHappy]

As much as I love a good bit of pedantry, RH, we all know that "luck" is used in many ways. In rugby, there are so many variables - bounce of the ball, slip of a boot on dewy ground, the decisions ( and impact of those decisions ) of 30 players and 3 refs, not to mention all manner of meteorology, spontaneous combustion, acute delerium and geological ephemera.
When there is no time left, and all things align, it is down to more than just the actions of the team that prevails.
Say the Brumbies and Cheetahs packed that scrum exactly the same, the scrum broke down exactly the same; the actions of the Brumbies have not changed, but the ref decides the Brumbies infringed (which, given the discussion here could easily have happened). The Brumbies have now lost. Did they "make the loss happen"? Or did the Cheetahs "make the win happen"? What if Lyndon Bray now concludes the decision was wrong?
I think all the variables, in this type of situation, being in alignment would be regarded by many as chance, or luck, as no one player / side in the game can control all of them.

Hmmm Cyclo. I believe your scenario above rather contradicts your argument with Paarl directly above re: (1) precisely why that final penalty was awarded to the Brums, and, as you argued, (2) as the dominant scrummaging team, why they (from many scrum reffing precedents in rugby) deserved it, and (3) why they were likely to get it based upon their scrum tactics (esp. in the whole game's context), and (4) why the Brums were thus skilful in getting it from the ref at that crucial, fate-determining moment. Assuming there's merit in your overall argument with Paarl re the Brum's win, and I think there is, this was not a 'random chance/lucky' final win outcome for the Brums in any sense at all. And then, additionally, there's Newter's agreement above to consider, in the same vein. In a win near the death, luck is when there is little or no evidence of skill, good forethought, cunning, or raw capability affecting the key moment(s) when the win is made. Or, alternatively, when the other side's last breath mistakes are genuinely those of random misfortune, vs errors of their own making or less-good capability just when it counted the most, and the winners made less errors just when it counted the most, etc.

 

[cyclopath]

It doesn't contradict it at all. In my opinion the penalty was fair, and I do think the Brumbies had won the scrum battle, making the chances of them getting the call higher. BUT... others think otherwise. It is entirely conceivable that the penalty might have been blown the other way. Indeed, the refs boss is reviewing it, so maybe the ref was wrong, and the call could have easily gone the other way? Who would argue against that, who has watched a lot of rugby? Would I have been stunned if he had ruled the other way? No, especially in a scrum, which is one of the greatest random penalty generators in our wonderful sport (where's ParraEeelsNRL now, he'd love that!!). The Brumbies can control so much. But there are as many, if not more variables, completely out of their control, and hence chance / luck / good fortune plays a part in these "final play" situations. IMO.
Anyway, I respect your point, but will leave it at that.

 

[PaarlBok]

Naka share my and Cycs luck view
Sport24

Other than these two injuries, the Cheetahs will not be making drastic changes to their line-up for the Rebels, but they will be wishing for some luck in the game.
“I hope our luck turns, it will be great to win a game in the last minute for a change, but hopefully we can rectify the situation ourselves. ”

 

[JJJ]

I reckon SANZAR would be idiots not to call for a review of that last scrum, given that so many saffers consider it gospel that the penalty was either bad or biased. Which isn't the same as saying they (SANZAR) think the wrong decision was made. Sounds like a cover-your-arse procedure to me.

 

[Brisbok]

Hmmm Cyclo. I believe your scenario above rather contradicts your argument with Paarl directly above re: (1) precisely why that final penalty was awarded to the Brums, and, as you argued, (2) as the dominant scrummaging team, why they (from many scrum reffing precedents in rugby) deserved it, and (3) why they were likely to get it based upon their scrum tactics (esp. in the whole game's context), and (4) why the Brums were thus skilful in getting it from the ref at that crucial, fate-determining moment. Assuming there's merit in your overall argument with Paarl re the Brum's win, and I think there is, this was not a 'random chance/lucky' final win outcome for the Brums in any sense at all. And then, additionally, there's Newter's agreement above to consider, in the same vein. In a win near the death, luck is when there is little or no evidence of skill, good forethought, cunning, or raw capability affecting the key moment(s) when the win is made. Or, alternatively, when the other side's last breath mistakes are genuinely those of random misfortune, vs errors of their own making or less-good capability just when it counted the most, and the winners made less errors just when it counted the most, etc.

Cheetahs were wronged in scrums – Bray

by Brenden Nel 13 March 2012, 17:18
Sanzar referees boss Lyndon Bray has admitted there was a “big imbalance” in the way Keith Brown allowed the Brumbies an advantage in hitting in at the scrums in their match on Saturday.
Bray has also called for more clarity on the final penalty, the one which gifted the Brumbies a victory on the whistle after they were behind for most of the match.
It is clear that Sanzar are not happy with Brown’s calls in the game, especially in the setpiece, where the Cheetahs were penalised five times, often within striking distance, and saw the Brumbies claw their way back from 23-10 to win the game.
While there is nothing that can be done about the result, talk within refereeing circles is that Brown is on shaky ground and will need to up his game or fall off the Sanzar refereeing panel.
Bray, in Cape Town to meet with Saru officials and with teams in the country, said that Brown would still undergo the official Sanzar review, but had already done a “self-review” where the imbalance was apparent.
“Keith has done his own self-review and out of it the scrums to me stood out as the big imbalance. Taking out the debate about the last penalty, the imbalance came with the way he managed the engage sequence in the scrum setpieces,” Bray told SuperSport.com
“There was no question that the Cheetahs did go early, but both packs did and that started earlier with the Brumbies going early on the engage call, to which the Cheetahs responded. There were consequences to that, in that the hip position got messy and the Cheetahs lost confidence in the engage process. Keith has to take ownership of that in the game.”
As for the final penalty, where the Cheetahs were penalised for wheeling the scrum, but have subsequently claimed it was the Brumbies and not them who wheeled the setpiece, Bray is waiting for clarity from the three country scrum experts before making a call.
The Cheetahs afterwards said they ordered players not to wheel the scrum in case there was to be a penalty, but were penalised anyway.
“I’ve sent an email to the three scrum coaches in the countries and am waiting for a response,” Bray explained.
“The issue is that about three years ago we had what we call a “sideways crib”, where the back five literally walk sideways in the scrum. At the time we all agreed that it was rubbish and a negative tactic that was not in the spirit of the contest at the scrum.
“We spent a lot of time at the time debating how do you rule on it. The coaches felt at the time that you need to allow players to have an effective forward push before a scrum can wheel. If there is that, then if the scrum goes around the corner, and the scrum literally turns on its access, it isn’t illegal, as long as there is a forward shove.”
“What I’ve asked is these three or four decisions which led to penalties and the last one to have a professional view as to how we approach this. We need to get back to all the referees and make sure they are mindful that this must be done legally.”

http://www.supersport.com/rugby/super-rugby/news/120313/Cheetahs_were_wronged_in_scrums_Bray

Having the majority of decisions going your way when in fact both teams are transgressing wouldn't have anything to do with luck would it RH? Or does that only come down to skill? When you are constantly penalised for engaging early when both teams are doing it, do you think that may result in your forwards being rather tentative in engaging in the following scrums to avoid being penalised and thus giving the other team the upper hand (or dominant scrum)?

 

[Brisbok]

http://www.supersport.com/rugby/super-rugby/news/120313/Cheetahs_were_wronged_in_scrums_Bray

Having the majority of decisions going your way when in fact both teams are transgressing wouldn't have anything to do with luck would it RH? Or does that only come down to skill? When you are constantly penalised for engaging early when both teams are doing it, do you think that may result in your forwards being rather tentative in engaging in the following scrums to avoid being penalised and thus giving the other team the upper hand (or dominant scrum)?

Once again, I cannot understand the benefit of Bray making this public. What is to be gained from it besides further enraging the team on the wrong end of the decisions and all of their fans.

Obviously the investigation should be conducted and the results should then be communicated to the ref in question and all of the other refs. The team that has been wronged may also be notified of the results in private.

But to announce it to the press and therefore the public merely adds fuel to the fire and creates a situation (similar to the Bryce Lawrence situation) where one set of fans feels that the referee in question was deliberately biased towards one team.

Surely it would be better to deal with it internally and then encourage the ref in question to come out and admit to a couple of his errors in public, confirming that they were simply mistakes and not a pre-conceived bias towards one particular team. That way everyone would accept the mistakes and move on.

 

[Brumby Jack]

Brisbok,

It does sound a bit like the NRL reffing where they hang them out to dry instead of providing the appropriate feedback.

Surely you could say to the ref 'Yeah you made some mistakes, which you need to work on' and tell the public a watered down version of that without humiliating the guy and affecting his confidence.

I bet the next time he refs and there's a scrum, he'll be shitting himself to make sure nothing goes wrong.

 

[RedsHappy]

http://www.supersport.com/rugby/super-rugby/news/120313/Cheetahs_were_wronged_in_scrums_Bray
Having the majority of decisions going your way when in fact both teams are transgressing wouldn't have anything to do with luck would it RH? Or does that only come down to skill? When you are constantly penalised for engaging early when both teams are doing it, do you think that may result in your forwards being rather tentative in engaging in the following scrums to avoid being penalised and thus giving the other team the upper hand (or dominant scrum)?

There are obviously varying points of view re the issue of scrum dominance patterns in that match and how the scrum was reffed, overall and in particular cases. Some observers argue that the Brums 'deserved' the ref's rulings based upon their dominant performance in the latter parts of the game. You have concluded your own view differently (as above). These alternative views - and I certainly do not automatically consider Bray's irresponsible (but not definitive) public media critique of the ref absolute gospel on the whole matter, just as I didn't Paddy O'B's infamous public 'apology' the ABs - don't in themselves confirm that the Brums were 'lucky' and the Cheetahs 'unlucky'. What you appear to be saying is that your view (or Bray's seeming view) of the evidence should prevail, and thus the Cheetahs were 'unlucky' to have Brown as a ref.

To all this I would add: 'managing' and 'influencing' refs is, like it or not, a key part of elite rugby and some teams and captains over time do it far better than others. And thus to varying degrees 'make their own luck' with refs as they succeed in building a ref's sympathy to their complaints or tactics re the other side's conduct, etc.

 

[Brisbok]

There are obviously varying points of view re the issue of scrum dominance patterns in that match and how the scrum was reffed, overall and in particular cases. Some observers argue that the Brums 'deserved' the ref's rulings based upon their dominant performance in the latter parts of the game. You have concluded your own view differently (as above). These alternative views - and I certainly do not automatically consider Bray's irresponsible (but not definitive) public media critique of the ref absolute gospel on the whole matter, just as I didn't Paddy O'B's infamous public 'apology' the ABs - don't in themselves confirm that the Brums were 'lucky' and the Cheetahs 'unlucky'. What you appear to be saying is that your view (or Bray's seeming view) of the evidence should prevail, and thus the Cheetahs were 'unlucky' to have Brown as a ref.

To all this I would add: 'managing' and 'influencing' refs is, like it or not, a key part of elite rugby and some teams and captains over time do it far better than others. And thus to varying degrees 'make their own luck' with refs as they succeed in building a ref's sympathy to their complaints or tactics re the other side's conduct, etc.

Thanks for giving us your point of view RH. I think the opinion of the head of Referees appointed by the IRB carries a little more weight than yours though. Clearly you refuse to accept or acknowledge any other view point than your own. If you cannot see that there is some element of luck involved in the way that a referee calls a 50/50 situation then I cannot see any point in continuing a conversation with you. Good 'luck' to you.

 

[RedsHappy]

Brisbok, It does sound a bit like the NRL reffing where they hang them out to dry instead of providing the appropriate feedback. Surely you could say to the ref 'Yeah you made some mistakes, which you need to work on' and tell the public a watered down version of that without humiliating the guy and affecting his confidence. I bet the next time he refs and there's a scrum, he'll be shitting himself to make sure nothing goes wrong.

Have to agree with Brisbok and you BJ. This almost random tendency of Bray's to publicly highlight some 'debatable' ref's judgements, yet stay quiet on others, is absolutely reckless for all the excellent reasons you and Brisbok note. It's also usually the case that publicly criticising, or close to it, one of your team members rarely gets the best response from the party at the receiving end. Fear, future anxiety and resentment tend to be outcomes vs constructive learning best done in a private context.

If he wants to show the S15 community that refs are not above critique for their mistakes etc, he could readily do that by means of e.g. a monthly report covering generic issues or types of errors that have been picked up and attempted to be remedied. Individual refs and games need not be highlighted, but management and the fans could be assured that critical evaluation of refs' performance was taking place objectively and continuously.

 

[RedsHappy]

Thanks for giving us your point of view RH. I think the opinion of the head of Referees appointed by the IRB carries a little more weight than yours though. Clearly you refuse to accept or acknowledge any other view point than your own. If you cannot see that there is some element of luck involved in the way that a referee calls a 50/50 situation then I cannot see any point in continuing a conversation with you. Good 'luck' to you.

I didn't say Bray was wrong and I was right, rather that there are (IMO) legitimate alternative views and for me these refs' managers are not auto-gospel. + Bray himself has said that last penalty needs to be considered by 'experts', he didn't state it as categorically wrong.

And I will get excited about Bray's competence when we can evaluate after say Round 10 or so how consistently and objectively he publicly deals with _all_ seemingly major debatable or incorrect refs' judgements. I'm not impressed if he just publicly picks out X game/ref, and then we never hear from him in comparable similar transgressions. That kind of inexplicable inconsistency just undermines the perception of integrity, just like Paddy's 'apology' to some teams, but never to others suffering a similar fate. So let's wait and see.

 

[PaarlBok]

I didn't say Bray was wrong and I was right, rather that there are (IMO) legitimate alternative views and for me these refs' managers are not auto-gospel. + Bray himself has said that last penalty needs to be considered by 'experts', he didn't state it as categorically wrong.

And I will get excited about Bray's competence when we can evaluate after say Round 10 or so how consistently and objectively he publicly deals with _all_ seemingly major debatable or incorrect refs' judgements. I'm not impressed if he just publicly picks out X game/ref, and then we never hear from him in comparable similar transgressions. That kind of inexplicable inconsistency just undermines the perception of integrity, just like Paddy's 'apology' to some teams, but never to others suffering a similar fate. So let's wait and see.

Boet I stated in my first post regarding the scrum that there is no way any player can adobt to the ref when he allows the one team with an early hit. They try their best and he keep on penalising them and at the end it cost them the match. Vok even Bray agree on this one which was my immediate reaction during the match.

I am not a Cheetah supporter for the record and surely not a ref basher, not even close.