Greek Kiwi on the refs

[Scarfman]

I have felt that the Wallabies have been reffed pretty badly in the tests so far, but wasn't quite sure how to express it. This article gets close to what I reckon. It's not cheating, or necessarily unfair (although we've been a bit unlucky) but mostly it's just that the rules suck.

I guess Zavos hits the nail on the head when he suggests it's time to suck it up and start playing rugby that's effective against the current referee interpretation that encourages teams to heavily load up the ruck.

Boks profit from British refs

AS I watched the Springboks kick virtually every ball their superb pack won from the Wallabies at Cape Town on their way to a 29-17 victory I had a sense that I'd seen all this before.

When Morne Steyn kicked over his fifth penalty in the first half, with all the accuracy and aplomb of Jonny Wilkinson, I realised that this Springboks side is the clone of the England side that won the 2003 Rugby World Cup, with the tactical addition of the midfield bomb developed by Argentina in the 2007 tournament.

It's fashionable for rugby writers (and I have made the comment myself) to accuse the Springboks of not playing any rugby. What is clear after the Tri Nations Tests this year in South Africa, with the All Blacks and now the Wallabies being kicked off the paddock, is that the Springboks are playing terrific "rugby football", rather than "rugby".

The rugby football game is based on forward power, good structured play with strong set pieces, good restarts and a consistent kicking game with points accumulated, in the main, through penalty goals, drop goals and the occasional try. The rugby game, on the other hand, tends to see the set pieces as a means to the end of running the ball where possible, and scoring tries rather than penalties as the main way to score points. This is the game Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific Nations have generally espoused, and the style the lost and lamented ELVs encouraged.

A shrewd observer sent me an email after the Test finished: "Did [Graham] Henry and [Robbie] Deans learn nothing from the Lions matches. The Springboks have one (bloody effective) style of play that has 4 stages: Biff. Bang. Bosh. Kick. The way to beat them is to move the ball quickly into the backs and have runners both on the inside and the outside (as per the first try). Note the Springboks' complete tactical inflexibility, eg when the Wallabies were down to 13 men and some 7-a-side rugby was called for Habana and Pietersen to 'run in', and what happened? The Springboks KICKED! Talking of inflexibility: where were the Wallabies' lineout variations?"

The success of the Springboks' attritional, rugby football style of play was helped by the referee, Irishman Alain Rolland. The penalties given against the Wallabies were justified, although he was unduly harsh with his yellow card to Richard Brown, who got his timing wrong after making a tackle. The problem was that infringements by the Springboks weren't penalised. George Smith, as acting captain, made this point to Rolland after the Wallabies were penalised late in the match for coming in from the side. Smith made the (valid) point that Heinrich Brussow had sealed off the ball for the Springboks by lying over it, forcing the Wallabies' offence.

Rolland said he didn't see Brussow only the Wallaby. When Bismarck du Plessis charged a penalty kick forcing a shorter kick, Rolland said it had no effect on the kick and refused to punish it. He was conned by captain and prop John Smit to give an important scrum penalty to the Springboks when Smit had clearly dropped and rolled in to collapse a scrum. It is significant, in my view, that the only loss suffered by the Springboks this season was when Stu Dickinson, the excellent Australian referee, handled the third Test between the Springboks and the British and Irish Lions. Dickinson (correctly) was less impressed with the dockyard brawl rugby of the Springboks than the northern hemisphere referees.

Traditionally in the Tri Nations, the Springboks have been strong at home and vulnerable out of Africa. This year might be different. When the Springboks play the Wallabies in Perth, the referee will be the New Zealander, Bryce Lawrence; in Brisbane, the referee will be Wayne Barnes, an Englishman, and in Hamilton against the All Blacks, the referee will be Nigel Owens, a Welshman. This means British referees will officiate in five of the six Tri Nations Tests involving the Springboks this season.

 

[Blue]

Whilst in principle I agree with him that the Boks are one dimensional, he has been harping on about the same shit since the first Lions test without really making a point.

This guy continuously displays a complete lack of understanding of the game through his weekly drivel.

A Greek Kiwi writing about rugby in Australia. I've never understood it. There's something wrong here.

 

[Scarfman]

Well, yeah, I considered calling this thread "Zavos in good point shock" but what do you think about what he says about the refs. As I always say at this point in the argument, I believe that rugby is a XV man game. I don't think the laws should encourage a 10-man game, nor should they encourage spin-it-wide touch rugby. Th eidea of the Boks winning the game 7 PENS - 0 does shit me a bit.

Frankly, I just enjoy watching ELV rugby which left scrums and lineouts as important as ever, but also encouraged teams to have a fucking go.

 

[fatprop]

He has a whinge on the Roar as well, after being quite reasonable for half the article he goes into a ref whinge, which is unnecessary.

http://www.theroar.com.au/2009/08/10/the-springboks-are-too-good-in-south-africa/

Good;

The Springboks are too good in South Africa

First things first: the 2009 Springboks have one of the great packs in rugby history. The pressure they brought on the Wallabies in the rucks, mauls, tackled ball situations and the lineouts in the first 60 minutes of the Test at Newlands, Cape Town, forced a committed and gutsy side to make errors of judgment and skill that gave easy penalty goals to the home side.

Aside from giving away a hatful of easy penalty goals, the Wallabies played for 9 minutes late in the first half and at the beginning of the second half with only 13 men.

First George Smith was yellow-carded for silly stupidity. Then Richard Brown was sent to the sin bin for a messy mistake where his timing after making the tackle was just off.

Later on in the half, Matt Giteau was sin-binned. Then at the end of the Test, Smith was sent off the field again.

The point here is that when the Wallabies had only 13 players on the field, the Springboks could not score a try. They were, in fact, out-scored two tries to one.

One of the reasons for this try-famine (for a side with numbers on the field, field position and great possessions from the lineouts and the rucks and mauls) is that the Springboks high-ball and chase game is designed to force penalties rather than tries. Another reason, according to the Springboks coach Peter de Villiers, was that the Wallabies kept on killing the ball whenever the Springboks got a roll on.

There is an element of truth in this. Especially in the first half, the Wallabies gave away penalties rather than concede tries.

In fact, right at the end of the Test, too, Smith illegally knocked the ball from the hands of Pierre Spies while the Springboks were mounting a last attack near the tryline.

The Wallabies gave away 13 penalties and many of them were given away to stop the Springboks when they were on the rampage.

But the fact is that the Springboks backs are nowhere near the quality of the forwards. When they are forced to put together a fluent attack, they just can’t do so. A couple of phases in the backs in about all they can mount before the inevitable kick is put up into the air.

Whinge begins ..................

There was an interesting moment about an hour into the Test when Smith (rightly) contested a decision by the referee Alain Rolland. The acting Wallaby captain (Stirling Mortlock was off the field with an injured knee) pointed out to the referee that the Springboks had sealed off a ruck forcing the Wallabies to come in from the side to get to the ball.

‘I didn’t see the Springboks player but I did see the Wallaby player,’ Rolland said.

Alas, this sort of mistake was repeated by Rolland all match. When a Springbok illegally charged a Wallaby penalty kick, Rolland allowed the infraction by saying that play wasn’t effected.

The Springboks conned some penalties from scrums, even when they were shoved off the ball.

The Wallabies were pulled up for forward passes that weren’t, for incorrect feeds to the scrums despite the Springboks doing the same, for hands on in the rucks when the Springboks were sealing off rucks and mauls with impunity.

The complaint that the Springboks don’t play much or any rugby (a point I’ve made myself) needs to be put into context too.

For the first half, at least, before they ran out of gas after three consecutive hard Tests, the Springboks played a shrewd game of counter-attacks from the Wallaby kicks.

The big runners made in-roads through the Wallaby defence and then a couple of the backs tried to flash through the gaps created, before penalties were conceded to them.

After the first three Tri-Nations Tests in South Africa, it needs to be stated that the Springboks were too good for the All Blacks and for the Wallabies. The intriguing question is whether this dominance can be carried through to the Tests in Australia and New Zealand.

Last season the Springboks defeated the All Blacks at Carisbrook for the first time since 1921. They lost the other Tests in New Zealand and Australia. My guess is that the Springboks would be happy to win one of the three Tests this season out of South Africa.

If they do this, or go better and win two Tests, their status as one of the greatest of all Springboks sides will be confirmed.

So far in the 2009 Tri-Nations the home side has won all four matches.

You’d think that if this pattern is to be broken, the Springboks are the side to do this.

But will it be a case, as so often in the past, that the Springboks are too good in South Africa and not good enough out of Africa?

My problem with whinging about the ref is that it is just inaccurate and negates the Bok's good play and as Spiro states correctly before the whinge the penalties were self inflicted wounds

"The Wallabies gave away 13 penalties and many of them were given away to stop the Springboks when they were on the rampage"

 

[Moses]

I think the Boks have been very lucky with the referee's appointed to them, 5/6 northern hemisphere refs is a godsend, esepecially when their preparation was a series against some of the top NH players with NH referee's.

 

[rugbywhisperer]

We may not like what has been said in this series of articles but it is exactly as I had deduced at #;00 am Sunday morning after another loss.
Everything he says is correct - I don't see an argument.
Australia and NZ have both been done over by a well trained outfit playing thir brand of percentage 'rugby'. There was nothing classy about the way the Boks played - only totall efficient structure which welivered the final result they wanted.
We can't control whta the refs do but we can modify our play accordingly if it becomes apparent that a certain style will be condoned or 'not seen'.
Now here is the rub - i would rather play our brand of rugby any day - to hell with results no as history tells us that 10 man rugby will untimately fail as the 15 man players adopt and counterattack the negative style employed.
The saffers might be winning now but I cannot see how it will be long lasting.

 

[fatprop]

Now here is the rub - i would rather play our brand of rugby any day - to hell with results no as history tells us that 10 man rugby will untimately fail as the 15 man players adopt and counterattack the negative style employed.
The saffers might be winning now but I cannot see how it will be long lasting.

Absolutely agree, I also like the fact that the Boks are playing a different style successfully and now we have to work out how to counter it.

 

[Lindommer]

I think the Boks have been very lucky with the referee's appointed to them, 5/6 northern hemisphere refs is a godsend, esepecially when their preparation was a series against some of the top NH players with NH referees.

Moses, are you referrring to the Lions series? The three tests had two SH referees, NZer Bryce Lawrence and Australian Stu Dickinson, and one mad Frenchman.

 

[rugbywhisperer]

I have to give then credit for maybe foreseeing the demise of the ELV's, adapting their play to accomodate the 'new' laws and they are being successful at it - but just like the England team at 2003 RWC - a team cannot maintain a style of play that is in contrast with it's inherant nature and this style of play is not Bok play - it is designed to win now - and they will pay the price for short term vision.

 

[Moses]

The boks should stick Roussow at 8, Kankowski at 12, Spies at 13 and Van der Linde on the wing. Then no-one could accuse them of playing boring 10 man rugby.

I think the Boks have been very lucky with the referee's appointed to them, 5/6 northern hemisphere refs is a godsend, esepecially when their preparation was a series against some of the top NH players.

Moses, are you referrring to the Lions series? The three tests had two SH referees, NZer Bryce Lawrence and Australian Stu Dickinson, and one mad Frenchman.

True that, my mistake, fixed above

 

[Blue]

Well, yeah, I considered calling this thread "Zavos in good point shock" but what do you think about what he says about the refs. As I always say at this point in the argument, I believe that rugby is a XV man game. I don't think the laws should encourage a 10-man game, nor should they encourage spin-it-wide touch rugby. Th eidea of the Boks winning the game 7 PENS - 0 does shit me a bit.

Frankly, I just enjoy watching ELV rugby which left scrums and lineouts as important as ever, but also encouraged teams to have a fucking go.

Dunno, of you go back and look at the penalties they mostly came becuase of pressure. I made the observation after the first AB test that the Boks had very few chances of scoring because ever time they threatened in range, the ABs gave away a penalty.

Sure, they are not trying to play an expansive game (which doesn't bother me one bit), but the ABs and Wallabies have been pretty cynical, as have the Boks at times.

Yellow cards didn't stop it though. So what will?

As I write this, the Fox sports ad with Deans pointing at his noggin implying the Wallabies will be clever is on the box. Well the ABs and the Wobs have been dafter than daft.

I am a bit concerned about the Boks not shifting it more. But not one of the three tests have required them to. Why on earth risk it if you keep getting points for jam? On the other hand, in the second Lions test they played a superb style of ruby in the last 20 minutes and scored when they had absolutely had to. Steyn got the Bulls backline going just fine thank you very much (second most tries in the tournament) and Habana, Fourie and JP Pietersen aren't exactly incapable of scoring.

The game plan a conscious decision, and we won't know if the Boks are capable of scoring tries until they actually need to.

 

[Moses]

Is there an inflexibility in the Boks game plan though? If the rumours that the team are 'coached' by Smit, Matfield and Du Preez then they should be able to adapt to the game situation.

When they have a 10 point lead, 2 man advantage, an absolutely dominant lineout and get a penalty in front why not kick for the corner?

 

[Scotty]

I have to give then credit for maybe foreseeing the demise of the ELV's, adapting their play to accomodate the 'new' laws and they are being successful at it - but just like the England team at 2003 RWC - a team cannot maintain a style of play that is in contrast with it's inherant nature and this style of play is not Bok play - it is designed to win now - and they will pay the price for short term vision.

I disagree, as I said elsewhere the Boks are playing the Argentine, South African and English RWC style of play. This is not against their nature - they have almost always had big defensive centres, a big forward pack and a very good kicking flyhalf. They have been improved further by a world class openside.

This is the style (or similar to) that has one both of the last world cups. This is what the laws of rugby and modern defensive patterns encourage. This is what we will be stuck with if we don't tweak them to encourage more tries and less kick and chase tactics.

 

[Scotty]

So on the topic of law changes in order to encourage 'total rugby', off the top of my head I can think of a few areas to look at:

1. Reducing the value of the penalty or increasing the value of tries. These values should equate to how hard it is to achieve each - and there is no way that it is only twice as difficult to score a try as it is to receive and kick a penalty particularly with modern defenses. I'd be happy with 2 point penalties.

2. Receivers of kicks need to have more protection. Referees can not allow 4-5 forwards bear down on a full back and then go straight off their feet at the ruck. Teams like the Boks don't always want to regain the ball from a bomb - they are actually looking for the defensive team to take the ball so they can smash them at the ruck and hopefully receive a penalty.

Bringing back the FK elvs will go a long way to mitigating the effect of no. 2 while also encouraging the scoring of tries in 1.

 

[fatprop]

Receivers of kicks need to have more protection. Referees can not allow 4-5 forwards bear down on a full back and then go straight off their feet at the ruck. Teams like the Boks don't always want to regain the ball from a bomb - they are actually looking for the defensive team to take the ball so they can smash them at the ruck and hopefully receive a penalty.

More unforeseen circumstances of the ELV rule changes, maybe passing back into the 22 wasn't so bad after all.

 

[the gambler]

I always said the success of Argentina and SA in the 07 World Cup was what led to the aerial ping pong since then, not the 22 pass back law.

I also said the only thing preventing it from becoming farcial was the free kick laws meaning teams couldnt kick and wait for ref to get bored and give a penalty. With full arm penalties meaning every second ruck in the opponents half is a potential 3 point opportunity why wouldn't teams put the ball up and swarm down on the reciever?

Over the years the law on calling a mark has changed as teams started using the up and under tactic. I believe it went from having both feet on the ground, to one foot to now not needing any feet at all when the catch is taken. Do they need to do more and allow marks to be called anywhere inside your own 40?

Personally I dont think this is the answer however with the improvement in goal kicking accuarcy, especially over greater distances (can we blame technology at all for this - tees, actual balls, boots??) now any bomb in the opposition half can lead directly to points.

What other laws can be tweaked to prevent this taking over the game? Currently if a reciever takes a kick and a maul is formed immediately and the ball is not retrieved the recieving team still gets the put in to the scrum. I feel that at the very least this needs to be extended to rucks, regardless of who is going forward, however refs would still be put under great pressure to penalise for not releasing or sealing off.

I dont know what the answer to all this is but at least with free kicks it meant a slight mistake such as losing your footing, or holding on for an extra second while isolated through no fault of your own team, didnt automatically result in 3 points. As a consequence teams had to exert pressure through more than just one facet of play which is surely a good thing. The laws still allowed for penalties to be given at any time and its my greatest regret in the whole saga that the IRB didnt do more to ensure that occured, which in turn would have meant the ELVs were not seen as a mandate to cheat. However we have lost that oppurtunity and we must now find new answers.

 

[fatprop]

On the ruck thing, I'm old, I liked the "whoever was going forward, gets the put in rule"

 

[the gambler]

On the ruck thing, I'm old, I liked the "whoever was going forward, gets the put in rule"

But if you put a bomb up and tackle the player as soon as he takes it you are almost guarenteed the ball. If the attacking team actually manages to get the ball back they will almost certainly have got away with sealing off or not releasing.

 

[fatprop]

On the ruck thing, I'm old, I liked the "whoever was going forward, gets the put in rule"

But if you put a bomb up and tackle the player as soon as he takes it you are almost guarenteed the ball. If the attacking team actually manages to get the ball back they will almost certainly have got away with sealing off or not releasing.

As long as the forwards got to mash the back, I can live with that. I want to see forwards driving forward rewarded.

 

[Moses]

On the ruck thing, I'm old, I liked the "whoever was going forward, gets the put in rule"

But if you put a bomb up and tackle the player as soon as he takes it you are almost guarenteed the ball. If the attacking team actually manages to get the ball back they will almost certainly have got away with sealing off or not releasing.

Problem with this last weeked is your forwards who'd be running to the landing area with the intention of securing the imminent ruck will be slower than the back who kicked it and therefore get penalised for impeding the chaser.