Hurricanes vs Stormers Super Rugby R11 26 April

[whatty]

Testosterone idiot.
Game should have never got close against what is a very average team.
Hate talking about the refs but is SW looking to get some support for his residency renewal.

 

[badabing59]

.Late hits, hands in the ruck, scumming illegally.

Oh and acting like a total tool. Seems to have a short fuse.

Yep definitely a bad hair day for him today.

 

[Rassie]

.Late hits, hands in the ruck, scumming illegally.

Oh and acting like a total tool. Seems to have a short fuse.

And it seems that he is wearing the same stealthy paint that MCCaw is wearing

 

[hawktrain]

I only saw the last 15 minutes but I thought Walsh was pretty bad in favour of the Stormers...especially the offside lines, he was letting the Stormers get away with going early nearly every ruck. Didn't see the rest, good to see a big crowd there in Palmy.

 

[Blue]

I only saw the last 15 minutes but I thought Walsh was pretty bad in favour of the Stormers.especially the offside lines, he was letting the Stormers get away with going early nearly every ruck. Didn't see the rest, good to see a big crowd there in Palmy.

He allowed the Canes forwards to take the space beyond the ruck for 80 minutes, sack just about every maul (should have had more cards, specifically immediately after the one he gave Itchyfanny), coming in from the side and Franks was infringing in just about every play. What an absolute fucking tosser.

In addition Franks stood up in every second scrum and never got pinged, and repeatedly dropped the bind and did not get pinged. Stormers got nothing for their scrum dominance but must have felt vindicated when they turned over the final scrum of the game.

The right team won, as much as a dislike the windblown, mountain weed smoking goats.

By the way as the season wears on I am getting more and more excited about Frans Malherbe. He is developing exactly as you would want a young 3 to develop. He was all over Franks. I hope Heyneke doesn't have a brain malfunction. He has to have him in the Boks squad so P de Villiers can work as much as possible with him.

 

[Rassie]

I don't know but it seems a trend of home teams getting the benefit of the doubt with penalties in Super Rugby. Especially when it comes to scrum time.

 

[Torn Hammy]

I was wondering what does Walsh do? If he just penalised every one of Franks' indiscretions, the penalty count would be over 50 and he would be out of a job.

 

[whatty]

The right team won, as much as a dislike the windblown, mountain weed smoking goats.

Love you too Blue.
Just bought tickets for the family for this Fridays game, dam I hope it is not Walsh.

 

[Baldric]

I see that F Steyn has been cited for a shoulder charge in his game. One wonders how Franks seems to avoid any form of sanction. I had him down for punching, tackling with no arms, charging into a ruck, illegal scrumming, collapsing a maul and generally behaving like a pest yet he gets through a game with impunity.
One wonders who is smoking the mountain weed

 

[Brisbok]

I see that F Steyn has been cited for a shoulder charge in his game. One wonders how Franks seems to avoid any form of sanction. I had him down for punching, tackling with no arms, charging into a ruck, illegal scrumming, collapsing a maul and generally behaving like a pest yet he gets through a game with impunity.
One wonders who is smoking the mountain weed

Steyn's was in the Chiefs vs Sharks game, not this one. The point is still valid though. I guess everyone is almost resigned to the fact that the citing process will never be consistent from one game to the next!

 

[Dan54]

Brisbok, it not even consistent in game, I would have cited Steyn for the kick in Goolies he gave Anscombe!!

 

[Rassie]

Steyn's was in the Chiefs vs Sharks game, not this one. The point is still valid though. I guess everyone is almost resigned to the fact that the citing process will never be consistent from one game to the next!

The word you are looking for is bias is believe

 

[ACT Crusader]

Steyn's was in the Chiefs vs Sharks game, not this one. The point is still valid though. I guess everyone is almost resigned to the fact that the citing process will never be consistent from one game to the next!

Not sure why there is an expectation of consistency when humans are involved. I know I don't rock up to work every single day with the same level of consistent attitude, judgment, making the same decisions for a situation I may have faced previously etc.

Is something inconsistent because we don't like it or because we feel an injustice has been served?

As for this game, what a shocking game to watch. Painful almost. Some very mindless play from both sides. There were glimpses of what both teams can do when they want to play, was impressed with the Stormers defence despite them getting away with hands on the ball at the ruck. Canes attack is poor. Barrett is a roller coaster ride at 1st 5. Poor discipline by the Canes forwards.

 

[Rassie]

Stormers were both resourceful and staunch and have a ominous rolling maul. Ha who would have believed that some 20 years ago. That was a Bulls thing

 

[PaarlBok]

By the way as the season wears on I am getting more and more excited about Frans Malherbe. He is developing exactly as you would want a young 3 to develop. He was all over Franks. I hope Heyneke doesn't have a brain malfunction. He has to have him in the Boks squad so P de Villiers can work as much as possible with him.

He is in the Bok squad since last year. Stormers youngster fatties develope nicely this year. This week ysterbeth is back and will start from the bench. More steel added.

 

[Rassie]

And here it is from http://sareferees.com/News/law-discussion--probable/2829888/

a. Joe Pietersen kicks out for a line-out to the Stormers about 14 metres from the Hurricanes' line.

The Stormers throw to Andries Bekker and form a maul on him. They immediately move the maul forward and run it towards the Hurricanes' line. About two metres from the line, Thrush pulls the maul down. He is penalised and sent to the sin bin.

We shall come back to this incident.

b. Joe Pietersen kicks out for a line-out to the Stormers five metres from the Hurricanes' line.

The Stormers throw to Andries Bekker and form a maul on him. They move the maul forward but it falls apart about a metre from the line. The referee penalises the Hurricanes, saying that "1 and 7 had illegally defended the maul". 1 = Ben Franks; 7 - Karl Lowe.

c. Joe Pietersen kicks out for a line-out to the Stormers five metres from the Hurricanes' line.

The Stormers throw to Andries Bekker and form a maul on him. The Stormers move the maul forward and actually get over the line where the referee decides that they were held up. He then is informed by his assistant that Franks had pulled the maul down. Franks's action in doing so is clear and obvious as, down on his back, he pulls Bekker to ground.

The referee then talks to Conrad Smith, the captain of the Hurricanes, saying: "Another illegal collapse. 1 Gold. What I'm saying to you is that the next man who collapses down here - bin."

d. Joe Pietersen kicks out for a line-out to the Stormers five metres from the Hurricanes' line.

The Stormers throw to Andries Bekker and form a maul on him. They immediately move the maul forward and drive it over Hurricanes' line for a try by Rhodes

Let's go back to a.

Why is Thrush sent to the sin bin?

Thrush was guilty of foul play.

Law 10.4 DANGEROUS PLAY AND MISCONDUCT
(k) Players must not intentionally collapse a scrum, ruck or maul.
Sanction: Penalty kick

What Thrush did was an aspect of dangerous play. That is why he was penalised. But there is more to it than just a penalty.

Law 10.5 SANCTIONS
(a) Any player who infringes any part of the Foul Play Law must be admonished, or cautioned and temporarily suspended for a period of ten minutes’ playing time, or sent-off.

The referee has a choice of three ways of dealing with him - ticking off, yellow card or red card. In this case the referee issued a yellow card, as he is entitled to do.

Enough?

It does not seem that the referee considers a penalty try. He may have done so but it is not obvious.

Law 22.4 OTHER WAYS TO SCORE A TRY
(h) Penalty try. A penalty try is awarded if a try would probably have been scored but for foul play by the defending team.

Probably? Not possibly and not certainly. Even more than more likely than not.

The Stormers had run the maul for some 12 metres. They were all on their feet and there was no reason why they could not have run it two more metres - but for Thrush's foul play.

But there was no warning? There does not have to be a warning. A single act - not a repetition of foul acts - is enough for a penalty try to have been awarded.

And the same would apply to b. and c. above as well as a.

It is hard to see the grounds for not awarding a penalty try.

c. After c. the referee warns that any other collapse would result in another yellow card/sin-binning. This was after Franks had collapsed the maul but Franks was certainly in a precarious position. He had been penalised for collapsing a scrum - a dangerous act, included in Law 10 which deals with foul play. He then was penalised for punching, which is included in Law 10's paragraph on dangerous play. Then he was penalised for illegally defending the maul close to his line. Then he was penalised for collapsing a maul close to his line.

Rugby players have been sin-binned for less. After c. he was no even admonished.

 

[Dan54]

I have a question, why is it penalties seem to be given and demanded for mauls collapsed near try line? A vast majority of mauls get collapsed, yet refs only seem to penalise them near the line. In fact with mauls that are brought down outside the 22, I can't remember one being penalised at all this year, or anyone even worrying about it.

 

[Rassie]

I have a question, why is it penalties seem to be given and demanded for mauls collapsed near try line? A vast majority of mauls get collapsed, yet refs only seem to penalise them near the line. In fact with mauls that are brought down outside the 22, I can't remember one being penalised at all this year, or anyone even worrying about it.

How many of them had the maul pulled down 3 times in quick succession before the try line to illegally stop it?

Other thing is why are Franks able to get away with 3 or 4 acts of foul play without even getting binned? Do not think it is because its a SA referee site its bias. Its very neutral in its views and when a referee is wrong they do so no matter who the official. Even if decisions that was wrong went for SA teams they apply the same as they would to SA team.

The Hurricanes could not stop the maul and pulled it down illegally 3 times. When they did not a try was scored. So their illegal actions stopped it before that.

 

[Blue]

I have a question, why is it penalties seem to be given and demanded for mauls collapsed near try line? A vast majority of mauls get collapsed, yet refs only seem to penalise them near the line. In fact with mauls that are brought down outside the 22, I can't remember one being penalised at all this year, or anyone even worrying about it.

I don't think mauls outide the 22 get pulled down nearly as much.

Unless you're Ben Franks. He just pulls anything down. Scrums, mauls. you name it.

 

[Ash]

I don't think mauls outide the 22 get pulled down nearly as much.

Unless you're Ben Franks. He just pulls anything down. Scrums, mauls. you name it.

Also pulls down people's faces with his fists, apparently.