REBELS v STORMERS RD 14

[Quick Hands]

Well done Rebels. Some reward for your efforts this year. Winning the close ones like that against tough opposition show character.

 

[Ash]

Saffy had a few try savers in the second half, his defence was outstanding. Also top ball carrier for the Rebels, tied with Ged, and took a few lineouts. He does a lot of the grunt work, I reckon he will be sorely missed next year. Saffy needs a bit more ability over the ball and not to run quite so high. As mentioned by someone before, Higgers, Pyle, Saffy are the backbone of the Rebel's pack, and I'd add Ged to that too.

The Rebel's bench won them that game. Delve, Jones and Sitauti all made important impressions.

Regarding the penalty try, I think that Higgers probably knocked it on, but there was no angle on it. Brave calling it a penalty try - I probably wouldn't have, but then Phipps was well and truly held back on the Shark's hooker, to the point where the hooker, who was behind, got in front of Phipps. I think it was likely Phipps would have gotten there first anyway. It was definitely a penalty and a yellow card either way.

Sidey is growing into the 12 jersey, I'd have him a long way in front of Mitchell at this stage.

 

[Braveheart81]

I'm not convinced that Stirzaker was as good as people seem to be rating him.

Alongside some excellent pieces of play he made some pretty crucial errors. The worst of which was a missed tackle which led to a try.

Phipps made a big difference in the second half. Along with Luke Jones, he had a big impact on the shape of the game in the second half.

 

[swingpass]

nice to see all the happy rebels faces on the forum. i agree with much of what has already been said.

we finally got some pay off from the bench last night, delve, jones, sitauti, reid and yes even, phipps all conributed significantly. i think many people underestimate how much the half back drives the pack, and even though the little ranga has a better service than phipps he probably at this stage doesn't quite have the overall impact on the rebels forwards. i thought the forwards made more inroads and were hitting gaps better after half time, possibly a coincidence.

jones was, as everyone has said, dynamic both in attack and defending. PAE made important defensive tackles during the latter stages of the second half also

hegarty has a lot of upside and did very well all things considered. i continue to be very impressed with english, did nothing wrong and a lot right. same with sitauti. thought this was sidey's best game so far.

was fabulous that delve won the critical turnover and the equally important lineout. saffy was heroic in defence and his offensive running and offloading is coming good again.

the two things i absolutely loved last night were the unmitigated joy on the players faces after the siren, weeks kissing as many teammates as possible. it was the look of a close knit group, really pleased for their mates.
the second was damien hill's grin, he just couldn't stop

terrific game again and great to hear the "rebel" chant, 10,000 strong

 

[Dumbledore]

I'm not convinced that Stirzaker was as good as people seem to be rating him.

Alongside some excellent pieces of play he made some pretty crucial errors. The worst of which was a missed tackle which led to a try.

Phipps made a big difference in the second half. Along with Luke Jones, he had a big impact on the shape of the game in the second half.

I think we're just happy to have a scrumhalf who can actually pass. We are a noticably quicker and sharper team with Stirzaker on. The entire backline plays flatter as well. His kicking > Phipps' kicking. Defence is clearly not quite there, but that's a much easier fix than fundamentally flawed passing mechanics.

 

[James Buchanan]

the two things i absolutely loved last night were the unmitigated joy on the players faces after the siren, weeks kissing as many teammates as possible. it was the look of a close knit group, really pleased for their mates.

I can't help but agree. There's a lot of reports about the closeness of the players and you have to think it shows, particularly those individuals who have come down to take opportunities which weren't available elsewhere. In that I would like to think it is a little bit like the early days of the Brumbies, where players who couldn't get a look in elsewhere really played for each other and took their opportunities. At least I hope that is the case, because there has been a real trend upwards in many facets of their game. They just need to get better at defence versus more creative attacking teams.

 

[Ash]

Regarding the Bekker try, he scored that 1m from the sideline. How the ref let Pieterson carry that ball a further 5m in field is amazing, especially as he was pedantic on Woodward moving the ball 2m forward for the 51m penalty attempt. Wonder how often players get away with moving the ball infield by 5m or more?

 

[Sidbarret]

Regarding the Bekker try, he scored that 1m from the sideline. How the ref let Pieterson carry that ball a further 5m in field is amazing, especially as he was pedantic on Woodward moving the ball 2m forward for the 51m penalty attempt. Wonder how often players get away with moving the ball infield by 5m or more?

Have look at the attempt that shouldn't have been just before half time from the Chiefs Rebelsfor your answer.

 

[Mr Doug]

Congrats to all you Rebels supporters. A great result, and no doubt, a sign of things to come.

 

[Ash]

Have look at the attempt that shouldn't have been just before half time from the Chiefs Rebelsfor your answer.

All teams and kickers try to get away with it, not trying to unfairly pin one on the Stormers. I always find it hilarious when kickers edge the kick forward a few metres, and the ref forces them back. Personally I don't like it when any kicker tries to move the ball.

Refs seem to be more picky on where penalties occur than tries. Would love to see some outrageous examples where kickers have moved it 10m+ from where a try was scored.

 

[James Buchanan]

I think we're just happy to have a scrumhalf who can actually pass. We are a noticably quicker and sharper team with Stirzaker on. The entire backline plays flatter as well. His kicking > Phipps' kicking. Defence is clearly not quite there, but that's a much easier fix than fundamentally flawed passing mechanics.

I think he still makes a valid point. Sometimes I think we get too caught up in the spectacle of dazzling backline moves that we tend to forget the old axiom that "forwards determine who wins, backs determine by how much". If one halfback is helping the forwards go forward and set a good platform for the backs and the other is providing crisp service for the backline, I would argue that the former is actually contributing more to the team. I am not saying this is necessarily the case with the Rebels until I have watched a replay of the game, but as a general principle I think it holds true.

 

[Rassie]

Really? I would've thought it was like cricket where the TMO chooses his angles. If you're right then that's a glaring risk.

He can only choose what he gets. Rugby is a game constantly moving and constantly change angles.

As for the Higginbottom knock on the TMO could not judge it because the attacking team did not dod the ball down. Only cause it was foul play they could use the TMO. If there was no foul play then they could not have asked the TMO.

But then again a guy jumping forward off his feet stretching a arm out and slaps the ball forward can be seen as deliberate and can be seen as foul play which means the referee should have looked at it as well. I can not dive and knock the ball out a 9's hand same criteria must surely apply.

And again. Not blaming the TMO for the loss. I said the Rebels deserved the win but the Stormers did not deserve to get a big fat 0.

Do you trust your local networks? If you do just google Ratings war The Voice

Do you trust a network that have a 50 percent stake in some of the Franchises?

 

[whatty]

Too angry to post,,,

 

[James Buchanan]

As for the Higginbottom knock on the TMO could not judge it because the attacking team did not dod the ball down. Only cause it was foul play they could use the TMO. If there was no foul play then they could not have asked the TMO.

But then again a guy jumping forward off his feet stretching a arm out and slaps the ball forward can be seen as deliberate and can be seen as foul play which means the referee should have looked at it as well. I can not dive and knock the ball out a 9's hand same criteria must surely apply.

I've heard the "TMO not being able to rule on the knock on because Phipps didn't ground the ball" interpretation from a couple of sources and it does make some sense as it creates a point of difference between the incident and Anscombe's. Its a technical minutiae, but unfortunately the refs can only implement the rules that are written.

I think you might be reaching a bit for foul play though. His actions could equally be explained as either diving after the ball in an attempt to grab it and retain possession and (perhaps) not getting a grasp on it, or alternatively going for a tackle and (perhaps) accidentally knocking the ball out of the Stormer's player's hands. In neither of these situations would the play be an intentional knock on which you would need to consider foul play and instead, (if Higginbotham did actually knock the ball on) would just be a regular knock on. In which case, the TMO could not rule on it as identified above.

I think it would have been a MUCH bigger call to classify it as an intentional knock on than what ended up occurring.

 

[ACT Crusader]

Too angry to post,,,

Apparently not that angry.....

Only just watched the game, found myself fast forwarding a fair bit of it out of frustration and I had zero investment in the game or outcome. Some shining lights for both sides I thought. Rebels using the ball in attack was good to see even without the big names. Agree with others that Phipps played well in the last 20 minutes. He's not a test quality halfback, but I think he has shown some improvement this year in a few of the little things - less erratic, more considered rather than just firing the ball off the deck (his pass is still very swift though).

Thought the Rebel locks stepped up a notch also.

But it was a bit of meh game marred by more controversy.

 

[Rassie]

I've heard the "TMO not being able to rule on the knock on because Phipps didn't ground the ball" interpretation from a couple of sources and it does make some sense as it creates a point of difference between the incident and Anscombe's. Its a technical minutiae, but unfortunately the refs can only implement the rules that are written.

I think you might be reaching a bit for foul play though. His actions could equally be explained as either diving after the ball in an attempt to grab it and retain possession and (perhaps) not getting a grasp on it, or alternatively going for a tackle and (perhaps) accidentally knocking the ball out of the Stormer's player's hands. In neither of these situations would the play be an intentional knock on which you would need to consider foul play and instead, (if Higginbotham did actually knock the ball on) would just be a regular knock on. In which case, the TMO could not rule on it as identified above.

I think it would have been a MUCH bigger call to classify it as an intentional knock on than what ended up occurring.

You are right. But with a slmo you can see he was making a tackle. In real time he looked like he was diving and slapped it forward. Referee sees in real time.

Lets take the TMO out of the occasion. Lets say you are a referee and you see a knock then the foul play which is holding back a attacker. Its not like punching or stamping. So its a minor act of it and it would be irrelevant as the knock on occurred first. But you decide to skip the knock on and give a penalty try.
What do you think of a referee that does that? You wouldn't be happy. Especially if the roles were reversed and the Rebels was at the end of it. Now that is what happened basically. The TMO watching the game saw the foul play and the knock and was trying to be clever or over excited.

Let me explain and show you a clever bit of cherry picking and this is from a SA referee site.

(ii) Penalty try

The ball is bouncing all over the place. It seems to go forward from Luke Jones but the referee says it went backwards.

Nick Phipps of the Rebels gets the ball and passes it to Higginbotham on his right. Higginbotham kicks low with his left foot. It strikes the foot of Deon Fourie of the Stormers and bounces back towards Higginbotham. The ball strikes Higginbotham's foot and rebounds forward. Martin Bezuidenhout gathers the ball. Higginbotham tackles Bezuidenhout, his left hand and arm going round Bezuidenhout's front. Bezuidenhout drops the ball as he is tackled by Scott Higginbotham. Phipps foots the ball through towards the Stormers' in-goal. Phipps goes to chase it as Bezuidenhout tries to hold him back, pulling on Phipps's jersey.

The ball goes into the Stormers' in-goal where three players dive for it - Bryan Habana, Gary van Aswegen and Nick Phipps. Habana seems marginally ahead.

The referee consults the TMO saying: 'Please advise try, no try. And just go back to the last passage.'

The TMO examines the incident and says: 'I've got confirmed foul play on a pull-back. Otherwise a try would probably have been scored.'

The referee repeats the information and then says that in other words the TMO was recommending a penalty try and a yellow card for Bezuidenhout - which is what happened.

Bezuidenhout's foul play - is clear and obvious.

Law 10 deals with various forms of foul play.

Law 10.4 (e) Playing a player without the ball is dangerous play.

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.

The TMO used the word probably. That was his judgement and it has the probability of being right. After all Habana just beat Phipps to the ball even though Phipps had been held back. It seems probable that he would have beaten Habana to the ball and so scored a try.

Accept all of that but what about the possible knock-ons by Jones and Higginbotham. The TMO appeared not to have examined them.

He was right not to have examined them.

The expanded TMO functionality includes identifying foul play, and clear and obvious infringements in the last two phases before a try is scored. All officials (the referee, assistant referees and TMO) are allowed to initiate a referral and make recommendations.

This would include a possible knock-on but applies only to a case where a try is scored. In this case the try was not scored. Then, according to the IRB's protocol, the possibility of a knock-on could not be considered. Ands so the experienced TMO did not consider the possibility of a knock-on.

It may be a pity that the protocol did not allow for a case such as this but the IRB decided it had to draw the line somewhere other wise the number of referrals to the TMO would escalate.

If the referee missed a knock-on in Higginbotham's tackle, it is understandable. It would not be easy to see where his left hand made contact with Bezuidenhout - the forearm, the hand, the ball. At east he did not guess.

In the case of the penalty try there is no infraction of law. One can only then discuss judgement and there is no evidence that it was faulty.

The protocol says this of dealing with an infringement other than foul play. Foul play my be examined anywhere on the field and at any time during play. It is not limited the way the examination of infringements is. Please, note again that it may not be used if a 'try' has not been scored.

Additional jurisdiction protocol .

2. Potential infringement by the team touching the ball down in opposition in-goal

2.1. If after a team in possession of the ball has touched the ball down in their opponents in goal area and any of the match officials have a view that there was a potential infringement, of any nature, before the ball was carried into in-goal by the team that touched the ball down, they may suggest that the referee refers the matter to the TMO for review.

2.2 The potential infringement must have occurred between the last restart of play (set piece, penalty/free-kick, kick-off or restart) and the touch down but not further back in play than two previous rucks and/or mauls

2.3 If the referee agrees to refer the matter to the TMO he will indicate what the potential offence was and where it took place. Potential infringements which must be CLEAR and OBVIOUS are as follows:

• Knock-on
• Forward pass
• Player in touch
• Off-side
• Obstruction
• Tackling a player without the ball
• Foul play
• Double movement in act of scoring

2.4 Referee judgement decisions for all other aspects of the game are not included in the protocol and may not be referred to the TMO.

2.5 In reviewing the potential offence the TMO must use the criterion, on each occasion, that the infringement must be clear and obvious if he is to advise the referee not to award a try. If there is any doubt as to whether an offence has occurred or not the TMO must advise that an offence has not occurred.

2.6 For forward passes the TMO must not adjudicate on the flight of the ball but on the action of the player who passed the ball i.e. were the players hands passing the ball back to that player’s own goal line.

2.7 If there has been an infringement, the TMO will advise the referee of the exact nature of the infringement, the recommended sanction and/or where play will next restart.

2.8 The TMO may mention issues viewed in addition to those requested by the referee if it is appropriate to the situation under review.
http://sareferees.com/News/law-discussion-10-rebel-points/2829906/

Although it appeared on a referee site that is wrong. Cleverly written and parts of the protocol left out. SAreferees belongs to SARU and SARU is part of sanzar. So criticism of it would not be allowed.

Let me go on. This is the part left out.

Global Trial Law 6.A.6 Referee Consulting With Others

(a) The referee may consult with assistant referees about matters relating to their duties, the Law relating to foul play or timekeeping and may request assistance related to other aspects of the referees duties including the adjudication of offside.
(b) A match organiser may appoint an official known as a Television Match (TMO) Official who uses technological devices to clarify situations relating to;

i. When there is doubt as to whether a ball has been grounded in in-goal for a score or a touchdown.
ii. Where there is doubt as to whether a kick at goal has been successful
iii. Where there is doubt as to whether players were in touch or touch in goal before grounding the ball in in-goal or the ball has been made dead.
iv. Where match officials believe an offence or infringement may have occurred leading to a try or in preventing a try.
v. Reviewing situations where match officials believe foul play may have occurred.
vi. Clarifying sanctions required for acts of foul play.
(c) Any of the match officials including the TMO may recommend a review by the TMO. The reviews will take place in accordance with TMO protocol in place at the time which will be available on www.irb.com/Laws.
(d) A match organiser may appoint a timekeeper who will signify the end of each half.
(e) The referee must not consult with any other persons.

1. Decisions relating to in-goal

1.1. The TMO may be used when the Referee requires confirmation with regard to the scoring of a try. The TMO may also be consulted as to the success or otherwise of kicks at goal.

1.2 The Referee will blow time out and make the “time out” T signal.

1.3 The Referee will make a “square box” signal with his hands and at the same time inform the TMO through the two way communication that he will require his advice.

1.4 The Referee will then ask the TMO one of three questions:

1) Is it a try – yes or no?
2) Can you give me a reason why I cannot award a try?
3) But for the act of foul play – probable try or no try? 1.5 The TMO will then liaise with the TV Director and look at all available footage in order to gather enough information in order to provide informed advice.

1.6 The broadcaster must provide all the angles requested by the TMO.

1.7 When the TMO has concluded his analysis he will provide the match referee with his advice and recommendations. The Referee should repeat the TMO’s recommendation to ensure that he is absolutely satisfied that he has heard what has been recommended.

1.8 The TMO will then advise the Referee as to when he may go ahead and signal his decision.
(This process is essential in order to allow time for TV to focus their cameras on the Referee for his decision).

1.9 The Referee will then communicate his decision in the correct manner. Play will then continue and the time clock restarted.

1.10 Where large on-ground video screens are available the TV Director may also communicate the decision.

1.11 In the absence of a video screen some grounds may use Red and Green lights to advise the crowd.

1.12 The important and primary method of communication still rests firmly with the Referee who will indicate in the normal way after receiving the TMO’s advice.

Additional jurisdiction protocol .

The most important past of this protocol and to understand it is the question asked by the referee. A TMO can't go out of his protocol. Now this states the following questions asked. And they numbered it for us for a reason.

1) Is it a try – yes or no?

This is when the referee have no clue whether a try have been scored or not.

2) Can you give me a reason why I cannot award a try?

This relates to when a referee sees the grounding but want to know if the ATTACKING team may have committed a offense.

3) But for the act of foul play – probable try or no try?

This relates to foul play and concerning a penalty try. This is for foul play that may have committed where there was no grounding and the referee wanted to know if not from the foul play a try would have been scored. This is what happened in the match and what SAReferees explains.

But they left out the most important thing in their explenation. That is what was the question the referee asked? The referee asked the TMO

Please provide assistance Try or no try?. I repeat Try or no try.

Now we got look at what try or no try says? No try and no try you will notice above is under 1 which clearly states as

1. Decisions relating to in-goal

So he did not know if the attackers or defenders have dotted it down. That is why he said look at everything because if the TMO have looked who dotted it down then he would have to look at knock on as well. If Phibbs dotted it down then Higginsbottom knock CAN be called by the TMO and pointed out the referee. He did not and just looked at the piece of foul play and gave a different answer than what the question was.
To Is it a try – yes or no he answered probable try or no try? The question was for in goal first and he jumped straight to before Higginbottoms knock ignored it and one quick view of the foul play he gave the decision.

Now he saw everything happening in real time and don't know if he got excited or are a Rebels fan or blind or deaf, dumb or whatever but he ignored the in goal decision and pointed the foul play out.

Now if he was clever enough to know he can't look at the knock because he believes they did not dot it down without looking but he was dumb enough to give a answer to a totally different question?

As you can see each question is numbered and for good reason because the number next to it defines the criteria and what he can look at.

So 2nd question

2) Can you give me a reason why I cannot award a try?

relates to no. 2

2. Potential infringement by the team touching the ball down in opposition in-goal

2.1. If after a team in possession of the ball has touched the ball down in their opponents in goal area and any of the match officials have a view that there was a potential infringement, of any nature, before the ball was carried into in-goal by the team that touched the ball down, they may suggest that the referee refers the matter to the TMO for review.

2.2 The potential infringement must have occurred between the last restart of play (set piece, penalty/free-kick, kick-off or restart) and the touch down but not further back in play than two previous rucks and/or mauls

2.3 If the referee agrees to refer the matter to the TMO he will indicate what the potential offence was and where it took place. Potential infringements which must be CLEAR and OBVIOUS are as follows:

• Knock-on
• Forward pass
• Player in touch
• Off-side
• Obstruction
• Tackling a player without the ball
• Foul play
• Double movement in act of scoring

2.4 Referee judgement decisions for all other aspects of the game are not included in the protocol and may not be referred to the TMO.

2.5 In reviewing the potential offence the TMO must use the criterion, on each occasion, that the infringement must be clear and obvious if he is to advise the referee not to award a try. If there is any doubt as to whether an offence has occurred or not the TMO must advise that an offence has not occurred.

2.6 For forward passes the TMO must not adjudicate on the flight of the ball but on the action of the player who passed the ball i.e. were the players hands passing the ball back to that player’s own goal line.

2.7 If there has been an infringement, the TMO will advise the referee of the exact nature of the infringement, the recommended sanction and/or where play will next restart.

2.8 The TMO may mention issues viewed in addition to those requested by the referee if it is appropriate to the situation under review.

and no 3

3) But for the act of foul play – probable try or no try?

relates to this part.

3. Potential infringement by the defending team preventing a try from being scored.

3.1. If the match officials have a view that there was a potential infringement in the field of play by the defending team that may have prevented a try being scored they may suggest that the referee refers the matter to the TMO for review.

3.2 The potential infringement must have occurred between the last restart of play (set piece, penalty/free-kick, kick-off or restart) and the touch down but not further back in play than two previous rucks and/or mauls

3.3 If the referee agrees to refer the matter to the TMO he will indicate what the potential offence was and where it took place. The offences will normally be an act of foul play such as obstruction or playing a player without the ball.

3.4 In reviewing the potential offence the TMO must use the criterion on each occasion that the infringement must be clear and obvious and that but for the infringement a try would probably have been scored if he is to advise the referee to award a penalty try. If there is any doubt that a try would be scored the TMO must advise the award of an appropriate sanction in accordance with Law.

3.5 The TMO may mention issues viewed in addition to those requested by the referee if it is appropriate to the situation under review.

So you see now how cleverly it was stepped around and cherry picked by providing half the details to make it appear right. The referee did not ask which relates to no 3 but no 1. The TMO went and applied no 3 to skip the knock on

 

[Hell West & Crooked]

Great decision

I thought the penalty try was the correct decision, based upon a) the blatancy of the action by the Stormers player - and b). the fact that although held back for anextended period of time, Phipps still arrived at the ball at the same time as the other defenders.

What I thought was far more controversial was the calling-back of the attempted try at the time of the goal kick... In my book, that tactic was within the laws of the game - and the stormers were not paying attention.

Overall, i thought it was a very average reffing exhibition, but I agreed with that Phipps decision.

 

[Rassie]

I thought the penalty try was the correct decision, based upon a) the blatancy of the action by the Stormers player - and b). the fact that although held back for anextended period of time, Phipps still arrived at the ball at the same time as the other defenders.

What I thought was far more controversial was the calling-back of the attempted try at the time of the goal kick. In my book, that tactic was within the laws of the game - and the stormers were not paying attention.

Overall, i thought it was a very average reffing exhibition, but I agreed with that Phipps decision.

Phibbs beating Habana who was jogging anticipating a whistle and stepped on the gas when it was not coming? No way. Habana knows he got the acceleration and used it when there was no whistle. If Phibbs wasn't held back he would have put on the burners quicker.

 

[Hell West & Crooked]

Phibbs beating Habana who was jogging anticipating a whistle and stepped on the gas when it was not coming? No way. Habana knows he got the acceleration and used it when there was no whistle. If Phibbs wasn't held back he would have put on the burners quicker.

Okay... If it makes you feel better, keep believing that.

It might save alot of trouble to just admit the fool who held Phipps back is to a very major extent, responsible for the Penalty try, AND the Loss, and not waste too much time believing you can see into the future, or apparently read players minds.

 

[Braveheart81]

Phibbs beating Habana who was jogging anticipating a whistle and stepped on the gas when it was not coming? No way. Habana knows he got the acceleration and used it when there was no whistle. If Phibbs wasn't held back he would have put on the burners quicker.

It's Phipps.

Phibbs is another halfback who is currently signed to Leicester.

Whilst I think the decision could have easily been a penalty and a yellow card but no penalty try, the penalty try wasn't a ridiculous call. As soon as the Stormers defender grabbed hold of Phipps' jersey and pulled him back there was a risk of there being a penalty try.

There is nothing to suggest that Habana would have definitely got there first had Phipps not been pulled back. It was a really stupid play by the Stormers player Bezuidenhout.