Ref blew it for Brumbies: SANZAR

[Ghibli]

At least they admitted the mistake

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Ref blew it for Brumbies: SANZAR



Owning up... SANZAR has admitted to a refereeing error in the Brumbies' clash with the Bulls

SANZAR officials have all but accepted responsibility for a refereeing blunder that cost the Brumbies victory in their 36-34 Super Rugby loss to the Bulls, labelling CJ Stander's try a "stone-cold mistake".
But they have chosen to back South African referee Marius Jonker for his overall performance, despite Brumbies coach Jake White openly questioning the penalty count of 14 to six to the Bulls.
The Brumbies came close to the upset of the season after outscoring the Bulls five tries to two at their lauded fortress of Loftus Versfeld to finish up just two points adrift at the final siren.
But SANZAR game manager Lyndon Bray says the Bulls' second try was awarded in error with both Jonker and assistant referees Lourens van der Merwe and Stefan Breytenbach missing a clear knock-on from Morne Steyn.
Stander ran on to score from the midfield after everyone else - including his Bulls team-mates - stopped and waited for a whistle.
"That particular error is just a stone-cold mistake," Bray said.
"He's just got to put his hand up and say 'we got it completely wrong'.
"That was between the assistant referee and the referee and that cost seven points.
"And that probably colours the overall view of the performance because of that mistake."
White has otherwise demanded a please-explain from SANZAR, disputing the number of penalties that were awarded against his squad.
In the end, they proved the difference, with Steyn notching a match-saving 26 points off his own boot.
"I need to know what we have done wrong or what we need to change," White said.
"It's like any feedback - it's very hard to start changing things if everything I see is OK."
Bray defended Jonker for his decisions, saying that while some were "quite harsh", the Brumbies were clearly under increased pressure while in defence.
Bray and White are due to speak to review the match, ahead of the Brumbies' last match in South Africa against the Lions on Saturday morning (AEST).

 

[Inside Shoulder]

One of the brumby's tries involved an obstruction so the right result my have been reached


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Slim 293]

One of the brumby's tries involved an obstruction so the right result my have been reached


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Which one?

 

[Bardon]

This is yet another example of why the role of the TMO should be expanded to include the entire build up to a try when it's warranted. When the camera's can pick up a blatant knock on or forward pass and the TMO has access to the same footage it's silly that he is not allowed to review said footage and communicate this to the Ref. Even know if the TMO sees something but it happened just before the try line (see Bowe v Italy in the WC as an example) he can't say anything to the Ref.

The Team captain should be allowed to ask for a limited number of extended TMO reviews, like in cricket. Say 1 or 2 per game where they know the Ref and Touch judges have clearly missed something that happened during the build up to the try. Such a system wouldn't slow the game down as TV are already able to spot and repeatedly show such knock-ons, foward passes, blocking, tackling without the ball etc. before the game restarts.

 

[MajorlyRagerly]

I don't see what this achieves, this statement by Sanzar.

And as for costing brumbies victory - that's not fact, thats assumption. Game would be a completely different kettle of fish had he try no been awarded.

Are they going to apologise to the Canes for the momentum turning try the Saders got with 3 forwards passes in the build up?

It's rugby, you play the ref. Simple as that. Brumbies took their eye off the ball.

Bardon: It's an idea with merit which I'm sure you'll get plenty of people agreeing with you, but I don't. The game will simply get slower and there will be longer stoppages. I mean where does it stop? What happens if your camped on the line, 15 phases before your prop goes over and scores.... what happens if on the 11th phase, a forward came in but not through the gate? Does that get called?

I guess for blatant things it does make sense, but a clear line in the sand must be drawn.

 

[Slim 293]

I don't see what this achieves, this statement by Sanzar.

It's just typical SANZAR...

 

[Ghibli]

Well, without being too philosophical about it, the statement by SANZAR validates the view that it should not have been a try.
No need for could've/should've/would've, or historical recourses.
Game is done & dusted.

 

[Schadenfreude]

I dunno. I saw the ref blow the whistle, and signal try.

Read the rule book, you can't go backwards.

 

[cyclopath]

I don't see what this achieves, this statement by Sanzar.

And as for costing brumbies victory - that's not fact, thats assumption. Game would be a completely different kettle of fish had he try no been awarded.

Are they going to apologise to the Canes for the momentum turning try the Saders got with 3 forwards passes in the build up?

It's rugby, you play the ref. Simple as that. Brumbies took their eye off the ball.

Bardon: It's an idea with merit which I'm sure you'll get plenty of people agreeing with you, but I don't. The game will simply get slower and there will be longer stoppages. I mean where does it stop? What happens if your camped on the line, 15 phases before your prop goes over and scores.... what happens if on the 11th phase, a forward came in but not through the gate? Does that get called?

I guess for blatant things it does make sense, but a clear line in the sand must be drawn.

The lid was taken off the can by Paddy, with his random and ridiculous utterances about refereeing "mistakes" during his tenure @ IRB, and the worms are out. It seems to have become de rigeur, or maybe it was passed on in some secret ritual from Paddy to Lyndon.

 

[Bardon]

Bardon: It's an idea with merit which I'm sure you'll get plenty of people agreeing with you, but I don't. The game will simply get slower and there will be longer stoppages. I mean where does it stop? What happens if your camped on the line, 15 phases before your prop goes over and scores.... what happens if on the 11th phase, a forward came in but not through the gate? Does that get called?

I agree with you Majorly. A lot of the time I'd just say these things happen in rugby to every team and they even themselves out. But for those blatant instances where the only people who seem to have missed a transgression in scoring a try are the ref and his touch judges then it should be available. But as you say there should be a line in the sand to stop teams from using it as a means to go fishing for a reason for the try to be ruled out.

I like the pace of the game as is and I don't want to see it bogged down with every phase being reviewed ad-nausium to find a tiny transgression that may or may not result in a try being ruled out. As I say it's more for those instances where every jumps up shouting that was forward or how did they miss that knock on, but not if that happened 5 minutes before the try was actually scored. I'm sure if it were introduced they could limit either the time or number of phases a review could cover. I like the system as it is but I can also see the need for something covering those blatant howlers by officials.

As to the point you bring up about the scoring or ruling out of a try directly affecting the final outcome I also agree. Unless the disputed try was the very last act in the game it's very hard to just deduct the points from the final score and say what the score would have been without it. The scoring or disallowing of a try affects the motivation of the players and the game may have gone on to have a final score that in no way resembles the actual result and not necessarily in the favour of the wronged team.

 

[Brumby Jack]

If they were going to do this, it should have been done on Monday or Tuesday.

Not Thursday afternoon when everyone's gotten over it.

 

[PaarlBok]

Was a baaad mistake by Plonker. They should remove him from the panel, dont deserve to be there and Jake have all the right to question him. Also glad Sanzar came out and tell us this. Hats off to them. I am not a ref basher and understand they can make mistakes and is only human and teams should play the ref but when they screwed up come out and say it and get over it and move on. Swiping it under carpet aint the best way to deal with it and I surely dont say the Brumbies lost because of that incident.

 

[Cave Dweller]

One of my favorite quotes

Ok, so he’s not a nuclear physicist or a sewage worker, but the rugby referee still has one of the most demanding jobs in the world. A ref needs to be a qualified lawyer. He needs to be a social worker, sorting through a number of personalities on the pitch. He needs to be a fitness freak and an anger management counsellor and a policeman and a pitch inspector. The ref then needs to make split second interpretations of hundreds of laws over and over again during the course of 80 minutes.

At the end of it all, he needs the hide of a rhinoceros as the world becomes a critic.

Technology has turned the arm chair spectator into a arm chair referee where supporters from both sides enjoy replays, 20 camera angles and some quirky commentary as they try to spot the other team cheating. Saying it cost them the game is a bit of a overstatement. Who said the match would have turned out the way it did if that try was not awarded? Brumbies woke up to late.

And I believe there is a old saying. You play till the whistle blows. Very poor to see professional players not following that golden rule

 

[Bardon]

I agree if an official has a bad game then there should be consequences just like for players who perform badly. But not every player who has a bad game is immediately dropped for next time out. Consistent bad performance should see refs drop down a level until they are ready to step back up to Super level.

But in an instance like this where do you lay the blame, on the ref because he's ultimately in charge or on his assistants who he relies upon to give him a dig out. There are so many things that happen in the game of rugby that I don't think it's reasonable to expect the officials to spot every single one of them. In the instances of things they do miss is missing a forward pass that leads to nothing as bad a missing a forward pass that leads to a try? or should all officiating errors be judged by the consequences of those mistakes?

I think just like players no one act should be judged in isolation and their performance over the entire game should be taken into account. When judging if a Ref should be demoted this should be decided on their performances over the season to date and also against the performances of all other officials. Then if a decision is made that an official is to be demoted the final decision should be, is the guy who's going to take his place better? There's not point demoting poor refs for guys who are going to be even worse. Just like all the best players available should be on the field, so should all the best officials.

 

[Cave Dweller]

I just like to know if the shoe was on the other foot what would have happened. I think its part of the sport. Some day it goes for you a other day against you. This time it went against the Brumbies a few weeks ago it went for them against the Cheetahs. Anyone remember that game? 24-23?

 

[PaarlBok]

I just like to know if the shoe was on the other foot what would have happened. I think its part of the sport. Some day it goes for you a other day against you. This time it went against the Brumbies a few weeks ago it went for them against the Cheetahs. Anyone remember that game? 24-23?

I remember that one well. I showed the early engagement out just after the game and Bray just confirm it later. Players must adobt to the ref rulings and the Brumbie players did not play to a prymary school principal of playing to the whistle. Allowing early engagement at scrumtime is something totally diffirent, Cheetahs tried and still got penalised.

 

[qwerty51]

Good one SANZAR, admit they got it wrong but don't demote them or fix non-neutral refs.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Which one?

general speights when they were running right to left


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Brisbok]

Good one SANZAR, admit they got it wrong but don't demote them or fix non-neutral refs.

Agreed. Again - what have they achieved by doing this? They simply seem to be disassociating themselves from the ref in question. "That was his error and not ours" type of attitude. Still feel the better way of dealing with these issues is to put a large amount of pressure (internally) on the ref to come out and admit that he made an error and that there was no intent. Then everyone moves on.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I don't see what this achieves, this statement by Sanzar.

And as for costing brumbies victory - that's not fact, thats assumption. Game would be a completely different kettle of fish had he try no been awarded.

Are they going to apologise to the Canes for the momentum turning try the Saders got with 3 forwards passes in the build up?

It's rugby, you play the ref. Simple as that. Brumbies took their eye off the ball.

Bardon: It's an idea with merit which I'm sure you'll get plenty of people agreeing with you, but I don't. The game will simply get slower and there will be longer stoppages. I mean where does it stop? What happens if your camped on the line, 15 phases before your prop goes over and scores.... what happens if on the 11th phase, a forward came in but not through the gate? Does that get called?

I guess for blatant things it does make sense, but a clear line in the sand must be drawn.

Agree with both points and would add that, frankly, there are so many line ball calls in ruck and scrums, some of which precede tries, that you take your chances when they present themselves -some days are diamonds.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk