Ref blew it for Brumbies: SANZAR

[Lindommer]

We armchair critics can rabbit on all we like about Jonker's miss of Steyn's knock-on (watching it on replay how on earth could the two clowns on the sides've missed it?) but the most salient point for me is the 14-6 penalty count. That's just unbelievable, one team offends more than twice as much as the other! The Bulls gain a massive advantage by knowing what Jonker's vibes re reffing are. As if home ground advantage isn't enough the Bulls get a huge legup with a Saffer ref.

SANZAR, neutral refs please. Then there can be no argument about Steyn's boot winning the day.

 

[Blue]

The only reason the penalty count was skewed was because the Brumbies had a clear plan to infringe when the Bulls were on attack and were willing to risk a card to see how far they could push the ref. They pushed him to the wall and then over the other side, It was blatantly obvious.

 

[fatprop]

The only reason the penalty count was skewed was because the Brumbies had a clear plan to infringe when the Bulls were on attack and were willing to risk a card to see how far they could push the ref. They pushed him to the wall and then over the other side, It was blatantly obvious.

Agreed, the question from Mowan was telling during the game, "were the warnings to one player?" they were spreading the infringements

If the Bulls lost that game they would have been gutted, their coach should have been tearing strips off them in the dressing room for turning off

 

[Blue]

Yes Mowen managed that very well. White and John Smit were a right pair at doing this sort of thing. Need I remind this board about the hissing and spitting from opposing fans about the Bok's spoiling tactics under Jake White? It was most obvious in deliberate penalties, mostly involving slowing the ball down and defenders creeping up.

Little details from Jake White. Gotta bloody love it.

 

[Lindommer]

The only reason the penalty count was skewed was because the Brumbies had a clear plan to infringe when the Bulls were on attack and were willing to risk a card to see how far they could push the ref. They pushed him to the wall and then over the other side, it was blatantly obvious.

And there could've been a million other things a Kiwi or Aussie ref might've pinged the Bulls for: detaching from the scrum, buggerising around in the scrum, offside in the backs, occasions of overly physical play. My argument here is twofold: the Bulls know what Jonker dislikes and, more importantly, I cannot see a game when one side infringes more than twice its opponent. To me that smacks of a ref who's looking for penalties from one team and not the other. A bit like Kaplan and the Tahs. Even at a home match for us we end up on the wrong side of the penalty count. As an educated observer I question the penalty count in the Bulls/Ponies match.

Once again: SANZAR, neutral refs please. If that's not possible at least not a home ref. Which means we cop Kaplan at the SFS ad infinitum. AAARRRRGGGHHHH!

 

[RoffsChoice]

And there could've been a million other things a Kiwi or Aussie ref might've pinged the Bulls for: detaching from the scrum, buggerising around in the scrum, offside in the backs, occasions of overly physical play. My argument here is twofold: the Bulls know what Jonker dislikes and, more importantly, I cannot see a game when one side infringes more than twice its opponent. To me that smacks of a ref who's looking for penalties from one team and not the other. A bit like Kaplan and the Tahs. Even at a home match for us we end up on the wrong side of the penalty count. As an educated observer I question the penalty count in the Bulls/Ponies match.

Once again: SANZAR, neutral refs please. If that's not possible at least not a home ref. Which means we cop Kaplan at the SFS ad infinitum. AAARRRRGGGHHHH!

Who would you recommend? There aren't many non-South African refs in the southern hemisphere.

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

People rip into SANZAR about referring standards, and then when SANZAR address this by putting the best refs on games without "country of residence" restrictions, the complaints still flood in and people want it changed back.

 

[Cave Dweller]

Did the ball go forward or did it go straight down and then forward? Look where the ball gets picked up behind Steyn so the ref could not see it.

Did anyone pick up the incident in the Cheetahs vs Highlanders game? After the Haskell punches Mr. Prinsloo again met up with his two AR's. First AR say yellow. Second AR who saw the incident clearly and the 2nd punch said RED! He gave a yellow. Highlanders should have played with 14 men for the rest of the game.

But no one mentioned that. If it was the other way around and the Cheetahs won would we have this same conversation again? So when do we blame it on due to non neutral refs and when do we accept its just a referees error which they do make and not a referee being non partial. Sarel Pretoruis playing for the Waratahs vs a SA team. Will he play poor on purpose not giving it all because it is his country man he is playing against or will he give it all 100 percent like every professional does? Referee does not matter which country from has a reputation, goals, and sworn a oath to be a true professional just like the player do. Why will one risk such things on a game or two? Can support of a team be enough motivation to throw ones reputation and carreer down the drain for a measly Bulls victory which will have a effect on the SA conference more than it would effect the a other conference?

I think when a Aus ref makes a error vs any of the other two nations we will hear about it. Same with NZ ref and SA like now. But when they do make a error or a decision against the a team from is own country no one will much say a word or comment about it. Wonder why.

 

[Blue]

And there could've been a million other things a Kiwi or Aussie ref might've pinged the Bulls for: detaching from the scrum, buggerising around in the scrum, offside in the backs, occasions of overly physical play. My argument here is twofold: the Bulls know what Jonker dislikes and, more importantly, I cannot see a game when one side infringes more than twice its opponent. To me that smacks of a ref who's looking for penalties from one team and not the other. A bit like Kaplan and the Tahs. Even at a home match for us we end up on the wrong side of the penalty count. As an educated observer I question the penalty count in the Bulls/Ponies match.

Once again: SANZAR, neutral refs please. If that's not possible at least not a home ref. Which means we cop Kaplan at the SFS ad infinitum. AAARRRRGGGHHHH!

So the Brumbies and Jake White don't know what Jonker likes or dislikes. They have never seen him before and have no access to video footage? the Bulls had some advantage? Don't buy it.

There would have been a hundred other things that ANY ref could have nailed either team for. That's besides the point here.

I am not suggesting the ref went light on the Brumbies. I am suggesting they played him perfectly. They started infringing outside of the 22 when they were warned. It was blatantly obvious and I think very clever. Another ref (regardless of where he was from) might have picked up on it.

What's "overly physical play" by the way?

 

[Cave Dweller]

Agreed, the question from Mowan was telling during the game, "were the warnings to one player?" they were spreading the infringements

If the Bulls lost that game they would have been gutted, their coach should have been tearing strips off them in the dressing room for turning off

There is no such thing as spreading a warning between players. A warning then anyone who commits a offense after that are suppose to be carded. Example Week 1 Cheetahs vs Lions I think Ebershon or Goosen got carded

 

[Cave Dweller]

We armchair critics can rabbit on all we like about Jonker's miss of Steyn's knock-on (watching it on replay how on earth could the two clowns on the sides've missed it?) but the most salient point for me is the 14-6 penalty count. That's just unbelievable, one team offends more than twice as much as the other! The Bulls gain a massive advantage by knowing what Jonker's vibes re reffing are. As if home ground advantage isn't enough the Bulls get a huge legup with a Saffer ref.

SANZAR, neutral refs please. Then there can be no argument about Steyn's boot winning the day.

2' Brumbies offside at the first ruck 3-0
7' Brumbies are pinged for not rolling away 6 - 0
17' TMO held up Advantage played Brumbies offside 9 - 10
27' Bulls are penalised from the ensuing ruck 16 - 13
33' Brumbies going off their feet 19 - 13
43' Drop Goal Steyn 22-13
47' Murphy is penalised for collapsing the scrum (Bulls feed) 25-13
62' Brumbies Holding on/not releasing 33-13
73' Brumbies Ruck offence not rolling away 36 - 13

7 offences. 1 Scrum and the others all tackle situations trying to spoil the ball.

Now this was a statement by Mr. Peyper

SANZAR and SA Referees (SA Referees led the way in the 2011 Currie Cup) are committed, and management and team coaches gave us the backing to referee players going off their feet and/or sealing off very severely in an attempt to change their technique and behaviour, to create an even quicker and more exciting game. It is the law after all to play the game on your feet.

http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/co...-for-brumbies-sanzar.10679/page-3#post-354375

Loosehead:

In the majority of cases where looseheads are putting their hands on the ground, it ends up in their getting a more dominant position in the scrum, and hence they are penalised. If it is just to stabilise and they end up in the same or less dominant position, then we have no issue with that.

· Side Entry:

If we as referees were to penalise all offences strictly according to the letter of the law, then the game would be poor and the product would be poor. Along with top players and coaches, we have agreed that we need to identify the clear and obvious that has an effect on play and the outcome of possession. So where a player enters from the side and has no effect on play, let's manage him as opposed to penalising him.

· Hands in the Ruck:

Top players and teams need to be highly tactical and when on the back foot, the attacking team getting quick ball is the worst thing for a defending team, and so they try to slow the ball down at times. At other times, it is simply a bad judgement call by the player who is trying to contest the ball.

http://www.sareferees.com/ref-replies/duty-ref-409--stuart-berry/2829537/

They were informed and there was a lot of talk about the tackle situation and what can and cannot be done. Those penalties were correct and most of them where in the Brumbies half or 22 where they were under pressure. Did the referee cost them the game? Lets see

7 Tackle situations not staying on feed/offside and spoiling ball = 21
Collapse the scrum. Bulls feed.

The ball-feeding team wants a stable scrum, the defenders want to create an unstable scrum and SPOIL. Encourage POSITIVE scrumming, and penalise NEGATIVE scrumming

That is another unneeded 3 points = 24 points in total

Getting your kicks over win matches 5 tries 3 conversions = 4 points lost

Starting to play at 73 minute mark while you neglected to do the basics right, trying to play rugby off your feet and trying to spoil a offensive scrum as well as missing two conversions does not constitute being cheated. They scored in 2 minutes two tries. 3 in 11 minutes. 11 mintues of effort does not account to being robbed. They were their own worse enemies and should look at what they did wrong rather than what the officials did wrong.

And they got some of the decisions on their side as well. Line-out should have been in line with where the ball crossed the touch line. None of us arm chair refs picked that up

Neutral or not referees will make mistakes. Read these
http://www.sareferees.com/News/law-discussion-quiet-but-strange-decisions/2829543/

Some shocking errors there which no one picked up. So they are human. They do make mistakes. But saying the ref cost one the match for 11 minutes of brilliance is fooling yourself.

 

[PaarlBok]

Once again: SANZAR, neutral refs please. If that's not possible at least not a home ref. Which means we cop Kaplan at the SFS ad infinitum. AAARRRRGGGHHHH!

Lind the problem is that both NZ and Australia dont produce enough refs for this level. Thats a big problem for SA and mean we have NH refs for our matches. I will love to see more Aussie refs qualifying for SupeRugby level but then ARU have to send them to get experiense on provincial CC or NPC rugby level. Aus dont have a provincial competition to prepare them for S15 level.

 

[PaarlBok]

Bonkers is a white qouta ref and should not be on this rankings. We have much better younger ones waiting to get a chance.

 

[Cave Dweller]

Can anybody comment on this. What is your opinion. Correct or was it the wrong decision? Do not worry about the teams that were involved nor who has gotten the short end out of it but just look if you see a infringement and if so what was it.

 

[Brisbok]

Can anybody comment on this. What is your opinion. Correct or was it the wrong decision? Do not worry about the teams that were involved nor who has gotten the short end out of it but just look if you see a infringement and if so what was it.

He has ruled that the back 5 of the Cheetahs pack pushed sideways rather than forward to try and swing the scrum around. Is it a penalty? You could argue both ways (as you probably could for about 80% of scrum penalties!).

 

[Cave Dweller]

He has ruled that the back 5 of the Cheetahs pack pushed sideways rather than forward to try and swing the scrum around. Is it a penalty? You could argue both ways (as you probably could for about 80% of scrum penalties!).

Do you want the answer or shall we wait for a couple more to test their refereeing skills?

 

[en_force_er]

It's a pretty common ploy to take a slight step to the side to depower an opposition scrum. I've been in scrums that have employed this tactic with mixed success.

I'm not sure of the exact laws but I'm pretty sure in a scrum anything but pushing straight is against the rules.

 

[Brisbok]

Do you want the answer or shall we wait for a couple more to test their refereeing skills?

In the general sense, yes it is a penalty. It is often hard to determine whether or not this action has taken place though and comes down to referee interpretation.

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

Can anybody comment on this. What is your opinion. Correct or was it the wrong decision? Do not worry about the teams that were involved nor who has gotten the short end out of it but just look if you see a infringement and if so what was it.

There will be different opinions on this. But I think it is a Brumbies penalty anyday. The Cheetah's backrow aren't even in the scrum, and it's being whipped around fast. That is enough reason for the ref to penalize IMO. (that is a key indicator I look for anyway)

 

[Cave Dweller]

In the general sense, yes it is a penalty. It is often hard to determine whether or not this action has taken place though and comes down to referee interpretation.

Ok Bris. But the referee was wrong. Mr Bray also came out and said that the referee made a mistake there. Forget about the scrumming inwards or anything like that. Look at the scrum. Are the binding correct, no slingslot, no hands on the ground. All that scrum do is wheel. Thats it a simple wheel.

Lets look at the law

Law 11 SCRUM WHEELED
(a) If a scrum is wheeled through more than 90 degrees, so that the middle line has passed beyond a position parallel to the touch-line, the referee must stop play and order another scrum.
(b) This new scrum is formed at the place where the previous scrum ended. The ball is thrown in by the team not in possession at the time of the stoppage. If neither team won possession, it is thrown in by the team that previously threw it in

See no different interpretation just 1 possible simple.