• Welcome to the forums of Green & Gold Rugby.
    We have recently made some changes to the amount of discussions boards on the forum.
    Over the coming months we will continue to make more changes to make the forum more user friendly for all to use.
    Thanks, Admin.

Stormers vs Crusaders @ Newlands - 2011R12

Status
Not open for further replies.

MajorlyRagerly

Trevor Allan (34)
Only continued point is I am sick of watching the Crusaders continually infringe in their own 22. The Stormers were denied near the end more by the professional infringements of the Crusaders than good defence.

I kind of agree and disagree at this in the same time.

Firstly, if nobody infringed, there would never be penalties in a game of rugby (outside of scrum lotteries) & thus infringing and bending the laws is simply part of the game & shld be treated as such. But this is an old argument on here by me, so lets not go down this road again!

But watching the Crusaders defend like their lives depended on it - I think it's a mentality thing depending on whats going through your head at the point in time. For example, if the Crusaders were only ahead by 2, do you think they would have not given up a penalty? I don't think they would have & thus your right, infringing played just a big a part of it as defending.

However, they weren't ahead by 2, they were ahead by 6. So from a mentality p.o.v, I think you might push that little bit harder, try something that little bit cheekier as you know if you get pinged, it's less likely to cost you the match.

I don't think its' fair to say they were delibrately cynically infringing at every single opportunity. They were just pushing harder with adrenaline pumping to try and win an extremely tough match where the odds against them were incredibly high, taking everything into account.

Some other notes...

100% of the time I see NZ teams try and wind the clock down with pick and go with anything more than 30 secs to go in a match, they concede a penalty..... could we please learn from this!

Epic match of rugby, the difference in class between the top teams & even the mid table teams in this tournament is quite a gulf.

Burger / Smith / McCaw .... Brussow / Pocock / Todd .... The SH machine of producing opensides of the highest quality lives on. Ok, Todd ain't quite there yet, but he certainly doesn't look dis simliar to 09 Brussow / Pocock.
 

PaarlBok

Rod McCall (65)
After the way he played the last two weeks I would say Cronje is now your second choice. He has proven not to be intimidated at this level and should cement a spot on the becnch for that.
Surely after saturday, he played 15 for WP Vodacom Cup all year , with Gary van Aswegen backup to Grant and Coleman in 10 for the Voddas.

I'd like to see Cronje , JdJ and Sadie gets more playtime on tour. We need to manage Jac Fourie and Jean de Villiers carefully this year. Koster made me tear some hair out, had a nice break and going for the wrong option also cost us a certain try after that last lineout drive , breaking off a few seconds to early. This kind of little mistakes will only get better with experiense.

Look Schalkie will be the first to adknowledge he took the wrong options, doing the Matfield route but vok knows they were pretty close from scoring. Schalkie isnt a talker type of captain like John Smit or Matfield, he do his talking by setting the example between the four lines. He'll took over after the WC, thats forsure.

Glad to see my Waikato broer , MR back. Even Oom Enz joining in, great work.
 

PaarlBok

Rod McCall (65)
Those who miss the action, Highlights[video=youtube;2F2j3ZsEcFE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2F2j3ZsEcFE[/video]
Excellent full house crowd on Newlands. The Saders should play their play offs here, even the local radio lot this morning had a moan about the amount of Crusader support on Newlands saturday. Understand the Saders players went to all parts of Newlands to put in a special effort to thanks the support they gets here. Mostly the Cape supporters without front teeth.
 

REDinCPT

Sydney Middleton (9)
how gutsy was that! crusaders were amazing but i think they might actually struggle next weekend against the cheetahs. the word is that mccaw and carter are back but i think the cheetahs are on the way up and the game will be too fast for a crusaders team trying to back up with so many injuries and after such an epic.
 

PaarlBok

Rod McCall (65)
I can't see what the Duvenhage NON-try had to do with that. It wasn't a try, technically speaking. How you can call the linesman quota because of enforcing a law 100% CORRECTLY is just silly Paarl. He did his job.

Look like you maybe technically speak wrong on that one but Le Goete did the right thing, still dont like him.

http://www.sareferees.co.za/news/ref_news/2731121.htm

The controversial non-try
Sun, 08 May 2011 11:06

The Stormers play the Crusaders at Newlands. Gio Aplon puts a foot into touch and Kieran Read takes a quick throw-in which Dewaldt Duvenage intercepts and races away for a try. The referee awards the try. He then sees the assistant referee with his flag in the air and goes off to consult him. The assistant says (twice) to the referee: "Foot in the field of play. Advantage applies." The referee cancels the try and awards a line-out to the Crusaders.

Law 6.B.5 (d) When to lower the flag. When the ball is thrown in, the touch judge or assistant referee must lower the flag, with the following exceptions:
Exception 1: When the player throwing in puts any part of either foot in the field of play, the touch judge or assistant referee keeps the flag up.


The assistant referee did the right thing in keeping his flag up. It is what his job description requires. But he also said: "Advantage applies."

Does advantage apply?

Law 8 Advantage
DEFINITIONS
The Law of advantage takes precedence over most other Laws and its purpose is to make play more continuous with fewer stoppages for infringements. Players are encouraged to play to the whistle despite infringements by their opponents.

That implies that advantage happens when there is an infringement.

Is putting the foot into the field of play an infringement?

Law 19.6 HOW THE THROW-IN IS TAKEN
The player taking the throw-in must stand at the correct place. The player must not step into the field of play when the ball is thrown. The ball must be thrown straight, so that it travels at least 5 metres along the line of touch before it first touches the ground or touches or is touched by a player.

Stepping into the field of play is wrong. The throw-in is incorrect.

Law 19.7 INCORRECT THROW-IN
(a) If the throw-in at a line-out is incorrect, the opposing team has the choice of throwing in at a line-out or a scrum on the 15-metre line. If they choose the throw-in to the line-out and it is again incorrect, a scrum is formed. The team that took the first throw-in throws in the ball.

There is a sanction for an incorrect throw-in. It is the same sanction as there is for a crooked throw-in, i.e. the option of a scrum or a line-out.

Could advantage then be played?

Law 8.3 WHEN THE ADVANTAGE LAW IS NOT APPLIED
(a) Referee contact. Advantage must not be applied when the ball, or a player carrying it, touches the referee.
(b) Ball out of tunnel. Advantage must not be applied when the ball comes out of either end of the tunnel at a scrum without having been played.
(c) Wheeled scrum. Advantage must not be applied when the scrum is wheeled through more than 90 degrees (so that the middle line has passed beyond a position parallel to the touchline).
(d) Collapsed scrum. Advantage must not be applied when a scrum collapses. The referee must blow the whistle immediately.
(e) Player lifted in the air. Advantage must not be applied when a player in a scrum is lifted in the air or forced upwards out of the scrum. The referee must blow the whistle immediately.
(f) After the ball has been made dead. Advantage cannot be played after the ball has been made dead.

None of these applies to a foot-fault at the line-out. Therefore advantage should apply, just as it does for a crooked throw-in.

Giving the line-out throw to the Crusaders was palpably wrong.

Certainly it makes no sense that a team should benefit from its own mistake, as was the case here.

But that is not all. There is a funny word used when talking about the foot in the field of play at a quick throw.

Law 19.2 (e) At a quick throw-in, if the player throws the ball in the direction of the opposition’s goal line or if the ball does not travel at least 5 metres to the 5-metre line along or behind the line of touch before it touches the ground or a player, or if the player steps into the field of play when the ball is thrown, then the quick throw-in is disallowed. The opposing team chooses to throw in at either a line-out where the quick throw-in was attempted, or a scrum on the 15-metre line at
that place. If they too throw in the ball incorrectly at the line-out, a scrum is formed on the 15-metre line. The team that first threw in the ball throws in the ball at the scrum.

The strange word is disallowed. What does it mean.

You will find it, too, here:

Law 21.8 (f) Preventing the free kick. If the opposing team charge and prevent the free kick being taken, the kick is disallowed. Play restarts with a scrum at the mark. The opposing team throw in the ball.

There it says what should happen after disallowed. In Law 19.2 (e) it does not say what should happen after disallowed, which makes it fair enough to take it in conjunction with Laws 19.6 ands 19.7.

In the case of the free kick prevented,the opposition did something good to prevent the ball from being brought into play with a kick, which was the way to bring it into play. In this case the opposition did not prevent the ball from being brought into play with a throw which was the way to bring it into play. It was the thrower who got it wrong all on his own.

It is interesting and the SANZAR referee selectors have referred the matter to the International Rugby Board.

Watch this space!
 

Baldric

Jim Clark (26)
In other words the ref was wrong and should have playted advantage?

No, the laws don’t say that. The laws say the throw is incorrect then the non throwers get a throw in or a scrum. So technically correct, however because it is an incident at which advantage is not explicitly denied, then you would assume that advantage would be played.
The interesting thing is that it has brought up a loophole in the laws and the IRB needs to rule on it.
 

PaarlBok

Rod McCall (65)
In other words the ref was wrong and should have playted advantage?
Practically Pollock did not follow Le Goetes advice

The assistant referee did the right thing in keeping his flag up. It is what his job description requires. But he also said: "Advantage applies."
meaning he should have allowed the try.
 

PaarlBok

Rod McCall (65)
Paarl, wasn't it you who kicked up the big fuss last week about some of the Force fans continually whinging about the ref?
Not whining about the result or the ref. This one has been quite hot on discussion on this thtread and only gave the expert conclusion on the matter. The Saders deserve to win on the day, was the better team, no doubt and not even Pollocks wrong one would have change this. Refs are human and make mistakes, I accept this a long time ago and moved on.
 

DPK

Peter Sullivan (51)
This video was uploaded by TTRugbyVids, one of the best rugby related youtubers going around. Some good analysis that covers a few points from the Stormers v. Saders thread.

[video=youtube;cBNVldoKbl4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBNVldoKbl4[/video]
 

Blue

Andrew Slack (58)
This video was uploaded by TTRugbyVids, one of the best rugby related youtubers going around. Some good analysis that covers a few points from the Stormers v. Saders thread.

[video=youtube;cBNVldoKbl4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBNVldoKbl4[/video]

Based on what Paarl posted their analysis is wrong.
 

fatprop

George Gregan (70)
Staff member
by the way we have DickHeadSon this weekend, expecting nothing from him.

I would be more concerned with the assistant refs inflicted on him than Dickinson himself. In the end he has to take the advice of the Assistant if he was unsighted
 

PaarlBok

Rod McCall (65)
Pollock farked up and he know it now
Sport24
Tappe: Ref cost Stormers
Cape Town - Dewaldt Duvenage's "try" that was not awarded early on in Saturday's Super Rugby match between the Stormers and Crusaders should have been awarded.

That was the word on Wednesday from SANZAR referees selector Tappe Henning when he was asked about the incident in the match at Newlands.

Henning has subsequently discussed the incident with referee Chris Pollock and the error has been pointed out to him.

"It was a try. The referee made the wrong call and was supposed to play advantage. The assistant referee told him that he could play advantage and he incorrectly awarded a lineout to the Crusaders," said Henning.

Duvenage intercepted the ball after a quick throw-in by Crusaders captain Kieran Read. Read had one foot in play when he took the throw-in, but the fact that the illegal throw-in had been intercepted should have brought the advantage law into play.

Pollock's uncertainty was a result of the word "disallowed" which appears in the laws of the game - in other words, he thought that the throw-in should not have been allowed as it had been incorrectly executed by the Crusaders.

Advantage should have been applied in the Stormers' favour.

The incident apparently bothered Pollock after the game and he already phoned Henning from his dressing room at Newlands to ask whether he had made the right decision.

There was some debate in local refereeing circles and a quick call to the International Rugby Board (IRB) eradicated any uncertainty.

Pollock is handling Saturday's match between the Bulls and the Melbourne Rebels at Loftus Versfeld. The incident has been discussed with him so that the mistake is not repeated.

"The whole world now knows that advantage applies in such a situation," said Henning.

The former Test referee is not of the view that the incident cost the Stormers the game.

"It happened after four minutes and it will be unfair to say that it was responsible for changing the outcome of the game. You could also point to a situation where the Stormers flyhalf missed a kick at goal," said Henning.

Another talking point is that Pollock did not act more decisively when the Crusaders illegally stopped the Stormers' lineout mauls.

"We asked him about that and he was not of the view that a try would have been scored from either incident," said Henning.
 

Hawko

Tony Shaw (54)
Pollock farked up and he know it now
Sport24

Its interesting to understand what goes on behind the scenes with controversial decisions. This has come out I guess because everyone needs to know what the correct position is, but I would love to know what Henning thought of the second half refereeing of the Tahs/Reds Brisbane game. Did the scrum collapsing on the line warrant a penalty try or not? That decision too has ramifications for teams with strong scrums. Will they get any value from attacking through the scrum or should they just clear the ball and try to run it in?
 

MajorlyRagerly

Trevor Allan (34)
Am surprised at that ruling. Advantage never applies in situation regarding things being in or out. I would have thought that as the ball hadnt properly/legally entered play, and thus it had to be called back.

Thought the ReUnion guys had said it spot on.

In fact, I was so sure about it, I'm not even convinced after reading the above article!
 

PaarlBok

Rod McCall (65)
Am surprised at that ruling. Advantage never applies in situation regarding things being in or out. I would have thought that as the ball hadnt properly/legally entered play, and thus it had to be called back.

Thought the ReUnion guys had said it spot on.

In fact, I was so sure about it, I'm not even convinced after reading the above article!
Dont know about your ReUnion TV chaps but Klappe Henning is part of the Sanzars reffing lot headed by Bray.
http://www.sareferees.co.za/news/ref_news/2729681.htm
What does his job entail? "There are two parts to it."

On Monday, Labour Day, in the morning Bray was on a conference call for two and a half hours, starting a 8 o'clock with four others to discuss the refereeing of the previous weekend - Andrew Cole, Colin Hawke, Greg Cooper and Tappe Henning, a remarkable fivesome of Test referees and a Super Rugby Coach, not long away from field and whistle.

This discussion happens every Monday after a Super Rugby weekend. The time is spent discussing the performances of the six or seven referees.

Bray will co-ordinate points from the discussion and he will also briefly mention up to three points for each individual referee's attention.

That is one part of his job. "We understand that referees make mistakes but we don't want them repeating the same mistakes."

Mistakes can be subtle things like running lines, what they say to players and how they say it.

"We want our referees going into the World Cup in top form."

In addition to these discussions the referee writes a self review, and subsequent to the selection discussions, Bray writes up a response to each referee. In addition there is opportunity for the team coaches to provide feedback as they see fit.

Referees are evaluated! And sometimes they are put on ice for a while to get a chance to catch breath and eliminate errors.

The second part of the job is dealing with the teams. Bray, who clearly has the trust of the franchises from his refereeing days, is able to find from clubs any problems they may have and also point out to teams and problems in the way they are playing.

This can include pointing out a player whose infringements went on from game to game. "Not that we want referees targetting players. After all a referee must judge from incident to incident and not have preconceived ideas."

At the present Bray's concern is people who are going off their feet at the tackle. Referees and teams are being asked to attend to that.

All of this means that Bray has a lot of say in the managing of SANZAR's game, and it is a position that is likely to become even more powerful.

After the World Cup the International Rugby Board will scrap its selection committee - at present five members chaired by David Pickering. Instead the north and the south will each produce its own panel of referees, in effect for the Heineken Cup and Super Rugby.

Then appointments to Tests will be made from those panels.

The man responsible for Heineken Cup referees is Donal Courtney of Ireland; the man responsible for SANZAR referees is Lyndon Bray. They will contribute to the management of refereeing at Test level. How selection will work after the World Cup is still to be finalised.

There were many things to discuss with Bray - the four-step engagement at scrums, for example. despite criticism, the facts are that under this system there are fewer reset scrums and fewer collapses. There are more penalties but at least they keep the game going.

The first thing Bray learnt on the trip is the effect of differing time zones, experiencing them first hand from a South African perspective. "When their day is ending over there, you people are just getting out of bed. No wonder it can be challenging for us all, from a logistical perspective, to be across information and decisions in real time. This trip has helped me appreciate that challenge more."

meaning you cant get closer then this. The TV lot talks kak like most forum posters anyway about refs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top