Waratahs 2015

[wamberal]

It seems pretty weird that a professional sport like ours, with a rule book which is frankly bewildering to absolutely everybody, cannot provide a mechanism for both sets of coaching staffs to know during the course of the game exactly why certain decisions are made.


Let's move into the 21st Century, shall we?

 

[Lindommer]

TBH, as a former ref I was perplexed by Peyper's "use it" call for the scrum in question. And I had a quick squiz at the Laws to confirm my suspicions there's no such thing, other than scrums should be a quick way of restarting play. In the circumstances I'd be tempted to ask the ref about that ruling and if he's going to continue doing so in the second half.

One thing I used to do when warning a team about certain behaviour was to call over BOTH captains and lay down the law about handling in the ruck, offside, or whatever. The purpose of this was to put the non-offending side on notice they, too, were warned before further penalties or cards. The matter of Peyper's "use it" ruling being continued in the second half should've been relayed to both sides. Imagine if Jaco had've said to Cheika, "this is what I'm going to call with scrums in the second half, but just wait a moment while I call in the Blues captain"; neither side could've complained about the other potentially influencing the ref. Unfortunately, SANZAR regulations preclude such half-time discussions. Probably sensibly.

 

[ACT Crusader]

TBH, as a former ref I was perplexed by Peyper's "use it" call for the scrum in question. And I had a quick squiz at the Laws to confirm my suspicions there's no such thing, other than scrums should be a quick way of restarting play. In the circumstances I'd be tempted to ask the ref about that ruling and if he's going to continue doing so in the second half.

It was bewildering no doubt, but if Chieka took a step back, he could have raised it with Hooper in the half time break and got his captain to discuss it with Peyper before the 2nd half restart whistle.

I think it's all fairly innocuous, but it was totally unnecessary and really should not have happened. I don't think it's being blown out of proportions because as I said earlier, the perception that he could've even inadvertently influenced the reffing by raising this "behind closed doors" will not sit well with some fans.

 

[Strewthcobber]

TBH, as a former ref I was perplexed by Peyper's "use it" call for the scrum in question. And I had a quick squiz at the Laws to confirm my suspicions there's no such thing, other than scrums should be a quick way of restarting play. In the circumstances I'd be tempted to ask the ref about that ruling and if he's going to continue doing so in the second half.

There's enough in Law 20.4 to suggest that the call could be made. What's strange is why Peyper chose to enact that law when he did, and why no other ref seems to use it.

Law 20.4
(e)When a scrum remains stationary and the ball does not emerge immediately a further scrum is ordered at the place of the stoppage. The ball is thrown in by the team not in possession at the time of the stoppage.
(f) When a scrum becomes stationary and does not start moving immediately, the ball must emerge immediately. If it does not a further scrum will be ordered. The ball is thrown in by the team not in possession at the time of the stoppage.

As for going to the rooms, terrible look, luckily there were witnesses and it was civilized else we'd be looking for a new coach.

Warning should have been made public.

 

[fatprop]

There's enough in Law 20.4 to suggest that the call could be made. What's strange is why Peyper chose to enact that law when he did, and why no other ref seems to use it.



As for going to the rooms, terrible look, luckily there were witnesses and it was civilized else we'd be looking for a new coach.

Warning should have been made public.

After the game Cheika said in the post match that he agreed with the ruling, but was disappointed that is the only time it had been used all season, and with no real warning

 

[Quick Hands]

It was bewildering no doubt, but if Chieka took a step back, he could have raised it with Hooper in the half time break and got his captain to discuss it with Peyper before the 2nd half restart whistle.

I think it's all fairly innocuous, but it was totally unnecessary and really should not have happened. I don't think it's being blown out of proportions because as I said earlier, the perception that he could've even inadvertently influenced the reffing by raising this "behind closed doors" will not sit well with some fans.

Although Dave Dennis is the captain, but I agree he should have been the one to make the query. It wasn't really raised "behind closed doors" it was apparently raised in front of witnesses.

I agree it's innocuous and it seems to have been blown out of all proportion as a cover for the Blues loss.

 

[Quick Hands]

Again, all that does is give more claim to the conspiracy theory.

If no law has been broken, why would a warning be given to both Peyper and Cheika and a reminder if the non-existent law to all other Super Rugby coaches?

To pretend that is the truth is simply ridiculous.

http://m.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11430237

Because it seems that prior to this incident, the SANZAR code of conduct forbade coaches etc, "intimidating, abusing, threatening etc" referees or other officials. As this incident did not fit that description, there was no breach of the code of conduct.

SANZAR have now (wisely) decided that they want to extend that to coaches approaching referees at half time. So that everyone became aware of this change they have written to all teams warning them of the addtion to the code of conduct.

That is the truth of it. Trying to turn a short, polite and entirely unremarkable conversation into a grand conspiracy is what is ridiculous.

 

[Eyes and Ears]

I want to confirm one point in this that the half time restriction is a competition rule not a Law of the Game which means it is not Peyper's resonsibility to enforce. It is SANZAR's role to enforce and Peyper's and Cheika's resonsibility to abide by it.
Having said that, referees hope to have professional working relationships with coaches. This enables good discussion, feedback and learning for both sides which should lead to better outcomes. Peyper would hope that he could discuss elements of the game with Cheika during the week.
If a referee has a good working relationship with a coach and they regularly discuss issues, it is not much fun nor great for the relationship to dismiss a coach and say "sorry, not now" particularly if it is likely to be a quick calm conversation that provides clarity on a situation. Nonetheless it is what is required but sometimes it's easier to answer a quick question than create confrontation by dismissing him.

 

[Bullrush]

Because it seems that prior to this incident, the SANZAR code of conduct forbade coaches etc, "intimidating, abusing, threatening etc" referees or other officials. As this incident did not fit that description, there was no breach of the code of conduct.

SANZAR have now (wisely) decided that they want to extend that to coaches approaching referees at half time. So that everyone became aware of this change they have written to all teams warning them of the addtion to the code of conduct.

That is the truth of it. Trying to turn a short, polite and entirely unremarkable conversation into a grand conspiracy is what is ridiculous.

The breach has nothing to do with the manner or the conduct of the conversation. The breach is that the conversation happened at all!

The Code of Conduct apparently says:

"All persons ... shall not engage in any conduct or any activity on or off the field that may impair public confidence in the honest and orderly conduct of a match."
Whether it was intimidating, abusive or threatening has no bearing at all and is irrelevant.

I haven't said that there is a grand conspiracy but the events that took place and the manner in which they did give a lot of air anyone looking for a conspiracy and could easily impair public confidence in the honest and orderly conduct of that match.

If someone had substantial dollars on the result and were so inclined, I wonder if they would have a case for an independent investigation or inquiry into the game?

I want to confirm one point in this that the half time restriction is a competition rule not a Law of the Game which means it is not Peyper's responsibility to enforce. It is SANZAR's role to enforce and Peyper's and Cheika's resonsibility to abide by it.
Having said that, referees hope to have professional working relationships with coaches. This enables good discussion, feedback and learning for both sides which should lead to better outcomes. Peyper would hope that he could discuss elements of the game with Cheika during the week.
If a referee has a good working relationship with a coach and they regularly discuss issues, it is not much fun nor great for the relationship to dismiss a coach and say "sorry, not now" particularly if it is likely to be a quick calm conversation that provides clarity on a situation. Nonetheless it is what is required but sometimes it's easier to answer a quick question than create confrontation by dismissing him.

Law 6.A.7 talks about who a ref may consult with during a match. A coach is not one of them and the Law finishes by saying "the referee must not consult with any other persons."

How many coaches have ever gone down to the refs room at halftime to discuss their interpretations with them? Is this a common occurrence? Is it an accepted practice? You would have to say 'NO' given what has come out of this interaction and the fact that SANZAR issued both men with a warning. And a reminder notice to all other coaches that this is a strict no go area.

Referees can have a good working relationship with coaches and regularly discuss issues - just not at half-time of the match they are both involved in.

 

[p.Tah]

Perhaps we should ask why another official decided to raise it with the Blues and not SANZAR. Why the Blues chose not to do anything until Roswell at the NZRU got wind of it and encouraged the complaint for a breach of Area 51.

 

[Joeleee]

Mate, you have absolutely lost it trying to attach this to some sort of match fixing conspiracy. Match fixing generally involves one team trying to lose, and there have been no accusations of that. If you're trying to say that Cheika fixed the match by trying to win, then the All Blacks must be some of the best match fixers out, since they seem to win quite a few. You're making all sorts of assertions about how many coaches talk to refs, what the rules might be and the fact that the penalty count looked almost exactly the same as the first, only reversed. Did Sir JK talk to the ref before the game in any capacity? Was that match fixing?

The coach spoke to the ref at half time, which is apparently a no-no (which to be honest seems strange to me). This has raised questions of fairness across the ditch, fair enough, I get it. Somehow connecting this to some sort of nefarious match fixing conspiracy however just doesn't fit the facts.

 

[Bullrush]

Mate, you have absolutely lost it trying to attach this to some sort of match fixing conspiracy. Match fixing generally involves one team trying to lose, and there have been no accusations of that. If you're trying to say that Cheika fixed the match by trying to win, then the All Blacks must be some of the best match fixers out, since they seem to win quite a few. You're making all sorts of assertions about how many coaches talk to refs, what the rules might be and the fact that the penalty count looked almost exactly the same as the first, only reversed. Did Sir JK talk to the ref before the game in any capacity? Was that match fixing?

The coach spoke to the ref at half time, which is apparently a no-no (which to be honest seems strange to me). This has raised questions of fairness across the ditch, fair enough, I get it. Somehow connecting this to some sort of nefarious match fixing conspiracy however just doesn't fit the facts.

I have never said that Cheika tried to fix that match.

Again, I guarantee you wouldn't be so relaxed about this if the exact same situation had happened during the Super Rugby Final last year.

BTW, have you ever heard of Pete Rose? Spot fixing?

 

[Quick Hands]

The breach has nothing to do with the manner or the conduct of the conversation. The breach is that the conversation happened at all!

The Code of Conduct apparently says:

"All persons . shall not engage in any conduct or any activity on or off the field that may impair public confidence in the honest and orderly conduct of a match."
Whether it was intimidating, abusive or threatening has no bearing at all and is irrelevant.

I haven't said that there is a grand conspiracy but the events that took place and the manner in which they did give a lot of air anyone looking for a conspiracy and could easily impair public confidence in the honest and orderly conduct of that match.

If someone had substantial dollars on the result and were so inclined, I wonder if they would have a case for an independent investigation or inquiry into the game?



Law 6.A.7 talks about who a ref may consult with during a match. A coach is not one of them and the Law finishes by saying "the referee must not consult with any other persons."

How many coaches have ever gone down to the refs room at halftime to discuss their interpretations with them? Is this a common occurrence? Is it an accepted practice? You would have to say 'NO' given what has come out of this interaction and the fact that SANZAR issued both men with a warning. And a reminder notice to all other coaches that this is a strict no go area.

Referees can have a good working relationship with coaches and regularly discuss issues - just not at half-time of the match they are both involved in.

The part of the code of conduct that you have reproduced is nothing to do with this situation - except in your mind perhaps.

Consult means to ask advice, which is entirely different from talking to.

 

[Bullrush]

The part of the code of conduct that you have reproduced is nothing to do with this situation - except in your mind perhaps.

Consult means to ask advice, which is entirely different from talking to.

"Consult" is also not used in the Code of Conduct.

Again:

"All persons . shall not engage in any conduct or any activity on or off the field that may impair public confidence in the honest and orderly conduct of a match."

"Consult" is used in the Laws.

Originally, you guys were saying that Cheika/Peyper had broken a Law but not the Code of Conduct - hence the suspended ban didn't come into consideration. Now you think it's the other way?

If they have not broken a Law or the Code of Conduct, what were they warned for? Not breaking them?!? What did SANZAR's reminder notice to every other coach say - "Just a reminder that we don't want you to contravene or break any Laws or any of the Code in the same way Cheika and Peyper didn't break them" ?!?! - maybe in your mind perhaps.

 

[Eyes and Ears]

Law 6.A.7 talks about who a ref may consult with during a match. A coach is not one of them and the Law finishes by saying "the referee must not consult with any other persons."

This Law details who a referee is allowed to consult with during a game to help him make decisions. The Law is empowering the TMO and ARs to aid the referee with decisions. It has nothing to do with what players and/or coaches are allowed to do in relation to talking to referees. In this case, Peyper was not consulting with Cheika for help with a decision. Cheika just asked him a question.

If you interpret the Law your way, then it is breach of Law 6 if a player asks a referee a question.

 

[A mutterer]

If someone had substantial dollars on the result and were so inclined, I wonder if they would have a case for an independent investigation or inquiry into the game?

the fact that you think that gambling interests should somehow impact on this discussion or on the outcome of sanzar's ruling is what really should be questioned here.

 

[Eyes and Ears]

"Consult" is also not used in the Code of Conduct.

Again:

"All persons . shall not engage in any conduct or any activity on or off the field that may impair public confidence in the honest and orderly conduct of a match."

"Consult" is used in the Laws.

Originally, you guys were saying that Cheika/Peyper had broken a Law but not the Code of Conduct - hence the suspended ban didn't come into consideration. Now you think it's the other way?

If they have not broken a Law or the Code of Conduct, what were they warned for? Not breaking them?!? What did SANZAR's reminder notice to every other coach say - "Just a reminder that we don't want you to contravene or break any Laws or any of the Code in the same way Cheika and Peyper didn't break them" ?!?! - maybe in your mind perhaps.

It's a competition rule not a Law of the Game. However they decided that the breach of the competition rule did not constitute a Code of Conduct violation.

 

[Bullrush]

It's a competition rule not a Law of the Game. However they decided that the breach of the competition rule did not constitute a Code of Conduct violation.

Apparently

"All persons . shall not engage in any conduct or any activity on or off the field that may impair public confidence in the honest and orderly conduct of a match."

is part of the Code of Conduct. I can't find a copy of them anywhere so I'm taking that based on the NZ Herald reporting. It could be wrong I'll admit but that's the information I've read.

 

[Bullrush]

This Law details who a referee is allowed to consult with during a game to help him make decisions. The Law is empowering the TMO and ARs to aid the referee with decisions. It has nothing to do with what players and/or coaches are allowed to do in relation to talking to referees. In this case, Peyper was not consulting with Cheika for help with a decision. Cheika just asked him a question.

If you interpret the Law your way, then it is breach of Law 6 if a player asks a referee a question.

Actually, it is but I read earlier today that this is why the refs let both captains know before the game that they will consult and talk to them. I'd always believed that the captain had a right to talk to the ref but apparently not.

 

[Bullrush]

the fact that you think that gambling interests should somehow impact on this discussion or on the outcome of sanzar's ruling is what really should be questioned here.

The fact is I have never said that.

But you don't think that gambling interests have any impact on how SANZAR runs the game or sets it up?