Welcome fellow G&GRs, another fine Wednesday where we stop worrying about the previous week and start focusing on the week ahead. Who is our team playing? Will they win? And how much can we beat those pesky Kiwis by this week? (To be fair that last one isn’t one I think about very often.)
Some interesting stuff this week and certainly a couple of incidents that led to frustrations spilling over and a couple of acts that are likely to see players on the sideline for a period of time. Now no doubt there’ll be people here who disagree with me, some a lot, which is all fine. After all, almost everything we write here is an opinion piece and even if we copy news from other sites, we have our own opinion on it. Personally, I like the difference of opinion and for me it adds to the discussions here, so let’s keep it up.
Referee Corner – Applying the laws and why sometimes it’s wrong
The picture that justified every Australians bias against Richie. Shit decision! – just saying.
Last weekend there were a couple of incidents in the Rebels/Drua game that really showcased the bad side of rugby. Now as Nutta and I know this sort of thing is a little bit more prevalent in the lower grades of Subbies rugby in Sydney. Part of this is because there isn’t the same level of transparency when you have a referee and a couple of club based ARs, with dubious neutrality, and part of it is because there are always one or two players who are really too old but keep playing because it gives them the opportunity to just be a grub and smash someone. This is actually a lot more prevalent than some people want to face up to.
However, with the level of coverage that happens at Super Rugby, including a number of televisions recording everything with completely biased television operators who actually look for these sorts of things so they can put them on the big screen and therefore pressure the referee along with TMOs who are becoming less relevant and need something to show they’re still there, they are just not going to be missed. Dumb decisions in the heat of the moment that the players are going to pay for in a big way. So, let’s look at one of the incidents and pull it apart a bit.
The comments after the game, and actually during it, were interesting for me. There were a lot of comments on the officiating of Damon Murphy and how he didn’t have his best game. TBH I tend to agree but I’m not sure I agree on the reasons that some have labelled. The first point I’d make in this is that the referee, while being responsible under law 6.5.a, is not actually as in charge in these games as much as I am in a subbies match. At Super Rugby level and above the referee is just one part of a 4- or 5-person team who looks after each match. He has, and is in contact with both, ARs, the TMO and often the referee on the sideline controlling the subs, times and managing any cards. All of these people have their roles to play and all are responsible to a lesser and larger degree in various aspects of the game.
In addition to this, the referees have to apply the laws in the way that they are directed by RA and SANZAAR. Now while I don’t have access to all the directions they’ve been given, it’s pretty apparent to me that the referees have been told to give benefit to the attacking team. This does make a lot of sense as supporting the attacking team helps create the free flowing open game that we all love to see. However, I personally think they’ve gone too far in this area, and I think on Saturday in this game the application of the law favoured the attacking team too much.
All of us have read comments from our friend Butz about the absolute shit show that the ruck has become, with supporting players diving off their feet and lying all over the ruck. I tend to agree with a lot of this. The laws on the ruck are actually quite clear; 15.2 says players involved must have their heads and shoulders no lower than their hips, law 15.5 says they must be on their feet and join from behind. The second part of this is adjudicated well, but the first part, not so much. Law 15.7 says a player must bind onto a teammate or opposition and that the bind must precede or be simultaneous with any other contact. So, a player launching into the ruck needs to bind first or at the same time as he/she hits the ruck. Not sure this is always followed. Law 15.12 Players must endeavour to remain on their feet. Not must, so if they lose their feet ok, but I think at times attacking players are given too much leeway on this and aren’t even trying to stay on their feet.
The issue that seems to be causing the most issues is the clearing out of players, especially in regard to who they can clear out, when they can do it, and when it must stop. Interestingly there actually aren’t any laws that specifically deal with this. Laws such as the tackle laws; 14, address a player who has the ball, the ruck and maul laws, 15 & 16, cover the actions for players who are part of these and law 13 covers players on the ground. But there actually isn’t a set of laws that deal with how you drive and clear a player out. Law 15 talks about how a defender contests a ruck and clearing a player out does cover this. But once you push a player off the ball, there’s nothing to say when you have to then let him/her go. Of course, a ruck is both players in contest over the ball so if you drive a player off the ball, it is no longer a ruck and then you are contesting a player who doesn’t have the ball in open play and law 9.2 which deals with obstruction comes into play. Law 9.14 says a player must not tackle an opponent who is not in possession of the ball and once you have pushed them out of the ruck then they are no longer considered part of it, so you have to let them go. The issue here is that where the lines are is totally subjective. How far is too far when driving a player off the ball? It’s actually up to the referee and what he/she considers on the day.
I personally think the direction to support the attacking team has gone too far. Sure if no one is contesting a ruck then who cares if three players dive on the ball? It just means they aren’t available to contest the next one. The problem comes with the timing of it. Are they diving because the defenders aren’t contesting or are the defenders not contesting because they’re diving on the ball? I think this year we’ve gone too far along the 2nd point. Players want to contest but aren’t able to because the attacking players are diving off their feet and sealing off the ball and they’re doing this because the referees are letting them do it. I think Damon took this even further last week and I think he was let down by his team who didn’t point it out to him, or they did, and he ignored them which means it is all on him. I also think he allowed players to take defenders too far off the ball. The elbow on the back of the head, while absolutely wrong, was because the 9 was driven way off the ball for about the 4th time and was trying to disengage and get back to the ruck. He had complained to Damon about this a number of times and had been ignored. I think he was frustrated and had just had enough. Sure, his response was over the top, but if the Rebels had been cautioned, or sanctioned for doing this earlier the incident probably wouldn’t’ve happened. Now I’ve been in that situation in my playing days and I absolutely snotted the dickhead who was over the top. I got punished for it, but he also didn’t play for the rest of the match, so I was satisfied. Of course, it was wrong, and times have changed but I certainly feel less upset with the action than a lot and maybe feel just a bit of it was deserved.
There were also some comments on Damon being biased and this is one that I really struggle with. Even at subbies level you are only ever ruling on what you see and the picture that you have. You get a split second to decide and then the game moves onto the next play. How someone is meant to have the time to look at an incident and then review how they might apply the laws to favour one side over another is just beyond me. There would be three more incidents occurring before you could come to a decision and at Super level where the game is so much faster it’s just not possible. I do get it where you have someone like Nic White being a dick and annoying you with endless complaints, throwing their hands in the air and questioning everything that means that 50/50 decisions, which is about 60% of the game, then go the opposition’s way. I just don’t believe it’s a conscious decision. I think that subconsciously you see things differently, and the team with the annoying prick misses out. But I also don’t have too much of an issue with that and part of me is thinking it serves them right. I also think that when you adjudicate tactically it can look biased because at times you will decide a player is or isn’t having a material difference and inevitably a supporter will see his players get pinged and the opposition seemingly do the same thing and get away with it. However, that just demonstrates the lack of understanding of the application of the laws not a bias, so people need to just deal with it.
Reds embracing road less travelled as journeyman Smith eyes 50-game milestone.
Lachlan Grey on rugby.com.au here reports that the Reds are embracing the journey to the North of NZ to play Moana Pasifika this weekend. “It brings excitement and opportunity. You don’t get the chance to go over there often. It’s a fantastic place and the boys are excited by that,” Kiss told media on Tuesday.
Moana have struggled since their round 4 away win in Perth, dropping their past three games to the Brumbies, Blues and Chiefs by an average of 44 points. But Queensland lock Ryan Smith believes their rival’s form meant little ahead of crucial game following a Reds bye and consecutive losses to the Force and Brumbies. “It’s really important we keep our eye on the ball – we can’t look at (Moana’s) results as an indicator of what they’re going to be like this weekend.” he said. ” We know even deep into games, they’re fierce competitors and they step up. They’re really physical guys so it should be a great hit-out this weekend.”
Smith is set to reach an impressive milestone of his own with Kiss revealing he’ll earn a 50th Super Rugby cap against Moana over the ditch. It’s a far cry from the former Brothers player who began juggling Reds duties with his role as an air conditioning contractor in 2020 but a milestone match in far-flung Whangarei seems fitting for Smith’s unusual rugby journey. “I was really happy to even get one game for the Reds. now to be potentially getting 50 is amazing and something I didn’t foresee happening,” Smith said.
I think the Reds should win this game pretty easily. They have been disappointing in their last two games, but I think Kiss has got them going well this year and they’ll be up for this one. Great to see Smith reach this 50-game milestone and it’s players like him who just keep going that provide the experience and culture that is often more important than the flashy players who do well but go off on international duties during the year. Well done that man.
All Blacks great ‘concerned’ by fly-half depth after talented playmaker ‘messed around’ by Ian Foster
Writing here in Planet Rugby Justin Marshall says that Scott Robertson should be worried by two specific areas going into the July series with England and Fiji. The Rugby World Cup saw the normal changing of the guard in NZ with older and experienced players moving offshore and newer players having to step up and take their place. Richie Mo’unga is perhaps the most worrying loss, according to Marshall, and although Beauden Barrett is returning from Japan, the favourite for the position, Damian McKenzie, is not a proven Test performer at fly-half. Behind them there is Stephen Perofeta, who has only earned three caps, and potentially the Hurricanes’ Brett Cameron after his impressive Super Rugby Pacific start. However, Marshall believes that there are fewer options available to Robertson than the All Blacks boss would ordinarily like.
“I don’t feel that we’ve got massive depth, to a degree, in our fly-half area,” he said. “10 is a jersey that has been dominated, to a degree, in the last decade by Beauden Barrett and Richie Mo’unga.” he stated adding that while there’s been little intros and opportunities for the likes of Damian McKenzie, they’ve been few and far between. He believes Stephen Perofeta was messed around by Ian Foster. and that “Below those two, there’s been no real progress.”
Marshall also insists that it is not just fly-half where Robertson should be anxious, with outside centre continuing to be an issue. Foster struggled to find an answer but eventually settled on Rieko Ioane, who became a key cog in the backline before and during the 2023 World Cup. “Another area that does concern me, to a degree, is centre. We’ve had to switch a winger, a world-class winger, probably one of the fastest in the world, into centre because we never replaced Conrad Smith,” he added. “Those two positions would be the two I’d be most concerned about”, he added.
I’m not as concerned as Marshall and I think that too many people are getting too carried away with this. I have every confidence that just like with Mehrts, then DC then BB then RM the next player is there and will come through. I don’t think DMac is the answer and I still see him more of a 15 than a 10. I agree Reiko is not the solution at 13 but again I think the next Bruce Robertson is there and just needs to be picked. Really looking forward to seeing how the ABs pan out this year.
