Happy Hump Day fellow G&GRs. Another week of reflection, but not leading into hope for a weekend result. We take a short break and steel ourselves for the naming of the squads for the Rugby Championship. How will this go for “our” team? Will the coaching group reflect our bias informed opinion, or will they go down a path we didn’t expect? Only time will tell.
I’ve got a couple of referee pointers from last week and then from there some news items that you may have missed/not cared about. The above photo was at Eden Park just before the second game against England. I had a ball of a time with about 15 army mates both before, during and after the game. Huge for the soul.
Referee Corner
There were a couple of RCs this weekend, and depending on your one-eyed bias either a fair call or an absolute disgusting piece of refereeing. One of the things I do like with the new process is how the referee can call it a yellow card but under review, so he/she doesn’t have to spend ages reviewing it over and over again during the game. This has been a good move and the referee now just has to decide if it’s more then just a penalty and then let someone else look at it from every angle while they just get on with the game. This has been a huge improvement and while I don’t often give plaudits to World Rugby they definitely deserve them for this. This process has reduced stoppages dramatically and has been much better for the game.
The first one was the red card to Daugunu. Interesting listening to the “other site” podcast when Matt Tou’omua was very critical of this call saying that it was just a “rugby incident” and should never have been a red card. So let’s dissect this incident from a referee’s (as opposed to a biased one-eyed Wallaby supporter’s) view. The Georgian winger took the ball from the centre and then kicked it down the field. Daugunu leapt in the air to try and block the kick and when he came down he contacted the Georgian wing in the head with his knee. So what’s the process for the referee in this sort of incident?
The first thing a referee looks at is, “Was there contact with the head and was this caused by foul play?”. Now this question can be very subjective – like about 70% of all referee calls – and, like the slap down intercept, is based on both the likelihood of the charge down being successful and the requirement of the player jumping to not create a dangerous situation. The laws around this are ambiguous and don’t really offer a lot, so the referee has to also consider the direction from World Rugby on how they want these sorts of things adjudicated. The actual laws involved in this are law 11.5.a that states “The ball is not knocked-on, and play continues if: A player knocks the ball forward immediately after an opponent has kicked it (Charge down).” And, law 9.25. says “A player must not intentionally charge or obstruct an opponent who has just kicked the ball” So not a lot in it, although the “intentional” wording does cause some issues. However, the direction from World Rugby is very clear. It is absolutely the responsibility of the player jumping for the ball to not create a dangerous situation for the kicker. The reason behind this is that because the kicker is not charging at an opponent and the person attempting to block the kick is, then it is the person moving towards the the kicker who has the responsibility of not making the incident dangerous. So if a player charging down a kick, hasn’t managed to charge the kick down and makes contact with the kicker, then they are considered to have been reckless and responsible for the outcome. So while not intentional, still responsible.
In this incident Daugunu jumped about 7 metres in front of the kicker, who was running forward as he kicked. He got nowhere near the ball and on coming down braced himself by raising his right knee. The fact that he didn’t actually succeed in charging down the kick means that there was never a realistic chance of him doing so (if there had’ve been, he would’ve managed it). On top of this, it was his action of jumping forward into the space the runner was moving into and raising his knee to protect himself that were the actions that led to the head contact.
Like Matt To’omua, we can all debate the issue and provide opinions on why it was the wrong call or not; however, the guidelines from World Rugby are clear and, in my unbiased (well a bit biased) opinion, this was absolutely the correct call.
The second incident is the red card to Andre Esterhuizen for his tackle on Jose Lima. Obviously the main group of supporters decrying this call are the one-eyed South African supporters who seem to see every call against their team as a foul play in itself. So let’s dissect this one also. The procedure for this is absolutely settled; it’s been around for a number of years now and all players, coaches, referees and administrators at this level completely understand the process and what needs to be looked at. Very simply put there are four questions: has head contact occurred?, was it foul play?, what was there a degree of danger?, and is there any mitigation?
It is this last question that seems to be the most subjective (at least to fans). The other three questions are easy. Yes there was head contact. Yes it was foul play. This can be an interesting one. Law 9 covers this with 9.11 to 9.26 covering Dangerous Play. Law 9.11 says “Players must not do anything that is reckless or dangerous to others including….” Law 9.13 says “A player must not tackle an opponent early late or dangerously….” The consideration here is that because the tackler was upright and didn’t target lower down then it was foul play. Yes there was a high degree of danger (based on the speed of both players and direct head to head). The mitigation is a bit of an issue with some people saying that both players lowered their body hight and so that should count. The considerations put out by World rugby for mitigation include; line of sight (was the ball carrier always in the line of sight of the tackler), sudden and significant drop or movement ( both sudden & significant not one or the other), clear attempt to reduce height (by the tackler), level of control, passive tackler (so not charging in, but rather bringing the tackler down on the plane they were running).
Unfortunately for Andre, none of the mitigating requirements were met. Yes he was crouched slightly, but he did not ever attempt to reduce his height, yes the ball carrier also crouched into contact, but it was not either sudden or significant and Andre always had full sight of him with the ball. For me this was absolutely the correct call and was well managed by the officials.
Rugby Sevens : origins and differences from 15-a-side
A really good article here on rugby.com.au outlines the differences between XV and 7s rugby and why players can be more easily exposed in these games.
Rugby sevens originated in Melrose, Scotland, in 1883 when a pair of butchers launched a fund-raising tournament. The popularity of rugby sevens spread, but really took off with the development of the Hong Kong Sevens in the 1970s. The sport was included in the Commonwealth Games for the first time in 1998 while the Rugby World Cup Sevens was first held for men in 1993, and women in 2009. The men still compete for the Melrose Cup, named after the Scottish Borders town.
Under the auspices of World Rugby, the annual World Rugby Sevens Series for men was launched in 1999, the women getting their own series in 2012.
The new format showcased the 12 best men’s and women’s teams and concluded in a Grand Final weekend where the top eight teams competed to be crowned Series champions. France beat Argentina for victory in the men’s competition while Australia won the women’s final.
The 15-a-side version of rugby was last played at the 1924 Olympics in Paris, the United States beating the host nation for gold and is still the official XVs Olympic champions. The game returned for the 2016 Rio Olympics, but in the 7s format with Fiji’s men and the Australian women getting gold at those games.
Fundamental rules remain the same: it’s five points for a try, two for a conversion and three for a penalty. The ball still has to be passed backwards and dotted down behind the goal line for a try. Three man scrums and lineouts are also part of play. The size of the pitch is the same for both disciplines (70x100m), but there are seven players per team instead of 15 and playing time is adapted accordingly: each half is seven minutes instead of the 40 minutes in the 15-a-side code. Penalties and conversions are not kicked from the ground using a tee but as drop goals.
Rugby sevens demands speed and reactivity, a level of athleticism that sees attacking play often go the length of the pitch. Defensively, players need to be able to tackle well and also play for turnovers, an immensely wearing task.
There’s little room for error, notably in defence. There are a raft of XVs players who shone on the sevens circuit, but that is less so the case nowadays with sevens specialists much more adept at the game.
I love the 7s game, especially the women’s 7s. The skills are outstanding and there’s a lot more playing the game rather than playing the player. Australia has an outstanding women 7s team and for me the most important game this year will be the Olympic finals where I’m hoping the NZ women win gold and the Aus women win silver. To be totally honest I’d be almost, but not quite, happy if that went the other way just because the game itself is so awesome.
Springboks wing Sbu Nkosi tests positive for banned substance
Well colour me surprised! reported here in Stuff, A South African player has been tested positive for a banned substance. According to a report by the South African newspaper, Rapport, Nkosi was tested along with three other Springboks in May. His A sample was reportedly tested positive for the use of anabolic steroids and if his B sample also tests positive he could face a four year ban from rugby.
So far four Springbok players have been found to test positive; Nkobi joins Dyantyi, Ralepelle and Jantjies as players who have tested positive in years past.
Nkosi has had some issues in the past with a missing persons case being opened on him ion 2022 after he went absent from the Bulls training group. He was later found at his father’s house in Emalahleni, almost 100km east of Pretoria.
He later said that the mental pressures involved with professional rugby forced him into hiding. These had been building for “a couple of years” and he needed the break.
While I feel sorry for the guy, and I hope he gets the help he needs, the South African doping regime seems to be rivalling China at the moment. On 23 July, reported here at news24.com, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) suspended Africa’s only accredited drug-testing laboratory due to “multiple non-conformities” with international standards.
In a statement, WADA said it had suspended the accreditation of the South African Doping Control Laboratory in Bloemfontein for up to six months. The Bloemfontein lab had already seen some restrictions imposed in September last year, while other anti-doping activities were allowed to continue. However, WADA said experts had advised the agency to suspend the facility’s accreditation due to “multiple non-conformities with the International Standard for Laboratories.” “The suspension … prohibits the laboratory from carrying out any anti-doping activities, including analyses of urine and blood samples, with the exception of analysis related to the Athlete Biological Passport hematological module,” WADA said in a statement. WADA said the laboratory would be allowed to apply for reinstatement once it had demonstrated all the identified “non-conformities” had been addressed.
For quite a few years there have been rumours, insinuations, complaints and outright accusations that South African rugby, especially the college rugby, has been rife with drug taking and banned substances. Now I have no doubt that all countries have problems with this to a greater and lesser extent, and wouldn’t be surprised if a NZ player was also caught out. However, I think the pressures on the South Africans are greater than other countries and It saddens me that this is such an issue. Maybe we need to look at ourselves a bit and the expectations we have on these players and whether we are actually contributing to this situation.
