CrapRefs.com

Kevin Mealamu was guilty of head butting England captain Lewis Moody at the Twickenham test – it was clear to all.

The 4 week ban he received seemed fair – possibly even a litle bit light given the Brian O’Driscoll spare tackle that he and Tana Umaga got away with back in 2005.

The ban didn’t go any measure towards healing that wound.

Ask any Kiwi (over 35) where they were when Trevor Chappell bowled underarm to Brian McKechnie in the final of the 1983 World Series Cup Final in Melbourne and you will start to see how New Zealand.

Backing your man is the right thing by a sporting organisation but there is a bigger picture here – the reputation of a global sporting brand.

And this is the worst aspect of appealing the decision and getting it cut in half – the rugby world will think the All Blacks get greater leniency than everyone else.

… and the Irish will be spitting tacks – and fair enough!

How could the O’Driscoll incident be made worse?

A. By making it look like Mealamu went on to get away with a blatant head butt.

From the Al Black viewpoint – We can’t go back and make amends but we can leave well enough alone.

We can cop the (initial) ban and get on with it.

We can come out in a different manner than we did.

All Black great Stu Wilson said ‘the stakeholders own the All Blacks brand’ and as a stakeholder I’m concerned for the damage that this incident will cause.

A Grand Slam is important but 10 months out from a World Cup, who do you think will remember it in the aftermath of the 2011 World Cup Ceremony?

Then ask again who will recall the spare tackle that Mealamu got away with that then got worse because he snuck away with just 2 weeks for a headbutt?

The Bay of Plenty captain believed that referee James McPhail was inconsistent in how he ruled the breakdown in last Sunday’s key clash.

The first thing he said in the post match interview was that he was ‘pissed off’ and went on to explain that his frustrations were directed squarely at the match officials.

Rua Tipoki was doing the questions and his inexperience showed as his follow-up only prompted Bourke to elaborate further. There’s no way a Grant Nesbit, Tony Johnson or Ian Smith would have stayed on the subject in the same circumstances.

But it is Bourke’s responsibility and he apologised yesterday.

“I regret making the statement and fully retract the comments []

My language was inappropriate, as was the criticism of the match official.”

The Bay of Plenty CEO also apologised and Bourke will make a donation to a charity – all to avoid a censure from the NZRFU no doubt.

Bay of plenty missed a real opportunity by losing the match.

They would have stepped inside semi-final contention for the first time this season – and at the business end of the competition. Instead they are holding onto 7th spot and face tough assignments in their final 2 matches of the season.

Up first is Southland at home. The Stags lost the Ranfurly Shield last weekend and despite going into the round in second place on the table, they currently find themselves lying in 5th – such is the level of competition this year.

The Steamers are just 2 points behind so expect an epic battle at Bay Park on Saturday afternoon.

The Steamers last match is against Northland in Whangarei. The Taniwha are 10 points adrift and so won’t make the top 7 but do not expect that to mean they will lie down to be steam rolled.

It will be the last opportunity for Super Rugby and All Black hopefulls to impress selectors and the local supporters will demand their side bow out on a high note.

Waikato got out to a 17-3 lead by half time behind some excellent play by returning ex-All Black, Stephen Donald.

But Otago wrestled momentum early in the second spell with two tries in seven minutes, reducing the lead to just 2 points (17-15).

Then 2 referees decisions swung the momentum

Otago were penalised at their own scrum on their 22 metre line.

Waikato did have an ascendancy in the scrum to that point. Kees Mueews was not playing and while he is great with ball in hand, Halani Aulika is not the best tight head technician in the game.

Either way, the call looked dubious and Donald stretched Waikato’s lead to 5 points.

The real clanger was still to come

Seven minutes later, Waikato took a quick throw in from an Otago clearance kick. The player clearly had a foot over the touchline (in the field of play) and hence it should have been an Otago scrum on halfway – a useful field position.

Instead, Waikato scored from the play to effectively put the game out of reach.

The decision to allow play to continue was a disaster

Waikato scored 2 more tries to win comfortably in the end but who knows how things might have turned out if these decisions had been different?

Otago are not a confident team but they do have some good players and they were playing with confidence and purpose. Instead they were forced to chase the game. Frustrations got the better of Aulika and he was justly yellow carded for a high tackle.

Bay of Plenty captain and Chiefs number 8 Colin Bourke let his feelings known about the referee and linesmen in the aftermath of the Bay’s loss to Tasman by 2 points in a critical Round 11 ITM Cup match.

Bourke – picked by some to tour with the All Blacks in their end of season tour – said he was ‘pretty pissed off’ and proceeded to explain with whom his anger was focused – Referee James McPhail and his assistants, when Rua Tipoki asked him how he felt about the match.

Bay of Plenty fought back from a 38-19 deficit at the 55th minute to lead by 2 points with 5 minutes to play. From the re-start, Tasman were awarded a penalty right out front and that closed the scoring for a Tasman victory by 2 points.

Bay of Plenty were vying for a top 4 finish after some solid mid-season form. Five points would have left them in 4th spot, equal points with Auckland in 3rd and 1 in front of Southland whom they meet next week at home.

Instead they are back in 7th position just 3 clear of Counties-Manukau in 8th.

There is a 7+7 grouping arrangement starting next season (2011) and so what started out as an opportunity to make the finals will turn out to be a fight for survival.

Chris Pollock is not a crap ref.

Quite the opposite. He’s composed but firm, he’s consistent and has a positive rapport with the players.

But he missed a big call in the Counties v Northland match at Pukekohe on Sunday.

A penalty try should have been awarded to Northland for a high tackle that stopped a player who would have gone on to score a try had he not been poleaxed.

Pollock red carded the transgressor but failed to award the penalty try.

He made a mistake and he put his hand up - that’s admirable and has been rare in rugby refereeing circles so hopefully this is a sign of a more human approach. I’ve certainly been critical of this aspect of rugby refereeing in the past.

It was a pretty fast-moving, high impact game. There were a lot of hard tackles and fierce ruck entries but overall it was well managed.

Northland’s replacement halfback, Luke Hamilton made an excellent break. He was heading down the left half of the pitch and there was just one defender capable of stopping him from the position on the field.

He chose to cut in, sidestepping to his right. This caught the last defender – outstanding loose forward Fritz Lee - unprepared to make the tackle and he carelessly threw out an arm, catching Hamilton around the head, knocking him of his feet in the opposite direction.

Lee is a big man and was moving at pace, Hamilton is not and was also moving at pace – in the opposite direction.

While it looked real bad in live motion (and even worse on slow motion), it had the appearance of a knee-jerk reaction rather than a calculated piece of nastiness.
[It was particularly clumsy and could have had disastrous consequences so expect Lee to get a long rest]

I wasn’t sure why Hamilton didn’t back himself to go around on the outside but Lee is very mobile having played Sevens for New Zealand at the Australian and Hong Kong legs of the world series so perhaps the little half back knew he would have been caught.

I commented to one of the Northland support people that I hoped Hamilton was OK. The guy said that he is ‘a tough little ginga’

Thankfully – and to his credit – Hamilton got straight back to his feet and didn’t bother with any theatrics or remonstrations.

Nor did the Northland team. Pollock had blown it up straight away and it was clear that Lee would be dealt with. What wasn’t clear – and what the Taniwha were hoping for – was the awarding of a penalty try would be awarded.

How big of a screw up was it?

Answer: Huge.

In the context of the match,

• Northland would have narrowed the margin to just 2 points
• They had regained the impetus after falling asleep for the middle part of the game
• Not scoring from the ensuing penalty meant they were forced to chase the game and this led to an intercept pass being thrown

In the context of the season, it (could have) meant victory for Northland and hence a leap frog of Counties Manukau into 8th place.

It certainly meant no bonus point, which would have given Northland 22 points and kept them just that bit closer to the hunt for the top 7.

So what needs to take place here?

The short – and probably way too simplistic – answer is to

1. Re-implement in-goal touch judges; and
2. Let them provide advice to the referee in matters involving potential try-scoring plays

Pollock could have done with some assistance. The correct call (penalty try and red card) was crystal clear to the Northland supporters and there were enough of them in the stand to have their voices heard.

But it was the voice of a touch judge that was needed here.

The best that can be assumed is that the near side touchie was unaware of the state of the Steelers’ defense (just like Pollock). The worst is that he was too weak to make the call.

In-goal touch judges were withdrawn due to their cost and it caused upset on several occasions where a pair of eyes were not available (but he TV cameras were).

Answer: Let the TMO step-in on occasions like this.

While they only rely on the Sky TV monitor beside the playing field, it would have been enough to make the call and justice would be served.

This is more of a stutter than a road block. Walsh has been going well this season on his return to top flight refereeing.

He did make a couple of clear mistakes in the Brumbies v Warratahs match and has subsequently been removed from the remaining Brumbies matches.

His clash with Brumbies captain Stephen Hoiles was disappointing. Some commented that Walsh’s arrogance was to blame but other referees have gotten to that point with captains before.

Hoiles will have learned from the experience. He needed to enter dialogue with Walsh rather than accentuate the divide.

Walsh may not have been in the most approachable of moods and Hoiles was in the heat of battle.

Many of the decisions had a compounding effect where fair calls that went against the Brumbies made things look worse.

For the record

1. It was not his on-field performances that were in question when Walsh left the game
2. This was not a shocker, it was just a bad game
   He had a shocker in the infamous Wellington v Canterbury Ranfurly Shield match back in 2001 – and he came back from that

Silver Lining

I have to say that it is good for the game that boss Lyndon Bray gives an explanation and openly accepts that mistakes were made.

This is a good thing for all concerned.

• It doesn’t change the result but the Brumbies are vindicated in their disappointment
• Walsh gets some objective feedback from his boss and it’s all out in the open
• Changes to the roster are made to rectify the perception of one team being disadvantaged

The only tragedy would have been if Matt Gitteau got anything more than a wrap on the knuckles for voicing his opinion. $6500 is fair.

I’m not sure what more could be done in the circumstances.

Rugby is finally learning how to handle these matters effectively.

Walsh will be under the microscope for the remainder of the season but that’s not a bad thing. If he’s going to get back to the very top of the game, he’ll need to perform under pressure.

There are a lot of tackles being pulled up (and yellow cards given) for tackles that are around the shoulder rather than dangerous.

Rugby League has laws that allow this kind of tackling. Players are in no more danger from tackles that come over a shoulder than they are any other.

The slow-motion replays on televised broadcasts clearly show this and so there is some dissatisfaction from the paying consumer when they see a penalty given for ‘offenses’ that should not be ruled as such.

Another rule that is open to criticism is the lifting in the tackle law.

There is no question that dangerous tackling needs to be eradicated from the game. Lifting  a player and driving him into the ground or letting him go in a position where he is likely to fall in a dangerous manner is unacceptible.

But, lifting a player to where his body is parallel to the ground – where the lifted player is at waist height or below can be caused by good tackling technique and is no more dangerous than other types of tackles.

There needs to be discretion at these times rather than instant penalties, cautions and yellow cards.

The rugby consumer wants to see a physical contest. The intention of the rules is to preserve player safety but why are they so slow to be amended to be more accurate and reasonable in their wording and interpretation?

Again, Rugby League leaves us in the dust in this area of the game.

I wonder what Rugby league administrators would have done with rucking laws?

Perhaps someone should ask them and we can get back to a game with flow and excitement.

The global expansion of rugby is being thwarted by a rule-book that cannot be explained to the uninitiated. If we can’t understand or explain it, what hope for the broader market?

And who is concerning themselves with the issue?

Garrett Williamson, (NZ)

Garrat Williamson (NZ) made his Super 14 refereeing debut this weekend in the Brumbies v Sharks match.

Williamson is a nice guy so I was hoping he would have a good game.

The only point of interest I could see was in the first 5 minutes when one of the Sharks forwards was penalized for arriving with the shoulder at a ruck.

The call had the Australian commentators baffled but knowing Williamson, there will be a law that forbids it.

Rule-makers have tried to reduce the danger in a lot of the common contact areas on a rugby field like tackling players in the air or on the ground, rucking players and the arrival at rucks.

The latter is possibly the most difficult to rule on but it is a concern. Welsh and Lions prop, Adam Jones was injured and out for 6 months when Bakkies Botha hit a ruck very hard during the Lions tour of South Africa.

There had been rules regarding the arriving at rucks ‘like a missile’ and a requirement that players were not allowed to arrive at a ruck unbound to another, i.e. not alone.

But, the trouble is that the team in possession must be allowed to clear out defensive players who are trying to steal their ball otherwise the advantage will always be with the defensive team.

I will try and get the official word on the precise wording of the rule and how it should be adjudicated.

1. McCaw should have gone to the bin
2. He got many of the 50/50s wrong
3. Lawrence still doesn’t know what happens in scrums

The case for

• Lawrence is clear with his calls and communicates well with the players

Mark Lawrence

1. Ritchie McCaw was lucky to escape a card for a dangerous tackle. Linesman Pollock was lenient with his report but the replays show that McCaw should probably have gone to the bin.

As captain, McCaw got the talking to from referee Mark Lawrence and gave the thumb up at the end, illustrating that he was very happy to be spoken to rather than carded.

The outcome of lifted tackles has been established thus far – if the player goes up, the tackler goes to the bin. Whether there was malice (driving the player into the ground) determines whether the tackler is suspended (like in the case of Sione Luaki).

To be fair to Lawrence, it was Pollock’s call but while factual – McCaw was not malicious – it is inconsistent with how the rule has been called thus far in the Super14. Perhaps Lawrence should have gone to the pocket anyway.

2. The Crusaders benefited from more of the 50/50 calls than their opponents

Lawrence missed several knock-ons. He called them as knock-backs but TV shows he got some of these wrong.

It also felt like the Crusaders were allowed to do more slowing of the ball in rucks than they should have.

3. Some of the scrum calls were also wrong

Often, when the front rows go down, it is due to the props not following up the hit by moving their feet forward. It is a defensive stance that determines that the only way the scrum can go is downwards.

Often the player doing the attacking in this situation is singled out rather than the player who is actually responsible. This happened to Tuamalolo and then Ben Afeaki when he came on. The latter was the old cliché ‘something happened so I’ll ping the new guy’ routine.

It also showed that commentator Grant Fox doesn’t know what he is talking about at scrum-time: ‘Afeaki dropped his bind and went in’. He failed to see that it was Crocket’s angling inwards that caused Afeaki to lose his bind in the first place.

Try calls and penalty try calls are the most significant that a referee can make.

There were 3 incidents in week 4 of the Super 14 that the referees might have gotten wrong.

1. Matthewson try (that shouldn’t) Crusaders v Blues

Blues halfback Albie Matthewson was awarded a try after breaking through a ruck.

Matthewson was tackled by Keiren Reid who subsequently let the halfback go as he is required to do. Matthewson got up and carried on to the try line unchallenged.

The issue is that Matthewson was required to let the ball go – which he did not.

The new interpretation requires that the tackler let the tackled player go before competing for the ball but the other side of the coin is that the tackled player still has to let the ball go.

Other than this, referee Chris Brown had a good game.

• He made a good call on a Jerome Kaino high tackle in the first half;
• He showed composure around the contact area in a game that had a lot of feeling in the exchanges
• Brown was giving loud clear instructions to players to ensure things flowed as much as possible

2. Penalty Try, Steve Walsh (Brumbies v Lions)

Walsh came in for a bit of criticism for the way he gave a penalty try to the Brumbies for what looked like continued frustration with Lions scrummaging infringements

Walsh’s comeback is going well so I’m not keen to bag him too much.

There were a lot of scrum infringements. Perhaps leaving the scrum early is allowed in the United States because Scott Clever just didn’t seem to want to stay in there.

I have to agree with the commentators here

• It did seem overly harsh; and
• It did not look like a clear try would have been scored

3. Penalty try that should have been called (Sharks v Warratahs)

The Sharks were on attack against the Warratahs. Stefan Terblanche sent a pass to Ryan Kankowski out wide.

Kankowski is quite an athlete and very quick – in the same class as Pierre Spies – possibly even faster.

But the the pass never made it because Warratahs fly half Kurtly Beale knocked the ball away. He was subsequently yellow carded by referee Paul Marks.

In itself, the yellow card does not mean that a try would have been scored – that is a separate matter.

But it looked clear enough that had the pass gone to hand, Kankowski would have been away – just like he was in the first half from an intercept from a lineout.

Referee Marks didn’t see it that way and we will find out if his superiors agree when the appointments are made for next week.