[NPC, New Zealand] New interpretations have impact
The New Zealand NPC rugby competition has seen changes in the way matches are adjudicated. The main differences are:
- Tackling
Any tackle that somehow finds it way to the upper chest is deemed ‘high’
Any tackle that involves lifting a player’s legs, no mater how high or whether there is no potential danger is deemed, ‘dangerous’
- Tackled ball
The tackler is able to continue to hold onto the ball in the post-tackle, ruck
- TMO
In a cost-saving exercise, there are no video referees at NPC matches.
This last one represents the most significant, especially this year.
In theory, this heralds a return to the amateur era, where referees made calls from what they could see, with some help from their linesmen.
However, the controlling body has declared that 4 teams will drop out of the NPC top flight at the end of this season.
The determining factor is not going to be performance alone but it will have a bearing. The issue here is that human error could see a crucial decisions go the wrong way and have a determining influence on a team’s fate.
While it didn’t affect the outcome, in the 3rd round, Wellington were awarded a try against the Bay of Plenty that was clearly not a try. Bay of Plenty are in the mix to be one of the 4 teams to be dropped.
People’s jobs are on the line here and the NZRFU choose this year to act all prudent.
Wellington had a try disallowed in their Ranfurly Shield match with Auckland last week. It was a clear try and the referee seemed to ask his linesmen the wrong question (‘Did you see it?’ rather than ‘Is there a reason why I can’t award it?’). The try as under the posts and so Wellington were denied 7 points in a match that was decided by just 3 points.
In the first 2 rounds I was happy with the decisions being made around the awarding of tries but in the close-up, slow-motion replay, satellite TV world we live in, the NZRFU should find other ways to tighten their belts.
[NPC] New refereeing interpretations are resulting in lots of penalties
TV commentators are talking as if referees have made it clear which laws were being focused o for this year’s New Zealand National Provincial Championship (NPC) but no-one told us – the paying public.
And it doesn’t seem like the players have been all that well versed with the high amount of penalties being awarded during matches.
If this was America, there would have been an effective marketing job prior to the kick off of the first game to ensure everybody knew how things were going to go.
Diagrams would have been drawn with appropriate animations to clearly illustrate the law, the current interpretation and then how it was going to be played for this competition – and why.
That way the fans would be more informed, more sympathetic and could even provide productive feedback.
But that’s not how it went in New Zealand’s premier rugby competition.
Rugby’s laws are complicated enough without introducing experimental variations for one competition and then reverting back to old laws for mid-year internationals.
Then later the same year, introducing new ways of interpreting laws around the ruck and mall.
These include:
Tackle Safety
- Any tackle that starts high (over shoulder, neck, head) is ruled ‘head high’ [and penalised] regardless of where the tackle ends up
- Any tackle that involves lifting a player to a point where the tackled player’s legs get to an angle where they are parallel to the ground is ruled ‘dangerous’ [and penalised]
[South Africa v Australia] Australia needed all of the 50/50 calls to be competitive
The wallabies started very well but they were always going to need the close calls to go their way if they were going to remain in the hunt against the home side in great form.
But the close calls did not go their way. Referee Allain Rolland was particularly aggressive at ruck time, giving the benefit of the doubt to the attacking side and on occasion, the home side.
Matt Giteau’s brain explosion pretty much sealed the Australian’s fate however.
The lack of further discipline has some Springbok fans crying foul but I think the record of the players should be considered. Which player is always seen entering frays both before and after the whistle has been blown?
Hard to imagine Matt Gitteau pushing people around like Bakkies Botha seems to think is his role and right.
Richard Brown was a little unfortunate, having been the tackler who grabbed the ball in the post-tackle but Allain Rolland ruled that the ruck had formed – a 50/50 call.
These kinds of calls have a huge impact on the tone of the game at the time. On another day, Brown could have been a hero, turning over the ball when the Springboks were in full flight, giving a potential counter-attacking opportunity for the sprightly Wallaby back line.
George Smith on the other hand deserved his yellow card for a cynical move at the ruck, reaching through interfering with half back, DuPreez.
Rolland had well and truly set the seen at ruck time and so there can be no argument with this call.
Overall, the Australians didn’t help themselves. They didn’t adjust to Rolland’s reading of the game to remain competitive at the breakdown.
Sound ideas for refereeing improvements
Tony Smith from the Christchurch Press reckons rugby should experiment with 2 referees immediately. It’s working for Rugby League in Australia and it could help with the scrums in union, especially if one of them were a former front-rower as Smith recommends.
It’s unlikely player-convert Glen Jackson will be able to help in that facet of the game but it does seem a little obvious not to have considered and already contracted ex-front rowers to provide some insights for into the finest aspect of the game.
For example, it would have been easy to see that Al Baxter was simply struggling with his binding rather than cheating in the weekend’s All Blacks v Australia test.
[NZ v Australia, TriNations] Craig Joubert was guessing at scrum time
Most of the calls went against Australia and almost none were deserved.
Al Baxter got pinged several times where he did nothing wrong.
This was a particularly tight match and so it is difficult to know whether any of these calls had a significant bearing on the outcome but the All Blacks did kick a penalty from one of them so it is possible.
Joubert is not a bad ref and he had a reasonable game but the problem that dogged the second Lions v Springboks test remains – referees do not have a clue about what is happening in scrums. They do not know which (if any) player is offending.
They call infringements on a frustration-basis.
The longer it takes to set and re-set a scrum, the more likely the referee will award a penalty or free kick – regardless of what has actually happened.
Players do not know where they stand (like Baxter on Saturday night, like Phil Vickery in the second test, like countless others).
It is critical to the survival of the game that the scrum is sorted. It is one of few points of differentiation between rugby and rugby league and the way it is refereed must be cleared up before sponsors request that it be labotomised.
Saracen’s Flyhalf Glenn Jackson becomes a pro ref … interesting career move
Jackson refereed at a junior level before leaving New Zealand for a 5 year stint at the North London club.
He refereed at lower club level while in England and has just turned pro upon his return to New Zealand where he will join the professional refereeing ranks there.
Jackson was a solid fly half with excellent kicking skills who won New Zealand’s Ranfurly Shield with Bay of Plenty and played for the Waikato Chiefs in the Super12. He also played for NZ Maori.
In a recent interview, Jackson admitted that he was (and remains) ‘a bit lippy’ on the field and that he could face a challenge dealing with players who have similar habits.
But he was confident that he could bring some insights to the occasionally messy ruck situation.
Jackson’s ‘switch to the dark side’ has been hailed as a great move.
Getting former top line players into refereeing happened in other sports (like Cricket) but was very rare in rugby, where professional players tend to move into business, rugby-related and other personal-brand type careers (TV, agents, coaches, business owners, etc).
We will be watching Jackson’s development with interest.
[Lions SA Tour] ‘Justice 4 Bakkies’ protest – a clever distraction to get the heat off Peter De Villiers and the Burger eye gouging?
If it is a strategy to divert attention from the comments of coach Peter deVilliers then it is quite well constructed – perhaps because it was masterminded by someone other than De Villiers (i.e. captain John Smit and the South African Players Association).
[Originally uploaded by vatland]
The rule that ‘players must be bound when entering a ruck’ was designed to avoid the potential danger that a player charging into a ruck (like a missile) might cause to an opponent.
But it is not a rule that is interpreted in a particularly rigid way.
A great deal of players hit rucks on their own and hit them very hard.
Referees tend to adopt a common-sense approach based upon the potential danger that the lone player might cause to an opponent.
To penalise any player who enters a ruck on their own would dramatically change the nature of the game.
The rules have been changed to create a contest for the ball when a player has been tackled so that a player from the defending team can – and often does – steal the ball.
To adjudicate this law to the letter is (effectively) to place a considerable amount of emphasis on the 4th player to the breakdown. This player will need to wait for a teammate before they can hit the ruck.
[A ruck is defined by 'more than three players' in a post-tackle situation where the ball is deemed to be on the ground]
In a scenario where there is a tackler, tackled player and second defender trying to steel the ball, possession will almost always go to the defenders because the second attacker to the breakdown is going to have to wait for a teammate before they can enter and this will be too late.
It could result in the following
i) a one-sided contest in the post-tackle (in favour of the defenders);
ii) quick (lone) loose forwards (McCaw; George Smith; Heinrik Brousow) getting to a ruck and having to wait;
iii) teams adopting a very conservative approach to attack, sending multiple players forward at a time (a kind of serial rolling ruck/mall)
None of which are wanted.
Players attacking rucks with a little too much vigor do tend to get penalised and this should continue.
Players in rucks can be vulnerable and opponents charging in can get dangerous.
Referees tend to get this call right and should continue to adjudicate in a common-sense fashion. Potential danger should continue to be the determining factor.
On that parameter, Botha was rightly penalised, Adam Jones had to have surgery and will be out for 6 months as a result.
Botha may have been a little hard done by with the subsequent suspension but, while it did not look he hit the ruck ‘like a missile’, the angle and amount of pressure he placed on Jones shoulders at the point of contact could have been interpreted as being designed to injure.
Also, the player’s reputation may have been a factor in the ruling.
Botha is a player who likes to be involved in activities that occur after the referee has blown the whistle.
He attracts attention to himself (holding player’s jerseys, pushing, mouthing off, etc) at a time where people are watching – much like Australia’s Justin Harrison.
Victor Matfield is the opposite. Intelligent and more subtle in the ways he imposes himself on matches. His approach is considerably more effective, rarely putting himself at the centre of attention while doing more than enough to make his presence known.
New Zealand’s Sean Fitzpartick was very busy in close quarters, often cheating in subtle ways, taunting opponents to put them off while not shying from those who wanted to get some payback.
Overt actions always attract attention and can place additional attention on a player when they are facing a judiciary. Due to his reputation, Botha was not given the benefit of the doubt.
Dynamic loose forward Heinrik Brousow got involved in 2 post-whistle incidents during the 3rd test. Dumping Lions flanker Martyn Williams and then pulling half back Mike Phillips to the ground from behind – the latter cost his team 3 points.
Brousow would do well to follow Matfield’s example rather than Botha’s.
