Bulls stay top

The Bulls would have enjoyed their weekend off!

Without lifting a finger, except to push a button on the remote or turn over the steaks on the braai, they have stayed on top of the Super 14 table and now have a game in hand.

That they are still on top is down to two lamentable performances by their closest rivals, which prove that this year in Super 14, if you drop your standards you are going to lose.

The Chiefs started well against the Reds, but because Stephen Donalds kicking game deserted him, they couldn’t capitalise on their three early tries, and that allowed the Reds to come back at them and pull off a thoroughly deserved win.

The Reds were outstanding at the breakdown, accurate and aggressive and sensed that the Chiefs were a bit flat.

Maybe it was complacency, maybe the short turnaround after getting home from South Africa and Perth caught up with them, but the cold hard fact is the better team won, the team that seemed more hungry for the win, and good on them.

The Chiefs will need to be a whole lot better this coming Friday when they face the Crusaders, and I’m sure they will be. They let themselves and their fans down.

Despite some uncharacteristic first half errors, the Crusaders rated themselves well through the match and struck the vital blows in the middle stages of the second half to see off the Blues.

The ‘Saders by tradition start the season fairly slowly and build, but despite barely getting into third gear they are just one point off the lead, which is a good sign.

The Hurricanes turned in a stinker against the Cheetahs. Their discipline was appalling, and as coach Colin Cooper said, some of their senior players needing to take a long hard look at themselves. Their kicking game was also dreadful.

The Cheetahs played a lot smarter and took their chances well. It is a terrible blow for them that the outstanding Heirich Brussow is injured.

The Highlanders too were disappointing on the back of their win in Bloemfontein, and after a promising start got wiped by the Stormers.

Again it was the Stormers “D” that stood out. To have conceded just two tries after four games, when the laws favour the attacking team so much, is quite incredible. The Highlanders have a limited backline attack, but I thought their forwards might be better than they were.

After the Christchurch game we went to a bar to watch the Waratahs and the Sharks.

It struck me as ironic that the man who turned down the Sharks appeal for a late penalty try was the same bloke who refused to award a penalty try against the Sharks two years ago in Wellington, denying the Hurricanes victory.

I’ll be taking another long hard look at “penalty try” before I do the ReUnion programme this week, but my gut feel is that the Sharks, who were dealt a rough hand pretty much throughout, probably would have scored had Kurtley Beale not deliberately knocked the ball away. That to me, is a penalty try.

But before people get carried away completely and start banging on about conspiracies, consider the following.

I have already alluded to the incident involving Marks and the Sharks two years ago when a Hurricanes player was taken out in the in-goal while chasing a loose ball for a match winning try. That was as clear cut a penalty try as the incident in Sydney but the Sharks got away with it.

Last year at Eden Park referee Marius Jonker ignored calls from his assistant and allowed Johan Muller to tackle Joe Rokocoko from an offside position, denying the Blues a crucial try (the Sharks ended up winning 35-31), and a few weeks later Jonker allowed the Sharks to score a match-turning try against the Hurricanes after a quick throw was taken with the wrong ball.

I can even go back to the Sharks scoring a winning try against the Highlanders at Carisbrook when ref George Ayoub allowed the Sharks halfback to crawl over on his hands and knees for the winner, when he should have been penalised.

The point is that while it is wrong that these calls are made, it is swings and roundabouts, and all teams get the benefit of bad calls from time to time, and other times get burned.


Recent Blogs



Comments

by william green March 8, 2010 08:58 GMT
I remember all those games that you mentioned in which the Sharks had the favourable rub of the green, but they were once-off wrong descisions in those games, unlike this game where the entire game was littered with questionable descisions against the Sharks. There were five foward passes by the Tahs that were ignored, the lead up to the controversial Carter try, had a knock foward and the TMO should not have awarded that try because the evidence showed the ball was short and then of course the penalty try should have been awarded. As if that was not enough, he then blows obstruction when the Sharks win their line-out and begin to set up their maul, which possibly could have sealed the game for the Sharks. We got robbed - period.
Report this comment
by Flying Wing March 8, 2010 22:23 GMT
Firstly, I'm not a Sharks fan and I am not even going to address the "should have been" penalty try. Instead, the larger issue is that SANZAR needs to take a long hard look at the inconsistent standards between their respective country's refereeing structures. The Australian referees (and commentators for that matter) are constantly below par and at times it seems that they simply do not have a grasp on the current laws of the game, ala George Ayoub. When a TMO is asked to make a decision on a try, there has to be "clear evidence" of the grounding of the ball in order for him to recommend that a try has been scored. In the case of the Waratah "try", there was no camera angle that provided this evidence and the call should therefore have been "inconclusive". Sure, we can argue that "you can look at the players elbow and assume that the ball is in line with that", but the bottom line is that the grounding was not clearly visible and therefore a try cannot be given.
Report this comment
by Flying Wing March 8, 2010 22:26 GMT
The Auzzie commentators bring the game further into disrepute by making statements like, "I think the TMO has to assume that the ball was grounded. CSI TMO says that is try-time!". It seems that every few years the top referees have to remind the rest of what the actual rules are of the game. Based on the fact that several similar TMO errors were made during the Cheetahs vs Highlander game last week, I think it is time that they radio the laws down to their men again. Also, at EVERY TMO decision the Auzzie commentators comment of whether or not the player who grounded the ball had "control of the ball" when the try was scored". This is driving me nuts! The law clearly states that there has to be downward force or pressure placed on the ball when it is grounded. This can be done by any part of the body below the hands/arms/shoulders and above the waist of the player. Control over the ball is therefore irrelevant (unless the player knocks it on of course).
Report this comment
by Flying Wing March 8, 2010 22:26 GMT
This was demonstrated after a TMO disallowed a legitimate try scored by A. Ndugane against the Hurricanes a few years ago. Ndugane "fell" onto the ball with his stomace and torso, but the TMO said that since there was "no control" a try was not scored. Eventual outcry in the press brought to light that he was incorrect and that a try should have been awarded. In this case the TMO was sanctioned and duly punished into lower levels of the game. For what it is worth, it was a SA TMO who made that mistake, so instead of bias being to blame it was pure incompetence, as is mostly the case! I apologize for the essay, but the fact that we are making excuses these days for referees getting the "basic" calls wrong week after week is not acceptable TJ. You are accepting it as "part of the game" and this is surely not right. The very fact that you can remember and mention so many games in your blog where these instances occurred, and this only effecting one team, is surely unacceptable. If I was that poor at my job I would either have been fired or not received any work altogether...
Report this comment
by Joe Bartell March 9, 2010 01:25 GMT
Let's see.... >2500 laws, players who cover 40m in <4.5 secs, clever forwards who know every "cheat" ever invented, 30 players spread over 10 acres, #10's able to kick 60m ...etc. Perhaps it's time for more than 1 Ref on the field- a back judge and a forward judge. Or perhaps the TMO also adjudicates infractions/rulings over the entire pitch? Or we accept human error as part of the game just like we accept mis- timed passes, kicks that drift wide and the weather- stuff we can't control. I get frustrated with Refs on a regular basis, especially when my side is down but I would rather live with things as they are than have a game cleaned sterile of the muck and mud.
Report this comment
by Travis Mcgarry March 9, 2010 02:32 GMT
Sharks just got unlucky with that "intercept", he was clearly palms up trying for the intercept. The rest of the descisions for sure questionable but slight miss timing of the pass was all, no use crying over coulda shouda woulda...its the game....Come Sharks pedal to the medal for the rest of the games. Proud Shark supporter
Report this comment
by Rock Star March 9, 2010 10:50 GMT
Yes it should of been a penalty try and yes it is give and take sometimes- I am glad you brought up those other instances as i have followed teams on the bad end of the sharks fortune, so it was great to see that it is not just one way traffic with sharks decisions I also remember in Hamilton last year the sharks being on the fortunate side of some questionable TMO decisions and quite clearly remember the hurricanes and Blues instance's that you mention where the sharks got away with it- that blatant quick throw in,in Durban by Bismark. All that being said it does go to show how much more contraversy is going into the decisions with the home refs. But, in saving money on the refs it maybe also making your gate ticket slightly cheaper.... just one thing to consider before slating SANZAR.
Report this comment
by sam starlin March 9, 2010 23:53 GMT
Joe - You cannot be serious about two refs... I believe it is part of the game to have a human who makes mistakes as a ref. Look at the NFL.... you get a ref 80m away calling a foul on a play over a ref who was 2m away. This is rugby.... all those factors you mentioned are part of the game... mistakes happen, things get missed, and it goes both ways for both teams. More refs = more stops. More stops = less people watching.
Report this comment
by Joe Bartell March 10, 2010 15:55 GMT
Sam- I wasn't serious, I love Rugby warts and all- missed calls and missed tackles and missed kicks. More refs= more stoppages= boring like grid iron. Like many I tend to find more fault with the Ref the farther behind my side is!
Report this comment
by Flying Wing March 11, 2010 16:55 GMT
I realize that I am starting to sound like a referee basher, which, let's be honest, is way to easy to do. I apologize again for my previous essay, but I just noticed this on the BBC and thought that it should be shared. "Scarlets lock Lou Reed has a penalty given against him in his side's 25-8 win over Ulster... for shouting at opposing wing Andrew Trimble as he was kicking the ball!" Wow. I wonder how this bloke justified that decision...
Report this comment
by yardbirds63 March 11, 2010 18:09 GMT
@Abraham......the ref is more than justified for penalizing Lou Reed for doing such a childish and unprofessional act such as shouting at the opposing while a kick is attempted ( as is raising your arms up and down, jumping etc . This falls under law 10.4(k) "Acts contrary to good sportsmanship".....a Penalty Kick is awarded for this infrindgement. Being a player/ref I would hace pinged Lou Reed also = )
Report this comment
by yardbirds63 March 11, 2010 18:09 GMT
@Abraham......the ref is more than justified for penalizing Lou Reed for doing such a childish and unprofessional act such as shouting at the opposing while a kick is attempted ( as is raising your arms up and down, jumping etc . This falls under law 10.4(k) "Acts contrary to good sportsmanship".....a Penalty Kick is awarded for this infrindgement. Being a player/ref I would hace pinged Lou Reed also = )
Report this comment
by Flying Wing March 11, 2010 20:32 GMT
@Michael.... I totally agree that if a penalty kick attempt is being made that the apposing team should NOT be allowed to try and put a player off by waving their arms and shouting at the kicker. HOWEVER, in this case it looks like the kick that A. Trimble (a winger) was trying to execute occurred during general play. Charging the ball and "raising your arms up and down and jumping etc." is what players do to try and charge the kick down. As I'm sure you know, apposing teams also do this when the kicker attempt try conversions, NOT during penalties however. Was it ok for L.Reed to shout while doing so? Well, it was pretty stupid in my opinion, but certainly not penalizable.
Report this comment
by yardbirds63 March 11, 2010 22:40 GMT
@ abraham - ok, thats a different story mate. Natually I thought you were talking about during a pentalty kick.......since you didn't state this fact. So with this more detailed info...I would say no....there should be no infridgement during general play kicking ball from hand for charging the kicker. As for shouting.....no problem with this either.....unless it was an obscenity directed at Trimble.......this would or could for some refs fall under the law of "unsportsman like misconduct" category. Depends on each ref. I remember a few yrs back in the S-14 how Mark Goddard pinged a player for swearing loudly ( not directed at Goddard ) cause of a knock, under the law of chirpping = ) It was this same ref who would be chastised and dropped from the S - 14 for calling Buckey Botha "big ears" = )
Report this comment
by Flying Wing March 12, 2010 04:29 GMT
I'm so sorry. In my original post I added a link to a video of the incident for clarity. I see that RZ didn't allow it to be posted. O well, guess there has to be a reason for that. I do think there may have been an obscenity in there somewhere so by the way. But, have you heard Steve Waugh lately when his team is not doing so well? Yikes! Can't blame him when he gets into it though. If I was giving my all like that in a loosing cause, I'd loose control over my vocabulary as well...
Report this comment
by Flying Wing March 25, 2010 17:23 GMT
Here is the link to the incident...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeTUbyhILmY&feature=related
Report this comment