On the Canberra cards

The Sharks played the Brumbies in Canberra and found the second half, in the words of their captain, a nightmare when they could not see eye to eye with the referee and the referee could not see eye to eye with them.

Back in South Africa there was an outcry against the referee. Are we starting a second cycle of referee hysteria?

There was an outcry in South Africa against New Zealand referee Kelvin Deaker when he blew a knock-on that wasn’t and “cost” the Lions the match against the Western Force in Johannesburg. There was an outcry in Australia against South African Willie Roos when the Brumbies lost to the Hurricanes in Canberra. Then there was an outcry in New Zealand against Australian Paul Marks when the Hurricanes and the Sharks drew in Wellington. (There have been others but this forms a neat cycle.) Now we are back South African anger against a New Zealand referee, Bryce Lawrence.

In the Roos match, Stephen Hoiles of the Brumbies did his side no favours by being rude to the referee. In the Lawrence match, Ryan Kankowski did his side no favours by being rude to the referee.

It is a silly way to behave. After all real power in a match is in the whistle of the referee. If there is confrontation between player and referee there can be only one short-term winner – the referee. He will say to himself – it’s him or me and it’s not going to be him.

From there let’s move to some aspects of the management of the game. Good word management, much in refereeing vogue. It saves having to say something positive, like refereeing. In fact is not the use of euphemism making for bad communication where the old Biblical injunction should apply – Let your words be yes for yes and no for no.

Communication may be at the start of the Canberra problem for the Sharks.

After 25 minutes of the first half François Steyn went in at the side of a tackle/ruck ?? and was penalised.

The referee then went to Johann Muller, the Sharks’ captain, and said: “We clearly agreed pre-game about repeated infringements. Your team has given away six infringements when they haven’t had the ball. Now I need you to change that behaviour, please.”

So we have laws, experimental laws and pre-match agreements. It’s too much.

Then we have the long-winded euphemism – Now I need you to change that behaviour, please.” It’s not direct enough and in any case if it is misbehavior it should not exist anyway. Would it not be better to say what the referee in Hamilton when he said quite clearly that he was going to move from free kicks to penalties and then to sin-binning.

Steyn’s infringement here was, in any case, a penalty offence, not an upgrade because of repeated infringement,

But let’s get to the six infringements which constituted repeated infringement.

The timetable of offences looks like this:

1. 1 minute: JP Pietersen of the Sharks was penalised for a high tackle.
2. 9 minutes: The Brumbies conceded a free kick at a scrum.
3. 10 minutes: Mitch Chapman of the Brumbies is penalised for being off-side at a scrum.
4. 12 minutes: The Sharks concede a free kick at a tackle on their own ball.
5. 13 minutes: The Brumbies are penalised for being off-side at a tackle/ruck.
6. 14 minutes: The Sharks concede a free kick at a tackle on their own ball when the Brumbies counterrucked.
7. 19 minutes:  The Sharks are penalised for being off-side at scrum. Daniel was penalised when the Sharks won a scrum.
8. 24 minutes: The Sharks concede a free kick at a tackle on the Brumbies’ ball. Frédéric Michalak is the player singled out. ball.
9. 25 minutes: The Sharks are penalised because Steyn entered a tackle from the side.

There are not six infringements in that. The penalty count was two-all before Steyn was penalised. The Sharks infringed just once when “they” had the ball, three times at tackles

There may be some hyperbole. There may also be an unwanted attitude.

The whole business of repeated infringements could be addressed. There is not a set number for turning a free-kick offence into a penalty offence. That much is clear from other matches and the differing standards. In fact there  is great inconsistency from match to match, which should not be the case with the same level of referee refereeing the same laws at the same level of play.

The Sharks are not penalised again in the half. The next penalty was the one against Ryan Kankowski which earned him a sin-binning. It is the second penalty of the half for Saia Faingaa of the Brumbies had been penalised for a high tackle on Rory Kockott.

Ryan Kankowski of the Sharks plays the ball at a tackle ruck. The referee tells him to leave it. Kankowski does not leave it. The referee gives Kankowski a yellow card. Kankowski gives the referee lip. The referee offers him a choice of cards. Kankowski accepts yellow and leaves.

There is a lot to consider here.

First, the player would be wise to accept the referee’s command.  The referee was specific, calling: “Leave it 8. You’re off your feet.” Saying “Black 8” may well have been clearer but presumably the player knows that he is wearing an 8.

Whether Kankowski’s action was worth a yellow card is debatable. After all he came from behind and his feet were on the ground. That he bent down was understandable as he would have had to do so to get the ball.

Kankowski would have felt that his feet were on the ground and that he was entitled to play. (Is stealing wrong because the Ten Commandments say that it is wrong or do the Ten Commandments say that it is wrong because it is wrong?”) It remains wise to obey the referee.

The referee had spoken to the Sharks in the first half of the match. We shall discuss that “warning” in the week’s Law Discussion. It came after three free kicks against the Sharks at the tackle and then a penalty. Those were the Sharks’ tackle infringements in the first half. Kankowski’s infringement was the first of the second half.

Smart talk by the referee is not helpful. “I asked him to leave it. You ask him to leave it.”

This is followed up by more smart talk when the referee – rightly – pulls Kankowski up for dissent. But again a direct statement would be much better – not a choice of cards but a direct statement that dissent of that nature would end in a red card, a sending off – and march him on ten metres.

Then there is the business of not supporting his own body weight.

It may not after all be useful to use language outside of the laws – like truck-‘n-trailer, lazy runner and coming through the gate when the words from the law could be used just as well – obstruction, off-side and not coming from behind.

The supporting body-weight thing needs consistent application which is far too difficult for players contesting the ball on the ground and needing to bend over players lying on the ground. If it is true that there was an instruction about shins not touching, then it is even stranger as one could go through many tackles to find problems with bodyweight and touching shins.

There is a great deal of food for thought in this incident.

Just after Kankowski returns from the sin bin, François Steyn is sent to the sin bin. Again the referee refers to “not supporting his own body weight”, which apparently means not on his feet. But then it cannot mean that because Kankowski was clearly on his feet. Maybe it is some local ruling or jargon, which would be a pity as it may well be unsuited to a global game.

In the Steyn incident, the Brumbies’ flyhalf Christian Lealiifano runs at Steyn. Steyn and Adrian Jacobs, Jacobs around the lower legs, Steyn around the torso. All three fall to ground, Steyn above Lealiifano. As Steyn falls, prop Salesi Ma’afu drops onto Steyn while centre Adam Ashley-Cooper grabs him a round the ankles. Salesi Ma’afu stays on top of Steyn till the referee blows his whistle.

The referee says to Steyn:  “You are not supporting your own body-weight.” He tells Muller that Steyn is “lying all over him”.

Ma’afu was lying all over Steyn and not supporting his own body-weight.

Could Steyn have extricated himself? He may have been able to do a Houdini act but not easily. It certainly looked too hard to be considered “cynical” or deliberate.

It may, of course, not be true but the impression was that the referee had lost his rag. He may well have done so because of the attitude of the Sharks.

Somehow in his mental preparation the referee probably does prepare himself to maintain equilibrium regardless of external factors – such as ill-mannered players, unruly crowds and bad weather.

The lesson for the players is to play to the whistle