Five Bones of Contention
There has been much angry shouting following the match between the Bulls and the Sharks on Saturday, which the Bulls won 43-35 after two penalty goals by Patrick Lambie had put the Sharks in the lead with eight minutes to play. There were five bones of contention – five incidents that people did not agree with.
This is not an unusual situation but given the loudness of the anger we thought we should take those five cases and run through them, each with a video clip taken from the live broadcast of the match, just to refresh the memories.
There are a few obvious things worth saying.
Firstly, no matter what the rights or wrongs of the decision, the score will stay the same, 43-35.
Secondly, we shall do this 'investigation' in terms of the Laws of the Game, for after all that is the only way to judge a match official's decision.
Thirdly, we have a huge advantage over the referee in doing this, as we can do it slowly, under no pressure, and with as many replays as we should like – options the referee did not have.
Lastly, we shall try to see why a skilled and highly regarded referee could get things wrong, knowing full well that no match has been refereed perfectly in the history of the game for the game is played by human beings and officiated by human beings – and human beings get things wrong. In the match in question, there were 22 penalties, which means that the players got things wrong 22 times in matters of law, let alone other errors. In fact sport depends on human imperfection to exist.
Oh, and one other thing. Much has been made of the appointment of people from Bulls' country to a Bulls' match. The appointments are made by SANZAR, not by South Africa. SANZAR looks at merit only, not at place of birth or place of domicile. It has done this consistently, and so South African referees regularly referee matches when South African teams play Australian or New Zealand teams and the same in Australia and New Zealand.
Craig Joubert land Marius Jonker live in KwaZulu-Natal. When they officiated at a match in which the Sharks were playing, there was no complaint about 'neutrality'. Or is it only people from Pretoria who are suspect.
When Jaco van Heerden refereed a Currie Cup semifinal in which the Blue Bulls played, there was no complaint. Johan Greeff, an experienced TMO has frequently been a TMO at Loftus Versfeld, as Deon van Blommestein in Shane Veldsman have been at Newlands, and as happens in Australia and New Zealand.
One of the objections suggested that there was a conflict of interests for Greeff as he was a vice-chairman of the Blue Bulls Referees' Society. If he were, that would not be an obstacle to his acting as a TMO in a match involving the Blue Bulls any more than it would disqualify George Ayoub from acting as a TMO when the Waratahs are playing. In fact, far from being the vice-chairman, Greeff is not a member of the Blue Bulls referees' committee at all, and it has nine members of the committee.
Let's move on to the incidents – the 10-metre offside and Bismarck du Plessis's request for a review, the pass from Jesse Kriel to Francois Hougaard, Odwa Ndungane's attempt to catch the kick and the subsequent negating of a try by the Sharks, the squabble between Bismarck du Plessis and Victor Matfield and Jan Serfontein's try.
1. 10-metre offside
The Bulls are leading 36-35 when Tian Schoeman kicks the ball into touch about five metres inside the Sharks' half. Bismarck du Plessis throws in but Grant Hattingh beats Marco Wentzel to the ball but to do so slaps it back untidily. Victor Matfield retrieves the ball inside his half, is tackled and a ruck forms about four metres inside his half. The ball comes back to Francois Hougaard who kicks a box kick from about six metres inside his half. Bjorn Basson chases the kick. The ball lands about three metres inside the Sharks' half, that is about seven metres ahead of the ruck. Basson chases, the Bulls win the ball and eventually Ryan Kankowski of the Sharks is penalised.
Du Plessis tries to explain to the referee that the Bulls had been offside. The referee says "Same player." Du Plessis is annoyed. He would rather have had a [penalty than been penalised, which is understandable.
With a replay of the kick from a high and unimpeded position, it is clear that Basson is ahead of Hougaard when Hougaard kicks. Three Bulls players who are well within 10 metres of where the ball lands advance towards the falling ball when they should be retreating to get 10 metres away from where it lands. The player who kicked the ball was Hougaard; the player who caught the ball was Basson. There was no question of their being the same player.
When the kick happened the referee called out to his assistant to check the offside for the assitant had an unimpeded view. The assitant's advice was to play on.
This was a wrong decision. It may have been made because the referee did not have a clear enough view or because he was influenced by his assistant. It should have been a penalty to the Sharks.
Should the referee have referred the matter to the TMO?
No. He is not allowed to by the protocol which has been in experiment since 2013. Checking up on an infringement is allowed only in the case of a possible infringement by a team touching down in their opponents' in-goal for a possible try. That is not the case here.
2. Kriel's pass for Hougaard's try
The Bulls are leading 9-6 and are on the attack. The Sharks win the ball and Cobus Reinach kicks downfield towards the touchline on his left. Just in from touch and just inside the Sharks' half, Bjorn Basson of the Bulls catches the ball and passes infield to young Jesse Kriel who beats André Esterhuizen and sets off down field getting away from Pieter-Steph du Toit's attempted tackle and then just before the Sharks' 22 Kriel passes to Francois Hougaard on the left wing. Hougaard hares for the line and then cuts inside to beat Odwa Ndungane and SP Marais to score the try.
The referee gets a message from the TMO and they check on whether Basson was in the field of play, which he was, and then examine the pass from Kriel to Hougaard.
Judging a forward pass is not as easy as the theory says. In fact not even the theory is easy to understand.
The first point is that it must be a forward pass not a forward catch. (Throwing an empty can out of a car window when travelling will show that. The can will go forward even if thrown backwards.) Before this year, judgement of a forward pass was to be made by judging the direction of the hands. It was changed this year to be the direction of the ball as it leaves the hands. What makes it harder in this case is that Kriel's back is to the camera. The pass is not visible from its start. Also it all happens before the 22-metre line. The line is not a help.
The protocol now reads:
2.5 In reviewing the potential offence the TMO must use the criterion on each occasion that the infringement must be clear and obvious if he is to advise the referee not to award a try. If there is any doubt as to whether an offence has occurred or not the TMO must advise that an offence has not occurred.
2.6 For forward passes the match officials must adjudicate on the direction of the ball leaving the hands.
Greeff does not tell Van Heerden that the pass was not forward. He says: "It is not conclusive whether the ball was thrown forward although it drifted forward."
That says that the infringement was not clear and obvious. In that case, the protocol says, the TMO must advise that an offence has not occurred.
That is the protocol the TMO was required to work with.
Apparently some experts have examined the pass over and over with aids and decided that the pass was forward. It's probably an easier decision if you can do it without the pressure of getting it done quickly that a TMO has and with bigger screen's than the TMO's monitor.
3. Ndungane's knock-on
The Bulls are leading 33-29 with 15 minutes to play. The Sharks win the ball and Patrick Lambie kicks a magnificent diagonal kick across the field to the right. Odwa Ndungane of the Sharks chases. He and Jesse Kriel of the Bulls jump for the ball in close contest. The ball bobbles about and goes to ground behind Ndungane who picks it up and passes it to SP Marais (15) who goes over in the hope of scoring a try.
The assistant referee advises the referee to consult the TMO. The referee does so. The TMO's advice is that Ndungane had knocked on. The referee does not award the try but goes back to an earlier infringement by the Bulls and Lambie goals the penalty to make the score 33-32.
Law 12 DEFINITION: KNOCK-ON
A knock-on occurs when a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, or when a player hits the ball forward with the hand or arm, or when the ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, and the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it.
‘Forward’ means towards the opposing team’s dead ball-line.
It's hard to say for sure that the ball clearly and obviously struck Ndungane's hand but it is clear and obvious that the ball struck his forearm and from his forearm and then strikes Kriel's upper arm.
If the ball goes forward off a players arm and touches another player, it is a knock-on.
This would seem to be a correct decision.
4. The Springbok squabble.
The Bulls score and the Sharks kick off. With help, Victor Matfield goes high for the ball as the Sharks arrive. The bulls do not control the ball well and a maul forms behind Matfield who is not a part of it. Bismarck du Plessis, who is good at winning turnovers, but Matfield who is behind Du Plessis and well on the Sharks' side of the contest grabs Du Plessis by his jersey to prevent him from winning a turnover. This annoys Du Plessis and the two go to ground with Du Plessis attempting to slap Matfield. Play goes on and the referee then consults the TMO about possible foul play.
Both players – Matfield and Du Plessis – were guilty of foul play. Striking an opponent in the face is regarded as a more serious offence than grabbing a jersey, and so Du Plessis is penalised.
Certainly Matfield was the instigator, playing a man without the ball. Certainly Du Plessis retaliated. Retaliation is also an offence in law.
Law 10.4 (l) Retaliation. A player must not retaliate. Even if an opponent is infringing the Laws, a player must not do anything that is dangerous to the opponent.
Sanction: Penalty kick
It's not easy to get a fair decision here. The instigator is guilty. If he had not been guilty there would have been no retaliation. The retaliator is guilty.
The referee spoke to the two captains about keeping discipline but he did not warn either of the squabblers. It may well have been wise to talk to Matfield.
5. Serfontein's try
The Sharks are trailing by a point with time rapidly running out. They are deep in their own territory but determined to break out while the Bulls are determined to stop them. Jean Deysel bashes forward and, held, offloads to Pat Lambie but Lambie knocks on a long way forward and into the arms of Victor Matfield. Matfield passes to Jan Serfontein and the centre runs straight at the line as Marco Wentzel and Jaco Reinach seek to stop him. The Sharks pair bring Serfontein down just short of the line but the ball ends up in in-goal with Serfontein's forearm on it.
The referee consults the TMO with the question Try or no try?
The referee and the TMO watch the replays. The TMO's advice is that while the ball was in Serfontein's grasp Reinach's hand had pushed the ball back towards the goal-line and there had not been a separation between Serfontein's arm and the ball and so the try could be awarded. The referee agrees and awards the try.
The player does not have to have the ball in his hands to score a try.
Law 22.1 GROUNDING THE BALL
There are two ways a player can ground the ball:
(a) Player touches the ground with the ball. A player grounds the ball by holding the ball and touching the ground with it, in in-goal. ‘Holding’ means holding in the hand or hands, or in the arm or arms. No downward pressure is required.
The TMO mentions that there was no separation. This is TMO speak to say that the player had the ball the whole time, that he did not lose possession of the ball.
The referee speaks of control, which is an unfortunate buzzword in circumstances such as these as the world is not used anywhere in the laws in this regard.
Awarding the try seems the correct decision.
