Law incident from Bloemfontein
The Cheetahs played the Blue Bulls in Bloemfontein and there were two incidents of foul play which may well have led to the offenders getting off lightly.
The Cheetahs win a line-out near their own 22. Corniel van Zyl wins the ball and passes back to hooker Richardt Strauss coming round. Strauss gives to Falie Oelschig who is tackled late by Richard Bands after he (Oelschig) has passed to Kabamba Floors who is tackled high by Ruan Vermeulen. The referee allows advantage and when play stops the referee goes to deal with the matter.
He takes his card-holder from his left pocket, yellow on one side, red more obvious on the other.
The referee approaches the touch judge. He makes a cutting action across his throat and says: “Confirm.”
Touch judge: “Definitely a late tackle. Number 18 Blue.”
Referee: “Number 18?”
Touch judge: “18. Blue.”
Referee: “You didn’t see a high?”
Touch judge: “I saw 18 Blue with a late tackle, not a high one.”
At this stage the commentator’s voice dominates proceedings, which is an enormous pity as the conversation between referee and touch judge counted for far, far more.
Commentator 1: “No, no, no. They’ve got the wrong number. They’ve got the wrong number. It’s Number 8 Blue. It’s not over yet. There’s a problem here because it’s not Richard Bands. There’s no ways it’s Richard Bands.”
In all of this snatches of the officials’ conversation can be heard, the referee saying high and the touch judge saying 18 Blue.
The referee puts his card-holder back into his pocket and walks to talk to the Blues’ captain and the Cheetahs, again inaudible in the midst of commentators’ comment over replays.
Commentator 2: “There are two incidents. Look Richard Bands hits Oelschig late and then the high tackle is the second incident.”
Commentator 1: “Apologies to Marius Jonker because he did have the number right.”
The upshot of these two incidents was a single penalty to the Cheetahs and no sanctionary cards.
The error is understandable, the outcome probably inadequate for Vermeulen’s tackle was gross.
That the referee did not see the late tackle was understandable. The late tackle after a kick is easy to see as the referee can easily keep watching the kicker as nothing will be happening to the ball till gravity has finished its business. But with a pass the focus of his concentration goes with the ball. Floors was a ballcarrier, and so it was easy to see the high tackle.
The touch judge had done really well. The temptation for a touch judge is to go with the ball, but he had the discipline to stay behind the ball and so saw Bands’s late tackle – a heavy one. He then stuck out his flag and concentrated on getting Bands’s number right. That means that he did not see the high tackle.
Both burly Bands and burly Vermeulen wore the blue jerseys of the Blue Bulls. But the confusion really came with the numbers. Vermeulen had an 8 on his back, replacement Bands an 18. 8 and 18 are not far apart.
The conversation, far from producing confirmation, produced uncertainty. They no longer have the permission allowed SANZAR a few years ago of being able to refer the matter to the television match official for identification in the case of foul play and so there was the possibility of a wrong decision.
For any decision a referee wants to be certain. In a matter as serious as a yellow card or a red card that certainty needs to be high, preferably perfect.
It was not a matter of the referee not overruling the touch judge. It was a matter of uncertainty.
Because of the uncertainty there was no sanctionary card, which seemed inadequate. Vermeulen certainly deserved a card, Bands probably not.
The eventual decision was understandable but inadequate. There was a man who could have repaired the inadequacy – the citing commissioner. He could have reviewed Vermeulen’s action. Presumably he did and decided that it did not warrant a red card and so took no further action.
One wonders what kind of dangerous tackle does warrant a red card.
