S14 Final - incidents
The final of the 2007 Super 14 in Durban was a tense affair, won by the Bulls by one point over the Sharks with a try and a conversion well into injury time.
Naturally there is lots of questioning, lots of ifs and buts. It is interesting, not that it will alter the score which will stay 20-19 to the crack of doom.
We have given some statistics of the match and will now look at a few incidents.
We are looking at the incidents, as we do every week, as pegs to hang discussion on, not as ways to point fingers at anybody. Just an examination of those last, frantic moments is fascinating – three poor kicks, two of which gave the opportunity to counterattack, great option taking by Jaco van der Westhuyzen and Victor Matfield, 21 passes, 10 missed tackles, a great charge and back flip by Jaco Engels, a sharp run by Odwa Ndungane, a great pass by Heinie Adams which skipped two on its way to Bryan Habana and great vision and running by Habana – good things and bad things by players – as happens throughout a rugby match but was so much more crucial as this one drew a great competition to a close.
Early in the game there is an air tackle by Bryan Habana and the referee spoke to him and his captain Victor Matfield, saying: “There’s a lot on this game. We need composure from your players.”
In this tight and tense match, the referee certainly had composure. His whole manner was quiet and sensible – and he let the players play. It was a world class performance from a world class referee.
Obviously there was huge disappointment in the Sharks camp. The CEO, Brian van Zyl, is quoted in The Witness as saying: “I felt ill at the end of the game and I went back home and watched the tape of those closing minutes. When I saw the referee miss Derick Hougaard’s knock-on in that final movement before Habana scored, I felt even sicker.”
In that final movement, Hougaard handled three times and clearly did not knock-on. The only time he could perhaps have been considered to have been close enough to play to have knocked on is after the tackle on Danie Thiart, which we shall talk about.
Some of what we shall talk about is contained in clips on www.sareferees.co.za.
1. Habana’s tackle
Fourie du Preez kicked high. Percy Montgomery jumped high to catch the ball. Bryan Habana did not jump for the ball but ran in under Montgomery to bring him down with a thump, leaving him shaken. In fact he may have been shaken up for the rest of the match and was eventually substituted.
The referee spoke to Habana and to Matfield, but there was no yellow card. The referee probably wanted, on this great occasion, not to spoil the game from the start and to calm things down, rather than inflame matters. As it turned out, the match was played in good order, which suggests that the referee got it right. But in the normal course of things such a tackle would warrant at least a yellow card.
Later in the match Wynand Olivier goes racing for the Shark’s line and is brilliantly tackled by Butch James. Having tackled Olivier, James lies on him and is penalised. The incident happened close to the Sharks’ line and the referee talks to James about releasing the tackled player. That, too, may well have warranted a yellow card.
2. Knock-on or no knock-on?
Jaco van der Westhuyzen of the Bulls kick a rolling ball down into the Sharks’ in-goal where Butch James grounds the ball. The referee blows for a knock-on. Was it?
A rugby ball is a perverse thing. James seemed to have it well covered when it started its tantalising dart. James sticks a right hand out at the ball. He cups his hand beyond the ball and tries to pull it back towards himself. The ball eludes his grasp but he grounds it as Van der Westhuyzen arrives.
The camera angle is not great, but then nor is the touch judge’s angle as he got left behind in the speed of the game but made the call.
The look of the thing and James’s action suggests that the ball was taken back or at worst went straight down.
The decision to have a five-metre scrum, which had the potential to destroy the Sharks, may well have been the wrong one, but it need not to have been made there and then.
The referee could have referred the matter to the television match official. The International Rugby Board’s protocol on the area of jurisdiction of the TMO includes the grounding of the ball in in-goal, which includes touching down in defence.
2 AREAS OF ADJUDICATION
2.1 The areas of adjudication are limited to Law 6. 8(b), 6.8(d) and 6.8(e) and therefore relate to:
– grounding of the ball for try and touch down
– Touch, touch-in-goal, ball being made dead during the act of grounding the ball.
This includes situations where a player may or may not have stepped in touch in the act of grounding the ball on or over the goal line.
The TMO could therefore be requested to assist the referee in making the following decisions:
? Try
? No try and scrum awarded 5 metres
? Touch down by a defender
? In touch – line-out
? Touch-in-goal
? Ball dead on or over the dead ball line
? Penalty tries after acts of foul play in in-goal
? Dropped goal.
The TMO must not be requested to provide information on players prior to the ball
going into in-goal (except touch in the act of grounding the ball).
The TMO must not be asked to assist in any other decision other than those listed including acts of foul play in the act of grounding the ball or otherwise.
The referee must make an effort to make an adjudication. If he is unsighted or has doubt, he will then use the following process (3).
(3) deals with how the referee gets in touch with the TMO.
There must have been doubt.
3. Albert’s try
The Sharks are at the Bulls’ line. Albert van den Berg picks up the ball and plunges at the Bulls’ ;line as Derick Kuun and Danie Rossouw lunge at him to stop him. They bring him down just short of the line but Van den Berg gets the ball a little off the ground and plonks it down on the line.
The referee awards the try.
Correct?
Yes. After a tackle, the tackled player is entitled to place the ball and if in so doing he gets it onto or over the line the try is awarded.
Law 15.5 (g) If players are tackled near the goal-line, these players may immediately reach out and ground the ball on or over the goal-line to score a try or make a touch down.
That tall Albert did not have far to reach does not remove his right or nullify the try. That the ball was on the ground before he reached out, does not remove his right to reach out, place the ball and score the try. Placing the ball after a tackle does not mean putting the ball on the ground only if it is not on the ground. It means putting the ball where you want to put it.
4. Nel’s tough off-side
Butch James kicks a high up-and-under towards the Bulls’ posts. Johan Roets, his back to the advancing Sharks, jumps to catch the ball but fails to do so, knocking it to the Sharks. The ball bounces up and straight into the midriff of JP Nel who was falling back. Nel catches the bouncing ball and flicks it like a hot potato to Akona Ndungane. The referee penalises Nel for being off-side.
He was off-side but it’s hard to judge how deliberate his action was. He may just have been able to avoid the ball bouncing towards him if he had been a grasshopper.
Accidental off-side? We are used to it when player bangs into team-mate in front of him or when a player kicks and it bangs into a team-mate in front of him. What about here?
The law makes provision:
Law 11.6 ACCIDENTAL OFF-SIDE
(a) When an off-side player cannot avoid being touched by the ball or by a team-mate carrying it, the player is accidentally off-side. If the player’s team gains no advantage from this, play continues. If the player’s team gains an advantage, a scrum is formed with the opposing team throwing in the ball.
The Bulls certainly benefitted from Nel’s action.
What made it look less accidental was Nel’s catching of the ball. That is what was probably the motivation for giving the penalty. And there was no effort at all to avoid the bouncing ball.
5. That tackle/ruck thing
There is a clip of this on www.sareferees.co.za.
This was probably the hardest bit of rugby to adjudicate in the whole match. There are so many possibilities in what was part of the movement that led to the try that won the 2007 Super 14.
The Bulls are counterattacking in their desperate desire to score a try. Prop Danie Thiart charges. Flank Bob Skinstad tackles. Hooker Bismarck du Plessis of the Sharks comes in. The ball squirts out towards the Sharks. Thiart puts a hand towards the ball. Danie Rossouw falls and his body moves the ball forward. A heap of players forms and eventually Wikus van Heerden plays the ball back to Heinie Adams and the Bulls go left before coming back right for Bryan Habana’s try.
People will look at this for ages and ages.
The touch judge is right there. The referee moves in close. Both are content to let play go on.
It seems that Thiart does not initially lose the ball forward but that the ball is ripped off him by Du Plessis who plays the ball back to the Sharks’ side. That is how the touch judge saw it.
Does Thiart play the ball with his left hand? If he does, is that not worth a penalty because he is a tackled player on the ground and playing the ball? Is it OK because the tackle is over and he is entitled to play the ball? Is being a player on the ground, reason enough to penalise him?
Does Thiart in any case knock the ball forward with his left hand or is it Rossouw’s big body that knocks it forward?
Do the Bulls cheat to get the ball into the heap and up off the ground?
What Van Heerden does looks legal and what Du Plessis did looks legal. What happened in between may be problematic. But is being problematic enough to warrant a penalty? It may be a mystery how the ball came back to the bulls. Perhaps it was the action of Derick Kuun in scooping the ball up, but that is not visible, and a referee can’t blow his whistle on a mystery – on the invisible. After all how often does the ball not seem to find a way of moving itself back at the tackle/ruck?
So, praise the referee for not guessing and his touch judge, too.
Did it go on too long with all those players off their feet?
The referee arrived and had a good look. He could see the ball available. He said to Heinie Adams who was on his feet: “Play it, half.” (Half in New Zealand parlance = scrumhalf) There is not really a time when there is nobody on his feet to play the ball as first Pierre Spies arrives on his feet to play the ball, then Gary Botha, then Bryan Habana and finally Wikus van Heerden – and he gets it back to Adams.
6. Early charge
There is almost a hush in the ground. Tension is at breaking point. The score is 19-18 to the Sharks and the Bulls are about to kick the conversion of Bryan Habana’s try. The kick is jut to the tight of the right upright as kicker Derick Hougaard looks at them.
He places the ball. He steps back. He steps back again and bends forward, looking at the ball.
When he steps back the Sharks charge, their last desperate attempt to win the match. The referee blows his whistle to stop the charge. Hougaard comes forward and kicks the winning goal.
If he’d missed? Wasn’t stepping back part of his approach? Probably not. Watch Hougaard kick at goal. He shuffles his feet to get comfortable, bends forward and then comes forward to kick.
Let’s go to the law governing the conversion. “The opposing team” spoken of here is the Sharks.
Law 9.B.3 THE OPPOSING TEAM
(a) All players of the opposing team must retire to their goal-line and must not overstep that line until the kicker begins the approach to kick or starts to kick. When the kicker does this, they may charge or jump so as to try to prevent a goal.
Penalty: (a)-(c) If the opposing team infringes but the kick is successful, the goal stands.
If the kick is unsuccessful, the kicker may take another kick and the opposing team is not allowed to charge.
When another kick is allowed, the kicker may repeat all the preparations. The kicker may change the type of kick.
Hougaard had kicked an earlier conversion when Pierre Spies cut through for a try behind the posts. On that occasion he did step back and come straight forward. When he stepped back, the Sharks charged. But this time he certainly stopped when he stepped back. It did not seem to be part of the routine of his approach to the ball.
“Approach” means moving forward but the law is clever and avoids using just “approach” but talks about “begins the approach” and the beginning of the approach could well be a step backwards.
If the kick had failed the referee would have given Hougaard another kick without a charge.
