The pass that angered the Crusaders
The ball was in play when the final hooter sounded when the Bulls went left. Bandise Maku of the Bulls, as he was tackled by Zac Guildford passed the ball to François Hougaard who scored the try that won the match against the Crusaders – the try that defeated the Crusaders (35-40) in Super 14 action in Pretoria on Friday night.
The Crusaders were angry and their captain, the great Richie McCaw, acted in a most unbecoming way.
The referee, Marius Jonker, then went to consult his assistant referee, Jaco Peyper, a Super 14 referee. some 20 metres from the goal-line. Peyper told Jonker that the ball had gone forward off the hand of a Crusader.
There were four players immediately involved in the action in close contact with each other and in a line parallel to the goal-line. There was Maku with the ball. Guildford was infield from Maku as he tackled him. Owen Franks was just on the touch-line side of Maku and facing back to his goal-line. Hougaard was just on the touch-line side of Franks.
This close cluster of players in a line did not make the job of the referee and his assistant easier. They did not have the advantage of replays and slow motion.
Peyper, reinforcing what he was saying with a gesture, indicated that the ball had been knocked back by a Crusader. The replay conforms this. The ball had struck Franks’s right hand before going forward.
After the ball had struck Franks’s hand it then struck Maku’s head. If having done so it went to Hougaard who was in front of Maku when it struck Maku’s head, Hougaard would have been offside – minisculely offside but offside. The sport of offside more easily detected by replay and frame-by-frame slow motion.
But there is a further twist to the tail. After the ball struck Maku’s head it then struck Franks’s hand again. If Hougaard had been in an offside position, he would have been onside because an opponent had last played the ball.
Going forward off Maku’s head is not a knock-on. It is also not a kick.
The principle for a referee to blow his whistle to stop play is dealing with the clear and obvious. There was nothing clear and obvious in what happened here which could cause a referee to blow his whistle. And all of this happened in a split second, not in the slow and laboured way that we have described it.
McCaw suggested to the referee that he consult the television match official. By the International Rugby Board’s protocol for television match officials, the referee is not allowed to consult the television match official in such a case. He could consult his assistant referee.
Law 6 says he is allowed to: An assistant referee will also provide assistance to the referee in the performance of any of the referee’s duties as directed by the referee.
The only other problem was the forward pass. Again not easy, clear or obvious, because the ball travelled such a tiny distance as Maku passed it but it may just be the best argument of all against the award of the try.
It was not an easy decision but the referee had shown his good faith in consulting the assistant referee.
In fact, he had shown his good faith generally in the last 10 minutes. He has sent Gerhard van den Heever to the sin bin for a dangerous tackle – leading Victor Matfield to mention that he had not done so in the earlier case of Ben Franks.
In those last 10 minutes the lead changed four times:
73 mins: Crusaders led 32-30 when Dan Carter kicked a penalty for Van den Heever’s tackle.
75 mins: Bulls led 33-32 when Morné Steyn dropped a goal
78 mins: Crusaders led 35-33 when Bees Steyn was penalised for having his hands in a rudimentary, two-man ruck
80 mins: Bulls led 40-35 when Hougaard scored a try and Steyn converted.
That hardly suggests a referee manipulating a result.
There was the matter of scrum penalties in the first half, described in a New Zealand paper as “a series of first-half scrum penalties against the visitors [that] were questionable at best”.
There were three penalties at scrums in the first half, all against prop Wyatt Crockett. Crockett was replaced at half-time and there were no more scrum penalties. It may just have been that Crockett was in trouble and in the wrong. Questionable does not mean wrong. It is not a committed comment on a committed refereeing decision.
There are times on a rugby field when emotions run high. Clearly the disappointment of the Crusaders at that end score was a powerful emotion. Rugby has ever demanded of its players that they contain their emotions.
