Bulls try was a mistake

Ex Supersport.

The first full round of Vodacom Super Rugby is a thing of the past, with positive praise coming from SANZAR for the role of referees in the competition.

Statistics show that not only are penalties down per game, but scrum completion rates come in at 66%, above the average of 60% last season, making the first full round of Super Rugby a positive start to the 2013 season.

The only drawback it seems, was one decision to award the Bulls a try in their win over the Stormers, which SANZAR refs boss Lyndon Bray admitted was a mistake. (Lots of egg is flowing!!!)

SANZAR referees boss Lyndon Bray has confirmed that the decision was indeed, incorrect and that a penalty should have been awarded to the Stormers, instead of a try to the Bulls. (Sounds like a ten point swing?)

The argument whether this would have made a difference or not is pure conjecture, but Peyper has received a dressing down from his superiors, although Bray has called it “disappointing” that the try was awarded in the first place.

“It’s a simple answer really – Jaco knows he was wrong and he has to take accountability for that,” Bray explained.

“In the incident, we see the Bulls 9 kick the ball and the Bulls 2 is in front of 9. At best the Stormers player plays the ball if it indeed does hit him, and in that case the law is very clear. Number two is within 10 metres of the ball, and he needs to retire. He may have been close to the player receiving the ball, but the reality is he is offside and not allowed to come within 10 metres of the player who plays at the ball. The fact that the Stormers player plays the ball does not put him onside unless he is retiring.

“The only way he could have been onside would have been if the ball was charged down, and it is clearly not that, so the referee got that wrong.

“What is disappointing is that the law is really very well known to referees at this level and it is very disappointing that he got that wrong.”

Disappointing also re the TMO. All in all I think disappointing is not quite the right word and I smell a RAT. Is this another bulle cheat. Remember the final of  a few years ago when our superb loosies where blown out of the game while th bulle loosies were coached by Craig Joubert. Or how about how the sharks were also robbed o fa Super 15 title by a ref mistake?

Then there were also a number of dubious scrum penalties which even snapster picked up on. THis fould decision re the try proves something was going on!!!!

So my contention that an out of sorts Stormers side could easily have won was spot on and my detractors are left under a mountain of egg.

Well as a neutral, that marginal try aside, the better side won on the day and Jean acknowledged as much

@beeno aka storminged,

OMG ur like a nagging woman who just goes on and on and on and on, jeebers ur boring, o_O

i love how lyndon bray who is a kiwi is now all of a sudden a leading moral authority when he makes a ruling that favours ur team, but every other time they are as u put it, bent mongs???

stick to ur multiple IDs, its the only thing u do well here, :o)

@beeno aka storminged,

OMG ur like a nagging woman who just goes on and on and on and on, jeebers ur boring, o_O

i love how lyndon bray who is a kiwi is now all of a sudden a leading moral authority when he makes a ruling that favours ur team, but every other time they are as u put it, bent mongs???

stick to ur multiple IDs, its the only thing u do well here, :o)

Uh-oh!

Sasuke, I think Baboon-ou was looking for someone to hold him gently in their arms while he had a little cry about the unfairness of his Hapless Stompies being cheated again . . . not a reminder that he sounds like a pathetic little bitch.

Oh well, as long as you know it'll be your fault if he blubbers and squeals for weeks on end now!

saSUE, if you have any proof that I am StormingEd please provide it. So far your silence has been deafening.

Bray is simply being truthful but it would be nice if the NZRFU didnt make an atrocious ref like brycy lawrence their ref of the year. Bray is fine as long as nz is not involved. Bwahahhahahahahahaha

rooitwit can you please tell me as honestly as you are able if you complained about the ref mistake that cost the sharkies a super 15 title in the bulle/sharkie final. A simple yes or no will suffice.

Crash goes roooitwit yet again. Hahahhahahaha - its like taking candy from a baby!!!

snapster given the non try and the unfair scrum penalties plus Jantjes (who has an 80% success record at Super 15 - although ou maaik thinks Jantjes cant kick!!!)  imploding with the boot - the bulle were VERY fortunate to come away with a win. Think of the motivational factor of all this erroneous reffing!! There can be no denying the soundness of my assertion.

Please realise ou Bray was being very polite in saying it was disappointing!!! Unfortunately he couldnt call a spade a spade. But no wonder the marginal calls in the scrum and some that were downright incorrect went the bulle way.

End of story - to save wee rooitwit and saSUE any further embarrassment. Bwahahahhahahaha.

The Pretoria pong gets going early in the season!!  How about a fair deal bulle? Probably never occured to them!!! Bwahahahahhahahaha

I finally note with much merriment that the bulle fans are still sold out on the pink deal.  

Poor referee decision indeed, im in full agreement that the TMO officials at this current stage should consider going back 3 or 4 phases before looking at the actual grounding of the ball more in case of a forward pass which is a different issue aside from this particular mistake. Despite the try being awarded as a Stormers supporter i still think we played bad as a team and we didn't deserve to win. According to the statistics it stated Stormers lost 6 of their own lineouts which is uacceptable really, that has to be the fundamental issue that the forwards have to improve on this week lineouts. Although it wasn't all bad, Bulls made 10 turnovers Stormers made 24 which is remarkable the forwards was dominant in that area. In essence what I expect from the Stormers this week is a different mentality as well as a precisive game pattern implemented to cause less handling errors and hopefully a different selection. Good luck to the Sharks this week a team i highly respect, a good game in prospect.

Beeno

That try was a shit decision by  the referee and absolutely stupid by Hougaard.  Hougaard's grubber under those circumstances place all his forwards off-side other than himslf - they could not retire by 10 meters from the kick when it was made and Rallepele was off-side and so was all the Bulls forwards..Peyper deserve that tongue-lashing he got and maybe it would sort him out for good.  He may just be less partial in future.

Mike is my memory failing me but didnt the issue get referred to the TMO as well?

How in the world can two competent officials make such a blunder?

That is more than disappointing. Sorry but I do wonder about it. Where there is smoke there could be fire?

Beeno

Yes it was - but the question  asked by Peyper was only whether it touched a Stormer player on the way over the line and whether the try is to be awarded.   Peyper did not ask whether Rallepele was onside at all - hence the silence on that one. 

Mike thanks appears at least exonerate the TMO? However, the TMO should have an option to comment if he knows something that is critical.  This nonsense as to the TMO can only answer in terms of what a ref asks is open to error. Very likely the TMO could have just said no try as bulle off sides etc. If they have to have a brief parlee so be it.

I think Peyper was determined to give that try - even before he asked the TMO - hence his phrasing of the wuestion.  He did not ask whether Rallepele was off-side or not - he only asked whether the ball touched a Stormer player and even on the Re-Union programme last night they said there was no real evidence of that.  In fact the ball didnot change trajectory or line at all - which would have been the case of a touch.

The issue of major concern is the decision of Hougaard to make that grubber kick from the pointt hat he effectively did it.    Under normal circumstances the ref would have given a penalty to the Stormers and an excellent attacking opportunity would have been lost as a result.  

It raises my concern about Hougaards lack of ball sense again.   No thinking scrummie would put his whole forward pack off-side by  doing that type of thing.  It was clueless to say the elast.    

My concern is the decision. It was a match changing one. It also makes one even more concerned about some of the dubious scrum penalties. I fear another bulle ref has emmerged. Time will tell. Certainly at  a minimum it cost us a bonus point and quite possibly the match.

clevermike

Status: Rugby Legend
Posts: 3794 RE: Bulls try was a mistake
February 27, 2013, 13:08:37

Beeno

That try was a shit decision by  the referee and absolutely stupid by Hougaard.  Hougaard's grubber under those circumstances place all his forwards off-side other than himslf - they could not retire by 10 meters from the kick when it was made and Rallepele was off-side and so was all the Bulls forwards..Peyper deserve that tongue-lashing he got and maybe it would sort him out for good.  He may just be less partial in future.

Ou Maaikie having difficulty with the laws of the game again. The 10 meter issue was not applicable in this case. The 10 meters come into play while the player is still in an off-side position. I have not read the report on why Bray has said that the try was illegal, but this is what the law decsribes about on-side and off-side at the kick forward.

First of all, the player/s in front of the kicker is off-side. There is no doubt about that.

11.1 OFFSIDE IN GENERAL PLAY

(a) A player who is in an offside position is liable to sanction only if the player does one of three
things:
• Interferes with play or,
• Moves forward, towards the ball or
• Fails to comply with the 10-Metre Law (Law 11.4). (This is the one where the ball is kicked ahead)

Now, Law 11.4 says:

11.4 OFFSIDE UNDER THE 10-METRE LAW
(a) When a team-mate of an offside player has kicked ahead, the offside player is considered to
be taking part in the game if the player is in front of an imaginary line across the field which
is 10 metres from the opponent waiting to play the ball, or from where the ball lands or may
land. The offside player must immediately move behind the imaginary 10-metre line or the
kicker if this is closer than 10 metres. While moving away, the player must not obstruct an opponent.

So, at this stage it would be easy to just say that Chilli was off-side, in view of the above. But there are other ways that he can get onside again, and if you listen carefully to the discussion that Peyper had with the TMO, these were taken into account. This is where law 11.3 comes into play:

11.3 BEING PUT ONSIDE BY OPPONENTS
In general play, there are three ways by which an offside player can be put onside by an
action of the opposing team. These three ways do not apply to a player who is offside under
the 10-Metre Law.
(a) Runs 5 metres with ball. When an opponent carrying the ball runs 5 metres, the offside
player is put onside.
(b) Kicks or passes. When an opponent kicks or passes the ball, the offside player is put
onside.
(c) Intentionally touches ball. When an opponent intentionally touches the ball but does not
catch it, the offside player is put onside.

From what I can remember Peyper clearly said that he wanted the TMO to check whether the ball was touched by a Stormers player because if not, then Chilli was off-side. Importantly, if the ball was not touched by a Stromers player and Chilli was in an off-side position, then we have to remember that Peyper was at that stage playing off-side advantage for the Bulls. He would then have had to award the penalty, that he was playing advantage for. He also conveyed that to the TMO. He, IIRC, said that if the ball did not touch a Stormers player, then no 2 would be off-side and that he would go back to the advantage.

What happened next was that the TMO took ages to make sure whether the ball was touched by a Stormers player, because that would have determined whether Chilli was onside or not. From many angles it looked like the ball was not touched, but there was one angle from which it look like the ball could have touched a Stormers foot. IMO, the TMO did not spend enough time to make 100% sure if the foot did indeed touch the ball. He spent much longer looking at the other clips and made a quick decission after seeing that particular "touch" of the ball. I would have liked if they had a few more looks at that.

As I have said, I have not yet read what Bray has said, but IMO there is nothing in the law that say that in those circumstances he had to retreat 10 meters. The fact that the ball touched an opponent, according to the TMO, put him onside, and that is not my oppinion. That is according to law 11.3.c. The only issue that casts doubt over it is the fact that the law refers to an opponent intentially touching the ball, but then again, he did put a foot out, which to my mind is intentional.

Bongani

Thanks for the detailed extraction from the rules.   You really did not read Bray's comments and the abject admission by Peyper that he is sorry about buggering up?  That says aeverything - case closed.

I have not denied it. In fact I have pointed it out. That is my conclusion of what I have seen. Have you seen something different or have you got another set of laws open in front of you? Do you agree or disagree with what I have said or quoted?

PS. I will see if I can find the article about Bray and Peyper.

OK Ou Maaikie. I found the article. It does not really explain why it was a wrong and it also does not say the Peyper apologised. I can remember Bray making a remark last season as well about an incident and afterwards it was established that he got it wrong. I cannot remember the details, but will see if I can get it again.

This is what is said in the article. (My comments in bold):

Bray has confirmed that the decision was indeed incorrect and that a penalty should have been awarded to the Stormers, instead of a try to the Bulls.

The argument whether this would have made a difference or not is pure conjecture, but referee Jaco Peyper has received a dressing down from his superiors, although Bray has called it “disappointing” that the try was awarded in the first place. 

“It’s a simple answer really, Jaco knows he was wrong and he has to take accountability for that,” Bray explained.

“In the incident, we see the Bulls 9 kick the ball and the Bulls 2 is in front of 9. At best the Stormers player plays the ball if it indeed does hit him, and in that case the law is very clear. Number 2 is within 10 metres of the ball, and he needs to retire. True, but he can be placed onside. He may have been close to the player receiving the ball, but the reality is he is offside and not allowed to come within 10 metres of the player who plays at the ball. Where does the law say that? I have pointed out the 10 meter issue as it is in the laws.

"The fact that the Stormers player plays the ball does not put him onside unless he is retiring. Where does the law say that? The only way he could have been onside would have been if the ball was charged down, and it is clearly not that, so the referee got that wrong. The law does not say that either. The law mentions "intentionally tiouched".

“What is disappointing is that the law is really very well known to referees at this level and it is very disappointing that he got that wrong.” Did they? My only concern is that it was not clear whether the Stormers player really touch the ball. Bray (and you) also conveniently forget about the fact that the Bulls were on a penalty advantage at the time.

PS. The Laws that I have quoted comes straight from the 2013 Law Book. Not even the 2012 Book

Bongan

Thanks for your contribution - very c;ear and precise.  I do not disagree with you about the issue - especially not about the advantage that was being played.  However, especially if there was no advantage Hougard still made a stupid kick - to b quite honest.  

Now let me get backk to the rule as quoted. There was no way that Malherbe touched the ball intentionally.  He was at that stage pushing forward in the mall situation and had no intention whatsoever to touch the ball.   I think although Bray did not go into detail - he did imply that Rallepele was off-side and never put on side.   I think that that is where the apology from Peyper came from as well.

By the way - if you go to the home page you may still find the article there.

The commentators usually get these things right. In this instance Joel was very clear that he thought an offside situation had occured. I have always supposed that the TMO is not allowed to listen to the commentators while making his decision, is this right?  If he had access to the commentary the decision is inexplicable.

Thanks Bongi for all the effort but in the end a mistake was made. I only hope it was no more than that.

In the process however you revealed your identity as the one and only windpomp!! 

Whatever Beeno. Show me, in the rules, that it was a mistake. Indicate in steps, referring to the rules, where the mistake was. Don't just jump on the bandwagon. Give us some arguments why you think that it was a mistake.

@Mozart. They do not have access to the commentators. The sound channel is cut. The TMO only has the visuals at his disposal.

Some comments by De la rey of Sport 24:

The incident in question was when Hougaard placed a grubber though the Stormers defense and Chiliboy who was in front of Hougaard when he kicked picked up the ball as scored a “try”.  As it happened I said to a friend of mine that should be a Stormers penalty.

Mr. Peyper then asked the TMO whether he can determine if a Stormers player touched the ball and thus “placed Chiliboy onside”.  The TMO then decided that he thought the ball did indeed touch Malherbe’s boot. Which I disagree with because the only way you can determine that is if you have hotspot or if you can see the players anatomy move. Like in the case of the Zane Kirchner charge down of JdV’s kick. But that does not really make a difference in this case.

When Hougaard kicked the ball in order for Chili to become onside again either a Stormers player must have charged the ball down which did not happen. Malherbe according to the TMO touched the ball but only after it had rolled a few times and the only accidentally thus no charge down. The other way Chili could have been placed onside is if he retreated immediately after the ball was kicked, as he was within 10m of where the ball grounded and Hougaard or someone else placed him onside. As it was Chiliboy stood still and did not retreat thus penalty to Stormers immediately.

Now I can understand that a ref will make mistakes we all do. If he misses a forward pass, a offside, a knock-on or struggles with the laws around the brake down which is still a sham. BUT when a ref just does not know the laws of the game it is inexcusable.  It is the same if a hart surgeon did not know the left from the right ventricle.

One would think that refs should write an exam of sorts testing them on their knowledge of the laws of the game and that this is being repeated once or twice a year? I mean this is his job not just some hobby he does in his past time.

What worries me is if I can make the right call with in seconds of it happening how can a ref and TMO get it so wrong when they took 3-5 mins to make the call.

Like I said I am not sure this influenced the result of the game but what if this was a final??

Cheers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ps: It just came to my attention that Peyper also  refereed the final between the Sharks and WP and in that game he also made a lot of mistakes which incidentally also went against the WP. Something more to this???? Or is Mr. Peyper just a shit ref?? VERY STRANGE!

@benno1 aka storminged,

sorry for the late reply my bru, but i only just now saw this thread again and ur post. as for this comment,,,
 

if you have any proof that I am StormingEd please provide it. So far your silence has been deafening.

come on beeno1 aka storminged, i saw stormingeds 2nd post ever too, the one where u forgot to logout and logback in as beeno1 and ended up welcoming urself into sarugby.com, LMFAO, :oD

deny it all u want, but a few of us saw that comment and i hope u give thanks to the webmasters for for their edit post function, which allowed storminged aka beeno1 to change his comment to,,,

"hello, is anyone there????

BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Bongani

I read elsewhere that Peyper in fact got a dressing down on the issue and did apllogize /express his regret about the mistake made by him.  However, I do think that Rallepele was off-side and that even if the sole of Malherbe's boot touched the ball bt accident - which was in fact not at all clear - it was not INTENTIONAL - so the refree did make a complete hash of the situation.

Peyper is an experienced referee and he should know the rules in detail.   IHowever, another nasty question is was Peyper intent in wanting to award a try in this case?  If so - he must have acted partially and not as a neutral referee.   Referees are human and can make mistakes.   Partiality is no mistake - it is really problematic and could have very nasty consequences.

Mike, I went on what I saw on the TV and I lsitened to what was said at the time. What was said and done afterwards is of academic importance.

I do not for one moment disagree that Rallepele was off-side. In fact, I said that he was off-side and the question was whether he was subsequently put onside or not. Of course Peyper is an experienced ref and know the laws of the game. Hence his discussion with the TMO. Let me sum that up again. It contained a few issues:

1. Rallepele was off-side in his opinion.

2. Rallepele could have been put onside again, hence the question to see if a Stormers player touched the ball.

3. If the TMO decided that a Stormers player did not touch the ball, and Rallepele was then off-side, he would go back to the advantage that he was playing.

4. The TMO, not Peyper,  concluded that the Stormers player did touch the ball. This is my opinion only, but I think that the TMO saw it the same way that I pointed out earlier, the Stormers player stuck out a foot and that (in my book) indicated intent, and when he touched it, he played the ball and put Rallepele onside.

The only issue I have is that it is not clear whether the Stromers player has touched the ball, and if he hasn't, then that would have been a mistake IMO.

thing is that we arte forever on about refs making mistakes. Who is to say that Bray has not made a mistake with his assessment of what has happened. Be that as it may. The mistake was not made by Peyper. He made the correct decision, based on the feedback from the TMO and he has notyhing to apologise about, IMO. I cannot for one moment agree withh your remark that the referee made a complete hash of the situation.

If you ask the question whether Peyper was intent on having a try awarded, you are questioning his integrity and honesty, and that is a different kettle of fish altogether.

Oh, one more thing. You say that you don't care even if the sole of Malherbe's boot toucged the ball, Chilli was off-side. That is simply not the case. If Malherbe kick at the bal and he struck it, then he has played the bal and put Rallepele on-side. If the ball was kicked into him, without him taking any action, then he would have deemed not to have played the ball and Rallepele would still have been off-side.

Beeno, jou donnerse brood. Read the laws. You don't even go search for it. I quoted it for you. It doesn't say anything about the ball having to be charged down.

You also clearly do not understand the 10 meter law either. Let me quote it for you once again. Now read it properly this time. The entire thing, not only the part that suits you:

11.4 OFFSIDE UNDER THE 10-METRE LAW
(a) When a team-mate of an offside player has kicked ahead, the offside player is considered to be taking part in the game if the player is in front of an imaginary line across the field which is 10 metres from the opponent waiting to play the ball, or from where the ball lands or may land. The offside player must immediately move behind the imaginary 10-metre line or the kicker if this is closer than 10 metres. While moving away, the player must not obstruct an opponent.

This means the following:

1. If the the player is closer that 10 meters from the player waiting to the play the bal, then he must either move back behind the kicker or 10 meters away from the receiving player, but (and this is the part that you conveniently chose to ignore)..........

2. If the kicker is closer than 10 meters away from the opponents, then he (the offside player) only needs to move back behind the kicker. If Chilli moved back about a meter or two, he would have been onside, despite not being 10 meters away. Understand, or do you need some pictures as well?

bongani2 description of how that descion went down is a 100% accurate, thats exactly how it went down

1. Rallepele was off-side in his opinion.

2. Rallepele could have been put onside again, hence the question to see if a Stormers player touched the ball.

3. If the TMO decided that a Stormers player did not touch the ball, and Rallepele was then off-side, he would go back to the advantage that he was playing.

4. The TMO, not Peyper,  concluded that the Stormers player did touch the ball. This is my opinion only, but I think that the TMO saw it the same way that I pointed out earlier, the Stormers player stuck out a foot and that (in my book) indicated intent, and when he touched it, he played the ball and put Rallepele onside.

@bongani2,

woah, hold ur horses mate, ur wasting ur time trying to reason with beeno1 aka storminged. the proper protocol here on sarugbu.com is when the adults are speaking, u send beeno1 aka storminged to his room so that he can colour in his colouring books. but dont give him any of those connet the dot to dots picture puzzles, cos they give him seizures.

True. Will try to remember that.

Maybe  but we live in a world that is mistake prone...if any body has a gripe it must be be the AB's in 2007 in France against the hosts...ironically that mistake happened in NZ the other way round when it was the final fatal scene last year but there is no doubt that NZ were the champion side of the world...there was no doubt some more subtle match fixing than the Hansie Cronje saga...there were mistakes in 1995 in the water polo game in Durb's and the French felt justifiably cheated...you are never going to get a fair and unbiased accessment from all...that's just the way it is...human foibles are everywhere so relax and enjoy life and accept the rough with the smooth...after most of us are probably mistakes. We were not programmed on a computer thankfully but in the end it all works out more or less for the better.

The thing about rugby as with all things there is always those errors that cause controversies...some of them we take on the chin and just live with them and digest them others are more difficult to digest...ie there was a ref that was voted ref of the 2011 world cup that was later and discreetly put out to graze to save future embarrassment. Was this a mistake...most of us know why and I'm sure our Kiwi buddies know this as well but that's just another chapter on mistakes...in the end the better side takes the honours.