Week 5 of The Rugby Championship sees the Wallabies making their first trip across the Indian Ocean, while the All Blacks similarly traverse the South Pacific for the first time in 2014.
While The Rugby Championship is possibly only one game away from being decided, Biltong, Digger and I just seem to be coming up with even bigger questions.
Once again, please post your own thoughts, or indeed, lodge your own big question and the guys and I will tackle them.
Brett McKay: Given TRC games have already been blighted by some decisions from northern hemisphere refs, would SANZAR not be doing the right thing by their partners (nations, broadcasters, sponsors, etc) by insisting the IRB only appoint SANZAR referees and ARs as per Super Rugby?
This is one of those times where I’ve asked a question without really having an opinion.
The obvious angle is that by insisting on southern hemisphere referees take control of TRC games, SANZAR can at least remove the variable of referees not being used to or experience with the subtle differences in the game in the south. Having referees with a better ‘feel’ for the SANZAR games has to be a better option than a referee with no experience down this way.
That said, the obvious riposte is to say that there should be no differences in the game between the northern and southern hemisphere games, and that Test rugby is Test rugby no matter who is playing who and where they’re playing. The Laws of the game are universal, and thus universal appointment of Test referees is appropriate.
I’m almost certain that’s what the IRB, sorry, world rugby would say.
However, we all know the games are played differently in the south to the north, and likewise the laws are interpreted differently. So surely the SANZAR partners would prefer the most suitable referees for the job?
Of course, insisting on something is one thing; having it actually happen is another thing altogether…
Digger: I remember a few referring decisions from Super Rugby that left people scratching their heads, so I do not believe it would be any better.
Rugby is a world game, and although it probably already exists, I don’t like seeing anything that would promote a ‘them versus us’ scenario. Adapting to the referee is a requirement regardless of where they are from.
The crux of the issue is the rules themselves and how they are interpreted, and world rugby needs to address this to create consistency across the board. What constitutes a high tackle would be a good place to start.
Biltong: Referees from the northern hemisphere are not the problem, even though some tend to be rather pedantic at the set piece.
Individuals themselves should be held accountable. Referee George Clancy, as an example, had his mind made up about carding Bryan Habana before he even reviewed the tackle. Nothing Jean de Villiers, his touch judge, or the TMO was going to say was going to sway him.
By the same token, referee Pascal Gauzere refused to review the charge-down by Juan Fernandes Lobbe, in fact he blew his whistle immediately after the charge-down and decided Lobbe attempted to “manipulate” the direction of the ball with his charge, and therefore knocked it on.
These are individual mistakes, not necessarily a northern hemisphere mistake. I often find Glen Jackson equally pedantic and quick on his whistle, I had quite a bit of criticism for the inconsistencies with which he officiated the scrums in Australia versus Argentina.
That said, the IRB needs to find solutions. How, I am not sure.
Diggercane asks: Are the All Blacks vulnerable playing away from home considering their injuries and omissions from their squad?
Absolutely. You can’t lose that sort of ability without it having some effect, but I am looking forward to seeing the team put under pressure and having a look at some new combinations in the toughest of environments.
I am also expecting the senior players to really take charge and, being a glass-half-full kind of fellow, I believe these changes are good. They provide fresh challenges for the playing group and suitable motivation to stay on top of their games while creating healthy competition for places.
Biltong: No, I don’t think so.
All the teams have injury issues, South Africa is struggling to execute and their game plan is not going to put 30 points on any team. Beauden Barrett is a very good replacement for Aaron Cruden, and New Zealand accommodate changes to their squad more seamlessly than anyone else.
If New Zealand will miss anyone it will be Sam Whitelock, who is one of the best lineout operators and locks in world rugby.
Brett: Slightly vulnerable, yes. If there’s one thing that fell in their favour around the Aaron Cruden situation, it’s that the team had already flown out of the country by the time the story broke. Had this happened coming into camp for a home Test, it would’ve had the potential to become a bigger story than the game itself.
That said, there might be no team better equipped to cope with this situation than the All Blacks. Beauden Barrett will come into the side already knowing the systems and what’s required of him, and the show will just roll on. That certainly wouldn’t be the case within the Wallabies, for example.
With a bit of a hiccup at flyhalf, some concerns still around hooker, and another new centre combination, the All Blacks are a tad vulnerable on the road. Had they been playing the ‘Boks this weekend, instead of Argentina, I might’ve been inclined to tip the upset.
(By the way Digger, being a glass-half-full kind of fella is what put Cruden and the All Blacks in their current predicament.)
Biltongbek asks: The travel factor is huge in the Rugby Championship, would an alternative option whereby each country host a six-week tournament every four years not be a better option?
From a tournament spectacle, it would be great. It would mimic the World Cup in the sense that you will have the atmosphere, the tourists, and the intensity of six weeks of rugby.
Each country can put their own vibe into it and it would revitalise the competition, as you only see it live in your own country every four years.
The players would benefit from less travel, a shorter tournament, and an additional two weeks for rest or preparation is always welcome.
Digger: I love and hate this idea all in one.
I immediately had visions of a six-week boys trip around South Africa or Argentina watching six double headers at some of the world’s iconic venues and enjoying all that had to be offered.
(Brett’s note: registering ‘ROARrugbytours.com’ as we speak – what a sensational plan!)
A marvellous proposition with so many benefits; reduced travel, extra time off or preparation time. and it would be a wonderful experience for the host country.
But I also hate the idea, because I would not be able to see my team live against their traditional southern hemisphere rivals at home regularly, and I can’t say that sits happily with me. I may not get to see the ‘Boks, as an example, play in Wellington for 8 or even 12 years depending on how the schedule is prepared. From a completely selfish viewpoint I loathe that idea.
Outside of my own selfish issues, it is a proposal well worth consideration with far more pros than cons.
Brett: I’m with Digger on this. On paper, it sounds like a cracking idea with plenty of pros, both for the teams themselves and the host countries each year.
But then the commercial realities kill the idea dead in a flash. For one thing, broadcasters want to be able to show the premium product in premium times in their respective markets. That can only happen with home games. Likewise, sponsors are hardly going to sign up for a long-term deal knowing their brand will only been seen at home for one of those four years. Or they’d be wanting major discounts if they did, meaning the unions are further out of pocket.
The travel and schedule arguments have come up a fair bit in recent weeks and as much as I’ve tried to think of better ways of staging the tournament, every option I come up with results in two teams having to travel every week. And that’s going to be the final reality of a tournament that spans three points of the southern hemisphere.
Tips for TRC Round 5
Brett: #RSAvAUS – South Africa have their own issues with combination, with a new halves pairing and all the controversy around the selection of Teboho Mohoje ahead of Newlands favourite Schalk Berger. Will it be enough for the Wallabies to break the 22-year drought? Here’s hoping – one point will do.
#ARGvNZL – The big question in this game for me is just how much wind has been knocked out of Low Pumas’ sails after the charge-down debacle in Napier. There’ll be no shortage of passion in La Plata, but it won’t be enough – All Blacks by 15.
Digger: #RSAvAUS – I feel the Wallabies will have a good crack here but South Africa will pull through by 8 or 10.
#ARGvNZL – Can’t wait for the scrums, bless them. Seeing how we front in Argentina on a presumably hard track as opposed to the spongy Napier ground in the wet holds great fascination for me. The All Blacks will be too strong across the 80 minutes, but geez, it may be very close! ABs by 6.
Biltong: #RSAvAUS – This match will be about execution, biggest challenge for the Boks will be a new look backrow and 9, Australia is confident and need to be taken out of the game in the first quarter. Boks by 9.
#ARGvNZL – Argentina did well until the 39th minute against New Zealand in their previous Test, I am hoping fatigue will not play a role and they manage an 80-minute performance. All Blacks by 14.
