Frustration with some Super 14 refereeing

BY GRANT FOX
Last updated 09:44 29/03/2009

Relevant offers

Our Experts

Fox's cunning and Foster's flair good for All Blacks Hansen has much to prove as All Blacks coach Steve Hansen must now show likeable side Too early for Sir Richie, what about Sir Jock? Pressure on Hansen to keep All Blacks on top Crusaders pay for Zac Guildford's misconduct All Blacks assistant coaches may end up foes What part did All Blacks win play in election? Franchise idea super silly or Tew brilliance? Get on board the Twickenham guessing game

OPINION: Watching the Blues and Waratahs on Friday night was an exercise in frustration.

Not because the Blues lost, either.

Their poor work at the breakdown cost them. They were not as efficient as the Waratahs, who are unspectacular but workmanlike.

The Blues conceded too much turnover ball, which cost them dearly.

But there was another problem at Eden Park - and it had nothing to do with the teams.

I am frustrated over some of the refereeing we're seeing in the Super 14.

The fixation with keeping players on their feet is commendable - but it's not reality.

In my view, there's an easy way to keep players on their feet - allow rucking. The lawmakers will say you can still ruck. Reality is different. The whistle-blowers simply don't let it happen.

As a result, we continue to battle with the most perplexing area of our game for all involved - the breakdown. It's still a mess.

I originally supported the ELV allowing mauls to be collapsed by the defending team but in practice it hasn't worked. It unfairly favours the defending team - a wider problem rugby now has.

Twice the Blues were severely punished by the ref in prime attacking positions. In one case, Rene Ranger was penalised for supposedly not staying on his feet.

It was a marginal call but more tellingly, if it wasn't the first such call for that offence for the night, it was one of only a few. In a similar situation, the Blues were then penalised for not releasing.

On both occasions, the attacking team didn't get the benefit of the doubt.

It's going on far too much.

* Grant Fox is a former All Black and Blues board member.

Ad Feedback

- © Fairfax NZ News

5 comments
Post a comment
Hughie   #5   11:44 am Apr 08 2009

The refereeing has been shocking to say the least, especially this year. The game is getting whistled off the park and the NRL is starting to invade rugger fullahs homes. Its exciting, its fast and if the two aussie comentators are on, they take you to the game. Enjoyable. Their refereeing is good, they have an extra ref on, the refs are actually part of the game and not the game. As for the ruggah fullah game, one could get the impression that the 30 players are on the field for the benefit of the whistler, boring, dull, add in Murray Mexted as commentator who has some of the most boring and dull comments, our ruggah fullah game needs a real tune up.

mack   #4   12:12 pm Apr 06 2009

Has anyone else noticed the increasing number of games between South African and NZ teams that are being controlled by SA referees this year. Two on this last weekend. Someone should take a closer look into Marius Jonker's connections to the Sharks. Twice now he's overseen a close game with an uneven penalty count in favour of the South Africans that resulted in a win for the Sharks, with at least one highly suspect call in the shark's favour at a critical time in the match. Gotta love the IRB, with all the other BS floating round rugby turning people off in their masses, they decide now is a good time to buck the tried and trusted arrangement of neutral umpires.

orb   #3   05:01 pm Apr 02 2009

As a half back the one rule that requires changing is the rolling maul. You cannot allow the defendig team to collapse it. The rolling maul gives the attacking team go forward and the possibility of teams to go up the middle of the paddock without going too lateral. Without that we see more rucks and a chance for picky refs like Bryce Lawrence to blow his whistle.

camalot   #2   01:54 pm Apr 01 2009

So effectively going back to the old rules then?

I have doubts about #5 and #9. They would both require a ref to count..... a skill I firmly beleave beyond their mental capacity!

Denis Sutherland   #1   04:32 pm Mar 29 2009

Imagine 1.eight forwards of the required different sizes for their positions in the scrum all being gifted like Richie McCaw to get to the breakdown quickly and the ball to be able to be picked up and a maul that cannot be pulled down formed. Result no more fatties in the defence line and whoppee backs against backs. 2. No resetting of scrums 3. Rucking. 4. Being onside being the only requirement for entry to a ruck or maul. 5. A limit on the number of kicks outside one's 22m zone. No limit inside the 22m zone. 6. The requirement for both sets of backs to stand back five metres from scrums and rucks and mauls. 7. Forwards running off shoulders rather than going straight to ground. 8. Forwards running as sweepers behind the backs when on attack. 9. A limit on the number of pick and goes in the opposition 22m zone so as to curb white line fever. 10. Wingers taking the tackler on or simply taking the tackle rather than kicking when confronted by a defender. Dream on!

Post comment


Required

Required. Will not be published.
Registration is not required to post a comment but if you , you will not have to enter your details each time you comment. Registered members also have access to extra features. Create an account now.


Maximum of 1750 characters (about 300 words)

I have read and accepted the terms and conditions
These comments are moderated. Your comment, if approved, may not appear immediately. Please direct any queries about comment moderation to the Opinion Editor at blogs@stuff.co.nz
Special offers

Featured Promotions

Sponsored Content