Morné

Know you are good enough


Written by Morné Nortier (Morné)

Posted in :Original Content on 20 Apr 2009 at 10:28

The Sharks must simply stop thinking they are good enough, and know they are good enough.

I just got back from holiday, all refreshed and pumped for action and then I was tasked to assess the Sharks performance so far in the competition – specifically the last couple of weeks.

When Rob asked me to give my thoughts on the Sharks I reckoned it would be quite easy as I have done this after mostly every game, but I know have the added problem of having to share thoughts with a bunch of very emotional Sharks supporters.

I wrote a piece when the Sharks were on tour where I mentioned that this team has something special. A Crusaders-like feel about them where they are maturing into a champion team by simply just doing the basics right, and not panicking.

Most will think that following the last two weeks results I would change my view, but I still stick by what I said.

The situation the Sharks find themselves in currently is quite strange and a bit difficult to explain, but I will try.

In rugby, as with most things in life, people usually plan or follow a plan to become successful, or reach a goal. This is done by using various proven and successful methods to achieve success like the SWOT analysis model, Maslow’s hierarchy of human needs etc.

What effectively happens is that an individual or individuals will study the environment they find themselves in, have a look at where they currently are, what they want to achieve, what resources they have available to them, and devise a timeframe in which they want to achieve specific goals and ultimately, the grand goal.

This is a periodic and systematic approach, in which deliverables are measurable and serve to indicate how successful the individuals are in achieving their ultimate goal.

Initially, following this model or any model is quite easy, because there is usually quite a gap between where you are, and where you want to be, but as you get closer to your goal, the challenges become tougher because where once you were kilometres away from one objective to the next where success is easily measurable and results more frequent, it has now become a game of inches as you look to reach the pinnacle.

Again think of Maslow’s hierarchal model. It is in the shape of a pyramid, where at the base, it is quite wide but as you move to ultimate realisation (the top of the pyramid) the space becomes very limited or small, where micro changes have macro effects.

Now I am not here to discuss Maslow’s theory, nor is it applicable to the letter in this instance, but the point is quite simple; Once you reach the top of the pyramid as a team, or are close to reaching it as the Sharks are, identifying and/or applying changes to ultimately win the big prize becomes more difficult because the problems are micro problems (very little or small changes that need to be done – fine tuning) but the effects of not getting it done, can become macro problems, like not reaching the finals or winning the Super 14 trophy.

Here is a more practical example.

It would be much easier for the best coach in the world to achieve results in the Lions rugby team than what it would be with the Sharks, simply because the gap between where they currently are, to where they want to be is so much wider, hence success is often, if not always seen as relative to quantity (how much success you achieve or you can count the progressive steps) and not quality.

Operating or coaching in a dynamic and ever-changing environment like rugby is one of the most exciting, and most difficult things to do.

The Sharks are getting micro decisions wrong at the moment, both from a team environment like selections (positional and leadership) and from an individual point of view (individual performances from players).

Highlighting my specific beliefs of what they are getting wrong will simply be repeating what I said before the season started, apart from the surprise loss of form of some players like Kockott which I did not see coming. Of course injuries also play a part but a seasoned coach and management team should have covered for that eventuality as it is a reality in a sport like rugby – and as I mentioned pre-season, Plumtree is in his rookie season but he will learn.

The Sharks are a class team, and when you want to analyse the game of rugby they arguably edge most teams in most departments in just about every aspect of the game. They are just getting a couple of small things wrong at the moment.

The only question that remains now is whether they will be able to identify and address it in time to still have a shot at Super 14 glory, the ultimate prize?

Ironically enough, I believe it is the last block of Maslow’s theory that needs to be achieved; ‘Self Actualisation’ – and I believe they can.

SELF-ACTUALISATION
This drive is not present in all, but when the four lower ranking needs have been met, some develop a particular calling. “A musician must make music, the artist must paint, a poet must write, if he is to be ultimately at peace with himself. What a man can be, he must be.” Self-actualised people have a mission bigger than themselves. Many leaders demonstrate this strong, powerful and sometimes dangerous force.



82 Comments

  • Damn Morne, another long article… :???: :roll:

  • Comment 1, posted at 20.04.09 10:46:47 by wpw Reply
    Administrator
    wpwAssistant coach
     
  • Thanks Morne.

    As you say it is the fine tuning that needs to be done, small selection changes etc.

    The problem is (and I said it before the season and got shot down) that we don’t have the depth we need in Durban. Plumtree (IMO) has made the right selections for what he has available to him.

    THAT goes back to earlier planning though when we were still at the bottom of the pyramid and it IS hurting us now (showing up as a MACRO problem if you want)

  • Comment 2, posted at 20.04.09 10:50:25 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©Head Coach
     
  • Injuries, no game-plan B, and players over-played… the latter two can be fine-tuned… and perhaps the former thus too minimised in the future… 22man 85min rugby… particularly after 10 games on the trot…

    “The Sharks (players and coaching staff) must simply stop thinking they are good enough, and PROVE they are good enough.”

  • Comment 3, posted at 20.04.09 10:55:42 by bryce_in_oz Reply

    bryce_in_ozCurrie Cup player
     
  • Interesting read this – I really enjoy articles focusing on the mental elements of performance.

    Modern players are generally similar in physical ability, so often its the mental that sets players and teams apart.

    Must say that I am not a big believer in Maslow’s Theory though – artificial system if you ask me.

  • Comment 4, posted at 20.04.09 11:19:47 by Big Fish Reply
    Administrator
    Big FishAssistant coach
     
  • @KSA Shark © (Comment 2) : he should have brought a big loosie in sooner. You’ll never know if your backup is good enough if you don’t try them

  • Comment 5, posted at 20.04.09 11:22:17 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
    robdylanHead Coach
     
  • @robdylan (Comment 5) :

    Suffering from what I have taken to calling the “Loffie syndrome”. You have the players on the bench but don’t want to use them.

  • Comment 6, posted at 20.04.09 11:26:17 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©Head Coach
     
  • maybe the bye will proof that the guys were tired, if ruan is back and deysel starts we can still make it happen. Mental fitness is as important as the physical fitness. Go Sharks!

  • Comment 7, posted at 20.04.09 13:37:57 by JarsonX Reply
    Competition WinnerCompetition WinnerCompetition Winner
    JarsonXAssistant coach
     
  • @JarsonX (Comment 7) :

    Mail the article to Plumtree and the players, because I believe they are good enough.

  • Comment 8, posted at 20.04.09 13:39:39 by Morné Reply
    Administrator
    MornéTeam captain
     
  • Although it is impossible, I’d love to see how people would have reacted if we had won, by doing absolutely nothing different other than the penalty try awarded for the pushover scrum.

    Had we won, it would have been heralded as a good victory over a great side (traditionally).

    Sadly, we also need to make sure those passes stick. I feel 100% in my bones that this team was tired emotionally, physically and mentally.

    I think the highlanders are in for a rude awakening.

  • Comment 9, posted at 20.04.09 16:12:05 by Baldrick Reply

    BaldrickCurrie Cup player
     
  • @Baldrick (Comment 9) :

    As do I.

  • Comment 10, posted at 20.04.09 16:14:19 by Morné Reply
    Administrator
    MornéTeam captain
     
  • @Morné (Comment 10) : me too :razz:

    Liked your piece Morne. Wouldn’t mind to know where do you get the info to fuel the thoughts – observations, hobby, something to do with your profession (if not too nosy question).

    But agree with the principle – it is one thing to getto the top but even more difficult to stay there.

  • Comment 11, posted at 20.04.09 16:38:49 by rekinek Reply
    Competition WinnerCompetition Winner Author
    rekinekTeam captain
     
  • @Baldrick (Comment 9) :
    My exact thoughts in the shower last night. We should have won that game, possibly with a bonus point. And what would we be saying and feeling now if that were the case.

    BTW I came to the conclussion that there was no way that we were ever going to win that game – we were not destined to win it, call it Karma but it just was not going to happen regardless of……
    And because of that I refuse to beat myself, or the team, up about it.

  • Comment 12, posted at 20.04.09 16:39:00 by Salmonoid Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    Salmonoid the SubtleAssistant coach
     
  • @Salmonoid (Comment 12) : this is what upsets me (still working on this being Zen ability :mrgreen:

    The Crusaders were not so good (in fact quite average) and I had exactly the same feeling as I have now after when they beat Stormers and Bulls. I know that Stormers are not putting it together this year but Bulls are good.
    So what was that they do

  • Comment 13, posted at 20.04.09 16:45:03 by rekinek Reply
    Competition WinnerCompetition Winner Author
    rekinekTeam captain
     
  • @Salmonoid (Comment 12) :

    Did you refuse to beat yourself before or after your shower?

  • Comment 14, posted at 20.04.09 17:15:54 by bryce_in_oz Reply

    bryce_in_ozCurrie Cup player
     
  • KSA – your take on that “penatly try” situation? Surely the Crusaders broke early from the scrum… a penalisable offence? So they conceded a penalty that saved a try – so penalty try?

  • Comment 15, posted at 20.04.09 17:49:07 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
    robdylanHead Coach
     
  • @robdylan (Comment 15) :

    The scrum became disjointed… the call for penalty try came from the sader’s running back and jumping onto the ball from the wrong side… if I’m not mistaken the correct ruling is that once the ball is over the try-line there is no offside any more hence they were entitled to enter and smother the ball from the wrong side…

  • Comment 16, posted at 21.04.09 03:58:36 by bryce_in_oz Reply

    bryce_in_ozCurrie Cup player
     
  • @rekinek (Comment 11) :

    Call it a personality trait and how I observe things in general always looking for the most logical angle and removing emotion from observations.

    @robdylan (Comment 15) :

    I would have liked to read KSA’a comments on this, but here is mine.

    The first offence was the scrum disintegrated, which means it was a penalisable offense by the Crusaders – i.e. penalty Sharks.

    The Sharks kept their scrum going however which to my mind they should not have been allowed to – it is a dangerous situation when a scrum collapses or stands-up/disintegrates.

    So stop the scrum, award Sharks penalty.

    The other side of the coin is there was no danger, no-one was in front of the Sharks when they carried on walking which is perhaps why Lawrence allowed it to move forward???

    The mistake imo then came from Kankowski, he should have picked the ball up before it crossed the line.

    If a Crusader played him or the ball before it crossed the line, penalty try.

    The ball however crossed the line, which means no off-side line, and the Saders were allowed to jump on the ball from anywhere.

    The ref should then have gone back to the penalty offense for the Crusaders offense at scrumtime in the first place.

    he went to a 22.

    So decision should have been, penalty – not penalty try.

    Just my view on this.

  • Comment 17, posted at 21.04.09 08:03:26 by Morné Reply
    Administrator
    MornéTeam captain
     
  • @Morné (Comment 17) :

    Flip I missed those comments. HERE is what I have to say on the matter.

  • Comment 18, posted at 21.04.09 08:06:30 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©Head Coach
     
  • Here’s what I posted early this am on another thread.

    You win some you lose some. The Bulls got a try in the 2007 final that won them the game becasue the ref missed a knock on. this weekend they lost becasue the ref missed a knock on by the other team and awarded a try.

    You win some you lose some.

    Having said that, Freek burger seems to believe the TMO got it right. I disagree.

    Durban – There has been furious debate over the Sharks’ ‘try’ against the Crusaders on Saturday, with the game-changing incident still causing blood to boil in offices all over the country.
    Of course, most Sharks supporters and South African rugby followers feel a penalty try should have been awarded as the Crusaders’ scrum disintegrated, leaving the home scrum to walk over the tryline unopposed before an opponent dived in to dot the ball down, coming from the back of the Sharks players.

    Should the Sharks have been awared the try that would probably have taken them back to the top of the table?

    Former international referee and SA Rugby referee manager Freek Burger had this to say on Monday:

    “I watched this incident about 10 times and it is fresh in my mind because I have been discussing it today in lectures with my students at the Rugby Performance Academy. I am quite sure that had the ball not been dotted down by the Crusaders, Mark (Lawrence) would have awarded a penalty try, but because it was dotted down he did not have the option.

    “The first offence was the Crusaders unbinding from what was still a legitimate scrum. That first offence merited a penalty. After that happened, the Crusaders scrum disintegrated and the law is quite clear that in such an instance the scrum must be stopped for safety purposes.

    “But the Sharks were in possession, and their scrum was moving forward. In other words, there was no illegal tactic from them, and there was no dangerous play because the Crusaders had tried to wheel and there was no-one in front of them. If Crusaders hadn’t dotted down it should have been a penalty try, but the scrum finishes when the ball goes over the tryline.

    “A lot of people are saying it should have been a penalty try, but because of what I have outlined above, the ball going over the tryline, the correct ruling should have been a penalty, as per the first offence, and not a penalty try.”

  • Comment 19, posted at 21.04.09 08:08:38 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©Head Coach
     
  • @KSA Shark © (Comment 19) :

    The Penalty try Law.
    Penalty Try.
    If a player would probably have scored a try but for foul play by an opponent, a penalty try is awarded between the goal posts.

    I have been reffing for a few years now and cannot understand why dotting the ball down would have made a difference on whether the Sharks were awarded a Penalty try or not.

    You win some you lose some, but from a law perspective I would be curious to know why the dotting down of the ball made a difference.

    To me the Bottom line is this. If the Crusaders had not broken off the scrum, would a try probably have been scored?

  • Comment 20, posted at 21.04.09 08:10:22 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©Head Coach
     
  • @KSA Shark © (Comment 19) : :cry:

    Seems myself and Freek agrees…

    But the TMO went for a 22 – wrong call – should have been a penalty.

  • Comment 21, posted at 21.04.09 08:11:43 by Morné Reply
    Administrator
    MornéTeam captain
     
  • @KSA Shark © (Comment 20) :

    To me the Bottom line is this. If the Crusaders had not broken off the scrum, would a try probably have been scored?

    That is the crux of the matter.

    The ref should have blown the scrum up as soon as the Crusaders broke off the scrum and awarded a penalty to the Sharks – that was the offense.

    A push over try is not really a push over try if you are not scrumming against anyone…

    The Sharks should not have been allowed to continue scrumming against nothing as it is not a scrum anymore – it should have been blown up and a penalty awarded.

  • Comment 22, posted at 21.04.09 08:14:25 by Morné Reply
    Administrator
    MornéTeam captain
     
  • @Morné (Comment 21) :

    I have asked my “Law Guru” and await his email reply. :smile:

    IMPO The TMO got it wrong and Lawrence should have pushed him for the answer that he wanted. Lawrence looked a little flustered when he got the “22 drop out” answer from the TMO.

  • Comment 23, posted at 21.04.09 08:15:20 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©Head Coach
     
  • @Morné (Comment 22) :

    I agree, but now because it was dotted down all is well and a 22 drop out is awarded? I think Freek Burger has that wrong.

  • Comment 24, posted at 21.04.09 08:16:45 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©Head Coach
     
  • I think one should not look at this as one instance – it is two instances.

    One: Where the Saders breaks off the scrum illegally.

    Sanction – Penalty.

    It would take a very brave man to award a penalty try for that offense.

    Two: Saders diving on the ball as it crossed the line.

    Sanction: 22 meter drop out. The Saders did nothing wrong here, you can come from anywhere and dive on the ball as there are no off-side lines in the in-goal area.

    Like I said, Kanko should have played the ball just before it crossed the line – I am positive the Saders would have played him or the ball then and if they did, it should have been a penalty try.

    So the TMO call was correct when asked whether it was a try, or a penalty try, or a 22.

    He looked at instance two and his call on this matter was correct.

    What Lawrence then should have done is go back to instance One and say okay, no try, no Penalty try, but we go back to the first offense and that is breaking up from the scrum – i.e. Penalty Sharks on the 5 meter.

  • Comment 25, posted at 21.04.09 08:20:06 by Morné Reply
    Administrator
    MornéTeam captain
     
  • @robdylan (Comment 15) :

    It is not as simple as that but I get what you mean.

    Conceding a penalty to save a try doesn’t result in an automatic penalty try. As per the Law the ref has to decide if a Try would probably have been scored but for the offence.

  • Comment 26, posted at 21.04.09 08:20:20 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©Head Coach
     
  • @KSA Shark © (Comment 24) :

    TMO got it right, Lawrence got it wrong.

  • Comment 27, posted at 21.04.09 08:20:41 by Morné Reply
    Administrator
    MornéTeam captain
     
  • Remember, a TMO is not allowed to make calls on things that happened before a try has been scored or not scored.

  • Comment 28, posted at 21.04.09 08:23:18 by Morné Reply
    Administrator
    MornéTeam captain
     
  • @Morné (Comment 28) :

    He can comment on the last phase before the try being scored as I have it. That was one phase of play IMO.

  • Comment 29, posted at 21.04.09 08:26:20 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©Head Coach
     
  • @KSA Shark © (Comment 29) :

    Not IMO.

    The scrum was no longer a scrum as it disintegrated.

  • Comment 30, posted at 21.04.09 08:30:35 by Morné Reply
    Administrator
    MornéTeam captain
     
  • @Morné (Comment 30) :

    Yeah so the last phase start was the scrum, then it was continuous play from there. There was no tackle or ruck or maul that formed or anything that formed.

  • Comment 31, posted at 21.04.09 08:36:36 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©Head Coach
     
  • @KSA Shark © (Comment 31) :

    But thats like saying a scrum is a scrum even when the scrummy passes the ball and it moves to the wing and only when the wing gets tackled the scrum as a phase ends?

    A scrum is no longer a scrum when either the ball leaves the scrum or it collapses, disintegrates etc. Meaning that phase ends and it then becomes open play.

    Hypothetically speaking (and I get what you are saying about the last phase), if you have a scrum on your own 5 meter, the scrummy breaks, he passes to the 8, who kicks downfield, the opposition 15 tries to field the ball, loses it backwards, the opposition 14 in support then dives on the ball in his own 22 after his 15 spills it, but it squirts out – then the attacking 10 who followed up kicks the ball through and the attacking 11 in support dives on the ball in the corner just before the line and claim’s the try.

    The ref and touchies are fat asses so they are slow and goes to the TMO.

    Now no tackle was made, so no phase developed after the scrum on the 5 meter line of the team that scored the try.

    The ref asks for the TMO – does he now go back 90 meters, after 7 guys handled the ball to see whether a try should be awarded?

    Does he then see at the last phase – the scrum on the opposite 5 meter line that the 8 from the team that scored the try broke away too quickly and tells the ref to take them back for a penalty to the defending team?

  • Comment 32, posted at 21.04.09 09:21:31 by Morné Reply
    Administrator
    MornéTeam captain
     
  • @Morné (Comment 30) : Then surely it should have been another scrum at the very least, since the ball had not emerged from the scrum. The opposition had all sheared off the scrum and then surely illegally leaving the scrum early?

    One way or another, surely advantage should have passed to the Sharks simply because the ball had not left the scrum but the Crusaders had?

  • Comment 33, posted at 21.04.09 09:35:41 by Baldrick Reply

    BaldrickCurrie Cup player
     
  • But thats like saying a scrum is a scrum even when the scrummy passes the ball and it moves to the wing and only when the wing gets tackled the scrum as a phase ends?

    NO it isn’t! If our scrummy had picked the ball up at the back or even one of our flanker had picked it up then I would agree.

    What you are saying is if a scrum is set and I then push the other team off the ball, there is a phase change before the ref blows the whistle for the reset.

    Your interpretation of ending the scrum is wrong though.

    Here are the ways to ending a scrum.

    20.10 ENDING THE SCRUM
    (a) The ball comes out. When the ball comes out of the scrum in any direction except the tunnel, the scrum ends.
    (b) Scrum in the in-goal. A scrum cannot take place in the in-goal. When the ball in a scrum is on or over the goal line, the scrum ends and an attacker or a defender may legally ground the ball for a try or a touch down.
    (c) Hindmost player unbinds. The hindmost player in a scrum is the player whose feet are nearest the team’s own goal line. If the hindmost player unbinds from the scrum with the ball at that player’s feet and picks up the ball, the scrum ends.

    Nothing in the Law says that if the opposition disintigrate then the scrum is over.

  • Comment 34, posted at 21.04.09 09:37:08 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©Head Coach
     
  • @KSA Shark © (Comment 34) : “When the ball in a scrum is on or over the goal line, the scrum ends and an attacker or a defender may legally ground the ball for a try or a touch down.” SO technically, playing the ball was legal. But if they weren’t binding on the scrum, surely they should have been penalised for early disengagement?

    Flanks are all the time? So another 7 players did as well, surely that should have been advantage to the Sharks?

  • Comment 35, posted at 21.04.09 09:56:15 by Baldrick Reply

    BaldrickCurrie Cup player
     
  • @Baldrick (Comment 33) :

    As I mentioned, Lawrence should have awarded a penalty to the Sharks.

    @KSA Shark © (Comment 34) :

    Oh but here is another law for you…

    All eight players must stay bound to the scrum
    until it ends. Each front row must have three players in it, no more
    and no less. Two locks must form the second row.
    Penalty: Penalty Kick

    So the moment the Crusaders broke away from the scrum, a penalty should have been awarded…

  • Comment 36, posted at 21.04.09 10:02:28 by Morné Reply
    Administrator
    MornéTeam captain
     
  • And another one…

    Binding by all front row players. All front row players must
    bind firmly and continuously from the start to the finish of the
    scrum.
    Penalty: Penalty Kick

  • Comment 37, posted at 21.04.09 10:03:56 by Morné Reply
    Administrator
    MornéTeam captain
     
  • @Baldrick (Comment 35) :

    Precisely! I agree 100%

    Advantage Sharks for the early break, and then if we don’t get the advantage (Try) then the referee comes back to the infringement. it is them for him to decide is we probably would have scored a try.

  • Comment 38, posted at 21.04.09 10:05:13 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©Head Coach
     
  • And another…

    Twisting, dipping or collapsing. Front row players must not
    twist or lower their bodies, or pull opponents, or do anything that
    is likely to collapse the scrum, either when the ball is being thrown
    in or afterwards.
    Penalty: Penalty Kick

    Referees must penalise strictly any intentional collapsing of the
    scrum. This is dangerous play.
    Penalty: Penalty Kick

    Fact or point is, Lawrence should never have allowed the ‘scrum’ to continue.

    He should have penalised the Crusaders immediately.

  • Comment 39, posted at 21.04.09 10:06:43 by Morné Reply
    Administrator
    MornéTeam captain
     
  • @Morné (Comment 36) :

    @Morné (Comment 37) :

    But none of those say that if it doesn’t happen the scrum is over. All it says is that the sanction should be a PK.

    Had you said the moment the Crusaders broke away from the scrum the referee should have called “advantage Sharks” I would have agreed with you.

  • Comment 40, posted at 21.04.09 10:07:54 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©Head Coach
     
  • @Morné (Comment 39) :

    No mate you have it wrong and that is the one bit from Freeks Burger’s comments that I agree with completely.

    The first offence was the Crusaders unbinding from what was still a legitimate scrum. That first offence merited a penalty. After that happened, the Crusaders scrum disintegrated and the law is quite clear that in such an instance the scrum must be stopped for safety purposes.

    “But the Sharks were in possession, and their scrum was moving forward. In other words, there was no illegal tactic from them, and there was no dangerous play

    The Law you quoted says just that. Referees must penalise strictly any intentional collapsing of the
    scrum. This is dangerous play.

    This scrum was never collapsed there was never any collapsing of the scrum thus no danger was present.

    All the laws you have quoted merely call for sanctions if someone does something none of them call for the end of a scrum unless there is any danger involved.

  • Comment 41, posted at 21.04.09 10:12:50 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©Head Coach
     
  • @KSA Shark © (Comment 40) :

    But all of that is deemed as dangerous play, and in that situation it must be blown up immediately.

  • Comment 42, posted at 21.04.09 10:13:02 by Morné Reply
    Administrator
    MornéTeam captain
     
  • @Morné (Comment 39) :

    Had he not allowed the scrum to continue we would have lambasted him for not allowing advantage

  • Comment 43, posted at 21.04.09 10:13:42 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©Head Coach
     
  • Firstly:

    After that happened, the Crusaders scrum disintegrated and the law is quite clear that in such an instance the scrum must be stopped for safety purposes.

    Quite clear, whistle should have been blown.

    How he then comes up with;

    There was no danger cause the Sharks were in possession is beyond me.

    How can them having possession, or not be the team to commit the offense (which is clear) have anything to do with a disintegrating being dangerous to which there are clear laws to?

    The scrum disintegrated, the Crusaders committed an offense, they should have been penalised, the ref should have blown his whistle cause a disintegrating scrum is dangerous.

  • Comment 44, posted at 21.04.09 10:17:33 by Morné Reply
    Administrator
    MornéTeam captain
     
  • @KSA Shark © (Comment 43) :

    You CANNOT allow advantage in a situation where by law it is dangerous play.

  • Comment 45, posted at 21.04.09 10:18:21 by Morné Reply
    Administrator
    MornéTeam captain
     
  • @Morné (Comment 45) :

    Or let me rephrase – how can you expect him to play an advantage where dangerous play is taking place?

  • Comment 46, posted at 21.04.09 10:22:59 by Morné Reply
    Administrator
    MornéTeam captain
     
  • But I think this is going around in circles, I go back to one of my first posts:

    #

    I think one should not look at this as one instance – it is two instances.

    One: Where the Saders breaks off the scrum illegally.

    Sanction – Penalty.

    It would take a very brave man to award a penalty try for that offense.

    Two: Saders diving on the ball as it crossed the line.

    Sanction: 22 meter drop out. The Saders did nothing wrong here, you can come from anywhere and dive on the ball as there are no off-side lines in the in-goal area.

    Like I said, Kanko should have played the ball just before it crossed the line – I am positive the Saders would have played him or the ball then and if they did, it should have been a penalty try.

    So the TMO call was correct when asked whether it was a try, or a penalty try, or a 22.

    He looked at instance two and his call on this matter was correct.

    What Lawrence then should have done is go back to instance One and say okay, no try, no Penalty try, but we go back to the first offense and that is breaking up from the scrum – i.e. Penalty Sharks on the 5 meter.
    Comment 25, posted at 21.04.09 08:20:06

  • Comment 47, posted at 21.04.09 10:24:17 by Morné Reply
    Administrator
    MornéTeam captain
     
  • @Morné (Comment 45) : I agree knowing the law now. You cant say it cost us the game, we should overcome bad calls and score on the next attack.

  • Comment 48, posted at 21.04.09 10:24:25 by Rahul Reply

    RahulCurrie Cup player
     
  • After all, refs are only human. Not so KSA?

  • Comment 49, posted at 21.04.09 10:25:21 by Rahul Reply

    RahulCurrie Cup player
     
  • wow… do we have an answer yet? :)

  • Comment 50, posted at 21.04.09 10:26:20 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
    robdylanHead Coach
     
  • @robdylan (Comment 50) :

    Nah we have laws to contradict other laws now and it is now and interpretation thing… :)

    The thing refs do and justify it by using laws to counter laws!

  • Comment 51, posted at 21.04.09 10:28:48 by Morné Reply
    Administrator
    MornéTeam captain
     
  • @Morné (Comment 42) :

    No Morne. :sad:

    Deemed by who?

    All eight players must stay bound to the scrum until it ends. Each front row must have three players in it, no more and no less. Two locks must form the second row.
    Penalty: Penalty Kick

    That was infringed but there was nothing dangerous about it actually happening or mentioned in the law.

    ==================================

    Binding by all front row players. All front row players must bind firmly and continuously from the start to the finish of the scrum.
    Penalty: Penalty Kick

    That was infringed but there was nothing dangerous about it actually happening or mentioned in the law.

    ==================================

    Twisting, dipping or collapsing. Front row players must not twist or lower their bodies, or pull opponents, or do anything that is likely to collapse the scrum, either when the ball is being thrown in or afterwards.
    Penalty: Penalty Kick

    The only thing they did here was attempt a wheel of the scrum and that is not illegal so none of the twisting, dipping or collapsing was at play here. (We don’t know if they pulled while trying to wheel the scrum)

    ===================================

    Referees must penalise strictly any intentional collapsing of the scrum. This is dangerous play.
    Penalty: Penalty Kick

    There was no collapsing of the scrum here, all they did was walk away from the scrum.

    ==================================

    The first two example you posted are the only infringements that the Saders could have been blown for. The second two were not infringements they commited. The first two mention nothing about dangerous play and i am not sure why you deem it to have been dangerous

  • Comment 52, posted at 21.04.09 10:31:11 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©Head Coach
     
  • @robdylan (Comment 50) : do u really think we will get an answer :wink:

  • Comment 53, posted at 21.04.09 10:32:37 by rekinek Reply
    Competition WinnerCompetition Winner Author
    rekinekTeam captain
     
  • As long as laws are open to interpretation and guess work continues, the law will continue to be an ass.

    When ELVs are tried in one hemisphere and the other that does not use them rules against them, then the law is a double ass!

  • Comment 54, posted at 21.04.09 10:34:02 by Baldrick Reply

    BaldrickCurrie Cup player
     
  • @Morné (Comment 45) :

    I agree with the statement that you cannot allow play to continue when there is danger involved, but there was no danger involved.

    Where was the danger.

    I have just received word from Paul Dobkin that the clip will be up on the SA referees website in due course and we can then all go and watch it at will.

    IMO there is no danger involved.

  • Comment 55, posted at 21.04.09 10:34:29 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©Head Coach
     
  • @Morné (Comment 46) :

    What dangerous play?
    Which was the dangerous bit?

    We had a scrum and they walked away from it? Our players were fine there players were fine and nobody was in any danger at all.

  • Comment 56, posted at 21.04.09 10:38:27 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©Head Coach
     
  • @KSA Shark © (Comment 55) :

    So you reckon in what happened there in that scrum, no player was forced out or upwards out of the scrum?

  • Comment 57, posted at 21.04.09 10:40:20 by Morné Reply
    Administrator
    MornéTeam captain
     
  • @Rahul (Comment 49) :

    They Are??????????? :shock: News to me. :lol:

  • Comment 58, posted at 21.04.09 10:40:25 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©Head Coach
     
  • So we leave dangerous or potential dangerous play up to interpretation too?

  • Comment 59, posted at 21.04.09 10:45:31 by Morné Reply
    Administrator
    MornéTeam captain
     
  • @Morné (Comment 57) :

    That I do.

    Any infringement that was attempted by the Crusaders was the wheel of the scrum it failed and they walked away to try and win a rest.

  • Comment 60, posted at 21.04.09 10:46:53 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©Head Coach
     
  • @KSA Shark © (Comment 56) : It opens up a whole new kettle of fish… If you are defending a scrum on your own line, walk away and wait till the opposition pick it up or put it over the line. Then jump on them or the ball. as long as you wait behind your try line you are ok?

  • Comment 61, posted at 21.04.09 10:47:27 by Rahul Reply

    RahulCurrie Cup player
     
  • @Morné (Comment 59) :

    What specifically did you see that was dangerous?

  • Comment 62, posted at 21.04.09 10:48:51 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©Head Coach
     
  • @Rahul (Comment 61) :

    No :lol: We agree that the play was illegal and penalisable.

  • Comment 63, posted at 21.04.09 10:52:42 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©Head Coach
     
  • FYI

    This is what I have on TMO protocol.

    Has it changed?

    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 (save for the exception outlined above with regard to a Sanzar dispensation).

  • Comment 64, posted at 21.04.09 10:54:51 by Morné Reply
    Administrator
    MornéTeam captain
     
  • @KSA Shark © (Comment 63) : The ref and tmo didnt, was my point

  • Comment 65, posted at 21.04.09 10:56:11 by Rahul Reply

    RahulCurrie Cup player
     
  • @KSA Shark © (Comment 62) :

    In most instances with scrums I cannot see dangerous play or reasons why refs blow up for resets or penalties whether it is on the goal line or in the middle of the park.

    Like blowing for a reset when the scrummie is about to pass the ball…

    BUT

    I am referring to the law and what Freek said, this situation is dangerous when players unbind and scrum up and around blah blah blah.

  • Comment 66, posted at 21.04.09 10:57:14 by Morné Reply
    Administrator
    MornéTeam captain
     
  • Im with Morne on this one.

  • Comment 67, posted at 21.04.09 11:05:19 by Rahul Reply

    RahulCurrie Cup player
     
  • @Morné (Comment 64) :

    I believe it has yes. That looks like the ORIGINAL TMO protocol.

    I’ll see if I can find the latest.

    @Rahul (Comment 65) : The ref did, that is why he asked about a PT. the TMO got it wrong IMO.

  • Comment 68, posted at 21.04.09 11:07:10 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©Head Coach
     
  • @KSA Shark © (Comment 68) : we shall wait for the TMO protocol before commenting :mrgreen:

  • Comment 69, posted at 21.04.09 11:10:28 by Rahul Reply

    RahulCurrie Cup player
     
  • @Morné (Comment 66) :

    Like blowing for a reset when the scrummie is about to pass the ball…

    THAT is the “referee must stop play immediately when there is a danger to the players” bit at work. A collapsed scrum IS very dangerous.

    I am referring to the law and what Freek said, this situation is dangerous when players unbind and scrum up and around blah blah blah.

    :smile: But nothing of what actually happened on Sat is considered dangerous under the laws.

  • Comment 70, posted at 21.04.09 11:11:03 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©Head Coach
     
  • Lunch time.

    Back later.

  • Comment 71, posted at 21.04.09 11:12:19 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©Head Coach
     
  • @KSA Shark © (Comment 71) : HEY! TMO protocol first :mrgreen:

  • Comment 72, posted at 21.04.09 11:15:04 by Rahul Reply

    RahulCurrie Cup player
     
  • @KSA Shark © (Comment 70) :

    How did they unbind if the did not scrum up or inside or around which is also classed as dangerous play as per law 10?

  • Comment 73, posted at 21.04.09 11:27:37 by Morné Reply
    Administrator
    MornéTeam captain
     
  • @KSA Shark © (Comment 68) :

    Okay that is the protocol I have and according to that the TMO was spot on.

    Lawrence was incorrect.

  • Comment 74, posted at 21.04.09 11:28:19 by Morné Reply
    Administrator
    MornéTeam captain
     
  • @Morné (Comment 74) : Sadly, the TMO is restricted and cannot offer anything “new” or outside what he has been asked.

    That’s why it’s so dumb to have 2 questions:
    1. Try or no try?
    2. Can you give me any reason not to award the try?

  • Comment 75, posted at 21.04.09 11:57:10 by Baldrick Reply

    BaldrickCurrie Cup player
     
  • IRB TMO Protocol. (In there somewhere :wink: )

    LAW 6.A.7: REFEREE CONSULTING WITH OTHERS
    (a)The referee may consult with touch judges in regard to matters relating to their duties, the Law relating to foul play, or timekeeping.
    (b) A match organiser may appoint an official who uses technological devices. If the referee is unsure when making a decision in in-goal involving a try being scored or a touch down, that official may be consulted.
    (c) The official may be consulted if the referee is unsure when making a decision in in-goal with regard to the scoring of a try or a touch down when foul play in in-goal may have been involved.
    (d) The official may be consulted in relation to the success or otherwise of kicks at goal.
    (e)The official may be consulted if the referee or touch judge is unsure if a player was or was not in touch when attempting to ground the ball to score a try.
    (f) The official may be consulted if the referee or touch judges are unsure when making a decision relating to touch-in-goal and the ball being made dead if a score may have occurred.
    (g) A match organiser may appoint a timekeeper who will signify the end of each half.
    (h) The referee must not consult with any other persons.

    AREAS OF ADJUDICATION
    The areas of adjudication are limited to Law 6.A.7 (b) – (f) (above) 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:

    (a)The referee will blow time out and make the “time out” T signal.
    (b)The referee will make a “square box” signal with his hands and at the same time inform the TMO through the two way communication that he will require his advice.
    (c)The referee will then outline to the TMO the exact nature of the problem and the advice required. The TMO should repeat the referee’s request to ensure the message is correct.
    (d) The TMO will then liaise with the TV Director and look at all available footage in order to gather enough information in order to provide informed advice.
    (e)The broadcaster must provide all the angles requested by the TMO.
    (f)When the TMO has concluded his analysis he will provide the match referee with his advice and recommendations. The match referee should repeat the TMO’s recommendation to ensure that his is absolutely satisfied that he has heard what has been recommended.
    (g) The TMO will then advise the referee as to when he may go ahead and signal his decision. (This process is essential in order to allow time for TV to focus their cameras on the referee for his decision).
    (h) The referee will then communicate his decision in the correct manner and play, and time on, will continue accordingly.

    TMO IRB + SUPER 14 (2009)
    Referees must act according to the official IRB Protocol. It was decided in Sydney at the end of 2008 that the following questions can be used:

    - Try or no try
    - Give me a reason why a try cannot be awarded.

  • Comment 76, posted at 21.04.09 12:14:10 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©Head Coach
     
  • @KSA Shark © (Comment 76) :

    Seems to me the TMO cannot award PT in this instance then…

  • Comment 77, posted at 21.04.09 12:20:47 by Morné Reply
    Administrator
    MornéTeam captain
     
  • @Morné (Comment 77) :

    yip Seems like it.

    Concerns me why Lawrence then asked the question and then when he didn’t get the answer, he went with the TMO decision rather with what he was thinking.

  • Comment 78, posted at 21.04.09 12:47:20 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©Head Coach
     
  • @KSA Shark © (Comment 78) :

    Yes it is very weird.

    Lawrence made a cock up here.

    TMO can only rule on the try or not try or stuff in the in-goal – he did nothing wrong.

    Lawrence then should have gone back to the scrum infringement, or just awarded a penalty try for deliberately breaking off from the scrum when the Sharks looked well on their way to score.

    But a penalty in the least.

  • Comment 79, posted at 21.04.09 12:53:58 by Morné Reply
    Administrator
    MornéTeam captain
     
  • @KSA Shark © (Comment 76) :

    Oh and that also answers the guys who were asking for it on Saturday when the Ref didn’t ask the TMO to check if the Chiefs player was in touch before passing the ball to the guy who scored.

  • Comment 80, posted at 21.04.09 12:59:05 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©Head Coach
     
  • Okay this topic has concluded now.

    How about another one where we can criticise refs?

  • Comment 81, posted at 21.04.09 13:06:49 by Morné Reply
    Administrator
    MornéTeam captain
     
  • @Morné (Comment 81) :

    Why does anyone need an excuse to criticise refs? :lol:

  • Comment 82, posted at 21.04.09 13:12:01 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©Head Coach
     

Add Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.