KSA Shark ©

SANZAR to investigate Reds complaint

Written by Andre Bosch (KSA Shark ©)

Posted in :Sharks, Super 14 on 1 Apr 2008 at 07:32
Tagged with : ,

SANZAR will investigate an official Queensland Reds complaint that the Sharks fielded an extra man for more than two minutes in their Super 14 clash in South Africa.

But SANZAR’s Peter Rowles does not expect Queensland to receive a bonus point if a teleconference on Wednesday confirms the Sharks used a 16th man.

Laine Clarke reports for the AAP that the Reds claim Sharks replacement Craig Burden was the illegal 16th man.

He came on in the 68th minute of the Sharks’ 22-10 win and made two key tackles during his 2 minutes 10 seconds on the field, including a crucial hit on a surging Chris Latham.

The Reds are hopeful they receive a bonus point because backrower Burden’s tackle on Latham stopped a potential Reds try which would have at least cut the deficit to under seven points.

Rowles said Reds team manager Brendan Morris had submitted a “fairly comprehensive report”.

But Rowles balked at whether the Reds would receive a bonus point or whether the unbeaten Sharks should be stripped of competition points.

“I won’t go that far. That won’t be the outcome I don’t think,” he said. “It’s hard to say what way the tournament director is thinking but I would say it won’t be a change in points as a result.”

Queensland Rugby Union chairman Peter Lewis would not say whether there was a fair argument for the Reds to receive a bonus point.

“It is inappropriate for me to buy into that,” Lewis said. “We’ve put in a submission worthy of consideration. Obviously if there was a positive outcome for it, it would be appreciated.

“It’s an issue for SANZAR. For me to be second guessing them wouldn’t be appropriate but it’s a genuine issue, there’s no question about that.

“We would expect they look at it seriously but I am not going to tell them how to do their job.”

Lewis said he was surprised at how long Burden was on the field as a 16th man.

“Absolutely. Somebody cocked up,” he said.

The teleconference will be held Wednesday afternoon after an official Reds complaint was emailed to Bloemfontein-based SANZAR tournament director Johan Botes.

England was fined more than $20,000 for having a 16th man at the 2003 World Cup in a game against Samoa.

Dan Luger was on the field for just six seconds in that match. An English official was also barred from touchline duty for two games over the incident.


  • how did that happen????

  • Comment 1, posted at 01.04.08 07:48:01 by barend Reply
  • Barend Dunno how it happened but we have nothing to worry about.

    The Law makes provision for this and it was dealt with according to the law when it happened.

  • Comment 2, posted at 01.04.08 08:44:05 by KSA Shark © Reply
    KSA Shark ©
  • Here is the relevant law.

    Law 3 Number of Players – The Team

    Maximum: each team must have no more than fifteen players on the playing area.

    Objection: at any time before or during a match a team may make an objection to the referee about the number of players in their opponents’ team. As soon as the referee knows that a team has too many players, the referee must order the captain of that team to reduce the number appropriately. The score at the time of the objection remains unaltered.

    Penalty: Penalty at the place where the game would restart.

  • Comment 3, posted at 01.04.08 09:42:46 by KSA Shark © Reply
    KSA Shark ©
  • whoops

  • Comment 4, posted at 01.04.08 14:08:52 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
  • Lol… this did not even get a mention on Melbourne sports news a few minutes ago…

  • Comment 5, posted at 01.04.08 14:09:46 by bryce_in_oz Reply

  • Bryce.

    I suspect because they know it is ridiculous.

    there is no chance of anyone getting points deducted.

    The Law is clear “The score at the time of the objection remains unaltered.”

  • Comment 6, posted at 01.04.08 14:12:44 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©
  • Yeah only the McKenzie sacking got a mention…

  • Comment 7, posted at 01.04.08 14:18:48 by bryce_in_oz Reply

  • I see Foxsport says that Loudon replacing him is not a done deal.

    maybe the Sharks can scoop Loudon and team him up with Plumtree next year.

  • Comment 8, posted at 01.04.08 14:23:17 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©
  • KSA,

    Those rules govern on-field ref behaviour.

    The redress the Reds are seekign is via the competition rules which, and I will find the relevant section, allows Sanzar to do pretty much anything.
    Up to, and including, deducting points.

    If you remember England in the RWC in 03 were fined for fielding 16 men even though the 16th man didnt actually do anything on the field i.e. didnt touch the ball or amke a tackle.

    Yet they were still fined even though a penalty was awarded on the field at the time in accordance with the laws of rugby.

    Seemingly for professional fouls there is an additional review process in each tournament.

  • Comment 9, posted at 01.04.08 15:23:33 by VinChainSaw Reply
  • And the relevant law…

    IRB Regulation 18.6 Penalties
    18.6.1 Upon finding a breach of the Bye-Laws and/or Regulations, or that an offence pursuant to Regulation 18.1.1 (a) to (d) inclusive has been committed, Judicial Officers and Judicial Committees shall be entitled to impose such penalties as they think fit. Such penalties may include, but shall not be limited to:
    (a) a caution, warning as to future conduct, reprimand and/or a fine;
    (b) a suspension for a specified number of Matches and/or a specified period; a requirement that a Match or Matches be played with the exclusion of the public; the cancellation of a Match result and, where appropriate, the replaying of a Match; the forfeiture of a Match or matches and/or tie(s); the deduction or cancellation of points; the immediate or future expulsion or suspension from a tournament(s) or competition(s); or any such similar sanctions;

  • Comment 10, posted at 01.04.08 15:24:06 by VinChainSaw Reply
  • Anyway a fecking stupid, stooopid thing to do.

  • Comment 11, posted at 01.04.08 15:24:31 by VinChainSaw Reply
  • Vinnie

    Just as the laws apply to on field situations the regulation pertain to OFF FIELD regulations.

    The Bylaws and regulation you are citing or for things such as spectators shining lasers in players’ eyes etc.

    The Bye laws and regulations have nothing to do with the situation at hand. It is a LAW that was broken not an off field ByeLaw or regulation.

  • Comment 12, posted at 01.04.08 15:37:01 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©
  • On what basis were England fined then KSA?

  • Comment 13, posted at 01.04.08 15:45:07 by VinChainSaw Reply
  • vin! Drinks this week sometime?

  • Comment 14, posted at 01.04.08 16:04:50 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
  • i would suspect it was a RWC regulation of sort. The article on 365 sums it up nicely actually.

    They basically say what I have said above but add something along the lines that SANZAR will now have to deal with it on their structures.

    Do you have any idea how many times something like this has happened in the past.

    The law covers what happens. if an extra player is on the field.

    The Byelaws and regulations don’t even mention player numbers.

  • Comment 15, posted at 01.04.08 16:08:01 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©
  • if anyone can get the 365 page to load then please post the relevant piece i am refering to here.

    I can’t get it loaded for some reason

  • Comment 16, posted at 01.04.08 16:10:06 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©
  • Eventually got it loaded.

    Laws – 16 men on a rugby team
    Tue, 01 Apr 2008 11:46

    The Sharks had 16 players on the field during their match against the Reds, and the Reds are up in arms.

    It was not quite as dramatic as people make out – on for two minutes and 10 seconds. making “a crucial hit on a surging Chris Latham”, “making two key tackles”, Burden’s tackle on Latham stopping a potential Reds’ try which would have meant a bonus point.

    At 67.14 the Reds have a scrum not far from their line. There is no sign of Burden. We do not become aware of him till 69.59. He came onto the field somewhere between those two times. In between a lot had happened.

    The Sharks had scored a try which the TMO conformed and Rory Kockott converted. Burden played no part in that. Then the Reds kicked off to the left. There is still no sign of Burden.

    The reds won the ball back and came to their right and Latham had the ball. That is when Burden comes into view. This is on the Grand Stand side, the side from which replacements enter the match.

    Latham is tackled by Albert van den Berg and Brad Barritt, not Burden for there is a lot of defence about. Poutasi Luafutu of the Reds gets the ball and that is where Burden gets in on the action.

    Prop Tendai Mtawarira of the Sharks is straight in front of Luafutu and tackles him while Burden grabs him from behind. Burden stays on his feet and gets the ball from Luafutu.

    The referee calls out: “Leave it, 16.” Burden does not leave it. The referee then penalises Burden saying: “You’re not the tackler. You’ve got to go to ground.” In other words Burden had no right to play the ball from the side in which he played it.

    That was at 70.16.

    At this stage the referee’s assistant (aka touch judge) came onto the field with the message that the Sharks had 16 men. The referee’s assistant has an assistant – two in fact – to control the coming and going of players. They are referred to as Number 4 and Number 5. This assistant to the referee’s assistant had espied Burden’s intrusion and went to the referee’s assistant and told him that the Sharks had one too many.

    The referee then counted heads as Johan Muller, the Sharks’ lock left the field.

    The referee gave the penalty where he had given the penalty against Burden.

    Was that right?


    Objection: at any time before or during a match a team may make an objection to the referee about the number of players in their opponents’ team. As soon as the referee knows that a team has too many players, the referee must order the captain of that team to reduce the number appropriately. The score at the time of the objection remains unaltered.
    Penalty: Penalty at the place where the game would restart.

    The game would have restarted with a penalty and that is what the referee did, penalise the Sharks at the place where they had already been penalised.

    By law the score remains unaltered.

    Could the Sharks be fined? That is up to the organisers of the match, SANZAR. It’s not a part of the Laws of the Game

  • Comment 17, posted at 01.04.08 16:14:10 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©
  • Does this mean that the Sharks are a bunch of…….well Sharks?

  • Comment 18, posted at 01.04.08 16:49:04 by Dive Pass Reply

    Dive Pass
  • Ai the Aussies….

    They will also try anything….

  • Comment 19, posted at 01.04.08 17:28:56 by Hmmm Reply

  • But give them credit….they are innovative in getting log points….

  • Comment 20, posted at 01.04.08 17:29:35 by Hmmm Reply

  • Hmmm 😆

    maybe if we were that innovative we would be closer to the Saders on the log. 😉

  • Comment 21, posted at 01.04.08 20:14:03 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©

Add Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.