What an utter crock of you-know-what

Written by Rob Otto (robdylan)

Posted in :Bulls, Original Content, Super Rugby on 5 Mar 2012 at 09:31
Tagged with : , , , ,

Anyone else feel that the incident leading up the the awarding of Dean Greyling’s “try” against the Cheetahs this weekend was nothing short of scandalous? Please can the decision-makers sort out the stupid refereeing system now, lest this great game of ours go down the toilet through sheer ineptitude.

For those who didn’t watch, let me enlighten you. Referee Craig Joubert was pretty sure that he’d seen Greyling ground the ball over the line after being brought to ground just short. He then asked for TMO Johann Meuwesen’s confirmation, given that he (Joubert) had already jumped to a conclusion that the try had been scored. What Joubert hadn’t seen, though, was the clear delay in between Greyling’s being brought to ground and the subsequent stretch over the line. I would estimate it took at least 15 seconds, during which time he initially attempted to place the ball back to allow his scrum half to clear, before then stretching over. According to the laws, this constitutes a clear double movement and the correct decision would have been a penalty to the Cheetahs.

Meuwesen knew this, of course, but the way in which Joubert had asked him to rule precluded him telling the ref that it was clearly not a try and that he should not award it. Joubert asked Meuwesen to look at the grounding only and despite the TMO’s best efforts to alert the ref to his error by asking in desperation”which grounding, the first or the second?”, Joubert steadfastly refused to waiver from his view that it surely HAD TO BE a try because he had seen some sort of grounding.

This, in short, is pathetic. Surely a ref should no pre-judge a situation if he doesn’t have all the facts? And surely, having decided to ask the TMO for advice, the TMO should then be at liberty to share all relevant information to allow the ref to make a correct decision? What is the point of having the technology if it’s going to be used in such a half-hearted, broken way?

Situations like this are a blight on the sport and must be sorted out.


  • I agree. But surely a double movement is a “reason not to award a try”. I know the refs can only ask two questions, and in this case the answer should’ve been, “Yes I can!”

  • Comment 1, posted at 05.03.12 09:51:44 by Gaff Reply
  • Surely the TMO, who was asked to give a reason as to why the try could not be scored, should have said that the player made a double movement.

    Is that not a reason not to award the try?

  • Comment 2, posted at 05.03.12 09:52:16 by Richard Ferguson Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Administrator
    Richard Ferguson
  • Craig Joubert was definitely biased there, there is no other conclusion, Meuwesen tried a few times to alert to the double(triple?) movement, the “first grounding or second?” question, Joubert then said was it held up or lost forward, not inquiring any more about the ‘second grounding’, Meuwesen asked him if he would like info on what happened before the grounding, Joubert clearly replied “No”

  • Comment 3, posted at 05.03.12 10:04:12 by Die Kriek Reply

  • @Richard Ferguson (Comment 2) : what was the exact Q? “Was the ball grounded?” Or “is there any reason I cannot award the try?” Or a combo of both? If it was just the first q, I’d say Meuwie did not have a choice..? The other 2, he could have said there was a reason..

  • Comment 4, posted at 05.03.12 10:10:25 by Ice Reply
    Competition Winner Ice
  • @Ice (Comment 4) :

    The question was : “Can you give me any reason I cannot award the try”

  • Comment 5, posted at 05.03.12 10:13:49 by Richard Ferguson Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Administrator
    Richard Ferguson
  • 😯

  • Comment 6, posted at 05.03.12 10:14:34 by JarsonX Reply
    Competition WinnerCompetition WinnerCompetition Winner
  • Craig Joubert was one of Paddy O’Brien’s pawns in getting the RWC trophy to stay in New Zealand.

    But seriously, look at the whole picture, Basson’s effort two minutes before was a try and Johann Meuwesen called it wrong. So call it justice. The Cheetahs defence wasn’t there on Saturday, so lets not slate the number one referee in the World. The question was loosely ” I have seen the grounding of the ball, is there any reason for me not to award the try?” Meuwesen cocked it up by confusing Joubert with his answer. He should have simply said there was a double movement.

  • Comment 7, posted at 05.03.12 10:19:09 by waje Reply

  • Guys,

    The TMO is not allowed to highlight any indiscretions outside of the in-goal area with the exception if the player went into touch while grounding the ball or not.

    He was asked to look at the (second) grounding of the ball (if it was knocked or lost in the process of grounding) – what happened before that (double movement) is outside of his jurisdiction.

    The only people that could have called the double movement was Joubert and his assistants.

  • Comment 8, posted at 05.03.12 10:26:53 by Morné Reply
  • @Morné (Comment 8) :

    But surely that is utter bulls#*t?!

  • Comment 9, posted at 05.03.12 10:28:09 by Richard Ferguson Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Administrator
    Richard Ferguson
  • @Morné (Comment 8) :

    On the question that was asked of course (any reason not to award the try as he saw the ball grounded on or over the line).

  • Comment 10, posted at 05.03.12 10:28:23 by Morné Reply
  • @Richard Ferguson (Comment 9) :

    It is – everyone agrees the laws when TMO’s are considered to make decisions needs a work-over.

  • Comment 11, posted at 05.03.12 10:29:22 by Morné Reply
  • The serious question is how Joubert called Hougaard’s tackle a Red Card, when Andries Struass only got a yellow for a far worse tackle. The SANZAR judiciary also are showing a little inconsistency as Strauss got two weeks and Hougaard only gets one. Surely a red card deserves greater punishment?

  • Comment 12, posted at 05.03.12 10:35:20 by waje Reply

  • @waje (Comment 12) :

    They looked at the actual tackle, and in this case the Strauss tackle was worse.

    Strauss’ tackle deserved a Red as well, in all honesty.

    This system actually works really well.

  • Comment 13, posted at 05.03.12 10:38:35 by Richard Ferguson Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Administrator
    Richard Ferguson
  • Rob i agree 100% with you, seriously it’s time for them to change this stupidity

  • Comment 14, posted at 05.03.12 10:39:04 by sharks_lover Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
  • @Richard Ferguson (Comment 13) : I’ll reserve judgement until I have seen a few more weeks. It is a case of too good to be true.

  • Comment 15, posted at 05.03.12 10:43:21 by waje Reply

  • I think the TMO confusion can easily be sorted out. At the moment there is confusion because it is all dependent on what the referee asks the TMO…i mean come on! If a ref is not sure if a try has been scored and has to ask the TMO the only thing he should ever ask is whether a try has been scored yes or no! Its that simple. No silly wording and interpretations. Secondly, how the hell did the TMO award Jaco Taute that try…really? The officials need to concentrate less on interpretations and more on using common sense. And as for Mark Lawrence…nobody goes to a game to watch you ref! Let the teams play and just use your whistle! And please buy mens sized clothing…ur not 13-14 anymore!

  • Comment 16, posted at 05.03.12 10:44:58 by SheldonK Reply

  • i heard he asked happy with the grounding of the ball i need to know if it was lost forward
    help if i’m wrong and TMO says you can award the try 😕

  • Comment 17, posted at 05.03.12 11:12:22 by chaz Reply

  • @Morné (Comment 8) : I disagree.

    The TMO’s jurisdiction is “in the act of scoring the try” whether in or outside the goal area.

    What you are saying (in your 1st paragraph) could then mean if the guy knocks the ball on just before going over the line and the ball touches the ground before the line before the player then falls on it after it rolls over the line to score a “try” would then have to be allowed by the TMO.

  • Comment 18, posted at 05.03.12 11:20:59 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©
  • @Ice (Comment 4) : no Uysie…Meuwesen was trying to do what he did against the All Blacks in PE where he told the ref about a forward pass before Dagg grounded the ball, this is not within IRB tmo protocols!

    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
    All kicks at goal including dropped goals.

    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. The referee must make an effort to make an adjudication.

    so CRAIG is compelled to make his OWN decision about what transpired before the try is scored and is only to refer to Meuwesen to confirm only the above.

    in this instance it is clear that craig was unsighted when Wors went for the line for the 1st time and to everything else Wors did after that.

  • Comment 19, posted at 05.03.12 11:24:30 by Megatron Reply

  • Surely the touch judge (assistant referee) should have had a clear view of everything. HE should have told Craig immediately that it was a double movement.

  • Comment 20, posted at 05.03.12 11:31:11 by Ben Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Author
  • @Ben (Comment 20) : exactly Ben10!

  • Comment 21, posted at 05.03.12 11:37:40 by Megatron Reply

  • @Megatron (Comment 21) : Glad we are on the same wavelength Megatroll! 😆 :mrgreen:

  • Comment 22, posted at 05.03.12 11:42:25 by Ben Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Author
  • Point is, it’s stupid that if a TV Ref can see a clear mistake being made in the replay shown to him to review that he cannot point this out to the ref, even if the ref did not think to include this in his question.

    Why would they limit themselves like this. You’re already not sure whether the try has been scored, you’re already going to stand and wait for the decision to be made. You might as well have the tv ref look at any possible reason for the try not to be awarded with in the replay shown to him.

    I like the way they’re doing it in Cricket. I get that rugby is not that clear cut, but the Umpire in cricket might as well go up and say check if the ball hit the player in line or not. So the Tv Umpire gets a replay which of course includes the pitch of the ball, the ball clearly pitches outside leg, but does in fact hit the batsman in front and goes on to hit. The decision would be not out, but because the question is restricted the TV umpire can only answer yes the ball does hit in line. In rugby if the guy attempts to go beyond that and say, but… the on field umpire would say, hey no buts, did it hit him in line or not? So the batsman would be given out, when the call would have been overturned if the TV umpire could include his full review not just answer one isolated question!

    I would even give the Tv ref a 30 (or maybe just 15) second clip that he can review. If he sees any error occurring before the try being scored he can ask to watch that part one more time and decide whether he will continue to the try scoring motion or disallow the try and instruct the referee on what his decision should be.

    They don’t want to slow the game down or whatever, but the situation as it is now has become laughable.

  • Comment 23, posted at 05.03.12 11:43:00 by Letgo Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Author
  • @Letgo (Comment 23) : 30seconds? jeepers. 😯

  • Comment 24, posted at 05.03.12 11:59:23 by Megatron Reply

  • @Megatron (Comment 24) : This shocks you? I’m saying the the TV ref is only aloud to watch the 30 sec clip once to the point of the try scoring action. If he does not notice and error he looks at the try scoring action only, but looks at all possible mistakes that may have occurred before the try has been scored.

    If he does see a definite error within the 30 or 15 second replay, he has one opportunity to confirm this error. It needs to be clearly visible. If the one replay confirms the error (handling, offside…) he immediately gives his decision to the ref, if the replay does not give him a clear answer it will be deemed inconclusive and he will move on to only the try scoring motion. Again, here he should look out for all possible errors within this motion.

    It’s annoying to see tries awarded when it clearly should not be awarded. Otherwise they should just take away the whole TV ref system and let the ref make the decision on the spot. At least then you could say, well he didn’t see it.

  • Comment 25, posted at 05.03.12 12:15:02 by Letgo Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Author
  • @KSA Shark © (Comment 18) :

    Not really no.

    I take you back to 2011 and the Boks v All Blacks where Clancy and the same TMO in question here ruled against an AB try because of a forward pass.

    To quote ref’s boss O Brien directly:

    “If that means referees miss a knock-on or something else in the lead up to a try, then that’s the way it is. This has all been talked about at the IRB level and that was the decision.”

    Your example refers to the ball not ‘grounded’ legally (it was knocked in the act of scoring).

    In the case we have here the ball WAS grounded legally – what led up to this ‘second’ (but legal) grounding – a double movement – is the same as ruling on a forward pass PRIOR to a legal grounding which is not allowed.

    No-where does it define ‘actions prior to grounding in the in-goal area’ can only be between two or more players, it can be a single guy that did something illegally like a double movement, or entering a ruck from an off-side position to steal a ball and just flop over for a try.

    Unfortunately, THOSE calls can only be made by the ref and his assistants.

  • Comment 26, posted at 05.03.12 12:49:02 by Morné Reply
  • @Morné (Comment 26) : In the lead up. Not in the act of. 🙂

  • Comment 27, posted at 05.03.12 13:02:42 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©
  • Yeah, Joubert was a fool not to listen to the TMO. The dialgoue between them was comical. You felt the TMO wanted to say, “look you idiot it wasn’t a try so why won’t you let me say that!”

  • Comment 28, posted at 05.03.12 13:07:48 by Leviathan Reply

  • Told you Craig Joubert is a bull. Marius Jonker would`ve asked exactly the same question. :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

  • Comment 29, posted at 05.03.12 13:10:01 by Original Pierre Reply
    Original Pierre
  • Referees are there to ref a game, they are not teachers, or authoritarians, Craig Joubert reckons he is a Top Gun ala Tom Cruise… There is no wrong decision, its Craig Joubert and I am the law… From his mouth is the first time I heard “reload number 3” at the breakdown… “Reload number 7 white” at the breakdown. Then audibly tells a player that was a good “reload at the hammer” wtf? Its rugby, they are refs not Demi-Gods… The TMO should be able to ajudicate anything from the 5 meter line, right down to the touch down… Its a shocker, its ego.

  • Comment 30, posted at 05.03.12 14:02:16 by DarkDestroyer Reply

  • @DarkDestroyer (Comment 30) : no, it is IRB protocols! the same Meuwesen was lambasted by paddy o’brien after the PE debacle…if the ref asks you is the any reason not to awards the try he is on asking you to tell him that the last pass in the 5m are was forward, he wants to know details oabout the act of grounding the ball ie he takes responsibility of everything thing else before the act of grounding the ball!

  • Comment 31, posted at 05.03.12 14:37:23 by Megatron Reply

  • @Megatron (Comment 31) : yep, that we all know… Just having a dig @ Craig “Top Gun” Joubert… You know how someone just irks you for no real reason; just because… Craig is that guy. He told Victor Matfield on mic last season that he is also a tough oke, would love to see him get in the channel of a bruiser to put that comment to the test. He just irks me, you know – like Luke Watson… 😉

  • Comment 32, posted at 05.03.12 14:48:57 by DarkDestroyer Reply

  • @DarkDestroyer (Comment 32) : nothing to do with the fact that he went to MC i hope 😎

  • Comment 33, posted at 05.03.12 15:14:51 by Megatron Reply

  • @Megatron (Comment 33) : nope. I have an affinity to College. Special School. A National Monument. Produced many a great sportsman, and a kak ref. Lol! 😉 but seriously I have a special love for MC.

  • Comment 34, posted at 05.03.12 15:48:37 by DarkDestroyer Reply

  • @KSA Shark © (Comment 27) :

    Haha, can’t do that, what do you define as the ‘lead-up’?

    A player could have knocked the ball slightly on the 22 when picking it up from a ruck and then sprinting to the goal line untouched for a score. The lead up then started 22 meters away…

  • Comment 35, posted at 05.03.12 17:40:01 by Morné Reply

Add Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.