Could this be a Grounding?

Written by Iza Loubser (Ice)

Posted in :Lions, Original Content, Sharks, Super Rugby on 3 Jun 2012 at 13:39

After last nights game, there was some speculation and some certainty that the ball was grounded. At least by myself, Ben and the AR.

There was even also the comment that why the TMO ruled differently if the AR said he clearly saw the grounding.

Here is some footage, thanks to Ben. It’s not the best picture, but it seems to show a ball ON the line before a knee from the right corner hit it back.

I maintain that the TMO only then started his review from that point onward to make a decision.

Not that it would have helped us as our team played like palookahs, but it could have meant a bonus point at least.

My take is that the ball was grounded…perhaps the AR, Ben and me were not “lying” or seeing things.


  • Note that Ludik’s right hand was on the ball at this time. Can not be seen clearly in the picture but I saw as much on the TV.

  • Comment 1, posted at 03.06.12 13:50:53 by Ben Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Author
  • And thanks Ice.

  • Comment 2, posted at 03.06.12 13:53:39 by Ben Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Author
  • sorry boet, but I can’t see anything from that picture!

  • Comment 3, posted at 03.06.12 14:00:50 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
  • This would have meant that we would have gotten 2 points from this game at least.

  • Comment 4, posted at 03.06.12 14:02:26 by Pokkel Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Author
  • @robdylan (Comment 3) : Can you not see the ball on the line???

  • Comment 5, posted at 03.06.12 14:04:34 by Ben Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Author
  • @robdylan (Comment 3) : eh?? 😯

  • Comment 6, posted at 03.06.12 14:05:08 by Ice Reply
    Competition Winner Ice
  • sorry Ice . there is a reason they dont use this angel for run outs in cricket …

  • Comment 7, posted at 03.06.12 14:05:57 by Zibbie Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner
  • this is a rubbish picture, i can’t see anything from it…poor excuse for evidence.

  • Comment 8, posted at 03.06.12 14:08:50 by Megatron Reply

  • @Zibbie (Comment 7) : Yes because there are 3 element involved in cricket. Stumps, ball and line.

    In rugby only 2. Ball and line.

  • Comment 9, posted at 03.06.12 14:09:23 by Ben Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Author
  • Best you guys go look at the footage again in slow motion.

  • Comment 10, posted at 03.06.12 14:15:53 by Ben Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Author
  • @Ben (Comment 9) :

    still would have been much clearer if they could have shown a 90 degree photo .

  • Comment 11, posted at 03.06.12 14:16:42 by Zibbie Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner
  • @Megatron (Comment 8) : STFU…read what I said. You”re being a ag never mind.

    You guys wanna tell me that there is not even the littlest bit of doubt now? Yes, it might not (from the quality and angle) a solid grounding, but it sure as hell shows that it could be too.

  • Comment 12, posted at 03.06.12 14:17:55 by Ice Reply
    Competition Winner Ice
  • @Zibbie (Comment 11) : seriously ?….and where in rugby are you gonna find the perfect angle for every call…?

  • Comment 13, posted at 03.06.12 14:19:14 by Ice Reply
    Competition Winner Ice
  • @Zibbie (Comment 11) : I have seen a hell of a lot more shocking angles get the nod…

  • Comment 14, posted at 03.06.12 14:19:58 by Ice Reply
    Competition Winner Ice
  • @Zibbie (Comment 11) : I have another picture from side on that shows the ball is on the line just before Elton’s knee knocks it away. But the picture is also very unclear.

    In the picture posted in the article, on Tv I could see Ludik’s hand on the ball just before Elton knocks it away. So that means the ball was over the line and ludik’s right hand (or fingers) was on the ball thus it should have been a try..

  • Comment 15, posted at 03.06.12 14:22:12 by Ben Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Author
  • @Ice (Comment 13) :

    True . Look same as in cricket . if the umpire or a player gets in the way of the camera shot and there are no clear evidence the batsman is safe .

    I dont think saying the ball might have touched the line is reason enough to award the try

    The Lions where very lucky to score the second try (think it was ?)

    you see why i say the Lions where lucky to win last night πŸ˜›

  • Comment 16, posted at 03.06.12 14:26:07 by Zibbie Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner
  • @Ben (Comment 15) :

    sad truth is we can argue about this for the next 100 years and it wont change anything

    i agree you guys can feel hard done by .

    At times the Lions where lucky .

  • Comment 17, posted at 03.06.12 14:28:44 by Zibbie Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner
  • @Zibbie (Comment 16) : The question to the TMO was, “Can you give me a reason not to award the try?”

    Now can you see any clear evidence from that picture that the ball was short of the line?

  • Comment 18, posted at 03.06.12 14:29:05 by Ben Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Author
  • @Ben (Comment 18) : Therefore no reason. The ref can award the try!

  • Comment 19, posted at 03.06.12 14:29:54 by Ben Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Author
  • @Zibbie (Comment 17) : That’s not what bothers me. The Lions deserved to win in all honesty. What bothers me is the inconsistency from the Refs, AR’s and TMO’s!

  • Comment 20, posted at 03.06.12 14:31:39 by Ben Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Author
  • @Ben (Comment 18) :

    πŸ˜† look i admit it should have been given as a try . Ludiks arm is a bit in the way πŸ˜› i think he should be blamed πŸ˜›

  • Comment 21, posted at 03.06.12 14:32:37 by Zibbie Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner
  • I agree…gawd knows where our boy were last night!? But in all honestly – could he really give a reason not to award the try…?

  • Comment 22, posted at 03.06.12 14:34:53 by Ice Reply
    Competition Winner Ice
  • @Ben (Comment 20) :

    I agree on that . i think the problem is the rules are not clear .

    my question would be . if the ref ask any reason why i can award the try . what does ‘any reason’ mean ? Could ‘i cant see a clear grounding off the ball’ be such a reason or not ?

    and also the answer the TMO gave last night . Should the ref not have said . wait a min . this is not what i asked so i can award the try ?

  • Comment 23, posted at 03.06.12 14:36:24 by Zibbie Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner
  • @Zibbie (Comment 23) : Did you see Spies’ try last night? He went over the line and put the ball on a Stormers player’s foot. There was no clear evidence of a grounding. The Ref asked the TMO if he can give him a reason not to award the try and the TMO said no you may award the try EVEN THOUGH the TMO NEVER saw a CLEAR GROUNDING.

  • Comment 24, posted at 03.06.12 14:40:23 by Ben Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Author
  • The last picture should be the first as the first picture shows that ball further forward on the line.

  • Comment 25, posted at 03.06.12 14:41:56 by Ice Reply
    Competition Winner Ice
  • The officiating was absolutely shocking last night. But not as bad as the Sharks were. Has anyone seen a replay of the Lions’ first try?

  • Comment 26, posted at 03.06.12 14:46:11 by war1 Reply
  • @Ben (Comment 24) :

    true . So that cant be a reason then ?

  • Comment 27, posted at 03.06.12 14:55:38 by Zibbie Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner
  • Exactly, its not rocket science is it!

  • Comment 28, posted at 03.06.12 15:52:20 by neilster Reply

  • @war1 (Comment 26) : If that was the chip ahead for Hattingh’s try then yes, he was in front of the ball when it was chipped.

  • Comment 29, posted at 03.06.12 15:53:13 by neilster Reply

  • I have now gone and played this in slow mo over a few times. YES it was grounded. The TMO got it wrong. We could have had two bonus points had it been awarded… πŸ˜•

    Jeez, can’t these tmo’s just get dropped totally if they don’t get it right? Shameful really as they have the tv to replay it over and over, so how can they get it wrong???

    Anyhow we played daft rugby last night and Lions were the far better team. We should have played for a win and not let the pressure get to us. Those penalties we kicked for a lineout was just crazy, we SHOULD HAVE taken the 3 points everytime. Who knows, we just may have sneaked a win. Anyhow well done to the Lions they came out fighting and they beat us playing good rugby.

    It is over boys, we have to move on. See Canes are level pegging with us. They still have to play Saders and Chiefs. So anything can still happen if we win the rest of our games. Then again, the travel will be a monster for our team. Not sure if it is even worth it. We could make the play offs just to get beat in the play off or the semi. Rather see our Sharks Boks getting ready for the RC. Just don’t at this stage see us winning it.

  • Comment 30, posted at 03.06.12 17:20:50 by Puma Reply

  • @Ice (Comment 12) : C’mon Ice just say it…”STFU…read what I said. You”re being a ag never mind…. The appropriate word there is a Megatron – we all know what it stands for.

  • Comment 31, posted at 03.06.12 18:12:08 by Salmonoid Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    Salmonoid the Subtle
  • Clear try. And he answered the question wrong which makes it a double blunder.SIGH

  • Comment 32, posted at 03.06.12 19:59:43 by Silver Fox Reply

    Silver Fox
  • Not to be funny but did the sharks deserve any points..that was a pathetic show of how a team can drop momentum when they need it..we don’t deserve top honours so it Is a good lesson for them..we will probably make the play offs but now its up to us to beat the bulls and cheetahs and convincinly too..this is why a mental coach is surely needed at the tank..we knew what the stakes were..and time n time again we cock it up..everyone says the cheetahs are our bogey team..the lions at ellis park surely must be our nightmare team

  • Comment 33, posted at 03.06.12 20:07:52 by shaniboi Reply

  • In any case how can you trust a TMO that recommended the ref award a Lions scrum after that? Fortunately Williamson is a pretty decent ref and queried that recommendation immediately.

  • Comment 34, posted at 03.06.12 21:11:08 by Bokhoring Reply
  • What a team of plonkers.

    To have lost so convincingly against a team as diabolical as the Lions means only one thing: we underestimated the Lions. Was the Currie Cup final last year not a lesson?

    How on earth could the Sharks lose this game?… The Lions have been utterly smashed by EVERY other team. The Sharks last lost to the Lions in Super rugby in 2001. The Lions have gone months without a win. This was a HUGE game in the play off context… yet the Sharks slipped up (so typically it seems).

    Had we won we would have been ahead of the Bulls in 4th place (home quarter final). Now a play off place appears to be improbable.

    This loss again exposes the soft underbelly of Sharks rugby. I’m afraid this soft underbelly has been present throughout Plumtree’s reign of shame and if he and his coaching plonkers are to remain after this Super rugby season, we can hardly expect an improvement.

    Sack all the coaches NOW.

    I am so disappointed in the team. Just after they seemed to have woken up a bit after their poor start to the season. Shame on them.

  • Comment 35, posted at 04.06.12 01:59:33 by siorc Reply

    Gold's Member
  • Well, if just these 2 calls that is discussed above, was called correctly the scoreline would have been 31-35 to the Sharks, with a bonus point. 5 points, like we wanted. And we would have bitched and moaned, but all said that we will take the win. And the log situation would have looked completely different…anyone thought of that?

  • Comment 36, posted at 04.06.12 07:56:00 by Ice Reply
    Competition Winner Ice
  • The fact is the TV ref isn’t allowed to rule on things outside of his mandate, and in this case he did. AR called the grounding, ref asked try or no try, under those circumstances, he has to rule try, end of story.

  • Comment 37, posted at 04.06.12 08:01:24 by The Quirk Reply
    The Quirk
  • @Ice (Comment 36) : Totally correct Ice.

    Time for refs to get dropped for a few weeks, but tmo’s that get it wrong should be dropped totally. They have the tv to look at it over and over, so tmo’s should never be getting it wrong.

  • Comment 38, posted at 04.06.12 08:06:48 by Puma Reply

  • Saying the above though, we never deserved to win. If we come out and play like that in the first 40min we just don’t deserve to win. Lions deserved this win. They came out to win this and they did. Well done to them.

  • Comment 39, posted at 04.06.12 08:09:06 by Puma Reply

  • @Puma (Comment 39) : Yip – we deserve the loss fully. The team has taken some good steps forward in recent games, but unfortunately a giant leap backwards this weekend.

  • Comment 40, posted at 04.06.12 08:10:44 by Bokhoring Reply
  • @Bokhoring (Comment 40) : For sure. Just had a feeling about this game. Said it a few weeks back. That I was more worried about us playing Lions than the Stormers or the Bulls coming up. Also thought about the Tests coming up and wondered if we would not be focused for this game. Pity really. We just could have gone to 4th here and if we stayed there could have had a home play off.

  • Comment 41, posted at 04.06.12 08:21:22 by Puma Reply

  • Correction we would have gone to 5th Saders are sitting at 4th.

    So no home play off. If we end on 5th we travel to NZ to play Saders. Then probably back here to play Stormers if we beat them then back to NZ Eish! Think if we make it rather it be at 6th. Then we play Brumbies and probably head off to either NZ to play in the play offs.

  • Comment 42, posted at 04.06.12 08:24:33 by Puma Reply

  • @Ice (Comment 36) : we can’t live on what if though ice!!we could of scored a try..and had a bad kick off and they could of scored..fact is the sharks have shown their true colours..same as last year..we as fans should be disappointed that a super star team got beat by a vodacom cup team..let’s hope the next month the guys do some soul searching..

  • Comment 43, posted at 04.06.12 08:27:49 by shaniboi Reply

  • @shaniboi (Comment 43) : Agree, just trying to show how calls MIGHT alter an outcome, completely.

    I must say, the start of the 2nd half gave me such hope! It was beautiful…and then KARPLAKS! πŸ™

  • Comment 44, posted at 04.06.12 08:42:48 by Ice Reply
    Competition Winner Ice
  • The AR said I saw a grounding, the TV Ref says: I did not see a knock on or any other mistake to disallow the try or give possession to the Lions.” By this evidence alone the try should have been awarded. The TV ref should not have been looking at the grounding. Although he did not have evidence that the ball was grounded, he also did not have any conclusive evidence that the ball was not grounded and since the AR already confirmed the grounding this should not have been an issue.

    This was a huge joke and another two log points taken away from the Sharks.

    This ref was a joke. He made so many mistakes I was starting to think the rules just dropped out of my head. I usually call errors, whether they come from my team or the opposition, and even with the Sharks I would go, never released the the player, holding on, forward pass and the ref didn’t see anything.

    This just worked in the Lions’ favor because they played an all or nothing game and got away with more than the Sharks who were more tentative on the day, knowing just how important a good result here was.

    If something’s not done about this, I think I’ll just start to watch something like golf or no, that’s still a competitive sport (sort of), I’ll go to plays and ballets and concerts and relax a little… I almost got an aneurysm and started screaming and shouting at my entire family and anyone that got in my way.

    This is not good for my heath.

    I don’t like losing.

    I really don’t like losing at the hand of the last placed team.

    I hate losing by the incompetence of a ref.


    Well done to the Lions though, they really surprised us, unfortunately I can’t with 100% certainty say that they deserved this win.

  • Comment 45, posted at 04.06.12 10:04:21 by Letgo Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Author
  • @shaniboi (Comment 43) : No, we did score. Big difference.

    We did score, the ref just didn’t award it.

  • Comment 46, posted at 04.06.12 10:05:32 by Letgo Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Author
  • @Zibbie (Comment 23) : No that cannot be a reason not to award a try. A reason not to award the try would be – “I can clearly see that the ball was not grounded, I contradict what the AR has said to you, there is no doubt that the defending team stopped the ball short of the line and then held it up. I am certain that the ball was not grounded and there for the try cannot be awarded. Scrum 5, black.” Why the hell do they need to talk in code. Just communicate. Can the TV ref say that he is 100% sure that that ball did not go over the line at any time. Ask him, he would say no!

    You have to have definite evidence to contradict the on field call. In other words if the ref saw that it was short and the TV ref said: “There’s no clear evidence that the ball was short of the line.” would the ref then award the try or ask the idiot TV ref – “So can you see the ball clearly grounded you dumb idiot”.

    Sorry, but seriously, there’s no argument for this anyone with a bit of logic would have found this situation laughable.

    Please don’t see this as a personal attack on anyone here, just understand the emotion that goes into a loss like this and let me vent!

  • Comment 47, posted at 04.06.12 10:24:50 by Letgo Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Author
  • @neilster (Comment 29) : I can get a picture of that too. 😐

  • Comment 48, posted at 04.06.12 10:26:07 by Letgo Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Author
  • @Letgo (Comment 48) : Oh and the second try, 4 movements to reach for the try line would be a very good reason not to award a try!

  • Comment 49, posted at 04.06.12 10:26:43 by Letgo Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Author
  • @shaniboi (Comment 33) : That’s absolute crap, we may not have played our best, but that’s no excuse for the ref to screw us too.

    We may have recovered from the initial onslaught from the Lions had the ref had any clue of what he was doing.

    It’s not just the tries that was awarded and not awarded, he also had no idea what was going on at the breakdown and let the Lions and after a while the Sharks (when the Sharks realised that this ref is shit and started doing what ever the hell they wanted too) get away with murder at the breakdowns.

    Also, that penalty he gave against Marcell was crap, since the first infringement came from the the Lions pushing the Sharks while the player was still lifted, you have to wait until he gets to the ground before you play him… so that’s penalty advantage Sharks, they also did this when Anton again went over Beasts back. They grabbed at the ball while Bresler was still in the air, while the rules clearly states when a player is lifted you have to wait until he has been brought to the ground safely before you can play either the lifter or the jumper (that’s 2 penalties just of the top of my head).

    You can’t rate a team when the refs that crap, players are human and can get frazzled by crap like this.

  • Comment 50, posted at 04.06.12 10:36:39 by Letgo Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Author
  • @siorc (Comment 35) : I will never rate the team or the coach after a officiating performance like that.

  • Comment 51, posted at 04.06.12 10:38:26 by Letgo Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Author
  • I`d rather not make the play-offs at all.

    1 We can`t use Frans Steyn in the play-offs anyway
    2 Even if we do make the play offs it`ll involve travelling, probably to Christchurch where we`ll have no chance. ( A team who can`t travel to Jhb and pick up a win have no business in Christchurch against a real Professional team. ) Rather save the money.
    3 If we make the play offs the people in charge might retain their jobs, if we lose out completely we might see a change in regime, which we desperately need. There I`ve said it.

    Anyone have Nick Mallets` number??

  • Comment 52, posted at 06.06.12 08:37:02 by Original Pierre Reply
    Original Pierre

Add Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.