Penalty, Consultation, Scrum – and the series is drawn
View(s):
Owen Farrell’s late penalty brought the scores level at 15-15 with around 3 minutes left, till the call of French Referee Romain Poite to change the decision on what was thought as an All Blacks (AB) penalty, when Lions’ Ken Owens was initially spotted offside. The controversy or contradiction arose on the collection of the kickoff following the penalty conversion.
Offside or not, the decision was similar to the 2016 World Cup when Scotland was penalized for an offside offense and Australia converted it to deny Scotland a much deserved upset, as well as a place in the semifinals. What is discussed is whether the non issue of a penalty was correct and resulted in AB not winning the game.
In the World Cup quarterfinal, the much talked of incident saw referee Craig Joubert run off the field. World Ruby explained the mistake, but the fact was the referee did not have the luxury of a replay, nor did the laws allow a referral to the Television Match Official (TMO).
In the case of Poite, the incident was much clearer than in the case of Joubert, but the issue was in the interpretation. Using the license given in recent times, but not in exact congruence with the law book, the application of using a TMO was extended. Poite originally thought there was an offside penalty, but then changed his mind and asked the TMO whether there was a penalty for a challenge in the Air, which was negative, and then whether there was a Red offside. Walking back slowly to the point the referee thought the offside was, but it was accidental, and awarded a scrum to AB. Only to find the New Zealand captain asking whether there was anything called an accidental offside in the law book. Interesting question, though trite funny, on the face of the law, and that the question comes in an elite level match and from the captain. The law talks of an accidental offside when a player accidentally runs into a player of his team who is in front. The word intentionally is what is used in the law book under Law 10. Law 11.6 heads “Accidental Offside” and states that a player who receives an unintentional throw forward is not offside. The Law also states that, when an offside player cannot avoid being touched by the ball … the player is accidentally offside.
The dilemma of a referee is that a forensic after a match and opinion expressed following much thought, including replays. The referee takes a split second decision, even if he may have the use of a TMO to help him. The issue at large, even when the cream of the crop is involved, is whether a referee was right. Substitute this back home and will you find an answer.
Take the topic of the clip that was circulated post schools 7s. Issue one was whether the referee was right in penalizing the player who played from a position that was in front of the last player of his team, who last played the ball. Another may say that it was after a tackle and hence, there is no offside line. The next issue was whether there should have been a call for a high tackle. These go in the mind of the referee who has a split second to decide. Compare the decisions of the referees who are the selected lot and whose decisions are still discussed.
I heard of a howl before the Super 7s in Kandy, that there was only one foreign referee. The argument is that, there is so much money spent which is a waste, as local referees make mistakes. Look at the other side, positively. If the local referees did not take the field, despite the continued criticism, would there have been a tournament. Then what about all that was spent. Through the Lions-AB series there are questions and criticism of referees, but as I say, these involve the top level and what if the locals miss something. Is it deliberate or a matter of interpretation? One referee allows a shallow entry at the tackle, as well as Ruck and Maul, another does not, and the issue is an interpretation of shallow and depth as he sees it. Then this is called as being inconsistent.
In the world, everybody cries that the referee pretty much decides the outcome rather than the teams participating. Sri Lanka is not alone in the weeping, as it happens all over. Read the international press and you see almost all team supporters whimpering.
A phrase in the international press says, “It looks like the mangers of the game do not have enough faith in the quality of play to maintain interest, so they are relying on controversial rules and refereeing decisions which are talked of.” These are in the newspapers, broadcast as well as in social media, which keeps the game in the minds of the fans. Yet, only a few talk about “the of fumbles by the world champions when they were in range of the visitors’ line. Lions would have lost out and the game over by the end of the one-sided first half.”
Vimal Perera is a former Rugby Referee, coach and Accredited Referees Evaluator IRB