There were two big talking points to come out of the round nine Super Rugby matches in New Zealand. Firstly, the red card to the Highlanders Jason Emery, and secondly the ordering of ‘uncontested scrums’ at the conclusion of the Hurricanes vs Chiefs local derby match.
Sports Events Guide’ resident referee contributor Scott MacLean takes a look at both.
Super Rugby Round Nine: Latest Talking Points
Was the Emery red card correct?
By now most readers would have seen the footage of the first of our latest talking points; Sharks fullback Willie le Roux takes to the air in the 13th minute to field a high kick, and is clattered into by Highlanders midfielder Jason Emery, spinning Le Roux and causing him to land on the back of his neck and shoulders. Fortunately the Springbok custodian was uninjured, and after being taken for an obvious concussion check, incredibly continued in the match.
For Emery there was no such good fortune, and after consulting with the TMO and reviewing replays on the big-screen, match referee Ben O’Keeffe sent Emery from the field.
The relevant guideline is Law 10.4(i) which states: “Tackling the jumper in the air – A player must not tackle nor tap, push or pull the foot or feet of an opponent jumping for the ball in a lineout or in open play.” From a refereeing perspective, the first thing officials look for is ‘has there been a fair contest?’ In other words ‘are both players attempting to claim the ball?’
In this case, even though Emery belatedly jumped, its clearly not the case here; contrast that with the similar high-ball collision in the opening moments of the Sunwolves vs Jaguares match, that cost each team a player to injury but was a fair contest. Having established that, we have at least a penalty.
Next step is determining what ruling must be made, and the current directive from World Rugby is to use the same process as for tip-tackles; consider if the player in the air was placed into a ‘dangerous position’ and if so, then start with a red card sanction and work from there. Given the highly dangerous nature of how le Roux impacted the ground, the only applicable outcome was to hand down a red card and send Emery off.
Ultimately, my view is that Emery had no obvious intent, and simply ‘got it all wrong’. However, this is something that needs to be taken out of the game and it will be interesting to see the outcome of the judiciary process.
What went on at Westpac?
The second of the latest talking points was the final moments of the cracking game at Westpac Stadium. In the final minutes, Chiefs replacement prop Siate Tokolahi went down injured, leading to all sorts of discussion on the sideline. Super Rugby operates with a 23-man match day squad, requiring all teams to have three front-row replacements and at minimum to be able to replace each starting front-rower at the first time of asking.
Tokolahi had already replaced starting tighthead Atu Moli, who had himself been injured [both adding to the Chiefs unwanted problems in that area] just before halftime, meaning an injured Moli could not return to the game. The Chiefs still had their other prop Siegfried Fisiihoi available from their bench, and attempted to introduce him into the game in Tokolahi’s place.
What happened next is perhaps the subject of some conjecture. Either there is a directive ‘deep within the SANZAAR regulations’ or Chiefs management told sideline officials that Fisiihoi (or any other fit front-rower) was not able to play tighthead, and would therefore need to go to uncontested scrums. If the latter, it would seem a very curious call, as Fisiihoi played both sides of the scrum for Bay of Plenty in the ITM Cup last year, including starting at tighthead in the Championship semi-final.
However, the main point is whether or not a player is ‘capable’ of playing in the front row which is not the job of the referee to judge (Law 3.5(a)) but having been informed by sideline match organiser David Walsh that they were unable to proceed now with contested scrums, the Chiefs were then obligated to comply with Law 3.6(d), which states: “In a squad of 23 players, or at the discretion of the Union/match organiser, a player whose departure has caused the referee to order uncontested scrums cannot be replaced”, so the chiefs were reduced to just 14 men for the remainder of the game, and Fisiihoi was not permitted into the contest.
Whether the Chiefs did this deliberately or not; given that their scrum was under pressure, is a different discussion altogether but confusion reigned when Golden Oldie scrum rules were imposed on the game.
Confusion abound at #HURvCHI now. What’s happened here? Players, coaching staff, fans and commentators are unsure. #AllOutRugby
— vodacomrugby (@VodacomRugga) April 23, 2016
Incidentally, this is the same law that wasn’t applied correctly when it should have been in South Africa last year, in a test match between the Springboks and All Blacks. On that occasion, the hosts were permitted to continue with 15 men. As for why it exists, with three front row replacements within teams that are expected to be able to comply and provide contested scrums, to create a sanction (loss of a man) if teams are unable to do so is in place largely to ‘prevent teams gaming’ when their scrum is being dominated.
Whether there is any further action taken by SANZAAR remains to be seen, but between players, officials and coaches (main picture) these will be some of the talking points to digest after this round nine of another riveting Super Rugby match.
“Main photo credit”
