Gary Boshoff

Penalties and still more penalties seemed to hold sway after week three of the Super 14 competition. Both in SA and in Australasia, referees did not hold back when teams transgressed, clearly intent on driving home the new law applications, particularly at the tackle.

One of the key drivers behind the new law applications was to achieve greater consistency between referees in their application of the laws. There has definitely been progress on this front despite frustration and unhappiness from habitual transgressors, particularly at the breakdown. Notwithstanding this, referees seemed to have stuck to their guns and ensured that the tackled player is released immediately allowing for more, and continuous, phase play.

After comments by Chiefs forwards coach Craig Stevenson about the creation of more equitable contest at the breakdown for the “second defender”, there were rumours flying around that the referee authorities were contemplating a “more lenient” approach to the “second defender” or “first support player” arriving at the breakdown.

Exactly what “more lenient” will mean is everyone’s guess since it will once again be open to the interpretation of the particular situation by the particular referee on duty. Even if this becomes “official” the law will remain the same, namely: the player must stay on his feet when arriving at the breakdown; when going off his feet it must be to clean a player off the ball or off his team-mate; and he can only play the ball (with his hands) if a ruck has not formed yet. 

What confuses me, and I’m sure also those players intent on winning the ball at the breakdown, is just “how lenient” referees are going to be. 

More importantly, what is it exactly that referees will be lenient on? Will one referee be more lenient than others? What will determine whether a referee is allowed to be less or more lenient? I’m sure these are questions that coaches and openside flankers will be dying to get answers to if this becomes the official line.

Stop shouting

I don’t believe there should be any further change to the application as it has been applied since the start of the season. What referees can do less of in my view is to stop shouting at players not to play when they are trying to win the ball for their team at the breakdown. 

This is hugely frustrating when watching and I can imagine how much more frustrating it must be for the players. I have witnessed numerous occasions where referees “pre-empt” a transgression and then shout at the “second defender” or “first support player” at the breakdown, to leave the ball – this usually happens just moments before a ruck has been formed. I know their intention is to be preventive or pro-active so as not to ruin what is supposed to be exciting entertainment for the spectators. 

However, the unintended consequence of this pre-emptive approach results in players becoming unwilling to contest for the ball at the breakdown, which in turn results in the almost complete retreat from competing for the ball. The resultant tighter defensive lines with fewer and fewer players committed to the breakdown are already evidence of this. 

If this is what Stevenson wants to address, I’m all for it – referees should stop screaming at players to leave the ball and rather focus on whether a ruck has been formed or not, and call that and nothing more. 

How many times have you heard a referee calls “leave it” just to open his arms immediately thereafter (when the same player wins the ball) to say “play on, he was on his feet”. These are occasions when the referee pre-empted a transgression and none occurred. The “second defender” should be allowed to contest for the ball within the laws of the game and when he transgresses he should expect to be penalised. What players don’t need is referees screaming at them all the time not to play – what’s the point of it all then?

The referees often state that there are no grey areas in the laws of the game. However, the changing and shifting in emphasis of the laws between and within rugby seasons, as has become the norm as of late, result in exactly that, namely; insecurity and vagueness about what the laws actually hope to achieve. It is time that the IRB put a stop to this and let players and coaches settle down to enjoy the game as it was meant to be played.

No wonder South Africa’s 2007 Rugby World Cup Player of the Tournament, Bryan Habana shook his head in utter confusion after being penalised repeatedly in Friday’s encounter against the Brumbies. Maybe he got word of the rumour that there will be “more leniency” at the breakdown - and then got none!

Gary Boshoff is a former Saru player and well-known rugby administrator.

Disclaimer: Sport24 encourages freedom of speech and the expression of diverse views. The views of columnists published on Sport24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Sport24.