The midweek match against the Brumbies was a long way away from champagne rugby, but much better than the vin ordinaire we’d been served up to then. The Lions, however, did not deliver the much needed breakdown ferocity that they’re really going to have to produce in the Tests.
However, on Saturday, against the cobbled-together AUNZ outfit, the Lions at long last got the cork out of the bottle, playing some flowing, stylish rugby. That’s said with the proviso that their opponents defence leaked frequently, like an old bucket.
French referee Pierre Brousset had an indifferent afternoon in the Brumbies game. The breakdown area saw bodies flying all over the place and while Brousset did give a few off-feet penalties, too much went unpunished. It’s not actually a question of increasing the number of penalties. Players will change their behaviour if they are sanctioned, or know they will be. There was better breakdown behaviour and a more measured performance by Andrea Piardi in the AUNZ match.
Slow Lions build-up finally culminates in Test week
The final Brumbies’ try was preceded by two classic side entries from the home team. For the Lions, Joe McCarthy and Henry Pollock threw themselves over the breakdown a couple of times and we still didn’t hear from Brousset.
READ MORE
As for the scrum, the collapse issue was once again evident. Both referees were inconsistent, even hesitant, in deciding when to reset collapses, penalise them or play on with or without advantage. I found myself guessing what they’d do – let’s hope they weren’t.
There were also tight in-goal decisions. James Lowe and Maro Itoje had tries ruled out, whereas the ball, from some camera angles, looked to be “probably” grounded. But “probably” is not enough for the microscopic examination of a formal on-screen review: it must be indisputable. The on-field decision of the referee is absolutely critical to the outcome.
On both occasions Brousset stated “no try,” and there wasn’t enough evidence for him to change his call. It’s hard to blame the referee, but if he’d said “on-field decision is a try”, then both would have been scores. It adds up to a very strange sort of paradox. The TMO protocol obviously needs another serious review.
Lowe did cross for a terrific team try after quite amazing work by the omnipresent Dan Sheehan. Despite carrying the ball into a heavy collision with David Felliuai on the right hand side, Sheehan still managed to place it, enabling the move to continue. He then became the vital link as the ball was shifted quickly wide to the left before passing to Jack Conan, who handed Lowe a stroll into the corner.
Following Australia’s escape against Fiji there is a lot of discussion around the TMO’s involvement. There is plenty of annoyance that Fiji had a try ruled out, the TMO noticing that Harry Potter’s foot had grazed the touchline moments before Fiji got possession and worked a wonderful pitch-length try. Why chalk off the try for a touch missed by the on-field officials, particularly when Fiji had turned over the ball – that’s the thrust of the argument.
It’s hard to fathom because if a ball-carrier goes out of play the ball is dead and a lineout must restart the match. Putting a foot on the touchline is not an infringement, so play cannot continue, neither can advantage be played. Imagine the bedlam if play-on was possible in such circumstances. But believe me, there are some who wish it to be that way.
Maybe the TMO needs to go back to basics and only be used for foul play and when tries have been scored, but only referencing the clear and obvious, which must always be the mantra. Not something that takes minutes for the officials to debate. That was pretty much how things started out, but, bit by bit, we’ve ended up where we are now. TMOs are currently involving themselves in the most marginal events in open play, which was not part of the original plan.
In the Waratahs match, referee Paul Williams called several things – “it went backwards” or “play on” – only for the TMO to immediately overrule him. The referee was happy to immediately accept the correction. It’s all in search of the impossible dream, a perfect performance.
But there is another reason. Elite coaches and their analysts will get out their own microscope searching for errors. They are unforgiving, particularly if a mistake has been result-altering. It’s normally done behind the closed doors of confidentiality; nonetheless, the ref gets a pretty hard time of it.
In last week’s matches, the lineout problem raised its ugly head again. Both referees continued the apparent “policy” of ignoring crooked throws, even if the opposition put up a jumper. It’s such a simple fix, just a couple of sanctions would see a real effort to throw the ball along the line of touch.
Instead, the lineout remains on the slippery slope towards extinction as a contest for possession, helped on its way by slack officiating. In an ironic moment, Tadgh Beirne was penalised for jumping across when attempting to reach a crooked throw. He did, but it had zero impact on AUNZ winning possession. Rónan Kelleher then scored a try, having been fed a short “straight” ball as he stood at the front.
While a throw here or there might be nicked, or go awry, the overwhelming majority go with serve. Match officials need to recognise that there must be a contest for possession and call these. Otherwise, their job might well be handed to AI.
