SARrugby.com

There was much debate on the issue of the "try" scored by Rallepele on Saturdat lower down on the Board.  This issue was discussed - amongst other inerpretations of the past weekend on Boots & All tonight and Watson was very clear - he stated that it really was no try and a mistake of Peyper to ask the relevant question.   Guring the discussion Watson refers to the SAReferees website and I checked that one afterwards as well.

What was clear from the following it was effectively no try at all and the fact that it was scored was based on a wrong interpretation of the rules by Peyper.   This was confirmed by the following:-

*   The interpretation of the rules so clearly quoted by bongani - also quoted in the website in dealing with the issuel

*   The statement made by Bray.

*   The comments of Watson on Boots & All; and

*   The report that Peyper himself realized he made a mistake.

The secondary issue was is it wise for a scrummie to make such a kick,  I believe it was definitely poor play by Hougaard and the fact that he did kick and place his teammates in an off-side position was very bad.

However, in going through the process it also becme clear that Tuilagi's try for England was also a wrong interpretation of the law and should never have been allowd - That the referee interpretation of the maul situation on the King's tryline was correct - and that the penalty try awarded to the Hurrcanes was wrong as well (the latter shoud have been a penalty)

I think the TMO neds a rule book for quick check-ups if the interpretation could be problematic.  

Sharkbok

As far as I am aware referees are renumerated on the followng basis:-

Referees on the IRB Test Panel

Remuneration     -     The IRB

Match fee for Tests -  The IRB

Match fee for Super 15  -   Zanzar

Local Matches                -    SA Rugby 

Since the remuneration is based on pound sterling - the IRB referess from SA is in the pound seats because of the exhange rates.    Same applies to the  Zanzar match fees

Referees on the Zanzar Panel

Remuneration                              -     Zanzar

Match Fees - Super 15                -    Zanzar

Match Fees Local Matches          -    SA Rugby

I am not aware of the actual amounts paid  and on what basis match fees are dealt with in cases of incompetence.    However, I think what Peyper probably are most unhappy about and regrets most is not  the fact that he did bugger up - but the fact that he lost a major percentage of his match fee (if not the whole one) as a result of his bugger-up.    However, to protect the image of the referees nothing will ever be published on the issue of match fee   deductions - so one can only guess on that one and in guessing so go by the public statements made which could indicate that something like a deduction was made, 

Sharkbok

As far as I am aware referees are renumerated on the followng basis:-

Referees on the IRB Test Panel

Remuneration     -     The IRB

Match fee for Tests -  The IRB

Match fee for Super 15  -   Zanzar

Local Matches                -    SA Rugby 

Since the remuneration is based on pound sterling - the IRB referess from SA is in the pound seats because of the exhange rates.    Same applies to the  Zanzar match fees

Referees on the Zanzar Panel

Remuneration                              -     Zanzar

Match Fees - Super 15                -    Zanzar

Match Fees Local Matches          -    SA Rugby

I am not aware of the actual amounts paid  and on what basis match fees are dealt with in cases of incompetence.    However, I think what Peyper probably are most unhappy about and regrets most is not  the fact that he did bugger up - but the fact that he lost a major percentage of his match fee (if not the whole one) as a result of his bugger-up.    However, to protect the image of the referees nothing will ever be published on the issue of match fee   deductions - so one can only guess on that one and in guessing so go by the public statements made which could indicate that something like a deduction was made, 

 Thanks Mike for the link. Half wits like windpomp and saSUE should take a look. These clowns think they know more than than top professionals.

I am posting what was said on the SAReferee website so ou windpomp in particluar can try and get to grips with the issue. He clealry had little clue but pretended to know it all as a classic windpomp always does.

Bwahahahahaha:

Hougaard's grubber was a kick.

Law DEFINITION
Kick: a kick is made by hitting the ball with any part of the leg or foot, except the heel, and from knee to toe, but not including the knee. A kick must move a visible distance out of the hand.

Law 11 DEFINITIONS
In general play a player is offside if the player is in front of a team-mate who is carrying the ball, or in front of a team-mate who last played the ball. Offside means that a player is temporarily out of the game. Such players are liable to be penalised if they take part in the game.

Ralepelle was in front of Hougaard when he kicked the ball. He was in an offside position. He took part in the game all right. So he was liable to be penalised unless he had been put onside.

There are three ways that an offside player can be put onside by an opponent. The third one is relevant.

Law 11.3 BEING PUT ONSIDE BY OPPONENTS
In general play, there are three ways by which an offside player can be put onside by an action of the opposing team. These three ways do not apply to a player who is offside under the 10-Metre Law.
(a) Runs 5 metres with ball. When an opponent carrying the ball runs 5 metres, the offside player is put onside.
(b) Kicks or passes. When an opponent kicks or passes the ball, the offside player is put onside.
(c) Intentionally touches ball. When an opponent intentionally touches the ball but does not catch it, the offside player is put onside.

It is debatable whether Malherbe intentionally touched the ball. He was trying to tackle Hougaard. But leave that aside.(General consensus - it did not touch malheber and was not intentional)

When Hougaard kicked the ball Ralepelle was to his left a metre in front of Hougaard. Let's look at offside under the 10-metre law.

Law 11.4 OFFSIDE UNDER THE 10-METRE LAW
(a) When a team-mate of an offside player has kicked ahead, the offside player is considered to be taking part in the game if the player is in front of an imaginary line across the field which is 10 metres from the opponent waiting to play the ball, or from where the ball lands or may land. The offside player must immediately move behind the imaginary 10-metre line or the kicker if this is closer than 10 metres. While moving away, the player must not obstruct an opponent.
Sanction: Penalty kick

Hougaard kicked the ball.
Ralepelle was in front of Hougaard.
The ball landed immediately.
Ralepelle was in front of the line 10 metres from where the ball landed.

Does Malherbe's toe put Ralepelle onside.

Law 11.5 BEING PUT ONSIDE UNDER THE 10-METRE LAW
(a) The offside player must retire behind the imaginary 10-metre line across the field, otherwise the player is liable to be penalised.
(b) While retiring, the player can be put onside before moving behind the imaginary 10-metre line by any of the three actions of the player’s team listed above in 11.2. However, the player cannot be put onside by any action of the opposing team.

The player cannot be put onside by any action of the opposing team.

But it is stated even more clearly.

Law 11.4 OFFSIDE UNDER THE 10-METRE LAW
(f) The 10-metre Law does not apply when a player kicks the ball, and an opponent charges down the kick, and a team-mate of the kicker who was in front of the imaginary 10-metre line across the field then plays the ball. The opponent was not ‘waiting to play the ball’ and the team-mate is onside. The 10-metre Law applies if the ball touches or is played by an opponent but is not charged down.

Malherbe's toe could not have put Ralepelle onside. It certainly did not charge down the ball. (The rules say nothing about charging down bleats ou WINDPOMP!!!! Bwahahahahahaha)

It would seem that the referee should not have asked the TMO the question he asked him and the TMO should not have given the advice that he gave him: that the ball had been touched by 176 Blue [Malherbe] and that Ralepelle had thus been put on side and the try should have been awarded.

It would seem that the correct decision would have been a penalty to the Stormers.

So there we have it but do not be surprised if these two half wits try and still insist nothing was amiss. windpomp is of course a one eyed bulle supporter after all and only imagines he knows something about rugby. saSUE is very immature and likes to gain say everything I say regardless and thus this very unfortunate (for him) outcome. Please grow up saSUE and listen when the adults are discussing issues - especially Beeno!!!

Hahahahahahahahahhaha

Ou Beenbal. I am not even going to argue the rest of your lengthy discussion, because you have it wrong on a number of issues. I will just go right to the end of your "argument".  You end it of with something that was mention on another thread a number of times. You are completely in the dark. This is what you said:

"It would seem that the correct decision would have been a penalty to the Stormers."

If a try was not awarded, it would have been a penalty to the Bulls, right in front of the poles. Peyper was playing off-side advantage for the Bulls at the time. Go check.

 Windpomp its nice to see you posting at least as ceradyne rather then Bongi but why not use vlagman and have done. Surely you are not another scared witless by ou hawker! 

Firstly, I posted that the more correct score would be 21-17. You do the maths but shout if you need help.

What the SAReferee site is saying (that is not my comment windpomp) is that the error in this sequence of play would have resulted in a penalty to the Stormers. Of course they would in fact have had to go back to the penalty advantage in favour of the bulle.

I wonder if you are prepared to admit that you were up the creek without a paddle on the issue. You and your alias bongi that is. Ou saSUE also has disapeared under the mountain of EGG.Bwahahahaahaha 

Hahahahahaha ou windpomp needing correction on so many issues. Nothing new of course!!

I note how saSUE has gone silent on the issue. His first wise move! 

Jaco had better watch himself  anti WP colours are begining to give him away. A few more games like the one we had in the Currie Cup final and now this one against the bulle and all doubts will be removed. I do hope he realsies the SAReferees , Bray etc are onto him.  We can be generous and give him the benefit of the doubt but not for much longer if this nonsense continues.

Only you/bongi and ou saSUE didnt see the problem. But as saSUE and you defend Bryce Lawrence why am I not surprised Hahahhahahahahaha the oaks are consistent - consistently wrong.

Listen poepol, you can believe about my nicname what you want. I am not the one trying to creep back onto other sites like storminged and stormerrule, etc etc etc. And then just a reminder I was on this site and under this nicname long before you even knew it existed. Mamparra. Now go play with your toys and try your silly little games somewhere else.

 Nei man, it does not help to fight now.  The game isa already a week old and frot.  Mike you are correct in what Andre said, but the ref and the TMO were both wrong.  As I have it the TMO can over rule the referee.  A blunder which assisted the Bulls, but the Stormers were their own problem on the night.

I think just for us to fight if it was right or wrong is stupid, we cannot change the fact.  To slag the players is also wrong because they play the game not make the calls.  But Hougaard was stupid with that kick while his players was ahead of him.

windpomp you slack jawed dribbling neanderthal what evidence do you have I am StormingEd? Please produce it or forever hold your peace. So far the evidence has not been forthcoming. Lets hear what you have.

As for my sneaking on as the renowned and feared Stormerrule why yes of course I sneaked on since that was the only way to to do so given I am banned. Should I have sneaked on - well why not given all the disruptive cowardly moles we get here (Oh whom you say nothing).

My guess is you were afraid to use your vlagman nick lest ou hawker get on your case. Hahahahhahahhahahahahaha

So beware windpomp I will quite possibly sneak on againi. Until then  I can only imagine some wee gossip girls,excluding any decent posters, quivering and hiding behind baas hawkerrs banning button. Bwahahahahahahahaha what a picture. Soooo afraid!!!!

But please windpomp just post under the name vlagman and forget about ceradyne and bongi etc. No need to hide away here as its a free and open board. Pluck up your courage and tell ou hawker to get lost. 

Also it would be nice if vlagman/ceradyne/bongi just admitted you were clueless regarding the bulle try.

Thanks.

Ou Beenbal shooting blanks again. Why would I worry about Hawkeye. If only you knew....... idiot. Who arre you in any case to try and tell me what name I should use to post here. You are a childish little nobody with an inferiority complex. You tried your tricks on one site, got banned, then went onto the next and started with your screaching and wailing. Within two days those forum members toold you to piss off as well.

 If only I knew what oh man of mystery? Beeno shooting the bullets of fact windpomp.

I also dont know why you sneak on here as Bongi. No need for it windpomp. Feel free to be vlagman

As for StormingEd I am still waiting for some evidence. Yaaaaaaawn. 

Anyhow nice to hear from you again and I am sure you are the wiser fro the discussion re the bulle try. 

What a total bore....is Concubine a.k.a. as Vlugman posting here again!

I didn't know that I needed your approval ou Gompou.

 Moz unlike that other place we are a much more tolerant and welcoming place. Look how nice I was to ou windpomp and saying it was nice to hear from him again. 

What are you on about re concubine. I do trust ou windpomp is not  also posting here as concubine!!!! Explain.

 Well Ceradyne is an American Company, and old Vlug is so anti American, I just figured concubine would suit him better. It speaks of deception and servitude, words that seem to fit.

Fokkit, but you are bored bunch of souls, aren't you? Now you are even assuming that my name has anything to do with America. You know what they say about assumption.

 Well Ceradyne is a company- one can Google it.

So why did you choose Ceradyne? Such a deep mysterious oak this is!!

Did I disagree that it is indeed a company or not? Why I chose it has nothing to do with you? Why would you have chosen to be a dog biscuit? But then again....... who cares? Definitely not me. You could call yourself Robert Mugabe for all I care. Now go make yourself a glass of hot milk and put on your adult nappy and go to bed. It is well beyond your bed time.

 Please windpomp dont judge othrs by yourself.  But you remind me i have a siuperb book I am reading and should dip into it right away. Written by a brilliant Oxford maths prof.