Scots cry foul
11 Jun 2006
Scotland coach Frank Hadden believes the TV referee should not have awarded Schalk Burger’s first-half try.
The flanker’s five-pointer came in the 16th minute of the Test when the scores were locked at 3-all. TV replays showed Burger ground the ball short of the tryline and then make another movement in order to ground the ball on the line. While most expected the referee to award Scotland a penalty, the TMO gave the try.
“It did not look like a try to me,” said Hadden afterwards. “It should have been a penalty for us. It took a while for him to get the ball over the line, and it is hard to believe there was not a double movement. It was a significant score as after that we were always behind on the scoreboard.”
Bok captain John Smit laughed when asked if the try should have been awarded.
“I always back the referees and the touch judges, everyone knows that. I wouldn’t want to question them. Occasionally you might be lucky down your end but then you end up giving one away at the other end at another stage.”
Hadden admitted his side had let themselves down in Durban, by not taking the game to the Boks.
“Our defence should have been a lot more aggressive than it was,” he said. “We let the Springboks get away with too many passes. They are bigger players than us, so this gave them momentum and enabled them to set up a platform. We should have been better in coping with the big Springbok pack. But we like it tough, and that is why we are here. We are here to learn and it will be a good learning curve for us.
The coach was also disappointed with his side’s poor discipline on the day.
“We gave away early penalties which was my fault as we thought the referee would blow for the defending team at the breakdowns, as he normally does overseas. We misjudged that one, but it was not a huge setback as we came back with a penalty of our own.
Scotland captain Jason White echoed Hadden’s sentiments.
“We were not aggressive enough at the breakdown,” he said. “I don’t know why this was, and if I knew the answer, we would have sorted it out during the match.
“I think the biggest factor was that the Boks were playing at home. You guys in the press gave them a hard time this week and they came out firing obviously with a lot to prove.
“In the first 10 minutes we were not aggressive enough, we were not intense enough, and the bigger Bok forwards were able to build a platform. They are hard to stop when they are bigger than us and they are allowed to build momentum.
“It would have appeared that the Boks were off-loading the ball quicker than is the case in the matches in the Six Nations, but this might have been because our defence was just not up to scratch.”
32 Comments
10 Jun 2006, 20:26 pm
Agreed
10 Jun 2006, 20:26 pm
it did seem that Schalk placed the ball forward,edging it to the line on the second attempt,but sometimes you get decisions that go for you or against you
10 Jun 2006, 20:27 pm
Like the man said, it should have been a penalty to the Scots.
It would not have influenced the final result as the Scots were just not up for it today.
10 Jun 2006, 20:28 pm
Schalk’s try looked like a try to me! Perfectly legal movement. I think the ref should have given the first try as well.
10 Jun 2006, 20:28 pm
The captains a bright boy “I think the biggest factor was that we were playing in S.A.wich ment the Boks were playing at home” I think all those big hits of his are taking effect.
10 Jun 2006, 21:04 pm
I don’t think it was a try either, but from now on I want SpringbokCeeK to ref all SA games. LOL.
10 Jun 2006, 22:29 pm
wast the ref irish? hadden talking about NH games and they way refs manage the breakdown up there.
well done boks! keep improving.
10 Jun 2006, 23:40 pm
Frank Hadden,come on mate that one try didnt lose the game for you guys, the Boks played well and were better, I know they will give my ABs team a big fright this year,in which I dont mind better this year then next year…….
11 Jun 2006, 00:05 am
Yip that try did look a bit dodge but as they say in rugger you make your own luck.
11 Jun 2006, 02:39 am
If the Scots scored a try like that I wonder what the reaction/s would be on this site.
11 Jun 2006, 03:25 am
We just need to take this opportunity to cast our minds back to the try scored by the irish 18 months ago in ireland.
11 Jun 2006, 04:30 am
Sour grapes. Scots were simply outplayed. Burger got the ball down on the line (before moving again). On the line = try.
11 Jun 2006, 04:32 am
Bok in Ozzie….Come on !!!
If that had happened for the Scots we might have mentioned it too but it wouldn’t have made a diffs.
Burger has had plety calls go against him. he gets one now.
Remember hadden things are a lot slower in slowmo (duh) and as he landed he slid it onto the line….I have seen far worse.
Agreed many TMO’s would not have given it as it only maybe touched the line.
BokOz – what happened in Ireland was an entirely different scenario…not a straight TMO call (or mistake) ….it actually cost us the game and it was very bad refereeing.
This case too we should have put 50 on them ;were in total control and the Scots had plenty time to comeback.It was not a tight game at all.
I was surprised he gave it but in realtime Burger landed and slided it….same movement to me….only the slowmo makes it look long.Technically (and technically doesnt always feel right) it was possibly a try.Land,slide 4 inches and touch the line.
Hadden just needed something to say.
11 Jun 2006, 05:37 am
That Burger TRY was only ever a TRY in the mind of a close minded few.
Anyone with eyes or (half a brain (0zzies & Poms) could see the ball was short of the line when it was planted, only Burgers sliding of the ball, afterwards, brought it within line contact…NO TRY!
11 Jun 2006, 06:19 am
Yep, neutral viewer, it was no try and again TMO is in the middle of it. Burger is not the culprit, its the TMO, players push the law to its extreme and if they get away with it then well done, and if not then we all know the outcome. Burger was short, slid the ball forward in an illegal motion, Burgers part was done. TMO did the rest and it cost the scots 7 points. Though the result would have still favoured the Boks.
11 Jun 2006, 07:36 am
k1w1inOz
nice post on 14. You are branding poms & Ozzies as half-brainers!
lolololol
11 Jun 2006, 07:42 am
Hadden, dont whine man. Ok, i also think it wasnt a try but the Boks would still have won anyway…whats done is done, no sense in cryin over spilt milk
11 Jun 2006, 08:07 am
Cowboys don’t cry whereas Scots (and Kiwi’s after a smack with the handbag)do.
Bluecap, agree we must get SpringbokCeeK as a TMO as soon as possible. With his yardstick the boks should have trashed the World XV.
SCK for TMO! VIVA!
11 Jun 2006, 08:33 am
Interesting is that one of the UK’s leading Sunday papers believe it definetly was a try and that it was the right decision. Whatever. The real talking point in the UK papers is how the Bok pack murdered the Scots. They were all very complimentory.
11 Jun 2006, 10:03 am
Thats a change…..good to hear.
Its unusual to slide a ball 4 inches and it only appeared as 2 movements in slowmo….watching it in normal speed ,it was bounce,slide ….not bounce …pause….slide.
Such a close call,but not really an obvious one. Most TMO’s though in caution would not have given it i think. But it had no bearing on the game anyway.
Scots are dreaming if they think it made a diffs anyway.Lucky our finishing was very average again as we did enough to get another 3 tries.
11 Jun 2006, 10:25 am
Morning guys
I believe Scalk’s try is legal. The rules state that the players carrying the ball must place the ball after he went to ground. Whether it is placing it behind him or reaching for a try. In Scalk’s case he went down then with the ball and in one movement he pushed it forward. Legal try!
He didnt place the ball, then picked it up to place it again (this is a double movement)
The TMO got it spot on.
PS: Im glad a tight decision comes our way for a change!
11 Jun 2006, 10:30 am
Cut the **** Hadden, you were outplayed and we would have won blindfolded. What’s the difference if that try was or wasn’t awarded? Take 7 points off the score sheet and we still whipped your lads. Next weekend you will have something to cry about, record loss on the cards for your team…..
11 Jun 2006, 10:31 am
Definitely was a double movement.But the wall was going to break sooner or later.Bok forwards were in total control and the dam-wall would have burst sooner or later.
11 Jun 2006, 14:09 pm
Hadden guy is really moving up the ladder of Woodward and Eddie Moans table, u play, u win/lose, u go away and start over. Hadden take note, this part of the world hates excuses.
11 Jun 2006, 14:09 pm
schalk burger was always going to come out like a rampaging buffalo, huge huge game.
11 Jun 2006, 14:20 pm
exctly CSI, the scots musn’t start whinging too, its ruined the irish.
11 Jun 2006, 14:24 pm
start=stop, should really stay off the drink this early in the day.
11 Jun 2006, 15:24 pm
Now would be a good time to cast our minds back also to that infamous game against the scots a few years back were after countless tv replays there wasnt one camera angle were one could even see the ball yet the tv ref decided to give the try to the scots now that was seriously dodge there was another incident in the same game were the ball just clipped the tip of a scots finger and even though downward pressure was required in those days the tv ref awarded the try. Even though those decisions were critical to the scots winning on the day u couldnt that they werent the better team on the day. same for this game the boks were just better.
11 Jun 2006, 15:51 pm
I’m not quite sure.
Does extending your arms or pushing the ball forward count as a double movement?
I don’t think so.
11 Jun 2006, 16:29 pm
Scottish lads need to eat real BOEREWORS,BILTONG,VOLSTRUIS and stuiwepap,instead of that Haggis and oatmeal.Then they would have better conditioning !!!!!!!!!
12 Jun 2006, 11:06 am
Wow there is so much rubbish on this blog about who knows rugby. Yet no one here knows the rules.
How the hell does a coach of a national team not know a simple rule like this?
If a player falls short of the line he can place the ball over or on the line. It does not constitute a double movement.
12 Jun 2006, 14:32 pm
Frank,
On behalf of the SA team we apologise for the lack of insight and knowledge of the rugby rules by the northern hemi television referee. It is unfortunate that we are forced to allow the northern hemisphere to participate.
There is no doubt in our mind that you would have beaten us for the first time on SA soil and hope that this weeks game is blown fairly and you are given a fair opportunity of which I am sure you would be successful.
Sincerely Hmmmmm on behalf of Bok fans.
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.