Hennie Brandt

Johannesburg – Sharks coach **** Muir may face disciplinary measures after incidents during the Super 14 rugby match against the Lions here on Saturday.

A report about Muir’s conduct will be forwarded to André Watson, manager of referees at the SA Rugby Union.

The report may also be sent to Sanzar, the organisation under whose jurisdiction the Super 14 takes place.

Watson said on Sunday he would study the report that Gabriel Pappas, one of the official timekeepers, drew up – at Watson’s request – after the match

“If disciplinary steps are needed, action will be taken,” Watson said.

The Sharks may also be in trouble because an assistant coach was on the field during the match, despite being restricted to the technical area.

It all started when the Springbok hooker Bismarck du Plessis left the field 18 minutes and 22 seconds after kickoff for a big cut in his right eyebrow to be stitched up. He was replaced by Craig Burden.

The match had been in progress for 34 minutes and 15 seconds when Du Plessis wanted to return.

By then, according to the official timekeepers, the 15 minutes that players are permitted to be off the field to be treated for cuts and bleeding had elapsed.

Burden was then deemed to be the “permanent substitute” and Du Plessis was not allowed to return.

This was conveyed to referee Mark Lawrence, who ruled that Du Plessis, who was standing near the touchline, would not be allowed back on the field.

Made his feelings clear

Muir left the coaches’ area in the main stand and went to speak to the assistant referees at a table next to the field.

It was said Muir wanted to send Du Plessis back into action but decided against it.

He then returned to the stand and made his feelings clear to the timekeepers, Pappas and Willie Vos, who were sitting in the press box.

He called Pappas “a f*** cheat”.

After the match, Muir said, “We knew how match time had elapsed when Bismarck came off. We went to fetch him quickly from where he had received stitches.

“According to the assistant referees and the fourth referee there was sufficient time for him to return.

“But the official timekeepers said we had taken longer than the permitted period of 15 minutes.

“Bismarck could not go back on the field at that time because play was in progress. He stood next to the ground while play was continuing.

“To me it was pedantic. That is something that happens when our teams play abroad. We don’t need it in South African rugby.

“I don’t say it was done deliberately but I say it was petty. The game does not need that,” Muir said.

Jonathan Patricos, the match doctor, says there was poor communication between the official timekeepers and the match officials on the ground.

“I fetched Bismark in the tunnel when there was still a minute and a half for him to return,” Patricios said.

“The Sharks’ manager next to the field and the officials at the table agreed.

“However, the timekeepers informed the referee that Bismarck had been off for longer than 15 minutes and Lawrence said he was not permitted to return.”

I think skopskiet is Mike Stofile

The Australian Scrum is so collapsible you can push them under your bed

I had a busy weekend away from all the rugby , missed afew games so dont have any oppinion on the other teams.

But i did watch the Bulls dismantlement, and it was not nice , it hurts to see a team with 12 of the same players turn 121 points around from the previous years game. How they will explain this will be even more painfull, maybe a no comments will be the best for the team , coach and everyone involved in the Bulls squad.

The Cheetahs, with 12 tries, are still leading the South African try-race. The Sharks have scored 10 tries in their five matches, the Cheetahs nine, the Lions eight and the Bulls a lowly five.

The Bulls have conceded 19 tries – the second-most after the Cheetahs’ 22.

Only eight tries in total were scored by the five South African franchises in their five outings this weekend.

Four of those, which included a penalty try, were scored by the Stormers who have now won two from two in New Zealand after an impressive 35-26 win over the Chiefs in Hamilton.

By contrast, it’s doubtful whether a soul moved from their seats in the Super 14 match between the Western Force and the Crusaders in Perth.

This is the difference between the hemispheres right now. Too much of the stuff north of the Equator is an unmitigated disaster, a dire advertisement for this game. But if you watch how rugby football could be played in the future under the new laws now being trialled, you see virtually a different sport.

Luckily, one man hugely unimpressed by what Wales did at the end of the match in Ireland was Bernard Lapasset, now chairperson of the International Rugby Board. “Whatever this was, it was not rugby,” he said in anguish. “This is why the new laws are so important. To see such a sight was awful. It has no place in this game.”

Lapasset is right. The sooner some of those old laws are consigned to the rubbish bin, the better for all concerned.

This article was originally published on page 15 of The Star on March 11, 2008

March 16 2008 at 10:59AM

By Peter Bills

South African rugby on Saturday night got a warning from former Australian coach Eddie Jones – according to him, rugby’s new laws, currently being trialled in the Super 14, are set up to benefit New Zealand.

The format now under scrutiny is likely to be further trialled in the northern hemisphere starting this September.

“They set it up for New Zealand to become even stronger in the game,” Jones claimed.

“They have dominated rugby for the last seven years despite not winning the big tournament, the World Cup. But under the new laws they will be even tougher to beat. Countries like South Africa and Australia are going to have to accept that.”

Jones fears the potential power and quality of the New Zealanders because he insists they have the best combination of individual power, speed, athleticism and ball-carrying ability of any country.

“It makes them a very dangerous side. There is no doubt in my mind that these laws will therefore help New Zealand the most. Look how naturally the players of teams like the Crusaders and Blues have adapted to them. It looks like they have been playing under them all their lives. The South African and Australian players don’t give that impression.

“In most of the New Zealand teams, about 12 of the 15 players are really good ball carriers and, under these rules, that sets it up for them to dominate.”

Jones, who will take over as Director of Rugby at London club Saracens when Alan Gaffney quits at the end of this season, said he likes certain aspects of the new laws. “Not being able to kick out on the full if you pass back into your 22 is eminently sensible.

“There is still a question mark over the breakdown because sides are deliberately giving away free kicks. Therefore, I believe you still need the facility of conceding three points through a full penalty for such offences.

“The other thing is that if teams are very good defensively, as they are these days, it will be very hard to score against them. The higher the level you get in the game the harder it is to score because most teams have 11 to 12 very good defenders. At Test level, you can make that 15.”

One solution, Jones agreed, was for the IRB to endorse a major crackdown by referees on those deliberately cheating when defending difficult positions. “The IRB must endorse referees who get people off the field into the sin bin. If a side ends up with three guys from one team in the bin, fair enough; teams would soon learn the lesson.

“But if referees did that, and I think they should, the IRB would have to back them 100 percent That is the reality because it would solve it. But you need strong leadership at the top to make that work and do we have that in the game?”

He likes the extra 5 metres for backs at scrum time but says it again comes down to tough refereeing sanctions against players not binding properly. “If they are not binding correctly, that negates so much of the intention behind the law. And if a referee does enforce that strictly and he’s already sent an opposing forward to the bin, especially a flanker, then the team that has transgressed will really pay for it. But it comes down to referees being ultra strict.”

He accepts the breakdown will always be something of a mess as long as it remains a contest for the ball. “If you want just a fast game, remove the contest element from the breakdown. But personally I would not do that. We still need a contest there in my view.”

This article was originally published on page 22 of Sunday Independent on March 16, 2008

He’s just winding people up, chose an opportune moment after the Bulls game yesterday, he must have loved it.