Defeated Sharks still SA’s best
6 Aug 2012
MARK KEOHANE, in his weekly Business Day column, writes that while there was no surprise in the Sharks Super Rugby final defeat, they were the best South African side in the tournament.
The only surprise in Hamilton on Saturday is that so many of the people I spoke to were surprised by the emphatic nature of the Sharks’ defeat in Super Rugby’s 17th final.
A few, as is the custom in SA, blamed the referee. New Zealand-born Steve Walsh had absolutely no bearing on the outcome of this one.
Walsh missed an obvious infringement in the last play of the game in 2007’s final and he was blamed for costing the Sharks their first Super Rugby title. I was among those who caned him, even though it is no secret that the supporter in me has always prized the blue of the Bulls more than any black-and-white tribal strip.
Many of my Bulls mates back in 2007 were quick to point out that Frans Steyn rushed the conversion that would have given the Sharks a two-score advantage going into the final minute of the final, and that even though there was a concession that Walsh was poor the Sharks, playing at home, should have looked after their own destiny. It was Butch James, and not Walsh, who missed a clearance kick for touch, and about half the Sharks forwards couldn’t get a hand on Bryan Habana as he beat several defenders with a step and pace to score what proved to be the decisive try of the final.
The Sharks back then really had no reason to complain. They produced rugby of the necessary quality to win the final, but their coach at the time — Dick Muir — wasn’t quite on the button with his substitutions and his two most experienced players, Springbok captain John Smit and fullback Percy Montgomery, watched the final quarter from the touchline.
Muir got it wrong back in 2007 more than Walsh ever did and the Sharks certainly lost the final more than any on-field superiority won the Bulls their first ever title. You can’t say the Sharks lost anything in Hamilton, outside of a good many hours sleep in getting to the New Zealand north island town from Cape Town, where, a week earlier, they had shown incredible spirit and defied the odds to beat SA’s conference winners, the Stormers, who had finished as the overall league winners, which counts for nothing unless you actually stick around to host the final.
Sharks captain Keegan Daniel refused to use the travel complications as an excuse. Likewise coach John Plumtree and any player interviewed.
The Chiefs players, especially their captain, Craig Clarke, were the ones who weren’t going to be lulled by the illusion that they were in a contest.
Clarke dedicated the first bit of his post-final acceptance speech by paying tribute to the Sharks’ season and offering an acknowledgement from within his squad of what the Durban-based team had overcome to make it to Hamilton.
They had scored four tries and emphatically beaten the Bulls in Durban. The bonus point had given them life in the tournament.
What followed was another bonus-point, home win against the Cheetahs to make the top six play-offs. Then it was off to Brisbane, victory there, a flight back to Cape Town, victory there and a flight back to Auckland, New Zealand.
Sure there was hope from every Sharks supporter that the impossible was possible. And there had to be hope because without hope there is nothing.
It is every rugby supporter’s right to always believe that no matter the challenge his team will triumph.
Those who could view the final without the emotional blindfold of simply having to believe the Sharks would win knew it had the potential to get embarrassing if the home team kept their composure and played with the intent and consistency we had seen all season.
I don’t see much point in trying to dissect where it went wrong for the Sharks. The answer quite frankly is when they won in Cape Town.
It was not a fair contest and this should also be viewed in context. This is not a whine from me or Sharks supporters or South Africans.
It is a mere reflection of the reality of a tournament in which if you host a final and play an opponent from another country you don’t lose easily. In 17 years the only team to dream the dream and get the win have been the Crusaders.
The Chiefs won the collisions and won the game. Forget any reference to an opening 20 minutes when the Sharks controlled the ball and field position because they certainly were not controlling anything in the tackle.
They played as if they were sleepwalking — and you can’t blame them — on a day complicated by a Chiefs unit who played with the conviction of a team whose players knew they could not lose.
101 Comments
Pages: [1] 2 3 » Show All
6 Aug 2012, 10:23 am
KEOTV? Never gonna see the light of day again or what? **** Happens man. Let’s get over things now and move on.
6 Aug 2012, 10:23 am
I was a slightly suprised Dragon!
6 Aug 2012, 10:24 am
@brandon96end-1: You forgot “Dragons”. All these newbies breaking tradition…
6 Aug 2012, 10:25 am
This is unbelievable! “Chiefs coach robbed during Super rugby final”
www . superxv.com/news/super15_rugby_news.asp?id=36087
After all Kiwi-mafia constantly telling us how crime-free NZ is!
or could this have been some disgruntled Saffa ex-pats?
Or maybe it was “Suzie”?
6 Aug 2012, 10:26 am
Not a newbie bokfan. Just have not commented in ages. Belated “DRAGONS” then
6 Aug 2012, 10:28 am
running crusaders close for filthiest team in the comp title.
6 Aug 2012, 10:32 am
@bokfan1-4:
Who said we dont have crime??
Name them, go on.
6 Aug 2012, 10:34 am
@wait for it, wait for it…-6:
Because they won mean they are filthy.
Not one thing said about the Chiefs from you all year until they won the final.
Even when they played the Saders, not one word.
Just shows how sour you are.
6 Aug 2012, 10:36 am
@bokfan1-4:
Wow everyone, there was a robbery in NZ.
Unlike the robbers in SA no humans or animals were hurt or killed.
Really do you need to post problems that happen in a country?
We get slaughtered on here for doing that.
6 Aug 2012, 10:49 am
@Hurricane-8:
come on hurri, you know, i know it, we all know it.
chiefs have become adept at filthy play since wayne smith’s involvement. no doubt about it. i called them out as a dirty team early in the comp already but didnt think them filthy enough to rival the crusaders in the cheap shot, late hit type stakes.
well they’ve surpassed the crusaders in the last two games, thats for sure.
nice little cynical style they got going. targeting players is one thing but late,cheap dangerous hits is another.
anything for a win, hey. nz’s motto.
6 Aug 2012, 10:56 am
@wait for it, wait for it…-10:
oh boy, you are a lost cause.
6 Aug 2012, 10:58 am
A part of me does not condone illegal play, but there’s another part of me that says if a team gets away with something through cunning play, well, you know what, good on them.
That’s one reason I’ve always had grudging respect for Richie McCaw.
A number of New Zealand teams this season have perfected quasi-obstruction on attacking ruck ball – for example, three forwards will stand flat at first, second and third receiver close to the ruck, looking to run onto the ball, but the ball will actually be distributed to the flyhalf standing quite a bit deeper. The three forwards will be running onto a pass that never comes, and then effectively will be obstructing the flyhalf from the defensive line coming through the first and sometimes even second channel.
6 Aug 2012, 11:01 am
@brandon96end-5: Hahaha just kidding with you china
6 Aug 2012, 11:02 am
@WP Till I Die-12:
Add the Gridiron style blocking on the up and unders and kick returns as well as taking out defenders around the fringes and we might as well change the name of the game.
All it takes is a ref prepared to blow them up for it and they’ll desist sharpish.
Perhaps now that crooked Paddy has ridden off into the sunset…..
6 Aug 2012, 11:03 am
@WP Till I Die-12:
Again – I call it “quasi”-obstruction because it’s actually bloody clever.
While it could be argued that the move qualifies as blocking the tackler – defined by the Laws as “intentionally moving or standing in a position that prevents an opponent from tackling a ball carrier” – they will always be able to argue that those three forwards did not do so intentionally, it was purely accidental since they were actually expecting to receive the ball as first receiver and, being forwards, could not get out of the way quickly enough. The scrumhalf simply opted to not exercise that option and rather cut them out and pass to the flyhalf standing diagonally behind them…
6 Aug 2012, 11:05 am
@wait for it, wait for it…-6: Come on, be a bit gracious in defeat. Chiefs have played AWESOME rugby all season. Forwards are hard and scrum is good. Midfield is brilliant. Cruden might be up for ugliest Kiwi Of All Time Award but he is GOOD! (he just wont get the underwear ads that Carter got when he is AB #10).
Tamalolo (sp?) can be a bit dirty, but the Chiefs are no dirtier or harder than any other team. No team can or will ever come close to the Saders for blatant cheating
6 Aug 2012, 11:06 am
@Hurricane-7: The Kiwi Mafia Don who actually lives in Shepherds Bush London
6 Aug 2012, 11:08 am
@WP Till I Die-15:
they can still be can still be called for obstruction.
accidental or otherwise,
6 Aug 2012, 11:08 am
@bokfan1-16:
lol
6 Aug 2012, 11:09 am
@the artist formerly known as gunther-18:
A bit of a stut…stutt….stutter their Gunther
6 Aug 2012, 11:09 am
@the artist formerly known as gunther-18:
Accidental offside, perhaps.
6 Aug 2012, 11:10 am
@Hurricane-20:
ferferferferferfukkkoff.
6 Aug 2012, 11:19 am
@bokfan1-16:
ja, but the chiefa gave the crudsaders a rugby lesson in blatant cheating in their semi final. and once the crudsaders were out the kiwi judicial crew gave us a good ol lesson in making problems go away for the chiefs.
there is nothing to like or respect about these unsporting cheats. thats why there are rules. the only result of this sort of behaviour is that other teams become forced into a titt for tat type arms race of dirty, cynical, filthy play in order to have the remotest chance of winning such contests.
then rugby loses.
again, this is why there are rules to govern the game.
but this is of no concern to most of the kiwis it seems.
te rangi being the exception.
6 Aug 2012, 11:24 am
@the artist formerly known as gunther-18:
It’s an interesting dilemma.
Just got an e-mail back from a mate of mine, he’s a referee in Ireland (club rugby).
His opinion is that you can only award a penalty as a sanction where the obstruction is intentional – the laws are clear.
If there is accidental obstruction, in his opinion you should play on if there was no advantage to the attacking side, if there was an advantage to the attacking team, award a scrum to the defending side.
6 Aug 2012, 11:26 am
So, in essence, if a tackler is unable to tackle the ball carrier due to his path being obstructed by this method, and it cannot be proven that the obstruction is intentional – award a scrum to the defending side.
It will stop this tactic very quickly…
6 Aug 2012, 11:38 am
While the obstruction running is still a debatable issue, there can be no ambiguity about holding back a player who does not have the ball. This is as cynical and unlawful as you get and, if caught out, should be penalised harshly and swiftly.
So when the ref sees it not once, not twice but thrice and still remains all “aw shucks, fellas” about it, you know it’s going to be one of those games.
6 Aug 2012, 11:39 am
@WP Till I Die-21:
exactly.
and if they change their lines at all (which they do) they’ll get done for the real thing.
6 Aug 2012, 11:48 am
the law says nothing about awarding a scrum if obstruction is unintentional… just that if it is intentional a penalty is awarded…
10.1 OBSTRUCTION
(a) Charging or pushing. When a player and an opponent are running for the ball, either player must not charge or push the other except shoulder-to-shoulder.
Sanction: Penalty kick
(b) Running in front of a ball carrier. A player must not intentionally move or stand in front of a team-mate carrying the ball thereby preventing opponents from tackling the current ball carrier or the opportunity to tackle potential ball carriers when they gain possession.
Sanction: Penalty kick
(c) Blocking the tackler. A player must not intentionally move or stand in a position that prevents an opponent from tackling a ball carrier.
Sanction: Penalty kick
but again these laws are crazy because it is very difficult for a ref to know whether something is intentional of not…
so i agree with the above… if the instruction is thought to be unintentional a scrum MUST be awarded… if it is thought to be intentional then the penalty…
there should also be a written law that if a player or players do it is more than x number of times unintentional or not a penalty must be awarded…
when it’s left up to the referee’s interpretation of the player’s acting skills it will always be a problem…
6 Aug 2012, 11:54 am
@Hurricane-19: glad you liked it Godfather
@wait for it, wait for it…-23: Aggg we all know the NZ teams cheat, and that they get their refs to swing games for them.
Example Bryce Lawrence:
- Refs Ire v Aus. Makes shocking decisions to allow Ireland to win the game, thereby setting SA and Aus on a collision course (SA & Ire “shouldve” played the QF).
He then admits to having been harsh on Aus.
He is then “rewarded” with reffing the same QF!
Another joke of a performance ensues, and Aus win the game (presumably he feels so guilty over the Ireland game he cannot bering himself to penalise them). Boks (the only team capable of beating NZ in NZ) are knocked out.
Nov 2011- Lawrence wins Ref of the Year award (!)
Aug 2012 – IRB announces that Lawrence will not ref anymore.
Rugby is losing out, and cheating is becoming more “acceptable”. It is a shame
6 Aug 2012, 11:56 am
Well actually it was a surprise to a few guppies who really believed that their team could beat Sonny Bill and his Chiefs.
It is true!
6 Aug 2012, 11:59 am
@>^..^< katman-26:
Agreed.
It should be an instant penalty if a player attending the ruck pulls an opposing player, standing off from the ruck, into the ruck.
6 Aug 2012, 11:59 am
I couldn’t believe the amount of off the ball obstruction that was going on in that game. I really don’t understand how they get away with it.
I mean if you look at the Chiefs 2nd try. Their no8 break aways from the back of the scrum to score, but if you look at the reply, their No7 is 2 meters in front of him holding onto 2 Sharks defends, deliberate, blatant obstruction. If you look at this vid on youtube… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oI8uLb6zQVM at the 2.26 mark. Clear as day.
6 Aug 2012, 12:03 pm
I have also noticed during many backline moves, they often send a center flying into the defensive line as a “decoy” runner, but meters ahead of the play, standing amongst the defenders. Now, that player clearly disrupts the defensive lines and even delays the defenders movements. Why is this not considered obstruction? Its a planned move, therefore its clearly intentional?
6 Aug 2012, 12:15 pm
@blank-32:
phew, that was unbelievably blatant.
don’t think hurricane can argue against that – pure cheating.
6 Aug 2012, 12:21 pm
Mark, I disagreed with you on Friday when you said the Sharks will get slaughtered. I thought that they will be much stiffer opposition to the Chiefs.
You were right. They were slaughtered.
You had a good last three weeks afa your predictions went. Well done.
6 Aug 2012, 12:22 pm
@charo-34:
he’ll certainly have a stab at it our hurri.
expect some interesting analysis for Poep too.
6 Aug 2012, 12:22 pm
2195594″>bokfan1-29: @bokfan1-29:
It must suck holding the opinions you do,
to,
at the same time somewhere deep inside oneself
realize that they bear simply no resemblance to the truth whatsoever.
6 Aug 2012, 12:23 pm
@wait for it, wait for it…-10: man you are talking kak!
6 Aug 2012, 12:28 pm
I need to spend some more time with Hurricane on this blog,he is starting to sound like Pooper Lite…
6 Aug 2012, 12:29 pm
Bismarck should just’ve slapped that lock who tried to pull him in at the ruck.
Walsch only speaking to the captain about the Chiefs players holding on to A-defenders around the fringes of the ruck pissed me off more than him doing nothing about it.
The fact that he talked about it, meant that he saw it and that he knew it was outside of the law. A penalty or two early in the game against the offending players will sort that kind of thing out quick-quick.
6 Aug 2012, 12:36 pm
@WP Till I Die-31: i recall the saders vs chiefs round robin game where the crusaders were pulling chiefs players into into rucks etc, the other two kiwi commentators were bemoaning the tactic and justin marshall also chipped in and said “i agree it is not on but i can tell you, we’re encouraged to drag in players, hehehehehehe i just revealed a training ground secret”
6 Aug 2012, 12:37 pm
@nama1-40: were you as equally pi ssed off with walsh allowing the sharks to stand offside willy nilly through out the game?
6 Aug 2012, 12:40 pm
@Transformation-42:
Walsh WARNED the Chiefs about it twice.
And then proceeded to watch whilst they created a try using the very same tack.
Poor effort really.
6 Aug 2012, 12:44 pm
@Transformation-41:
I quite like Justin Marshall’s commentary.
6 Aug 2012, 12:44 pm
@bokfan1-29: And yet it’s a South African, Joubert, who seems to let us get away with the most, e.g. RWC final and he was the AR that missed the blatant head high vs the Sharks. Are we also to blame for your referees?
6 Aug 2012, 12:45 pm
@gonzo-45:
Joubert was helpless to do anything – after all, your commentary team was holding Bobby Skinstad hostage…
6 Aug 2012, 12:46 pm
@WP Till I Die-44:
Indeed.
Bobby should phone him for some tips.
6 Aug 2012, 12:49 pm
@Transformation-41:
I heard that as well.
@Transformation-42:
Espcially McLeod was off sides the whole day.
Yes, it pissed me off from both teams. The back line of the Chiefs were also off side most of the time.It was probably their tactic to shut down Michalak.
6 Aug 2012, 12:49 pm
This is a bad taste of after match moaning
A decent team -which I considered the Sharks to be – would have done the following prior to the Final:
1. Reject Steve Walsh outright, the scoundrel awarded the Stormers 14 point for nothing against them at the Semi and it was pretty obvious he was about to do the same at the final which he did
2. Send the 2nd + reserve team to play in NZ, their 1st team was not match fit, the Kiwis wouldn’t mind, wining fair and square for them is just like it is for the Stormers: it’s against their moral fibers, not an option, I guess we all saw how the ABs won the RWC under one of the most fraudulent, convoluted refereeing by Craig Joubert, or didn’t we?
6 Aug 2012, 12:53 pm
@Hondo-49: Can you tell us which referees are not scoundrels?
Pages: [1] 2 3 » Show All
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.