Shepherd goes close again

[laura]

Shepherd goes close again
DAVE HUGHES
5 May 2008


History looked like repeating itself at Subiaco Oval for the 90 seconds it took television match official George Ayoub to come to a decision at the end of Saturday’s Super 14 encounter between the Western Force and Chiefs.

Just as he did a year ago against the Hurricanes, Force full-back Cameron Shepherd had dived over in the last minute for what seemed to be the decisive try.

Shepherd’s try and after-the-siren conversion to pip the Canes has gone down in Force folklore and, amazingly, it appeared he had repeated the feat to down the Chiefs with just three seconds left on the clock.

Callum Bruce’s drop goal appeared to have stolen the Chiefs their sixth consecutive win by giving them a two-point lead in the 76th minute but the Force held possession, rumbled into the Waikato team’s 22m area and put the try line under siege.

The hyped-up fans were in full voice as the Force pounded away and few realised referee Marius Jonker had called a penalty advantage to the Force during their final fling which climaxed with replacement Sitaleki Timani tossing a pass towards the onrushing Shepherd.

The World Cup Wallaby had to reach low to control the ball and dived over to send the stadium into rapture.

But, wait! Jonker signalled he wasn’t completely happy and wanted Ayoub to check Shepherd’s action.

Supporters of both teams agonised as he assessed the replays. Boos prevailed when Jonker disallowed the try because of a slight knock-on as Shepherd tried to grab the bouncing ball — but they rapidly turned to applause when Jonker ran back to where the Chiefs had gone offside and signalled a penalty to the home team.

Would Shepherd get the opportunity to be the hero again, especially as Giteau had already missed three shots at the posts?

“I was tempted to ask but Gits has amazing confidence and I saw him walk over and take the ball,” recalled Shepherd.

“He’s got a cool head and if there’s one person you’d want to take a kick like that, it’s him.”

Shepherd said he was annoyed at fumbling the pass.

“I was filthy I’d bombed the try,” he said. “I didn’t catch it cleanly but I thought I’d got it down OK.

“When I looked up Marius (Jonker) was running over, nodding, and I thought he was going to award it but then he went upstairs for the replay. I knew we had a penalty coming, though.”

Shepherd said he never doubted the Force could snatch the win after Bruce’s drop goal because of the seesawing action.

“I knew if we could get the ball we could make the metres,” he said. “Some of their players were battling near the end because it had been such a hard game.

“We made it that way deliberately. We knew our best chance was to dominate them physically, to go out and bash bodies. In the end they made a tired mistake.”

[no.8]

George Ayoub had no right - will his illegal actions be investigated - namely his decision to make a call on an incident that happened in the field of play could result in the Western Force not making the last four!

[Punkpapa]

This was a point I was making last night with Ecky - if the TMO is only to make a call on the "in-goal" infringement, or in the act of putting the ball down (which is not where the supposed knock on occurred), then the try should have been awarded.
That one point is going to make a difference somewhere.

[jono]

there hasnt been anything said about enquiries being made yet.

[The InnFORCEr]

This was a point I was making last night with Ecky - if the TMO is only to make a call on the "in-goal" infringement, or in the act of putting the ball down (which is not where the supposed knock on occurred), then the try should have been awarded.
That one point is going to make a difference somewhere.

I don't know, listen to the replay and you will hear Jonker say to George "I'm going to have to ask you to look at the final pass where there was a knock on, if there wasn't a knock on, can I award the try from that (Kearnsy buts in saying "he can't do that") if not I'm going back for a penalty"

It seems that Jonker saw a knock on anyway?

Relive the moment..video highlight of Saturday's last minute. - Western Force Rugby Supporters Site

[AndyS]

Only comment I heard was Kearns saying that the ref couldn't do that, then hastily adding that he thought that they should be allowed. I kind of hope an analogous situation (foot-in-touch, knock-on or forward pass) comes up to decide the 'Canes, 'Tahs or Stormers season, now that the precedent is set - the reaction should be entertaining!

[BLR]

there hasnt been anything said about enquiries being made yet.

Why would there be? When has a referee ever been held accountable for his actions, besides, even if they DO hold an enquiry the referrees board will be running it, find that he did the right thing and then let it be like that....there is no accountability.

[The InnFORCEr]

Canes already had one haven't they. The ref even admitted the mistake later in the week.

[Punkpapa]

I don't know, listen to the replay and you will hear Jonker say to George "I'm going to have to ask you to look at the final pass where there was a knock on, if there wasn't a knock on, can I award the try from that (Kearnsy buts in saying "he can't do that") if not I'm going back for a penalty"

It seems that Jonker saw a knock on anyway?

Relive the moment..video highlight of Saturday's last minute. - Western Force Rugby Supporters Site

Appreciate what the Ref asked for, but if he called it as a knock on, then the decision was made. No need to go to the TMO. If he was unsure of the knock on, then it becomes a benefit of the doubt issue. Does benefit of the doubt go to the attacking side?

[Darren]

Is there a "benefit of the doubt"? I thought if the a ref didn't see something happen, it didn't happen? ie. If he doesn't see the ball get grounded, then no try can be awarded (pre-TMO)

[Punkpapa]

See my confusion (and I have watched just a bit of rugby lately). In mungo, BOTD always goes to the attacking side, but in union, it's never really been an issue. Maybe I am reading this wrong (I don't have a problem with the try not being awarded just to confirm), but I do have a problem if the TMO was asked to adjudicate on something he had no right to? Also, going to the Brumbies game, in the case of the Penalty Try, did the Ref offer a BOTD by assuming that a try would have been scored if Bobo hadn't been interfered with?
I am not bagging the Ref, but in both cases, it would seem that the current law does not really seem to be applied in the same way?

[TOCC]

Is there a "benefit of the doubt"? I thought if the a ref didn't see something happen, it didn't happen? ie. If he doesn't see the ball get grounded, then no try can be awarded (pre-TMO)

Its really up to the Ref, if they can see the ball grounded, but they arent sure if there was a knock on or they didnt see how the ball got there, they can ask the TMO if there is a reason not to award the try.

I think Ref's should go with 'benefit of the doubt', i like to see scorelines ticking over and as long as the calls are consistent then there shouldnt be a drama.

[shasta]

The only thing Jonker did wrong in the final incident was his wording. He should have used the old "any reason I can't award the try". He gave himself away in saying he'd seen the knock on. I think he was trying to make absolutely sure he didn't rob the Force of a legitimate try and BP by going to the TMO. Maybe he realised the possible ramifications. The sooner the TMO's jurisdiction is widened a bit, the better. I've never been a great fan of his but he got that one 100% right.

[gustafsl]

I think there is going to be a problem however they write up any change to the rules. What would happen if that knock-on was 60 or 70 metres back and Shepherd picked the ball up and ran the length of the field untouched for the try. Would he have gone to TMO then? What if the knock on is 3 or 4 rucks before a try is scored. No matter what they do, somewhere down the line, some othe team will say the new rules are inadequate.

[Punkpapa]

Guess that's why they need to only ask the question about whether the grounding of the ball was ok. Let's not forget that the Ref can ask his touch judges for their opinion of an incident as well?