Chiliboy Try? ….. No Try!

Well this is not a post about how Jaco Peyper cost the Stormers the game against the Bulls. As I have said before they way the Stormers played they deserved to lose and they did.

The incident in question was when Hougaard placed a grubber though the Stormers defense and Chiliboy who was in front of Hougaard when he kicked picked up the ball as scored a “try”.  As it happened I said to a friend of mine that should be a Stormers penalty.

Mr. Peyper then asked the TMO whether he can determine if a Stormers player touched the ball and thus “placed Chiliboy onside”.  The TMO then decided that he thought the ball did indeed touch Malherbe’s boot. Which I disagree with because the only way you can determine that is if you have hotspot or if you can see the players anatomy move. Like in the case of the Zane Kirchner charge down of JdV’s kick. But that does not really make a difference in this case.

When Hougaard kicked the ball in order for Chili to become onside again either a Stormers player must have charged the ball down which did not happen. Malherbe according to the TMO touched the ball but only after it had rolled a few times and the only accidentally thus no charge down. The other way Chili could have been placed onside is if he retreated immediately after the ball was kicked, as he was within 10m of where the ball grounded and Hougaard or someone else placed him onside. As it was Chiliboy stood still and did not retreat thus penalty to Stormers immediately.

Now I can understand that a ref will make mistakes we all do. If he misses a forward pass, a offside, a knock-on or struggles with the laws around the brake down which is still a sham. BUT when a ref just does not know the laws of the game it is inexcusable.  It is the same if a hart surgeon did not know the left from the right ventricle.

One would think that refs should write an exam of sorts testing them on their knowledge of the laws of the game and that this is being repeated once or twice a year? I mean this is his job not just some hobby he does in his past time.

What worries me is if I can make the right call with in seconds of it happening how can a ref and TMO get it so wrong when they took 3-5 mins to make the call.

Like I said I am not sure this influenced the result of the game but what if this was a final??

Cheers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ps: It just came to my attention that Peyper also  refereed the final between the Sharks and WP and in that game he also made a lot of mistakes which incidentally also went against the WP. Something more to this???? Or is Mr. Peyper just a shit ref??

31 comments on this post.
  1. Leeubok:

    Question: How do you know you are right and the ref was wrong? I’m pretty sure a full time professional ref knows a little more than us coach potatoe bloggers…

  2. jonno:

    HOW ABOUT THIS: IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN A PENALTY TO THE BULLS BECAUSE HOUGAARD GOT TACKLED WITHOUT THE BALL PRIOR TO CHILLI COMMITING THE OFFENCE?

  3. Baylion:

    Generaal, to make you feel better SANZAR boss ref Lyndon Bray admitted the try was a mistake.

    http://www.supersport.com/rugby/super-rugby/news/130227/Bulls_try_a_mistake_admits_Bray

  4. GROENIE:

    guess peyper just lost his monthly bonus from the stormers.

    dont wurry im sure there is a couple of other games he will make up for it, the season is still long and he is retiring this year so he will need those bonuses.

  5. provincefan:

    That would be the SA Referee’s Assoc calling it a mistake. Which they did. On their website. With a full law discussion.

  6. provincefan:

    I think Peyper was playing advantage to the Bulls when this happened..

    Only difference it would have made is a BP.

  7. Met uysh:

    Final score 25-17….no try then it was 18-17. So Stormers would have had a BP. Add the missed kicks from JAntjies, then Stormers would definitely have won. Ja, Stormers played kak but so did the Bulls. Poor kicking cost us the match.

  8. GEN DE LA REY:

    No as soon as Hougaard kicked ball, when it left his foot, and Chili was not retreating (as he was standing still) it was a penalty to the Stormers. In slow motion it looks like Hougaard got tackled late but in reality it was only seconds after he kicked the ball thus the players was already committed to the tackle.

  9. GEN DE LA REY:

    Jip Pfan is right. I thought I was right but did not want to post until I read the Sa Refs website.
    Which is the reason I posted cause you would think a ” full time professional ref would know a little more than us coach patatoe’s”
    But as it turned out they DON’T!!!!

  10. GEN DE LA REY:

    No it does not. Admitting you were wrong does not help. It is not if it was a decision made in the heat of the moment, They took ages and still made the wrong call not good enough.

  11. GEN DE LA REY:

    He is to young to retire?
    The worst part is that the TMO agreed with the ref. Thus it makes 2 refs that does not know the laws of the game??

  12. GEN DE LA REY:

    Well you can’t just subtract the try as soon as the try was allowed it changed the dynamics of the game. The Stormers was starting to play better and then the Bulls scored.

  13. provincefan:

    it wasn’t like we deserved to win it. Although the Stormers team of the last few years have managed to win a LOT of games we didn’t deserve to win

  14. GEN DE LA REY:

    No it changes the dynamics of the game. Suddenly you are chasing the game even more and thus takes more risks and make more errors.
    I still do not think the Stormers deserved to win they were useless. It is just sad that a professional ref can make such schoolboy errors!!And it seems Mr Bray agrees

  15. GROENIE:

    that makes 2 refs not getting their en of month bonus then

  16. Ray:

    Even though not all referees would have found a charge down, there was sufficient cause to find a charge down. Bray can bray all he wants. Since when has Bray refereed a super rugby game. Maybe Jaco does know something about the rules after all.

  17. Zulu:

    An almost identical incident happened in the 6 Nations game between England and France and the ref there was Craig Joubert so maybe a South African Refereeing problem or maybe Craig just dislikes the French as he shafted them in the World Cup Final as well

  18. Two Cents:

    Its not just Peyper, i am noticing a definite drop in the quality of refering. Maties vs NMMU, two shocking called changed the game completly. The Kings vs Force game was a shocker by bryce lawrens’ standards, from the ass refs to the main whistle blower in the middle.
    i always believed that as long as the ref was poor to both sides it was fine, but its becoming a habit and is spoiling the game.

  19. GEN DE LA REY:

    1. The act of a charge down is one where an opposition player not in possession of the ball approaches a kicker at close quarters and makes an attempt to block the kick. In such circumstances players in front of the kicker who are within 10 metres of the kick are not liable to penalty wherever the ball lands.

    2. If the ball is not charged down but is played or touches an opposition player and a player from the kicker’s side is within the 10 metre area in front of the kick that player is liable to penalty in accordance with Law 10.4(f).

  20. GEN DE LA REY:

    In the clip you can clearly see that the ball has already touched the ground 2 times before Malharbe makes “contact” (which I still dispute) with the ball thus not a charge down per definition.

    Look the Bulls won on paper so just take it do not try to rationalize a mistake by the ref.

  21. GEN DE LA REY:

    Ha jip maybe. The Ref’s association also said it was the wrong call. So can’t be a SA refs thing. It is more an IQ thing.

  22. GEN DE LA REY:

    Jip, It looks like the more responsibility the TMO gets the worst the mistakes get.
    Just a shame that when they do have time and a replay they still get it wrong.
    I know refs aren’t rocket scientist but still ….

  23. Marius:

    Here is the link to the official IRB rules regarding offside play.

    http://www.irblaws.com/index.php?law=11

    Rule 11.1 states a few points.
    Firstly a player who is in an offside position is not automatically penalised.
    Secondly he must not interfere with play or move forward until being put onside by either an action of one of his own players or an action of one of his opponents.

    Rule 11.2 states all the ways one of his own team mates can put him onside.

    Now firstly Chilliboy did not interfere with play and also did not move forward until he was put onside by Hougaard according to the definition of rule 11.2 c which means that it a legitimate try. The problem was that Jaco Peyper asked the wrong question. He should have checked both scenarios. Was Cilliboy put onside by an opponent or was he put onside by a team mate. Only if both these rules were not met, should he have be ruled offside.

  24. GEN DE LA REY:

    Sorry but you are wrong.

    That law only applies in normal offside play. When a ball is kicked this law applies:

    (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. While moving away, the player must not obstruct an opponent.
    Penalty: Penalty Kick
    (d) When a player who is offside under the 10-Metre Law plays the ball which has been misfielded by an opponent, the offside player is penalised.
    Penalty: Penalty Kick

    Thus Chiliboy needed to retreat and NOT STAND STILL. That is why it is a penalty because of the kick not traveling very far. If Hougaard had kicked the ball more than 10m through the air then Chiliboy might have been placed onside.

    Go read the SA ref’s associations explanation of the call it is very well explained there.

  25. Gerhard:

    Typical Stormers excuse for every loss and always the ref – but only looking at certain calls of the ref. The first Stormer try should also not be allowed. But then like the Stormers usually only certain games and decisions are questioned when they do get the benefit as with 75% of the 50/50 calls of the ref against the Bulls that is forgotten. They were beaten by a better team and gonna lost against the Sharks again

  26. Leanair:

    Could it be the question the ref asked? I am not sure if it is still the case, but the TMO was only allowed to answer what the ref asked him – and the ref asked if the ball touched the stormers player to put chilliboy onside – so the tmo determined that the ball touched the player, but was not able to tell payper that it still does not put chilliboy onside.

  27. scooterdk:

    Great article General, but what I want to know is how a professional blogger like you can make so many spelling mistakes? I mean you do get paid for this right? Guess we’re all only human at the end of the day…. ;-)

  28. GEN DE LA REY:

    As I said in my post that the Stormers deserved to lose!!
    I also think the Sharks will win on Saturday.
    As for me making an excuse as said before it was confirmed by Bray and the Sa Refs association. So not much wriggling room there.
    The only thing that could have been wrong about the Stormers first try is Habana holding on for to long on the ground? Well that is debatable but you will always get some of those 50/50 calls. This was just a stupid mistake by the ref as he did not know the laws of the game. And that is what is inexcusable.

    As for the Bulls they played OK I will keep my opinion until later in the season.

  29. GEN DE LA REY:

    I think the ref are allowed to help the ref two phases back of a try being scored and does not have to stick to the question asked. In truth it will take some balls from the TMO to publicly over the media tell the on field ref he is wrong.
    I think as time goes on the TMO will help the ref more.

  30. GEN DE LA REY:

    I am not a professional blogger. LOL I do have another day job for which I do get paid and it does not involve writing to much, well I have a PA for that.
    I am one of the worst spellers I know. This site do have spell check but it is a pretty shit tool as it does not pick up grammar ect.
    I do believe that we all make mistakes. Some are easy to forgive some not so much.
    As I have said if he missed a forward pass or a knock it is forgivable but this is not knowing the laws of the game. And for his job (ref) all he needs to know is the laws. Is that to much?????

  31. GEN DE LA REY:

    Ps I would rather call my self a serial blogger lots of post not always so much sense!!
    Well in this post there was some sense but that is because Bray and co backed me up.

Leave a comment





*