Rugby videos of tackles, tries, funny incidents and more: Kurtley Beale knock down leaves Sharks fuming

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Kurtley Beale knock down leaves Sharks fuming

The Natal Sharks sunk to their fourth straight defeat as they went down 25-21 to the Waratahs in the Super 14 on the weekend. The result may have been different though if it weren’t for Kurtley Beale’s hand of god intervention.

With time almost up, the Sharks threw everything into attack and managed to create an overlap with speedster Ryan Kankowski out wide unmarked, with the try line in sight. As Stefan Terblanche released the pass Beale stuck out a flailing left arm, knocking the ball away.

Referee Paul Marks instantly penalised Beale and sent him to the sin-bin, but didn’t consider the option of a penalty try, which has incensed the Sharks as they felt that Beale prevented Kankowski from galloping in for a try, as he did in the first half when he outpaced a winger.

"There were some big decisions that went against us and they seriously cost us," said coach John Plumtree, who described it as a 'cynical piece of play from Kurtley Beale'.

"That was Ryan Kankowski, who runs quicker than a wing and he would have skated in there and that was the game.

"It was close but unfortunately that’s how it goes with these refs. It happens and we're not focusing on it in our post-match analysis," he added.

Beale himself has insisted that he did not deliberately slap down the pass.

"I just saw it was two-on-one and tried to go for the intercept and hit the ball up. If I hadn't hit the ball up, it was going to be a try and it would have been a totally different story," he said.

The Sharks travel to Canberra next to face the Brumbies and will naturally be hoping to get off their dismal 12th placing on the log. They’re sticking with the combincation of England’s Andy Goode at flyhalf, with Ruan Pienaar at number nine.

They’ll be hoping Goode stays on the field this time though, as he has now played two matches, and been yellow carded not once, but twice. The Sharks actually played with 13 men at one stage, after prop Jannie Du Plessis was also sent to the sin-bin.

Ironically, they played their best rugby during that period in the match, leading to coach Plumtree being asked if he’d like to start the match with 13 men next week.

"You are allowed to start the game with 13 but I’m not sure you’re allowed to start with 16," he responded.

Do you think the decision to not award the penalty try was correct?

:: Related Posts ::
Andy Goode's yellow card on Super 14 debut

Time: 01:24

FIRST!!!
WH

By Anonymous, at March 10, 2010 11:48 am
Well the person he was passing to was a no8. and it happened between the 22 and 10 meter line so there could of been a covering tackle, so there is enough doubt for the ref.
WH

By Anonymous, at March 10, 2010 11:50 am
Definitely a penalty try...
The player was not even near interception.

By Ulf, at March 10, 2010 11:57 am
@anonymous: but you do know how quick Kankowski is? This would have been a try.

By Ben, at March 10, 2010 11:59 am
too far out to be a penalty try if it had been closer to the 22 then maybe or a given within the 22, but that far out there could have been a cover tackle. what i want to know is what happened after they had 4 mins on the clock and a decent penalty position. could have easily worked another try but they just looked out on their feet at that point

By Patron, at March 10, 2010 12:17 pm
il avait qu'à faire ça passe avant!!!
(he made a mistake, he had to pass the ball before).

By Unknown, at March 10, 2010 12:27 pm
Id, too far out to be a penalty try I guess?

By Unknown, at March 10, 2010 12:50 pm
rigbt to get sent off but i agree that a penalty try that far out just isn't possible.

By REDS!, at March 10, 2010 1:06 pm
Kankowski in this same match ran 60 meters to score and burnt Drew Mitchell, the Waratahs wing (after side stepping him too) Trust me, he would have scored that try with no one in sight.

Penalty try. Penalty try. Penalty try.

Sharks cheated by an Anzac ref, it happens to all the South African sides in the Super 14.

By Smit, at March 10, 2010 1:13 pm
It's got nothing to do with how far out it happened, there was no cover defence for miles. Penalty tries are given if foul play prevented a probable try, which is exactly what happened here.
Kankowski had intercepted earlier from 60 metres out and Drew Mitchell couldn't catch him, so pace wouldn't be an issue either.

By molly, at March 10, 2010 1:14 pm
Oh, snap Smit.

By molly, at March 10, 2010 1:18 pm
the only thing i can see is that maybe the pass wasnt going to go to kankowskis hands anyway, its not clear from the replay. perhaps the ref thought this and decided that whilst beales play was cynical and deserved a yellow card a try wouldnt have been scored.

but then i will say anything to prevent a south african team from winning :)

By Jack, at March 10, 2010 1:36 pm
The ref bottled it. Simple. He called it a deliberate knock-down, which on the replay it clearly was.

The only question after that is what if the pass had gone to hand? The answer is that Kankowski was in - Palu was the nearest defender, Kankowski had a start on him, and there was no cover. The penalty try rule is for when an infringement prevents a probable try, and this was as good an example of that.

Ps. A little after this clip, the commentary cut to Rod Kafer who said something along the lines of "Kurtley Beale has only been on 5 minutes but that intervention prevented a certain try". It sure did; and whilst the Sharks still have a bunch of things to work on, they got stiffed this weekend by a ref who chickened out on the correct call.

By Edbok, at March 10, 2010 1:57 pm
One other thing following this weekend... how did Nonu not get cited for his spear tackle? If anyone can tell me the difference between Nonu's spear and Lauaki's spear (during the Lions-Chiefs game, for which got Lauaki 2 weeks), that would make for some impressive lawyering.

By Edbok, at March 10, 2010 2:04 pm
Ulf said...

Definitely a penalty try...
The player was not even near interception.

March 10, 2010 11:57 AM
-------------------------------------

The card was for the knock down but PT wasn't given as too many factors against the attacking side - player possible knock on, covering tackle etc.
Right decisions.

By Bradders, at March 10, 2010 2:06 pm
Bradders - "player possible knock on, covering tackle etc."

1. There was no cover. Watch the slomo starting at 0.55, there's no-one anywhere close.

2. If "possible knock on" is a reason not to award a penalty try, then penalty tries should never be awarded. Because it's always possible a player could fail to ground the ball properly, after all.

Kafer on commentary called it a certain try, Kurtley Beale afterwards called it a certain try, there was no excuse not to have awarded it once he'd pinged for the deliberate knock-down.

By Edbok, at March 10, 2010 2:13 pm
too many what ifs going on, kankowski is a fantastic no. 8 with plenty of speed but the opposite no. 8 was relatively close, and a faster winger MIGHT HAVE come across.... who knows, just remember Josh Lewsys cover tackle a few seasons ago the distance and speed he covered back to prevent the try was incredible agianst another back. unlucky for the sharks

By Patron, at March 10, 2010 2:37 pm
should have been Penalty Try..

no question

By cheis, at March 10, 2010 3:09 pm
yeh its true kankowski would have scored that, if there was enough to give the tah's wing a yellow because he knocked it down, there is more than enough for the ref to give a penalty try....

Massive overlap, fast player taking the ball, who i add isnt short of handling skills....

penalty try....

By Anonymous, at March 10, 2010 3:23 pm
"player possible knock on"

well it's always possible that a knock on will happen....but that factor is irrelevant. Othwerwsie you would never have a penalty try, in this situation or for example a push over try...heck it;s always possible that the 8 man would knock the ball on etc...

Let's look at the IRB law on it:

"Penalty try. A penalty try is awarded if a try would probably have been scored but for foul play by the defending team."

It doesn't say "would definitely score" or "100% would have scored" or "no doubt". It just says "probably". That's a low bar and there is no doubt that it was a penalty try......and that follows logically from the referee's acknowledgment of foul play and the card. It's a no brainer....and I'm not a SAFFA.

By JPM, at March 10, 2010 3:29 pm
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

By Anonymous, at March 10, 2010 3:36 pm
good cal by the ref i'd say

By no9, at March 10, 2010 3:56 pm
he was going for the intercept, everyone is saying that he wasn't, but if he wanted to stop the try he would have gone for the no. 8. he wanted the glory of an intercept try.
he was just too short. and knocked it on rather than letting it go. yellow yes. penalty try um... no.

By mat, at March 10, 2010 4:35 pm
"cheating...... Beale should play for Ireland!"

Why?

Ref bottled it, penalty try.

By Darren, at March 10, 2010 4:48 pm
You can't say he was going for the intercept, and then say penalty yes, penalty try no. If he was going for the intercept and tried to catch it but dropped it, then it would be a knock on.

The fact is that the ref deemed it to be a deliberate knock down, hence the penalty and yellow card. Therefore he's guilty. So the question, as per the laws, remains 'Would a try probably have been scored?'.

Yes.

By Benson, at March 10, 2010 5:06 pm
Put me in the Bucket for "He was going for an intercept and did not make it".

If you look at his arms, they were completely outstretched and his motion looked like he was trying to catch it and bolt in the opposite direction.

I would have given a simple knock on.

By EARugbyFan, at March 10, 2010 5:32 pm
shouldn't have been sent off and definitely a correct call not giving the penalty try. Beale's arm was in an upward motion and clearly trying to pop it up to himself for an intercept. the yellow card was ridiculous!!!

By Unknown, at March 10, 2010 5:51 pm
Maybe if Terblanche didn't get in the referee's face about it, he may've been more keen to award a penalty try.

I agree that a penalty try would have been acceptable here, but if I were a referee, I'm not sure I'd have been comfortable making that call. The ref is usually watching the action around the ball, so how would he have known whether or not there was a defender capable of stopping Kankowski? It's not like he's the flyhalf.

At the very least, he could've spared a few moments to consult the touch judges.

By Georg, at March 10, 2010 5:54 pm
Did he even touch that?

Didn't look deliberate to me, especially at full speed. Another case of a touchie wanting to be the man in the spotlight.

By OL, at March 10, 2010 6:01 pm
Well the person he was passing to was a no8. and it happened between the 22 and 10 meter line so there could of been a covering tackle, so there is enough doubt for the ref.
WH
...........

ryan kankawski is one of the fastest forwards in the game and 10/10 times he would have scored that no doubt about that.he wasnt going for the ball as his other hand didnt even attempt to make the catch
either a yellow card or penalty try. tough call by the reff

By geordie, at March 10, 2010 6:09 pm
Call was an intentional knock on ...

So ask yourself why would he risk being sin binned for commiting this intentional penalty?

Answer- To stop them scoring a try

therfore should be a penalty try !

By themull, at March 10, 2010 6:52 pm
LOL at the guy who said it was a no8!!!! Kankowski is as faster as most wings... and the ref knew the because he scored an intercept try earlier in the match out pacing the whole backline!!!

Penalty Try and this is coming from some who hates the Sharks!!!

By Anonymous, at March 10, 2010 7:21 pm
RD please put up the intercept of Kankowski..just to prove to everyone how fast he is

By Alain Weyers, at March 10, 2010 8:47 pm
Terblanche should have passed it earlier. Its his fault.

By Portaloo, at March 10, 2010 10:36 pm
Paul Marks ref has been sacked

By Anonymous, at March 10, 2010 10:47 pm
Coment by Jack:

His hand motion was on its way up soo, i think i just should of been a penalty.. my opinon.

By Anonymous, at March 10, 2010 10:51 pm
Ter Blanch or whatever his name is.... Is a sook, suck shit dude... you lost!

By Jamie, at March 10, 2010 11:13 pm
'Paul Marks ref has been sacked'

Oh f*ck me, this is bullshit....i mean its true but its bullshit....are you gonna see a referee sacked for every wrong bit of reffing......

How many tries have been given when there has been a foot dragging the ground......does every video ref get fired? or every ref......

i mean we have all seen refs calling tries straight away then when the commentators analyse stuff in the break and slow mo sh*t you can see the player actually never grounded the ball....etc etc...

Im sorry but refs make calls all the time that cost matches and once again whiny f*ckers cant accept it.....

By Jay, at March 11, 2010 3:07 am
Palu was covering and he could not catch Kankowski. Try for sure.

Stupid smirk on Beale's face says it all. The only reason he was back there was because the Tahs hide him in defence. He should hire himself out as a turnstile (to quote Wendell Sailor).

The only redeeming aspect of the decision is that it happened to a saffer side. Cheating bastards.

By Anonymous, at March 11, 2010 3:47 am
I reckon Beale should have shouted at Kankowski and just risk a penalty.

By Nico, at March 11, 2010 9:19 am
there's two sides. if it deserved a yellow card, it should probably also be a penalty try as the card acknowledges it was a serious offence. however, it does look like beale knocked it up rather than slapping it down and it didn't definately prevent a try as a cover tackle was possible

By Anonymous, at March 11, 2010 11:32 am
I understand that Kankowski is seriously quick but I just don't think the ref can give a try from that far out with Palu potentially covering.

The issue is not who is quicker (Kankowski) but that there are too many things which could stop try being scored - distance, touchline, covering defender, pass going to hand - for it to be certain enough.

If Habana's on his 5m and has a clear run to the tryline but the pass is knocked down is that the same?

By jackohos, at March 11, 2010 2:44 pm
Also, Terblanche: what a prick!

His posturing makes it almost impossible for the ref to give a penalty try because if he does he'd be accused being influenced.

Not something I like or want to see in rugby.

By jackohos, at March 11, 2010 2:50 pm
some people just don't understand what probable means. A penalty try is awarded when fould play prevents a probable try. So no penalty try should ever be awarded again, because the player might stumble, they might knock it on, they might not ground it right, they might run the wrong way, there might be a solar eclipse, the ref might miss it, the universe might explose. Looking at his motions there was no intercept there, the only reason he is reaching up is because thats where the ball was! it looks more like he was caught out of position (not covering kankowski) and then tried to save his ass by a last ditch attempt(illegal may i add). He clearly knocked the ball forward. No one can tell me that if you can barely touch the ball with your finger tips that you are going for an intercept.

By Anonymous, at March 11, 2010 3:54 pm
Doesn't even look like he touched it to me. At most it was a fingertip, and Kankowski overran it my a metre or so, so probably wouldn't have caught it anyway.

By Tighthead, at March 11, 2010 5:09 pm
'I reckon Beale should have shouted at Kankowski and just risk a penalty'

LOOLLL!!!!!!!

gotta agree one person, Beale's smirk did say it all...

In some games you get mocked or maybe told off for getting a yellow by team mates, or a coach, but Beale would have had a pat on the back for that one!!!

By Anonymous, at March 11, 2010 8:41 pm
No, jackohos summed it up pretty well. Terblanche was being a little shit. You don't get to throw a temper tantrum like a French scrumhalf, arms waiving in the air screaming "penalty try" and expect the referee to go your way.

He basically ruled out the possibility of a penalty try with the way he acted.

By Bokk, at March 11, 2010 9:14 pm
Ok lads if you want to insult each other at least be brave enough to leave your name...

I reckon Beale's hand is an upward motion and as such shouldn't have been penalised as a knock down. I think that is even in the laws.

but, if he got yellowed it should have been a penalty try...

plus, terblanche only acted like a pork chop because he knew he murdered a certain try by not passing early enough!!! Kankowski would have burnt all of them

In the end Terblanche is the reason the try wasn't scored

By ned2or3, at March 12, 2010 6:57 am
Sorry for late contribution - only got to see the match highlights today.

Awarding a penalty try which would almost certainly affect the outcome of a match is a huge decision for the ref. My take is that it was definitely a deliberate knock-on worthy of a yellow card. 10 metres from the line it should also have been a penalty try but 25-30 metres away I'm not so sure. Terblanche's (heat of the moment) actions didn't help and don't get me started on idiotic Australian commentators.

Decisions based on a real time, single view can go either way. If it had been possible to use the TMO in this instance the likelihood of a cover tackle being made could have been assessed and the PT decision may have been different.

Only saw highlights so can't comment on the ref's overall performance but I never like people solely blaming a referee for a loss. Did the Sharks really make no knock-ons, no bad kicks, miss zero tackles & give away no penalties during the game?

By Neutral, at March 12, 2010 4:55 pm
once again a south african side is SCREWED.

By Anonymous, at March 13, 2010 12:53 am
The sharks no 21 should have slapped him harder when he was sent off - definately a try!!! The ref just didn't have the balls..

By Anonymous, at March 13, 2010 5:04 pm
No way a penalty try. Not a deliberate knock down. Legitimately went for the intercept. It doesn't matter how close or far he was to pulling it off.
For sure it would have been a try if it went to Kankowski, but Terblanche messed up. Should of passed earlier or dummied.
As for the Anzac ref call, how about the Highlanders vs. Stormers, saffa ref, stormers start a maul by themselves with the ball at the back, only problem the highlanders all stood off so actually not a maul but blatant obstruction, ref does nothing. Stormers scored at least once from. Sure Highlanders weren't in it, but schoolboy refing.

By Timbo, at March 13, 2010 10:56 pm
Do people not understand the meaning of knock"DOWN" or something??

By Anonymous, at March 13, 2010 10:59 pm
A failed intercept; correct call.

I agree with Laurent above: Terblanche should have passed it earlier, especially if this no8 is as quick as everyone says.

By Anarchangel, at March 14, 2010 11:19 pm
can i please point out that Kankowski shouldn't have scored a try he did earlier in that match anyway, he was miles offside, tit for tat if you ask me

By Anonymous, at December 30, 2010 4:32 pm
can i please point out that Kankowski shouldn't have scored a try he did earlier in that match anyway, he was miles offside, tit for tat if you ask me

By Anonymous, at December 30, 2010 4:32 pm