Deceiving eyes

The past weekend once again underscored how different a game viewed on television can be to watching it in a packed stadium with the madding crowd.

The 36-all draw between the Blue Bulls and Western Province was a true classic and had everyone who was there in raptures – yet it contained a plethora of errors.

And, before you think I am going to add to the chorus of dissatisfaction over André Watson’s refereeing, or lack of it!, let me hasten to confess that this is about my own errors.

Now Securicor Loftus may have arguably the worst Press area in the known universe, a cavernous box, behind glass in which my seat is opposite a point 10 metres from the northern goalline and in which my view of the right-hand corner is often obscured by the patrons leaping up to themselves get a better view, but this is no excuse – I got it wrong and I’m apologizing.

For one, in my match report I stated that Rob Linde had been sent to the sin-bin – Western Province’s second yellow card in the space of a minute. It wasn’t Rob Linde. It was Johan van Zyl but I have a very plausible excuse.

I like to keep detailed notes of games and this is how the sequence went. I see Linde go into the side of a maul, I hear Watson blow his whistle and I see him reach for his holster…I look down and next to 87 (minutes) in my notebook I write “Linde yellow card,” right after “Barnard yellow card.” I also make a note of the card in my (separate) stats book in which I keep a record of the scorers and also various statistics such as ball retention, penalties and lineouts

Now I look up and the game continues at a frenetic pace. The Bulls recycle the ball 14 times and create the space for Morné Steyn (doesn’t he look to be a talent?) to score the try that enables the Bulls to snatch a draw.

Of course, everyone watching on television knows that it was Johan van Zyl, who had been caught up at the bottom of the rolling maul, who was carded. I look like an idiot credible excuse notwithstanding.

Now take Western Province’s fifth try – by Jean de Villiers. This is what I wrote in my match report: “Province were still in danger of having the log points they needed snatched away and it says a lot for their confidence and ability to move the ball that they produced a wonderful try to go back in front.

“Replacement hooker David Britz miraculously emerged from a maul with the ball in hand, to his own seeming surprise!, and launched a strong attack. The ubiquitous Schalk Burger was the first to react and in the blink of the eye the ball was flicking from De Villiers to Werner Greeff, to Barry, to Paulse and back to De Villiers who looped round to get nearer to the posts.”

At least that is what it looked like to me. Watching one of the Blue Bulls’ rousing rucks through binoculars it appeared Warren Brosnihan had driven a breach. Next thing Britz came wheeling into picture and, I presumed, he must somehow have got hold of the ball in the melee.

Wrong again! The tape shows that Britz was dropping back when, in a palpably off-sides position, he was passed the ball by Bulls scrumhalf Norman Jordaan who clearly believed the Province hooker to be one of his own.

I have mentioned that Britz appeared surprised and the tape shows why. He clearly thought he was going to be pulled up and so did Schalk Burger, who twice glances at referee Watson to see whether he is going to stop play.

Now in this sequence Watson, he who coined the phrase “lazy runner,” appears to be well-placed; as he tends to be. He is on the near side, right in line and for some reason he waves play on and Province go on to score. But, as I have demonstrated in my own case, he appearsto be in a good position but in reality he might not have had good sight of Britz receiving the ball and could, as I did, have presumed that he had gained possession of a loose ball.

I’m not saying that this is what happened; I’m just trying to illustrate how the eye can lie – not just the naked eye but also that seemingly ubiquitous TV lens.

And I am coming up for referees, everywhere.

They perform such a vital role and yet all they seem to get in reward is derision. Now you might accuse André Watson of playing to the microphone on his chest and the cameras in the stand but he is a damned fine referee whose only motivation is to help to produce as good a game as possible.

And it is a tribute to his role that this match between the Bulls and Western Province – in spite of all the errors – was exceptional.

All of us who were at Loftus thought so. The fans I encountered were all chuffed with what they had seen and censure of the referee was muted and equally spread between light blue and blue-and-white.

The most vociferous criticism came from those who had watched on TV and been treated to countless replays. You see, they really knew what had happened at each and every incident, they had been taken over it countless times and, unlike the fans at stadium, their memories were of the controversial incidents rather than rejoicing in the wonderful spectacle of a superb game.

Ironically, with the hindsight provided by video tape, Watson was right on top of it in two of the other questionable episodes. You hear him ask whether Pedrie Wannenburg had crawled in trying to score (a finally disallowed) try and also whether a pass from Marius Joubert to Tertius Carse had gone forward before the scrumhalf tried to score for WP – a try also disallowed by the TMO.

Now I think that Wannenburg did score in that he “did not crawl or struggle to the line” (a phrase borrowed from Derek Robinson’s “A Player’s Guide to the Laws”) and that the pass from Joubert (to my great surprise) did go forward – the centre releasing the ball just before the 5m line and it hitting the ground just beyond it – but that is irrelevant. The point is that Watson was in position to know that both incidents should be referred to the fourth official and that he applied the law equitably to both sides.

The fact that I made mistakes sitting high up in the stand, in spite of having binoculars at my disposal, a TV set – albeit an out-of-focus one with the pictures a few frames after the actual pace of the game – and a posse of other writers to refer to shows just how difficult is the job of referees.

Always remember: they have just one chance, in real time, to make a ruling. Sometimes they get it wrong.

Now me? That’s different. I had time to check but I trusted my own instincts and believed that I had it right and for this I can only say sorry. Fortunately my apology has been accepted by my superiors and I can inform the conveniently anonymous writers of indignant e-mails that I have narrowly escaped being taken out on the front steps of the Broadcast Centre to be stoned to death! Next time I might not be so lucky…