Oh, I do enjoy a good, spicy Curry…
Well, well, well. That was a turnip for the books.
This was a day for putting the clocks forward an hour and back a year. For (I would argue) the first time this season, Sale finally clicked and played like the finalists of last season.
Hanging around in the fan zone before the game, I’ll admit to feeling a bit nervous— ah, admit it: I was bricking it, fearing a tonking. We had seen signs of what Sale are capable of against Bath but the way it fell apart in the last twenty minutes was concerning. The team may have accepted responsibility for that but it seemed unlikely that they could turn a season’s worth of unconvincing performances around in just a few days.
Turns out, they could…
We’ve had first halves like this before; Sale on top, all the action happening at the far end of the pitch. The (slight) concern at halftime was that, in the past, the second halves had also all been at the far end.
But there was something different this time: an urgency, a degree of precision in handling and more discipline at breakdowns. Indeed, it seemed to be Exeter that were panicking: they gave up ten points and significant possession and territory from needless penalties. It’s been Sale mostly doing that so far this season.
From the slick move that led to Roebuck’s first try, to the power involved in Dickie’s and the scurrying, sniping guile of Gus’s, we saw a team with a bit of fire and the skill to back it up.
Then there were the might-have-beens: Dickie dropping the ball when it seemed easier to score, a couple of cross-kicks that were so close to putting Roebuck away…
And so to the second half, traditionally the graveyard of supporters’ dreams. Within a minute of the restart, Gus had hoiked a box kick up for Roebuck to retrieve, spin and hurtle down the line for the bonus point try. A rare moment of defensive laxity allowed Feyi-Waboso to give Exeter a glimmer of hope, quickly dashed by Raffi, a minute after coming on, doing a Danny Care with a penalty five metres out. It was a measure of Sale’s control of the match that we could treat George missing the (ridiculously easy) conversion and nearly taking Luke Pearce’s head off as a matter of extreme hilarity rather than an “oh for crying out loud” moment.
Ditto when Roebuck couldn’t control the ball having hacked on Josh’s magnificent kick over the defence. What should have been his hat-trick and possible try of the month ended up as a bit of a red-face moment foe which he will surely receive some stick during the week. And on that not-a-try, I was quite surprised that none of the commentators seemed to latch on to the fact that Tom absolutely roasted Woodburn in the chase for Josh’s kick. Watch it again and look at the amount of ground he makes up to get past his man and hack the ball on.
A couple of minutes later and it was a day for coming off the bench and making an immediate impact as Asher sidestepped his way through the defence before delivering the offload that led to Tom’s third, and Sale’s sixth, try.
Three tries and one butchered should-have-been and we were still only halfway through the half. “Bring it on”, thinks we. “Double try bonus point coming”.
But no, the remaining twenty minutes passed scoreless. The referee blew for full time and we wandered away, euphoric, stunned and wondering who was this team and what have they done with Sale Sharks?
I can’t help noticing, though, that if Fordy had kicked those two conversions and the penalty, then it would have been a 43-point victory (😉).
Before we move to reflections on the game, I suppose I should spend a little time talking about deliberate knock-ons. The law has this to say:
11.3 A player must not intentionally knock the ball forward with hand or arm.
Sanction: Penalty. [Note: no mention of any form of card.]11.4 It is not an intentional knock-on if, in the act of trying to catch the ball, the player knocks on provided that there was a reasonable expectation that the player could gain possession. [Note: no mention of “genuine attempt” or number of hands.]
Now, I’m sure that there is an awful lot more said about this in the guidance given to referees on the interpretation of the law – especially concerning the dishing out of cards – but I’m not privy to that, so let’s look at the two incidents based on what we do know and on the outcomes.
In both cases, the referee (one not known for doing us any favours) awarded a penalty so he must have been satisfied that, in both cases, 11.4 did not apply, that is, that neither player had a reasonable expectation of gaining possession of the ball. And I agree. Hodge, regardless of how many hands he stretched out with, had no chance of catching that ball and he must have known that. I would surmise that the “two hands” test (if it exists) mostly applies to a ball passing across the front of a player at stomach or chest height. For a high ball way over the top of someone’s head, one hand or two isn’t going to make a difference.
So, both were rightly given as penalties according to the laws. So far, so good. What about the card, though?
The first thing to say is that, if you’re arguing that Hodge shouldn’t have been carded because he made a genuine attempt for the ball (I’ve heard this said), then (a) that’s not a defence within the laws and (b) you must also feel that the sanction should have been a scrum, not a penalty.
The majority opinion seems to be, though, that, if Hodge should have been carded, then so should Manu: “CONSISTENCY!” is the cry.
Let’s look at that, then…
From listening to referees discussing the giving of cards for this offence in the past, the major criterion seems to be the impact the knock-on had on a realistic assessment of the team going on to score from the interrupted move. I think it’s significant in assessing the difference between Manu’s offence and Hodge’s that both knock-ons happened in the Exeter half. That means that Sale were attacking but Exeter were trying to exit. Also, Exeter had a lot further to go for their move to have resulted in even a possible try.
I suspect – but can’t prove – that the referee’s decision was based on his assessment of the game situation at the time of the offence and that Manu’s knock-on had less of an influence on the unfolding play than Hodge’s. In other words, Manu’s offence was worthy of a penalty but had no more effect on the flow of the game than, say, not rolling away. But the referee would have assessed – from his expert reading of the game situation – that Hodge’s intervention had a much more serious impact on a burgeoning attack and so was worthy of a higher sanction.
I offer this as an explanation, not a justification. What happened, happened and I only seek to try to understand the thought processes of the only person that counts in matters of fact in the game.
Some might argue that he could have discussed the matter with his assistants a bit more to decide on further sanction but, then, we are trying to speed the game up by reducing the number and length of committee meetings out on the pitch. Personally, I’m quite happy to let the referee have a quick look at the replay and then go with his gut instinct based on his own experience and understanding of match situations.
Enough of that, let’s get back to talking about this alchemical transformation of a leaden-footed team into golden-winged flyers. What changed?
- No. Silly. Penalties. No handing the initiative back by holding on, not rolling away, hands in the ruck or whatever. Instead, more connected play, coupled with…
- Better handling. Not dropping the ball or coughing it up in contact. Retaining it, not panicking, heads-up rugby.
- Fordy is back to his best. Decision-making and kicking (ahem!) back to his best. That bomb in the second half that had Feyi-Waboso looking for it in a different postcode…
- O’Flats up in the receiver’s face every time ball was kicked forward.
- Ben Curry.
I should expand on that last point. What I mean is a genuine jackalling threat at the breakdown. I counted about four turnovers (three by Ben, one by Bev) in the first twenty minutes or so. It makes such a huge difference when we’re not only looking good ball in hand but are also threatening to nick it back every time the opposition gets their mitts on it.
Ben was the player of the match for me, despite Roebuck’s hat trick, and yet the act of nominating a player of the match seems to diminish the contribution of everyone else. They all played their part and they played it perfectly. I’d like to give a special mention to James Harper, though. He’s not had the best of times lately, not playing to the level we’d expect from his undoubted ability (a bit like the rest of the team, really) but here he looked much more the player that we predicted in past seasons. Keep it up, James, there’s a bright future ahead.
SAMP™ got this one seriously wrong, thankfully. I do like it when it’s wrong for the right reasons…
There’s yet another break in the Premiership now (can we get some continuity, please?) as we head off to European competition. Having failed to negotiate the group of doom, we’re now in the Challenge Cup, with a trip to Ospreys in the offing. I’m tempted to suggest downplaying this and concentrating on the Premiership but I think that’s wrong thinking for a couple of reasons.
We’ve just hit our straps having come off a disastrous spell over the last three months or so and it’s important to keep the momentum. Let’s make this a corner turned, not a sidestep on the road to mediocrity.
Also, despite the win, I still feel that top four is asking too much. Realistically, we need five points more than everyone from Sarries down over the next four games to get top four. I can’t see it, personally, so let’s use the Challenge Cup as a way to get something out of this season.
We’re fully capable of beating Ospreys and we ought to be able to get past Gloucester or Castres in the next round.
Let’s go for it. At the moment, the only way is up…
an old grey dog 