2oceansvibe’s bi-weekly sports columnist, Sean Wilson, considers what we have been able to glean from a totally new format of Super Rugby – the league phase.

1. Bonus points don’t count for anything at the top

The Stormers finished the league phase top of the log with yet another non-bonus point win, this time against a straggling Rebels. Even though it should have been celebrated as a joyous occasion, the home side stuttering their way to yet another close victory seemed to act as not much more than Allister Coetzee giving everyone a big “I told you so”.

Now the statistical anomaly is complete. The Stormers went through the entire season without one four-try bonus point and still managed to finish top.

Interestingly, if one looks at how this year’s log finished, it could be argued that bonus points didn’t make a difference for any team. If you take away all the bonus points that every team earned from the overall total, every team is still placed in exactly the same position.

If you did the same thing to last year’s log, only two positions swopped places (fifth and sixth).

Of course for most teams it’s more a case of bonus points evening themselves out rather than not making a difference. The point is that no-one earned enough bonus points to leapfrog a team that won fewer games than they did.

This is surely a commentary of the still relatively new format having 15 teams each playing 16 games (as opposed to the previous format of 14 teams playing 13 games). Especially for teams near the top of the log, more matches results in more games won. Therefore, the odds of making up the four points gained for a win with 1 bonus point at a time become less.

While the Stormers case is an extreme example of what can happen, expect the influence of bonus points to become less in the future if we have the same amount of games, and even less if SANZAR introduces more games.

2. Winning ugly gets rewarded …for now

The saying says that it’s a sign of a good team when they win even if they are playing badly. Does that mean as long as they keep winning, it’s possible to call a team good even if they are always playing badly?

With the possible exception of the game on tour against the Highlanders, it’s fair to say that the Stormers didn’t dominate the majority of the game in any of their fixtures. Every game was defined by them holding out wave after wave of attack.

Even if the opposition was languishing near the bottom of the log and even if they had major coaching troubles, the Stormers could still do nothing but hold their ground and defend. Every game resembled the battle of Helm’s Deep in The Lord of the Rings, complete with the silver-haired Robbie Fleck desperately quoting Gandalf in the coaching booth as he shouted “Run, you fools!”

While the defence from an injury-ravaged squad is definitely worth praising, it still seems extraordinary that such impotence in attack can still result in a top of the log finish.

This will be the Stormers third home semi-final in a row. They are only the third team to achieve that in the history of the tournament (the Blues achieved the same from 1996-1998 and the Crusaders achieved it an amazing five times in a row from 2002-2006).

3. The TMO system needs work

This might be a problem that exists in the rugby world at large, but we cannot keep on like this. In some matches, it seems that the only reason the referee has called for a review by the television match official is that he can grab a chance to drink some Powerade.

Some officials are taking an age to be able to eliminate doubt from their decision-making, and some seem to be too distracted by the nature of the referee’s questioning than actually applying some rugby common sense. Importantly, while the rugby fan might be forensically scanning the 27th television replay as they are caught up in the suspense, the first time viewer finds himself checking the Olympic badminton score on SuperSport 16.

One can see why the referees ask the questions in the way they do. Rugby fans can easily read between the lines of referee-speak.

When he asks “Try or no try?”, he means “I couldn’t keep up with play. I have absolutely no idea what happened around the try-line. Do what you can. I’m thirsty”.

When he asks “Can you give me any reason not to award the try?”, he means “I was in a good position, and I could have done more to see what happened, but that would have meant getting in the way of a 130kg guy charging towards a ruck. I think it’s a try, but these fans are quite hostile and I’d rather put the pressure on you. Tell me if you have any… ooh, is that Mountain Blast? I love that flavour”.

While the IRB might determine that it’s necessary to differentiate the questions, it’s a slippery slope once you start getting carried away with the legal theory in the process of adjudicating a decision. No one wants a law degree to be a necessity in interpreting a rugby official’s decision-making. One would cringe if the future of Super Rugby involved this kind of dialogue between officials:

Australian referee: “Juan Pablo, can you give me any reason not to award the try? If you can’t give me a reason, do you think it would be safe to assume that the alleged try scorer’s conduct acted in accordance within the definitional elements of a try in a lawful manner? If so, is your decision based on evidence that can be proved (a) beyond reasonable doubt or (b) on the balance of probabilities? If (b), do you have any precedent of a try being awarded in a similar scenario either (i) in a test match (ii) by a higher-ranking IRB official (iii) by a judge in the Supreme Court of Appeal? If none of the above, would you say that this in-goal situation came about more from the attacking team’s intent or more from the defending team’s negligence?”

Argentinean TMO: “Que?”

If you liked that, then CLICK HERE to read the rest of the story and catch more of Sean’s insight’s over at www.SimplySean.co.za!