The action on the park has been thrilling, but the post-match broadcasts have also been pretty lively at times. On at least three occasions, players turned the air blue for viewers around the globe with a little bit of language not typically shared on family-friendly television and radio. As we get ready to enjoy the knockout rounds of the Super 14 competition, we thoughts we’d warn you that you may need to keep the youngsters away from the broadcast after the match in case there are more incidents like those documented below from Green and Gold Rugby and elsewhere. (Note: Clips contain rude language–obviously.)

Early in the year, the cameras caught the Reds’ Van Humphries in an inspirational monologue that wasn’t intended for the airwaves:

Nathan Sharpe of the Force was a little bit more direct in treating the media to a little bit of extra colorful language:

Unwilling to leave all the cursing to the Aussies, Ma’a Nonu of the Hurricanes made sure to top them all in a radio interview late in the season (the gems start about 40 seconds in):

You may have to watch out during the match, too, though, and not just for the players. A lot of rude things get said about referees, but this time match official Bryce Lawrence was the one dishing out the language:

Enjoy the knockout rounds as the Super 14 season closes down this month–but you may need to turn down the sound!

The Waratahs just barely got by the Sharks this past weekend–got by just by their fingertips, in fact. Late in the match, Sharks fullback Stephen Treblanche’s pass to unmarked teammate Ryan Kankowski was swatted away by Waratahs outside back Kurtley Beale, stopping a line break that was on its way to the white line. Beale earned a penalty and an enforced ten-minute rest for his troubles, but the Sharks camp believes a penalty try would have been more appropriate.

Renowned Australian rugby commentary site Green and Gold Rugby offers a useful discussion of the controversy, including some key points of law regarding both intentional knock-ons and penalty tries. Green and Gold’s insight regarding whether or not Beale truly robbed the Sharks of a sure five-pointer are helpful, but the site’s comments on when an intentional knock-on should be awarded raise a more general issue about the difficulty involved in assessing a penalty for a deliberate knock-on. As Green and Gold indicates, the law states:

A player must not intentionally knock the ball forward with hand or arm, nor throw forward.

If the knock-on is intentional, a penalty is awarded. If unintentional, of course, the result is a scrum. A big difference, even when the situation is not as dramatic as it was when Beale committed his knock-on. The law makes perfect intuitive sense, as swatting a ball away is a cynical offense that should be punished much more strictly than an accidental case of butterfingers. But there is one problem. It’s challenging enough for a referee to see everything on the park, even with the help of assistant referees. But the “intentional” wording requires a referee to see inside a players’ mind.

The Green and Gold discussion does a good job of mentioning some ways Beale’s intent might be judged, such as the position of his body, the motion of his arms, and his pursuit of the ball after the knock-on occurred. However, all of these indicators could be construed as ways to judge Beale’s acting ability as much as his legitimate intent, so the question remains: How does a referee judge a player’s intent? Few other laws are construed in the same manner. While intent might be used in a decision to award a yellow or red card, intent doesn’t seem to be a factor in awarding penalties for infractions like offsides, late tackles, and so forth.

So, regardless of how you view the Beale situation, our question is: Should referees really be in the mind-reading business? And if not, how do you judge a deliberate knock-on more empirically? By whether they got both hands to the ball? By body position?

It’s a tricky question, and one we’d rather ask than answer. Mull it over as you watch the below video, and please post a comment if you have a solution worked out!

Incidentally, Green and Gold also points out that there was a similar incident on the same weekend involving Will Chambers of the Reds where not even a penalty was awarded, as you can see here (we won’t comment on whether Chambers’ teammate Quade Cooper might have had sticky enough fingers to hang on to the football):

And if you’re not yet convinced that the deliberate knock-on issue is a bit murky, consider this referees’ discussion of another dubious example from 2008.

Based on this weekend’s first round of matches, we’d have to say the new interpretations look like a success even if there were a few high penalty counts as players get used to the new guidelines. In fact, we’re already hoping that the new guidelines catch on worldwide. We may get our wish, considering that the new interpretations may be seen in international tests in a few months. But we’ll let you be the judge after taking a look at these highlights from three of the weekend’s matches:

Bulls v. Cheetahs:

Blues v. Hurricanes:

Brumbies v. Force:

• The sides were locked at twenty-six points apiece after regulation, so two ten-minute extra periods were played.
• With the draw unbroken after extra time, the number of tries scored in the match was the next tiebreaker. This was moot, however, as each side had scored two tries during the match.
• each side nominated five kickers to attempt one placekick at goal each from the 22-meter line in front of the posts.
• After each side made four goals, the kicking competition went into “sudden-death” mode (wherein the first side to miss a goal loses, so long as the other side made a goal in the same round) with a new set of kickers. In the third round of this segment, Cardiff flanker Martyn Williams pushed an attempt wide to end the marathon and send Leicester into the final to be played in a couple of weeks.

The format was unpopular with many given that it forced players specializing in things other than goalkicking to do as much with the match at stake, but it was still exciting. Aside from the tense finish, the match also served to answer a few fans’ curiosity regarding how a tie is resolved in a knockout match after extra time.

Or did it? Actually, even though the format seen last weekend is used in the Heineken Cup, the format will be reconsidered next year. Further, other competitions don’t do it the same way, so seeing the shoot-out last weekend actually tells very little about how the matter is settled throughout the sport.

If you’ve read this far, we assume you’re interested in hearing how all of the competitions settle a draw in playoff situations where a winner must be determined, so here’s a partial list of competitions and their tiebreaking methods:

• The Guinness Premiership (England’s top domestic competition) has a similar format as the Heineken Cup, but the kicks vary in placement by round with some in front of the posts, some 15 meters from the left and right touch lines, and some 5 meters from each touch line.
• In the Super 14 (featuring top sides from New Zealand, Australia, and South Africa), two formats are used, on for the semifinals and one for the finals. In the semis, the sides play two ten-minute extra time periods, after which the deadlock is broken by number of tries scored in the semifinal. After that, though, the similarities with the Heineken Cup and Guiness Premiership end, as the winner is decided by who finished higher during the regular season. The final works the same for the most part, except that the championship is shared as a draw after two periods of extra time if the scored are still level.
• The Magners League (featuring top sides from Ireland, Wales, and Scotland) doesn’t have to deal with the issue, as they don’t have knockout matches and determine their winner after the regular schedule. This year, in fact, Munster clinched the title two matches left to play
• We couldn’t find a clear statement of the American Super League’s format, but we know from the 2008 final that “sudden-death” extra time is played after two extra time periods until one side scores to win.
• The tiebreaker methods used in the Top 14 (France’s top domestic competion) and Super 10 (Italy’s top domestic competition) elude Armchair Playmaker’s limited translation resources. Readers who are more adept at French and Italian are encouraged to chime in!

How do they handle it in rugby league? We’ll spare you the details, but note that for most competitions a “golden point” sudden-death period is either played after 80 minutes (as is done in the National Rugby League in every match) or after two short two extra time periods. The golden point seems to work pretty well–in fact, Leicester seems to support the idea after suffering through the alternative.

Hopefully, that satisfies your curiosity about how a draw is avoided when a draw will not do. Meanwhile, here are a few views of last weekend’s historic moment:

Here’s how the cameras caught it:

And here’s how it looked from at least one spot in the crowd:

We’re not sure it’s fair to focus on a missed goal from a player of Martyn Williams’ stature, especially considering that he probably never expected to be kicking at goal that day, so we’ll end here with a cheerier moment from early in Williams’ standout career (this one from more than a decade ago, before he ever donned a Cardiff shirt):

• Close matches: Six of the seven matches ended with less than a converted try between the sides. The average difference in scores for all seven matches was 5.7 points.
• Plenty of tries: No fewer than 45 tries were scored in the seven matches. The average tries scores per game was 6.4, or 3.2 per team.
• Plenty of stars: On the weekend, 42 players scored tries. Three players scored two. A couple of players also scored drop goals, not to mention the less exciting penalty kicks and conversions.

It all goes on until the end of May, so let’s hope the competition stays just as exciting. As we wait for Week Two, here are a few highlights from 2008:

The trophy itself is actually from Great Britain

A few things about the Currie Cup competition have changed in the 116 years since the trophy arrived in South Africa, though. The Currie Cup was contested sporadically until 1968, the first year it became an annual event. Since then, competitions such as the Super 14 have perhaps shaded the Currie Cup in significance, but the competition remains a big event.

In its current format, the Currie Cup competition features eight teams in the Premier Division and six teams in the lower-tier First Division. Each team plays all of the other sides in its division twice. After that, the top four Premier Division sides advance to the Currie Cup semifinals, with the winners of that match contesting the final. The winner of the First Division, meanwhile, plays a two-match series with the last-place side from the Premier Division, with the series winner playing in the Premier Division the following year and the series loser playing in the First Division in the following year.

This weekend’s match is not the first big match between the Bulls and Sharks in recent memory. They met in the final in 2003, with the Bulls prevailing, but also met in the Super 14 final in 2007 (though the player base for the Super 14 sides differs slightly from that of the Currie Cup sides given that there only five South African Super 14 sides). Even though it’s a different competition, if the thrilling finish of that Super 14 match is any indicator, we’re in for an exciting final. Here’s the end of that 2007 Super 14 showdown:

And here’s a slightly longer video of highlights from that Super 14 final:

While you’re at it, have a lot at video of the horse running loose during the chaos after the final (the intensity of which is probably also best appreciated from ground level). Armchair Playmaker mentioned the incident yesterday, and hopes that the Lions, Bulls, Cheetahs, and Sharks in South Africa keep a closer eye on their mascots!

To be fair, the Crusaders’ mascot knights aren’t bad: