Kearsney slotted a last play of the game penalty from close range to clinch a 9-6 home win against Highways rivals Westville in a match that was on a knife-edge through the second half.
There may not have been many positives to extract from Kearsney’s attacking prowess but they were Trojans on defence, repelling just about anything and everything Westville threw at them, particularly in the first half and it was this focus that ultimately paved the way for the One-Stripes’ victory.
There was a superb atmosphere around Stott field for this well-attended match and although the contest itself was far from a showpiece, it was tight all the way and kept spectators glued to their seats.
Kearsney opened the scoring very soon after the kick-off when flyhalf Mitch Garvie landed the first of his three penalties from five attempts. One-Stripes fullback James Sutherland also failed to convert a long range penalty in the second half, in a low scoring game which produced no tries but plenty of opportunities for both teams to kick at goal. A few of those kickable chances were turned down to either set up lineouts via kicks to the corner or used as tap-and-go options from the spot. In terms of place kicks, Westville missed their first three shots and only got on the scoreboard 20 minutes into the match when centre Brogan Boulle converted one. Flyhalf Michael Merensky took over the Westville kicking duties in the second half, completing one from two.
Westville dominated the first half but came out of it virtually empty-handed. Their forward got stuck in and although they did not make great inroads as ball-carriers or suck in defenders, they presented their backs with clean front-foot platforms to launch attacks. The Westville backs had energy, speed and a good standard of handling but they were plagued by two things – their execution was very basic and they were over-reliant on individual ball-runners to punch holes, rather than allowing the ball to be worked around in search of true space. The Westville attacking patterns were therefore all too forced and predictable. Kearsney players were gutsy and organized and what Westville really needed to match that positive attitude were touches of creativity or x-factor coupled with better linking to break up the defensive wall. More often than not the visitors tried to crash their way through half-gaps and ended up being smashed by two and sometimes even three Kearsney defenders at a time. A few Westville line-breaks did result from the overwhelming possession but these were not capitalized on as Kearsney’s second line defence was also up to the task. Westville centre Tonny Mahlangu was perhaps the most effective player at getting over the gainline. His power and speed are going place him on the SA Schools radar this season. This said, there is a healthy debate to suggest he’s a far better influence on the wing as his limitations at centre were exposed. Westville youngsters Jordan Schwartz (wing) and Jaryd Lombard (fullback) had reason to be pleased with their attacking contributions and proved useful for continuity.
Just before the break Garvie slotted a second penalty, to hand Kearsney a 6-3 lead at the break, remarkable for the duress they had played under for the first 35 minutes. It was hard to single out a Kearsney player for individual praise on defence as just about every player answered the call to show character when required. The One-Stripes were menaces at the breakdown. Their attack was miserable for the most part though. Cohesion was missing. Poor setups, poor passes, not the best hands and a lack of flair were evident as the suffered under Westville’s good defensive pressure. Penalties won mainly in or around rucks and kicks out of hand proved most of their ground gains instead of ball in hand carries. More was expected of the Kearsney scrum against an inexperienced Westville frontrow consisting of two recently converted props who had been a hooker and flank before this season and the replacement who can off the bench for injured hooker Hendrik Prinsloo. The Kearsney lineout was also surprisingly below par and cost them a golden red zone attacking opportunity early in the second half.
The match appeared to even out in the second half and along with this the standard of play dropped. The war of attrition should have taken toll on Kearsney based on what transpired in the first half but it was Westville who started to suffer injury casualties as well as a number of players going down with cramp. The visitors were also reduced to 14 players at one stage. It was during this sinbin passage that Westville manufactured and blew their best chance to score a 5-pointer. After a tap-and-charge penalty near the Kearsney line, Westville managed to suck in Kearsney’s defence, leaving a player totally unmarked on the right wing of a big blindside. However white-line fever took control of their replacement scrumhalf. Instead of making a regulation pass that would have resulted in a certain try, he dummied and went for personal glory, only to be stopped and turned over before the line. Later Kearsney’s high work rate under-17 flank Dylan Richardson, who became more prominent as the match went on, rescued a threatening situation from a chip over the top. He also produced a few good carries in broken play, a feature that had been absent from Kearsney’s first half.
The nerve-wrecking and perhaps controversial finish started with six mintues to go. Westville’s Merensky leveled the scores at 6-6. Then Richardson combined will with backrow teammate Luke Closhaw in a play that lead to a close range penalty with three minutes left. Garvie’s attempt was wide. Merensky produced a big exit and Kearsney who were too indecisive at the back, got caught out and pinged at the breakdown. Merensky lined up a long range penalty with two minutes to go but also missed. Kearsney couldn’t’ get out of their own half with ball in hand so kick ahead and gave chase. By this stage, the scoreboard clock reflected that time had elapsed, so a retreating Mahlangu gathered the bouncing ball and hoofed it into touch, expecting that his action would bring proceedings to an end. The referee’s own watch is all that counts at any level of 15-man rugby anywhere in the world and on this occasion he said play on. Kearsney won their ensuing lineout and advanced towards the Westville line where fearless no.8 Brady Erlich who’d played well, almost scored. In the process Kearsney won a ruck infringement penalty close to the upright, which Garvie coolly knocked over for the winner.
9-6 the final score.
Given the quality and potential of the Westville team this season, it was an outstanding result for Kearsney.
I wonder how many of the referee critics have a copy of the laws of rugby, or have bothered to actually read them. How many have picked up a whistle at open school rugby level and seen what it’s like. I reffed frikkin mini rugby and had pneumaticly enhanced mommies challenging my decisions. Here’s my challenge to the critics. Write the referees exam. Pass, then criticism, or just pitch up, watch, have a pot, go home. Your entry ticket grants you the privilege of watching the boys do their utmost to make you proud, that’s it.
Now, sitting in the viewing deck at Lanseria, I believe I will have another beer and pass loud comment on how the next pilot lands his jet
@GreenBlooded: Fair enough as it is just the start of the season and we might be forced to have a beer together at some stage.
However like sex you have to try and end with some sort of satisfaction( for at least one party.) You stated ” stop whining about the ref which seems to be a common theme with you Westville okes” Here is the challenge. I was one of the first to comment ( #4) on this thread. If you can find any reference to the ref then I will apologise. If not then you must do the right thing. Deal
@GreenBlooded: I can only comment on what I saw, which has now been explained to me, and that I must not accept any schools timing devices. I can also say that the most constant on rugby reffing is the inconsistency of it. But as rugby followers that is the norm.
@star:
I’m going to roll in the mud. Given you enough oxygen for one week.
@Griffonfly:
Ja. Question is who gets to judge competence? With respect, you judging the competence of a premier division referee would be akin to me judging the competence of a neurosurgeon.
@Rugger fan: I like the fact that you preface your comments with the fact that you were not there. It gives credence and context to what follows. I think however you should defer to those that were there and which I am sure would result in a general consensus I have always enjoyed your sensible commentary and I hope we can meet up in the not too distant future.
@ Greenblooded- I am reminded of Gungets comments about wrestling with pigs but more the fool I am.
I take exception to the following
1) Name and shame(” not cool mate”)- Please point out where I did this. The real irony is that you mentioned the name in your initial response ( the old problematic re-tweet). I did talk generally about refs” being still humble men after all and can make mistakes” Maybe you should take this on board more.
2) The classic undermine the opposition tactic by attacking our right to have an opinion because there is “the presumption” we have not read a law book. Irrespective of that fact believe it or not but I can understand the difference between running and playing time. These issues are not that complicated. Maybe it is time to get off that tall horse especially if it was not even at the field of play.
3) You mentioned that the player should simply have asked the ref. When I pointed out that it was impractical you changed the argument to he should not have assumed. Please show consistency which is all we require of a ” ref”
” For the last time” we all understand and agree that the referee keeps the official game time. I think we can also all agree that in terms of the Constitution the president can unilaterally depose of his finance minister. I hope you get my point.
@GreenBlooded: Incompetent means “not having or showing the necessary skills to do something successfully.”
As a Westville supporter I feel he did not “show” the necessary skills but this is subjective depends on who you support. The result will stand and we move on.
Schools should perhaps make away with the countdown clock system and rather show the time played. In that way once it goes beyond 35 min in the second half spectators start getting use to the idea that its just a guide and not the official match time.
@GreenBlooded: As a properly qualified ref with the top marks in the exam I support your expert opinion :-). A ref should never ever let bias interfere with their decisions. You ref what is in front of you…
@star:
Here is what I find tiresome. Comments like this: “Westville robbed of a draw by some incompetent ref who made his own rules.” (Griffonfly – one of yours I believe). Then okes like you come along, name and shame the guy and question what school he went to. Not cool mate. Most of you ‘law guru’s’ have never seen a rugby law book much less read one, attended a law meeting, refereeing course, Boksmart course or anything else yet sprout forth like undisputed experts at reffing and law matters.
For the last time: the referee keeps the official game time. He is not bound by some ornamental clock provided and controlled by someone else. If a player from a top school’s 1st XV makes and assumption that time is up – then he needs to take ownership of the consequences of that. Wesville lost the game. Live with it and stop whinging about the ref which seems to be a common theme with you Westville okes.
@star:
Hi star – I also wasn’t there – but here are the time guidelines for SR in KZN:
U14 25 Minutes running time
U15 25 Minutes running time
U16 30 Minutes running time
Open except 1st teams 30 Minutes running time
1st 35 Minutes PLAYING time
The “Facts” you mention.
1) Correct
2) I would not be so certain of this – perhaps it was just a case of his interpretation of Running and Playing matching (or perhaps the timekeepers got it closer to the ref in the 1st half)?
3) That appears to be an error in terms of the new laws which allow for a line out to be taken (even after time) if the captain requests it.
School score-boards and clocks seem to be a consistent problem – perhaps we should revert to just a “actual time – e.g. 16h22” rather than a stop-watch/timer?
School boy score keepin can also be an issue (e.g. the U16A match last year at Kearsney where the score board showed a win to KC – but after the fact – the win was awarded to College due to a scorer error giving KC 2 additional points.
@GreenBlooded: It was not that simple. Explain to me how the wing running back who sees time out on the clock and kicks the ball into touch was able to ask” Ref -how much time left” Please man. Let me also explain an important principle in common law being the law of precedent. Precedent ” has been justified as providing predictability, stability, fairness and efficiency in the law”. I presume as a ref these are aspects that you would want applied to the games you were involved in. Now lets see where a clear precedent was set in the game in question.
If you read all the Westville posts you will see that the general theme was that Westville with all their possession were their own worst enemies. However as Steyn pointed out about his last ball in last years WC that it was one of many factors that led to the defeat. They all need to be considered. The ref’s decision was like that “last ball.”
Fact 1 The clock reflects running time
Fact 2. The ref blew according to the clock in the first half
Fact 3. The Westville captain actually asked the ref if he could kick for the corner in the 1st half which was denied by the ref as time was up on the clock. A clear advantage was lost to Westville by this decision.
A clear precedent has been set. Finish and Klaar.
What worries me is that even though you were not there you have made incorrect assumptions ( the ability to ask the ref) and then had the temerity to talk about assumption being ” the mother of all f-ups”. Your narrative about Westville and ” your” absolute defence of refs is getting tiresome. They are still” humble” men after all and can make mistakes.( Some more costly than others). I wonder which school this ref was an old boy of
@Buffel:
It’s quite simple. “Ref – how much time left?” He won’t lie. Assumption is the mother of all f-ups as the saying goes.
But I guess of all the things to blame a loss on – the ref is always going to be the most palatable. Not in the sprit of school rugby? What do you think *** came up to Kearsney for? To screw up a game? Please man!
True reflection would have been a draw. *** again the centre of attraction. It was cruel the way the match ended and if I was the Westville coach, I would have blown my top. Time is up. Westville kick to touch and because *** was not happy with some obscure issue with the Westville physio , he says that there is still time to play. Very officious and not in the spirit of school boy rugby. Call the game and lets shake hands. That’s my call anyway.
Looking at the game shots on Facebook the Kearsney flyhalf is a big chap, looks more like a hooker than an outside half. Westville seem to have some good size up front and a tall lock….
@Pedantic: Didn’t they recently beat Pelham? Merchiston, DPHS, Westville Primary, Glenwood Prep and Penzance might prove harder but not sure if they play them….
@Grasshopper: Not convinced Highbury has a particularly great rugby crop this year – let’s hope they’re smart kids at least
@oldschool: hahaha, I noticed that in the pics trying to Schmooze all the lighties. I think you have the Highbury boys in the bag now….
The lack of Kearsney supporters to comment must be due to the relief of coming away with a W !!
4 wins on Stott in a row on the day was special !
Great day for Kearsney especially being on our open weekend !!
I may just pop into Waxy’s for a beer this week !!
Very well written article. However no mention of the weather and wind and how to play to them. That was one of the reasons the K u16A and Westville 2nds were able to mount comebacks in the 2nd half. While Westville dominated the set pieces and possession, they did so between the 10 meter lines and once Kearsney had worked out the ” expansionist” plans of Westville which became more lateral as the match wore on it was easy to defend. Where were the grubbers and kicks into space with the wind at your back which would have broken the resolve of Kearsney. While playing expansive rugby is all the rage , it has to be tempered with variety and proper exit strategies ect. Westville also needs to let the ball do more work and there were 2 clear occasions where a simple pass to a player in a better position would have yielded far better results. There is still too much crash ball instinct and going to ground too easily. I agree with Tony moving back to wing which is where he has played his whole rugby life. I did like the full back when running from broken play but unfortunately was not involved in any structured play. That is the variety that was so important and lacking for Westville. As my Kearsney brother-in-law stated” Kearsney will take that” and will have bragging rights for the next year. Westville ,injuries aside should not be too down cast and can build on the positives that were on display .
The ville game plan was predictfull and it did not take Kearsney long to realise that Westville was going to play a expansive game. They did not have to commit to the breakdown which allowed them to gang tackle the ball carriers in midfield. It would have been wise to pick and drive and commit the K loosies to the ruck 9/10 channels.
Great write up Beet. Pretty much summed it up. Westville had many an opportunity to put the game away and they didn’t? There are going to be some interesting discussions on Monday with the injury list growing. Prinsloo was in bad shape, Barnard has a knee injury and let’s hope it’s not an ACL, Wadilove possible ankle tear and Loosehead prop/hooker down with a shoulder injury. Grant did a strong job at tight head after he has spent the whole season concentrating on getting his new position of Loosehead mastered. Strangely he ended up hooking towards the end of the game so he would have covered the whole front row since moving from flank.
I’m also of the opinion like you that Mhlangu belongs on the wing. He has so much flair but needs the space to execute. Maybe moving Swartz into 2nd Centre is an option we will need to look at in the coming festival matches. We also struggled around the breakdown with Kearsney flooding this area whenever we had isolated runners and turning ball over at will. They were very much the loose forwards who won the battle of the loose trio for the day. Ehlich was exceptional considering his size and Dylan Richardson certainly started to find his feet as the game progressed.
Overall a disappointing result from Westvilles side as it was very much an afternoon of issued opportunities.
If memory serves me right in 2014 the first game of Westville season was v Kearsney at Kearsney. The then u16 and current gr12 lost 12-24 (stand to be corrected with score) and ended ranked 6th……