Select Edition

Northern Northern
Southern Southern
Global Global
NZ NZ

Berry email reveals he agreed with Erasmus on 17 of the 36 clips

By Liam Heagney
(Photo by David Rogers/Getty Images)

Wednesday’s publication of the full 80-page written judgment in the verdict of the Rassie Erasmus and SA Rugby misconduct hearing included email correspondence between first Lions Test referee Nic Berry and the Springboks director of rugby on the 36 clips that were sent post-game to the match official for review. 

ADVERTISEMENT

The clips that Erasmus wanted feedback on from the Australian eventually featured in the infamous 62-minute video that leaked out in advance of the second Test last July, a match in which Berry was an assistant referee.

This video eventually resulted in Wednesday’s misconduct hearing verdict banning Erasmus from all rugby for two months and banning him from any involvement on a matchday until September 30 next year. SA Rugby must also pay a fine of £20,000, while Erasmus and SA Rugby must also apologise for their actions. 

Video Spacer

Why Morne Steyn will be remembered as one of the greatest Springboks

Video Spacer

Why Morne Steyn will be remembered as one of the greatest Springboks

That video was made by the Springboks director of rugby on July 27, seemingly the day after he had received a clip by clip response from Berry on the pieces of the play the South African boss wanted to be reviewed.  

In the email sent from Berry on July 26 at 23:22 to Erasmus, which also copied in World Rugby referees boss Joel Jutge and Springboks assistant coach Felix Jones, the referee agreed with the Springboks director regarding 17 of the 36 clips. 

The email from Berry was rather cordial. It opened: “Evening Rassie. See below my comments to your footage. As per my previous email, I look forward to working positively with you for the rest of the series. Nic.” There then followed a clip by clip review from Berry in which he reviewed the onfield decisions that had been taken in the first Test match that was win by the Lions (the answers in which the referee agreed with Erasmus are in bold):

Clip 1: I don’t feel this has enough force to warrant a YC.

Clip 2: I don’t believe this to be foul play.

Clip 3: Only dangerous foul play would result in the knock-on being cancelled.

ADVERTISEMENT

Clip 4: This is the same incident as clip 3. See above comments regarding dangerous foul play.

Clip 5: Initial contact by Green #4 is on the shoulder of Red #12. The PK is against Green #5. Replay shows his arm making contact with the head of Red #12. The force is minimal and not clear and obvious.

Clip 6: Low degree of force to the head of the ball carrier. PK sufficient.

Clip 7: Green #12 lowers body height into contact and Red makes contact across the shoulder. There is no evidence of head or neck contact.

Clip 8: Agree. This should have been reviewed by the onfield team because of the driving action by Red #20.

Clip 9: Same incident. See above comments.

ADVERTISEMENT

Clip 10: Agree. Side entry by Red 11. Should be PK to Green.

Clip 11: Agree. I called this advantage over too soon after Green #15 broke through. I should have gone back for the PK.

Clip 12: Agree.

Clip 13: We have a low tolerance for players falling on the wrong side.

Clip 14: Agree. Should be PK advantage. 

Clip 15: Agree. Same as above.

Clip 16: The ball is immediately available after the kick challenge so I play through. This is different to the previous two examples.

Clip 17: Agree. Red #6 went straight to ground. 

Clip 18: Not clear to me. No tackle has been made and it’s not yet a ruck.

Clip 19: Red #4 is legal. Green #1 tackles Red #5 off the ball so should be PK to Red.

Clip 20: It’s irrelevant as I was already playing advantage for an earlier infringement.

Clip 21: No clear lift of the ball.

Clip 22: Live I felt he played at the ball late and didn’t lift the ball initially but on review he is legal.

Clip 23: Green #4 came onto his elbows so I called him off. He responded quickly so played through. The reverse angle footage shows this clearly.

Clip 24: Agree. Green #12 is onside. It’s a disappointing call.

Clip 25: Disagree. Red make it back to the offside line.

Clip 26: Agree.

Clip 27: Strip consistency. In the first two examples are ball is stripped after the tackle is completed. The strip by Red #4 is simultaneous with the knee hitting the ground.

Clip 28: Are you asking for a PK here? 

Clip 29: Yes, Red #3 should not lean on the ruck like this. Joel will speak to the Lions about this and the next example. 

Clip 30: See above comments regarding the same player.

Clip 31: Agree. The wording should have been better. It needed to be clear and obvious to overturn my on-field decision of a try.

Clip 32: Agree. The lineout should be where Green took it out and not where the ball was kicked.

Clip 33: Agree. Red #4 grabs the ball and doesn’t allow Green #9 to go quickly. 

Clip 34: Timing is marginal. No PK here. 

Clip 35: Agree I got this wrong. Red #7 shouldn’t slide up on your LH. 

Clip 36: I disagree. Green #4 got a hand to the ball in the air knocking it forward.” 

ADVERTISEMENT

Join free

Aotearoa Rugby Podcast | Episode 6

Sam Warburton | The Big Jim Show | Full Episode

Japan Rugby League One | Sungoliath v Eagles | Full Match Replay

Japan Rugby League One | Spears v Wild Knights | Full Match Replay

Boks Office | Episode 10 | Six Nations Final Round Review

Aotearoa Rugby Podcast | How can New Zealand rugby beat this Ireland team

Beyond 80 | Episode 5

Rugby Europe Men's Championship Final | Georgia v Portugal | Full Match Replay

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

T
Trevor 1 hours ago
Will forgotten Wallabies fit the Joe Schmidt model?

Thanks Brett.. At last a positive article on the potential of Wallaby candidates, great to read. Schmidt’s record as an international rugby coach speaks for itself, I’m somewhat confident he will turn the Wallaby’s fortunes around …. on the field. It will be up to others to steady the ship off the paddock. But is there a flaw in my optimism? We have known all along that Australia has the players to be very competitive with their international rivals. We know that because everyone keeps telling us. So why the poor results? A question that requires a definitive answer before the turn around can occur. Joe Schmidt signed on for 2 years, time to encompass the Lions tour of 2025. By all accounts he puts family first and that’s fair enough, but I would wager that his 2 year contract will be extended if the next 18 months or so shows the statement “Australia has the players” proves to be correct. The new coach does not have a lot of time to meld together an outfit that will be competitive in the Rugby Championship - it will be interesting to see what happens. It will be interesting to see what happens with Giteau law, the new Wallaby coach has already verbalised that he would to prefer to select from those who play their rugby in Australia. His first test in charge is in July just over 3 months away .. not a long time. I for one wish him well .. heaven knows Australia needs some positive vibes.

21 Go to comments
B
Bull Shark 5 hours ago
Jake White: Are modern rugby players actually better?

Of the rugby I’ve born witness to in my lifetime - 1990 to date - I recognize great players throughout those years. But I have no doubt the game and the players are on average better today. So I doubt going back further is going to prove me wrong. The technical components of the game, set pieces, scrums, kicks, kicks at goal. And in general tactics employed are far more efficient, accurate and polished. Professional athletes that have invested countless hours on being accurate. There is one nation though that may be fairly competitive in any era - and that for me is the all blacks. And New Zealand players in general. NZ produces startling athletes who have fantastic ball skills. And then the odd phenomenon like Brooke. Lomu. Mcaw. Carter. Better than comparing players and teams across eras - I’ve often had this thought - that it would be very interesting to have a version of the game that is closer to its original form. What would the game look like today if the rules were rolled back. Not rules that promote safety obviously - but rules like: - a try being worth 1 point and conversion 2 points. Hence the term “try”. Earning a try at goals. Would we see more attacking play? - no lifting in the lineouts. - rucks and break down laws in general. They looked like wrestling matches in bygone eras. I wonder what a game applying 1995 rules would look like with modern players. It may be a daft exercise, but it would make for an interesting spectacle celebrating “purer” forms of the game that roll back the rules dramatically by a few versions. Would we come to learn that some of the rules/combinations of the rules we see today have actually made the game less attractive? I’d love to see an exhibition match like that.

29 Go to comments
FEATURE
FEATURE Will the Crusaders' decline spark a slow death for New Zealand rugby? Will the Crusaders' decline spark a slow death for New Zealand rugby?
Search