Law Discussion: June Tests, Week 2

There were two controversial incidents in Week two – one in Auckland and one in Pretoria. We shall discuss those plus some other incidents.

So far this week we have given some statistics from the weekend’s four matches.

Then there are eight clips on the SA Referees’ website, including the controversial incident from Auckland.

1, McCaw a target?

Often it seems that players like Richie McCaw, Schalk Burger, George Smith, Serge Betsen and Lewis Moody are targets for referees as they approach the tackle area. Burger once incurred a yellow card in Dublin when clearly the hand that played the ball was an Irish hand. But he was there and presumed guilty.

This week’s one against McCaw also seems a tough call.

Luke Narraway of England taps a free kick and charges. Daniel Carter and Richie McCaw tackle Narraway. McCaw gets to his feet and plays the ball.

The referee penalises McCaw and calls him over, saying: “Time out.” It’s a dramatic moment. The the referee says: “You were clearly not the tackler and you are experienced enough to know that you come through the gate.”

McCaw says that he was the tackler, to which the referee responds: “Be quiet, please. No, you were not. The tackler was No.10.”

The bit about experienced enough is unnecessary and too smart for good relationships between captain and referee.

The facts are plain to see. McCaw grabs Narraway around the waist and holds onto him as they go to ground holding him. Both go to ground. It clearly is a tackle. Despite what the referee says, McCaw is clearly the tackler. In terms of the law he is the tackler. He holds Narraway and he goes to ground. That makes him a  tackler. And the law does not say only one player can be a tackler. Carter is also a tackler, a secondary one to McCaw but a tackler.

McCaw is experienced enough to know that if he, the tackler, gets to his feet he is allowed to play the ball. He gets to his feet and plays the ball.

McCaw is also experienced enough to know that he does not have to come from behind and through any gate to play the ball. He is entitled to play the ball the way he did even though he was on England’s side of Narraway, of the tackle.

McCaw was hard done by

2. In the way, ref

South Africa have a five-metre line-out and win the ball. They form a maul. Luke Watson is at the back with the maul which moved forward to within about two metres of the Welsh line. Watson then flips the ball to Jean de Villiers on his right. The big centre takes two steps and plunges over the line. The referee awards the try.

Stephen Jones of Wales is upset and remonstrates because e was to De Villiers’s right but the referee was between De Villiers and himself. For that reason he could not get to De Villiers.

Afterwards Warren Gatland, the Welsh coach, complained about the refereeing, especially this incident. He is reported as saying: “The referee got right in the way for the first try. I told Stephen to smash him out of the way next time.”

Bray was about a metre from the line when De Villiers was plunging and Jones just infield from the goal-line. It is doubtful whether Jones would have stopped the South African.

But let’s say that the referee got in the way and thus enabled the player to score a try. What does the law say?

Law 6.A.10 THE BALL TOUCHING THE REFEREE

(a) If the ball or the ball-carrier touches the referee and neither team gains an advantage, play continues.

(b) If either team gains an advantage in the field of play, the referee orders a scrum and the team that last played the ball has the throw in.

The law does not make direct reference to a player who is not the ball-carrier but makes contact with the referee or is blocked by the referee from getting to the ball-carrier.

Does that mean the referee can do nothing? Nor this situation but imagine that about 15 metres from the line, the referee was between De Villiers and Jones and the three were in close proximity. Because the referee was there Jones could not get to De Villiers who goes through a gap and is off to score a try. The referee believes that there was every likelihood that Jones would have tackled De Villiers. Is there nothing he could have done?

Law 6.A.8 (b) The referee has the power to stop play at any time.

Law 20.4 (d) Scrum after any other stoppage. After any other stoppage or irregularity not covered by Law, the team that was moving forward before the stoppage throws in the ball. If neither team was moving forward, the attacking team throws in the ball.

The referee has the right to stop play.

Law 6.A.4 THE DUTIES OF THE REFEREE IN THE PLAYING ENCLOSURE

(a) The referee is the sole judge of fact and of Law during a match. The referee must apply fairly all the Laws of the Game in every match.

The game’s laws are based on fair play. If the referee’s position produces something unfair, then he has the right to stop play.

It would seem that De Villiers would have scored had the referee been where he was or not – and his position was an excellent one to see the try scored.

3. He’s on his feet

Robert Kearney, Ireland’s adventurous fullback, counters off a kick by Berrick Barnes and is tackled by Nathan Sharpe and Lote Tuqiri. First player there is George Smith of Australia. He stays on his feet and plays at the ball. Three Irish players arrive quickly – Rory Best, Denis Leamy and David Wallace. They make contact with Best. The referee checks the position of the ball and calls: “Ruck formed.”

Smith continues to play at the ball and the referee penalises him saying: “7, hands in the ruck.”

Commentator: “George was saying he was on his feet. At no time was he off his feet. There was no call from the referee to let go of it.”

The referee did say Ruck formed. Smith would know that he was then not allowed to use his hands.

Being on one’s feet to play the ball after a tackle is certainly a requirement and Smith fulfils that. But if a ruck is formed then he is no longer allowed to play the ball with his hands. Smith knows that.

Is a ruck formed?

The referee says so. Is it so?

Law 16 DEFINITIONS
A ruck is a phase of play where one or more players from each team, who are on their feet, in physical contact, close around the ball on the ground. Open play has ended.

All of that happened. It was a ruck. Using the hands was not allowed. The referee was right.