Law Discussion - Super 14, Week 11
Will there ever be a rugby match when there is nothing in the laws to discuss? We have been doing this week after week and there still are more topics to discuss than space and energy allow. This week is no different after Week 11 of the Super 14.
And we also have a topic from a Heineken Cup semi-final.
So far we have given statistics from the Super 14. On the SA Referees website, we have also eight clips of incidents, some very interesting. We shall include those topics late in this discussion for those who cannot download the clips.
We have, oddly, three incidents where mistakes were made in law, all three in the clips.
Mercifully, it seems that this business of three free kicks and a penalty, four and a yellow card seems to have dropped from discussion. It has led to grievous inconsistency in the Super 14 where the quality of the matches and the quality of the referees could be presumed to be the same but the treatment of the tackle has differed considerably. In one match this weekend an individual player was free-kicked three times in a minute in a match and did not go to the sin bin, which may have been lenient. We shall discuss the problem of consistency later for the free kick is being used to cope with three different sets of circumstance, possibly even four.
1. Arm down, Mother Brown
The Crusaders feed the ball into a sacrum which collapses. The referee penalises Tony Woodcock of the Blues.
Throughout the scrum Woodcock’s left arm was unbound and his hand was on the ground.
Commentator, who disagreed with the decision: “OK, the arm’s down but that;’s a reset, not a penalty.”
Law 20.3 (c) Binding by loosehead props. A loosehead prop must bind on the opposing tight head prop by placing the left arm inside the right arm of the tight head and gripping the tight head prop’s jersey on the back or side. The loosehead prop must not grip the chest, arm, sleeve or collar of the opposition tight head prop. The loosehead prop must not exert any downward pressure.
Penalty: Free Kick
In the Northern Hemisphere it would be a penalty, in the ELVs a free kick. Just a reset it is not.
But that is not the whole story.
Law 20.8 (g) Twisting, dipping or collapsing. Front row players must not twist or lower their bodies, or pull opponents, or do anything that is likely to collapse the scrum, either when the ball is being thrown in or afterwards.
Penalty: Penalty Kick
(h) Referees must penalise strictly any intentional collapsing of the scrum. This is dangerous play.
Penalty: Penalty Kick
There certainly is a case for a penalty. There is much more of a case for a penalty than just a reset.
2. Why no penalty?
David Smith of the Blues received a kick and started to run. He is tackled by Kieran Read and Brad Thorn of the Crusaders. He is sandwiched between the two strong men and the ball shoot s out of his grasp straight to Troy Flavell who instinctively catches the ball and then, with a gesture of disgust at what he has done, he throws it away.
The referee orders a scrum.
Commentator: “I can’t understand why it isn’t a penalty.”
There are reasons why it should not be a penalty.
If the referee considers that Smith had passed forward there was no need to have a penalty as he certainly did not do it deliberately.
If the referee considered that the ball was knocked forward but that there was nobody to take advantage, there was no need to have a penalty. (Not great reasoning in this case.)
If the referee considered that Flavell’s act was involuntary and so reasoned the off-side was accidental, a scrum was in order.
It seemed from what he said that the referee used the first reason to award a scrum.
3. Obstruction on the side
This is not altogether unusual.
Troy Flavell of the Blues was on the side of a tackle ruck. In fact at one stage he withdrew and shoved against Greg Somerville of the Crusaders. Flavell then withdrew to stand at the side but Somerville kept a hold on him. Flavell then showed by chopping gesture that he was being held against his will. Somerville did not release his grasp.
The referee penalised Somerville saying: “Obstruction. You’re off your feet obstructing.”
4. Musical props
i. When the Stormers played the Hurricanes prop JD Moller went off with an injured shoulder in the first half. In the second half Brian Mujati limped off. Two props were off injured. That left one prop, Brok Harris, and so the scrums became uncontested. There was no problem with that. It all happened in accordance with the laws.
ii. Then there was one in the Heineken Cup which caused much consternation.
The Saracens played Munster in the semifinal of the Heineken Cup. They lost two props to the sin bin to be down to 13 men.
On 47 minutes Cobus Visagie went off to be replaced by Census Johnson.
On 59 minutes Nick Lloyd was sent to the sin bin for repeatedly punching Denis Leamy with all his might when Leamy seemed to have him by the chinstrap of his scrumcap.
On 61 minutes Census Johnson was sent to the sin bin for wilfully infringing at a tackle inside the Saracens 22.
That left the Saracens without a prop on the field.
On 64 minutes the referee set the first scrum. This led to a long, long delay.
The referee insisted that a prop be brought on, saying to the Saracens captain, Neil de Kock: “You need to get a prop on. You’ve got to get that prop on and still have uncontested scrums.”
This whole business took annoying ages with lots of to-ing and fro-ing and debating. The referee wandered about to check the status of Cobus Visagie who sat impassively pedalling on a fitness cycle. There seemed no official able to say what could and should happen, just a referee insisting that Visagie come on and Visagie eventually agreeing to come back on. Visagie was on for one scrum and then limped off.
Why on earth do you need a prop for uncontested scrums? Uncontested scrums take place because the people involved are not trained props. It may be that the referee wanted a prop on for the time that Lloyd would make his reappearance so that contested scrums could proceed. But that may have been the time to get Visagie on.
We quote the relevant law in full.
Law 3.13 FRONT ROW FORWARD SENT OFF OR TEMPORARILY SUSPENDED OR INJURED
(a) If after a front row player has been sent off or during the time a front row player is temporarily suspended, and there are no further front row players available from the nominated team, then uncontested scrums will be ordered. It is not the responsibility of the referee to determine the suitability of trained front row replacements nor their availability, as this is a team responsibility.
(b) After a front row player is sent off or during the time a front row player is temporarily suspended the referee, upon awarding the next scrum, will ask that player’s captain whether or not the team has another player on the field of play who is suitably trained to play in the front row. If not, the captain chooses any player from that team who then must leave the field of play and be replaced by a suitably trained front row player from the team’s replacements. The captain may do this immediately prior to the next scrum or after another player has been tried in the front row.
(c) When a period of temporary suspension ends and a front row player returns to the field of play, the replacement front row player leaves the field of play and the nominated player who left the field of play for the period of the suspension may resume playing in the match.
(d) Furthermore, if, because of sending off or injury, a team cannot provide enough suitably trained front row players, the match continues with uncontested scrums.
(e) An uncontested scrum is the same as a normal scrum, except that the teams do not compete for the ball, the team throwing in the ball must win it, and neither team is allowed to push.
iii. Jamie McGregor writes that in the match between the Brumbies and the Lions, the Brumbies brought on a completely new front row with Saia Faingaa, Salesi Ma’afu and Ben Alexander replacing John Ulugia, Guy Shepherdson and Nic Henderson.
Law 3.4 A team can substitute up to two front row players and up to five other players.
Substitute is not the same as replacement. A replacement comes on for an injured player; substitution is done for tactical reasons, not for injury. So it would be possible for the Brumbies to substitute two players but bring on a third when a front row player is injured, thus – virtuously – avoiding uncontested scrums.
5. Binding locks
At about 20 minutes in the match between the Stormers and the Highlanders, the Stormers are to put the ball into a scrum. The referee stops proceedings and says to the Highlanders’ locks: “One arm around the body – not two underneath.”
The Highlander props were binding on the props only, one arm through the crotch and the other on the prop’s side.
Law 20.3 (f) Binding by all other players. All players in a scrum, other than front-row players, must bind on a lock’s body with at least one arm. The locks must bind with the props in front of them. No player other than a prop may hold an opponent.
Penalty: Penalty Kick
A lock is required to have one arm bound to his locking partner and the other arm bound to a prop.
6. New off-side
The Cheetahs attack and roughly on the half-way line Juan Smith of the Cheetahs is tackled by Jason Eaton of the Hurricanes. They both go to ground, Eaton holding Smith. It is a tackle. Smith then plays the ball back but Rodney So’oialo intercepts the pass back and sets off for the goal-line. He scores the try that takes the Hurricanes into a `14-3 lead.
Was So’oialo off-side?
In terms of the ELVs he was off-side, because the experimental law variations lay down off-side lines at the tackle.
Law 15.9 OFF-SIDE AT THE TACKLE
(a) The Off-side line. There are two off-side lines parallel to the goal-lines. Each off-side line runs through the hindmost part of the nearest player to each team’s goal-line, regardless of the team to which the player belongs.
The rest of these are shown as clips on www.sareferees.co.za.
7. TMO OK?
Hendro Scholtz of the Cheetahs drives at the line as Hosea Gear of the Hurricanes tackles him. As Scholtz brings the ball over to ground it Piri Weepu of the Hurricanes stretches out a right foot which knocks the ball from Scholtz’s grasp. The referee refers the matter to the TMO who advises a drop-out, saying: “The ball was not grounded. It was on the foot of a defender, which was already in in-goal and was then made dead by the Yellow team in in-goal. Restart – 22.”
The TMO says the ball was “on the foot of the defender”. The foot of the defender was not just standing there. It was put there with a forward motion.
DEFINITIONS
Kick: A kick is made by hitting the ball with the any part of the leg or foot, except the heel, from the toe to the knee but not including the knee; a kick must move the ball a visible distance out of the hand or along the ground.
Weepu hit the ball with his toe and it moved a visible distance. He kicked the ball.
Law 22.4 (e) Tackled near the goal line. If a player is tackled near to the opponents’ goal line so that this player can immediately reach out and ground the ball on or over the goal line, a try is scored.
(f) In this situation, defending players who are on their feet may legally prevent the try by pulling the ball from the tackled player’s hands or arms, but must not kick the ball.
Had Weepu not infringed in this way, Scholtz would certainly had scored. A penalty try would have been the right decision.
8. What, no quick throw-in?
Jamie Nutbrown of the Chiefs kicks ahead towards the Reds’ goal-line. It rolls into touch towards the Reds’ goal line. Falling back Digby Ioane of the Reds gathers the ball and runs back with it till he is on the dead-ball line side of the cornerpost. From there he throws the ball in to David Croft.
The referee stops the movements, saying: “You cannot take a quick throw-in in the dead-ball area.”
Right?
Law 19.2 QUICK THROW IN
(b) For a quick throw in, the player may be anywhere outside the field of play between the place where the ball went into touch and the player’s goal line.
Ioane was behind his goal-line.
9. From a kick. But do you agree?
The Chiefs kick a long way downfield where, near touch, Brando Va’aulu of the Reds catches the ball as Sitiveni Sivivatu of the Chiefs bears down on him. Sivivatu knocks Va’aulu down but does not hold him and Va’aulu gets up again. He takes two steps infield and is on the third when Tanerau Latimer of the Chiefs grabs him. They are on their feet and a maul forms.
The maul collapses and the ball is unplayable.
In terms of the experimental law variations, the referee gives a free kick.
But to whom?
He gives it to the Reds saying it was from a kick.
Law 17.6 (h) Scrum after a maul when catcher is held. If a player catches the ball direct from an opponent’s kick, except from a kick off or a drop out, and the player is immediately held by an opponent, a maul may form. Then if the maul remains stationary, stops moving forward for longer than 5 seconds, or if the ball becomes unplayable, and a scrum is ordered, the team of the ball catcher throws in the ball.
‘Direct from an opponent’s kick’ means the ball did not touch another player or the ground before the player caught it.
If a maul moves into the player’s in-goal, where the ball is touched down or becomes unplayable, a 5-metre scrum is formed. The attacking team throws in the ball.
The relevant word here is “immediately”. Was Va’aulu held immediately? The answer is No. After catching the ball, he was knocked down, stood up, took paces in which he could have played the ball and only after that did the maul form.
In the ELVs, the penalty when a maul ends unsuccessfully is a free kick. In Law 17.6 (h), free kick must replace scrum.
The relevant law in this case is Law 17.6 (c) Scrum following maul. The ball is thrown in by the team not in possession when the maul began. If the referee cannot decide which team had possession, the team moving forward before the maul stopped throws in the ball. If neither team was moving forward, the attacking team throws in the ball.
10. Who dived? Who was on the ground?
Jano Vermaak grubbers ahead and Jannie Boshoff of the Lions chances a rolling ball towards the Brumbies’ line but overruns the ball and Gerrard falls on it. Gerrard is then forced to ground by Earl Rose and Wilhelm Koch.
The referee penalises the Lions, saying: “You dived on him on the ground.”
But was he on the ground.
In fact Gerrard was up off the ground. His whole body was up from the ground. No definition of being on the ground would describe Gerrard as being on the ground. He had the ball. He was available to be tackled, which is what Rose and Koch did.
It is not good for a referee to guess.
11. The movable mark
The referee punishes the Lions with a free kick at a scrum. Mark Gerrard of the Brumbies comes up to take the kick. When Gerrard starts to kick Jaco van Schalkwyk of the Lions charges at him. Realising that he will not be bale to get in, Gerrard sidesteps Van Schalkwyk, runs forward and kicks.
The referee allows the kick and explains to Gerrard that he should kick off the mark.
This makes a farce of the law.
The Lions are allowed to charge.
Law 21.8 (e) Charging the free kick. Once they have retired the necessary distance, players of the opposing team may charge and try to prevent the kick being taken. They may charge the free kick as soon as the kicker starts to approach to kick.
(f) Preventing the free kick. If the opposing team charge and prevent the free kick being taken, the kick is disallowed. Play restarts with a scrum at the mark. The opposing team throw in the
If they charge and the player cannot kick, it is a scrum.
Gerrard found his own way of kicking, by running away from and beyond the mark.
Law 21.2 WHERE PENALTY AND FREE KICKS ARE TAKEN
(a) The kicker must take the penalty or free kick at the mark or anywhere behind it on a line through the mark. If the place for a penalty or free kick is within 5 metres of the opponents’ goal line, the mark for the kick is 5 metres from the goal line, opposite the place of infringement.
Penalty: Any infringement by the kicker’s team results in a scrum at the mark. The opposing team throws in the ball.
It should have been a scrum. We regularly see quick free kicks stopped because the kick was not on the mark and another kick allowed, which is kindness on the part of the referee. But this was not a quick kick and the Lions player was entitled to the benefit of his clever play.
To have to explain the law to a player at this level and to exonerate him for ignorance is farcical.
This has happened previously in Super 14 and on that occasion the referee gave a scrum to the non-kicking side. Surely there could be greater consistency in applying simple law.
12. Sympathy in a “harsh situation”
Anthony Tuitavake of the Blues had a great run for the line. As he is tackled by Kade Poke, he keeps surging on to the line. His momentum takes him millimetres short of the line. Others gather.
The referee refers the matter to the TMO who cannot see grounding of the ball.
The referee then calls Troy Flavell, the captain of the Blues, and explains his harsh decision in an excellent bit of communication. He says: “Troy, it’s a harsh situation but because he’s short I’ve got to give a turnover free kick. I can’t give a SCRUM.”
In the Northern Hemisphere, this would have been a scrum to the Blues because the ball was unplayable in a tackle and the Blues had been the team going forward.
Under the experimental law variations it is, as the referee, explained a free kick to the Crusaders.
The ELVs require that a free kick be given when the ball is unplayable at a tackle, ruck or maul, not a scrum as under old laws.
Harsh all right. That such brilliance should end thus dully.
13. Ground and post – try
Big Nick Williams tries to force his way pat defenders and prone bodies to score a try.
Three objects must connect at the same time – the ball (in the grasp of the ball-carrier), the ground and the post. All three must make contact, which is what happened here, which is why the try was given.
Law 22.4 OTHER WAYS TO SCORE A TRY
(b) Grounded against a goal post. The goal posts and padding surrounding them are part of the goal line, which is part of in-goal. If an attacking player is first to ground the ball against a goal post or padding, a try is scored.
14. Hitting the post
David Smith of the Blues races down the touch-line as Nasi Manu of the Crusaders attempts to tackle him out. Before he has grounded the ball, Smith’s left foot makes contact with the cornerpost.
If this had happened in the Northern Hemisphere it would not have been a try but under the experimental law variations played in the Super 14 it is a try.
Law 22.12 BALL OR PLAYER TOUCHING A FLAG OR FLAG (CORNER) POST
If the ball or a player carrying the ball touches a flag or a flag (corner) post at the intersection of the touch-in-goal lines and the goal-lines or at the intersection of the touch-in-goal lines and the dead-ball lines without otherwise being in touch or touch-in-goal the ball is not out of play unless it is first grounded against the flagpost.
