Law discussion - Super 14, Week 14

The seven-match weekends in Super 14 are over, but still there are law issues to discuss.

So far we have given the statistics of the weekend, including totals which tells you which teams scored most and least, which team infringed most and least – that sort of thing.

There are also eight clips of incidents taken from the matches to serve as discussions of matters of law. Not everybody can open those and so we shall discuss those eight points in this discussion as well after some fresh topics.

Then, too, there is the matter of time which we discussed last week. We have two further thoughts on the matter, which may well be of interest.

There are also two matters from France’s Top 14 to mention.

1. Open mind?

Nick Williams of the Blues tackles Jerry Collins of the Hurricanes and seems to get to his feet. He tries to play the ball as others gather.

The referee calls: “Leave it, 8.”

Williams, the 8 in question, does not leave it.

The referee awards a free kick in terms of the ELVs but also calls over Troy Flavell, the captain of the Blues, and Williams and says: “I want to make this very clear. I spoke to this man before the game. You must get to your feet before you play the man or the ball. He does it in one motion.”

Commentator: “That’s interesting: Bryce has been watching videos.”

“I spoke to this man before the game.”

Obviously it is good for a referee to prepare well, but is there a danger of prejudging which is another word for prejudice?

In fact both the I-sentences could well be done away with.

2. Identity crisis

David Smith of the Blues kicks ahead and chases but Tamati Ellison, the Hurricanes fullback, and Zac Guildford, the Hurricanes wing converge on him – Ellison wearing number 15, Guildford No.11.

Smith is impeded and caused to stumble. The player who laid a hand on him was Guildford, No.11. Ellison was in front of Smith and Smith makes contact with him but Ellison seems to do nothing extra to impede Smith. He was just where he happened to be before Smith kicked the ball.

The referee consults the touch judge who singles out No.11 – Guildford.

The referee speaks to Guildford and then sends Ellison to the sin bin.

It may well have been a case of mistaken identity. That a Hurricane deserved to go to the sin bin was fair but it should have been Guildford.

A few years ago SANZAR had permission from the IRB for the use of the television match official in identifying perpetrators of foul play. It would have helped the referee in this case.

In France’s Top 14, the TMO is used to help in the whole judgement of foul play, not just in identifying the culprit.

3. Place of the free kick

The Hurricanes attack the line with zest. There is a tackle/ruck about half a metre from the Blues line. The ball squirts out the side and the Hurricanes flop over for a try but the referee awarded a free kick against them. He does so on the five-metre line.

Where should it be?

A penalty or a free kick for the attacking team may not be closer than five metres to the goal-line. But for the defending team it is at the place of infringement.

OK, it’s no big deal – not even five metres. It’s just about being tidy.

4. Hands on the ball

a. The Highlanders win a line-out and form a maul. Ali Williams of the Crusaders is in the maul but then gets out of it. He detaches from the maul but then attacks from the side, going straight at the ball which is in Highlanders possession.

The referee penalises Williams, whose body language suggests that he is amazed that anybody should penalise him. He says something to the referee.

Commentator: “What he’s actually saying to all of us is: ‘I don’t know why I was penalised.’ But he wouldn’t be the first Super 14 player to say that this year.”

There is a replay. Williams’s offence could hardly be clearer.

Commentator: “What he’s claiming is that he’s got his hands on the ball and he[‘s ok./ That’s what he’s claiming.”

Hands on the ball are irrelevant in this case. He got there by going in the side of a maul. That’s an offence regardless of what his hands or any other part of his body does.

Law 17.4 (c) Players joining the maul. Players joining a maul must do so from behind the foot of the hindmost team mate in the maul. The player may join alongside this player. If the player joins the maul from the opponents’ side, or in front of the hindmost team mate, the player is offside.
Penalty: Penalty Kick on the offending team’s offside line

Williams was in the wrong. He was off-side.

b. Conrad Smith tackles Anthony Tuitavake and a heaped gather of players occurs which may or may not be a ruck. Collins approaches, goes the ball and wins it back with his hands. Play goes on.

Presumably it was not a ruck, for he would then not have been allowed ton use his hands to get the ball.

But it is his approach that is suspect. There had certainly been a tackle. Collins was not a tackler. The ball had not come free from the tackle. Collins’s approach to the tackle had to be through the gate – from behind the width created by Tuitavake and Smith. It was a narrow gate as they were almost parallel to the touch-lines, not the goal-lines.

Collins’s approach seems not from behind but from the side, which suggests that he should have been penalised.

Law 15.6 (c) At a tackle or near to a tackle, other players who play the ball must do so from behind the ball and from directly behind the tackled player or the tackler closest to those players’ goal line.
Penalty: Penalty Kick

5. French throw-in

a. In the match between the Waratahs and the Reds, Phil Waugh of the Waratahs grubbers ahead. The ball hits the foot of Peter Hynes of the Reds and ricochets into touch further downfield. Eager Waugh runs after the ball and picks it up and throws it in.

The referee disallows the quick throw-in because it was taken further towards the Reds’ goal-line from where the ball went out. Had it been nearer the Waratahs’ goal-line play could have gone on.

b. Brive play Stade Français in Brive. Stade Français kick downfield and the ball rolls into touch about five metres before the cornerpost. The ball carries on rolling.

About 10 metres beyond the cornerpost, well touch-in-goal, Alexandre Manta of Brive picks up the ball and throws in quickly to Ronnie Cooke of Brive who is this 10 metres or so behind his goal-line. Play goes on.

OK?

No.

Law 19.2 (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.

6. Forward give?

The Reds play the Waratahs and Reds’ flyhalf Quade Copper goes on the weave, ball in one hand, his left hand which is flapping wide. In front of him is the Waratahs’ scrumhalf, Luke Burgess, who takes the ball off him and passes it back to Rocky Elsom of the Waratahs who knocks the ball forward to Morgan Turinui of the Reds who passes to Peter Hynes of the Waratahs who sets off, till the referee calls them back for a scrum.

Who infringed in that movement?

Only Elsom it would seem, unless the ball left Cooper’s hand in a forward motion.

7. Designated props

No man walks through life with a birthmark which says prop. A prop is a player who is willing to play prop and, in top rugby and hopefully in all rugby, has been trained for the job.

For safety’ sake, rugby football has laws about props and their replacements. Any player who comes on as a replacement or a substitute for a front-row player must be suitably trained. If not, uncontested scrums must take place.

In France it seems, they go a step further. The prop is designated loosehead or tighthead.

In the match between Stade Français and Brive, Brive sent on Kevin Buys who looked every centimetre and every gram a prop – a burly man, but he went on to take the place of the Brive tighthead Pierre Capdevielle. This led to a great debate between the referee and the

Those which follow are those illustrated with clips on the SA referees’ site – www.sareferees.co.za. We give them here for those who could not open them. Others can happily skip.

8. Isn’t the scrum over?

The Chiefs heel the ball in a scrum. Liam Messam, their No.8, has the ball at his feet.

Messam moves his shoulders back from his lock’s but keeps his hands on them.

Rory Kockott of the Sharks then plays the ball.

The referee penalises him for being off-side.

Off-side at what?

Is it still a scrum?

Messam had released his binding. That means he was no longer in the scrum. How then could the ball be in a scrum when it was at his feet and he was not in the scrum?

It’s not all simple in terms of the law, but it is indeed tough to penalise Kockott.

The law does not seem to substantiate the idea that the scrum is over when the ball is at the feet of an unbound No.8.

Law 22.10 (c) If the hindmost player unbinds from the scrum with the ball at that player’s feet and picks up the ball, the scrum ends.

This is bizarre. Is the scrum over only if the No.8 picks up the ball?

But if the scrum is not over and the No.8 does not pick it up is he not guilty of prematurely leaving the scrum and therefore subject to a penalty?

Messam cannot have it both ways – be in a scrum he was out of enough to prevent Kockott from playing the ball.

9. Tough call?

Ruan Pienaar, the Sharks’ flyhalf, is  penalised here for being off-side at the tackle. Off-side – penalty.

Is he off-side?

Bradley Barritt of the Sharks tackles Stephen Donald with a shuddering tackle to the midriff. When Barritt tackles Donald, Pienaar is behind the tackle. Donald, brave man, then places the ball well back and Pienaar runs from on-side to the ball.

The other player who plays to the ball is Barritt who is the tackler.

Perhaps Pienaar is penalised because he approaches before the tackle is over in the sense that he moves forward before Donald has released the ball.

Perhaps.

10. What about the provocateur?

The Laws of the Game say Thou shalt not retaliate.

Law 10.4 (j) Retaliation. A player must not retaliate. Even if an opponent is infringing the laws, a player must not do anything that is dangerous to the opponent.
Penalty: Penalty Kick

Daniel Vickerman of the Waratahs grabbed the scrumcap of James Horwill of the Reds and pulled hard on it. It is not a king thing to do as the strap is tied under the chin and Vickerman is a big, strong man.

Horwill objects and punches at Vickerman.

The referee penalises Horwill who protests that he was reacting.

Horwill was in the wrong. Vickerman was in the wrong. If Vickerman had not been in the wrong, Horwill would not have been in the wrong.

The referee clearly did not see what Vickerman had done but it may have been wise to discuss the matter with an assistant. The assistant may well have caught Vickerman in the act. It was not a gentle tug, as the damage to the scrumcap showed.

But look at the law. The law says that if an player is infringing the law, you must not retaliate. Surely that means that if a player is lying over the ball, you are not allowed to tramp on him. Or if a player is off-side you are not allowed to barge into him. That sort of thing.

An assault on your person would seem to be a different form of infringing. It is wrong but then surely the agent provocateur would get at least equal sanction – talking to, yellow card, red card – and perhaps it is fairer if the penalty went against him as well.

It is a thought worth thinking – not just acting more severely against the retaliator than against the cause of the retaliation.

It may also stop provocation of players reputed to have short fuses.

11. “I thought he was the tackler.”

Was he?

The Crusaders win a scrum and the No.8 picks up and barges forward where the combined forces of Jimmy Cowan and Adam Thomson stop him and bring him to ground. Thomson holds him, which means he is tackled.

Thomson plays the ball and is penalised for coming in at the side.

Commentator: “I thought he was the tackler.”

As the tackler he would not be obliged to come through the gate.

Was the referee wrong?

No.

He was right because in terms of the Laws of the game, Thomson was not a tackler – not by legal definition.

Law 15 Opposition players who hold the ball carrier and do not go to ground are not tacklers.

Because he had not gone to ground and done what in rugby is a virtuous thing, namely staying on his feet, Thomson was obliged to come through the gate.. Because he did not do so he was liable to penalty.

Moral: Stay on your feet, unless you want to be a tackler.