Law Discussion - Super 14, Week 5

There were six matches in Week 5, plenty of action, lots of tries and, ineluctably, law matters to discuss.

For one thing there was the second penalty try of the 2008 Super 14. Dramatic decisions – penalty tries. Always worth talking about.

We have already given statistics for the last week of Six Nations and for the Super 14. We have also discussed incidents in the Six Nations and the nonsensical fuss about the timekeeper at Ellis Park.

There are clips on www.sareferees.co.za, which may be of interest.

1. Penalty try consistency

We shall look at this week’s incident in detail and then mention two incidents from previous weeks.

a. Gcobani Bobo, the Stormers’ outside centre, has a clear run for the line but is easily overhauled and tackled by Brendon Leonard, the Chiefs scrumhalf. Bobo pops the ball back inside to Schalk Burger. Burger is immediately tackled by Lelia Masaga.

The referee awards a penalty try.

Before the introduction of the experimental law variations, which apply to Super 14, what Masaga did was legal. Now it is illegal.

It is illegal because there is now an off-side line at a tackle – “through the hindmost part of the nearest player to each team’s goal-line regardless of the team to which that player belongs”.

In this case the off-side line would have been through Leonard’s back foot for Masaga.

He was clearly well in front of that when he tackled Burger.

That ELV tackle law says this:

15.10 UNFAIR PLAY

If a player intentionally offends at a tackle, the provisions of Law 10.2 must be applied by the referee.

Law 10.2 deals with Intentionally Offending, which is part of UNFAIR PLAY and so a part of FOUL PLAY, and ends with the following:

A penalty try must be awarded if the offence prevents a try that would probably otherwise have been scored. A player who prevents a try being scored through foul play must either be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off.

Clearly what Masaga did was not unintentional. Tackling Burger was intentional all right and effective.

If he had not tackled Burger, Burger would have scored.

There is logic in the penalty try.

It made history – a penalty try in Super 14 for being off-side at a tackle and stopping a try from being scored. It may in fact stay unique.

b. Then there was the penalty try for the Brumbies against the Highlanders when Hayden Trigg of the Highlanders felled Huia Edmonds of the Brumbies less than a metre from the Highlanders’ line. The tackle was around Edmonds’s neck.

That was foul play. If Trigg had not tackled Edmonds, Edmonds would have scored a try. The tackle was foul. The referee awarded a penalty try,

Trigg received a yellow card.

c. In between these two was a foul tackle that received a yellow card but not a penalty try.

Lelia Masaga of the Chiefs was running for the right-hand corner against the Cheetahs. Eddie Fredericks of the Cheetahs prevented the try. He prevented the try by tackling Masaga – high.

For this high tackle he was sin-binned but there was no penalty try though it happened close to the Cheetahs’ line.

So we have penalty try and no sin bin, penalty try and sin bin, no penalty try and sin bin.

In each case foul play was involved in stopping a probable try. It seems to the ordinary fellow watching that it is inconsistent in an important aspect of officiating.

On the matter of the penalty try, the law adds:

Law 10.2 (a) A penalty try must be awarded if the offence prevents a try that would probably otherwise have been scored. A player who prevents a try being scored through foul play must either be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off.

Of the three decisions it would seem that b. was most right, c. most wrong.

2. Dead or alive?

Conrad Jantjes of the Stormers kicks a long way downfield. The ball rolls and rolls over the Chiefs’ goal-line and on, losing impetus as it goes. Liam Messam of the Chiefs puts his feet on the dead-ball line, stretches full length and grounds the ball.

The referee gives the Chiefs an option of a drop-out or a scrum where Jantjes kicked the ball. They choose the scrum.

The touch judge raises a question, but the referee says to him: “I’m happy the ball was still moving.”

Nobody queried it but what has the movement of the ball to do with it?

The ball did not reach or cross the dead-ball line. It was made dead by a player who happened to be on the dead-ball line but the dead-ball line was not what made it dead. It was the grounding of the ball that made it dead.

If an attacker is on or over the dead-ball line but not holding the ball he can score a try by putting his hand on the ball – a farfetched possibility.

It would have been different if Messam had picked the ball up while on the dead-ball line. He would then have made it dead by virtue of grounding the ball.

It was a wrong decision.

This happened after 25 minutes of the match.

3. Quick fling

Jano Vermaak of the Lions kicks the ball downfield. It rolls into touch where Stefan Terblanche catches the ball. He mediates briefly and then in the style of gridiron football throws the ball a long way infield to Odwa Ndungane who is nearer his goal-line than Terblanche is.

OK?

Under the ELVs the throw does not have to be straight.

One may see more of this kind of throw in future.

This happened in the first minute of the match.

4. TMO’s jurisdiction

Jean de Villiers of the Stormers races for the Chiefs’ ;left corner. His ankle is tapped but he slides on to the corner as Mils Muliaina tries to stop him.

De Villiers gets over and the referee refers the matter to the television match official.

Clearly De Villiers’s elbow is in touch before he grounds the ball, which is what the TMO advises the referee. The referee orders a line-out.

The commentator says: “I mean technically not really within the bounds of the TMO’s jurisdiction.”

The IRB’s protocol on the TMO says:

3.  Area of Adjudication

The areas of adjudication are limited to Law 6. 8 (b), 6.8 (d) and 6.8 (e) and therefore relate to:

– Grounding of the ball for try and touch down
– Touch, touch-in-goal, ball being made dead during the act of grounding the ball.

This includes situations where a player may or may not have stepped in touch in the act of grounding the ball on or over the goal line.

The TMO could therefore be requested to assist the referee in making the following decisions:

• Try
• No try and scrum awarded 5 metres
• Touch down by a defender
• In touch – line-out
• Touch-in-goal
• Ball dead on or over the dead ball line
• Penalty tries after acts of foul play in in-goal
• All kicks at goal including dropped goals.

The TMO must not be requested to provide information on players prior to the ball going into in-goal (except touch in the act of grounding the ball).

The TMO’s decision in Hamilton was within his jurisdiction.

This happened after 36 minutes of the match.

5. Place of the penalty

The Blues attack down the left. The ball goes to Rudi Wulf who bounces a kick ahead with his left foot as Cameron Shepherd of the Western Force comes across. After Wulf kicks the ball Shepherd keeps going and charges into him, shoulder first. The ball goes downfield where Ryan Cross of the Force runs the ball into touch.

Wulf is close to the touch-line on his left and roughly on his ten-metre line when he kicks the ball. The ball bounces a metre or so ahead of him. Cross is about two metres inside his 10-metre line when he runs the ball out, that is about 20 metres downfield from where the ball bounced.

Where would the penalty be?

Law 10.4 (m) Late-charging the kicker. A player must not intentionally charge or obstruct an opponent who has just kicked the ball.
Penalty: The non-offending team may choose to take the penalty kick either at the place of infringement, where the ball lands, or where it was next played.

The Blues then have an option – a penalty where Cameron crashed into Wulf or a penalty where the ball landed, that is a metre or so beyond Wulf but 15 metres in from touch.

This happened after 49 minutes of the match.

6. Knock-on off-side?

The Western Force are under pressure. Tom Hockings of the Force, falling to ground, passes the ball back to Drew Mitchell who has menacing Keven Mealamu approaching. Mitchell knocks the ball forward and Scott Fava of the Force nips in and with his right foot kicks the ball away just as Anthony Boric of the Blues dives towards the ball.

Knock-on?

Yes.

Law 11.7 OFF-SIDE AFTER A KNOCK ON

When a player knocks-on and an off-side team mate next plays the ball, the off-side player is liable to penalty if playing the ball prevented an opponent from gaining an advantage.
Penalty: Penalty Kick

This would seem to be the classic case of off-side at a knock-on and preventing advantage. Those three elements combine to form the penalty.

7. Forward pass?

Ryan Cross of the Western Force runs with the ball. Anthony Tuitavake tackles Cross and bowls him over and the ball ends in the arms of Scott Staniforth. How did it get there?

In fall over backwards Cross let the ball go backwards but it struck his foot which was rising as he fell. The foot then propelled the ball to Staniforth who was in front of Cross.

Knock-on? No.

Forward pass?

Law 12 DEFINITION THROW FORWARD

A throw forward occurs when a player throws or passes the ball forward. ‘Forward’ means towards the opposing team’s dead ball line.

He does not throw it forward.

He kicks it forward.

DEFINITIONS

Kick: A kick is made by hitting the ball with 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.

That is what Cross did.

That made Staniforth off-side. Cross had not intended to kick the ball and Staniforth had played it only by unintentional reflex.

Surely there must be place for a scrum in this.

Which would have been the same result as a forward pass.

This happened in the first minute of the match.