Law Discussion - Super 14, Week 8 (i)

We have already discussed the unhappy ending to the match in Wellington but there are some other matters as well that are worthy of discussion.

We have been busy so far this week. Not only was there the Wellington matter, we have also given stats for the Super 14 and for the Heineken Cup quarterfinals and a comparison of some aspects of the two – with and without ELVs.

We have also played eight clips from Super 14 matches on the South African Referees’ site – www.sareferees.co.za. They include the Wellington ending. We shall repeat  some of them in this discussion for those unable to open such clips.

We have had a request for a collection of clips on DVD and would consider it, if there were sufficient demand. If you would like to purchase such a DVD or eventually succession of DVDs, please write to pauld@365digital.co.za

We shall do this in two sections because 1. is long.

1. Confusion in the ranks.

There are signs of confusion amongst referees. Refereeing like all sporting activities relies on confidence and trained instinct. Watch a fullback with lots of time to kick for touch and see how often the ball comes off the side of his boot.

Referees have been confronted with several forms of law. Men like Marius Jonker, Jonathan Kaplan, Stuart Dickinson and Steve Walsh refereed in the Six Nations under one set of laws and then rushed off to do Super 14 under the experimental law variations. And there are other forms of laws in action – Under-19 and the full ELVs.

The trained instinct is in confusion. A wise old referee was once asked about thinking on the field, and he said: “I don’t think.. I see and react. I have trained myself to react in the right way.”

Confuse those conditioned reflexes and you have problems. The problems will not be only in the realm of the ELVs but will spread generally.

Here are some recent examples:

a. The Blues play the Bulls in a tight match. The Blues attack and a Bulls defender knocks the pass down.

The referee awards a penalty.

Then, with some help, he realises that the Bull had knocked the ball backwards. There is nothing wrong with that.

The referee said: “My mistake”, and he ordered a scrum.

Allowed to change his mind?

Law 6.A.6 REFEREE ALTERING A DECISION

The referee may alter a decision when a touch judge has raised the flag to signal touch or an act of foul play.

This is neither touch nor foul play, but – for heaven’s sake – it make sense to change. Why should a team suffer three points for a referee’s error?

How do you restart?

With a scrum.

Whose ball?

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.

Blues’ ball.

b. The Bulls are well inside their own territory, Morné Steyn passes to Wynand Olivier who kicks to clear. Scott Fava of Western Force charges the kick down.

Chris O’Young of the Western Force is in front of Fava and grabs the ball.

The referee penalises for being off-side. He then has second thoughts, blow his whistle again and, while the crowd boos, says: “I made a mistake in law. It’s a charge down. It’s not a penalty for off-side. It’s a scrum Blue ball.” He then has a third thought and reverts to the penalty.

The referee was right the first time and the crowd were wrong. O’Young was off-side under the oldest form of off-side in rugby football, going back to the first written laws of 1846. You are off-side if you are in front of a player of your side who last played the ball and you then play the ball.

Law 11 DEFINITION

In general play a player is offside if the player is in front of a team mate who is carrying the ball, or in front of a team mate who last played the ball.

A charge down is not a knock-on, which has nothing to do with not being off-side.

c. You have seen arms telescoping or bending as the referees realise the ELVs have different sanctions. Some as their assistant to warn them if they are getting things wrong.

The Bulls are battering at the Western Force line. There is a heap of players but the ball is on the Bulls’ side. Danie Rossouw of the Bulls picks the ball up off the ground and surges over the Western Force line.

The referee penalises him, saying “You can’t turn a ruck into a maul.”

It’s a tough one this.

Let’s accept that that heap of players is a ruck.  Let’s accept that the ball is not out.

The harder one is work out where the maul happens.

It’s harder to find a law which says: “You can’t turn a ruck into a maul”

The nearest censure for what Rossouw did is handling the ball in a ruck.

Law 16.4 (b) Players must not handle the ball in a ruck.

Just when you thought that that had joined the dodo and foot-up in extinction, here it is again, resurrected.

But what is the sanction?

In terms of the ELVs, under which the Super 14 is being played, it is a free kick.

d. François Steyn of the Sharks kicks the ball downfield. The ball bounces and hits the cornerpost on the Hurricanes’ right. It then bounces into touch.

The referee’s assistant indicates a line-out to the Hurricanes five metres from their line.

The referee asks the assistant if the ball had hit the cornerpost. On being told that it had done so, the referee order a drop-out.

Somehow the referee was reminded about the experimental law variations, changed his mind and agreed that the touch judge had been right after all – a five-metre line-out to the Hurricanes.

In the Heineken Cup quarterfinal between Toulouse and Cardiff, the ball hit the cornerpost and bounced back into the field of play where Vincent Clerc gathered the ball and dived over. The referee ordered a drop-out. That was the right decision as the Heineken Cup is not played under experimental law variations. If it had been played under the same laws as pertain in the Super 14, it would have been a try.

e. Adam Ashley-Cooper of the Brumbies, in white with 15 on his back, is tackled by Sitiveni Sivivatu of the Chiefs. They both go to ground. Ashley Cooper rises up on his knees, the ball placed on the ground. He then lifts the ball up, looks around and passes to a team-mate.

The referee – correctly – that this was not immediate and penalised Ashley-Cooper.

Penalty or free kick?

One of the commentators picked it up, saying: “ELVs. Short arm.” That is telegraphese for: Under the experimental law variations that should be a free kick.

The commentator was right.

That would make a difference when the Chiefs kicked out for the throw-in to line-out would then belong to the Brumbies.

f. It is hardly surprising that watchers are confused.

Tyrone Smith of the Brumbies runs with the ball and is tackled by Tanerau Latimer of the Chiefs.

Latimer gets to his feet and plays the ball. He does not succeed in getting back because of a quick reaction by the Brumbies. But is Latimer off-side, as the crowd clearly believe he is?

No.

He is the tackler and as the tackler he is allowed to play from any direction.

The ELV Law 15.9 (e) Players must either play the ball at a tackle from an on-side position or retire behind the off-side line immediately. If a player loiters at the side of the tackle, the player is off-side.
Exception: A tackler who immediately regains that player’s feet may play the ball from any direction.

Every one who booed when the referee allowed to play on was wrong.