A tricky try
Clever or sharp practice?
We have Peter Shortell of Cheltenham to thank for this incident taken from the Heineken Cup match between Ulster and London Irish last Friday. Later this week we shall publish some things readers have had to say on the laws.
Ulster were awarded a penalty just inside London Irish's 22, fairly wide to the left. David Humphreys took the ball retreated with it, took off his headgear, as he always does before taking a kick, and the tee was brought on. Seeing that London Irish were gathering under the posts, he then tapped and ran, being awarded a try in the corner.
The referee had not indicated a kick at goal, and so they should not have assumed it, despite the obvious preparations. Had they forgotten Ronan O'Gara's cheeky try against South Africa?
One could query the referee's decision.
Law 21.4 (b) No delay. If a kicker indicates to the referee the intention to kick a penalty kick at goal, the kick must be taken within one minute from the time the player indicates the intention to kick at goal. The intention to kick is signalled by the arrival of the kicking tee or sand, or when the player makes a mark on the ground. The player must complete the kick within one minute even if the ball rolls over and has to be placed again. If the one minute is exceeded, the kick is disallowed, a scrum is ordered at the place of the mark and the opponents throw-in the ball. For any other type of kick, the kick must be taken without undue delay.
What is the situation if the team sends on the tee when the putative kicker does not want it? It is well established that the referee can ask the player's intentions, and it might have been a good idea here.
In the post-match interview, Humphreys was guarded in his remarks. It seems he did initially intend to kick at goal, but he (or somebody) noticed that London Irish were not covering, so he decided to go for the try. Michael Lynagh thought his action was legal but bordering on unsporting.
It is reminiscent of the player who pointed to the posts and said to the referee, "I don't intend to kick at those". The referee replied, "You do now".
More and more the application of the Laws of the Game has tried to get away from sharp practice. The spirit of this is contained in the Objects of the Game which is a preamble to the detailed Laws of the Game.
The Object of the Game is that two teams of fifteen, ten or seven players each, observing fair play according to the Laws and sporting spirit, should by carrying, passing, kicking and grounding the ball score as many points as possible, the team scoring the greater number of points being the winner of the match.
It's there in the sporting spirit where each player has a fair chance to play in the way the laws allow.
Law 7 – Mode of Play
PLAYING A MATCH
A match is started by a kick-off.
After the kick-off, any player who is on-side may take the ball and run with it.
Any player may throw it or kick it.
Any player may give the ball to another player.
Any player may tackle, hold or shove an opponent holding the ball.
Any player may fall on the ball.
Any player may take part in a scrum, ruck, maul or line-out.
Any player may ground the ball in an in-goal.
Whatever a player does must be in accordance with the Laws of the Game.
Sharp practice should be allowed to deprive a player of playing according to the laws. This led to changes in law and also to changes in application. Those clever ways of exploiting line-out laws by joining late, for example, have been done away. Grabbing the ball from a ballboy for a clever drop-out has also been done away with. So it should be, too, it seems with exploiting the letter of the law to get a try.
It's not the same as a dummy or a sidestep. This is exploitation of the law and while the ball is dead.
The referee in the case of the O'Gara try apologised later and said that he was wrong. He was wrong.
Surely the arrival of the tee announced to London Irish that Ulster were to kick at goal. Surely they were then free to relax and await the kick at goal.
If the arrival of the tee is a problem for the kicker, that would be his problem. He should organise better with the tee-bearer.
Does it really matter that the referee has not signalled? The arrival of the tee is the signal that a kick at goal is about to take place.
So – were London Irish wrong in not waiting for the referee to indicate the kick at goal? They had been wrong in conceding the penalty and the punishment was a penalty kick against them. But that did not exclude them from playing on in the game. They saw the tee arrive and surely they were entitled to assume that Humphreys was about to kick at goal.
There is a similar debate when the referee is in the way. The letter of the law requires play to go on unless the ball-carrier or the ball actually makes contact with the referee. Now people are awarding the scrum if a team gets advantage because the referee is in the way, thus disallowing a ball-carrier from using the referee as a shield.
