Currie Cup, Week 5's incidents

We have just had Week 5 of the Currie Cup with big wins for the Sharks and the Cheetahs. We have some incidents for law discussion – as usual.

We have already published seven clips on the South African Referees site (www.sareferees.co.za) and have spoken about a match report in the Sunday Tribune which was critical of the referee.

Here we look at some incidents, some the same as those already mentioned.

1. A little truck-‘n-trailer

A penalty gave the Cheetahs a maul near the Western Province line on their left. The Cheetahs made a maul which they splintered and then, when the referee urged them to use it, broke apart for young Heinrich Brussow to charge over for a try.

Running ahead of Brussow with a hand on him was Philip Burger of the Cheetahs.

Truck-‘n-trailer?

Truck-‘n-trailer is just a form of obstruction. For obstruction you need an opponent to obstruct.

Law 10.1 (b) Running in front of a ball carrier. A player must not intentionally move or stand in front of a team mate carrying the ball thereby preventing opponents from tackling the current ball carrier or the opportunity to tackle potential ball carriers when they gain possession.
Penalty: Penalty Kick

If Burger did not stop an opponent from getting to Brussow, there was no problem. The Western Province player nearest to Brussow was Bolla Conradie.

The referee then had to make a judgement: would Conradie have got to Brussow if Burger had not been in the way?

Could the referee have referred the matter to the television match official? Yes, but only if the possibility of obstruction had been in in-goal.

2. Ducking high tackle

Phillip Burger of the Cheetahs catches the ball, his body dropping somewhat. In comes De Wet Barry of Western Province and slings a left arm around Burger’s neck.

The referee penalises Barry.

Fair?

Law 10.4 (e) Dangerous tackling. A player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously.
Penalty: Penalty Kick

A player must not tackle (or try to tackle) an opponent above the line of the shoulders. A tackle around the opponent’s neck or head is dangerous play.
Penalty: Penalty Kick

The law makes no allowance for ducking, diving or anything else. A tackle around the neck is dangerous and that’s that.

There is no obligation on a player to tackle. But if he does so, then he must do so legally.

Did Barry have time to drop his arm to an acceptable height? Could he have kept his arm out of the tackle? Not that the answers to those questions are relevant. Nor was Burger’s height above ground relevant. What was relevant was the tackling arm around the neck.

3. Stop the drop

Frederick Viljoen, the Valke fullback, makes a dart for the line. Two Golden Lions grab him – Jannie Boshoff and Louis Ludik tray to stop him. They roll him over.

The TMO goes through step by step. He sees that he did not ground the ball. That would be enough for most of us but he went on to see where he came to rest. When the rolling stopped Viljoen’s feet were in touch-in-goal. The TMO’s workings were unrushed and longish.

Hence the drop-out.

When the referee awarded the drop-out, Jacques Cronje of the Golden Lions was waiting up at the 22 with a ball in hand. He dropped out quickly and was off running when the referee stopped him.

Now there is nothing in the law on the drop-out which forbids what Cronje tried to do but a lot of commonsense suggests that Cronje was stealing a march, getting an advantage based just on the circumstances of the TMO’s process. It is clearly at odds with the “fair play” principle governing the game.

The referee was right to stop play.

4. Hottie’s timing out

Near his goal-line Scott Mathie of the Sharks kicks to clear but Hottie Louw of the Blue Bulls charges down the kick which bounces towards the goal-line with Louw in hot pursuit. Brad Barritt of the Sharks covers.

Brad Barritt stretches out a right hand to the ball bouncing high and knocks it back into his in-goal. Louw tackles Barritt. The ball bounces free and Marius Delport grounds the ball.

The referee consults the television match official, and the decision is a penalty against Louw for tackling a man without the ball.

Law 10.4 (f) Playing an opponent without the ball. Except in a scrum, ruck or maul, a player must not hold, or push, or charge into, or obstruct an opponent not carrying the ball.
Penalty: Penalty Kick

Barritt was not carrying the ball. He could not even be said to be catching the ball. His outstretched one hand was not going to catch the ball.

The decision was the right one.

Right to consult the TMO?

The IRB’s protocol on the TMO says: The official may be consulted if the referee is unsure when making a decision in in-goal with regard to the scoring of a try or a touch down when foul play in in-goal may have been involved.

Tackling an opponent without the ball is part of foul play.

5. Not probable

Stefan Terblanche of the Sharks chips towards the Blue Bulls’ line. Henno Mentz of the Sharks leads the race for the ball with tall Marius Delport of the Blue Bulls behind him. At the goal-line the ball bounces and breaks left. Delport pushes Mentz in the back.

The referee and the touch judge talk and they penalise Delport.

The referee also in his judgement says that it was not considered “probable” that a try would have been scored. For that reason it was not a penalty try.

Could there still have been a yellow card?

Yes.

6. Do you agree?

When the Valke played the Golden Lions in Brakpan, the penalty count was remarkable – 12 to the Valke and just one to the Golden Lions. The one against the Valke happened after seven minutes. For 73 minutes they went unpenalised.

Of the 12 penalties against the Golden Lions, nine were at the tackle.

In the second half the referee engaged Jacques Cronje in conversation about the penalties.

Referee: “There are too many penalties at the tackle. Do you agree.”

Cronje: “Yes.”

Referee: “Now that you agree, you need to do something about it.”

Hard to beat the logic of that!