Currie Cup, Week 6, law incidents

The Currie Cup is developing into a two-horse race and after Saturday’s match in the wind and the rain of Durban the leading horse has increased his lead. We have some incidents from the week to make a law discussion.

We shall also do a bit of a discussion on incidents from the Test between England and Wales on which we have given statistics.

There are also some clips of incidents from the Currie Cup and the Twickenham match on the SA Referees’ site – www.sarefereesw.co.za.

1. Catching the penalty

The Valke are awarded a penalty just inside the Western Province half but in front of the posts. Mark Harris of the Valke kicks at goal. It is straight enough but short. As gravity pulls it down, tall Roos Skeate of Western Province jumps up and catches the ball. He passes it to Tonderai Chavhanga who kicks for touch.

OK?

Yes – provided that the ball was really dropping short.

If it had not been, Skeate would have been liable to penalty.

Law 9.A.2 (d) Any player who touches the ball in an attempt to prevent a penalty goal being scored is illegally touching the ball.
Penalty: Penalty Kick

Say – just say, as it was not the case here – the referee and touch judges had been uncertain whether the kick would have gone over but for Skeate’s intervention, were they allowed to consult the television match official?

Yes.

2. Diving on

We have two cases that are not at the tackle.

a. Conrad Jantjes of Western Province goes on the best counterattack run of the Currie Cup this year. From his own 22 he races down the middle of the field till he is clear. Clear but being hauled in by Mark Harris, he passes to Britz and the big flank races ahead, diving over under the crossbar.

Akuila Nawecagi of the Valke dives on Britz who has scored the try and is lying on the ground.

What do you do about it?

It is illegal to dive on a player lying on the ground. The sanction for that is a penalty.

If you wanted to penalise Nawecagi, when and where would you do so?

You would do what the referee did in this case – allow the conversion to take place and then penalise the Valke in the middle of the half-way line.

Law 10.4 (l) Misconduct while the ball is out of play.

The penalty is the same as for sections 10.4 (a)-(k) except that the penalty kick is awarded at the place where play would restart. If that place is on the touch-line or within 15 metres of it, the mark for the penalty kick is on the 15-metre line, in line with that place.

Play would have restarted with a kick-off at the middle of the half-way line.

Nawecagi’s action really is folly. What he did could not have prevented a try. All it could have achieved was to injure Britz.

There was an interesting variation of this in the Sharks-Cheetahs match. Patrick Cilliers scored a try, taking Cheetahs with him. After he had scored Keegan Daniel dived on Corniel van Zyl well after the try was scored. This annoyed Van Zyl. The referee would have been within the letter-of-the-law to have penalised Daniel.

b. The Sharks are hot on the attack when somehow the Cheetahs win a turn-over and immediately come breaking out of defence going left – over the half-way line and into the Sharks territory with a try looking possible but Rory Kockott of the Sharks manages to ankletap Eddie Fredericks of the Cheetahs. Not held Fredericks falls to the ground beyond Kockott.

Keegan Daniel of the Sharks makes for Fredericks and drops down on/over him. The referee penalises Daniel.

Right?

Yes?

Law 14.2 (b) Falling over the player on the ground with the ball. A player must not intentionally fall on or over a player with the ball who is lying on the ground.
Penalty: Penalty Kick

The crowd were angry and, we are told, some threw bottles. Several booed, as they had done several times during the match. Throwing bottles and booing is ugly and impossible to justify. Not that the decision was entirely accurate.

The referee said that Daniel’s infringement had been to come in from the side. But that sanction is applied only at the tackle or the ruck. This was not a tackle, as Fredericks was not held, and it was not a ruck because Daniel was first on the scene. He was entitled to come in at an angle. He was not entitled to fall on or over Fredericks.

Nobody is entitled to be rude and nasty.

3. Where do we stand?

The Sharks are penalised five metres from their goal-line. Willem de Waal of the Cheetahs decides to kick at goal. He takes the kick back towards the 22.

What is the nearest to De Waal that the Sharks’ players are allowed to stand?

Their own goal-line.

The 10 metres is measured from the mark, that is the place of infringement. It is not measured from where the kicker kicks. If the goal-line is within 10 metres of the mark then the offending team need be on or behind their goal-line.

4. Just dangerous

Keegan Daniel of the Sharks charges straight ahead. Marius Joubert of the Cheetahs tackles him around the thighs and lifts him up. Daniel’s head is slightly below the horizontal and he falls to ground with Joubert still holding onto him and – depending on your view – falling with him or driving him into the ground.

Joubert does not see Daniel safely to ground. The referee sends Joubert to the sin bin.

The previous week Morne Steyn of the Blue Bulls had been sent off and suspended for a tackle on Jacques Botes. It was a more dangerous tackle in that Botes’s head was lower and liable to hit the ground first.

Commentator 1:“You will have heard the shout from the touch judge Yellow. If it’s regarded as a spear tackle and not just a dangerous tackle, then that’s the wrong call.”

Commentator 2: “If it’s just dangerous maybe he’s lucky that he did not follow it through.”

It may be playing with words, but the “spear tackle” gets no mention at all in law. In law there is mention only of a dangerous tackle. Examples of the dangerous tackle are given – around the neck or head, stiff arm, player without the ball and player in the air. There is no definition of a spear tackle and no prescription that says every tackle which lifts and tops a ball-carrier must automatically get a red card.

Comparisons were inevitably made with Morne Steyn who received a red card and with Tom Shanklin of Wales who received no card. The degree of sanction beyond the penalty is for the referee to decide, for no two tackles are exactly the same, no two tackles equally dangerous.

Just a dangerous tackle is not a good concept.

5. Shenanigans in the maul?

Western Province have a line-out five metres from the Valke line. They throw deep to Gerrie Britz and the Western Province players make a maul. Caught up in the maul and close to Britz as he swings round in the maul is the Valke lock Nico Luus. He is next to Britz and between Britz and the Western Province scrumhalf. Luus gets the ball and passes it out of the maul to his team-mate Hein Potgieter who starts an attack from the Valke.

Off-side?

No.

As long was Luus got into his position legally and was caught up in the maul, he was there and acting legally.

6. Me to you to me at the quick throw

Riaan Viljoen of the Valke kicks the ball downfield. It goes into touch and then bounces back into the field of play. Naas Olivier of Western Province picks up the ball in the field of play and throws it to Tonderai Chavhanga who is in touch. Chavhanga then throws the ball back to Olivier who kicks downfield.

OK?

No.

Law 19.2 (d) For a quick throw-in, the player must use the ball that went into touch. If, after it went to touch and was made dead, another ball is used, or if another person has touched the ball apart from the player throwing it in, then the quick throw-in is disallowed. The same team throws in at the line-out.

The ball was the right ball but after it went into touch, Olivier touched the ball and he was not the player who threw it in.

To help the referee in such a case the touch judge would keep his flag up.

Law 6.B.5 Exception 3: When, at a quick throw-in, the ball that went into touch is replaced by another ball, or after it went into or it has been touched by anyone except the player who takes the throw-in, the touch judge keeps the flag up.

7. Jumping on the bandwagon

The Blue Bulls have a line-out five metres from the Boland line. They make a maul which becomes a fairly static thing with the ball well protected away from the Boland players. Coenie Basson, the Boland lock, finds it hard to get to the ball. He launches himself, but to no avail. He launches himself again, landing on top of the maul.

Commentator: “You can’t do that.”

And the referee told Basson that he was not allowed to do that. He stopped doing it.

Law 17.2 (f) A player must not jump on top of a maul.
Penalty: Penalty Kick

8. Obstruction, but

Odwa Ndungane of the Sharks runs on an arc out of his 22 but bangs into Grant Rees of the Sharks who is watching this happen as Jannie du Plessis, Willem de Waal and Corniel van Zyl close in on Ndungane. The referee penalises Rees for obstruction.

Law 10.1 OBSTRUCTION

(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

(c) Blocking the tackler. A player must not intentionally move or stand in a position that prevents an opponent from tackling a ball carrier.

There was obstruction in that Rees was ahead of Ndungane who ran into him and made it hard for Du Plessis to get to Ndungane. In fact the Cheetah tackled Rees.

But a penalty?

Rees, clearly, did not stand where he stood intentionally to obstruct. He was caught there by Ndungane’s strange path.

There is a provision in law for this kind of action.

Law 11.6 ACCIDENTAL OFF-SIDE

(a) When an off-side player cannot avoid being touched by the ball or by a team-mate carrying it, the player is accidentally off-side. If the player’s team gains no advantage from this, play continues. If the player’s team gains an advantage, a scrum is formed with the opposing team throwing in the ball.

The scrum looks the right way to go.

9. The end justifies the means?

The ball is bobbing about with several places at close quarters. The middle of the three Sharks Rory Kockott kicks the ball ahead down towards the Cheetahs’ goal line. Brad Barritt races after the ball as Philip Burger of the Cheetahs races back for the ball. Burger knocks the ball over his goal-line and then he and Barritt scramble to ground the ball.

The referee – understandably – refers the matter to the television match official, asking him to check two things, first the grounding of the ball and secondly whether Barritt was in front of Kockott when Kockott kicked the ball.

TMO: To answer your first question – the grounding of the ball – the ball was not grounded by the Black player. It was touched down by White but the Black player was in front of the kicker.

[Black = Shark; White = Cheetah]

The referee then penalised Barritt where he went off-side.

That was certainly the right decision but the means by which it was reached was outside of the protocol the International Rugby Board has laid down for television match officials.

That protocol allows the TMO to advise only on the actual grounding of the ball.

2.1 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
Dropped goal.

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 must not be asked to assist in any other decision other than those listed including acts of foul play in the act of grounding the ball or otherwise.

Advice on whether Barritt was off-side or not is specifically excluded by the protocol and yet that advice was most helpful here. The officials may have been wrong in terms of the protocol even though they were right in terms of justice!

Had the advice been limited to the grounding of the ball, there would have been a five-metre scrum to the Sharks. That would have been legally right but would have ignored the fact that Barritt was in fact off-side.

Imagine the outcry if the off-side had been overlooked – with the means to get it right available – and it had decided the World Cup Final. Perhaps the protocol needs tweaking to extend the scope of the area of jurisdiction when a try may have been scored.

Bless the referee for not guessing but trying to make sure.