Hore's 'try'

A tough TMO

Just before half-time in the match between New Zealand and South Africa at the Royal Bafokeng Sports Palace outside the mining town of Rustenburg, with the All Blacks trailing 13-10, New Zealand hooker Andrew Hore dives under the South African posts and clearly grounds the ball. But the referee asks the television match official for his advice.

Let's rewind a little. André Pretorius, under pressure, clears poorly and Doug Howlett counters sharply. The ball comes to Daniel Carter who does a switch with golden-topped Jerry Collins.

Collins runs swerving forward, past John Smit, past Pedrie Wannenburg, away from AJ Venter and past Jaque Fourie en route to the Springbok posts.

Young Pierre Spies fells Collins.

Chris Jack picks up the ball and charges virtually to the line where his is pulled down by Jaque Fourie and Jean de Villiers. There is a tackle/ruck.

What happens now is written slowly but the speed of the actual happening was a split second.

Andrew Hore picks up the ball. Jean de Villiers is straight in front of him. Rodney So’oialo comes from Hore's left, puts his right arm around De Villiers's neck and pulls him away and backwards.This created a hole for Hore who dives over the line, the ball well grounded.

The referee sees this happen as it is right in front of him.

He then consults the television match official, saying: "Make sure – the ball was grounded – that there was no obstruction in front of the player. Make sure there was no obstruction in in-goal."

The referee clearly suspects obstruction but would like to have it confirmed, for it is a big decision.

The TMO has several looks and then gives his calm advice: "Chris, I have a decision for you. There is obstruction by Eight Black."

The referee blows his whistle and announces the verdict with the appropriate gesture: "No.8 Black – obstruction in front of the player."

He then awards a penalty to South Africa five metres from their line.

There are lots of points of law in all of this, which makes for an interesting discussion.

First, was the referee entitled to refer the matter to the TMO?

The TMO is not written into law. He could not be as the Laws of the Game are framed for rugby at all levels. The TMO's modus operandi is governed by a protocol. Included in that protocol is the following:

c) 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.

Foul play in in-goal that affects the scoring of a try falls within the TMO's jurisdiction. The referee was within his rights to refer the matter to the TMO.

Law 10 deals with foul play, which has many forms. One of those is obstruction. In fact obstruction is the first form of foul play the law deals with.

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.
Penalty: Penalty Kick

Let's just stick with obstruction and not dwell on the arm around the neck or the possible side entry, because obstruction was the crux of the matter.

So’oialo certainly acts in front of Hore. He certainly prevents De Villiers from stopping Hore. He opens up a gate for Hore. (Whether Hore would still have got through De Villiers is not relevant to the law.)

That suggests that there is a case of obstruction. But what about the dubious practice of "cleaning out" at the tackle/ruck? And by the way, joining a ruck requires binding onto the ruck with at least one arm around the bodyb of a team-mate, using the whole arm.

The sequence of events looks to be as follows:

i) Hore gets hands on the ball.
ii) Hore picks up the ball.
iii) So’oialo takes De Villiers out.
iv) Hore goes through to ground the ball over the line.

Hore's hands on the ball suggest that any ruck was over. When he picked up the ball, it was certainly over and the tackle was over.It was now general play. De Villiers was just a player not in possession of the ball, therefore not a player who could legally be tackled.

If that were not the case we could have people clearing a path for the ball-carrier at every tackle/ruck and add to the appearance of gridiron.

If we accept that there was obstruction, then one question remains: Did it happen in in-goal?

If it did not happen in in-goal but in the field of play, then it happened outside of the TMO's jurisdiction.

When So’oialo grabs De Villiers, it would seem that De Villiers had at least one foot on the line. In that case he was in in-goal. He is then taken further back into the in-goal.

So’oialo's action certainly takes him (So'oialo) into the South African in-goal for he goes beyond De Villiers, pulling him backwards and down and out of Hore's way.

That suggests that the obstruction happened in in-goal and was part and parcel of the grounding of the ball.

Last point.

Advised by the TMO that there was obstruction the referee then gave the penalty five metres from the South African line.

Right place?

Law 22.15 INFRINGEMENTS IN IN-GOAL

All infringements in the in-goal are treated as if they had taken place in the field-of-play. A knock-on or a throw-forward in the in-goal results in a 5-metre scrum, opposite the place of infringement.

Penalty: For an infringement, the mark for a penalty kick or free kick cannot be in the in-goal. When a penalty kick or free kick is awarded for an infringement in the In-goal, the mark for the kick is in the field-of-play, 5 metres from the goal-line, opposite the place of infringement.

Being a TMO is not a sinecure!