Incidents for Law Discussion - S14, Wk 11
This is the third bit of our law discussion for this week and the most interesting – the laws in action.
We shall also take some readers’ questions, including one from the IRB’s Under-19 World Championship.
So far this week we have had the stats for the six matches and a bit of comparison of resets involving the Super 14s of 2006 and 2007 and the pre-knock-out rounds of the Under-19 World Championship.
The first four on our list have clips on the SA Referees’ website – www.sareferees.co.za.
1. It looks off-side
The Bulls throw in deep at a line-out. Danie Rossouw rises up to catch the ball and two Bulls bind on him. Luke Watson of the Stormers goes beyond Rossouw and comes in at him from the Bulls’ side. The referee does not penalise Watson.
The referee was right not to penalise Watson. The throw was so deep that it was over the 15-metre line, which meant that the line-out was over, which meant that the off-side line along the line-of-touch no longer applied.
Secondly if Watson moved to where he did before a maul was formed, he was also not off-side.
Clever Watson!
2. Try or trying too hard?
Matt Giteau darts at the Chiefs line. He is tackled short of it but gets the ball up off the ground enough to stretch out and place it for the try.
It is a try.
Law 15.5 THE TACKLED PLAYER
(g) If players are tackled near to the goal-line, these players may immediately reach out and ground the ball on or over the goal-line to score a try and make a touch-down.
Giteau did not try to propel his body forward or to get up with the ball, which would have incurred a penalty. He simply stretched out and placed the ball for the try, as the Law allows him to do.
The commentators spoke of double movement, which is a confusing and ill considered concept. It should not be used.
3. Two obstructive cases
(i) Force prop Troy Takiari gets and inside pass near the touch line on his right and starts darting across the field like a butterfly. On his inside are wing Digby Ioane and three-quarter Scott Staniforth but he decides to do the running.
Ioane holds his advance so as not to be in front of Takiari and so does Staniforth. They are not in front of him.
An essential requirement for obstruction is that the obstructor be in front of the ball-carrier.
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.
Neither Ioane nor Staniforth moved in front of Takiari. In fact they made sure they did not. If they then were in the way of an opponent, that is the opponent’s misfortune.
The problem comes when Takiari veers off course behind Staniforth who was not himself doing anything wrong. But Steve Bates of the Chiefs is there as a would-be tackler though it seems he had committed himself to Staniforth as he, quite naturally, had expected Takiari to pass to Staniforth, which Takiari considered ill advised because Bates was onto Staniforth.
It would seem that the referee could consider a case of accidental off-side, especially if Takiari brushed Staniforth.
The law of accidental off-side needs to widen its scope.
(ii) Scott Staniforth of the Force has the ball as his side moves right. Nathan Sharpe runs across in front of Staniforth, across the path of Kristian Ormsby of the Chiefs and into Tanerau Latimer of the Chiefs.
Sharpe fulfils the conditions in (b) and (c) above.
The penalty for obstruction was a clear one.
4. Over the 22
The Bulls are to drop out. Derick Hougaard has the ball and starts his run-up well back from the 22 where Tiaan Liebenberg, the Stormers hooker, is waiting. As Hougaard runs forward, so does Liebenberg. The kick goes soaring down field and play goes on.
Was Liebenberg in the right?
No.
Law 13.17 THE OPPOSING TEAM
(a) The opposing team must not charge over the 22-metre line before the ball is kicked.
Penalty: Free Kick at the place of infringement
Then why did the referee not award a free kick?
Nothing enthusiastic Liebenberg did affected the kicker or the ball. His action may as well not have happened. There was no need to bring play back and have another kick.
5. Punched out
On an overlap on the left Peter Hynes of the Reds chips ahead. Lote Tuqiri of the Waratahs turns to chase. Hynes is slightly ahead but the ball bounces high and as Hynes reaches for it Tuqiri leans forward and punches the ball into touch.
When Tuqiri punches the ball it is about three metres in from touch and about three metres from the Waratahs’ goal-line.
OK?
Not at all. In fact it falls within the score of foul play – serious foul play.
Law 10.2 (c) Throwing into touch. A player must not intentionally knock, place, push or throw the ball with his arm or hand into touch, touch-in-goal, or over the dead-ball line.
Penalty: Penalty Kick on the 15-metre line if the offence is between the 15-metre line and the touch-line, or, at the place of the infringement if the offence occurred elsewhere in the field of play, or five metres from the goal-line and at least 15 metres from the touch-line if the infringement occurred in in-goal.
A penalty try must be awarded if the offence prevents a try that would probably otherwise have been scored.
Tuqiri was in the wrong and a penalty try was certainly possible because Hynes who had great impetus would probably have scored if Tuqiri had not knocked the ball into touch.
The argument that he could have tackled Hynes is a spurious one because he did not tackle Hynes. He punched the ball out and the consequences of that are clear.
But, of course, the referee needed a clear and definite view and three hands went for the bouncing ball.
6. Side OK?
Tom Willis of the Chiefs throws in at a line-out and burly young Aled de Malmanche grabs the ball and bursts away with it. Matt Hodgson of the Force dashes and tackles him from the side. Both go to ground, Hodgson on the side of De Malmanche and more or less level with his waist. Hodgson gets to his feet and grabs the ball.
OK?
Yes.
Being the tackler he is allowed to play from either side and is not obliged to go back through the gate.
7. Where’s the line-out?
Peter Grant of the Stormers drops out to his left. The ball travels directly into touch. Victor Matfield, the Bulls captain, opts for a line-out.
Is he allowed to?
Yes.
Where will the line-out be?
Law 13.14 BALL GOES DIRECTLY INTO TOUCH
The ball must land in the field-of-play. If it is kicked directly into touch, the opposing team has three choices:
To have another drop-out, or
To have a scrum at the centre of the 22-metre line, and they throw in the ball, or
To accept the kick. If they accept the kick, the throw-in is on the 22-metre line.
For many years the place of the line-out was where the ball went now. No more – as Matfield knew.
8. Quick throw-in
Reader: I do enjoy your Law Discussions so much.. perhaps it is just the hidden pedant in me.. but I like to think it is because it increases one’s enjoyment watching subsequent games
A question comes to mind regarding the “quick throw-in” and specifically the comment about refs being lenient on players holding onto the ball to prevent quick throw-ins. Isn’t it the case that for a quick throw-in to take place no-one can touch the ball except the would-be thrower-inner (?) after the ball has gone out. If, therefore, a player from the other team has the ball.. whether or not he attempts to hold it.. a quick throw-in can’t take place.. the foul.. or unsporting-like behaviour, presumably, would take place in the act of trying to touch a ball that was already out to stop a quick throw-in from taking place.. but I don’t recall having seen this too much..
anyway just a thought.
You wrote:
Law 19.2 QUICK THROW-IN
(b) For a quick throw-in, the player may be anywhere outside the field of play between the place where the ball went into touch and the player’s goal-line.
(g) At a quick throw-in, a player must not prevent the ball being thrown in 5 metres.
Penalty: Free Kick on 15-metre line
Referees may be lenient on players who stop quick play in this way – holding onto the ball in touch, throwing it into the crowd, standing slap in front of a would-be thrower. It negates the object of getting speed into the game. It is also annoying and liable to cause ill feeling.
The Law says:
(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.
Regards – Richard in Rome
Comment: The law allows for this.
Law 19.2 (h) If a player carrying the ball is forced into touch, that player must release the ball to an opposition player so that there can be a quick throw – in.
Penalty: Penalty Kick on 15 – metre line
This implies that a quick throw-in may take place if an opponent carried it out. But the other conditions apply – same ball, untouched by a team-mate, a spectator and so on.
8. Advantage
Reader: Could you explain the correct rule of the below question
I am not interested in the outcome of the games but just what the rules imply
a. In the Force v Lions Matt Henjak tackles a Lions player within the 10 metre from a quick penalty the ref played advantage Lions attack the line 6 to 8 times then the ref takes the Lions back for a shot at the post. When a ref plays advantage must a team get points is not 6 to 8 goes at the try line not enough
Also I have seen many quick taps taken close to the try line and the player tackled but I think this was the first time I have seen a yellow card for it . I know this is a professional foul but so were the other I have seen
b. In the Crusaders /Sharks game with the Crusaders on the attack the hooter went after which the Crusaders knock on should that not be the end of the game or can a ref let it go as long as he likes
Max
Comment: Advantage is purely at the discretion of the referee and is not beholden to numbers – whether of metres or “goes”.
In a. if the referee felt that the Lions at no time were free to play without pressure, in other words exercising their own choice, then he is quite entitled to go back. It is not a matter of points but of freedom to play which would amount to tactical advantage. But it’s hard to ignore the chance to score points in the case you give.
In b. the laws of the game do not end with the hooter. Play goes on and play includes advantage. If the Crusaders knocked on, there could still be advantage to the Sharks and then play would go on.
9. An early mark
Reader: Is it OK to call “Mark” when the ball is in the air and afterwards catch
the ball? Should the referee award this anticipated mark?
Thank you very much,
Aitzol Ezeiza – Basque Country
Comment: The law is clear. The catching and the calling must happen at the same time.
Law 18 DEFINITION To make a mark, a player must be on or behind that player’s 22-metre line. A player with one foot on the 22 metre line or behind it is considered to be ‘in the 22’. The player must make a clean catch direct from an opponent’s kick and at the same time shout “Mark!”.
10. Line-out too close
Reader: In the Under-19 semi-final between South Africa and Australia, a South African players carried the ball into touch near his own goal line. An Aussie player then took a quick throw-in. When he threw the ball in, he standing well inside the five-metre line (i.e. on the goal-line side). The Aussies touched down and the referee awarded the try. I thought line-outs are never taken within five metres from the goal line – or does that rule fall away for quick throw-ins?
Cheers, Robert Brand
Comment: A quick throw-in is not a line-out.
Law 19.2 QUICK THROW-IN
(b) For a quick throw-in, the player may be anywhere outside the field of play between the place where the ball went into touch and the player’s goal-line.
