Incidents - June, Week 1

There were four matches, called Tests, between teams chosen from the Northern Hemisphere and those chosen in the Southern Hemisphere which provide us with comes incidents for discussing the laws.

The matches were labelled New Zealand vs France, Australia vs Wales, South Africa vs England and Argentina vs Ireland.

We have already given some statistics from the matches and we have noted especially the poor condition scrummaging is in, an illness which could be terminal.

We have placed some incidents which we shall include here on www.sareferees.co.za where there are clips of the incidents.

1. I?

Australia play Wales. The scrums are not as great a problem as they were elsewhere but still trouble enough.

The referee says: “I want you square.”

You will have heard it elsewhere as well. I want or I’m not going to…… That sort of thing.

Does it matter what the referee wants or won’t put up with? Isn’t it what rugby and its laws want?

2. Advantage

Playing advantage is so hard and is best judged by hindsight powered by slo-mo.

Look to the Law first, then to the incidents:

Law 8.1 ADVANTAGE IN PRACTICE

(a) The referee is sole judge of whether or not a team has gained an advantage. The referee has wide discretion when making decisions.

(b) Advantage can be either territorial or tactical.

(c) Territorial advantage means a gain in ground.

(d) Tactical advantage means freedom for the non-offending team to play the ball as they wish.

Here are some incidents:

a. New Zealand attack down the right. Leon MacDonald sends big Joe Rokocoko dashing for the line. The French bravely haul him down right at the line. The All Blacks win the tackle/ruck and pass the ball back to Sitiveni Sivivatu about six metres from the French line. Sivivatu knocks on. The ball rolls to a metre or two from the French line where defender Jean- Francois Coux, socks down, approaches the ball as Sivivatu approaches him. Coux flykicks the ball up the field where Daniel; Carter, just outside the French 22 gets the ball and starts running down the left. The All Blacks attack again and France are penalised for being off-side. Carter goals.

What about the knock-on?

b. France have the ball going left in about midfield. The scrumhalf Nicolas Durand passes infield to Olivier Magne who is darting inwards. Magne knocks on. Ali Williams helps to set up a tackle/ruck. The ball comes back to Piri Weepu. He passes to Keven Mealamu who sums up the situation, steps and darts and sets up another tackle/ruck. The ball comes back to Weepu who passes to Daniel Carter who passes to Chris Masoe. Up steps Sebastien Chabal, hair streaming, and cuts Masoe in half with the biggest tackle of the match. The referee goes back to Magne’s knock-on.

What about advantage?

c. New Zealand kick off to start the second half and win the kick-off. Carl Hayman gives to Nick Evans who darts ahead and off-loads to Chris Masoe who knocks on,. The ball goes about five metres forward where scrumhalf Nicolas Durand picks up the ball as Ali Williams thunders at him. He passes to Ludovic Valbon who has space. As Durand passes to Valbon, the referee calls “Advantage over.”

What about b. above?

d. Australia go left and Julien Huxley tries to pass the ball to his left. What he produces is a mixture between a forward pass and a knock-on. But Robert Sidoli of Wales intercepts and immediately goes to ground to set up the tackle/ruck. The ball comes back to the Welsh scrumhalf Mike Phillips. Phillips looks to pass to his left, changes his mind and instead kicks from about his 10-metre line to about eight metres outside the Australian 22 where Drew Mitchell catches the ball. The referee blows and gives a scrum to Wales for Huxley’s error.

What about a.?

Right – admit. It’s much easier to judge afterwards.

In a. it would seem that Coux did have options – to flykick the ball, pick it up and get smashed by Sivivatu, fall on it and hope that your players can get back to you. He was under dire pressure. He, who had the best chance to play the ball, could clearly not play the ball as he wished. That ruled out tactical advantage.

The gain in ground of 20 or so metres was not really advantage as it merely transferred possession to the attacking All Blacks. There was nothing like the territorial gain that existed in d. where the ball travelled further downfield and to a team mildly defending.

In b. Weepu got good ball but chose to pass to Mealamu. Mealamu had the option to pass. Weepu had even better options off the second tackle/ruck. Carter had options. He was not under pressure to pass to Masoe.

Now that would seem to be tactical advantage, at least as good as the pass to Valbon in c. when the advantage was immediately called over.

In d., too, Phillips had options, better than poor Coux had had

It’s so easy in retrospect, but retrospect can perhaps clarify our thoughts on advantage.

3. Five scrumming minutes

Near the end of the first half in Buenos Aires, Ireland actually got over the Pumas’ line but Bryan Young was held up. That produced a five-metre scrum to Ireland. For the next five minutes the sequence of events was – scrum, reset, scrum, free kick, scrum, reset, reset, penalty, scrum, reset, penalty, scrum, reset, reset. Eight times the scrum collapsed. It all took from 32 minutes 54 seconds to 37 minutes 55 seconds.

The commentators wondered about a penalty try.

There is only one reason for awarding a penalty try – when foul play prevents the probable scoring of a try. It is not a sanction for repeated infringement.

Apparently the referee’s judgement was that there was not in this sequence when a try was probable.

That would seem a fair judgement if you looked at the scrums:

a. Straight down, Ireland leading.
b. collapse – free kick against Argentina the referee telling them to go up not down. The free kick was presumably given under the heads below hips requirement, because collapsing is a penalty.
d. Wheel and the second row goes down. That did not look like a probable try.
e. Ireland hooked and had barely nudged forward when the scrum was collapsed, Argentina leading. The referee penalised.
f. collapse before the ball was in, Ireland leading.
g. collapse but the referee let the ball come out. Ireland had the ball but the Argentinian scrumhalf was penalised for going off-side.
h. Ireland went forward, but the scrum wheeled and collapsed.
I. collapse before the ball was in.
j. The scrum collapsed but the referee let the ball come out and the Irish inched wider to their right, here ending the scrums in that churned-up place.

It is tedious and dangerous but it did not seem that at any of those occasions a try was probable.

4. Habana’s hand

England are attacking, going right, on the South African 22. As Bryan Habana comes off his line, they have an overlap of two. Mike Brown passes to Nick Easter with Dan Scarbrough on the outside.

Habana comes forward, his right arm towards Brown, his left arm out. His hand knocks the ball forward – a long way forward.

The referee penalises Habana for a deliberate knock-on and sends him to the sin bin.

Law 12.1 (e) Intentional knock-on or throw forward. A player must not intentionally knock the ball forward with hand or arm, nor throw forward.
Penalty: Penalty kick. A penalty try must be awarded if the offence prevents a try that would probably have been scored.

Habana certainly knocked the ball on. It is just a matter of whether it was intentional or not. The referee is not required to be a mind-reader or a judge of morality. That Habana put just one hand out for the ball, suggests that catching was not the top priority. It would have been a great feat to catch that passed ball with one hand.

Habana is looking at the ball as his hand goes to it, which adds to the suggestion that his intention was to play the ball.

The case for an intentional knock-on is a good one.

In this case the try was possible but certainly not probable.

5. Insufficient try

Olivier Magne of France kicks a gentle diagonal into the New Zealand in-goal. Jean-Francois Coux sets off after the ball which is sitting benignly in the in-goal with no danger of going dead. Joe Rokocoko of New Zealand is behind Coux and grabs the Frenchman before he gets to the ball.

Coux does get to the ball and grounds it.

Penalty try?

The referee consults the television match official on two grounds -the grounding of the ball and foul play in in-goal by Rokocoko.

The TMO reports that Coux did ground the ball and Rokocoko did tackle early, which is foul play.

Penalty try?

Law 10 A penalty try must be awarded if the offence prevents a try that would probably otherwise have been scored. A player who prevents a try being scored through foul play must either be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off.

The try was scored.

There is an irony. If Coux had not played as well as he did and not scored the try, his team would have had a penalty try – a try in a more advantageous position. Coux played so well that he denied his side two points!

Law 22.16 (b) The referee awards a penalty try if a try would probably have been scored in a better position but for foul play by the defending team.

That does not apply here. Even if Rokocoko had not touch Coux, Coux would have scored exactly where he did, just with a bit less strain.

6. Knock down

Australia are getting the ball back from a tackle/ruck. The ball is at Daniel Vickerman’s feet. George Gregan picks it up and Mike Phillips of Wales nips in and knocks the ball from Gregan’s hands. He is penalised.

The reason for the penalty is not immediately clear.

There is no ruck, because Vickerman is standing clear at the back.

Phillips does not knock the ball forward. In fact he knocks it well back to his side.

The only possible reason for the penalty would have been that Phillips had been off-side before the ball came to Vickerman’s feet.

7. Passing the mark

Aaron Mauger of New Zealand kicks down towards the French goal-line where Benjamin Thiery catches the ball and claims a mark, which he is awarded. He starts to kick and Chris Jack of New Zealand charges in.

Jack grabs Thiery who passes to Sebastien Chabal. The referee blows his whistle and awards a scrum to New Zealand. Thiery is upset and tries to explain to the referee that he had not yet kicked the ball. The referee stands by his decision.

The referee was right to do so.

A mark produces a free kick which the catcher must take.

Law 21.8 (e) Charging the free kick. Once they have retired the necessary distance, players of the opposing team may charge and try to prevent the kick being taken. They may charge the free kick as soon as the kicker starts to approach to kick.

(f) Preventing the free kick. If the opposing team charge and prevent the free kick being taken, the kick is disallowed. Play restarts with a scrum at the mark. The opposing team throw in the ball.

8. Ground, grounding and Sivivatu

Sitiveni Sivivatu of New Zealand heads for the French line. He is knocked to the ground, but not held. With a knee still on the ground he pushes himself towards the line. This time a French play holds him and he goes to ground. On the ground he pushes off his knees and stretches out to get the ball over the line.

The referee consults the touch judge and then the television match official. After receiving the advice, the referee penalises Sivivatu.

When Sivivatu was not held, he did not have to release the ball but was entitled to get up with it. He did not do that. Having a knee on the ground meant he was on the ground. If he had got up off the ground he could have moved towards the goal line.

When he was held, Sivivatu was entitled to place the ball on the line. That would entail an action of his arms. He was not entitled to propel his body/torso towards the goal-line.

The referee was right for two reasons.