Incidents Tri-Nations, Wk 6
The Tri-Nations has come and rushed to its end in wet Eden Park. It has been a strange Tri-Nations as there has been always one eye on the World Cup. But still we have law incidents to discuss.
There are clips of three of the incidents on www.sareferees.co.za, which may help in visualisation.
We have given statistics of the matches.
We shall, separately, discuss some incidents from the Currie Cup match between Western Province and the Blue Bulls at Newlands.
We also have had a little reaction to the thoughts two readers have had recently. We shall publish them separately as well.
Even in this fallow week, there is a lot to talk about.
1. Uneasy scrums
The scrums were again difficult. There were 21 awarded. Three went ahead without further intervention. There were 9 resets, 12 collapses, and three penalties.
One scrum was five metres from Australia’s line. It fell down four times. On the fourth occasion the ball was emerging and the referee let play go on, which seemed wise lest that scrum go on to the crack of the final whistle. As it was that scrum took 2 minutes and 30 seconds from award to ball playable. It followed immediately after a TMO consultation which took 1 min 43 secs. That meant that there was a period of 4 minutes 13 seconds in which no rugby was played.
Lots of drama though!
It would be a grievous pity if this state of affairs went into the World Cup.
At that five-metre scrum Matt Dunning went down four times. On three of those four times he was the only player down. The charitable referee spoke about slipping. “Both sides are slipping.” That seemed a soft option.
Early when the referee had penalised Dunning for not binding at a scrum, Dunning was clearly upset. But his arm was not up in the scrum at any stage but straight down on the ground.
2. Taking the maul down
Keith Robinson of New Zealand wins the ball in a line-out. New Zealand form a maul on him and drive it ahead. The maul stops, some players fall and the referee says: “Taken down by Black.”
OK?
If you were a pedant you would say, “No. It’s not OK.”
Law 17.2 (e) A player must not intentionally collapse a maul. This is dangerous play.
Penalty: Penalty Kick
Have you ever seen a penalty given if the ball-carrying side collapses a maul? It is a technique to avoid losing the put-in if the maul becomes unsuccessful.
Does this fall within the realm of the fair contest?
3. He threw it away
Adam Ashley-Cooper of Australia gets his feet in a tangle and puts an innocuous New Zealand kick into touch. Challenged by Doug Howlett, his flips the ball over the low advertising hoardings to make it hard for Howlett to have a quick throw-in from touch, which seemed Howlett’s avowed intent.
The referee penalised Ashley-Cooper 15 metres in from touch.
Correct?
Yes.
4. Ref in the way
Adam Ashley-Cooper of Australia sets off on a counterattack. He gets past two New Zealanders and is stumbling as he fall against and past the referee, grabbing him to steady himself. The referee waits for developments.
Commentator: “I thought when the ball touches the referee, the whistle goes and you’re into it.”
That used to be the case. If the ball or the ball-carrier touched the referee play stopped.. That went back to 1885: The ball is dead if it touches an Umpire or Referee, and scrummaged on the spot.”
In 1892 the law was extended to include the ball-carrier: If the ball or a player running with the ball touches the Referee it shall be put down there.
In 1898 it was decided that if the ball-carrier touched the referee in the opponents’ in-goal, a try was awarded where the player touched the referee.
1911: If the ball not in possession of a player strikes the Referee or touch judge when in ingoal, a try should be scored for the attacking side, if in the Referee’s opinion a try would undoubtedly have been obtained but for the ball touching the Referee or touch judge; other wise a drop out from the twenty-five yards should be awarded.
That changed in 1958 with addition of the words: Unless the referee considered that neither team has gained an advantage in which case he shall allow play to proceed. In 1959 the paragraph was rewritten to read: If the ball or a player carrying it touches the referee in the field-of-play, he shall allow play to proceed unless he considers that either team has gained an advantage by reason of his being so touched. If he considers that an advantage has been gained for that reason he shall order a scrummage.
1958! That was just before the commentator in question was born!
2007: Law 6.A.10 THE BALL TOUCHING THE REFEREE
(a) If the ball or the ball-carrier touches the referee and neither team gains an advantage, play continues.
(b) If either team gains an advantage in the field-of-play, the referee orders a scrum and the team that last played the ball has the throw-in.
(c) If either team gains an advantage in in-goal, if the ball is in possession of an attacking player the referee awards a try where the contact took place.
(d) If either team gains an advantage in in-goal, if the ball is in possession of a defending player, the referee awards a touch-down where the contact took place.
5. Play with your head
Rugby players have been known to boast that the difference between rugby and soccer is that rugby is played with the inside of the head.
Daniel Carter of New Zealand breaks. Tackled he pops the ball back to where Richie McCaw, with several Australians in attendance, bursts towards the ball. Suddenly the ball changes direction and bounces back in the direction of Carter. Isaia Toeava gets the ball and there is the promise of a try in the New Zealand running.
The referee, whose communication was excellent, calls them back for a scrum, saying: “It’s a very close call, but that’s how I saw it.”
The ball struck McCaw’s head and bounced forward. Knock-on?
Law 12 DEFINITION – KNOCK-ON
A knock-on occurs when a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, or when a player hits the ball forward with the hand or arm, or when the ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, and the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it.
Head is not hand or arm and so no knock-on.
There used to be a pleasant note to referees in the law book telling them that if there was any doubt they were not to blow the whistle.
Sadly there is more criticism of an infringement missed than an infringement manufactured.
Imagine if New Zealand had scored, as well they might have, from this play. Imagine how upset the whole of Australia would have been.
This ‘error’ favoured Australia and there has been no complaint.
7. Carried back again
Last week we had Piri Weepu picking up the ball outside his 22, stepping back and kicking from inside his 22 and the line-out was opposite the place where he kicked the ball.
It was different this week. Luke McAlister kicked a high ball down towards the Australian 22. The Australian fullback, Adam Ashley-Cooper did not judge the flight of the ball all that well and was reaching back for it. He was just outside his 22, the ball just inside his 22 but in the air. Ashley-Cooper played the ball which bounced inside the 22. The fullback collected the ball. ran forward and from just inside his 22 kicked out on the full.
The line-out was given opposite the place where he kicked.
Right?
Yes.
Law 19.1 (b) Player takes the ball into that team’s 22. When a defending player gets the ball outside the 22, takes or puts it inside the 22 and then kicks directly into touch, there is no gain of ground.
