Kicking out in the NZ final
Try?
We have just had two Southern Hemisphere Finals – the Currie Cup in South Africa and the Air New Zealand Cup. They were both tense affairs on the field, both colourful fiestas off the field, both with top referees. We are going here to look at just one incident from one of the matches, an interesting incident.
Later we shall look at one or two other things and look at what some readers have to say.
We shall also this week look at some reaction to some suggested law changes.
Kicking out
At half-time in the Air New Zealand Cup Final, Waikato led 17-13. The match was evenly poised.
Early in the second half Waikato attack down the right but Mils Muliaina knocks on near touch and about 10 metres from the Wellington line.
That produces a scrum to Wellington five metres in from touch and 10 metres from their line. In setting the scrum the referee takes up a position on the field side, i.e. on Wellington's tighthead side of the scrum.
The touch judge is on the touch-line, level with the scrum, thus about five metres from the action in the scrum.
Piri Weepu puts in and the ball goes slightly to Wellington's side, between the feet of prop John Schwalger, who had started at tighthead but moved to the loosehead when Joe McDonell went off with an injured back. The scrum wheels slightly towards Wellington's right as Waikato put pressure on.
On the right flank for Waikato is their captain Steven Bates. He reaches out a long right leg and quite deliberately kicks the ball which then shoots out of the back of the scrum towards the Wellington goal-line where Waikato scrumhalf Byron Kelleher dives on the ball and grounds it.
The referee consults the television match official, asking him if Kelleher knocked on in grabbing the ball.
The advice from the TMO is that Kelleher had not knocked on, and so the referee awarded the try.
OK?
What about kicking the ball out of the scrum?
The Law talks about kicking the ball out of the scrum:
Law 20.8 FRONT-ROW PLAYERS
(c) Kicking-out. A front-row player must not voluntarily kick the ball out of the tunnel in the direction from which it was thrown in.
Penalty: Free Kick
(d) If the ball is kicked out involuntarily, the same team must throw it in again.
(e) If the ball is repeatedly kicked out, the referee must treat this as voluntary and penalise the offender.
Penalty: Free Kick
These do not apply to Bates as he is not a front row player.
Law 20.9 (g) Scrum-half: Kicking in the scrum. A scrum-half must not kick the ball while it is in the scrum.
Penalty: Penalty Kick
This does not apply to Bates as he is not a scrumhalf.
But there are laws which do apply to Bates.
First, there is the matter of binding:
Law 20.3 (f) Binding by all other players. All players in a scrum, other than front-row players, must bind on a lock's body with at least one arm. The locks must bind with the props in front of them. No player other than a prop may hold an opponent.
Penalty: Penalty Kick
Law 20.3 3 BINDING IN THE SCRUM DEFINITION
When a player binds on a team-mate that player must use the whole arm from hand to shoulder to grasp the team-mate’s body at or below the level of the armpit. Placing only a hand on another player is not satisfactory binding.
Binding applies to Bates. He had to have the whole of his left arm around his lock (Keith Robinson) and keep it there, from hand to shoulder, making lunging forward difficult even with an telescopic leg.
Secondly there is the positioning of the flank:
Law 20.1 (f) Each front row must have three players in it, no more and no less. Two locks must form the second row.
Penalty: Penalty Kick
That applies to Bates. He was not allowed to slip up from the lock and attach himself to his tighthead (Nathan White).
Thirdly there is the business of getting involved in the tunnel:
Law 20.9 (f) Locks and flankers: Staying out of the tunnel. A player who is not a front-row player must not play the ball in the tunnel.
Penalty: Free Kick
That applies to Bates. He was not allowed to stick his foot into the tunnel of the scrum and kick the ball.
Let's see what Bates seems to do.
1. He is certainly not continuously bound around his lock from hand to shoulder.
2. His hand/arm goes up onto the shoulder of his tighthead White.
3. He puts his foot into the tunnel to play the ball which is virtually in the tunnel.
It would seem that there is a case to penalise Bates.
Presumably if tighthead Nathan White or hooker Tiom Willis had kicked the ball while it was at Schwalger's feet, play would have gone on because they could so so without unbinding and so on.
But that is not all.
Byron Kelleher, the Waikato scrumhalf, moves to his right. He actually goes beyond (i.e. nearer the Wellington goal-line) the ball before Bates kicks it and is beyond the ball when Bates kicks it.
Law 20.12 12 OFF-SIDE AT THE SCRUM DEFINITION
At a scrum, the off-side line for the scrum-halves runs through the line of the ball in the scrum.
(c) When a team has won the ball in a scrum, the scrum-half of the opposing team is off-side if that scrum-half steps in front of the ball with either foot while the ball is still in the scrum.
Penalty: Penalty Kick on the off-side line
Kelleher may well have been off-side.
But that is not all.
Bates kicked the ball and the ball went straight ahead without appearing to strike any Wellingtonian en route to the goal-line.
When Bates kicked the ball, Kelleher was in front of the ball. If the ball did not ricochet off a Wellingtonian – and it appeared that it did not – then Kelleher was off-side when he set off after the ball because he was in front of a team-mate who kicked the ball.
What about the touch judge? you ask.
The touch judge must have had a good view of all of this. The referee – on the far side of the scrum – would not have had a good view of this.
But, if the touch judge had qualms about what Bates and Kelleher did, was he allowed to tell the referee about them?
It is not amongst the touch judge's duties as laid down in law, probably because not all matches have unattached touch judges. In fact only a tiny minority of matches have competent, unattached touch judges. But the custom in that tiny majority of matches is that they advise the referee on such things as knock-ons, forward passes, off-side, collapsed scrums and so on. That probably why at this scrum the referee felt confident enough to go to the far side of the scrum. He could well have expected advice from the touch judge.
Then, what about the television match official?
When the referee consulted the TMO, he said: "Can you just check that No.9 Red didn't lose the ball forward before he grounded it?"
[Red was the colour being used for Waikato.]
But why didn't he ask the TMO about what happened before?
The protocol as laid down by the International Rugby Board does not allow the TMO to advise on the build-up to the try. The protocol specifically forbids seeking such advice:
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.
And so it came about that the try was given. There may well have been reasons why the try should not have been given.
It is easy for us to examine it with replays, slow motion and pauses and we do so just because there are several interesting aspects of law to discuss.
