Law Discussion - 10 February

Three Six Nations matches in Round 2 and lots to talk about, as Wales beat Scotland 30-15, France just beat Ireland 26-21 and England just beat Italy 23-19.

We have already given statistics of getting and using possession in Round 2 and we have discussed two controversial issues – Shane Williams’s try in the corner and the penalty try awarded to Ireland.

There are eight clips of incidents on www.sareferees.co.za which may well be of interest. We shall first talk about some other incidents.

<B>1. Their ball! </B>

Cedric Heymans of France kicks a high up-and-under and chases after the ball. Girvan Dempsey of Ireland catches the ball and immediately Heymans tackles him.

They both go to ground and other players gather. The referee decides that the ball is unplayable.

He gives the scrum to France because the tacklers were going forward.

Right?

Yes.

Law 15.8 <I>DOUBT ABOUT FAILURE TO COMPLY

If the ball becomes unplayable at a tackle and there is doubt about which player did not conform to law, the referee orders a scrum immediately with the throw-in by the team that was moving forward prior to the stoppage or, if no team was moving forward, by the attacking team. </i>

But it was from a kick, you say. Yes it was from a kick, but from a kick the ball goes to the catcher’s side only if there is a maul. There was no maul.

Ireland queried this and the referee said: “Not a maul. Tackler going forward.”

There is often an error in this situation.

The referee was right.

This happened after four minutes.

<B>2. Not 10m</B>

Ronan O’Gara kicks a penalty goal for Ireland and David Skrela kicks off for France. He kicks high to his right but the ball is dropping short of the Irish 10-metre line. Rob Kearney of Ireland dashes forward and catches the ball but loses it forward about a metre on the Irish side of the half-way line.

The referee does not blow his whistle but allows advantage to France.

Was the referee right?

Yes.

 Law 13.6 <I>KICK-OFF OF UNDER 10 METRES BUT PLAYED BY AN OPPONENT

If the ball does not reach the opponent’s 10-metre line but is first played by an opponent, play goes on. </i>

This happens around 18 minutes in.

<B>3. Knock-on?</B>

Italy work an overlap to Kaine Robertson on their right wing. He races ahead and is bearing down on England’s Iain Balshaw.

Robertson shapes to chip just as Jamie Noon dives and ankle-taps Robertson.

The ball goes forward and the referee does not blow his whistle.

It seems a gross error till you see the slow-motion replay.

Robertson did not lose possession, for he was wanting to kick the ball. As he stumbles from the ankle-tap he does what he set out to do – kick the ball. It’s not a great kick but clearly a kick.

This happens after 70 minutes.

<B>4. Line-out over?</B>

Leonardo Ghiraldini of Italy throws into a line-out. He throws deep to Sergio Parisse who, with two helpers, backs over the 15-metre line. The helpers have him up and he catches the ball.

Three clever English players move beyond Parisse and try to catch the ball when he plays it back.

They are not penalised for being off-side.

They were not penalised because the line-out was over when the ball went beyond the 15-metre line.

It would have been different if an Englishman had joined the Italian pod of three. That would have made a maul and created off-side lines whether or not the line-out was over.

Can a maul be formed with  the ball carrier facing away as Parisse was?

Yes.

This happened after 48 minutes.

<B>5. No running up and down?</B>

Rob Kearney tackles Julien Bonnaire into touch. Eoin Reddan is keen to take a quick throw-in from touch. The French are keen that he not do so. Reddan runs back, but Bonnaire follows. Reddan goes forward, but the referee stops him.

Referee: “No, no you can’t run up and down.”

Why not?

There is nothing in the law to prevent it.

Law 19.2 <I>QUICK THROW-IN

(a) A player may take a quick throw-in without waiting for a line-out to form.

(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.

(c) A player must not take a quick throw-in after the line-out has formed. If the player does, the quick throw-in is disallowed. The same team throws in at the line out.

(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.

(e) At a quick throw-in, if the player does not throw the ball in straight so that it travels at least 5 metres along the line-of-touch before it touches the ground or another player, or if the player steps into the field-of-play when the ball is thrown, then the quick throw-in is disallowed. The opposing team chooses to throw in at either a line-out where the quick throw-in was attempted, or a scrum on the 15-metre line at that place. If they too throw in the ball incorrectly at the line-out, a scrum is formed on the 15-metre line. The team that first threw in the ball throws in the ball at the scrum.

(f) At a quick throw-in, a player may come to the line-of-touch and leave without being penalised.

(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

(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.</i>

This happened after 60 minutes.

<B>6. The harsh penalty</B>

Malcolm O’Kelly of Ireland charges. William Servat of France tackles him. Tall O’Kelly falls beyond Servat who gets to his feet. As he gets to his feet the ball comes back quickly to Ireland and Eoin Reddan passes to his right where Servat is standing, hands raised in innocence.

The referee penalises Servat, saying “Come on. Off you go.”

It is harsh.

Servat’s tackle was legal. Getting to his feet is what the law requires. He has not yet learned the art of evaporation and so is penalised.

Whether Servat’s presence caused Reddan to pass poorly is doubtful.

One realises the need to penalise “lazy runners”, loiterers, but is there not a case for regarding this sort of thing as accidental off-side.

Not that the law currently makes provision for it.

Now the option for the referee is to penalise or ignore.

<B>7. In touch?</B>

Brian O’Driscoll has the ball near the touch line on his left. He is tackled by Fulgence Ouedraogo and David Skrela of France. O’Driscoll places the ball backwards but towards touch. Jamie Heaslip is first on the scene and the ball strikes his left foot and stops. It does not get to the touch-line. His foot moves into touch as he bends down and with his right hand knocks the ball further infield.

Commentator: “It looked like Jamie Heaslip had a foot in touch there and it should be a French put-in.”

The commentator is wrong.

It does not matter that Heaslip was in touch when he played the ball. It does not matter for the simple reason that he did not pick the ball up.

Law 19 <I> A player in touch may kick or knock the ball, but not hold it, provided it has not crossed the plane of the touch-line. The plane of the touch-line is the vertical space rising immediately above the touch-line. </i>

<B>8. Off-side/on-side?</B>

Hugo Southwell kicks high into the sky and follows the ball. He runs past his players and jumps to compete with Mike Phillips of Wales for the ball. But the referee penalises Scotland.

Right?

The man most obviously in trouble was Alan Jacobsen of Scotland.

For players ahead of a kick there is a band ten metres from the opponent waiting to play the ball – 10 metres from Phillips, stretching right across the field. That means that Jacobsen would have to be 10 metres or more from Phillips. He is not.

Nothing that Phillips does puts him on-side.

What about Southwell? If Jacobsen retires, that is runs away from Phillips to get to 10 metres away and Southwell passes him while he is retiring, Jacobsen would come on-side. Only if he is retiring. He, and perhaps others, seem not to be retiring. That means that they are off-side. It is right to penalise them.

How?

Wales would have the choice of a penalty kick where Jacobsen was off-side or a scrum where Southwell kicked the ball.                                                                                                     

Law 11.4 <i>OFF-SIDE UNDER THE 10-METRE LAW

(a) New When a team-mate of an off-side player has kicked ahead, the off-side player is considered to be taking part in the game if the player is in front of an imaginary line across the field which is 10 metres from the opponent waiting to play the ball, or from where the ball lands or may land. The off-side player must immediately move behind the imaginary 10 metre line. While moving away, the player must not obstruct an opponent.

(b) While moving away, the off-side player cannot be put on-side by any action of the opposing team. However, before the player has moved the full 10 metres, the player can be put on-side by any on-side team-mate who runs in front of the player.

(c) When a player who is off-side under the 10-metre law charges an opponent waiting to catch the ball, the referee blows the whistle at once and the off-side player is penalised. Delay may prove dangerous to the opponent.

(d) When a player who is off-side under the 10-metre law plays the ball which has been mis-fielded by an opponent, the off-side player is penalised.

(e) New The 10-metre law is not altered by the fact that the ball has hit a goal post or a cross bar. What matters is where the ball lands. An off-side player must not be in front of the imaginary 10 metre line across the field.

(f) The 10-metre law does not apply when a player kicks the ball, and an opponent charges down the kick, and a team-mate of the kicker who was in front of the imaginary 10-metre line across the field then plays the ball. The opponent was not ‘waiting to play the ball’ and the team-mate is on-side.

Penalty: When a player is penalised for being off-side in general play, the opposing team chooses either a penalty kick at the place of infringement or a scrum at the place where the offending team last played the ball. If it was last played in that team’s in-goal, the scrum is formed 5 metres from the goal-line in line with where it was played.

(g) If more than one player is off-side and moving forward after a team-mate has kicked ahead, the place of infringement is the position of the off-side player closest to an opponent waiting for the ball, or closest to where the ball lands. </i>

There are two incidents of off-side under the 10-metre law, one after 8 minutes when Martin Castrogiovanni and Sergio Parisse are penalised and this incident after 26 minutes.

<B>9. Headbutting: the protocol

Reader: </B>With regard to the response to the incident involving Andy Henderson, and the reference to the TMO, does not the protocol only allow for the referral of acts of foul play during the act of scoring?

The referee had blown his whistle and awarded the try and the head butt incident happened after this.

In this instance did not Alain Rolland exceed the limits of the protocol – which may explain the factually correct but rather muted reaction from the TMO? 

<B>Stephen Hart

Comment:</B>

Law 6.A.7 (c)<I>  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.</i>

Stephen Hart may well be right. because in this instance the referee had no doubt that a try was scored. He even said so. But the nonsense that led to the headbutt happened while the try was being scored and it did take place and it was worthy of a sanction.

<B>10. The tee is on</B>

Reader: Half an hour into first half, Italy are awarded penalty in England’s half, about 35 metres out and about 12 metres in from touch. An Italian runner brings on the kicking tee and places it on the mark, near the referee’s feet, but Bortolussi punts for, and makes, touch in the corner.  Law 21.4 (b) says that bringing on the tee is an indication of intention to kick at goal, Law 21.5 (b) that, such indication having been given, the kicker is committed.
 
The kick should have been void and a scrum at the mark awarded to England. Do you agree?
 
<B>Gerry  L

Comment:</B>

Law 21.4 (b) <I>No delay. If a kicker indicates to the referee the intention to kick a penalty kick at goal, the kick must be taken within one minute from the time the player indicates the intention to kick at goal. The intention to kick is signalled by the arrival of the kicking tee or sand, or when the player makes a mark on the ground. The player must complete the kick within one minute even if the ball rolls over and has to be placed again. If the one minute is exceeded, the kick is disallowed, a scrum ordered at the place of the mark and the opponents throw in the ball. For any other type of kick, the kick must be taken without undue delay.</i>

This bit of law is about not delaying. The time for the kick – one minute – is taken from the time the tee or sand arrives or the kicker makes his hole or tells the referee he is going to kick.

Clearly in this case the kicker – who after all is the man who decides – had no intention of kicking for goal. The ganymede bringing on the tee is not even a player. He is not a decision-maker. He is to all intents and purposes a spectator.

Imagine a penalty five metres from your line and on comes a fellow bearing a tee. No referee would then oblige you to kick for poles!