Law Discussion - 12 July

This week we include incidents from the dramatic Tri-Nations match between New Zealand and South Africa and Dunedin with some incidents from the Currie Cup.

We have this week given statistics from the Tri-Nations match and on the SA Referees’ site (www.sareferees.co.za) there are eight clips of incidents, six from this weekend.

We shall start with a player complaint. Because he is one of the very top players in the world he is worth listening to.

1. The brutal Boks

Daniel Carter of New Zealand complained that the South Africans were brutal and did a lot of off-the-ball things which were nasty.

We looked at what happened to Carter on the field to see if he was indeed subject to unfair play.

His particular complaint was being taken out after he had passed. He said: “It is frustrating when you’re looking to support after a pass and you’re getting knocked over. That happened a few times again but that’s just the way they play.”

The late tackle after a pass is difficult for the referee as he tends to be going with play. It;’s hard for a touch judge unless he is disciplined to watch what its happening away from the ball instead of watching the game.

It’s also an infringement with a niggardly penalty. The optional penalty after a kick could be 60 metres downfield but the penalty for a late tackle after a pass is right there.

Apart from restart kicks and penalty kicks, Carter had the ball 59 times in the match.

On 24 occasions he passed and was not touched afterwards.
On 15 occasions he kicked and was not touched afterwards.
On 4 occasions he dropped for goal and was not touched afterwards. (Once the kick was over, twice he missed and once the kick was charged down.)
On 8 occasions he ran and was tackled legally while in possession of the ball.

On one occasion he attempted to pass and run around in support. He was unimpeded and able to do it.

On one occasion he was running with the ball and while he was running with the ball, he was tackled high. The referee penalised Schalk Burger for the high tackle and Carter kicked the goal. (It was the first of four high tackles in the match – two on Bryan Habana and one on Sione Lauaki which earned Victor Matfield a yellow card. The most dangerous of the four high tackles was by Leon MacDonald on Habana.)

On two occasions Carter was bumped after passing, once by Jean de Villiers and once by CJ van der Linde. On both occasions the passes were at close quarters under pressure and on neither occasion was he knocked off his feet  but it would certainly have hampered him in supporting.

On two occasions he was touched after he had passed, but a gentle touch which seemed to have no effect on him

On one occasion he was played early by Adi Jacobs who was penalised and coin ceded three points. On that occasion the defences were close and Mils Muliaina shaped to pass to Carter. Jacobs was up and put his hands out, seemingly to prevent a collision. Carter was not knocked over.

On one occasion after he had kicked, Carter ran straight ahead and into Butch James who had not deviated and did not make any attempt to stop Carter. Play continued.

There did not seem any extraordinary attempt to intimidate Carter by using illegal physical tactics. Of course, one is not sure what happens on the ground in a tackle, as was the case with Bismarck du Plessis’s action on Adam Thomson.

In the match there were penalties for illegal physical tactics:

By South Africa: 4 times: Burger high tackle on Carter, Juan Smith late bump on Conrad Smith, Jacobs playing Carter when he did not have the ball, and Matfield high tackle on Sione Lauaki.

By New Zealand: 5 times: Thomson air tackle twice, So’oialo man without the ball, O’Neill man without the ball, MacDonald high tackle.

JP Pietersen could have been penalised for tugging Thomson’s jersey, Thomson could have been penalised for a high tackle on Habana and So’oialo could have been penalised for playing a man without the ball which looked a repeat offence for that which he had been penalised.

Du Plessis could have been penalised and wasn’t but was later cited and suspended.

2. “Wrong side”

We have two incidents.

a. Juan Smith of South Africa charges. Adam Thomson of New Zealand tackles him from behind and around the ankles, which means that Smith falls to ground beyond Thomson. Both fall to ground, Thomson holding Smith. Smith is a tackled player and Thomson is a tackler, as per law definition. Thomson is on the South African side of Smith.

Thomson gets up to play the ball. He is penalised.

b. Griquas play Western Province in Kimberley. Gcobani Bobo of Western Province runs a long way down the field and lively Griqua scrumhalf Sarel Pretorius comes across and tackles Bobo. Both fall to ground, Pretorius holding Bobo. Bobo is a tackled player and Pretorius is a tackler, as per law definition. Pretorius is on the Western Province side of Bobo.

Pretorius gets to his feet, picks the ball up, turns and hoofs it many, many metres downfield. _Play gores on.

The bases of the two incidents are similar but incidents are seldom the same.

The Pretorius case was clear as no other players approached the tackle before he got the ball clear, and the referee was alert.

The Thomson case is less clear as other players get close and what he is penalised for is hands in a ruck. The referee says: “A ruck had formed.”

When was a ruck formed?

Law 16 DEFINITIONS
A ruck is a phase of play where one or more players from each team, who are on their feet, in physical contact, close around the ball on the ground. Open play has ended.

Was there one of those? The only South African to arrive before Thomson got the ball was Bakkies Botha and he went straight to ground – not all that close around the ball when it was still on the ground. Bismarck du Plessis makes contact of a sort with Thomson who was well and truly on his feet with the ball.

Play could have gone on, it seems, despite the annoyance Thomson may have caused the South Africans.

3. In or out?

Riaan Viljoen, the Griquas fullback who won the match with a 63-metre penalty kick, kicks downfield. The ball bounces towards touch where AJ Venter is an attendance. On the hard Kimberley ground the ball bounces high and, in the field of play, Venter leaps up, extends his arms and uses his hands to bat the ball into the field of play. The ball is beyond the touch-line but in the air. Venter lands beyond the touch-line.

The touch judge thinks about it and then raises his flag to indicate a line-out throw-in to ??.

The commentators agree that the touch judge had erred.

Had he?

This is a much more difficult situation than first meets the eye. It is an interesting scenario with a few answers depending on interpretation.

The laws in play here are

a) The ball is in touch when it is not being carried by a player and it touches anyone on or beyond the touch line. (Law 19 Definitions)

b) if the ball crosses the touch line, and it is caught by a player whose FEET are in the playing area the ball is NOT in touch. Such a player may knock the ball into the playing area. (Law 19 Definitions)

The second one, (b)  is the basis for the view by Australia, New Zealand and England which says we must judge where his feet are to determine touch. So if his feet were inside the touchline when he made contact with the ball then the touch judge is wrong, if they or even one of them were across the touchline then the touch judge is right.

Many years ago we interpreted that if the body was over the touch line then it was out.

At the Rugby World Cup 2003 the feet interpretation was used.

In this case the left foot was across the touch line.

The touch judge was right!

4. Mind your language

When the Valke played the Sharks, the referee had a problem with the Valke No.8 Sean Plaatjies. He told him not to swear. It happened again and this time the referee called the Valke captain Hanno Coetzee and told him to talk to Plaatjies to ensure that he watched his language.

Is the referee entitled to do this?

Yes.

Could the referee penalise him for this?

Yes.

Could the referee send him off for  this?

Yes.

Law 10 DEFINITIONS

Foul play is anything a person does within the playing enclosure that is against the letter and spirit of the Laws of the Game. It includes obstruction, unfair play, repeated infringements, dangerous play and misconduct which is prejudicial to the game.

Why speak to the captain?

It is now the custom for referees to speak to the captain about a player’s behaviour. This brings some calm, reinforces the captain’s authority and avoids any form of debate with the player.

The following incidents are show in clips on www.sareferees.co.za. We give them here in case some readers cannot open the clips.

5. Well behind but off-side

The Sharks put the ball into a scrum and the ball goes to the back of the scrum to No.8 Keegan Daniel. As it goes to him the Sharks’ scrumhalf Scott Mathie runs wide to the right. Daniel picks up the ball.

The referee penalises Mathie.

Why?

This is part of the experimental law variations.

The Game Management Plan that is applicable contains the following:

Scrum – Ball-winning halfback/scrumhalf must comply with the restrictions placed on the non-throwing-in halfback/scrumhalf. I.e. He must remain within 1 metre of the scrum until the scrum is over.

That is why the referee says: “Nine [Mathie]. More than a metre.”

The penalty for doing what Mathie did is a Penalty Kick.

The commentator explains the law correctly.

6. “There was no maul”

Wasn’t there?

The Valke kick off. Johann Muller of the Sharks catches the ball with BJ Botha and Jacques Botes in close formation. The first of the Valke to arrive was right wing Dewald Pretorius. He runs past the cosy group to get to the ball from the Shanks’ side.

Listen to the referee:  “It’s fine. There was no maul.”

Indeed there was no maul.

For a maul you need three players – the ball-carrier (Muller), a team-mate (either Botes or Botha) and an opponent. But there was no opponent by the time Pretorius arrived. So it was not a maul. So Pretorius was entitled to do what he did.

7. “Maul formed – off-side”

South Africa throw into a line-out. They throw to Victor Matfield at No.2 in the line-out. He catches the ball. Ali Williams of New Zealand jumps towards the ball and lands on the South African side beyond Matfield. The ball is played back to Gürthro Steenkamp who is peeling round. Steenkamp loses the ball backwards and Williams heads for it.

a. Although South Africa are throwing in, they have only three players in the line-out while New Zealand have six, even after one has run away.

That is fine, because by the experimental law variations the old restriction on numbers in the line-out have fallen away.

b. The player who dropped back should not have done so. Because he no longer has to conform to the other side’s numbers he must stay there once he is there.

c. Rodney So’oialo is at the back of the line-out. As the ball is thrown in and Victor Matfield is catching it he has moved over the 15-metre line and is heading infield. He is off-side and liable to penalty.

d. Ali Williams is doubly off-side.

He is not off-side because he jumped through the line-out but he is off-side by then playing in that off-side position.

Then as the referee says, a maul formed and he was off-side.

But it’s hard to work out why the referee chose the place he did for the penalty. Even if the penalty was against Williams and not So’oialo, the penalty should have been 15 metres in from touch.

8. The advantage of a deliberate infringement?

It does not seem right somehow – to get an advantage by deliberately infringing.

The Cheetahs are attacking and the referee decides that the Blue Bulls have infringed. After telling them to stop infringing he flicks out an arm and calls Advantage.

The Cheetahs go to their right and Adriaan Strauss charges ahead. Another tackle/ruck  occurs and Bevin Fortuin of the Cheetahs waits in the scrumhalf position. He ask the referee if it is a penalty advantage. The referee tells him that it is a penalty advantage. Fortuin then deliberately throws the ball forward so that the referee will give his side the benefit of the penalty.

The referee goes to Fortuin to tell him to be more positive in his outlook on the game.

Most often players – and coaches – want the penalty. A penalty is always such a big call as it gives the non-offending team so much freedom of choice of play they want. The only thing better than a penalty is a sucrose.

Players sometimes drop at goal to get the penalty. Then some complain that they have two bites at the cherry.

One would prefer some mechanism that enables the non-offending to choose whether they want advantage or not – though that, too, is open to abuse.

Mercifully, most teams play on, though sometimes they are disappointed when the referee calls advantage over and they do not score and have forfeited the opportunity to score.

But using deliberate infringement to get advantage cannot be right.