Law Discussion - 1st Week of July

The Tri-Nations started and the last tours from the North to the South ended. We have some matters of law to discuss from those two matches and from the Currie Cup.

The matches matter less than the laws to discuss. The first Tri-Nations match produced a clear victory for New Zealand over South Africa and the last tour match produced a record victory for Australia over France.

So far this week we have given statistics from each of the two Tests and have discussed some law topics – the extended use of the TMO in a Currie Cup match in Pretoria, a penalty for off-side and a dangerous tackle in Wellington and a penalty at a tackle in Pretoria.

We also have six clips of incidents on www.sareferees.co.za. There were two we requested which we hope we shall have next week – the TMO decision on Danie Rossouw and pulling down a maul by Deon Stegman which we shall deal with here.  Included in the clips are Brad Thorn’s tackle on John Smit, the off-side decision against Rudi Wulf and an off-side decision against John Smit.

1. TMO for kick at goal

Justin Peach of Boland kicks a penalty kick at goal in grim weather in Wellington. The ball flies high and hits the far (right) upright. What happens to it after that is unsure.

Is the referee allowed to refer such an incident to the television match official.

Yes. Even by the universally used TMO protocol the is allowed to consult the TMO in such a case.

2. Early stamping

The Blue Bulls play the Sharks. In the first minute, the touch judge tells the referee that Derick Kuün, the Blue Bulls hooker, had stamped on an opponent and recommended him for a yellow card.

Both commentators were upset.

Commentator 1: “JC Fortuin was the referee for the Boland-Sharks game and he gave two yellow cards relatively early on, but nothing as early as the first minute.”

Commentator 2: “It’s a physical game. It’s a tough game. If he’s put his boot on a player, then ten minutes in the sin bin is really pathetic. On the body – nothing in it. Give the penalty. Walk away. Twelve months ago you could ruck till your heart was content and now players can’t get off the field.”

The reason for the reference to JC Fortuin in this instance is unclear. The recommendation came from the touch judge who is on the International Rugby Board’s panel of international touch judges and has recently been ion Test duty. In other words he is a good one.

Television could not find a clip of the incident, which also does not detract from the decision or recommendation.

Rugby football is still tough and physical but within laws. Players contract to play under laws. They do not contract to be punched, kicked, stamped on, tackled illegally. Referees are obliged to act against such acts.

Players are still allowed to ruck to their heart’s content. In fact the laws encourage them to ruck and now use their hands in a ruck. But the laws require them to ruck legally.

Law 16 DEFINITIONS

Rucking. Players are rucking when they are in a ruck and using their feet to try to win or keep possession of the ball, without being guilty of foul play.

Law 16.3 (f) A player rucking for the ball must not ruck players on the ground.
A player rucking for the ball tries to step over players on the ground and must not intentionally step on them. A player rucking must do so near the ball.
Penalty: Penalty Kick for dangerous play

One of rugby’s earliest controversies concerned the practice of hacking – being allowed to kick an opponent’s shins provided that he was not held and you were face top face.  Players even had boots reinforced with metal toecaps to hack more effectively. Some times an alleluia was declared and the teams would line up facing each other and at a signal set about hacking the man opposite them.

One of the first things the newly formed Rugby Football Union did was ban hacking though hacking had been one of the main reasons why some groups had left the Football Association to form the Football Union in 1871.

There who lamented the emasculation of the game with the exclusion of hacking as nowadays some believe that the game is becoming effete by removing the tolerance of putting feet on bodies – or tackling high or tackling in the air or spear-tackling. But as the law requires a referee to regard  a forward pass as an infringement, so he is required to regard stamping as an infringement. It is an infringement which is treated under foul play.

Law 10.4 10.4 DANGEROUS PLAY AND MISCONDUCT

(b) Stamping or trampling. A player must not stamp or trample on an opponent.
Penalty: Penalty Kick

Law 10.5 SANCTIONS
(a) Any player who infringes any part of the Foul Play law must be admonished, or cautioned and temporarily suspended, or sent-off.
(b) A player who has been cautioned and temporarily suspended who then commits a second cautionable offence within the Foul Play law must be sent-off.

The law does not say that penalties and sanctions may be applied only after some time in the match. The referee is obliged to deal with foul play when it occurs.

Even if TV could not pick out the incident, the touch judge was surely right. It is sad that such is the rugby climate that match officials are automatically presumed to be wrong unless there is proof to the contrary, and even if there is proof to the contrary not everybody will be convinced that they were not wrong.

3. Advantage?

John Mametsa of the Blue Bulls races down the left wing. Three Sharks players come across in desperate defence – Stefan Terblanche, Riaan Swanepoel and Chris Jordaan. There is a bundle of players over the goal-line in in-goal near the corner.

The referee refers to the TMO. He has two questions – one about the possibility of foul play at the line-out and one about the possibility of a try.

The possible try happened in the corner on the Blue Bulls’ left. The line-out had occurred about six metres inside the Sharks’ half on the Blue Bulls’ right. There was substantial distance between the two.

The TMO was able to establish foul play. There was  a tackle/ruck in the line-out. Jannie du Plessis was taking a legal part in the tackle/ruck. François van Schouwenburg of the Blue Bulls drove in on him – came in on the side and went shoulder first into Du Plessis. Du Plessis  hit out at him as he tumbled. It was more push than punch.

The TMO checked that and then went to look for a possible try.

The TMO reported: “There was foul play in the line-out but the Blue player did carry the ball over the goal-line. There was a lot of bodies and I couldn’t see whether the ball was grounded. Go back to the foul play by No.17 the reserve prop, the black prop.”

The referee asked if it was a yellow-card offence but the TMO said that it was not a yellow-card offence as “it was not a full punch”.

The referee then spoke to the Sharks and went back across the field to the penalty though Derick Kuün of the Blue Bulls suggested a five-metre scrum.

The Blue Bulls then kicked out for a line-out about 27 metres from the Sharks’ line.

Kuün had a point. The five-metre scrum would have been the Blue Bulls’ ball because their player was held up in the opponents’ in-goal. Obviously a side would prefer a scrum five metres from their opponents’ line to a line-out 27 metres from their opponents’ line.

Could advantage apply? Could they have had the scrum?

If Mametsa had grounded the ball, would the referee have awarded a try?

Yes.

Even though there had been foul play?

Yes.

In other words advantage would apply in this circumstance.

This happened after 74 minutes.

4. Pulling down the maul

The Sharks win a line-out and drive a maul at the Blue Bulls’ line. Deon Stegmann of the Blue Bulls darts up to the maul, grabs the front player, BJ Botha, and pulls him to ground.

Commentator: “You can see Stegmann in there pulling people down. He’s allowed to do that.”

Is he?

What the ELVs say in this regard:

A player may pull a maul to the ground providing that that player does so by pulling another player in the maul down from the shoulders to the hips.

“Another player in the maul”. The player who pulls the maul down must himself be part of the maul.

What Stegmann did was wrong. He was not allowed to do what he did because he was not in the maul.

5. Front row replacement

Derick Kuün of the Blue Bulls was sent to the sin bin. Soon afterwards there was a line-out with the Sharks to throw in. At this stage the Blue Bulls tried to get their replacement hooker, Bandise Maku, on. He in fact came on and Deon Stegmann went off to the bench, but the referee stopped them from doing this, saying it could happen only at a scrum.

There was no scrum before it was the Blue Bulls’ turn to throw in at a line-out. This time Maka was allowed on and threw in.

After being nine and a half minutes in the sin bin, Kuün returned to the field for the first scrum of the match. Off Maku went and back on came scapegoat Stegmann.

Law 3.13 FRONT ROW FORWARD SENT OFF OR TEMPORARILY SUSPENDED OR INJURED

(b) After a front row player is sent off or during the time a front row player is temporarily suspended the referee, upon awarding the next scrum, will ask that player’s captain whether or not the team has another player on the field of play who is suitably trained to play in the front row. If not, the captain chooses any player from that team who then must leave the field of play and be replaced by a suitably trained front row player from the team’s replacements.
The captain may do this immediately prior to the next scrum or after another player has been tried in the front row.

(c) When a period of temporary suspension ends and a front row player returns to the field of play, the replacement front row player leaves the field of play and the nominated player who left the field of play for the period of the suspension may resume playing in the match.

This allowance for front row players is in the interests of safety. It is dangerous of an unspecialised player to pack in the front row of a scrum. Throwing in at a line-out is not dangerous.

6. Off-side at what?

There is a clip of this on www.sareferees.co.za

Andrew Hore of New Zealand throws into a line-out. Ali Williams of New Zealand comes to the front and knocks the ball back.

Smit is on-side when Williams knocks the ball back to end the line-out.

Greg Somerville of New Zealand grabs the ball to clean up. New Zealanders  cling to Somerville to protect him.

As long as this is true – line-out over and only New Zealanders around Somerville – Smit is not doing anything wrong. There is nothing to make him off-side.

Smit then comes round the group and goes for the ball which is in Somerville’s possession. He is penalised.

If a South Africa joins in that group of New Zealanders, before Smit gets there, then Smit is off-side because a maul has formed. Otherwise Smit is entitled to do what he did because there is nothing to put him off-side.