Law Discussion - 3 August

There was almost no talk about the refereeing after the Auckland match between New Zealand and Australia. Perhaps the size of the victory made complaining silly but it would be so good if the real reason was the high quality of the refereeing.

Whatever the reason it was such a relief that the losing coach – for the first time in this Tri-Nations – did not turn on the referee. He set an excellent example to the other two coaches.

There was one incident which had a bearing on the match which is worth talking about.

So far we have given the statistics of the match and there are eight clips from this match and Currie Cup matches on www.sareferees.co.za.

Twice recently we have spoken about the place of the “second” penalty option after a late tackle after a kick. It is disturbing then when a top referee still gets it wrong. Errors of judgement are more understandable than errors in law.

1. The Falling Scrum ii

We gave some statistics for scrums in the first four weeks of the Tri-Nations. the scrums were better this week but not a lot better and not as good as they should be Resetting scrums wastes time and is irritating. Irritating is the opposite of entertaining.

In the first Tri-Nations match, between New Zealand and South Africa, the scrums were 23, 2 resets, 3 collapses.
In the second Tri-Nations match, between New Zealand and South Africa, the scrums were 13, 1 resets, 3 collapses.
In the third Tri-Nations match, between Australia and South Africa, the scrums were 23, 10 reset, 16 collapses.
In the fourth Tri-Nations match, between Australia and New Zealand, the scrums were 16, 6 reset, 13 collapses.
In the fourth Tri-Nations match, between New Zealand and Australia, the scrums were 11, 6 reset, 12 collapses.

In matches involving only New Zealand and South Africa, there were 36 scrums, 3 resets and 6 collapses.
In matches involving Australia, there were 40 scrums, 28 resets and 41 collapses.

2. Whose ball?

This is the big controversy from last weekend’s matches and yet no fuss has been made about it. Diplomatic?

Of course it was an important decision – as subsequent events prove. The throw-in is given to New Zealand. They score a try.

Jimmy Cowan of the All Blacks kicks a brilliant rolling kick down towards the Wallaby cornerpost on their left. Adam Ashley-Cooper waits to see what the ball is going to do. The ball’s momentum starts to peter out and the All Black chasers are getting closer. Ashley-Cooper grabs the ball. His right foot is in touch.

Whose throw-in is it?

The assistant referee gives the ball to New Zealand.

The questions to ask:

a. was the ball still moving when Ashley Cooper picked it up?

b. was Ashley-Cooper’s left foot grounded in touch before he picked up the ball?

If the answer to both is Yes, then it is the Wallabies’ ball to throw-in.
If the answer to either is No, then it is the All Blacks’ ball to throw in.
If the assistant referee is unsure, then it is the All Blacks’ ball to throw in.

It’s touch and go, if you will pardon the expression, but it seems that the answer to a. and b. is Yes and it could well have been a Wallaby throw.

In the case of a., if it were stationary it would have meant that Ashley-Cooper had made the ball out, not Cowan’s kick.
In the case of b., the ball was out only when Ashley-Cooper’s foot was grounded by which time he was the ball-carrier. Then he would have put the ball into touch.

These two are covered as follows:

Law 19 DEFINITIONS

The ball is in touch when it is not being carried by a player and it touches the touchline or anything or anyone on or beyond the touchline.
The ball is in touch when a player is carrying it and the ball carrier (or the ball) touches the touchline or the ground beyond the touchline. The place where the ball carrier (or the ball) touched or crossed the touchline is where it went into touch.
The ball is in touch if a player catches the ball and that player has a foot on the touchline or the ground beyond the touchline.
If a player has one foot in the field of play and one foot in touch and holds the ball, the ball is in touch.

Why would it be the All Blacks’ ball if the assistant referee was unsure?

Law 19.4 WHO THROWS IN
The throw in is taken by an opponent of the player who last held or touched the ball before it went into touch. When there is doubt, the attacking team takes the throw in.

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

3. Knock-on offside

John Mametsa of the Blue Bulls races down the left wing and kicks low and hard ahead towards the Valke goal-line. Len Olivier, the Valke fullback, races across in cover. Mametsa and Olivier converge on the ball, both diving at it. From Olivier the ball bounces back some five metres from the goal-line where Valke centre Dewald Pretorius plays the ball.

The referee penalises him, saying that Pretorius was offside at a knock-on.

If the ball had bounced back of Olivier, Pretorius would have been penalisable because he was offside – in front of a player of his team who last played the ball.

If Olivier had knocked on, then Pretorius was penalisable but only if in playing the ball he had deprived his opponents of a chance to gain advantage, which he had indeed done. In fact the advantage he had stopped would have made a try strongly possible.

Penalty justified? Yes

Yellow card possible? Yes.

Penalty try? Not likely – not really probable.

4. No quick throw

a. Monty Dumond of the Sharks is inside his 22 and he kicks out on the full a long way down in Griqua territory where Dougie Helmuth of Griquas throws in quickly. There is nothing wrong with the throw, but the referee stops it.

b. Gio Aplon of Western Province kicks the ball out on the full a long way down field. Louis Ludik of the Lions fetches the ball and runs down outside the touch-line with the ball to get back to where the line-out would be, i.e. opposite where Aplon had kicked the ball. The Lions throw in quickly. There is nothing wrong with the throw but the referee stops it.

In each case the referee and his assistant got it right, and the reason in each case was the same. It’s in the Law.

Law 19.2 (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.

It’s all about “another person”. In Kimberley the other person was a water-carrier/medic standing on the side. In Johannesburg Ludik ran down with the ball in touch and then threw a long pass to Earl Rose of the Lions who threw the ball in. Ludik was the other person – the person other than the one who threw it in – Helmuth in Kimberley and Rose in Johannesburg.

5. He stood up

Peter Hynes of Australia kicks ahead towards the New Zealand 22 but the All Blacks seek to counter. Anthony Tuitavake passes to tall Adam Thomson and immediately Tatafu Polota-Nau of Australia tackles him about the left ankle. Thomson falls to the ground. He holds onto the ball and stands up with it.

The referee awards a free kick to the Wallabies, saying that Thomson had not released the ball.

Right?

Yes.

Law 15 DEFINITION

A tackle occurs when the ball carrier is held by one or more opponents and is brought to ground.

Thomson holds the ball, Polota-Nau holds him and brings him to ground. Thomson is tackled.

Law 15.5 (b) A tackled player must immediately pass the ball or release it.
Penalty: Penalty Kick

The penalty kick applies to the experimental law variations started universally on 1 August but not in the dispensation allowed the Tri-Nations which plays according to the experimental law variations which applied in the Super 14 – the one where sanctions were free kicks rather than penalties. Holding on in the tackle was a free kick.

5. Not five metres

It happened twice in Auckland:

a. The Wallabies are to throw into a line-out.

Stephen Moore pops the ball to Luke Burgess at the front of the line-out and Burgess pops the ball back to Moore.

b. The All Blacks are on the attack and have a line-out on their left. Keven Mealamu throws to Tony Woodcock at the front of the line-out. Woodcock returns the ball to Mealamu who sets off for the goal-line, but his effort is in vain.

In both instances the referee is consistent and awards a free kick to team not throwing in – the All Blacks in a. and the Wallabies in b.

Why?

The ball is required to travel five metres through the air before it is played. Burgess was more or less five metres from touch, his left leg over the five-metre mark but his hands were out which means that – not by much – he played the ball before it had travelled five metres.

Law 19.5 HOW THE THROW IN IS TAKEN
The player taking the throw in must stand at the correct place. The player must not step into the field of play when the ball is thrown. The ball must be thrown straight, so that it travels at least 5 metres along the line of touch before it first touches the ground or touches or is touched by a player.

6. Nonu’s try

After the final siren, Ma’a Nonu races down the left touch-line. Lote Tuqiri covers and tackles as Nonu seeks to ground the ball.

The referee – wisely – refers the matter to the television match official.

The TMO’s advice is that a try has been scored.

But had it?

First empty your mind of two things. Get rid of any concern about what happened to the ball after it had touched the ground. It could have bounced all the way to the top of One Tree Hill and it would have had no effect on the TMO’s decision. Secondly forget about that business of control so beloved of commentators. Nowhere in the law about scoring a try does control get mentioned.

What does get mentioned is in Law 22.

22.1 GROUNDING THE BALL
There are two ways a player can ground the ball:
(a) Player touches the ground with the ball. A player grounds the ball by holding the ball and touching the ground with it, in in-goal.
‘Holding’ means holding in the hand or hands, or in the arm or arms. No downward pressure is required.

Was Nonu holding the ball?

Yes. For some 60 metres he was holding the ball.

Did he stop holding the ball before it was grounded?

No. The ball does not leave contact with his hand? In other words he does not stop holding the ball till it bounces away from his grasp.

Does it matter that his hand was on the side of the ball and not on top?

No. He was not required to exert downward pressure.