Law Discussion - after Days, 6, 7 and 8

Lots of things happen at the World Cup and there are lots of law points from the most complicated game on earth.

Over this fascinating weekend in the World Cup we had South Africa whitewashing England and setting themselves up for a relative comfortable passage into the knock-outs, New Zealand swamping poor Portugal, Australia scoring when they needed to in Cardiff, Ireland hanging on to survive against the ardent Lelos of Georgia, Fiji surprising Canada and getting a full house of points, Tonga shocking Samoa and then France overrunning Namibia.

We have already given statistics for all three days and have discussed the decision to penalise Mike Pyke of Canada at the Fijian goal-line.

We have also spoken about the television broadcasts and how they affect acceptance of the TMOs’ decisions.

1. Touch judges under the microscope

We have two touch judge decisions – one straightforward but unfairly treated, one tricky.

a. The crowd booed at Stade de France.

Just inside his own half, Mike Catt of England kicked down towards the touch-line on his left. Butch James of South Africa goes to catch the ball. He pouts his left foot on the touch-line and then catches the ball. The touch judge moves back to the line-out opposite the place where Catt kicked.

Catt was disappointed and perhaps puzzled but the decision was the right one.

Law 19 DEFINITIONS

The ball is in touch if a player catches the ball and that player has a foot on the touch-line or the ground beyond the touch-line.

When a replay of the incident was shown on the big screen, a large section of the crowd booed. Every one of that large sedition of the crowd was wrong. The touch judge was right.

Vox populi is not necessarily vox Dei!

This happened 14 minutes into the match.

b. They queried this one at Millennium Stadium.

Canada kick for touch. Burly No.8 Sisa Koyamaibole waits for the ball at the touch-line. He stands astride the touch-line, left foot in touch, right foot in the field of play. The ball curves over the plane of the touch-line and comes into his arms. It pops out again. Koyamaibole juggles the ball, eventually losing it into touch.

The touch judge awards the line-out to Canada. Right?

Law 19 DEFINITIONS

The ball is in touch when it is not being carried by a player and it touches the touch-line or anything or anyone on or beyond the touch-line.

The touch judge was wrong but he was not booed. It often happens that referees get more flak when they are right than when they are wrong.

Perhaps silentium populi really is vox Dei!

This happened after 74 minutes of a tense match.

2. The daring young man

England attack and with his left foot Andy Farrell kicks diagonal from the left to the far right where Matthew Tait of England jumps up to catch the ball. Coming from the side Fourie du Preez of South Africa jumps up. Du Preez wins the jump, gets both hands to the ball and knocks it back into the South African in-goal where Ruan Pienaar snatches up the ball, runs just inside his dead-ball line to evade Steve Borthwick. Pienaar evades Borthwick and kicks for touch.

The touch judge has his flag out against Du Preez for some reason that is not immediately clear.

Certainly Du Preez and Tait clashed. That happens when two players jump for a ball which is much smaller than they are. But Du Preez was going for the ball. So much so that he got both hands to the ball, which is why Pienaar scurried around to get it back.

It was a poor decision. The touch judge must have guessed. Referees should never guess.

3. Shanklin, touch and cornerpost

Matt Giteau of Australia grubbers ahead down towards the Welsh goal-line and near the touch-line on his left. The Wallabies chase. Tom Shanklin of Wales falls back. He is well ahead but does not immediately play the ball. With the Wallabies closing in Shanklin goes low shepherding the ball till it reaches the goal-line, Shanklin Behind it, his body protecting the ball, his legs in touch. When the ball reaches the goal-line Shanklin drops on it.

The referee consults the TMO, presumably to see if Shanklin had played the ball back before it reached the goal-line.

Commentator: “Look at his feet. They’re well over the line before he touches the ball. They may well deem it’s a line-out as well. And he’s hit the corner flag as well. That may have a bearing on the decision.”

That Shanklin’s feet were in touch, that he hit the cornerpost were both irrelevant because he did not pick up the ball. He

Law 19 DEFINITIONS

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.

Law 22.5 BALL GROUNDED BY A DEFENDING PLAYER

(b) Player in touch or touch-in-goal. If defending players are in touch-in-goal, they can make a touch down by grounding the ball in their in-goal provided they are not carrying the ball.

The drop-out was a correct decision.

This happened after 58 minutes.

4. Moore penalised

Stephen Jones of Wales runs with the ball. The broad Australian hooker Stephen Moore tackles him as he goes past. Both go to ground, Moore on the Welsh side of Jones. Moore gets to his feet and plays the ball. He is penalised.

Right?

No he was the tackler. The tackler does not have to come through the gate. The only requirement for a tackler who wants to play the ball is that he is on his feet, which Moore was.

This happened about the 32nd minute.

5. Little scrums

Australia’s Drew Mitchell was sent to the sin bin for a dangerous tackles that had similarities to that of Paul Emerick which earned the Eagle a long suspension. That meant that Australia were down to 14 men.

At the next scrum, they packed down with six players ands then at the scrum after that with seven players. After that they lost Nathan Sharpe to the sin bin.

What is the regulation regarding scrums and missing players?

Way back, scrums were huge affairs, massed players hacked at each other. Then the numbers in scrums settled down to nine and then eight. There was the battle for the loose head where players would add one to the front row till the law demanded that there be only three in the front row. Some times teams went down with one fewer, usually for defensive purposes, and occasionally they added to the scrum for a push-over try. Then a clever man in Cape Town devised a three man scrum and sometimes a four-man scrum which was used even at Test level. Then it was decided that there would be eight, no more and no less except if team numbers were down.

So in a Sevens match there are just three in the scrum.

Law 20.1 (f) Number of players: eight. A scrum must have eight players from each team. All eight players must stay bound to the scrum until it ends. Each front row must have three players in it, no more and no less. Two locks must form the second row.
Penalty: Penalty Kick

Exception: When a team is reduced to fewer than fifteen for any reason, then the number of players of each team in the scrum may be similarly reduced. Where a permitted reduction is made by one team, there is no requirement for the other team to make a similar reduction. However, a team must not have fewer than five players in the scrum.
Penalty: Penalty Kick

6. Advantage?

France play with Namibia who are reduced to 14 men after Jacques Nieuwenhuis was sent off. Scrumming for them was a nightmare. They lost two, were penalised in two and conceded a free kick. Apart from that the scrums were painful.

Early in the second half France were on the attack on the left but the ball went loose about five metres from Namibia’s line. A Namibian swept in and flykicked the ball for a line-out about 15 metres from his line.

The referee decided that that was not advantage and ordered the scrum where the Namibians suffered yet again.

There was no real advantage to Namibia. France would have won the line-out – just as they won the ball from the Namibian scrum but it would have been further from their line and a lot less painful.

Should the referee take the state of the team in allowing advantage?

Yes. Advantage is not a mechanical thing. It’s for the benefit of the non-offending team. Having a scrum was no benefit to them.