Law Discussion - as 2007 ends

The dramatic year of 2007 has come to an end, and it played itself out with rugby, which means that we have some law points to talk about.

We have two matches in mind – London Wasps vs Bath and the thriller when Saracens played the Newcastle Falcons.

1. Penalties – killers or liveners?

You may remember the advice – Whistle strictly to start with and then ease off. You may well have thought that that was phoney because it was inconsistent.

You may also have heard – Lay down your standards early and then you will have no trouble. You may have thought that laying down standards may be e better reason for starting accurately.

You will also have heard about accusations of killing the game, blowing the game to death, not allowing any flow.

In the Saracens-Newcastle match the referee lay down standards early at the tackle. There were early penalties at the tackle. The upshot was that there was a lot of quick ball from the tackles and much movement as a result. There was also the excitement of turn-overs. The tackles were orderly.

Saracens were penalised six times in the first half and incurred a yellow card. But it seems that they then accepted the standard and were penalised juts once in the whole of the second half and that late in the half. The penalty was for obstruction and not for the tackle.

Far from killing the game, the determined referee opened it up.

2. Who gets the ball?

Awarding scrums always needs care because possession of the ball is so precious.

a. Jonny Fa’amatuainu of Bath is held by Tom French of Wasps. They are both on their feet. While they are on their feet George Skivington of Wasps, Pieter Dixon of Bath and others join in the grappling which falls to ground.

The referee awards a scrum to Bath, saying: “We’ll have a scrum – player safety issue.”

b. Bath kick off and Wasps form a maul. They get it moving really well, involving several players from each side but then it flops to the ground.

The referee says: “It’s a mess. It’s a scrum. Team going forward.” He gives the ball to Wasps.

In a. there is no obvious player safety issue other than that a maul fell down. And it was a maul. It had all the components of a maul.

In both cases there was a maul and the maul was in the field of play. In both cases the ball did not come out.

Law 17.6 UNSUCCESSFUL END TO A MAUL

(a) A maul ends unsuccessfully if it remains stationary or has stopped moving forward for longer than 5 seconds and a scrum is ordered.

(b) A maul ends unsuccessfully if the ball becomes unplayable or collapses (not as a result of foul play) and a scrum is ordered.

(c) Scrum following maul. The ball is thrown in by the team not in possession when the maul began. If the referee cannot decide which team had possession, the team moving forward before the maul stopped throws in the ball. If neither team was moving forward, the attacking team throws in the ball.

Which side was moving forward in a maul is irrelevant.

But what about the safety case?

One could refer to it as a form of stoppage other than an unsuccessful maul.

Law 20.4 THE TEAM THROWING THE BALL INTO THE SCRUM

(a) After an infringement, the team that did not cause the infringement throws in the ball.

(b) Scrum after ruck. Refer to Law 16.7

(c) Scrum after maul. Refer to Law 17.6

(d) Scrum after any other stoppage. After any other stoppage or irregularity not covered by law, the team that was moving forward before the stoppage throws in the ball. If neither team was moving forward, the attacking team throws in the ball.

There was no infringement and there was no ruck. There was a maul, but presumably the reasoning is that the referee did not stop play because the ball was unplayable but because there was the danger of injury.

That could apply to any maul that falls to ground, which is not the point of the law.

In both cases it seemed that the ball should have been awarded to the other side.

3. Kicking out of a ruck

There is a ruck – players on their feet over the ball on the ground and in physical contact – all that. The ball is at the back of the ruck on the Bath side. Wasps flank Rob Webber, on his feet, puts a boot through and flykicks the ball.

OK?

Yes. There is nothing in the law which forbids it.

4.”Pathetic”

Bath shove Wasps back at the rate of knots in a scrum which disintegrates. George Skivington of Wasps is lying on the ground as the scrum goes over and beyond him.

The referee stops things and then has to separate some emotional players.

The touch judge then reports Danny Grewcock of Bath for “stepping” on Skivington “totally unnecessarily”.

The referee who says: “The Christmas spirit is obviously gone, lads”, sends Grewcock to the sin bin.

There are slow motion replays.

Commentator, hot under the collar: “Oh, no. You’re not getting a yellow card for that. That’s because his name is Danny Grewcock. That is not a yellow card. That is atrocious touch-judging. Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic. It’s not even a penalty.”

More is said.

The touch judge did not have replays but he seemed so sure of what had happened, and yet on the replays it is not clear whether Grewcock actually puts a foot on Skivington. It may have been his intention to do so but he may have missed. It may, equally, have been his intention to miss.

So he may not have stamped on Skivington as he stumbled over him. He did not go out of his way to put a boot on Skivington but the action of his leg did suggest somebody trampling or attempting to trample.

What is not really helpful in this case is the use of superlatives – totally unnecessarily, absolutely pathetic. What totally and absolutely add to the sense is not clear.

Trampling on a player is illegal, whether it is necessary or not.

Law 10.4 (b) Stamping or trampling. A player must not stamp or trample on an opponent.
Penalty: Penalty Kick

5. Crawling

Joe Maddock of Bath has two great runs in the match. At one of them he runs out of defence and is knocked down near his 10-metre line. He then crawls on a good 10 metres and the referee penalises him. This is just before half-time.

During half-time the stamping by Grewcock and the Maddock call are discussed and the point is made that Maddock was not held in a tackle.

Certainly he was not held in the tackle, but that is not relevant. A player on the ground, whether tackled or not, is not allowed to hang onto the ball and is not allowed to crawl with the ball. The referee’s decision to penalise Maddock was correct.

The only difference between a player with the ball tackled (held and on the ground) and a player with the ball on the ground and not held is that the player with the ball and not held is allowed to stand up with the ball. That is all. The tackled (held) player is not allowed to stand up with the ball.

6. Ins and outs of communication

The referee often helps the touch judge when a player kicks from his 22 by telling the touch judge that the kicker was inside his 22 when he kicked.

Falling back Shaun Berne of Bath collects a bouncing ball. The impetus of his run takes him over his 22. Inside his 22 he kicks directly into touch.

As he kicks the referee says: “He was in.”

This may have confused the touch judge who gave the line-out where the ball was kicked out, ignoring the fact that Berne had taken the ball back into his 22, which meant that the line-out should have been opposite the place where he kicked the ball.

7. He let him up

Riki Flutey of Wasps grubbers ahead and chased. Olly Barkley of Bath gets to the ball first and falls on it. He is in the process of getting to his feet when Flutey plays him and Barkley ends in touch.

Commentator: “Flutey allowed the player to get back on his feet.”

In fact Barkley does not get back onto his feet when he is played but there is no obligation on Flutey to let him get to his feet. All Flutey must not do is fall on him.

It seems that there may be or have been some local ruling that a player on the ground must be allowed to get to his feet. That is not law. Local rulings are not a good idea in a game that is international.

8. Stay straight

At a scrum in the second half of the match between Saracens and Newcastle Falcons, the referee calls: “Stay straight.”

That did not mean that the scrum could not be wheeled. Wheeling is a legal activity as long as it is within law.

The referee wanted the front-row players pushing straight.

9. He slipped

James Grindal, the Newcastle scrumhalf, breaks. As he gets near Richard Haughton he slips and falls at Haughton’s feet. He is not brought to ground. He falls to ground. He is not tackled.

Falling back Adam Powell and Kris Chesney approach Grindal who has Haughton leaning over him.

Powell and Chesney are tentative and go behind Grindal to play the ball.

The first Newcastle player to arrive is Tom May who drives into Haughton and falls to ground. Then Mark Sorenson of Newcastle arrives.

There was in fact no need for Powell and Chesney to go round Grindal. They could have gone straight to the ball because there was no tackle and there was no ruck when they got there.

10. Hard obstruction

After Hugh Vyvyan of Saracens has scored a try, Jonny Wilkinson kicks off high and over Vyvyan’s head, straight down the middle of the field. Powell catches the ball behind Vyvyan. Chasing after the ball ?? bangs into Vyvyan and falls down.

Till Powell caught the ball Vyvyan was not committing obstruction. By the time Powell caught the ball Vyvyan was facing Powell and moving towards him. Before Powell caught the ball James Noon crashed into Vyvyan.

Law 10.1 OBSTRUCTION

(b) Running in front of a ball-carrier. A player must not intentionally move or stand in front of a team-mate carrying the ball, thereby preventing opponents from tackling the current ball-carrier or the opportunity to tackle potential ball-carriers when they gain possession.
Penalty: Penalty Kick

(c) Blocking the tackler. A player must not intentionally move or stand in a position that prevents an opponent from tackling a ball-carrier.

Till Powell caught the ball there was no ball-carrier. That means that Vyvyan was not committing obstruction while the ball was in the air. The ball was in the air when Noon crashed into Vyvyan who was not committing obstruction.

It was all a matter of nanoseconds but the principle of the thing is worth considering.