Law discussion: Contact with the Ref

There were two incidents in the match between the Highlanders and the Chiefs in Dunedin on Saturday that gave rise to surprising comments by the commentators at the match.

In the first incident the ball strikes the referee and play goes on.

In the second incident the ball-carrier makes contact with the referee and play is stopped.

The difference is not in the contact as the same law governs both ball and ball-carrier contact.

Let's look quickly at the two incidents.

Incidents

1. There is short passing hither and thither by the Chiefs close to the place of breakdown. Then Sonny Bill Williams darts back and passes to his left towards Damian McKenzie. The ball glances off the chest of referee Chris Pollock and goes on to McKenzie as intended. McKenzie dances ahead as Pollock says: "Play on."

2. The Highlanders have a line-out five metres from their line, win it and try to run the ball out. Elliot Dixon is the player who carries the ball. He runs into referee Pollock and comes free of Brad Weber's tackle but is called back and a scrum is awarded to the Highlanders for the contact between the ball-carrier and the referee.

Inconsistency? If you listen to the commentator, it certainly is.

Comment

Let's listen to the commentators' take on the two incidents.

1. Tony Johnson: "Well, Sonny Bill – nothing really on. So he straightens and offloads it. Unfortunately it hits Chris Pollock. Well, he says play on."

Justin Marshall: "He can't do that. The minute it hits him he's go to stop the game. I'm sorry. He thinks it doesn't have an influence but from a player’s perspective it absolutely does. The minute the ball hits the referee the ball's dead. Do you agree, Jeff?"

Jeff Wilson: "Yeah I totally agree. I think that Chris Pollock felt that because the Chiefs got possession straightaway, they would have got it anyway then play-on. He felt they could play on but if one player of the Highlanders makes a decision to slow down it affects everything that happens afterwards. and the Chiefs will look back and say Yes we were lucky and now we've got an opportunity to shoot for goal."

2. Tony Johnson: "First he has to get through the tackle of Chris Pollock and he does, and now he's called him back."

Justin Marshall: "And he's right. Maybe it's to his credit Chris Pollock. Maybe he's realised he should have done this in the first half. The players won't have a problem. He's impeded a tackler. It's the tight call, like when the ball hits you. I don't have a problem with that. He's got this one, just missed the earlier one."

Inconsistent?

There is some similarity in the two incidents – similarity, which does not mean they are the same thing even if they are covered by the same Law.

The Law.

Refereeing is about applying the Laws of the game.

6.A.10 THE BALL TOUCHING THE REFEREE

(a) If the ball or the ball-carrier touches the referee and neither team gains an advantage, play continues. If either team gains an advantage in the field of play, the referee orders a scrum and the team that last played the ball has the throw-in.

1. There were no Highlander players inconvenienced by the ball that touched Pollock. If anybody was affected adversely it was the Chiefs. No Highlander player seems to have decided to slow down – however it may be possible to determine that, but in fact the two freest to do so – Alex Ainley and Brendon Edmonds, move forward towards McKenzie. (It may have been that Ainley was impeded by Michael Fitzgerald but that's another matter and not the substance of this matter.) Neither Ainley nor Edmonds was close to where the ball hit Pollock or where McKenzie caught the ball.

2. There were a few players close to Dixon when he ran into Pollock. They may well have been impeded by the collision, especially Mitchell Crosswell and Brad Weber.

It would seem that the referee was correct in letting McKenzie play on and stopping Dixon from playing on.

New change of law?

It dates back to 1885: The ball is dead whenever it touches an Umpire or Referee and a scrummage shall; be formed forthwith at the spot where the touching occurs, but it is not dead simply because a player holding the ball touches an Umpire or Referee.

That was changed with an addition in 1892: He [the referee] must blow his whistle if the ball or player running with the ball touch him. If the ball or a player running with the ball touches the Referee it shall be put down there. That means that scrum should be formed.

Under the laws of 1885 and 1892 Marshall and Wilson are right.

But it changed again with an important decision: unless the referee considered that neither team has gained an advantage in which case he shall allow play to proceed.

Pollock was acting under that change which still obtains.

Date of that Change

It is not new law. It came into force in 1958. It has been in force for 57 years, in fact for the whole of the lifetimes of Marshall and Wilson who were both born in 1973. The players in the match between the Highlanders and the Chiefs would wall have been even younger and had no reason to stop playing because of the contact. In fact in both cases the players seemed to obey the ancient rugby law of playing to the whistle.

The sad thing about the commentary in this match is that wrong information is dogmatically promulgated for all to hear and presumably believe.

Neither commentator is a referee whereas Pollock is one of the 12 referees chosen for the World Cup this year – therefore one of the top 12 referees in the world and so more likely to apply the law more correctly than Marshall or Wilson. But such is the mistrust created by criticism of referees that commentators are more likely to be believed even though they are regularly wrong in their knowledge of the laws – as is the case here.