Law Discussion: Currie Cup Final
Law Discussion: Currie Cup Final
The Cheetahs scored a try in the corner and converted it to win the dramatic 2007 Currie Cup Final in Bloemfontein on Saturday 20-18. There are just a few matters of laws for us to discuss.
There are in fact only three matters for discussion following a match played in an honourable way and exceptionally well refereed.
One of them is especially interesting.
1. Catcher caught – again
Louis Ludik, the Lions’ fullback and runs and kicks down the touch-line on his right. Just outside his 22 Falie Oelschig of the Cheetahs catches the ball and immediately he is laid low by Ludik. The tackler and the tackled player go to ground and immediately there is a gathering of players. The ball will not emerge from the gathering, and the referee awards a scrum.
Whose ball?
That Oelschig caught the ball is irrelevant. The only time his catching of the ball is relevant is if a maul forms round him. That did not occur here. There was a tackle which may or may not have given rise to a ruck.
Whether or not there was a ruck is not of critical importance because the scrum following both an inconclusive tackle and an inconclusive ruck is the same. It is not the same as the scrum that follows in an inconclusive maul.
Law 15.8 DOUBT ABOUT FAILURE TO COMPLY
If the ball becomes unplayable at a tackle and there is doubt about which player did not conform to law, the referee orders a scrum immediately with the throw-in by the team that was moving forward prior to the stoppage or, if no team was moving forward, by the attacking team.
Law 16.7 UNSUCCESSFUL END TO A RUCK
(a) A ruck ends unsuccessfully when the ball becomes unplayable and a scrum is ordered.
The team that was moving forward immediately before the ball became unplayable in the ruck throws in the ball.
If neither team was moving forward, or if the referee cannot decide which team was moving forward before the ball became unplayable in the ruck, the team that was moving forward before the ruck began throws in the ball. If neither team was moving forward, then the attacking team throws in the ball.
In this Oelschig case neither side moves forward in the tackle or in the subsequent ruck, if indeed it was a ruck. That means that the attacking team should throw in. The attacking team is defined as the one in the opponents’ half. And that team was the Lions.
2. Where should the penalty be?
The Lions run from their own 22 with long passes. They get to the half-way line when Louis Ludik, under pressure from Eddie Fredericks, gets a magnificent, quick pass away under pressure to Jannie Boshoff.
Boshoff is then tackled near touch and from the ensuing tackle/ruck the ball comes infield to Ludik who is tackled by Marius Joubert about 35 metres from the Cheetahs’ line and about 10 metres in from touch. There a tackle/ruck happens and when the ball comes back referee penalises the Cheetahs.
The touch judge then reports that Eddie Fredericks’s “pressure” was more than just pressure. He had tackled Ludik armlessly and with his shoulder, for which he recommended a yellow card.
There are this two penalties in the same movement – one on the half-way line in front of the posts and one 15 metres closer to the Cheetahs’ line but only 10 metres from touch.
Is the referee committed to one or the other? Can he decide where he will make the mark of the penalty?
Presumably he would allow advantage after Fredericks’s action. If Ludik had been tackled five metres form the Cheetahs line, the referee would not have come back for the penalty. If Ludik had scored a try, the referee would not have come back for the penalty.
Presumably the penalty was awarded where Fredericks tackled Ludik because that was the more advantageous position.
The Lions goaled the penalty.
3. Questions of the TMO
The score is 18-13, and the Cheetahs turn a penalty into a line-out and the line-out into the maul and the whole thing shunts over the Lions’ line.
The ball is apparently under the upper body of Heinrich Brussow who had had the ball at the back of the maul as it drove at the line.
The question the referee asks the TMO is important as the TMO is allowed to respond only to the referee’s question.
In this case the question went: “I’ve no idea if it was a try or not. See if you can see the grounding or not. Otherwise we’re going to go scrum five.”
The TMO gave an “inconclusive” report as he could not see the grounding.
The referee might well have asked a different question: “Is there any reason why I cannot award a try.” That would have been based on two bits of knowledge – seeing Brussow carrying the ball and seeing Brussow on the ground with the ball under his chest and on the ground.
That question may have produced a different answer.
4. Intrusion from the bench
May you penalise a player on the bench?
Tewis de Bruyn of the Cheetahs, on as an early replacement, kicks a long kick downfield just after the lions had taken two quick throw-ins from touch.
As the ball goes out Hendrik Meyer of the Cheetahs, who has been substituted and is now on the bench, gets up and plays the ball, thereby preventing the Lions from taking a quick throw-in.
The referee speaks to Meyer before the ball is thrown in to a formed line-out, telling him not to do that again. Meyer apologises.
But if he had done it again, what could the referee have done?
It’s not all that easy when players on the bench are allowed to run about and warm up. There even was a case of interference with the ball in in-goal during the World Cup.
What steps could the referee have taken against Meyer?
Could he penalise a player who is not playing?
But in a sense he is playing. Perhaps he could be sanctioned under Law 6 – Number of Players.
Law 3.11 (c) If the player rejoins the match without the referee’s permission, and the referee believes the player did so to help that player’s team or obstruct the opposing team, the referee penalises the player for misconduct.
Penalty: Penalty Kick where play would restart.
There are also may be something earlier in the law which makes his action penalisable.
Law 3.2 2 TEAM WITH MORE THAN THE PERMITTED NUMBER OF PLAYERS
Objection: at any time before or during a match a team may make an objection to the referee about the number of players in their opponents’ team. As soon as the referee knows that a team has too many players, the referee must order the captain of that team to reduce the number appropriately. The score at the time of the objection remains unaltered.
Penalty: Penalty at the place where the game would restart.
In Meyer’s case the penalty would be 15 metres in from touch.
