Law discussion: exception's exception
Montpellier and Harlequins were playing in a Challenge Cup match on Friday.
On a night when scrums were a disaster. Harlequins were penalised and Demetri Catrakelis, the Montpellier flyhalf, goaled the penalty. Ben Botiga of Harlequins kicked off.
Benjamin Fall, the Montpellier right wing, jumps catches the ball and is immediately grabbed by Chris Robshaw and Luke Wallace of Harlequins. Paul Willemse of Montpellier joins in to support Fall. Michel Nariashvili and Jannie du Plessis of Montpellier and Mark Lambert and Will Collier of Harlequins bind in. It is a maul.
The maul collapses and the referee regards the ball as unplayable. He blows his whistle and awards a scrum to Montpellier, saying: "It's from a kick. Has to be their ball." When Harlequins, query the decision, the referee reinforces his earlier explanation, saying: "Direct from a kick. Got to be same ball."
The commentators agree with the referee.
Were they right?
Referee and commentators were wrong.
There are three steps.
1. It is a maul that ended unsuccessfully.
Law 17.6 UNSUCCESSFUL END TO MAUL
(b) A maul ends unsuccessfully if the ball becomes unplayable or collapses (not as a result of foul play) and a scrum is awarded.
(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.
By (c) the scrum should have been awarded to Harlequins.
2. Exception.
This caught by a Montpellier player from a Harlequin's kick.
Law 17.6 (h) Scrum after a maul when catcher is held. If a player catches the ball direct from an opponent’s kick and the player is immediately held by an opponent, a maul may form. Then if the maul remains stationary, stops moving forward for longer than 5 seconds, or if the ball becomes unplayable, and a scrum is ordered, the team of the ball-catcher throws in the ball.
The law as quoted above, says that the scrum should have been awarded to Montpellier, as the referee did.
This, by the way, applies only to the maul, not to the tackle or the ruck.
3. Exception within an exception.
In 2. above the law is not quoted in full but that is what the referee applied. Here it is in full.
Law 17.6 (h) Scrum after a maul when catcher is held. If a player catches the ball direct from an opponent’s kick, except from a kick-off or a drop-out, and the player is immediately held by an opponent, a maul may form. Then if the maul remains stationary, stops moving forward for longer than 5 seconds, or if the ball becomes unplayable, and a scrum is ordered, the team of the ball-catcher throws in the ball.
The bit that was omitted was: except from a kick-off or a drop-out. That bit means that 2. does not apply if the kick is a kick-off or a drop-out, and Botiga's kick was a kick-off.
And so the scrum should have been awarded to the Harlequins.
Exceptions are bad enough but an exception to an exception really is confusing, it seems. Not that that excuses a referee at this level for getting law wrong. But why there is an exception at all is a bit of a mystery. It seems so unnecessary, even if it is intended to discourage kicking. After all it happens rarely.
