Law Discussion: Fighting and TMOs

The match between Bath and Sale Sharks was tense and in the end thrilling. The match did not always remain within the boundaries which the game and its spirit find acceptable.

There was fighting.

We shall discuss that and also two TMO decisions, one in this match and one when Clermont Auvergne scored near the end to beat Dax.

1. The referee lost control

How often have you heard that? How often has it been true?

Poor little referee, all alone, armed with a whistle, gets accused of losing control because big men about him lack self-control.

The first fight in the Bath-Sale match happened at the first scrum. There was hardly time for the referee to lose control.

The scrums in the match were a mess. There were 16 scrums with 13 collapses, 12 resets, three free kicks and five penalties. That hardly makes scrumming worthwhile but the referee was not inside any single one of those scrums. He penalised the first Sale scrum. He penalised the first Bath scrum .Those were the first two scrums of the match.  He tried his best but the mess persisted. All he did not do was send people off the field for spoiling the game in a dangerous way.

When the Bath scrum collapsed and Sale were penalised, Sébastien Chabal and Julian Harrison went head to head – literally, forehead pressing against forehead.

Later there was a fight when big Chabal attacked little Michael Claassen. For this Chabal was sent to the sin bin. Chabal went off protesting his innocence or that there was provocation. Even if there was provocation, surely to good ness commonsense tells you that your damaged ego is not as important as the team’s wellbeing.

Later Chabal was penalised for an air tackle on Harrison in a line-out. Again he protested innocence. But the slow-motion replay gave evidence that he was not innocent. If he had been sin-binned then he would have been off for good. As it was he cost his side three points.

There was a third fight in the first half, when Sale’s flank Luke Abraham and Bath’s centre Alex Crockett got close and aggressive. Abraham seemed to direct his head at Crockett’s face. That was a long way off the ball.

Mercifully, the match did settle down into more acceptable conduct. Perhaps the referee did have control.

It is interesting that two weeks in a row we have coaches coming out to defend players guilty of foul play. That is not helpful.

In the introduction to the Playing Charter, the Laws of the Game state:

At first glance it is difficult to find the guiding principles behind a game which, to the casual observer, appears to be a mass of contradictions. It is perfectly acceptable, for example, to be seen to be exerting extreme physical pressure on an opponent in an attempt to gain possession of the ball, but not wilfully or maliciously to inflict injury.

These are the boundaries within which players and referees must operate and it is the capacity to make this fine distinction, combined with control and discipline, both individual and collective, upon which the code of conduct depends.

Spirit

Rugby owes much of its appeal to the fact that it is played both to the letter and within the spirit of the laws. The responsibility for ensuring that this happens lies not with one individual – it involves coaches, captains, players and referees.
 
Coaches.

Anyway control starts with the player himself. The referee is also involved but only a way down the line and then only reactively.
 
2. Two TMO toughies
 
A TMO’s job is often difficult. After all the referee, who has two assistants, usually refers to the TMO only when the decision is too difficult for anything but guesswork. 
 
The TMO’s job is easier than the referee’s as he has the advantage of replays from various angles and if the decision is that it is inconclusive the evidence is there for all to see. It is easier to be trusted if you are a TMO!  At least that’s the theory.
 
Here are two that were tough unless the TMO had a stash of camera shots that we did not have. It seems that the TMO dies not have a stash of camera shots that the viewer does not have. We see what he sees.
 
a. Dax led Clermont Auvergne 16-13 with just under five minutes to play. From a scrum Clermont went left but Brock James, the flyhalf, played inside to big, storming Aurélien Rougerie who had come off his right wing.
 
Nicolas Vergallo, the Dax scrumhalf, tackled Rougerie around the ankles and brought him down. Rougerie is clearly short as Federico Martín Aramburu fell on him. The referee referred the matter to the TMO and eventually the try was given.
 
Rougerie and Clermont Auvergne may have been fortunate.
 
Rougerie was held and he was on the ground. He was tackled.
 
He could still score a try but only in one of two ways.
 
(i) if his momentum had taken him into in-goal;
 
(ii) if he had placed the ball on or over the line.
 
 (i) For momentum there needed to be no hiatus in Rougerie’s forward momentum.
 
Law 22.4 (d) Momentum try. If an attacking player with the ball is tackled  short of the goal line but the player’s momentum carries the player  in a continuous movement along the ground into the opponents’ in-goal, and the player is first to ground the ball, a try is scored.
 
 (ii) Law 15.5 THE TACKLED PLAYER

(a) A tackled player must not lie on, over, or near the ball to prevent  opponents from gaining possession of it, and must try to make the  ball available immediately so that play can continue.
Penalty: Penalty Kick
 
(b) A tackled player must immediately pass the ball or release it. That  player must also get up or move away from it at once.
Penalty: Penalty Kick
 
(c) A tackled player may release the ball by putting it on the ground  in any direction, provided this is done immediately.
Penalty: Penalty Kick
 
(d) A tackled player may release the ball by pushing it along the  ground in any direction except forward, provided this is done  immediately.
Penalty: Penalty Kick
 
(f) If a tackled player’s momentum carries the player into the in-goal,  the player can score a try or make a touch down.
 
(g) If players are tackled near the goal line, these players may  immediately reach out and ground the ball on or over the goal line to score a try or make a touch down.
 
If in Rougerie’s case there was not momentum, rather self-propulsion, nor did there seem to be an act which could be described as placing the ball.
 
b. Bath are leading Sale Sharks 10-5 at the Rec. with 14 minutes to play. Mark Cueto is running for the line but Nick Abendanon tackles him from behind as ?? Maddock grapples with him. Down Cueto goes but is not held by Abendanon. Cueto, half a metre short of the line, has the ball under his left arm. He moves his left arm forward without stretching, still with the ball clasped under his armpit. Then he moves his right arm forward. Twice he pushes off his knees as Maddock holds him.
 
Cueto is eventually at the line. The referee consults the TMO, and replays start.
 
Commentator: “Not being held when he did a wriggle-on, and so no issue there. He had the right to place the ball.”
 
The TMO advises that a try has been scored and the referee awards it.

There is just one difference between a player on the ground with the ball not tackled and a player on the ground with the ball tackled. The not tackled player is allowed to get up with the ball.  He is not allowed to “wriggle on” or crawl or hold onto the ball.

Law 14 DEFINITION

A player who is not tackled, but who goes to ground while holding the ball, or a player who goes to ground and gathers the ball, must act immediately.

Law 14.1 PLAYER ON THE GROUND

The player must immediately do one of three things:

Get up with the ball, or
Pass the ball, or
Release the ball.

A player who passes or releases the ball must also get up or move away from it at once. Advantage is played only if it happens immediately.
Penalty: Penalty Kick

Cueto did none of those three things. He may have been fortunate to be awarded the try.