Law Discussion - Heineken 4

Again it was a Heineken Cup weekend with much to enthrall and entertain. How about that thriller at The Stoop when Harlequins scored the winning try after some 30 phases nearly 85 minutes in the match!

A commentator said the Heineken Cup was the “best club competition in the oval world”. That may be a bit much but it was good.

1. Changes this week

The Scarlets are attacking. There is a tackle/ruck and their scrumhalf Martin Roberts is waiting for the ball. The referee calls Advantage and flings out an arm in the Scarlets’ direction.

The ball comes to Roberts who fiddles about with it. The referee realises that the Scarlets do not want the advantage. He blows his whistle for the penalty. Immediately – and before the referee can get to the mark – Roberts taps and darts forward. The referee allows play to go on.

Same player, similar circumstances the week before and the referee stopped Roberts and did it indignantly. This time play goes on.

Confusing for the players?

Possibly.

It may possibly be a difference that Roberts did not drop the ball to the ground, but there should not be su8ch a distinction in terms of the laws.

Maybe it makes a difference that one week the referee was English and the next week he was French.

There should not be any difference in applying the law.

The fault of local rulings?

If it is, that is silly. Such things should not exist in the laws of the game, certainly not for an international competition such as the Heineken Cup. Rulings are made by the International Rugby Board and even there they should last only as long as it takes to make law clearer.

To get a ruling from the IRB, the national body needs to make representation.

2. Quick throw skew

Ulster kick into touch and Stephen Jones gets hold of the ball in touch. Nobody else has touched it. He throws in quickly to Simon Easterby. The referee stops play.

Why?

Because the throw to Easterby was forward – well and truly forward. The throw-in had to travel towards the Ulster goal-line to get to Easterby.

By the experimental law variations the quick throw-in may be straight or backward but not forward.

Decision?

The referee gave Ulster the choice of a scrum or a line-out.

Right?

Yes.

Law 19.2 (e) At a quick throw in, if the player throws the ball in the direction of the opposition’s goal-line or if the ball does not travel at least five metres along or behind the line of touch before it touches the ground or a player, or if the player steps into the field of play when the ball is thrown, then the quick throw in is disallowed. The opposing team has the choice of a throw into a scrum or a scrum on the 15-metre line at that place. If they too throw in the ball incorrectly at the line-out, a scrum is formed on the 15-metre line.

3. Guilty and more guilty

These back-to-back matches a week apart may not be the best for good behaviour as angry memories may not have had a chance to subside. When Harlequins and Stade Français met in the rain there was anger and when Munster played Clermont Auvergne at Thomond Park there was fighting.

At Thomond Park things started innocently enough but then boiled over into fisticuffs of the worst kind seen on a rugby field – bare-knuckle boxing which is illegal even in boxing.

The two pugilists were – mainly but not only – Jamie Cudmore of Clermont Auvergne and Paul O’Connell of Munster. When it was over the referee gave a red card to Cudmore and a yellow card to O’Connell.

Not surprisingly this caused upset and suspicion in Auvergnat minds and mouths.

The referee – bless him – handled the matter calmly, matter-of-factly and efficiently. But what about two men fighting and a distinction made?

There was a time when the retaliator was treated more harshly than the instigator. That made no sense and no longer seems to obtain, though that does not exonerate the retaliator.

To the beholder – and the referee was a beholder – it seemed that Cudmore punched O’Connell three times aiming at his mouth before O’Connell, who had appealed to the touch judge, acted in retaliation – or was it just self-defence? Nobody expects a player to be a passive punch bag. Cudmore looked much more guilty than O’Connell. The referee made that distinction in the cards he issued. It seems eminently wise.

If there is any other evidence available then the citing commissioner will have his chance to make a case.

After all, O’Connell may have done something to Cudmore to provoke him. It did not seem so but then things are not always what they seem.

4. Unsollicited advice

Last week, in the match between Bath and Glasgow Warriors, the referee called the captains over and told them to stop their players from telling him how to referee.

It happened again this week when the Harlequins played Stade Français. The referee called the captains over and told them it had to stop. “This ends now.”

Moments later he awarded a scrum to Harlequins for a knock-on by Stade Français, a Harlequins player proffered advice to the referee and then the referee, true to his word, penalised Harlequins. Noel Oelschig goaled and Stade Français led 11-3.

That made a most efficient point.

5. Forget about dangerous tackles

Dan Carter of Perpignan is caught. He and his catcher are on their feet when Harry Ellis of Leicester Tigers arrives.

He sticks a left arm between Carter’s legs and lifts him up, pushing his own body up till Carter is perpendicular to the ground, head down. Ellis then drops Carter.

The referee penalises Ellis and tells him to be careful.

That’s all.

Remember the furore that existed for months after Brian O’Driscoll was dangerously tackled by Tana Umaga and Keven Mealamu in 2005? The anger went on and on and led the IRB to issue directives about the “spear tackle”.

O’Driscoll was injured which naturally heightened the perception of All Black malice. Carter was not injured but this, surely, was a dangerous tackle deserving of more than just a penalty and a “be careful”.

It could have been worse, for Ellis could have driven Carter downwards but surely it was bad enough.

The IRB issued an instruction stating that a dangerous tackle of this kind was to “be treated at the upper end of foul play scale (red card, and work down, not the reverse)”.

There was the instruction: ” Any player who puts a player in the air or caused a player to be put in the air has a responsibility to ensure that the player is brought to the ground safely.”

Ellis did not ensure that Carter was brought down safely. It is hard to see how a red card was not issued here.

Should injury play a role in judging the danger of a tackle? No really. After all a legal tackle can cause injury. No it is the nature of the tackle which requires action. This tackle required action.

If we are going to give yellow cards for killing the ball and for putting a boot on a back, then surely this sort of tackle should be severely penalised. Ellis’s citing goes some way to seeing to that.

6. Caught offside

Leicester Tigers throw in to a line-out. Tom Croft goes high – with help fore and aft. Often jumpers in this situation play the ball from that height down to the scrumhalf. But Croft does not. He holds the ball in his crow’s nest. This confuses big Olivier Olibeau who charges straight, crouched and menacing, at scrumhalf Julien Dupuy. But Dupuy does not have the ball. It is still in the line-out.

The referee penalises Olibeau for being offside which saves Dupuy a hiding.

Referee right?

Yes.

7. Whose ball

a. Dan Carter of Perpignan kicks high, Geordan Murphy of Leicester Tigers with his uncanny positional play catches the ball. Immediately two Catalans charge into him and the three go to ground.

The ball is unplayable.

The referee awards a scrum to Perpignan.

Right?

Yes.

Perpignan were going forward. They were also the attacking team in that they were in their opponents’ half.

What about catching the ball from a kick?

That applies only if there was a maul. In this case there was no maul because there was only the ball-carrier of his side involved. It would have required another Tiger while the tackle group was still on its feet.

b. Leicester Tigers put the ball into a scrum. Perpignan’s get a huge shove on and motor the Tigers back. The scrum collapses. The referee stops and has another scrum, Tigers’ ball.

The crowd boos.

Was the referee right?

Law 20.4 (g) If a scrum collapses or lifts up into the air without penalty a further scrum will be ordered and the team who originally threw in the ball will throw the ball in again.

The referee was right and every single booer was wrong.

c. Edinburgh kick high and then Mark van Gisbergen of London Wasps kicks high. Nick De Luca of Edinburgh catches the ball and runs forward. He and Van Gisbergen clash. Van Gisbergen drops to the ground, but play goes on as the First Aiders run on to deal with the wounded Wasp. Then play goes towards the place where Van Gisbergen is as Edinburgh kick to Wasps.

The referee stops the game to protect Van Gisbergen.

Is he entitled to?

Law 6.A.9 THE REFEREE AND INJURY

(a) If a player is injured and continuation of play would be dangerous, the referee must blow the whistle immediately.

(c) The referee must blow the whistle if continuation of play would be dangerous for any reason.

Who gets the put in?

Law 6.A.9 (b) If the referee stops play because a player has been injured, and there has been no infringement and the ball has not been made dead, play restarts with a scrum. The team last in possession throws in the ball. If neither team was in possession, the attacking team throws in the ball.

In this case the referee gave the scrum to London Wasps.

He was right.

8. No-go quick throw

Edinburgh’s passing breaks down and the ball goes into touch, bouncing off the barrier towards the wasps’ side. It strikes a cameraman’s foot. Danny Cipriani fetches the ball and passes it back to Eoin Reddan who is more than 10 metres back. just inside the five-metre line Reddan catches the ball, turns and kicks downfield.

Play goes on.

OK?

No, no, no.

That the ball hit the barrier was fine.
That the ball hit the cameraman’s foot it not fine.
That the ball was throw-in further towards the opposition’s side than where it went out was not fine.
That the ball was thrown in backward was fine.
That the ball was caught within five metres of touch was perhaps not fine.

Law 19.2 QUICK THROW IN

(b) For a quick throw in, the player may be anywhere outside the field of play between the place where the ball went into touch and the player’s goal line.

(d) For a quick throw in, the player must use the ball that went into touch. If, after it went to touch and was made dead, another ball is used, or if another person has touched the ball apart from the player throwing it in, then the quick throw in is disallowed. The same team throws in at the line-out.

(e) Experimental Law Variation: At a quick throw-in, if a player throws the ball in in the direction of the opposition’s goal-line or of the ball does not travel at least 5 metres along or behind the line of touch before it touches the ground or a player, or if the player steps into the field of play when the ball is thrown, then the quick throw in is disallowed.  The opposition team has the choice of a throw into a scrum or a free kick on the 15-metre line.

(h) At a quick throw in, a player must not prevent the ball being thrown in 5 metres.
Penalty: Free Kick on 15-metre line

There is – perhaps – a problem. The ball must be thrown in “at least 5 metres along or behind the line of touch”. Does that mean that it must reach the 5-metre line? The law is not clear. The ball in this case certainly travelled further than five metres but it was played before it reached the five-metre line.

If the law means it should reach the 5-metre line it should say so.

9. Collared – literally

Dave Walder of London Wasps breaks but he does not get far because Ali Hogg of Edinburgh sticks out a long arm and grabs him by the collar, jerking him back.

OK.

It’s not around the neck or head but it is above the line of the shoulders. It is potentially dangerous.

A penalty would not be farfetched.