Law Discussion - Heineken Cup Round 2
There are five matches again this week in the Heineken Cup which have given us aspects of the laws to talk about.
Some of what we talk about is contained in clips on the South African Referees’ site – www.sareferees.co.za.
Also on that site is a ruling on the ruck by the IRB’s designated members and a clarification of the high tackle which starts low and slips up.
On the same site there is a competition which some may wish to enter.
The matches in question this week are Harlequins vs Cardiff Blues, Gloucester vs Ospreys, Llanelli Scarlets vs London Wasps, Munster vs Clermont Auvergne and Bristol vs Stade Francais.
There have been times when one has felt uncomfortable about the thick padding on posts and the way it makes scoring a try against it easier. But this week the value of the padding was there for all to see. Ugo Monye of Harlequins ran smack into it, front on. He was bowled over but got up as if nothing had happened at all.
1. Within 10
We have two incidents.
a. Mike Brown, the Harlequins fullback,. hoists a high kick and chases it. He leaps high and catches the ball in the air. The referee blows his whistle and penalises the Harlequins, which causes several people at The Stoop to boo, which would have distressed Adrian Stoop.
The people booing were wrong. The referee had noticed that as Brown kicked, the Harlequins flank, Paul Volley, was well ahead of Brown and moved forward as Brown charged till he was only a metre or so from the place where the ball came down into Brown’s skilled arms.
This happened around the 69th minute of the match.
b. Stephen Jones of the Llanelli Scarlets chips ahead. As the ball drops the Wasps’ fullback Mark van Gisbergen comes forward and flykicks it on the half volley. The ball loops up in the air going infield where Simon Easterby of the Scarlets, with many Wasps near him, two standing and one advancing, knocks on. Simon Shaw of Wasps, who was standing still when Van Gisbergen ran past him, moves forward to pick up the ball.
The referee awards a scrum for the knock-on.
This happened around the 26th minute of the match.
In a., Volley was off-side under the 10-metre law (Law 11.4). The only way Brown could have put him on-side was if he retired, which he did not do. The referee was correct to penalise him. The people who booed were wrong.
In b., does it make a difference that it is a flykick for there were several Harlequins well within 10 metres of Easterby?
Law 11.4 talks only of a kick. The laws define kick: A kick is made by hitting the ball with any part of the leg or foot, except the heel, from the toe to the knee but not including the knee.
What Van Gisbergen did was a kick.
Did it matter that Easterby knocked the ball on?
Law 11.4 OFF-SIDE UNDER THE 10-METRE LAW
(a) New When a team-mate of an off-side player has kicked ahead, the off-side player is considered to be taking part in the game if the player is in front of an imaginary line across the field which is 10 metres from the opponent waiting to play the ball, or from where the ball lands or may land. The off-side player must immediately move behind the imaginary 10 metre line. While moving away, the player must not obstruct an opponent.
(b) While moving away, the off-side player cannot be put on-side by any action of the opposing team. However, before the player has moved the full 10 metres, the player can be put on-side by any on-side team-mate who runs in front of the player.
(c) When a player who is off-side under the 10-metre law charges an opponent waiting to catch the ball, the referee blows the whistle at once and the off-side player is penalised. Delay may prove dangerous to the opponent.
(d) When a player who is off-side under the 10-metre law plays the ball which has been mis-fielded by an opponent, the off-side player is penalised.
Only one of the Wasps players moved backwards. Shaw did not. He stood still, which means that Van Gisbergen did not put him on-side when he ran past him.
It would seem that a penalty against Wasps would have been entirely in order – as it was in a. above.
2. Ins and outs and a long way back
There are two clips of these two incidents on www.sareferees.co.za.
a. Shaun Perry of Bristol kicks high down to the touch-line on his right. Bristol fullback Luke Arscott, chases the ball as Nicolas Jeanjean of Stade Francais closes in on the ball. Arscott jumps for the ball and knocks it into the field of play. Play goes on.
OK?
Arscott was certainly in touch when he played the ball. But he did not catch the ball.
Law 19. A player in touch may kick or knock the ball but not hold it, provided it has not crossed the plane of the touch-line. The plane of the touch-line is the vertical space rising immediately above the touch-line.
This was not an easy one. The touch judge must have had a good view of it as he was downfield from Arscott and so not impeded by Jeanjean.
This happened around the 35th minute of the match.
b. Shaun Perry of Bristol goes back and gets the ball well inside his 22. He kicks a long torpedo downfield. Nicolas Jeanjean of Stade Francais is in touch about 10 metres outside of his 22. He knocks the ball back infield and it rolls in to the Stade Francais 22. Jeanjean goes back, collects the ball about five metres inside his 22, widens his angle and kicks the ball out about eight metres inside the Bristol half.
David Lemi of Bristol gets the ball in touch and decides on a quick throw in. He throws in far and high, over the head of Mark Regan but David Hill gets the ball. He is then tackled by two Stade Francais players who have been lurking downfield while the kicking was happening. Hill knocks on.
This one is going to take some untangling. Let’s do it piece by piece.
Was Jeanjean in touch? Yes.
Had the ball crossed the plane of the touch-line? If the answer is Yes, then ;play should have stopped right there. If the answer is No, then play goes on. Presumably the answer is No. (For this bit of the discussion, look at a. above.)
Does Jeanjean kick directly into touch? Yes.
Had he taken the ball back into his 22? Yes.
If there is to be a line-out, where would it be? Opposite the place where he kicked the ball which was on or just inside his 22.
Was Lemi entitled to throw in quickly? Yes.
Could play go on from the quick throw-in? Yes.
Did the quick throw-in nullify the need for a line-out? Yes.
Were the Stade Francais players who tackled Hill off-side? No, because the ball had become dead when it went into touch.
All of that adds up to what happened – a scrum where Hill knocked on.
But what about advantage? Can’t Bristol go back to the original line-out opposite where Jeanjean kicked the ball?
No. Kicking the ball into touch is not an infringement. It takes an infringement to create an opportunity for advantage.
This happened around the 54th minute of the match.
3. No quick throw
Ospreys’ right wing Jonathon Vaughton heads for the corner. Iain Balshaw of Gloucester covers in desperation. Vaughton gets the ball down but the referee refers the matter to the TMO.
The TMO advises that Vaughton’s right foot had clipped the touch line as he dived over.
The TMO’s process takes some time, during which the Ospreys players are well back from the goal-line, no doubt expecting a try to be awarded.
The referee declares that a try has not been scored and orders a line-out five metres from the Gloucester line. Gloucester’s players are nearer this place and Olivier Azam, their hooker, throws in quickly.
The referee does not allow the quick throw.
Say it was the same ball, should the referee allow the quick throw?
No. Not because of any law but because of commonsense. Gloucester would have got a big advantage not because of any good play on their part and not because of any poor play on the Ospreys’ part but just because of the process of consultation.
This happened around the 77th minute of the match.
4. Knock-on?
The Ospreys attack but they fail to protect the ball at a tackle/ruck. The ball squirts out and Gareth Delve of Gloucester picks up the ball and plods with great determination down the midfield. The defence closes in on him and he passes the ball high to his right. Mike Tindall stretches up for the ball which touches his hand and goes behind him as he runs forward. Rory Lawson is on hand to gather the ball as it comes down from Tindall’s height and keeps on running.
The referee calls Gloucester back for a scrum for the knock-on by Tindall.
If Tindall did knock the ball forward then it was a correct decision because it is the player who knocks the ball forward who must recover it before it touches the ground or another player to prevent the knock-on.
This happened around the 75th minute of the match.
5. A yellow card
There is a clip of this on www.sareferees.co.za
Ospreys throw into a line-out and Jonathan Thomas knocks the ball back in uncontrolled fashion. Big Gloucester’s forward Akapusi Qera bursts through onto the ball and sets off but wing Jonathan Vaughton comes across and tackles him around the ankles. Ospreys’ captain Filo Tiatia falls onto Qera. Vaughton gets to his feet and plays the ball.
The referee penalises Vaughton and sends him to the sin bin.
Reasons to penalise Vaughton?
He was not off-side. It was not a dangerous tackle as it was right round the ankles. He was on his feet when he played the ball. There was nothing in that to penalise.
Incorrect entry?
Vaughton tackles Qera, holding onto his ankles. They both go to ground. That makes Vaughton a tackler. As the tackler he is allowed to play the ball from any angle he chooses. He does not need to come through the gate.
There is no reason in that to penalise Vaughton, let alone give him a yellow card.
It may have been that Tiatia is regarded as the tackler, that Vaughton did not tackle him but Tiatia did. The reason for this is not easy to fathom unless Vaughton did not hold on till Qera was on the ground. But it’s hard to see Tiatia as the tackler. If neither Tiatia nor Vaughton is the tackler then there is no reason why Vaughton could not approach the ball the way he did.
What Vaughton did looked wrong but probably wasn’t.
This happened around the 43rd minute of the match.
6. Whose ball?
The award of a scrum can be so important.
Munster attack on the left. The ball goes to Ian Dowling on the left wing. He cuts in but there is lots of Clermont Auvergne cover. Julien Malzieu and Grant Esterhuizen grab Dowling. Shaun Payne and Denis Leamy of Munster drive in on Dowling who is on his feet. Others join in – Donncha O’Callaghan and Ronan O’Gara of Munster and Emmanuel Etien and Raphael Chanal of Clermont Auvergne. There is no doubt that this is a maul.
Munster drive the ball forward but eventually it all falls down.
The referee blows his whistle and says: “Too untidy. No quick ball. Red forward, Red ball.”
Right?
It’s hard to see how that is right. It was a maul. The ball did not emerge, which means that the maul ended unsuccessfully. Then the ball goes to the team not in possession when the maul was formed, regardless of who was going forward.
Law 17.6 UNSUCCESSFUL END TO A MAUL
(b) A maul ends unsuccessfully if the ball becomes unplayable or collapses (not as a result of foul play) and a scrum is ordered.
(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.
This happened around the 18th minute of the match.
7. No-one else around
Under pressure Clermont Auvergne heel the ball back in a scrum but as scrumhalf Arnaud Pic picks at the ball Peter Stringer sneaks a foot to it to make things hard for the Frenchman. The ball rolls back along the ground. Julien Malzieu, the Clermont Auvergne full back, comes forward and takes a wild, flying kick at the ball. He misses the ball but Alan Quinlan of Munster picks up and falls just short of the line but, lifting his torso, he manages to get the ball down on the line.
The referee says to the TMO: “It looks a try to me. Tell me any reason why I cannot award it.”
The TMO can find no reason and the try is awarded.
Commentator: “It was not a double movement because there was no-one else around.”
Can somebody not trace the inventor of “double movement” and bring him to trial?
The only difference between a tackled player with the ball on the ground and a player not tackled but lying on the ground with the ball is that the player not tackled is allowed to get up with the ball. The tackled player is not allowed to get up with the ball.
That’s all.
This happened around the 77th minute of the match.
8. Out for all?
There is a ruck. It certainly is a ruck and the referee is warning the Stade Francais players to stay on-side. The ball is on the ground amongst Bristol feet. It is a ruck.
Shaun Perry the Bristol scrumhalf puts his hands on the ball to pick it up. He releases the ball but when he does so Sergio Parisse charges forward on defence.
Then Perry picks up the ball and the referee calls Parisse for being off-side.
Admit that “hands in” at scrum at scrum and ruck have joined the dodo in extinction, but still if Perry is allowed to put hands on the ball on the ground in a ruck, then the ruck is over. Then Parisse may advance.
Parisse may have been unlucky for the referee was looking infield when Perry put hand to ball the first time and may have missed it.
This happened around the 11th minute of the match.
9. Mind the gap
Olivier Azam of Gloucester is about to throw into a line-out. Before he does so Gloucester’s Peter Buxton, at No.2 in the line-out, turns into the gap and wanders backwards. This leaves room for Marco Bortolami to come forward to take the ball.
The referee awards a free kick to the Ospreys because Buxton had closed the gap.
Right?
Yes.
This happened around the 23rd minute of the match.
