Law Discussion: Hurricane complaints

A draw is seldom satisfying and their 26-all draw with the Crusaders was not at all satisfying for the Hurricanes, some of whom had complaints about two of the three Crusader tries.

The first complaint has merit, the second not. We shall look at both.

1. Quick throw

Colin Slade of the Crusaders was tackled into touch near the Hurricanes’ goal-line and was hurt. The Hurricanes won the subsequent line-out and Piri Weepu kick the ball a long way down field. The ball bounced near Slade and the towards touch. Slade’s right hand seemed to strike the ball which went into touch. The assistant referee awards the throw-in to the Hurricanes.

Andy Ellis throws in quickly from touch to Dan Carter, Robbie Freuan breaks and Zac Guildford scores a try which takes the score to 18-0 for the Crusaders.

The first Hurricane complaint was about whose throw-in it was. They claimed the throw-in on the grounds that it had touched Slade last.

If it did touch Slade, their argument did not hold water because Slade was in touch when it did so and the ball was beyond the plane of touch. In other words the ball was out and it touched a player who was out. The assistant referee’s decision that the Crusaders were entitled to the throw-in was correct.

The Hurricanes’ complaint may well have worked against them. When they complained the referee asked the assistant referee for his reasoning, which may well have distracted the assistant from his primary duty of watching what happened to the ball in touch.

roughly behind him Conrad Smith of the Hurricanes had the ball, expecting a Hurricanes throw-in. Seeing the assistant’s arm pointing to the Crusaders, Smith – in touch – dropped the ball. Ellis picked up and threw in quickly and off the Crusaders went to score a try.

Was Ellis entitled to throw in quickly?

Law 19.2 (d) For a quick throw-in, the player must use the ball that went into touch. A quick throw-in is not permitted if another person has touched the ball apart from the player throwing it in and an opponent who carried it into touch. The same team throws into the line-out.

Another person.

Another person could be any other human being – an opponent, a team-mate, an assistant referee, a medical attendant, a policeman, a ball boy, a dancing girl, etc. Another person was any human being who was not the person attempting the quick throw-in.
Another person would not be a fence, a bench, the stand, the stand roof, an advertising board, a dog, a car, a horse, etc.

Conrad Smith was “another person”. That he touched – and more than just touched – the ball nullified any chance the Crusaders had to have a quick throw-in.

What should the assistant referee have done?

Law 6.B.5 (d) When to lower the flag. When the ball is thrown in, the touch judge or assistant referee must lower the flag, with the following exceptions:
Exception 3: When, at a quick throw-in, the ball that went into touch is replaced by another ball, or after it went into touch or it has been touched by anyone except the player who takes the throw-in, the touch judge or assistant referee keeps the flag up.

If he had seen what had happened, he would have kept his flag up and the Crusaders would have been required to throw into a formed line-out.

2. Paulo’s try

The Crusaders have a line-out five metres from the Hurricanes’ line. The siren sounds the end of play. The Crusaders attack and are right at the line when Andrew Hore of the Hurricanes fishes the ball out and kills it. But he did so illegally and is penalised. There is no time for a line-out and so the Crusaders opt for a scrum.

From the scrum they batter against till Paulo gets the ball amongst a heap of players and plunges at the line a short distance away.

The referee consults the television match official.

He is entitled to ask one of two questions – whether or not a try had been scored or whether there was a reason not to award the try.

The first question is asked when the referee has no clue whether a try had been scored.

For the second option he is able to see that the ball is grounded over the line with an attacking player in possession. In this second case the referee is asking for confirmation of what he believes is probable.  after all he awards penalty try on a probability. There is no harm in awarding a try in this case on a probability and the referee certainly had a better view than any camera as he squatted and peered directly into the action. In pre-TMO days he would simply have awarded the try. In most rugby matches around the world where there is no TMO the referee would simply have awarded a try.

He now wants to avoid the embarrassment of awarding a try when the television shows the world that some obvious error has occurred.

In this case the referee says: “Give me a reason why I cannot award a try and in particular whether the player stayed on his feet in an attempt to get over the line.”

He even asks for additional information.

The TMO can see no reason to award a try.

In this case the TMO does not have to see that the try has been scored – only if there is a reason that it was not scored.

What happened here is perfectly reasonable and within law. There can be no complaint here.