Law Discussion - June Tests, Week 1

On the first Saturday in June there were three big Tests between teams from the North and teams from the South in the South. They give us food for thought and talk.

Northern sides label these Tests Summer Tests. Those who were in Wellington would have been astonished that anybody could label those Summer Tests as the ran cam down, the wind blew and the wind-chill factor took the temperature to -2 degrees Celsius. Whatever season it was, it was not summer.

We have already given some stats of the three matches and there are some clips on www.sareferees.co.za which may be of interest.

Let’s start with the Wellington Test and start with some things people say. There are programmes in the SANZAR countries that look over matches afterwards. There was some discussion about an incident in the Super 14 Final when the assistant referee pointed out that Tom Carter of the Waratahs was not back 10 metres when he advanced to tackle Dan Carter of the Crusaders, an action which freed up to the ball for Kurtley Beale to gather and “score”. This incident was shown in the New Zealand programme and in the Australian programme.

The New Zealand programme had lines drawn into it to show that Carter was back only eight metres and so the decision was the right one.

The Australian programme just let the incident run and then the commentator said, with greater infallibility than any Pope has ever claimed, that the decision was wrong and so it was a try. There was no evidence required, just the voice of the Kearns.

The point is that commentators are not necessarily unbiased.

1. That said

a. Ireland are plodding through a pick-‘n-drive routine.  The Irish scrumhalf, Eoin Reddan, pops the ball up to prop Tony Buckley, who is standing square onto him. The ball hits Buckley’s hands and goes to ground. Trying to allow for the angle and for the position of his hands, it would seem that the ball went backwards off Buckley’s hands. The referee signalled that it went backwards. The Irish regather the ball and plough a bit ahead where a tackle/ruck occurs. Quite clearly and quite crudely Ali Williams of New Zealand goes into the side of the tackle/ruck and is penalised.

As this played out from the time the ball pops out of Buckley’s grasp, the commentators speak, much of it interspersed with humourless laughter by the second commentator.

Commentator 1: “He;’s knocked it on, surely. No, he said back.”
Commentator 2: Laugh
Commentator 1: “He made it even worse for himself. He missed a knock-on and then he gave a penalty,.”
Commentator 3: “A shocker.”
Commentator 1: “Goodness gracious.”
Commentator 2: “I’d better not say anything.”
Commentator 1 as the incident is replayed: “clearly that’s a knock-on.”
Commentator 2: “And he’s standing right there, too.”
Commentator 1: “I don’t think he saw it to be honest. What about the touch judges?”
Commentator 2: “Where’d the penalty come in. Ali Williams does not know.”

That’s not great conversation. First, it;’s not clearly a knock-on. Secondly, the referee clearly saw it and decided that it was not a knock-on. Thirdly, Williams clearly comes in the side. If he does not know that he needs education. How penalises a player for infringing “makes it worse for himself” is not obvious.

One could go on.

This happened after 67 minutes.

b. This happens after the incident in a. above. The incident is shown in a clip on www.sareferees.co.za.

There is a maul. Paul O’Connell of Ireland initially has the ball but new All Black Adam Thomson (19) challenges him for the ball. They grapple for it and the maul collapses. The referee penalises New Zealand for collapsing the maul.

It is then revealed that Thomson actually had the ball. This leads to a chorus of criticism of the referee by all three commentators.

Commentator 2: “Where is the ball? Oh in fact it’s on New Zealand’s side.”
Commentator 1: “Thomson had it.”
Commentator 2: “He ripped the ball free and down it came.”
Commentator 1: “I’ll tell you what – Chris White has not had one of his best-ever nights.”
Commentator 2: “No. I hope he watches the replay.”
Commentator 1: “Difficult night to referee, fair enough.”
Commentator 3: “Asking Chris white to police the breakdown strictly is like asking a teenager to turn the music up. Happy to oblige.”

This one really gets out of hand. One could discuss the legality of bringing a maul down where the law does not allow the team with the ball the freedom to collapse the maul but is what is said worth saying. The bit about the music is, one supposes, smart/clever but what its relevance or accuracy is is unsure.

Is it the implication that White is somehow the Savonarola of the tackle? Is there evidence that he “polices the breakdown” more strictly than others? According to the statistics of the three Tests on Saturday, that is not obvious. In the ghastly Wellington weather the penalty count was 10 tackle/ruck penalties out of 17. In Bloemfontein it was 11 out of 17 and in Rosario it was 7 out of 18.

One could go on about it. This sort of commentary is not helpful.

This happened after 76 minutes.

2. Mauled

a. Just on the score of Adam Thomson’s action in b. above we should note the law:

Law 17.2 (d) Keeping players on their feet. Players in a maul must endeavour to stay on their feet. The ball-carrier in a maul may go to ground providing the ball is available immediately and play continues.
Penalty: Penalty Kick

(e) A player must not intentionally collapse a maul. This is dangerous play.
Penalty: Penalty Kick

Certainly the maul collapsed. The law does not allow the player with the ball to collapse the maul. It says that that is dangerous play.

It does allow the ball-carrier to drop to the ground and make the ball immediately available – drop to ground himself, not bring the structure down.

This happened after 76 minutes.

b. There is a maul started by New Zealand. Paul O’Connell of Ireland is in the maul and then he is outside of the maul. When he is outside of the maul he is well out because Ali Williams of New Zealand grabbed him and pulled him to ground.

OK?

Law 17.3 OTHER MAUL OFFENCES

(a) A player must not try to drag an opponent out of a maul.
Penalty: Penalty Kick

This happened after 53 minutes.

3. Maul?

New Zealand do  pick-‘n-drive. At a  tackle/ruck burly John Schwalger picks up the ball and tries to bound forward but he is brought down and lies on top of players. The referee blows the whistle and awards a scrum to New Zealand, saying: “Team going forward.”

Commentator 2: “I’m not sure that that was right. Should’ve gone to Ireland. They kept it up off the ground. Should’ve been use it or lose it.
Commentator 3: Because he fell on the body of a player on the ground, that does not constitute being held up apparently. That’s the only reason why the All Blacks have got the feed.”

First, use it or lose it applies to the maul. Having the ball off the ground is not the only criterion of a maul. This is not a maul. Schwalger, the ball carrier was knocked off his feet before any maul could be formed. Use it or lose it just did not apply.

One can have a tackle without the ball’s being on the ground. The criterion for a tackle is that the ball-carrier go to ground.

Law 15.3 BROUGHT TO THE GROUND DEFINED

(a) If the ball carrier has one knee or both knees on the ground, that player has been ‘brought to ground’.

(b) If the ball carrier is sitting on the ground, or on top of another player on the ground the ball carrier has been ‘brought to ground’.

Schwalger was brought to ground. He was also held. He was tackled.

Then the award of the scrum is determined by the tackle – not the maul.

Law 15.8 DOUBT ABOUT FAILURE TO COMPLY

If the ball becomes unplayable at a tackle and there is doubt about which player did not conform to Law, the referee orders a scrum immediately with the throw in by the team that was moving forward prior to the stoppage or, if no team was moving forward, by the attacking team.

New Zealand were moving forward. The award of the scrum to New Zealand was the right one.

This happened after 57 minutes.

4. You heel

Scotland attack down the left touch-line. Hooker Ross Ford drives ahead and is tackled just in from touch. A tackle/ruck ensues. The ball lies just in from touch.

Scottish scrumhalf Mike Blair arrives and picks up the ball to pass it to his right.

When he picks the ball up his heel touches the touch-line.

The touch judge raises his flag and awards the line-out to Argentina.

Right?

Yes.

If Blair, heel on touch-line, had moved the ball without picking it up, it would not have been out.

This happened after 2 minutes.

5. Drop-out?

Wales throw in at a line-out five metres from their line. Victor Matfield of South Africa and Ian Gough of Wales contest the ball. Gough wins and knocks the ball back. The ball bounces near the Welsh line. Bakkies Botha of South Africa grabs at the ball and knocks it into the Welsh in-goal where Ryan Jones makes it dead.

The referee awards a drop-out to Wales.

If Botha had knocked the ball on into the Welsh in-goal and Wales grounded it, it should be a five-metre scrum to Wales.

If Wales had knocked it back and grounded it, it would have been a five-metre scrum to South Africa.

It’s hard to justify the drop-out. The only possibility would have been if Botha had not knocked the ball on but had nudged it on by boot, head or torso – which was not the case.

If Matfield had knocked it on in the line-out, it would have been a scrum to Wales where the line-out was.

Law 12.1 (c) Knock on or throw forward into the in-goal. If an attacking player knocks-on or throws-forward in the field of play and the ball goes into the opponents’ in-goal and it is made dead there, a scrum is awarded where the knock on or throw forward happened.

(d) Knock on or throw forward inside the in-goal. If a player of either team knocks-on or throws-forward inside the in-goal, a 5-metre scrum is awarded in line with the place of infringement not closer than 5 metres from the touchline.

This happened after 52 minutes.