Law discussion - RWC, Day 2

There were three matches on Day 2 of the 2007 Rugby World Cup to give us pegs to hang a discussion on – New Zealand vs Italy, Australia vs Japan and England vs USA.

We have already given statistics on these matches.

The first one we shall deal with is an unpopular TMO decision in Marseille. Refereeing was never a form of Pop Idols. Vox populi is not always right. In the opening match there was a case in point. The referee penalised France at a tackle/ruck. There was loud booing. The referee was right at the incident, looking into the oven where the cooking was taking place and he saw what happened and penalised. Thousands of Frenchman did their catcalling from far away, way up in the stands, far from the action, proving that it may just be possible that 64,000 Frenchmen can be wrong!

The replay should that they were wrong. In that mix in the oven was Serge Betsen and it was a hand of his distinct pigmentation that played the ball illegally ads it made its way back to Argentina. The referee was right, the booers wrong.

1. Unpopular TMO

New Zealand are leading 76-14 and there are just over three minutes to play, but Italy are attacking. From a line-out they maul close to the New Zealand line. The maul falls and the referee sticks out an arm to indicate advantage to Italy for the collapse.

The ball comes back to Roland de Marigny, their flyhalf who chips ahead. Mauro Bergamasco has his path blocked by Luke McAlister and Aaron Mauger and is flattened as he steps forward to follow up. The ball bounces back off the crossbar where Chris Masoe drops it and the ball spills back from the New Zealand line as Andrea Masi of Italy goes to play the ball. McAlister flicks the ball back through his legs as De Marigny tries to get a boot to the ball and the ball goes into the New Zealand in-goal with De Marigny scrambling for it. Sitiveni Sivivatu is ahead of him as the ball lies in the in-goal. De Marigny tackles Sivivatu from behind when the All Black is less than a metre from the ball. Italian replacement Ezio Galon grounds the ball.

The referee decides to consult the television match official while the crowd voice their disapproval that such a consultation should be necessary. To reinforce the Italian belief that a try has been scored the Italian players meander back over the half-way line while De Marigny prepares to convert.

The referee gets the advice from the TMO and calls the two captains to explain that he cannot award the try because of foul play within the in-goal area. Instead he awards a penalty to New Zealand five metres from the New Zealand line.

It is an interesting situation.

However sentimental one may feel – after all the Italians were losing 76-14 and had no hope of winning. But it is not the match officials’ job to be patronising and “give them a try”.

What De Marigny did – tackle a player who did not have the ball, was wrong. Just awarding the try would not have been right and proper.

But what about Sivivatu? Did he deliberately block De Marigny’s path to the ball?

Law 10.1 (d) Blocking the ball. A player must not intentionally move or stand in a position that prevents an opponent from playing the ball.

Could he have been penalised? If he had blocked De Marigny deliberately, then he could have been.

Penalty try? Only if the referee thought that a try would probably have been scored but for the block.

Why the penalty five metres from the line?

The ball was alive in in-goal when the offence occurred.

Law 21.2 WHERE PENALTY AND FREE KICKS ARE TAKEN

(b) When a penalty or free kick is awarded for an infringement in in-goal, the mark for the kick is in the field-of play, 5 metres from the goal-line, in line with the place of infringement.

The only other questions are about earlier activity. Did McAlister go off his line to take Bergamasco out when he tried to chase the kick? If he did that could well, have been a penalty in front of the posts not many metres from the New Zealand line. There is no doubt that after that Italy did not have a free chance to play with the ball as they wished.

And a penalty for the collapse of the maul?

Here a case could be made for not going back to that penalty because Italy did have a chance to play with the ball as they wished and in fact opted for the chip.

2. Spearing

Paul Emerick of the USA was sent to the sin bin in the match against England for a dangerous tackle on Olly Barkley of the kind commonly called a spear tackle.

There were two other tackles which could be considered dangerous in a similar way when New Zealand played Italy, one by Jerry Collins and one by Chris Masoe. They were not penalised.

The matter of the spear tackle came to a head after the Lions tour of 2005 and the injury to Brian O’Driscoll. The top referees of the world in November 2005, which produced an aide memoire which contained the following:

Dangerous Tackles – To be treated at the upper end of foul play scale (red card, and work down, not the reverse)

High
No Arms
Spear
Tackle on the collar

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.

Certainly Emerick lifted Barkley up vertically from the ground and did not put him down safely and the yellow card was justified and may in fact have been lenient, but that was the decision of the referee in consultation with his touch judge.

Certainly Collins lifted Troncon up by the leg, capsized him and, far from putting him down safely, went on with the tackle ending with the Italian down on his back, his legs in the air. (This happened about 65 minutes into the match.)

The least dangerous looking of the three was the tackle by Masoe, with help from Chris Jack, on Manoa Vosawai of Italy. Again he was lifted up, his legs higher than his head and again he was not delivered to ground safely. (This happened about 73 minutes into the match.)

Obviously the referee has discretion.

3. Put your left foot in

Mauro Bergamasco kicks ahead towards the New Zealand 22. Leon MacDonald of New Zealand waits for the ball, his left foot behind the 22-metre line, the right foot infield of the 22-metre line. Before the ball reaches the 22-metre line MacDonald catches it and calls Mark. The referee awards the mark. MacDonald taps and heads off and New Zealand scores a try.

Right to award the mark?

Yes.

Law 18 DEFINITION

To make a mark, a player must be on or behind that player’s 22-metre line. A player with one foot on the 22 metre line or behind it is considered to be ‘in the 22’. The player must make a clean catch direct from an opponent’s kick and at the same time shout “Mark!”.

4. Bouncie, bouncie, ballie

Roland de Marigny of Italy kicks a long way downfield well into the New Zealand 22, where Sitiveni Sivivatu catches the ball and claims a mark. He is awarded the mark.

He bounces the ball on his knee and sets off on a run.

The referee calls him back and gives him the chance to kick the ball properly.

Law 21.3 3 HOW THE PENALTY AND FREE KICKS ARE TAKEN

(a) Any player may take a penalty or free kick awarded for an infringement with any kind of kick: punt, drop kick or place kick. The ball may be kicked with any part of the leg from knee to toe but not with the heel.

(b) Bouncing the ball on the knee is not taking a kick.
Penalty: Any infringement by the kicker’s team results in a scrum at the mark. The opposing team throws in the ball.

The referee was kind to Sivivatu.

4. Footsie footsie

England are penalised three times in quick succession and the USA take a tap kick and score their try.

Replacement hooker Blake Burdette takes the tap kick. He holds the ball in his hand, raises his right boot to it and charges at the line.

OK?

Law 21.4 (c) A clear kick. The kicker must kick the ball a visible distance. If the kicker is holding it, it must clearly leave the hands. If it is on the ground, it must clearly leave the mark.

Perhaps it left his hand.