Law discussion: S14, Wk 3, Incidents

It was not a happy weekend for referees with lots of criticism, controversy and anger.

We have given some statistics for the weekend and will do an inventory (again) of scrums and dissent, when we shall also talk briefly about criticism of referees by officials.

For now we shall discuss some incidents in matches. In two of them the match officials got it wrong, and were subjected to far less criticism than in two incidents in which they were right!

We shall also take some readers’ questions.

On the matter of readers’ questions there is an interesting section on the new South African referees’ site where a “duty referee” answers questions posed by readers. This site is just a week old but has had queries from England, Scotland, Australia, the USA and Cyprus. The questions are answered within 24 hours – more or less.

Let’s start with two right and then do two wrong.

1. The touch judge with the spear

At a tackle/ruck Anton Leonard of the Blue Bulls picked up Gareth Hardy of the Western Force by the upper leg and tipped him up so that he was vertical to the ground, feet in the air, head pointing down. Hardy then fell head and neck on the players beneath him. He then fell onto the ground. The referee was about three metres from the incident and facing it. He waves play on.

(A clip of the incident appears on the SA referees site – http://www.sareferees.co.za/home)

Play went on till the touch judge stuck his flag out and drew the referee’s attention to the tackle, by which time the Bulls seemed about to score a try. The referee stopped play, consulted his touch judges, sent Leonard to the sin bin and penalised the Bulls.

First of all, what Leonard did – and there were shades of what happened to Brian O’Driscoll in New Zealand – was wrong. According to the International A Rugby Board’s ruling and instruction he was wrong and was to be given a yellow card – which is what happened. How the decision was reached was important – more important than the way the decision was reached, though the way the decision was reached became the heart of the controversy.

Some people were upset that the touch judge had intervened in a situation that the referee seemed to find no fault with. The touch judge became the scapegoat for the Bulls’ defeat.

The instruction to touch judges from the IRB is that they indicate foul play – and this was foul play – even if the referee seems to have seen this. The reason for this is uncertainty about the referee’s focus at the time.

It is possible to be sitting next to a radio and not hear a word as one’s attention is focussed elsewhere – rather like during sermons in church! The referee’s attention may well have been focussed on the ball and not on Leonard’s activities on the other side of the tackle/ruck. His call to play on may have been because the ball was emerging on the Force’s side.

The referee is entitled to overrule the touch judge, and he could have done so in this case if he was certain of what he had seen and that it was harmless.

The touch judge communicates with the referee in two ways in a case like this – putting out his flag and talking to him by microphone. The referee could still overrule him. Usually he would play the incident out and then consult the referee. In this case he stopped the play in midstream, which made overruling difficult. But imagine if the Bulls had scored a try and he had then cancelled it to deal with Leonard. Just imagine the furore.

Much was made by some of the distance the touch judge was from the action. Apparently spectators who are even further away can see well enough! When the referee sent Toby Lynn of the Chiefs to the sin bin for stamping, he consulted the touch judge on the near side, who was about 8 metres from the action, and the touch judge on the far side who was 62 metres from the action.

In brief Leonard was wrong, the touch judge not wrong and the referee hard to judge but not looking good.

2. Replacing a bleeder

Brent Russell started for the Stormers. On about 60 minutes he was taken off as a substitute. He was not bleeding. It was a tactical substitution and recorded as such.

Sven minutes later Jean De Villiers, the Stormers centre, was cut and bled. Off he went with a lacework of blood on his face. The Stormers wanted to put Russell back, but the fourth official stopped him, presumably because he had been tactically substituted.

The Stormers had no other backs to send on and so they moved replacement hooker Brits to centre and brought on Tiaan Liebenberg to hook, allowed because he was a front row player.

OK?

Not all of it at all.

Russell was in fact entitled to go back.

Law 3.12 SUBSTITUTED PLAYERS REJOINING THE MATCH If a player is substituted, that player must not return and play in that match even to replace an injured player.

Exception 1: a substituted player may replace a player with a bleeding or open wound.
Exception 2: a substituted player may replace a front row player when injured, temporarily suspended or sent off.

Exception 1 means that Russell was allowed to replace bleeding De Villiers and Liebenberg was justified on the grounds of both exceptions.>

3. The unkicked free kick

Near the Highlanders line, there is a troublesome scrum and the referee awards the Highlanders a free kick. The Sharks retreat.

Jimmy Cowan, the Highlanders scrumhalf, gives the ball to Charlie Hore, the Highlanders flyhalf, who sets himself to kick at touch.

Hore moves forward to kick and Johan Muller of the Sharks charges at him. Surprised Hore does a dummy and sidestep but loses the ball back wards. As Muller heads for the ball Cowan kicks it to his left where flank Alando Soakai picks up and runs the Highlanders out of trouble.

OK?

No. A free kick must be kicked. Otherwise it is void. If it is void it is a scrum to the other side.

Law 21.8 (e) Charging the free kick. Once they have retired the necessary distance, players of the opposing team may charge and try to prevent the kick being taken. They may charge the free kick as soon as the kicker starts to approach to kick.

(f) Preventing the free kick. If the opposing team charge and prevent the free kick being taken, the kick is disallowed. Play restarts with a scrum at the mark. The opposing team throw in the ball.

We had a void free kick recently when Wales played Ireland and O’Gara prevented James Hook from kicking. Then, correctly, the scrum was given.

In the match between the Cheetahs and the Waratahs, the referee twice reminded that the ball was to be properly brought into play with a kick. He spoke to both Sam Harris and Wycliff Palu reminding them that holding the ball and touching it with the boot did not constitute a kick. The ball had to leave the hands.

Law Definitions: 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 a kick must move the ball a visible distance out of the hand, or along the ground.

4. The unevaporating defender

The Crusaders kick downfield towards the Lions 22 on the Lions right. Willie Ludik, the Lions fullback, catches the ball and runs forward. Caleb Ralph of the Crusaders is standing in front of him. Ludik chips over Ralph’s head and runs ahead. Ralph stands his ground, turns his body at the waist so that his shoulder faces Ludik. Ludik runs into Ralph’s shoulder. Ludik drops to the ground and the crowd bay for a penalty for a late tackle. The touch judge and the referee ignore what happened, and the crowd are incensed.

The referee and the touch judge were right. Ralph did not move into Ludik’s path. He was there to tackle Ludik as Ludik ran at him. He did not move out of his position. His only movement was to present his shoulder to protect himself, which is fine. He did not grab or tackle Ludik and he did not move his shoulder into Ludik in an aggressive way. It’s hard to see what Ralph did well. He could not evaporate and his action was just one of bracing himself against Ludik who did not avoid him.

5. Knock-on off-side

a. The Hurricanes kick downfield where Luke McAlister of the Blues catches the ball. He throws a long pass infield to George Pisi who knocks the ball forward. Players, Blues and Hurricanes, are swooping like seagulls to the ball but first there is Justin Collins of the Blues who secures the ball. The referee penalises Collins.

b. The Highlanders win a line-out and pass the ball back to replacement scrumhalf Toby Morland who knocks the ball a long way forward. Sharks players are about to grab the ball when prop Clarke Dermody of the Highlanders grabbed the ball. The referee awarded a scrum.

The incidents are similar in that a player knocked on, opponents were close enough to get the ball before he could recover it, and a team-mate grabbed it before the opponents could do so.

That is the essence of the penalty at a knock-on.

Law 11.7 OFF-SIDE AFTER A KNOCK-ON

When a player knocks-on and an off-side team-mate next plays the ball, the off-side player is liable to penalty if playing the ball prevented an opponent from gaining an advantage.
Penalty: Penalty Kick

6. Liebenberg on

Reader: Was Tiaan Liebenberg allowed to go on the field for a blood replacement for Jean de Villiers. De Villiers is not a prop or hooker. I thought only those positions were specialist positions.

Dolla

Comment: This refers to 2. above about the bleeding player.

I think we have made the point about a substitute returning to the field in the case if bleeding.

7. Annoying things

Reader: I have two questions on subjects that have annoyed me for a long time. Perhaps it is just that I don’t understand the laws, or that, as I believe, referees are just ignoring things. Can you let me know the correct rulings please?

I have long wondered about the legality of players (generally forwards) standing at the ruck, way ahead of the last line of feet, yet seeming to be blocking any attempt of the opposition from getting to the scrumhalf when he plays the ball. Surely these blockers are really off-side?

Surely a knock-on occurs when a player touches the ball and it goes forwards into touch, another player or the ground? Yet how many times have I seen that referees blow a player up for a knock-on when it is quite blatantly not?

Grant Ward Able – Hampshire, England

Comment: I have yet to meet a referee who “ignores” the laws. There may be ways of managing the laws which appear to border on laissez-faire. There will inevitably be things on the field which the referee misses which has nothing to do with ignoring.

Next little point, rulings are bad things. There should be no need for them if the Laws are as complete as they claim to be.

The jargon to describe the players you talk of uses the word pillars. They are okay if they are behind the last feet of the player on their side, not if they are in front of them. I agree that their presence is provocative and leads to unseemly pushing. You will hear referees moving them back but would penalise only if they have an effect on the game. That’s the management style of the day.

Those players are vin an off-side position at a ruck, maul or scrum who are ahead of the last foot of the last player of their side in the ruck, maul or scrum.

It’s not an unfair style for the law does not require the penalising of players who are in an off-side position unless it affects play – except for the off-side player within 10 metres of a player waiting to catch a kick within 10 metres of where the kicked ball alights.

The word blatant is a hard one. If is blatant why would a referee blow it up? Just as a matter of clarity, the ball needs to go forward from hand or arm for there to be a knock-on. It’s not just a matter of touching the ball.

8. Blocking

Reader: This seems to go on in almost every televised game but is rarely punished. The lifting players joining on to the player landing with the ball so a maul cannot be formed.

What is the best way to spot this illegal practice? (i.e. positioning and when to call it?)

Showfield

Comment: I am not sure what you mean. Team-mates are allowed to bind on a jumper in a line-out. That does not prevent a maul to be made. If you mean that they go ahead of the catcher and prevent opponents getting near him, that is obstruction

In line-outs the referee’s position is to suit himself and the circumstances, including the position of the scrum. But isn’t it best for referees not to look for things but simply to watch the game and believe the evidence of their eyes.

9. Obstructive running

Reader: Is obstructive running a penalisable offence? What I mean by this is when a backline man has the ball, passes it out to next man (e.g. flyhalf to one of his centres), the flyhalf after passing carries on running across the front of the oncoming defenders making it more difficult to get to the man in possession.

Comment: Obstruction is certainly penalisable. The incident you sketch is certainly a penalisable offence.