Law Discussion - Samoa's 'try' revisited
In our Law Discussion on Day 3 of the World Cup, there is a little twist come to light, which may bear further consideration.
In brief, Samoa attack and are close to the South African goal-line. There is a tackle/ruck thing. Joe Tekori takes up a position to the right of this heap of players, leans back and picks up the ball and plunges over the South African line, claiming a try. The referee signals that Tekori was off-side and penalises him.
Rugby Heaven had a story, which is critical of the referee, Paul Honiss of New Zealand. Honiss is the most experienced referee at the World Cup and his nationality is relevant to what Rugby Heaven has to say.
The excerpt relevant to us here is:
“Tekori was not bound to the ruck, was behind the ball and did not use any player as a screen in his burst to the line.
“In similar instances in New Zealand those tries were being allowed, with Auckland’s Bradley Mika a dab hand at them, while Ross Filipo also scored in that manner for the Crusaders against the Hurricanes.
“Honiss was the referee in Christchurch that night and the Hurricanes were incensed by his performance, especially in the latitude they felt he allowed Richie McCaw.
“A meeting was held between coach Hurricanes Colin Cooper and the New Zealand Rugby Union’s referees boss, Keith Lawrence, where Cooper aired his concerns.
“Among them was the legality of the Filipo try.
“It is understood a decision was made that such tries were illegal, a stance the IRB disagrees with but Honiss’ decision was in line with how such incidents are now ruled in New Zealand.”
It’s the last sentence that really counts – “a decision was made that such tries were illegal, a stance the IRB disagrees with but Honiss’ decision was in line with how such incidents are now ruled in New Zealand”.
We asked Keith Lawrence, New Zealand’s manager of referees if New Zealand had made such a decision/ruling and if the IRB had expressed disagreement.
Lawrence did not want to get involved in a “media debate”. He said: “Our referees are simply penalising players who are part of the ruck and who play the ball from in front of the offside line. They are 1) offside and 2) they are playing the ball in the ruck.”
It would be a great pity if there were disagreement on law application between the IRB and a national body. But surely if there were such a disagreement, then the IRB’s interpretation should take precedence.
The IRB has a mechanism for giving rulings when presented with cases by member countries. It has a subcommittee of the IRB, called Designated Members, and they give rulings. There is no ruling on this case.
Rulings are a grievous pity. Not all referees hand players have access to them the way they have to a law book and the Foreword to the Laws of the Game states: The Laws of the Game, including the Standard Set of Variations for Under 19 Rugby, are complete and contain all that is necessary to enable the game to be played correctly and fairly.
Rulings say that the Laws of the Game are not really complete, or at least not completely clear. There was a case not long ago when the Designated Members gave a ruling on entry into a line-out which was ridiculous and mercifully rescinded.
If there was indeed a New Zealand ruling/interpretation which led to the upset about the decision which went against Samoa and caused criticism to be heaped on the referee who was refereeing as he had been told to referee.
Transparency is a modern watchword. Are rulings transparent? Are there other countries hugging rulings to their bosoms?
