Law discussion: some confusions
Recently we spoke about the need for clear law to avoid private or regional interpretations in the application of law. If this is needed at the top end of refereeing, how much more so must it be needed lower down?
Recently, there was a Test match in Pretoria and there was confusion about the substitutions/replacements. The referee was Alain Rolland, top man, referee in the 2007 World Cup Final. The IRB said that he was right. Then the IRB said he was wrong. Then the IRB issued a recipe for such matters.
That sort of confusion is embarrassing.
How about offside when the ball is in touch?
On Saturday, the 2007 World Cup Final referee penalised a player for moving forward when the ball had been kicked into touch because he was preventing a quick throw-in. In a recent answer the 2011 World Cup Final referee said that once the ball went out, offside ceased.
There is nothing written clearly in the laws about such a case. There is nothing in the IRB's clarifications/rulings either. There is, tucked away somewhere, a suggestion that 2007 was right and 2011 wrong: http://www.irblaws.com/EN/guidelines/5/enforcement-of-current-law-june-2012/
But still it is not stated clearly enough or widely enough propagated for top men to agree.
It is contained in this – if you interpret:
Law 11.1 Offside in general play
(c) Offside and moving forward. When a team-mate of an offside player has kicked ahead, the offside player must not move towards opponents who are waiting to play the ball, or move towards the place where the ball lands, until the player has been put onside.
Wise Peter Shortell of Cheltenham writes on the matter:
"I think the situation should be as follows:
"(1) if the ball is going into Row Z of the stands, it does not matter – any offence was not material.
"(2) if the ball is going to land in the field of play, the offside players will be penalised. Moving forward is enough, they do not actually have to interfere, but referees will usually shout to them to stop. If they do and do not interfere they will not get penalised.
"(3) if it is not clear whether the ball is going out or not, players should play safe and not breach the offside law. If they do and the ball goes dead, why should they be entitled to benefit from their earlier breach of the law?
"Here’s a fun situation: A defender stands with one foot on the touchline to catch a kick that may not go out. Seeing the onrushing offside players, he moves his foot infield before catching the ball. The ball is not dead, so presumably the referee must now penalise the offside players.
"It seems simple to me: players must obey the offside law before the ball goes dead. If they choose not to, they are gambling that the referee will see it as immaterial."
It must be possible to write it clearly as it should be.
Here is another where interpretations get in the way.
Law 19 – DEFINITIONS
The ball is in touch when a player is carrying it and the ball-carrier (or the ball) touches the touchline or the ground beyond the touchline. The place where the ball-carrier (or the ball) touched or crossed the touchline is where it went into touch.
If a player jumps and catches the ball, both feet must land in the playing area otherwise the ball is in touch or touch-in-goal.
But there is some instruction to assistant referees tucked away that suggests all of this jumping and playing is dependent on where the ball is in relation to the plane of touch and the legs of the jumping player in relation to the plane of touch.
In the South the simple matter of the place of the landing decides.
Then there is the matter of the place of the quick throw-in.
There are two bits here.
First, there is the case where the attacking teams rolls a kick out short of the opposing 22. The ball then rolls back behind the 22. The defending team takes the quick throw-in behind the 22 and kicks out directly into touch.
Gain of ground?
Secondly, a team kicks off and the ball goes directly into touch. Opponents grab the ball, run up to the half-way line and throw in quickly there and play goes on, as happened in the Heineken Cup match between Harlequins and Biarritz with a top referee in charge.
Correct?
Law 19.2 QUICK THROW-IN
(b) For a quick throw-in, the player may be anywhere outside the field of play between the place where the ball went into touch and the player’s goal line.
In this case the law seems clear enough; it must have been refereeing error. Or was it? Is there some other change tucked away somewhere?
