Law Discussion: the commentator's five
We have just five situations to discuss from the match last weekend when New Zealand played South Africa in Hamilton, five which the commentator queried.
Actually “queried” is a euphemism for found fault with.
These incidents are available on www.sareferees.co.za. They are dealt with more fully there.
The five are:
* a penalty against John Smit at the first kick-off
* a penalty against John Smit at the first scrum
* a penalty against Springboks for being offside ahead of Pierre Spies’s kick
* not giving Joe Rokocoko a yellow card for taking Bryan Habana out in the air
* Rokocoko catching the ball and putting a foot on the line.
It may be worth noting that commentator’s comments usually come after the replay, a facility which the referee does not have.
These are some statistics of happenings which the referee was required to monitor in the first half. In the first half:
Passes: 59
Kicks: 50
Tackle/ruck/maul: 61
line-outs: 13
Scrums: 4
Penalties: 14
That comes to 201 happenings in the first 40 minutes. Some are straightforward but needing attention, such as passes. Some are complex, like scrums and the tackle/post tackle situation.
1. Penalty against John Smit at the first kick-off
Dan Carter kicks off to start the match. Victor Matfield of South Africa, supported by John Smit goes high to catch the ball as the All Blacks arrive. The referee penalises Smit.
When the referee penalises Smit, he says: “3 in front of 5.” 3 is Smit and 5 is Matfield. If you look at the situation when the referee blows his whistle, Smit is in front of Matfield, in the sense that he is between Matfield and the arriving All Blacks.
The commentator finds this a wrong decision because Smith is supporting Matfield, but supporting, like all other aspects of rugby, must be performed within the laws and the laws give the supporting player no leave to obstruct.
Law 10.1 (b) Running in front of a ball carrier. A player must not intentionally move or stand in front of a team-mate carrying the ball thereby preventing opponents from tackling the current ball-carrier or the opportunity to tackle potential ball carriers when they gain possession.
Penalty: Penalty Kick
(c) Blocking the tackler. A player must not intentionally move or stand in a position that prevents an opponent from tackling a ball-carrier.
Penalty: Penalty Kick
Smit was not allowed to come between Matfield and New Zealanders wanting to tackle him. He certainly is between Matfield and New Zealanders when the referee penalises him. That Smit is Matfield’s support player in this incident is irrelevant. Smit is not allowed to block.
Beyond or behind or in front of a position: Means with both feet, except where the context makes that inappropriate.
This is the referee’s first decision in the match and it evokes a negative comment from the commentator, laying down a marker of what is to come, creating suspicion in the minds of listeners when the match has barely started.
2. Penalty against John Smit at the first scrum
New Zealand put the ball into the first scrum and immediately it falls to ground. Smit seems to go down first and falls flat on his face. The referee immediately penalises Smit.
What he says is strange, saying that he knew Smith had slipped but that he needed to lay down a marker at scrum time.
Law 20.8 (g) Twisting, dipping or collapsing. Front row players must not twist or lower their bodies, or pull opponents, or do anything that is likely to collapse the scrum, either when the ball is being thrown in or afterwards.
Penalty: Penalty Kick
(h) Referees must penalise strictly any intentional collapsing of the scrum. This is dangerous play.
Penalty: Penalty Kick
Slipping is seldom intentional!
Commentator: “I realise that Paddy O’Brien is in the stand and the guys are all trying to get onto panels to ref the World Cup. To be honest there, John Smit has slipped out. It should be a reset a scrum immediately and not a penalty.”
Wow! Playing God and judging motives is surely beyond the commentator’s brief and anybody’s ability.
Paddy O’Brien is the IRB’s man in charge of referees, a New Zealander by nationality and residence. The “guys” are the referees. The suggestion, which may be libellous, is that the referees will referee in such a way as to win O’Brien’s approval so that they will be chosen to referee the World Cup, that men at the top of their profession and one which demands honesty are really corrupt and self-serving. It really is a horrible statement, and of course it sows doubt in the minds of listeners.
What the referee says is strange, acknowledging that the player slipped but still penalising him to try to have control of the scrums from the outset. It may be a questionable attempt to get the end to justify the means but in fact the end was well served. There were 17 scrums in the match and only one reset for a collapse, the lowest number of any of the Tri-Nations matches and that on a slippery field.
Oh, and as amtter of fact, O’Brien was not in the stand in Hamilton on the North Island but at his home in Invercargill at the bottom of the South Island when South Africa played New Zealand in Hamilton.
3. Offside ahead of Spies’s kick
The Springboks are under pressure and from some three metres inside his 22 Pierre Spies kicks a long ball down to just outside the All Blacks’ 22.
Inside Spies are several Springboks, amongst them Schalk Burger, Bismarck du Plessis and Bakkies Botha. At the kick the referee calls to Du Plessis (“No.2”) to hold. They carry on running. The referee penalises them. The reason for the penalty is one of the most basic in rugby football – being ahead of the kicker.
Law 11.1 (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.
Burger, Botha and Bismarck are ahead of Spies. They move towards where the ball lands before they are put onside. They do not stand and let Spies or somebody behind him pass them. They keep moving forward. They are offside. They are liable to penalty for offside where they move forward. That is where the penalty is.
If they had stood still, they would have been in an offside position but not liable to penalty unless they took part in play. The offside trio here ran forward, which means they took part in play.
Commentator: “These men are advancing… and Nigel Owens is contesting that they are going to have an effect on play. The ball was 40 metres away. I understand it is the letter of the law but Pierre Spies is able to run past them and put them onside.”
If they are not going to have an effect on play, why are they advancing? The point is that they are not just in an offside position. A player in an offside position and doing nothing – other than one within 10 metres – can be put onside by a team-mate running past him, but these Springboks advance. They do something. They are offside the moment they advance because they advance before they have been put onside.
To wait to see what impact they are likely to have would make for a drawn-out affair.
4. Not giving Joe Rokocoko a yellow card for taking Bryan Habana out in the air
Dan Carter kicks off. Bryan Habana jumps straight up. On his feet, head looking ahead Joe Rokocoko makes contact with Habana who falls heavily to ground.
Commentator: “That should be a yellow card. It’s an immediate yellow card these days. That’s actually ridiculous. We’ve had a whole season full of referees’ making mistakes like that and not being called to task. You’re not allowed to touch a man in the air with the ball and he’s done exactly that and all he is given is a penalty.”
Even allowing for the immediacy with which a commentator is required to speak, there is some woolliness here.
The sanction a referee applies in an incident of foul play is entirely up to him. In this case he decides that this is a matter of bad timing, not ill intent. That is his decision made in an instant and he is entitled to make it.
Each incident must be decided on its merits – in this case demerits. There is no blanket law which says every high tackle or every punch must be yellow-carded.
In the 2009 there had been two other air tackles in the Tri-Nations. Matt Giteau was yellow carded by Alain Rolland for his and Rocky Elsom was not yellow carded for his by Jonathan Kaplan.
This is the wild statement: “We’ve had a whole season full of referees’ making mistakes like that and not being called to task.” A whole season full. Think of all the other incidents of referees making mistakes like this – even if you allow this to be considered a mistake.
And how do we know that referees who made mistake were not taken to task? Every top level referee is assessed and report are made on his refereeing of each match. In South Africa this includes every level of provincial match. Reports of matches go to the IRB with video recording of the match. They are examined and decisions made about the referee where fit.
That these assessments are not made public is hardly evidence that nothing was done. If a bank manager makes a mistake – as he will because he is human – his performance appraisal is not made known to the world.
5. Rokocoko catching the ball and putting a foot on the line
Morné Steyn of South Africa kicks down to wards the touch-line on his left. Joe Rokocoko of New Zealand comes to catch the ball. He catches it in the field of play and his right foot touches the touch-line.
The referee’s assistant decides that Rokocoko had been out when he caught the ball and so the ball was out. Steyn was outside of his 22 by a couple of metres and so the assistant decided that there should be no gain in ground. He then gave the line-out opposite the place where Steyn kicked the ball.
The slow-motion replay – which the assistant did not have – shows that Rokocoko was infield when he caught the ball and that his foot was in the air and had not yet reached the touch-line. after he had caught the ball his foot came down on the touch-line. It should have been a line-out to South Africa where Rokocoko put his foot on the line.
In normal speed and at a distance it all happened in a flash – an impossible decision to make with certainty. But the assistant had to make a decision. He could see Rokocoko with the ball and Rokocoko’s foot on the line and he did what he thought was right.
He was wrong. It was a mistake. Just a mistake, not some moral fault.
In summary, of the five incidents, there was one error and one possible error – neither of them bizarre. What is beyond strange is the attitude of infallibility of some commentators and the belief that everybody else knows how to referee except the man who has trained and been trained through all sorts of skills to get to the very top of his profession.
Just a little circumspection may well make comment more acceptable.
Paul Dobson
