Law Discussion - Tri-Nations, Week 9

The last match of the 2008 Tri-Nations was enthralling. It was heroic and romantic, full of adventure and the best effort that top players can extract from body and soul. I was so excited that I was keen to hear what the Australian experts had to say – Greg Clark and his team of Rod Kafer, Phil Kearns and Greg Martin.

I settled to watch the programmewiht its three Wallabies and a broadcaster of vast experience. I was hoping to relive the wonders of that great match.

I did not. There was praise but more criticism and accusation, mostly directed at the referee. All four had a go at the referee with Kafer leading the charge in slow, deliberate tones emphasising his infallibility.

It was so unworthy of a great game.

But one should take note and look for whatever truth there may be in the criticism to use it constructively, to build for a better future. The first thing is to look for whatever truth there was in the criticism.

This is what was said:

Kafer: “We certainly didn’t get any help from Jonathan Kaplan in the middle. I actually thought that he did a poor job of refereeing that game. I’m a fan of Kaplan’s. I like the way he referees. But he lost it and he didn’t referee at all well. But you take it and you’ve got to take it on the chin.”

You had to pinch yourself and remind yourself that you had watched the match and watched the referee closely and thought that his refereeing had been brilliant. You also know that refereeing people in high places thought that he had refereed brilliantly. But Kafer thought otherwise. “He lost it”. Whatever that means. If Kearns could ask at the end of the programme that Fox Sport explain what Peter de Villiers was saying, one could ask what Kafer meant. Kafer did not leave it there.

He came back again, starting with some self-advertising: “I reckon I’m a reasonable judge of a rugby game and I don’t like to be too biased. I like to tell refs when they’ve done a good job but also equally tell them when they’ve done a bad job and I think the game got away from him. He let Richie McCaw dominate the breakdown too much. There were many, many instances when he was offside. But we lost. Let’s not move away from the fact that we lost. The Wallabies lost and it had something to do with the ref but not everything, and so we move on.”

Let’s ignore the testimonial to self and the patronising bits. Let’s even forget the vague nonsense of the game getting away from him. Nobody in the history has refereed more Tests than Kaplan who has refereed more Tri-Nations matches and more Bledisloe Cup matches than anybody else but – fie – the game got away from him. If he could not do it, who on earth could? Let’s forget all of that and get to the heart of the accusation – what McCaw was allowed to do: “He let Richie McCaw dominate the breakdown too much. There were many, many instances when he was offside.” After all even losers can have legitimate gripes.

William Blake once said: “To generalise is to be an idiot.” Faced with generalisations we tried to look at particulars to see if the generalisations were idiotic or not.

We went through the match, looking at the tackles – both sides’ tackles but mainly those of Australia and then mostly at the activities of Richie McCaw – him who dominated the breakdown and who in many, many instances was offside.

During the match there was a free kick against McCaw for “not rolling away”.

The comment went:
“That’s a miracle”
“That’s the third time he’s been pinged this game, Richie McCaw.”
“I think referees are too frightened to give him a yellow card.”

Across the other side of the Tasman, New Zealanders believe that referees unfairly target McCaw.

First statistics:

In the match there were 173 tackles/rucks/mauls. It was a match of 28 free kicks and 8 penalties. Australia conceded 11 free kicks at the tackle, New Zealand 10. Of those 10 free kicks McCaw conceded two. In addition McCaw, Jimmy Cowan and Rodney So’oialo were penalised for entering a tackle from the side. Then McCaw was accused of lying on the ground and tripping Sam Cordingley at a tackle. Certainly a New Zealand foot was involved but it may well have belonged to Daniel Carter.

McCaw did not come out of the match unpunished. There were two free kicks and a penalty against him at the tackle. There was a second penalty which may well have been a case of mistaken identity.

Australia was tackled 104 times. McCaw was not involved in every tackle or the aftermath of every tackle, surprisingly as it may seem. In fact, of the 104 Australian tackles McCaw was involved on 22 occasions. 22 out of 104 – that hardly sounds as if he was dominating the breakdown, even if he was illegal on all 22 occasions, which he was not.

We looked for the “many, many instances” when McCaw was offside on those 22 occasions of his involvement.

1. McCaw tackles Ashley-Cooper who has caught a high kick. He ends up near the back on the New Zealand side. Australia win the ball.
2. Nathan Sharpe is tackled. McCaw is there working his way around the side when Baxter drives him back. There is a free kick to Australia which has nothing to do with McCaw.
3. Robinson is tackled. McCaw is first there. Ends up on his back on the Australian side, held down by Horwill. Free kick to Australia, probably against Kaino.
4. Thorn tackles Horwill and as they go to ground McCaw is there and at the side. He is knocked onto his back. Australia win the ball.
5. New Zealand throw into a line-out. Sharpe intercepts the throw and knocks it back – out of the line-out and deep towards the back where Elsom grabs it, going to ground. When Sharpe knocks the ball back, the line-out ends. As Elsom goes to ground, McCaw attacks the ball. He is not off-side because there is nothing to make him offside. But players gather and McCaw and Thorn are knocked to ground. The referee freekicks them saying the two were getting in the way.
6. McCaw tackles Palu from a scrum. Australia win the ball.
7. McCaw tackles Mortlock. Australia win thew ball.
8. McCaw is penalised and Australia score three points. The penalty against McCaw was a close thing. After Australia had won the ball at a New Zealand scrum, mirabile narratu, Carter tackled Mortlock. No ruck is formed at the tackle. Mortlock then places the ball back and it is then that McCaw, who was at the side of the tackle goes to play the ball. He is penalised for offside arising from side entry. (Law 15.6 (c) At a tackle or near to a tackle, other players who play the ball must do so from behind the ball and from directly behind the tackled player or the tackler closes to those players’ goal-line. Near is defined as within a metre, McCaw was well within a metre of Mortlock and to the side of him.)
9. Carter and McCaw tackle Mortlock. Australia win the ball.
10. McCaw tackles Elsom. Australia win the ball.
11. Kaino tackles Moore. McCaw is the third All Black on the scene as they drive the Wallabies back. Kaino wins the first turn-over won by an opponent at a tackle.
12. McCaw tackles Horwill. He lands on his back. Australia win the ball.
13. The next occasion when McCaw is on the Australian side is when he and Cowan tackle Brown from a scrum. This leaves McCaw behind Brown but not a tackler in terms of the law as he does not go to ground. As he tries to play the ball, Nathan Sharpe grabs McCaw and upends him so that his feet are in the air – a dubious act, the sort of thing that brought much opprobrium on the All Blacks when Brian O’Driscoll was upended playing for the Lions. On this occasion the Wallabies win the ball.
14. McCaw tackles Moore. Australia win the ball and Ashley-Cooper scores a try.

That ends the first half.

15. Carter tackles Robinson. McCaw is first there. He approaches from behind and is knocked to the ground. Australia win the ball and Cordingley passes to his left. As he does so he is tripped. The leg that trips him has a All Black sock. The foot belongs to either Carter or McCaw. The referee singles out McCaw though it may well have been Carter. The referee penalises New Zealand.
16. McCaw tackles Brown and Australia win quick ball.
17. Australia bash at the New Zealand line from close quarters. McCaw is one of three who tackle Baxter close to the line. Australia win the ball.
18. Australia bash again and Cordingley picks up the ball to attack the line, falling with the ball in front of him as three All Blacks bring him down just short. McCaw is on the right side, as New Zealand look at the forming heap. He shoves in and ends up on the Australian side, his body blocking the possible exit for the ball. The referee freekicks Cordingley for hanging on.
Kearns: “How can Richie McCaw end up on our side of the maul? Wrapped himself right around and stopped our ball from coming out. Astonishing.”
Clarke: “Would you say he’s playing for two teams again tonight?”
Martin: “Well, he gets away with it. The referee can’t allow much more to go on at the breakdown than he did in the first 10 minutes.”
NB Soon afterwards Mortlock tackled Donald. The Wallabies counter-rucked as McCaw flew into the tackle/ruck. The referee freekicked McCaw for not rolling away.
19. McCaw tackles Sharpe from behind. Both go to ground. There is a tackled player and a tackler. Sharpe, the tackled player, knocks the ball back with his hand. McCaw, the tackler is behind Sharpe. He gets to his feet, legs splayed, picks up the ball and plays it to his side. This turnover, the only one McCaw won at a tackle, ended in a try by Weepu.
20. Sivivatu tackles George Smith. McCaw arrives and on his feet tries to grab the ball from the side. The referee awards a free kick to Australia, singling Sivivatu out as the guilty party.
21. Jerome Kaino drives ahead and is tackled by two Wallabies. There are two Wallabies and two All Blacks in the action. On his feet – and therefore not a tackler by definition – Frier, in the middle strives to get the ball loose from Kaino. McCaw arrives at the side – “A mile offside”, according to Kearns – and grabs Frier. The referee awards a free kick to Australia because Kaino held on.
22. McCaw tackles Horwill. Australia win the ball.

We have noted the occasions where McCaw was “on the Australian side”. They are 3, 5, 8, 13, 15, 18, 19, 21.

Just “being on the Australian side” is not necessarily a punishable offence.

3 is not an offside offence.
5 is not an offside offence.
8 is an offside offence, and McCaw is penalised.
13 may well be an offside offence though everything happened quickly – the tackle, which include McCaw’s action, McCaw’s action and Sharpe’s removal of McCaw. What McCaw did had no material effect on the play.
15 is not an offside offence and was not penalised as an offside offence.
18 Which came first – Cordingley’s holding on or McCaw’s sliding round?
19. There is no offence here at all. McCaw, as the tackler, is entitled to play the way he did.
21. Are there three possible infringements here – Kaino, Frier and McCaw? Certainly Kaino’s happens first, hence the free kick.

Perhaps, just perhaps, there were not many, many instances. Perhaps, just perhaps, the generalisations were not all fair.

The New Zealand side of the programme with Tony Johnson, Murray Mexted and Stu Wilson had no complaints about the refereeing of the tackle though Wilson clearly did not agree with three free kicks against New Zealand at the scrums. Mexted on the other hand felt that Australia had actually one the scrum battle – taking a ball off New Zealand on one occasion and winning the putting by wheeling them on another.

Not that anybody was biased.

It just seemed such a pity to focus so much attention on the referee when the match itself had so much virtue in it. There were stars to see that evening in Brisbane but some preferred to look at unhealthy dollops of mud.