Law Discussion: Tries at Craven Week

At the end of Craven Week we received a 'question' from a reader about two tries. Because the reader's assertions are interesting in the regularity with which they appear, we have decided to discuss them.

Here is what the reader had to say.

Name: Andre Pienaar

Message: Dear Representative, Jason Jaftha has awarded a try earlier during the Craven Week where a player was tackled short of the try-line and then paused for a long while, then made a second movement and scored. That try was no try. I can unfortunately not remember the match. Now, a few minutes ago he again, as TV referee, awarded a try where the Valke player was over the dead-ball line before he touched the ball. (Valke vs Leopards 17 July ). Amazingly the try was awarded!! How is it possible that when it is clear to TV viewers that the try was not scored that it gets rewarded? Crazy!! Commentators and spectators and viewers could clearly see that there was no doubt that the try was not scored. What is being done to eliminate blatant mistakes such as this? Can you please explain this to me.

The first match the reader refers to is the match between Free State and Golden Lions on Tuesday, July 15. The try-scorer was the Free State scrumhalf Shirwin Cupido.

Just as a small point, the television match official (TMO) (TV referee as he is called here) does not award the try. He may advise the referee that the try has – or has not – been scored. But the decision belongs to the referee. In neither of these cases did the TMO award the try.

Shirwin Cupido was tackled short of the line. It is not at all clear what is meant by he 'paused for a long time'. A 'long time' can mean many things. What Cupido did he had to do immediately, which does take into account the shock of being tackled to the ground.

Then the reader speaks of a second movement, and one really wonders what it means. It is nowhere mentioned in the laws of the game. If it is a second movement, what was the first movement – being tackled, which surely was stopping movement, not making a movement?

Then when the player (Cupido) is brought to ground he is allowed a choice of things to do (movements, if you like).

He is allowed to pass the ball or release the ball. Releasing the ball includes placing the ball on the ground in any direction. Those are things he is allowed to do. In fact he must do one of them.

Then Law 15 has a telling statement.

Law 15.5 (g) If a player is tackled near the goal-line, that player may immediately reach out and ground the ball on or over the goal-line to score a try or make a touch down.

Cupido was allowed to reach out and ground the ball on or over the line and then he would have a try awarded.

That is what happened.

That try was a try. The referee said so and the laws allow him to say so.

The second incident is more complicated but it is the third such occurrence in recent times and there has been a chance to discuss it and think about it. It is complicated only because the law is not explicit enough in the matter of the dead-ball line. For this reason clarity is to be sought.

But until it is obtained, assumptions can reasonably be made.

If the ball is in the field of play, a player in touch may play the ball if he does not pick it up.

If the ball is in in-goal, the player in touch-in-goal may play the ball, provided that he does not pick it up.

It is being assumed that this applies to the dead-ball line as well. It is a reasonable assumption.

In this case Martin van Wyk of the Valke had a right hand on the dead-ball line when he pressed down with his left hand on the ball which was still in in-goal as it had not reached the dead-ball line. Van Wyk did not pick the ball up. It can – safely – be assumed that in such a case the try should be awarded and that it was indeed awarded.

In this case the commentators did try to explain to listeners, even quoting law, why awarding the try was the right thing to do.

Law 22.4 (g) Player in touch or touch-in-goal. If an attacking player is in touch or in touch-in-goal, the player can score a try by grounding the ball in the opponents’ in-goal provided the player is not carrying the ball.

Have a look at the clips below. The first one discusses the issue fully, pointing out the legal complications. The second one shows a try being scored.

In the case of George North (the second clip) the try was awarded.

In neither case is the referee or his TMO proved wrong.

In both cases the reader mentions, a legal try was scored.

Nothing was 'crazy' about the awarding of the tries.

There were no errors, let alone 'blatant' ones.

I suggest that discussions of law be done calmly, avoiding emotive words – as becomes the law – and that we never again use the word 'blatant' in the sense of very open and obvious. It is, with an English or an Afrikaans pronunciation, an overdone word. If a referee is perceived to have missed a forward pass, a knock-on or an offside, it is always blatant and you wonder why a referee of such quality miss something so obvious.