Law incidents from Tri-Nations, Wk 5

The Tri-Nations is drawing to an exciting end at Eden Park but we are going to talk about just a few law matters from the match in Christchurch when New Zealand played South Africa.

Some of these incidents are contained in clips of the South African referees’ website – www.sareferees.co.za.

We have already given some statistics from the match.

We are also going to add a contribution from a reader. In fact we shall start with it.

1. Lazy runner

Last week we discussed the penalty against Nathan Sharpe for being a lazy runner when Australia played South Africa. There was no problem with the award of the penalty but asked whether such an incident could not be treated as accidental off-side if the player tried to avoid being struck by the pass.

Dave Tooke of the Hampshire Referees’ Society writes:

You ask in the first article of this piece if –

“The penalty was right but is there not a case for making this sort of thing “accidental off-side” and therefore a scrum? On the other hand would that not open the game to the abuse of gamesmanship? “

I would suggest that the onus is clearly on the offside player to avoid interfering with play. It is not enough simply to be heading in the general direction of on-side – he must also avoid being in the way. It may be that that means he has to remain off-side – behind play – a fraction longer.

The Law (in General Play) is quite clear that being off-side in and of itself is not a crime – it is interfering with play that merits penalty, whether such interference is inadvertent or not. I can see no reason to amend that principle in set piece play.

I do accept that if such a scenario is deliberately taken advantage of by opponents – e.g. deliberately throwing the ball at an offside player when that player was trying to keep out of the way – that this would be analogous to taking a tap penalty and running straight at a retreating opponent who is within 10 metres. i.e. play on. But the key is “trying to keep out of the way”.

2. Carried back

New Zealand win a line-out just inside their 22 and drive ahead over the 22. The New Zealand halfback Piri Weepu steps over the 22 and picks up the ball. He then steps back inside his 22 and kicks the ball out on the full.

There are possibilities – where the ball went out, on the 22, opposite the place where he kicked.

The correct one is opposite the place where he kicked as there is no gain of ground when a player takes the ball back inside his 22 and then kicks out on the full.

You can hear the referee saying: “Carried back.”

Law 19.1 (b) Player takes the ball into that team’s 22. When a defending player gets the ball outside the 22, takes or puts it inside the 22 and then kicks directly into touch, there is no gain of ground.

This happened at about 43 minutes.

3. Who killed the ball?

Ruan Pienaar of South Africa kicks the ball downfield. It bounces into the New Zealand in-goal and keeps rolling along toward the dead-ball line.

Mils Muliaina, thew New Zealand fullback, straddles the line and before the ball actually reaches it grabs the ball – his right foot over the dead-ball line, his right foot in in-goal.

The referee awards a scrum where Pienaar kicked the ball.

Is this right?

Law 22.8 BALL KICKED DEAD IN IN-GOAL

If a team kicks the ball through their opponents’ in-goal, into touch-in-goal or on or over the dead ball line, except by an unsuccessful kick at goal or attempted dropped goal, the defending team has two choices:

To have a drop-out, or
To have a scrum at the place where the ball was kicked and they throw in.

In this case it was presumed that the ball was “kicked dead”. But was it?

Law 22.11 (b) When the ball or a player carrying it touches the corner post, the touch-in-goal line or the dead-ball line, or touches the ground beyond those lines, the ball becomes dead. If the ball was carried or played into in-goal by the attacking team, a drop-out shall be awarded to the defending team. If the ball was carried or played into in-goal by the defending team, a 5-metre scrum shall be awarded and the attacking team throws in the ball.

The ball was kicked and the ball was dead.

There is explicit in the law an analogy to what happened here.

Law 22 A defending player who has one foot on the goal-line or in the in-goal who receives the ball is considered to be in in-goal.

There is a similar case at the touch line – ball (moving) infield and caught by a player in touch, the ball is regarded as out.

The decision is the right one.

It would have been different if the ball had stopped rolling and Muliaina had then picked it up and so made it dead. In that case it would have been a drop-out instead of the option of a scrum or a drop-out.

This happened at about 63 minutes.

4. Muller’s complaint

After the match Johann Muller, the South African lock who was captaining his team for the first time, complained that Richie McCaw of New Zealand was not as penalised as much as he should have been and that the referee was inconsistent in giving Pedrie Wannenburg a yellow card.

There are three steps to this.

a. On 24 minutes the referee penalised Jacques Cronje of South Africa for using his hands at a tackle.. It was the third time the South Africans had been penalised at the tackle, the previous two occasions for holding on. Up to then New Zealand had been penalised twice at the tackle, once for holding on.

Cronje was the third player to be penalised for playing on the opponents’ ball. The first one had been Bismarck du Plessis for not rolling away at a tackle. The second had been Richie McCaw The ball was coming back to South Africa from a tackle. McCaw was off his feet and used a foot to play the ball back to the New Zealand side. It was the sort of action which had earned Gary Botha a yellow card in Sydney.

After penalising Cronje, the referee got the two captains together. he said: “This is getting ridiculous with guys on the ground getting penalised. We spoke about it before the game. You both wanted it – to roll away and leave the ball alone. The guys are doing it on the ground. It’s your game. Have a word.”

There is no explicit warning in this though the referee clearly regards the situation as serious.

And the captains went off to talk to their players.

24 minutes

b. Pedrie Wannenburg drove into the New Zealand 22 where he was tackled and an untidy tackle ruck ensured. On the far side (right to New Zealand) from the referee McCaw lay his body bent at the waist towards Wannenburg. Keith Robinson came over the top of Wannenburg. The referee told him to leave the ball. He presumably did but did not move off Wannenburg. Mealamu approached on the left side, from the New Zealand perspective, and then when Rodney So’oialo came behind him Mealamu went further in and over the top of Wannenburg who was now caught in a triangle of McCaw, Robinson and Mealamu. The referee penalised Mealamu saying: “Going down over the top. Number 2 coming forward off-side, then slotting down. Coming in the side and then falling over.”

The referee penalised Mealamu.

45 minutes

c. New Zealand attack as So’oialo gallops ahead where Jaco Pretorius and Wannenburg tackles him. Wannenburg gets to his feet and works his way round so that, even though it was not necessary, he comes in through the gate. His knees clear of the ground and fallen players he leans over and puts his forearms over the ball. New Zealand try to get the ball back but Wannenburg keeps his forearms over the ball.

The referee gives Wannenburg a yellow card, saying: “On the ground, slowing the ball.” And off Wannenburg goes to the sin bin.

In as much as his knees were clear of the ground and players on the ground, Wannenburg was not on the ground. But he can hardly be described as a player on his feet he is down over the ball and stopping the ball from coming out. His weight is on the upper part of his body. By the time it is a ruck he is still holding onto the ball and actually makes and attempt to lift it.

It is certain a clearer infringement than Mealamu’s which Muller referred to.

The referee does not have much to say that is audible. Muller complained that he had described Wannenburg’s act as cynical.

It is a popular use of the word but may not be a great choice. It probably is short for saying ‘you deliberately used illegal means to suit yourself and did not give a damn for the laws or the opposition’. It certainly is shorter than all of that but is it necessary? The action was bad enough without looking at motives. Wannenburg’s action was certainly the clearest and worst of any tackle infringement by the two sides – and each was guilty of four infringements.

It certainly did not warrant a post-thrashing outburst against the referee.

The Wannenburg incident happens around 52 minutes.

5. TMO OK?

Wynand Olivier of South Africa kicked a long, bouncing ball down towards the New Zealand line. Daniel Carter of New Zealand gets there first and, under close pressure from Olivier, foots the ball into touch.

The referee refers the matter to the television match official to see if the ball was kicked into touch or into touch-in-goal.

Is he entitled to do that?

The protocol laying down the working of the TMO says:

The TMO could therefore be requested to assist the referee in making the following decisions:

? Try
? No try and scrum awarded 5 metres
? Touch down by a defender
? In touch – line-out
? Touch-in-goal
? Ball dead on or over the dead ball line
? Penalty tries after acts of foul play in in-goal
? Dropped goal.

The referee was entitled to do so. In real time it was a difficult to see which side of the cornerpost the ball went out.

The TMO was able to see clearly that Carter had footed the ball into touch – on the field side of the cornerpost. And so it became a five-metre line-out.