Law incidents - June Tests, Week 2
Here we discuss laws related to some incidents in four of Saturday’s Tests – New Zealand vs France, Australia vs Fiji, South Africa vs Samoa and Argentina vs Italy.
We have already given some statistics from the three matches, including the ongoing sorry tale of scrums which fall and that despite the best efforts of referees and the sanctions they apply to players.
Some of the incidents are show in clips on www.sareferees.co.za.
We have also been running an easily answered test on the laws on the touch-line. It is easily answered in the sense that writing down the answers is not hard. Writing the right answer seems harder. Some people are embarrassed to answer, but they need not be. There are not going to be any revelations of marks and there are so many answering that the mark is not going to be noticed or remembered. Some are waiting for the answers and will then mark their own. That’s fine as long as they do not cheat. After all some people cheat playing solitaire!
When the answers come out there is going to be rich debate, which will be fun.
1. Scrums again
We have talked about this ad nauseam. We have given statistics. Just one point, which is not trivial. In the match between Argentina and Italy, the culprits in the scrum appear to have been Italy. They were penalised three times in the scrums where the Argentinians were not penalised at all, though the free kick count was 3-all. In 20 scrums, 15 were reset but the worst statistics is that 23 scrums collapsed. The Italian scrum collapsed 18 times and Andrea Lo Cicero was sent to the sin bin.
There is worse. Two players had to be treated for neck injuries – Fabio Staibano of Italy and Pablo Gambarini of Argentina.
2. A dangerous try
Percy Montgomery of South Africa dummies and plunges over for a try. He has well and truly scored, is lying there, when Samoan replacement flank, Alfie Vaeluaga, dived onto Montgomery’s head. The try was scored. Vaeluaga had no chance of stopping the try. All he could do was injure Montgomery. He could have had no other purpose in mind than injuring or, at best, giving expression to his disappointment.
This is not acceptable.
If the penalty had been awarded when and where?
The conversion would have been taken and then the penalty would have been awarded at the middle of the half-way line.
3. Me-you-me and a try
The French are under pressure and kick a poor touch-finder. Keven Mealamu throws in. He trows to Neemia Tialata who is at the front of the line-out. The prop is over the five-metre line with the ball when he pops it back to Mealamu and the burly hooker bursts through to score a try.
19.5 HOW THE THROW IN IS TAKEN
The player taking the throw in must stand at the correct place. The player must not step into the field of play when the ball is thrown. The ball must be thrown straight, so that it travels at least 5 metres along the line of touch before it first touches the ground or touches or is touched by a player.
If Tiatia had crossed the five-metre line to catch the ball, he would have been wrong.
If Tiatia had stood on or behind the five-metre line and reached over the five-metre line to catch the ball, he would have been wrong.
The law requires that the ball travel five metres through the air before being played.
It Tiatia had caught the ball before it crossed the five-metre line, what then?
Law 19.9 (m) A line-out player must not stand less than 5 metres from the touchline. A line-out player must not prevent the ball being thrown in 5 metres.
Penalty: Free Kick on the 15-metre line
4. Necking
The Samoan lock Kane Thompson grabs South African lock Johan Ackermann around the neck and wrestles him to the ground. Ackermann objects.
Clearly the referee’s attention is where the ball is. The touch judge’s attention does not have to be where the ball is. He may well have had a wider view and been able to see what was happening between the two locks.
What is happening is not uncommon at maul time – and it is illegal.
What Thompson did was dangerous play. Grabbing around the neck is forbidden. It is forbidden because it is dangerous. It does not stop being dangerous because it is in a maul.
If this is indeed a maul, the law says it is illegal to remove an opponent from the maul.
Law 17.3 (a) A player must not try to drag an opponent out of a maul.
Penalty: Penalty Kick
Understandable as it is Ackermann had to be careful of his retaliation. Fortunately he did not punch Thompson, just grabbed him with far less violence than he had been grabbed.
5. Let the wounded beware
Pablo Henn, the burly Argentinian prop, charges straight at two Italians who stop him immediately and all three go to ground about 20 metres in from the touch-line and the Argentinians’ left.
The Pumas win the ball back and move to the left, towards touch. Henn stays lying down injured. By the time the Argentinians move the ball back to the right, towards prostrate Henn, two medics are attending to him. Before the ball gets to him, but close to him, the Argentinians move the ball left again, but then they go back right and the play is about Henn and the two ambulance men.
The referee stops play and eventually awards a scrum to the Argentinians.
Right?
Yes.
Law 6.A.9 THE REFEREE AND INJURY
(a) If a player is injured and continuation of play would be dangerous, the referee must blow the whistle immediately.
(b) If the referee stops play because a player has been injured, and there has been no infringement and the ball has not been made dead, play restarts with a scrum. The team last in possession throws in the ball. If neither team was in possession, the attacking team throws in the ball.
(c) The referee must blow the whistle if continuation of play would be dangerous for any reason.
What the referee did was by the book.
6. Coops goes bump
Drew Mitchell of Australia grubbers down towards the Fijian goal-line. Adam Ashley-Cooper of Australia chases a ball bouncing towards the Fijian goal-line. Mosese Luveitasau of Fiji is hovering above the ball. Ashley-Cooper uses his shoulder to bump him aside, picks up the ball and scores a try. The try is awarded.
Right?
Not an easy one. After all Ashley-Cooper played Luveitasau when he did not have the ball.
What about this business of shoulder to shoulder?
Law 10.1 OBSTRUCTION
(a) Charging or pushing. When a player and an opponent are running for the ball, either player must not charge or push the other except shoulder-to-shoulder.
Penalty: Penalty Kick
Ashley-Cooper and Luveitasau are not both running for the ball. Luveitasau is hardly running at all as he bends down. They are not running shoulder to shoulder. If they had been then Ashley-Cooper would have been entitled to shoulder Luveitasau out of the way. But in this case Ashley-Cooper simply bumps Luveitasau away from the ball.
In trying to pick up the ball, Ashley-Cooper knocks it on.
You hear the commentator say: “He should have gone upstairs.”
For the bump? No. That would have been – if indeed it was – foul play in the field of play and the TMO protocol allows for consultation about foul play only in the in-goal area.
For the knock-on? Yes if it was in in-goal and if it could be considered part of the act of grounding the ball.
The TMO must not be requested to provide information on players prior to the ball going into in-goal (except touch in the act of grounding the ball).
7. Diving on the ball
Diving on the ball is allowed by the law but what about this case?
Argentina are on the attack and Going through the phases. They win the ball back from another tackle/ruck and flank Martin Durand breaks round the side. Italian lock Valerio Bernabo grabs him and the two fall to ground. It is a tackle. Durand shoves the ball back and Italian replacement flank Silvio Orlando dives the two prone players and onto the ball. The referee penalises him.
Right?
Law 15.6 OTHER PLAYERS
(a) After a tackle, all other players must be on their feet when they play the ball. Players are on their feet if no other part of their body is supported by the ground or players on the ground.
Penalty: Penalty Kick
There was a tackle. Orlando played the ball. Orlando was not on his feet when he played the ball. The referee penalised him.
The referee was right.
8. How far is 10 metres?
From a New Zealand kick, Julien Laharrague of France calls for and is awarded a mark just inside his 22. He takes a tap kick and runs ahead where Richie McCaw tackles him.
When may McCaw tackle Laharrague?
Laharrague runs diagonally to his left to start with. Is 10 metres the distance run or the distance run forward?
Diagonal does not matter. The measure is 10 metres from the mark. It’s not about how many steps Laharrague takes.
Law 21.8 WHAT OPTIONS THE OPPOSING TEAM HAVE AT A FREE KICK
(a) Must run from the mark. The opposing team must immediately run towards their own goal-line until they are at least 10 metres away from the mark for the free kick, or until they have reached their goal-line if that is nearer the mark. If the free kick is in a defending teams in-goal area, the opposing team must immediately run towards their own goal-line until they are at least 10 metres away from the mark and not nearer than 5 metres from the goal-line.
(b) Must keep running. Even if the free kick is taken and the kicker’s team is playing the ball, opposing players must keep running until they have retired the necessary distance. They must not take part in the game until they have done so.
(c) Kick taken quickly. If the free kick is taken so quickly that opponents have no opportunity to retire, they will not be penalised for this. However, they must continue to retire as described in (b) above or until a team-mate who was 10 metres from the mark has run in front of them, before they take part in the game.
If McCaw was 10 metres away and advanced before Laharrague tapped the ball, he was perfectly entitled to do so. That is the hard one for the referee who needs swivelling eyes to take it all in – or help from a diligent, alert touch judge.
9. And a penalty?
The reader refers to last week’s law discussion and quotes it in full. We have it italicised.
Reader: Hi
I always enjoy reading your Laws & Incidents write up. I have a question relating to the item below involving the French try and early tackle.
Is the referee able to award a try and a penalty – I’m sure I’ve seen a game where a try (perhaps penalty try) is awarded and immediately afterwards the kicker lines up a penalty kick at posts for an additional 3 points.
Should that not have happened in the scenario below?
Insufficient try
Olivier Magne of France kicks a gentle diagonal into the New Zealand in-goal. Jean-Francois Coux sets off after the ball which is sitting benignly in the in-goal with no danger of going dead. Joe Rokocoko of New Zealand is behind Coux and grabs the Frenchman before he gets to the ball.
Coux does get to the ball and grounds it.
Penalty try?
The referee consults the television match official on two grounds -the grounding of the ball and foul play in in-goal by Rokocoko.
The TMO reports that Coux did ground the ball and Rokocoko did tackle early, which is foul play.
Penalty try?
Law 10 A penalty try must be awarded if the offence prevents a try that would probably otherwise have been scored. A player who prevents a try being scored through foul play must either be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off.
The try was scored.
There is an irony. If Coux had not played as well as he did and not scored the try, his team would have had a penalty try – a try in a more advantageous position. Coux played so well that he denied his side two points!
Regards – Ivan Rainbird
Comment: The try was scored where it would have been scored even if Rokocoko had not interfered with Coux. So no penalty try. Rokocoko grabbed Coux before the try was scored, so no penalty. If he had done Coux wrong after the try had been scored, the penalty would have been applicable, as in the case we mentioned above when Montgomery scored a try.
