Laws: Try, try, try again

You can go for weeks and weeks in the Super 14 with something like two thousand things referees have had to look for each weekend and there is no controversy. Then comes a weekend when controversies flourish. It happened this weekend. They were not every-day controversies, either, but they concerned tries given and not given.

The controversial issues are worth looking at – the penalty try against the Lions, the try for the Brumbies, the deliberate knock-down against the Sharks and the penalty in the line-out shortly afterwards.

1. The penalty try given

There is only one reason to award a penalty try – if foul play prevents the probable scoring of a try. Probable, not possible, and probable, not definite. Definite is a bit more than probable but little in a rugby match is definite.

Penalty try recurs under repeated infringements but again the emphasis is on the offence which prevents a probable try.

Law 10.2 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.

In this match the Lions’ scrummaging had been poor. The Brumbies had put the ball into five five-metre scrums. The first one had worked and had not produced a try. The next three produced penalties for going up or down, including a yellow card for Kevin Buys. The next one worked. Then some time later there was the penalty try.

This was not a good scrum for the Brumbies as the scrum wheeled to their left and did not move forward. There was no probability of a push-over try. The ball at the back of the scrum was not tidy as their scrumhalf Josh Valentine bent to pick it up. There is nothing in what Valentine did that suggested that he would probably score a try. As he bent to pick it up the Lions’ scrumhalf, JP Joubert, darted forward to play the ball. The penalty try was awarded.

It is hard to fathom why the penalty was awarded because there was nothing to suggest that a try would probably have been scored.

When Joubert darted forward to play the ball, he may well have put part of his right foot beyond the ball which would have made him offside. But doing that did not prevent the probable scoring of a try, nor was it an intentional infringement. His intention was clear to play the ball as it bounced out of the scrum.

10.2 UNFAIR PLAY
(a) Intentionally Offending. A player must not intentionally infringe any Law of the Game, or play unfairly. The player who intentionally offends must be either admonished, or cautioned that a send off will result if the offence or a similar offence is committed, or sent off.
Sanction: Penalty kick

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.

(b) Time-wasting. A player must not intentionally waste time.
Sanction: Free Kick

(c) Throwing into touch. A player must not intentionally knock, place, push or throw the ball with his arm or hand into touch, touch-in-goal, or over the dead ball line.
Sanction: Penalty kick on the 15-metre line if the offence is between the 15-metre line and the touchline, or, at the place of infringement if the offence occurred elsewhere in the field of play, or, 5 metres from the goal line and at least 15 metres from the touchline if the infringement occurred in in-goal.

A penalty try must be awarded if the offence prevents a try that would probably otherwise have been scored.

It did not seem that Joubert was guilty of (a), (b) or (c), nor that a try would probably have been scored.

At the awarding of a penalty try, the law also requires that the offending player be sent to the sin bin or permanently off – a yellow card or a red card. The referee was obliged by law to send Joubert to the sin bin or off. In this case the referee did not speak to Joubert except when the scrumhalf came to him, at which the referee said: “Out of there. Move away.”

There was no fracas to get out of. Presumably the referee was simply dismissing any complaint that Joubert may have had.

What about repeated infringement as a reason to award a penalty try?

Law 10.3 REPEATED INFRINGEMENTS
(a) Repeatedly offending. A player must not repeatedly infringe any Law. Repeated infringement is a matter of fact. The question of whether or not the player intended to infringe is irrelevant.
Sanction: Penalty kick
A player penalised for repeated infringements must be cautioned and temporarily suspended.

(b) Repeated infringements by the team. When different players of the same team repeatedly commit the same offence, the referee must decide whether or not this amounts to repeated infringement. If it does, the referee gives a general warning to the team and if they then repeat the offence, the referee cautions and temporarily suspends the guilty player(s). If a player of that same team then repeats the offence the referee sends off the guilty player(s).
Sanction: Penalty kick

A penalty try must be awarded if the offence prevents a try that would probably otherwise have been scored.

Again, note that the penalty try is awarded for an offence, not a line of offences and not because the referee loses patience.

Again there was no caution or temporary suspension.

It seems that the situation was ill-managed and the impression of haughtiness was unlikely to endear the referee to the players or gain their confidence and cooperation.

This all happened on 36 minutes when the score was 3-all.

2. The deliberate infringement, suspension and no penalty try.

The Sharks attack to the left and have a substantial overlap. Stefan Terblanche runs freely and some 25 metres from the line there is only Kurtley Beale of the Waratahs in front of him. On Terblanche’s right is speedster Ryan Kankowski, who had raced 40 metres or more for a try earlier in the match.

Terblanche passes to his right. It looks a good pass but Beale rapidly stretches out a left hand and knocks the ball forward and into touch.

The referee sends Beale to the sin bin and awards a penalty to the Sharks who are incensed because they believe they should have been awarded a penalty try.

A penalty try from 30 metres out? The law says nothing about the distance from the line. The pass towards Kankowski was a good one. Kankowski had nobody in front of him and is a player of speed and strength. It was, of course, possible that Kankowski would have knocked on but it was probable that he would not. Anyway he did not get a chance to test it because of Beale intervention.

There are precedents for penalty tries for precisely the offence of a deliberate knock-on. Clive Norling did it in 1983 when Australia played Argentina and Tomas Petersen knocked forward a pass from Mark Ella to Simon Poidevin. And Paddy O’Brien did it when James Small did the same sort of thing. O’Brien was certainly right to do so.

With the help of slow motion and that sort of thing, it would seem that Paul Marks should have awarded a penalty. It was an important decision. With three minutes to go, the Sharks were down 25-21. It was a try which could have won them the match.

Perceptions are interesting.  The following is what the Waratahs website had to say: “Kurtley Beale then saved an almost certain try with an attempted intercept, when the Sharks found space down the right flank sideline. Beale was unlucky to be yellow carded for his actions, and the Sharks once again pressured the Waratahs line.”

Rod Kafer, the former Wallaby, said with an amount of joy when another commentator mentioned that Beale had not been long on the field but he had made an impact: “It was a good impact, because that was a try.”

Kafer cleanly believed that try would probably have been score. Claims that Beale was trying to catch the ball stretch credulity.

If the television match official’s powers were extended, that would be just the sort of thing it could be used for. But the status quo on the TMO remains at least till after the 2011 World Cup.

That happened on 76/77 minutes.

3. Try prevented

After Beale had been penalised the Waratahs were again penalised. This produced a five-metre line-out for the Sharks. Their intentions were obvious – a maul for a try to win the match.

Bismarck du Plessis threw in and near the front, Wilhelm Steenkamp rose high and caught the ball. The referee penalised the Sharks for obstruction.

When Steenkamp was up in the air, Jannie du Plessis moved behind him and came between him and the Waratahs.  Du Plessis was a lifter in the line-out and stayed in contact with Steenkamp as he moved towards the Waratahs, blocking them from getting to Steenkamp to sack him. Garth Wright has said loudly that it was a poor decision because there was a maul. There was no maul when Du Plessis moved into his blocking position.

The referee was perfectly correct. In fact it is one of the Big Four that referees have been told to apply.

There is, naturally, the goose-and-gander principle. What is good for the goose is also good for the gander. In the line-out following this one, Ben Mowen goes high to catch the ball and Will Caldwell goes in behind him before a maul if formed. To be fair it is not as clear and obvious as was the Du Plessis case.

That happened on 78 minutes.

4. Try given

We are back to the Brumbies and the Lions again.

The Lions had just scored and got to 17-13 when the Brumbies attacked and bashed at the line. Stephen Moore of the Brumbies picks up the ball to go low for the line but Tonderai Chavhanga of the Lions brings him to ground. There is no momentum in Moore as he was close and brought straight down. He then created his own momentum.

Using his left hand as a lever he propelled his body forward. Then he did it again. Then he rolled over for a try which the television match official advised was a try.

Moore did not place the ball. He propelled himself forward and rolled over with the ball.

Is the TMO entitled to comment on what happened just before the line?

The protocol determining how a TMO is allowed to act:

Area of Adjudication

The areas of adjudication are limited to Law 6. 8 (b), 6.8 (d) and 6.8 (e) and therefore relate to:

Grounding of the ball for try and touch down
Touch, touch-in-goal, ball being made dead during the act of grounding the ball.

This includes situations where a player may or may not have stepped in touch in the act of grounding the ball on or over the goal line.

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
All kicks at goal including dropped goals.

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).

The TMO must not be asked to assist in any other decision other than those listed.

The referee must make an effort to make an adjudication.  If he is unsighted or has doubt, he will then use the following process (4).

It would seem that the TMO was not entitled to comment on what Moore did before getting to the line. It would seem that he should but it is not sanctioned at present and as the decisions are broadcast to the World (“Walshie. Georgia. Try”) it is wise for the TMO not to step out of protocol.