Mandela Plate - 1

Stats and bits

Australia defeated South Africa 30-12 at Telstra Stadium in Sydney on Saturday night, scoring five tries to nil. We give some statistics and discuss four incidents in terms of the Laws of the Game.

1. Statistics 

(i) Penalties conceded:

Australia: 12
South Africa: 3

Australia goaled one penalty, South Africa four penalties. Neither side missed a penalty kick.

(ii) Reasons for the penalties:

Australia:

Tackle/ruck: 8 (*Larkham 2, Turunui, Tuqiri, *Chisholm, Sharpe, *Smith, Waugh)
Off-side: 2 (*Larkham, Sharpe)
Discipline: 2 (Elsom – obstruction, Larkham – man without ball)

South Africa:

Tackle/ruck: 2 (Matfield, Sephaka)
Discipline: 1 (Barry – high tackle)

(iii) Free kicks awarded

Australia: 1 (mark)
South Africa: 1 (line-out)

(iii) Line-outs awarded

Australia: 19 (3 lost, 1 free kick, 2 quick)
South Africa: 21 (1 lost, 1 quick)

(iv) Scrums awarded

Australia: 7 (4 reset)
South Africa: 7 (4 reset)

(v) Drop-outs

Australia: 2
South Africa: 0

(vi) Total Stoppages: 66

(vii) Tackles/rucks:

(viii) Resets as a %of scrums: 57%

(ix) Tries

Australia vs South Africa: 5 + 0 = 5

3. Those lines – again

Two incidents, one strange.

a. Percy Montgomery is in his 22 and runs forward to kick left-footed for touch. As he does so his right foot is on the 22-metre line of South Africa. He kicks directly into touch.

Where will the line-out be?

Law 1 Definition: ‘The 22’ is the area between the goal-line and the 22-metre line, including the 22-metre line but excluding the goal-line.

If Montgomery has a foot on the 22, it would seem that he is not outside his 22.

Law 19. 1 THROW-IN

NO GAIN IN GROUND

(a) Outside a team's 22. A team member kicks directly into touch. Except for a penalty kick, when a player anywhere in the playing area who is outside the 22 kicks directly into touch, there is no gain in ground. The throw-in is taken either at the place opposite where the player kicked the ball, or at the place where it went into touch, whichever is nearer that player's goal-line.

GAIN IN GROUND

(c) Player inside that team's 22. When a defending player gets the ball inside the 22, or that player's in-goal and kicks to touch, the throw-in is where the ball went into touch.

If Montgomery is not outside his 22, presumably he is inside his 22 because the 22-metre line is a part of the 22.

Then the line-out should be where the ball went out.

b. Stephen Larkham of Australia kicks downfield into the midfield.  Brent Russell of South Africa catches the ball in his half and runs ahead. Just inside the Australian half he kicks down towards the Australian left. Larkham catches the ball on the full and when he stops moving he is in touch.

Whose line-out?  Where is the line-out?

If Larkham was in the field of play when he caught the ball, the line-out would have been where he stepped out and it would have been South Africa's ball.

If Larkham had been in touch, which includes having a foot on the line, the line-out would have been back opposite the place where Russell kicked the ball and it would have been Australia's ball.

4. Albert and the protocol

From a line-out near the Australian line, the South Africans maul and then attack. Hanyani Shimange picks up and drives to a matter of centimetres from the goal line. He is brought down and a ruck forms.

At the back of the puck, Albert van den Berg bends and picks up the ball. In picking it up his left knee sinks to the ground. He gets the ball and lunges over the line.

The referee refers the matter to the television match official. On his advice he penalises Albert van den Berg for going to ground to play the ball.

OK?

No. The IRB has a protocol on the activities of a television match official. It has some specific things to say. Here is a part:

2 AREAS OF ADJUDICATION

2.1 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 * Dropped goal.

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 including acts of foul play in the act of grounding the ball or otherwise.

Let's just quote again the penultimate paragraph: 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).

If the referee had seen Van den Berg committing an infringement prior to going over the line, there would have been no need to consult the TMO, because he would have penalised Van den Berg immediately.

5. Nathan, Albert and the law

Two incidents are relevant here:

a. South Africa has the ball and is going through phases. Joe van Niekerk takes a pass that is going left and cuts back to his right past Nathan Sharpe who misses the tackle and goes to ground. Tackled Van Niekerk passes the ball back inside to his left. Sharpe, lying on the ground, rises up like a seal and catches the ball and immediately feeds it back. Play goes on.

b. Albert van den Berg does what we have described in 4. above. His action of lunging for the line is also immediate.

Is there a difference?

There always is a difference. No actions are exactly the same, despite what some people say when they accuse referees of being inconsistent.

There is nothing to stop a player on the ground from playing the ball – except in certain circumstances, like a tackle or a ruck. A player is allowed to fall on the ball and play it, even get up with it. A tackled player is allowed to play the ball from the ground, but not get up with it. The tackler is not allowed to play the ball while he is on the ground.

In Sharpe's case there was general play. There was no tackle or ruck. But, you say, he was on the ground.

There is nothing in the law which says that Sharpe, while on the ground, was not allowed to catch or kick the ball. All it says is the following:

Law 14

The game is to be played by players who are on their feet. A player must not make the ball unplayable by falling down. Unplayable means that the ball is not immediately available to either team so that play may continue.
A player who makes the ball unplayable, or who obstructs the opposing team by falling down, is negating the purpose and spirit of the game and must be penalised.
A player who is not tackled, but who goes to ground while holding the ball, or a player who goes to ground and gathers the ball, must act immediately.

1 PLAYER ON THE GROUND
The player must immediately do one of three things:
Get up with the ball, or
Pass the ball, or
Release the ball.

A player who passes or releases the ball must also get up or move away from it at once. Advantage is played only if it happens immediately.
Penalty: Penalty Kick

2 WHAT THE PLAYER MUST NOT DO
(a) Lying on or around the ball. A player must not lie on, over or near the ball to prevent opponents getting possession of it.

Sharpe immediately made the ball available.

Interestingly the South Africans all went round behind Sharpe to play the ball. They need not have done so as there was no tackle. They could have gone directly to the ball from in front of Sharpe.

Now Van den Berg.

If it was a ruck, the ball was presumably out as it was available for Van den berg to play it. with his hands – though "hands-in" is even rarer than putting the ball in straight to a scrum, as rare as "foot-up".

Law 16.4 (e): A player must not fall on or over a ball as it is coming out of a ruck.

Van den Berg did not fall on or over the ball. He gathered the ball up and lunged forward.

He did not crawl with the ball in his possession but he certainly used his knee to propel himself forward, which Sharpe did not do.

But what if what was at the goal-line was not a ruck but a tackle, though it had all the components for a ruck?

Law 15.7 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.

Van den berg's knee was supported by the ground. He was not on his feet, as the law requires.

This provision to be on his feet applies to the tackle, not to the ball out of a ruck.

It's a tough old decision. If Van den Berg's left knee was a millimetre off the ground, what he did was certainly legal. But it was on the grojund and being on the ground he used it to gho forward.

Does his action differ all that much from Sharpe's? In fact Van den Berg was on his feet when he started to play the ball. He played the ball immediately, doing rugby's most noble deed, scoring a try.

Presumably Van den Berg would have been allowed to stand up with the ball, get up off his errant knee.

But in fact he did not get up off his knee but swivelled over in an effort to score.

If what he did was wrong – in contrast to what Sharpe did – the Van den Berg deserved to be penalised. That it was obtained by a means not catered for in the TMO protocol may tell us more about the protocol than the method used to get the right answer.