More questions, gentlemen

Including foul play and citing

Again we take some questions from readers, all of them practical, all of them interesting, all of them sharpening up our knowledge and practice of the Laws of the Game.

The latest questions in You be the Ref are available here.

1. Whose ball, sir?

Reader: During the Toulouse-Biarritz match last Sunday Toulouse has a penalty kick from which they indicated to the referee the intention to kick at goal, they took a placed kick which hit the posts and then bounced into touch near the corner flag. The line out was awarded to Biarritz. Why was this as it seems to be clear in Law 19.4 that the kicking side get the put in.

Law 19.4 WHO THROWS-IN

The throw-in is taken by an opponent of the player who last held or touched the ball before it went into touch. When there is doubt, the attacking team takes the throw-in.

Exception

When a team takes a penalty kick, and the ball is kicked into touch, the throw-in is taken by a player of the team that took the penalty kick. This applies whether the ball was kicked directly or indirectly to touch.

Eddie

Comment: It is a really interesting question/incident. Thank heavens it does not happen too often!

We could play around with some thoughts.

At a penalty kick, the kicker has options. He may tap and run; he may swap the penalty for a scrum. He may kick the ball.

He may opt to kick at goal. If he opts to kick at goal, that is all he is allowed to do. If he misses and the ball goes dead, it is a drop-out.

It is different is if he kicks for touch. That he may not do, by the way, with a place kick.. He may use the place kick only to kick at goal. For touch he must drop or punt.

If he is not kicking for goal and the ball goes dead, the other side has the option of a scrum where the kick was taken.

It would seem that the intention changes the treatment of the kick.

If this kick that went off the upright and then into touch was a place kick, good sense would suggest that it not be treated as a place kick for touch, because the kicker's intention was to kick at goal.

So would it would seem that the right to have the throw-in at the line-out had also been forfeited because this was not a kick for touch?

Not according to the law. The law makes no allowance for the intervention of an upright. It says simply that if a penalty kick, which the kick at goal was, ends in touch and nobody else played it, then the kicker gets the throw-in.

2. After the maul was over

Reader: White team attacking close to the Blue teams goal line. White through several phases of play go wide. The winger takes the ball into to contact and several players gather around him. The ref calls maul and the White team drive it forward. The White ball-carrier and two Blue players break away from the maul and go to ground (two Blue and one White on the ground with the ball). The Blue player on the ground positions himself so that there is no possibility of playing the ball (if he moved away on the ground it would have been playable). Would the correct decision be a penalty against Blue for not rolling away on the ground.

Jon

Comment: Yes. When the ball-carrier with two opponents broke from the maul, the maul was over. That group of three – ball-carrier plus two opponents – does not make a maul. You are not clear about what "go to ground" means. If the opponents hold onto the ball-carrier and they go to ground, there is a tackle and the tackler is obliged to roll away. If there is no tackle but the trio simply end up on the ground somehow and the one Blue player is lying on the ball, he is still obliged to get out of the way.

The penalty certainly seems the right decision.

3. After the try

Reader: Blue are defending a five-point lead. White get a penalty five metres from the Blue goal-line. The White captain asked if there was time to take the line-out. The referee says no. White tap and run at the line. Following three or four phases of play White get over for a try. In the ensuing celebrations a White player goads the Blue team in an unsportsmanlike manner. This behaviour would have warranted a penalty at the resulting kick off if there had been time. However as the incident had occurred after the try had been scored the referee did not award a penalty. (Play was dead and game finished on the awarding of the try). However the law does specify that time can be allowed for the conversion.

Question: Should the penalty at the resultant kick off been awarded? If it should have been at what point can you not award a penalty (For example a player runs up and punches the kicker of the conversion before he has taken the kick?

Jon

Comment: The game should not have ended as there had been foul play before the match was ended. The try did not end the match. That much is obvious as there was still a conversion to come and the conversion is a part of play and governed by the Laws of the game. You would not have blown the final whistle till after the conversion, which means that the nastiness had occurred during play and so should be dealt with. The ball was dead and so the penalty for foul play should have been where the ball would next have come into play, that is at the middle of the half-way line.

If the foul play had occurred after the final whistle, that is a different matter altogether.

4. What no receiver!

Reader: In your latest law discussion you mention that a side during a line-out should not have two receivers. I am happy with this but what about a side that doesn't have a receiver? I have seen situations whereby the receiver is in the line before the ball has left the hands of the hooker – is this allowed? The law uses the word ‘may’ have a receiver – does this then mean that a line-out does not require a receiver if the team chooses?

Rupert

Comment: A line-out needs to have two players from each side and a player to throw the ball in. There are regulations governing the number of players in the line-out. There are also regulations governing the immediate opponent of the player throwing the ball in – if there is one – and regulations governing the receivers – if there are receivers. There is no obligation to have a receiver.

5. Head-butt sanction

Reader: I watched an Under-21 match between Western Province and natal on Saturday,. In the open a Natal player butted a Western Province player with his head from behind. It was enough to make the Western Province player to fall down. It was behind play but in the open. The referee did not see it but the touch judge saw it. He put out his flag.

The referee spoke to him and then spoke to the players. He penalised the Natal player and made a sign to show that it was for a head butt.

That's all OK but shouldn't the Natal player have been given some sort of card? If the touch judge reported the incident, is the ref still allowed to send the player off?

Secondly is there citing in Under-21 rugby?

Thirdly, is it possible to cite if the referee has acted?

Carlos – Cape Town

Comment: Butting an opponent with the head is a serious form of foul play. From what you say, it seems that the blow was serious. It would then be appropriate to send the player off the field at least temporarily. That the report came from the touch judge does not preclude the sending off. The referee would in that case ask the touch judge for his recommendation.

If the recommendation is that the player be sent off, the touch judge submits the written report about the incident to the referee as soon as possible after the match and provides it to the match organiser. (Law 6.B.7)

The IRB's recommended punishment for a head butt tells you the gravity of the offence. It recommends a suspension of between seven and 36 weeks with 20 weeks as the norm.

Citing varies from competition to competition and would be governed by the union in charge of the match, in this case the South African Rugby Union. There is no reason why citing cannot take place in an Under-21 match. After all it happened at the IRB's Under-21 Championship and the Under-19 Championship.

The third part also depends in part on the way citing is organised by a union, but according to the IRB's regulations a citing commissioner may cite a player even if the referee has acted against him.

Regulation 17.6.2 (b) Citing Commissioners may cite Players for an act or acts of Illegal and/or Foul Play even where such act or acts may have been detected by the referee and/or touch judge and which may have been the subject of action taken by the referee and/or touch judge. A Citing Commissioner may not, however, cite a Player for an act or acts of Illegal and/or Foul Play in respect of which the Player has been Ordered Off;
(c) A Player may be cited by the Citing Commissioner if he has been Temporarily Suspended. Such citing may be made in respect of the incident or incidents for which the Player was Temporarily Suspended or otherwise.

6. Immobile touch judge

Reader: This is the same match. The play went down the field. When it stopped, the referee went back to the touch judge who was standing on the half-way line with his flag out.

What would have happened if the touch judge had been needed to judge at the cornerflag and there he was on the half-way line?

Carlos – Cape Town

Comment; Law 6.B.6 AFTER SIGNALLING FOUL PLAY

If a touch judge signals foul play, the touch judge must stay in touch and continue to carry out all his duties until the next stoppage in play,.

You are right, Carlos. He must keep moving.