Of Hayman, a yellow card and scrums

We received some mail questioning the yellow card for Carl Hayman. We shall examine it and then the penalties and free kicks in the scrums, which have also prompted questions.

A. Hayman saw yellow

The Australians are doing a lot of pick-‘n-go at close quarters. They did not make much forward progress as the New Zealand defence is vigilant and strong. The ball is passed to Matt Dunning who moves slightly to his left with the ball under his left arm. Carl Hayman tackles him from Dunning’s right.

Dunning goes to ground, falling on his left side. Hayman falls on top of Dunning.

Hayman rolls over towards the New Zealand side with the ball in his left hand and he lets it go to his side.

The referee penalises Hayman and shows him a yellow card. Hayman makes it clear that he does not agree with the referee’s decision and is reluctant to leave the field.

1. There was a tackle. Hayman tackled Dunning who went to ground.

2. There was a tackler. Hayman also went to ground with Dunning.

3. The ball was on the ground.

4. Dunning did not move his position, but stayed lying on his left side. Hayman moved position, rolling over and bringing the ball up with his left hand.

Law 15.4 (c) The tackler must get up before playing the ball.

Hayman played the ball. The ball did not get up off the ground and above Dunning of its own accord. Hayman moved it up. He did so while he was off his feet. (It would have been different if he had taken the ball off Dunning before they went to ground but he did not. He played the ball after they had gone to ground.) The decision to penalise Hayman was a correct one.

It was the seventh penalty against New Zealand for infringements at the tackle/ruck. The previous one had been just over three minutes before.

On that occasion the referee penalised Aaron Mauger at a tackle/ruck when he came in the side and took Matt Giteau away. It was a pretty gross infringement – at least a gross error of judgement. The referee then called Richie McCaw, the New Zealand captain, and spoke to him about repeated infringements with the unspoken implication that a sin-binning would follow.

Why it is usually an unspoken warning/caution/suggestion is not immediately clear.

He also spoke about the “strike zone”. This incident and the Hayman incident happened a good way from the New Zealand goal-line which asked for a definition of “strike zone”, which is not in law.

The law on repeated infringement does not confine itself to any zones, strike, red or otherwise. The mention of zones may merely have obfuscated the core of the matter – repeated infringements.

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.
Penalty: Penalty Kick

A player penalised for repeated infringements must be cautioned and temporarily suspended. If that player then commits a further cautionable offence, or the same offence,

(b) Infringements. The problem of repeated infringements usually arises with the scrum, line-out, off-side, ruck, maul or tackle laws. A player penalised for several infringements of one of these laws is cautioned and temporarily suspended from the match for a period of ten minutes’ playing time. If the player repeats the offence, the player is sent off.

(c) 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) for a period of ten minutes’ playing time. If a player of that team then repeats the offence the referee sends off the guilty player(s).
Penalty: Penalty Kick

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

(d) Repeated infringements: standard applied by referee. When the referee decides how many offences constitute repeated infringement, the referee must always apply a strict standard in representative and senior matches. When a player offends three times the referee must caution that player.

The referee may relax this standard in junior or minor matches, where infringements may be the result of ignorance of the laws or lack of skill.

The referee did exactly what (c) requires.

B. Scrums

The scrums started off as a problem but eventually became easier, at least on New Zealand ball. The first five Australian scrums went – free kick; two collapses, three resets, penalty; penalty; free kick; collapse, reset, free kick. Five scrums – four resets, three collapses, three free kicks, two penalties! That hardly makes for good rugby.

It is not pleasant for spectators and certainly not pleasant for the referee. The referee is not the person engaging early or collapsing. He can only react to what players have done.

There were suggestions that his engage procedure was too slow. It seemed pretty constant throughout – four distinct words but without long pauses between them.

The new procedure of four distinct words came in this year. Then referees were given the choice of shortening to three words, making touch-pause one command. Saturday’s Tri-Nations referee used four words but without long, stressful pauses. It’s not new. This procedure has been going since January and there has been Super 14 and Test matches prior to this one which should have accustomed the players to self-control on engagement.

In his match there were six free kicks at scrums. This is not all that unusual. When Australia played Wales in Sydney there were six free kicks at scrums. When Australia played Wales in Brisbane there were five free kicks at scrums.

In this match to the credit of all involved, which includes the referee, the scrums became less of a problem as the match went on.

The free kicks in the Tri-Nations match were all bar one for early engagement. That is one of the sides went down before the referee had given the command Engage. If a team goes into the engage before the referee has called Engage, then the sanction is a free kick.

The New Zealand scrum was stronger than the Australian scrum. Being the stronger scrum does not exonerate a team from abiding by the laws governing scrummaging.

But let’s look at the scrums:

1. Scrum to New Zealand: The teams engaged after pause and the scrum was reset. Ball out
2. Scrum to Australia: The teams engaged after pause. Free kick to Australia. The New Zealand front row clearly went in first.
3. Scrum to New Zealand: collapse, reset. Free kick to New Zealand. The Australian front row clearly went in first.
4. Scrum to Australia: collapse, reset. Early engage – both sides, reset. Early wheel, reset. Collapse – penalty to Australia

The collapse is on the far side from the camera but in front of the referee, who thus had the best possible view. It seemed that both Matt Dunning and Carl Hayman went down, equally. The penalty was for not binding but there is no television view of the binding on that side. There is a view of the binding on the Australian tighthead side and there it is clear that Tony Woodcock’s arm is not up to bind. His hand is on the grass.

5. Scrum to Australia: Collapse, penalty to New Zealand.

Again this happened on the far side from the camera but the view down the tunnel clearly shows Dunning’s head leading the way to the ground.

6. Scrum to Australia: Free kick to New Zealand. The Australian front row clearly went into the engagement first.
7. Scrum to Australia: collapse, reset. Free kick to Australia. The New Zealand front row clearly went in first.
8. Scrum to New Zealand: Ball out
9. Scrum to New Zealand: Ball out
10. Scrum to Australia: Ball out, but wheeled and lost
11. Scrum to New Zealand: Ball out
Half-time
12. Scrum to Australia, early wheel. Free kick to Australia. The free kick was against New Zealand for moving off the line before the ball went in.
13. Scrum to Australia: Ball out
14. Scrum to Australia. collapse. Free kick to Australia. The reason given is that New Zealand engaged too early. It is not apparent as the television was concentrating on Daniel Carter’s face. The
15. Scrum to New Zealand: Ball out
16. Scrum to Australia: collapse, reset. Ball out
17. Scrum to Australia: Ball out
18. Scrum to New Zealand: collapse, reset – though Dunning’s head seemed to lead the way down.
19. Scrum to New Zealand: Ball out
20. Scrum to New Zealand: Ball out
21. Scrum to New Zealand: Ball out
22. Scrum to Australia: , Wheel, reset. Ball out