Readers' comment
Including foul play
It's over to our readers this time. They have their say. Just before they do one tiny word.
Using a tap kick at a penalty is allowed as part of the game. In the match between Wasps and Scarlets there were eight penalties in the first half when the teams wanted to play quickly and eight times they were stopped from doing so.
OK, so what about having to talk to players?
Surely that could be done at the next stoppage if it is necessary. Often the talk is not all that necessary – telling players to release the ball at a tackle, for example. That's not urgent as perhaps injury or fighting could be.
1. Deliberate knock-on
White are attacking and their backs performing a planned move in their opponents' 22. Red are operating a blitz defence, and rush up to meet the White backs. Red centre spots an opportunity for an interception, but is just too short to catch the ball in flight; so with arms outstretched knocks the ball high into the air. The ball goes a considerable distance forward (towards the White goal line) but as the Red centre is travelling at full tilt, he is able to be underneath the ball as is comes down, catching it before it touches the ground or another player.
On this occasion, I quickly made the decision to play on as if the player had simply juggled with the ball during the interception before gaining control. But is this right? How does this compare with throwing the ball forward over an opponent before re-gathering it after running past him?
Steve Penfold
Comment: From what you say it would seem that what the centre did would warrant a penalty for a deliberate knock-on.
Law 12.1 (e) Intentional knock or throw forward. A player must not intentionally knock the ball forward with hand or arm, nor throw forward.
Penalty: Penalty Kick. A penalty try must be awarded if the offence prevents a try that would probably otherwise have been scored.
2. Scrum ending
Reader: In your “Pre Christmas Action” Law Discussion on Ending The scrum you opine that the law needs re-wording, removing the phrase “and picks up the ball”, for clarity.
I am not sure this is a good idea.
My understanding of Law 20 governing the scrum is that all players forming the scrum must stay bound until the scrum is over (though this is not stated explicitly for players other than the front-row).
The exclusion of the phrase would mean that the scrum is over instantly the hindmost player unbinds. Allowing a quick opposition scrum-half to play the ball. This surely goes against spirit of the laws as espoused in 20.12 for the offside line “The purpose of the scrum off-side law is to ensure that, until the scrum ends, the team winning the ball has a clear space in which to make use of it.”
Alternatively the hindmost player may attempt to bind with one arm whilst picking up the ball with his loose arm. Is this hand(s) in the scrum 20.9 (c)?
The current wording allows the scrum to end by means of the hindmost player unbinding AND picking up the ball but not by just unbinding.
In the Ospreys-Leicester example, James Bater is committing an offence by unbinding and NOT picking up the ball. This would appear to be the referee’s error not Austin Healey’s.
Garreg L. Dawe
3. Retaliation again
Reader: With regards to your article on "Retaliation worse?" last week the Munster/Dragons game had a incident which adds fuel to your argument. (To go to the article referred to click here.)
The referee penalised the Dragons at a ruck on their 22 whereupon a Marcus Horan and the Dragon's hooker continued the "handbags" [squabbling] long after the whistle. The original penalty was against the Dragons' hooker for foul play on Horan. Horan retaliated. Quite correctly the referee carded both parties for the "handbags" but then reversed the penalty in favour of the perpetrator.
It was at a critical stage – 77min. while Munster were chasing the bonus point for a fourth try.
This implies that Munster were penalised twice.
There appeared little fairness in the decision even if it was technically correct within the referee's interpretation of the law.
Munster were punished once by having their man binned why should they be punished again by having the penalty reversed? The perpetrator's side suddenly found themselves on the attack inside Munster's 22 instead of defending their own line. Surely the binning of both perpetrator and retaliator was sufficient punishment?
Aidan Sweeney
Comment: How would you then restart the game? Scrum? Whose ball? Attacking team's ball?
4. Suspension
Reader: After watching the Leicester Ospreys game I was moved to write. I know that Leicester are no angels in terms of their application of the laws, but there is a significant difference between slowing the ball down, or even deliberately knocking the ball out of the scrum half’s hands, and what I saw which was tantamount to aggravated assault occasioning grievous bodily harm! What Ian Evans did was frightening in its callousness, and had the potential to end a players career. Evans should be banned from professional rugby, and never permitted to play again. The games does not need this, and he is a disgrace to the sport.
How about this for a rule change? Players found guilty of contravening Rule 10.4 (Dangerous Play and Misconduct) should be dealt with exactly as they are today, with the following caveat. If the Dangerous Play or Misconduct results in an injury to another player, and where the consequence of that Dangerous Play or Misconduct is that the injured player is unable to compete for any period of time, then the guilty party will be suspended during the same period, and the sentence they receive as punishment for the offence under clause 10 shall only commence once the injured party is passed medically fit to compete by an authorised sports doctor. Furthermore, players found guilty of deliberately occasioning harm which results in other player becoming unable to compete shall be liable to pay the wages of the injured party during the term of their recovery.
Let’s up the ante, and stamp out this thuggery once and for all!
Ian McFarlane-Toms – Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire
5. Cards
Reader: I would be interested to know you thoughts concerning the two Heineken Cup matches that took place this Sunday, as both games were full of incidents. I know that you don't like readers to refer to a "referee's interpretation" of the laws but there were two very similar incidents in each match that resulted in different rulings.
A high tackle by Mark Jones on the Wasps wing resulted in a yellow card. A similar tackle on Shaun Connor of the Ospreys resulted in only a penalty. Both tackles were above the shoulder level and for each occasion the tackler made a quick reflex action. Surely then the result should be the same?
Comment: Similar does not mean the same. Certainly the context of the tackles will be different. It must be up to the referee to exercise his educated judgement – and in both of these matches the referees were highly educated in refereeing terms. Consistency is desirable but not of a mechanical kind.
6. Necking
Reader: Does a high tackle apply only to a tackle in open play? I ask this because in the match between Ulster and Saracens, Kris Chesney of Saracens grabbed Matt McCullough of Ulster in a headlock, his arm clamped around McCullough's neck and holding onto his neck her pulled him to ground and kept on holding on there.
To me it looked bad and dangerous.
Blair Davidson
Comment: The definition on foul play would suggest that this sort of thing is certainly not acceptable: Foul play is anything a person does within the playing enclosure that is against the letter and spirit of the Laws of the Game. It includes obstruction, unfair play, repeated infringements, dangerous play and misconduct which is prejudicial to the Game.
Care for the safety of the players is a major part of a referee's responsibility. Grabbing a player by the neck and yanking backwards would certainly seem to fall within the realm of dangerous play and misconduct prejudicial to the Game.
In fact grabbing an opponent around the neck in a maul is now prevalent.
Law 10.4 (e) A player must not tackle (or try to tackle) an opponent above the line of the shoulders. A tackle around the opponent’s neck or head is dangerous play.
Tackle is used here loosely, not as in the specifics of the tackle law – grabbing, holding and going to ground.
