Readers' comments and queries

Including comment on law changes

We are going to go to incidents from Week 8 of the Super 14 but we have several readers' queries and comments which should be treated separately lest we become too cumbersome.

Some of the comment is on suggested law changes, some on suggestions for law changes.

May we add that the spirit of this thing is discussion. Discussion is easier without emotion!

Then there are some queries about laws and incidents in matches, which we deal with.

1. Uncontested maul

a. Reader: During the Sharks/Reds game this weekend an interesting situation arose. The Sharks had a line-out and it was clear that they were going to catch, form a maul and then drive the ball. The entire Reds line-out, in an obviously planned move, took two steps out of the line-out thus not engaging in the maul. The ref the penalised the Sharks for “truck and trailer”. Was this right or wrong?  As far as I understand the laws, the Reds should be penalised for leaving the line-out before it was over.  What gives?

Rolf

b. Reader: Just read your Law Incidents from S14 week 8, but the most interesting incident (to me) seemed to be missed: In the Sharks-Reds match, the Sharks threw to a line-out and formed a rolling maul. However the Reds forwards all backed off a couple of metres, leaving the Reds "maul" completely unopposed and on its own. The referee then penalised the Sharks for "truck and trailer". Correct?

Peter J

Comment: It takes two sides to make a maul. By not joining the shrewd Reds prevented a maul from being made. What the Sharks made was not a maul at all – and so there was obstruction when they had the ball at the back  of their tortoise formation.

The Reds did not leave the line-out. They stayed there. All they did was avoid joining the maul. There is no law requiring them to join the maul.

There was a similar incident when Italy played Scotland. You may like to go to it by clicking here.

2. Off-side

Reader: You say : "Davidson is penalised and told he was off-side.

It's a hard one to fathom. There is at present no off-side line at a tackle. The ball was well over a metre from the tackle. That meant that the provision to come though the gate did not apply. There was no ruck as there were not players of both sides on their feet and in physical contact over the ball.

The crowd thought Davidson was off-side but there was not a good case to back their claim."

I politely disagree.  Perversely, you don't need offside lines to be offside. Here's what the Law 11 says about being offside in general play.

"Intro : In general play a player is off-side if the player is in front of a team-mate who is carrying the ball, or in front of a team-mate who last played the ball.  Off-side means that a player is temporarily out of the game. Such players are liable to be penalized if they take part in the game."

"11.1 A player who is in an off-side position is liable to penalty only if the player does one of three things: (i) Interferes with play … This means the player must not play the ball or obstruct an opponent"

The moment Weepu picks up the ball, Davidson is offside because he is in front of Weepu. If Davidson obstructs an opponent while offside, he's liable to be penalised.  Whether such an obstruction occurred is up to the ref's interpretation, but if it did, then a penalty for offside is the correct decision.  Laws 10.1 (b-d) (Obstruction) might also apply, but the sanction is the same, so its a moot point.

Gareth Owen.

Comment: No, no, no! To be off-side you need to have some form of play that creates an offside line – a scrum, line-out, ruck or maul – or you need to be kin front of a team-mate who last played the ball. Davidson and Weepu were not team-mates!

3. Head-on

Reader: Question: Is it legal to use one's head to advance the ball forward?

Mike Seidl

Comment: There is nothing wrong at all with heading the ball forward. A knock-on is off the hands or the arms.

4. TMO

Reader: After all the arguments about the decisions in the England-Ireland game, could you clarify the rules about the use of the TV Ref?

My understanding is that the TV Ref can only be referred to about the actual scoring of a try at the try-line, and not in other phases of play, such as when Cohen took the quick throw-in to himself. But the argument about Horgan's first try centers on a ball bouncing about 15 metres away from the goal-line. Could the referee, under the rules, have utilised the TV Ref, or was he limited to making a decision himself or deferring to his linesman's call?

If the rules do not allow him to use the TV Ref that far out in the field of play, then we should be spared the criticism of the officials inflicted upon us by the TV commentators, who have the benefit of TV replays in slow motion from several angles. The linesman in the Horgan incident had only one angle of view and only a split-second to make up his mind, while himself running flat out. That it was a difficult call could be seen by the fact that he half-raised his flag, then lowered it. But he was far closer and in a much better position to make a call than the referee, and I think the ref was right to accept his decision. But the complaints of the commentators gave the impression that this was rank bad refereeing. Is this fair?

Terry Pattison

Comment: You are right and right again. The television match official was not empowered to talk about Horgan's foot when he toed the ball on. And you are right about the benefit of hindsight fuelled by slow-mo.

To go to that discussion in the past, click here.

5. Law changes

Reader: These ideas are absolutely insane, it will ruin the game and make things so much more of a pain for us referees. I can understand a few things but to permit collapsing a Maul and some of the Line out suggestions is defiantly strange and not a wise choice. This game is hard enough to play we don't want to make it impossible for players, referees and coaches alike. The Tackle suggestion is not going to work and the flags will just make decisions harder for referees in-goal. 

I sincerely hope that these do not come into action as it will ruin a perfected game. There are more things that could be changed that haven't.

Comment: There's nothing like being infallible!

This outburst probably refers to suggested changes from an IRB experiment in Stellenbosch, for which click here. For some earlier reaction, click here.

6. Scrums uncontested

Reader: In relation to article:
http://www.planet-rugby.com/Tournaments/European_Cup/story_50190.shtml
a review of the laws of the game related to the recent ERC quarter finals, I wish to offer a suggestion to resolve the problem of he uncontested scrum.

In the event that a scrum is uncontested, due to a loss of players (props) to Team A, then:
If Team B have put in, Team B must win the uncontested scrum
If Team A have put in, and are missing props due to injury, Team A win the uncontested scrum
If Team A have put in, and are missing props due to foul play (yellow or red cards), Team B win the uncontested scrum
Uncontested scrums must contain 8 players from each side.

The suggestion is to not penalise teams already suffering from player loss by injury, while maximising penalty through engineering of circumstances for teams who are missing players due to foul play. Team B gain the advantage in the uncontested scrum (uncontested due to foul play) by winning possession and limiting Team A's defence by ensuring a full complement are tied up in the scrum.

(i.e. if Team A have two sin-binned players, lose possession in the scrum, and only have 5 backs to stop Team B, then they are sufficiently penalised.)

A reference was also made to the penalty try. Surely if a scrum is collapsed by the defensive team near the goal line that this is a deliberate attempt to prevent the opposition from scoring by breaking the laws of the game. And as such a penalty try should be awarded.
 
Paul Delaney – Ireland

7. Knock-on?

Reader: Re Wasps' first try on Sunday.  Did the original knock forward not contravene Law 12.1 (e)?    If the Wasps player had not caught his deliberate knock-on, there would have been no debate, a penalty would have been awarded.  Surely, the fact that he luckily caught the ball does not negate the relevant part of Law 12.

Eifion Jones – Kettering

Comment: The fumble and recovery allowed by the law must be judged to be an accidental act.

Law 12.1 (e) Intentional knock-on or throw forward. A player must not intentionally knock the ball forward with hand or arm, nor throw forward.

If a player deliberately knocks or throws the ball forward, even if he catches it again before it hits the ground, that act is penalised.

8. Law changes

Reader:

a. Re-power the scrum – do not permit crooked feeds and foot-up. Let's reward a side which is prepared to put the work into the scrum by reverting to a good old take against the head.

b. No knock-ons from a restart kick. How many times do we see a good chase and challenge ruined by a knock-on when jumping for the ball – let the chasing players dispute the receiving side's ball if they can.

c. Introduce the rugby league rule about touching down behind your own goal-line (a drop out from under the posts). This will prevent defenders delaying a put-down until they have forced an opposition player to run 20 yards or more towards them – it is irritating. This change will make the defender react in  a more positive way by running the ball back out or kicking.