Readers' comments to start the year
We have had a rest from Law Discussions as we have been digesting other things over the Festive Season. For fear of getting too far behind with readers' comment, we give some of it here.
We have, over this period, produced two You be the Ref tests, which you can look at by clicking here and here.
1. Truck & trailer
Reader: The Southern Hemisphere referees are far more vigilant about this offence than we are up here. In the Munster/Dragons match, the Munster 3rd (or 2nd?) try was scored from a rolling maul. During that maul, a Munster second row was obviously in front of the maul, not bound, and pulling the maul forward. Surely that is exactly why the offence known as truck and trailer has been publicised. Please help with an explanation one way or another in your column.
Eifion Jones – Kettering
Comment: Surely it is not a hemispheric difference, any more than not seeing a knock-on makes it a hemispheric difference. It may just be easier to see obstruction with a wider view of things, that the referee is not seeing the wood for the trees as he focuses on where the ball is. This is especially the case when mauls splinter. It is not all that easy to decide whether or not it is a maul.
If there is no maul, just players of one team clustered round the ball and the players in front of the cluster are ahead of the ball-carrier we have a case of truck & trailer if opponents come to stop the cluster.
It is, as the reader says, wrong for a player, unbound, to be ahead of the maul and pulling the maul along. He is off-side. For such a player to play he needs to be caught up in the maul.
There is a different problem. It happens that a player who started legally in the formation of the maul finds himself isolated in the opponents' part of the maul when they have control of the maul. That player is entitled to stay there as long as he is caught up in the maul.
2. Face attack
Reader: In American Football it is a face mask offence if either the defending player or the attacking player grips however lightly his opponent's face mask. The equivalent in our great sport is that a defender gets penalised for a high tackle, often just high on the chest. In contrast, the attacker, such as Dallaglio on Sunday, is allowed to hand off to the face and worse finger off to the eyes. If dangerous play is the reason for these offences, then surely we should follow the US lead and penalise hand-offs to the face.
Eifion Jones – Kettering
Comment: It is not at present illegal to hand off by using the hand to the face – but it must be a hand-off and not a punch. Nobody would believe, surely, that putting fingers in eyes is acceptable. The referee has the discretion to decide what is dangerous and so unacceptable. To remove that discretion entirely would be unwise.
A player should not be penalised for a high tackle that stays on the chest. A high tackle is clear in 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.
3. Varia
To go to the discussion where these occurred, click here.
Reader:
a. Deliberate knock-on
The referee must decide by his observations of the player's actions, the general pattern of play, and the temper of the game, whether any knock-on is deliberate. Some espouse the 'one-hand rule' to determine intent. However, as a player I reached for and caught too many balls with one hand, with never even a dream of intentionally knocking-on, to rely on it. As we can never 'see inside the head' of a player, this is one of the times we must feel our way on the pitch, using osmosis, telepathy, and maybe even a little extra-sensory perception to make a call. I, for one, prefer to err on the side of caution, and usually decide to play on.
b. Scrum ending
When the hindmost player, with the ball at his feet, unbinds, the ball is out, and the scrum is over. He is not required to pick up the ball. He must unbind to do so. If he remains bound with one hand, the ball is not out, the scrum is not over, and it is indeed 'hand(s) in'. The phrase 'and picks up the ball' is extraneous. It was probably added in order to clarify things, but had the opposite effect.
c. Retaliation again (and again, and again….)
I am quite happy with the state of the law concerning retaliation–it leaves me no doubt as to how to call it. A player must never 'take the law into his own hands' in response to an opponent's illegal play. That's our job as referees. Often in my matches I have observed the original infraction and am bringing the whistle to my mouth to call the penalty (sometimes allowing for advantage) when the retaliation occurs. I usually explain to the retaliator that the law gives me no choice but to penalize his side. I also admonish the original offender. Depending upon the severity of the separate offenses, I could also find consistent sin-binning the original offender and penalising or sin-binning the retaliator. As bad as the original infraction may be, retaliation can only make matters worse. The worst brawl I ever witnessed in a match would never have happened but for retaliation.
d. Suspension
I am wary of basing consequences of dangerous play and misconduct on the resulting severity of injury. The injury is not the violation, it is the act that causes the injury (or we'll slide down the slippery slope of 'no harm, no foul'). We must divine the intent of the perpetrator, as well as the likelihood and severity of the possible resulting injury, when deciding the severity of the penalty for the unlawful act.
Anon
Comment: Just on this last issue, it is interesting to note that Alex Moreno was more severely injured at practice than he was by Gavin Henson's action in the match, for which Henson received a long suspension. It is obviously quite possible for a player to be hurt in a legal action. It is the action, not the outcome, which should be cited and examined.
4. Dropping the drop
Reader: We need to change the point score for the drop goal.
Too often games have been played were the better team have run in tries whilst the team to win the game did so with penalties and drop goals. Thankfully not all teams play this way. However it is apparent that the drop goal is worth too many points at three, equal to a penalty.
The drop goal should be worth no more than two points perhaps one, so that it will be used as a method of the winning points after 79 mins or 39 mins for before the break.
We also need to make a ruling on the line-out, whether a set time allowance in place (checked by the touch judge) can be ruled on and no longer leaving it to the judgement of the referee.
Ron Harmsen – New Zealand
Comment: Presumably the reader means that a set time for forming the line-out and throwing the ball in should be laid down, as a set time is laid down for the kick at goal.
A problem with getting the touch judge to regulate this is that most rugby is played without highly competent and equipped touch judges.
5. Scrum's ending
To go to the discussion referred to, click here.
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
Comment: First a cautionary word: there is nothing in Law 20.12 which speaks about ensuring clear space. That is an idealistic interpolation – not law.
At the moment it would be a case of "hands in" if the No.8 was bound with one arm and played the ball with the other. But then when last did you see anybody penalised for hands-in? Does this not happen regularly when the No.8 flicks the ball back to the scrumhalf.
It's just hard to accept that the ball could be in the scrum when it is at the feet of a player who is not in the scrum!
5. Knee-jerk
Reader: David Slemen was playing fullback for Connacht against Munster. O'Gara kicked a garryowen. Slemen caught it cleanly near his posts and called for a mark. The referee gave him the mark. Slemen was keen to get going and used his knee to bounced the ball up. He grabbed the ball and played on. The referee stopped him. Why?
Tim Clifford – Westport
Comment: The short answer is that the referee stopped him because that is what the law says he should do. To bring the ball into play at a free kick, the player must kick the ball,
Definition:
Kick: A kick is made by hitting the ball with any part of the leg or foot, except the heel, from the toe to the knee, but not including the knee.
