Readers' questions

As the Tri-Nations ends

The Tri-Nations has now run its long, cumbersome course. Sadly it lost its competitive edge when New Zealand won so early.

We have had some hefty discussion of points of law during the Tri-Nations and now rest just a little on our oars as we let the readers make some comment and ask questions.

1. Mortlock cynical?

Reader: Situation: could you please enlighten me. In the 62nd minute, JP Pietersen, the Springbok fullback, jumped for the ball and knocked on, with AJ Venter then playing the ball from an offside position.
 
When Pietersen knocked on Wallaby Stirling Mortlock, was approaching Pietersen looked up saw the ball going forward, then lowered his head and still tackled Pietersen effectively removing him from the play. Experienced player or cynical play?
 
Question: is this not a offence?
 
If an offence, the first offence would be the knock-on, and thus a scrum and not a penalty to the Wallabies.

Comment: If it was a deliberate, cynical, calculated attempt to stop Pietersen from recovering the ball, then Mortlock has remarkably rapid cunning. It looked as if he saw Pietersen catching the ball, made sure his feet were on the ground and then tackled him.

If Mortlock had not tackled Pietersen he still would not have had the remotest hope of recovering the ball before a Wallaby played it. His knock-on was pretty gross, travelling at least ten metres to where George Gregan, Phil Waugh and other Wallabies were waiting and would certainly have played the ball before Pietersen could have got near.

It was the right decision to penalise Venter.

2. What no cards!

Reader: A quick one: why were there no sanctions for Aussie players after the try scored by Fourie du Preez on Saturday? He took a quick tap about 10 m from the Aussie line and at least four opposition players tried (unsuccessfully, it turned out) to stop him. None of these players had retreated (it seemed to me) 10 m and so all were deliberately attempting to prevent a try being scored in the most cynical of fashions. I have seen several players from other countries receiving sanctionary cards for far less…

Boz

Comment: Four Wallabies tried to stop Du Preez. Would you really want all four of them sin-binned – and the match reduced to a farce for ten minutes?

In any case they did not do a very good job of their cynical attempt, for he scored the try!

3. One-minute caps?

Reader: If a player comes on the field in a test as a blood replacement. He is only on the field for a minute, and does not replace anybody again, does he earn a test cap?

MC

Comment: There are no Laws of the Game governing the award of caps. It is up to each country to award caps as it seems fit. That said, it seems that a one-minute, blood replacement would be awarded a cap.

4. TnT

We discussed the truck-'n-trailer thing last week as well. (Click here.)

This question comes from a Currie Cup match. It is a situation we discussed in the Six Nations as well.

It's about constructive disengagement from the maul.

Reader: Western Province threw into a line-out and made a maul with the players packed in layers and Luke Watson at the back with the ball. The Cheetahs had a player or two engaged, and so there was a maul. They then pulled out so that there were just Western Province players in a tortoise formation with the ball at the tail. A Cheetah then comes round the side and tackles Watson.

I have lots of questions:

Are you allowed to leave a maul?
Does the maul stop being a maul if one side's players leave it?
At what stage to Western Province get penalised for truck-'n-trailer?
Is the Cheetah allowed to tackle Watson?

What am I, a referee, allowed to do?

Karel Scheepers – Wimbledon

Comment:

There is nothing in the laws that says a player must stay in a maul or give any circumstances that prevent him from leaving the maul.
The laws say that a maul is over when the ball emerges but a maul has components without which there is no maul – a ball carrier, at least one team-mate and at least one opponent – all of them bound together. If there is no opponent, there is no maul because a component is missing. Sense says that there is no longer a maul.
Truck-'n-trailer would occur only when the Western Province players make contact with a Cheetah while they are still bound with the ball-carrier tucked in behind them. If no Cheetah comes to contest the forward movement, it must surely be allowed to move downfield.
Yes.

The Western Province players legally formed a maul. The Cheetahs withdrew. It is reasonable at least to doubt if those huddled Western Province players knew about the complete withdrawal.  It would seem that the referee has two options if contact is to be made:

a. to warn the Western Province players that the maul is over and that they must get the ball out.
b. blow a scrum for accidental off-side.

It just does not seem right that a team get a penalty for milking an innocent situation.

5. Three little questions

Reader:

I would like to ask some questions. I have just joined a rugby referees' association. We recently had an exam, and there are three questions I do not agree with. If my interpretation of the laws is incorrect then I really think these laws need to be looked at because they can be interpreted differently by different referee. The first two concern the line-out. I know you have discussed this before but I would like to state the questions and how I understand them ?

The first question is :

Question 1

A15 kicks the ball that hops to touch. B8 standing with one foot in touch and the other foot in the field of play catches the ball. Whose line out is it?

They say the answer is Line-out, team A throws in.

I disagree with this. I say Team B should throw in. The law states clearly that the ball is in touch if it touches anyone or anything in touch. It also states that a player standing with one foot in touch is in touch. Team A kicked the ball into touch – how can it be their throw in? The exam organizers again state that team B took the ball into touch because it had not crossed the line of touch yet. Now firstly reading the question it does not state if the ball crossed the line of touch or not. Secondly it should not matter, as according to the laws the ball went into touch as soon as B8 caught it, and it was still team A which played the ball last.

What are your thoughts on the matter?

Question 2

A15 kicks a punt and the ball crosses the touch-line directly and in the air. B8, who has both feet in the field of play, dives in the air over the touch-line and flicks (but not forward) the ball back into the field of play without the ball touching the ground on touch. Whose line out?

They say the answer is line-out, Team A throws in.

Once again I disagree with this. The law states that if the ball crosses the line of touch and a player jumps and catches (or flicks it back into the field or play I assume) the ball it is not out if both the players feet land in the field of play. Now firstly from the question above it would seem that the fact that B8 dives over the touch-line means there is no way both his feet are going to land in the field on play. So by that alone it has to be team B's throw in because once again Team A kicked it into touch. But lets assume that B8 amazingly does land in the field of play. Then surely the ball is not in touch and play would go on. Surely the only option it cannot possibly be is Team A's throw in?

What are your thoughts on this?

Question 3

A free kick is awarded to Team A on the 22-metre line of team B and they elect to have a scrum. Team A hooks the ball and A9 passes the ball to A10, who kicks a drop goal. over the crossbar The ball crosses the dead-ball line. What do you do?

Answer – they say : Team B has a choice of a drop-out or a scrum from where A10 dropped kicked.

Now the law states that you cannot drop for goal after a free kick or from a scrum formed after a free kick has been awarded. They say that in such a situation the drop kick is the same as any other kick and the same rules apply. But the law book does not state this. It only states that the drop kick will be disallowed . We discussed this among the referees, and we decided that only a drop out should be awarded to team B.

What are your thoughts?

Thank you for your patience and response in advance. I think it would be interesting to share your thoughts with the rest of the referees.

Stanley Beckett

Comment:

Question 1: I agree with you.

Law 19 – Definitions

If a player has one foot in the field of play and one foot in touch and holds the ball, the ball is in touch.

That means that B8 catches the ball, the ball is out. A15 kicked it, which means that B must throw in.

Question 2:  I agree with you.

Law 19 – Definitions

If the ball crosses the touch-line or touch-in-goal line, and is caught by a player who has both feet in the playing area, the ball is not in touch or touch-in-goal. Such a player may knock the ball into the playing area. If a player jumps and catches the ball, both feet must land in the playing area otherwise the ball is in touch or touch-in-goal.

A player in touch may kick or knock the ball, but not hold it, provided it has not crossed the plane of the touch-line. The plane of the touch-line is the vertical space rising immediately above the touch-line.

Question 3: I agree with you.

You can drop at goal all right but it will not count for points.

Law 21.6 SCORING FROM A FREE KICK

(a) A goal cannot be scored from a free kick.

(b) The team awarded a free kick cannot score a dropped goal until after the ball next becomes dead, or until after an opponent has played or touched it, or has tackled the ball-carrier. This restriction applies also to a scrum taken instead of a free kick.

But what about the scrum option?

Law 22.8 BALL KICKED DEAD IN IN-GOAL

If a team kicks the ball through their opponents’ in-goal, into touch-in-goal or on or over the dead ball line, except by an unsuccessful kick at goal or attempted dropped goal, the defending team has two choices:

To have a drop-out, or
To have a scrum at the place where the ball was kicked and they throw in.

There was a drop at goal and it was unsuccessful in the sense that it did not score any points. Then it seems that just the drop-out should follow.