RWC Law Discussion - Days 12-14

The big match was Friday’s night’s in Paris when France and Ireland met in emotional conflict. But there were others, too, to give us incidents which help us brush up on our laws.

In the other matches South Africa scraped home against Tonga, England beat Samoa, Argentina easily beat zestful Namibia and New Zealand had, predictably, little difficulty in beating weakened Scotland in cold Edinburgh.

What a chance went begging for the Scots – to pit their best against the best, but the World Cup does funny things to a nation’s pride. Even Namibia went with the fashion and played a weakened team against the high-riding Pumas.

We have given statistics for all these matches.

1. Colour clash

Pity the referee when Scotland and New Zealand played with such similar outfits. Scotland were navy blue and white in big patches and New Zealand were black and off-white in big patches, both with dark shorts. It was so silly when one could have been all black or blue and the other all white. Black and white are traditionally the most distinct of colours.

Could the referee have complained?

The Laws of the Game don’t deal with it. They are concerned about the safety aspect of clothing not the colour coding. But one would have thought that some organising official would have seen the nonsense of such a colour clash. One would have thought that the management of the teams would have been generous enough to want a change.

Doubtlessly the players would have welcomed it. And so would the match officials and all of those watching the match.

2. Consistencies

This is not a matter of criticism but a matter for consideration when we think of the laws and refereeing them and the whole matter of managing game and player.

We shall just mention some laws that have had differing treatment. It’s not a matter of interpretation, which we should never talk about, but a matter of application. And we are talking about the example set by our very much betters, the best in the world.

a. Pulling the leg.

This refers to the not uncommon practice of grabbing a leg and lifting it to try to nullify a moving maul by destabilising it. There were two differing treatments of the same sort of action.

(i) When France played Ireland, the referee penalised Frankie Sheahan for doing that. He lifted up a stray leg. It did not drop Jerome Thion to the ground nor did the maul collapse.

(ii) When Argentina played Namibia, Argentina did it twice. On the second occasion, Namibia mauled really well and were marching downfield. Juan Manuel Leguizamon of Argentina lifted up the leg of Jacques Burger. The referee told him to stop doing it. He had Burger beyond the horizontal and dropped him to ground on the referee’s command and the maul fell to earth, though not particularly from what Leguizamon had done. There was no penalty.

Case (ii) looks worse in execution and outcome than Case (i). Case (i) was penalised, not Case (ii).

There is not anything in the law which speaks about picking up the leg as such, but danger is left to the judgement of the referee.

Law 17.2 (e) A player must not intentionally collapse a maul. This is dangerous play
Penalty: Penalty Kick

bOff-side at a knock on

A knock-on is a scrum. If a team-mate of the team knocking on is on front of the player who knocked on and plays the ball, he is off-side. He is penalised only if he prevents the other side from getting the ball.

(i) Vincent Clerc of France kicks high and not far in from touch on his right. He chases. He jumps and Ronan O’Gara of Ireland jumps. O’Gara’s hands get to the ball and he knocks it forward where Girvan Dempsey of Ireland picks up the ball. There are French players near the ball. They could certainly have picked up the ball before Dempsey could have recovered it.

The referee awards a scrum to France, saying that what had happened was “accidental off-side”.

(ii) Pierre Hola of Tonga slips a grubber through. JP Pietersen of South Africa gathers the ball and is tackled. In the tackle he throws/loses the ball forward. Bob Skinstad of South Africa, falling back, gathers the ball. There is no Tongan in the immediate vicinity but Pietersen, who was on the ground, was not in a position to regain the ball quickly.

The referee penalises Skinstad and Tonga opens its score.

Law 11.7 OFF-SIDE AFTER A KNOCK-ON

When a player knocks on and an off-side team-mate next plays the ball, the off-side player is liable to penalty if playing the ball prevented an opponent from gaining advantage.
Penalty: Penalty Kick

c.

This the matter of “lazy running” – referee’s shorthand for a player described in the law book as a loiterer – the player who is off-side at a ruck or maul and gets in the way of the team winning the ball.

(i) Ireland’s Simon Easterby darts ahead and is tackled. A tackle/ruck is formed. France’s Jerome Thion stands up from the previous action and is returning to his side. Eoin Reddan, the Irish scrum-half, gets the ball and throws it straight at Thion. On either side of the tackle ruck and well back from it were team-mates of Reddan. There was no Irish player flat with the tackle/ruck.

The referee blew the whistle and said to Reddan: “Don’t do that again.” He adds: “Scrum down. You threw it at him.” Reddan obviously says to him that Thion was a lazy runner. The referee says: “No, it’s not lazy running. Be very, very careful.”

Clearly the referee believed that Reddan was guilty of unsporting behaviour and trying to “milk” a penalty. Reddan was so determined to throw the ball against Thion that his throw was almost forward.

(ii) In the Tri-Nations Test between South Africa and Australia at Newlands, play had rushed upfield and Pierre Spies was falling back – trying to get on-side as the law required, as Thion was doing in Case 1. Then George Gregan threw the ball at Spies who tried to turn away. The ball struck Spies and he was penalised and sent to the sin bin.

(iii) In the Tri-Nations match between Australia and South Africa, South Africa take the ball up and Nathan Sharpe is falling back to get onside as the law requires – as Thion and Spies were trying to do. From a tackle/ruck JP Pietersen passes the ball to his right where Sharpe is falling back. Sharpe tries to turn away from the ball which strikes him. He is penalised.

Three similar incidents, three differing treatments.

Penalising is within the letter of the law, it seems.

Law 11.1 OFF-SIDE IN GENERAL PLAY

(a) A player who is in an off-side position is liable to penalty only if the player does one of three things:

Interferes with play or,
Moves forward, towards the ball or
Fails to comply with the 10 metre Law (Law 11.4).

A player who is in an off-side position is not automatically penalised.

Off-side means that a player is temporarily out of the game. Such players are liable to be penalised if they take part in the game.

Law 11.1 (b) Off-side and interfering with play. A player who is off-side must not take part in the game. This means the player must not play the ball or obstruct an opponent.

Law 11.9 LOITERING

A player who remains in an off-side position is loitering. A loiterer who prevents the opposing team from playing the ball as they wish is taking part in the game and is penalised. The referee makes sure that the loiterer dies not benefit from being put on-side by the opposing team’s action.

Is there not a case for making this sort of thing “accidental off-side” and therefore a scrum? On the other hand would that not open the game to the abuse of gamesmanship.

In all our cases, the player is trying to get on-side. In each of these cases, but most clearly in Case (i), the player winning the ball could easily have passed it to a team-mate. He chose to throw it to a player who was not wearing the colours of his team, trying to get a penalty.

Surely, there must be a case for accidental off-side and so a scrum, which is what the referee did in Case (i). The warning of the referee in Case (i) also seems most appropriate.

The foreword to the Laws of the Game speaks about the object of the game and about the teams’ “observing fair play according to the laws and a sporting spirit”. There are laws which penalise players for trying to lure opponents into off-side positions.

d.Closing the gap

(i) Australia throw into a line-out in Cardiff. Daniel Vickerman steps across the line-out which makes life easier for Mark Chisholm who jumps for the ball.

The referee penalises Vickerman for obstruction.

(ii) Scotland throw into a line-out against New Zealand in Edinburgh. Scott Lawson throws deep and tall Scott Murray towards the tail does not jump for the ball but steps across and gets in amongst the New Zealanders to make catching easier for the Scots.

The referee stops play and tells Murray not to do that as he was causing obstruction. He then has the line-out reset.

If the closing of the gap happens before the line-out starts is a free kick. Closing and obstructing is a penalty.

There is a big difference between a penalty and a free kick and an even bigger difference between a penalty and nothing!

3. Where’s the reset

Paul O’Connell of Ireland is in the sin bin, reducing Ireland to seven forwards in the scrum and a considerable disadvantage.

France have a scrum on the Ireland 22. They heel and hold the ball, shoving the scrum a good 10 metres before the front rows stand up and the referee stops the scrum. He sees nobody to blame and resets the scrum.

Where does the scrum go down?

There at the place where it went up. While the ball was in a scrum, it was still a scrum. Where it stopped it had to be reset and reset there.

That is what happened in the match.