S14 - Week 12 - Incidents for Law discussion

The Super 14 is reaching the crunch stage now with just two more rounds of the Round Robin left. A referee’s decisions are always important but now can be crucial – giving or not allowing a side to score points which could count to a semi-final or a (lucrative) semi-final.

So far this week, we have given the statistics of the week. Now we shall discuss incidents and then we shall go over things such as scrums.

When a scrum takes over two minutes from whistle to ball out there is a problem for everybody, let alone the danger of collapsed scrums for players. But that we shall deal with separately.

We shall also this week try to explain how the evaluating of a referee works.

Two of the incidents described below are illustrated by clips on www.sareferees.co.za.

1. After the maul

We have two incidents from mauls in line-outs.

a. Jeremy Paul of the Brumbies throws in at a line-out. Stephen Hoiles is at No.2 in the line-out and at the back are Julian Salvi and then right at the back George Smith.

Paul throws to Hoiles and as Hoiles catches the ball, Salvi and Hoiles fall back from the line-out.

The Brumbies make a maul which goes to ground. George Gregan than passes to George Smith running wide, and Smith hands on to Salvi running wider.

OK?

No.

Law 19.13 (e) No player of either team participating in the line-out may leave the line-out until it has ended.
Penalty: Penalty Kick on the 15-metre line

b. John Smit of the Sharks throws in at a line-out. Tall Albert van den Berg, who had been positioned as receiver, steps into the line-out and goes up high to catch the ball. The Sharks form a maul on Van den Berg. The maul does not move but stays stationary where it was formed, that is still in the line-out.

Ruan Pienaar, the Sharks scrumhalf, who had been 10 metres back from the line-out because Van den Berg was acting as a scrumhalf, then comes to the maul to take the ball.

The referee penalises Pienaar 10 metres back from the line-out and 15 metres in from touch .

Correct?

Yes. The line-out was not over and before it was over a player not taking part in the line-out (Pienaar) had crossed the off-side line (10 metres behind the line of touch). He was off-side under Law 19.12 (c) and penalised correctly and at the right place.

Law 19.12 (c) Players not taking part. The other off-side line applies to the players not taking part in the line-out (usually the backs). For them, the off-side line is 10 metres behind the line-of-touch or their goal line, if that is nearer.

This incident has a clip on www.sareferees.co.za

2. Pity the tackler

It is a good thing to tackle. It is one of rugby’s virtues, governed by laws. But a tackler is not in himself a naughty boy – not at all.

Marty Holah of the Chiefs runs with the ball. Jacques Botes of the Sharks tackles him around the ankles. Botes holds onto Holah and both go to ground. Botes has done well.

By definition Botes is a tackler.

Botes gets to his feet and plays the ball. Again he has done well. When he gets to his feet and plays the ball there are no opponents on their feet to form a ruck. There is no ruck.

Botes is allowed to do so once he gets to his feet to play the ball. By Law 15.6 (c), “Other Players” must come from behind the tackled player to play the ball. This does not apply to the tackler (Botes).

Law 15.6 (c) At a tackle or near to a tackle, other players who play the ball must do so from behind the ball and from behind the tackled player or the tackler closest to those players’ goal-line.
Penalty: Penalty Kick

Coming through the “gate” applies only to “other players”, that is players who are neither the tackled player nor the tackler.

It is wrong to penalise Botes for coming in at the side. The trouble with this decision is that it is more than just the three points it cost, early in the match but also the uncertainty it causes in the player – uncertainty or a lack of respect for the referee as the “fetchers” in top rugby tend to know what they are allowed to do and what they are not allowed to do – players like Richie McCaw, Martie Holah, George Smith, Schalk Burger. In this case Botes probably knew that he was entitled to play the ball the way he did and that he was wrongly penalised. Give him a pat on the back for showing no dissent at all as he moved back.

There is a clip of this on www.sareferees.co.za

3. Canberra crowd cross

Mark Gerrard of the Brumbies kicks the ball a long way downfield into the Force 22. Matt Henjak of the visiting Force gets the ball and passes it to Digby Ioane who runs forward and kicks the ball out. When the touch judge indicates that the line-out will be where the ball went out the crowd – not necessarily non-partisan – becomes agitated and voices disapproval.

Ioane kicked with his right foot. When he did so his left foot was planted firmly on the 22-metre line.

Law 19 DEFINITION ‘The 22’ is the area between the goal-line and the 22-metre line, including the 22-metre line but excluding the goal-line.

4. Restarted maul

The Blues are on the attack in a frantic effort to get some points to make their position on the table more secure.

They have a maul, which stops.

The referee says: “That’s once.”

The Blues move fro ward again and then the Stormers push them back.

The referee says: “Use it.”

The Blues move forward again.

What does “use it” require?

Law 17.6 (d) When a maul remains stationary or stops moving forward but the ball is being moved and the referee can see it, a reasonable time is allowed for the ball to emerge. If it does not emerge within a reasonable time a scrum is ordered.

(e) Once a maul has stopped moving forward it may start moving forward again providing it does so within 5 seconds. If the maul stops moving forward a second time and if the ball is being moved and the referee can see it, a reasonable time is allowed for the ball to emerge. If it does not emerge within a reasonable time, a scrum is ordered.

Restarting a second time is not an option.

How does the ball emerge?

It is passed out of the maul by a player or carried out of the maul by a player. If the latter happened then the Blues could drive on and form a new maul.

5. A pale shade of yellow

Ali Williams of the Blues had been warned for an air tackle of a heavy variety. At the next line-out the Stormers overthrew their jumper but the referee took exception to something he believed Troy Flavell had done and gave him a yellow card.

Now imagine – just imagine – that all the evidence suggests that he druid not deserve a yellow card at all. Does he have recourse?

No. Not unless it was a case of mistaken identity.

But all is not lost. The missed ten minutes of the match cannot be restored to the player but should he accumulate three yellow cards and have to come to an inquiry, then each of the yellow cards would be examined and, if it was found that one yellow card was unfairly flashed at the man, he would be deemed to have had only two cards – case dismissed.

This could happen to Flavell who now has two yellow cards in this season’s Super 14.

6. Commentators’ stats

Craig Joubert refereed the match on Saturday between the Waratahs and the Highlanders in Sydney.

He penalised the Waratahs hooker at a tackle and at the subsequent line-out he penalised Rocky Elsom for an air tackle on a Highlander.

The first penalty provoked Commentator 1 into saying: “The Waratahs should really have done their homework on Craig Joubert. He’s very, very particular at the breakdown. He doesn’t like a great contest for the ball. He wants people to be out of the way very quickly. Always happy to blow penalties.”

The second penalty provoked Commentator 1 into saying: “That is another one of Craig Joubert’s favourite penalties. If I had a stat about how many were given for that it would run into double figures.”

Commentator 2 added: “Leading the competition.”

Commentator 1: “He would be. You cannot touch anyone in the air under this guy.”

Let’s start with the air tackles and double figures and go back beyond this year to November last year:

Italy vs Argentina: no air tackles
Cheetahs vs Stormers: no air tackles
Hurricanes vs Brumbies: one air tackle (in a line-out)
France vs Scotland: no air tackles
Waratahs vs Crusaders: 1 air tackle (in general play, on the touch judge’s advice)
Chiefs vs Force: no air tackles
Waratahs vs Highlanders: 1 air tackle (in a line-out)

7 matches – 3 air tackles. That does not represent double figures, nor does it show any tendency at all. Four other referees have more penalties for air tackles in “the competition” than Joubert. Not that they were wrong to penalise for air tackles. That is what the law requires. They were doing their jobs.

In the Super 14 this year there has been an average of 13 penalties per match at breakdowns, as it was in 2005 and 2006.

In Joubert’s matches, the number of penalties at breakdowns was as follows:

Cheetahs vs Stormers: 8
Hurricanes vs Brumbies: 10
Waratahs vs Crusaders: 14
Chiefs vs Force: 9
Waratahs vs Highlanders: 13

Total: 54 in 5 matches, which is below the average for the tournament.

One of those matches, Waratahs vs Crusaders, was one of the outstanding matches of the competition.

One could make a tendency from the number of tries in his matches – 10 in Paris, 9 in Sydney, 15 in Hamilton and 6 in Sydney this last weekend.

There was also in this match a dubious observation by a commentator that the referee was “only looking at one team”, which suggests perhaps skewed honesty.

It would not be worth commenting on except that the commentators’ words are broadcast to millions and believed by lots and lots of people.

7. Off and on and off again

In the match between the Chiefs and the Sharks, the Chiefs No.8 Sione Lauaki is substituted. He goes off to the bench and Steven Bates comes on in his place.

The Sharks attack the Chiefs line and when a scrum is ordered Liam Messam is found to be bleeding. Off he goes to the blood bin and Lauaki comes back to take his place.

The Sharks query Lauaki’s reappearance and the referee seeks to clarify the issue.

He asks: :Did he [Lauaki] go off as an injury? Where is No.4 or 5?”

AJ Venter of the Sharks says: “He’s not a front-rower. He can’t come on.”

The referee eventually establishes that Lauaki had not gone off with an injury but as a tactical substitution. He allowed him back on.

Right?

Yes- and it had nothing to do with Venter.
.
Law 3.12 SUBSTITUTED PLAYERS REJOINING THE MATCH If a player is substituted, that player must not return and play in that match even to replace an injured player.
Exception 1: a substituted player may replace a player with a bleeding or open wound.

No.4 or 5? At each big match there are referees designated No.4 and No.5. Their job is to regulate the coming and going of players to and from the field, as in the case of injury. They take a team each. When Lauaki came off the field one of them would have checked the reason for his leaving the field. If it had been for injury he would not have been allowed back on.

Law 3.7 PERMANENT REPLACEMENT

A player may be replaced if injured. If the player is permanently replaced, that player must not return and play in that match. The replacement of the injured player must be made when the ball is dead and with the permission of the referee.