S14, Wk 1 - Incidents

We have already discussed matters from the Six Nations and given some Super 14 stats. Here we discuss some incidents from the first week of Super 14.

The incidents help us to see the laws in action in top matches with top referees. It is a practical way of refreshing our thoughts on laws and referees.

The last one on the list is really interesting and without an immediate solution. It’s last to keep you reading!

There is also a double-header on obstruction with an incident from a Magners League match.

Cribbing? It used to be a thing schoolboys did in tests or when they had not done their homework. Two of the referees, both New Zealanders, used it over the weekend to signify a side moving across the field in a scrum. It may well have been better to use crabbing.

First we shall look at the scrums and the new procedure of crouch – touch – pause – engage.

Obviously it is still early days and the jury may well still be out on this.

In the first week of Super 14 2006, 62 scrums out of 136 were reset
In the first week of Six Nations 2006, 24 scrums out of 60 were reset.

In the first week of Super 14 2006, 41 scrums out of 134 were reset
In the first week of Six Nations 2006, 22 scrums out of 48 were reset.

That may mean that, if resets are failures, a problem and dangerous, then the new procedure is working better in the Super 14 than in the Sic Nations. It may also be coincidence.

At present watchers have been complaining more than the actual front row players. There is complaint about the Pause from some on the grounds that there would in any case be pause as long as the referee likes after the touch. Others think the Pause to be vital because it settles the movement in the scrum down – though Ireland still managed to get the ball put in as they went forward.

It seemed that there was less trouble with resets when the referee went to more trouble to give clearcut commands.

There was also an instruction to put the ball in straight. The players must be doing it so well,. In ten matches with 196 scrums there was one free kick for a crooked feed. Praise the scrumhalves!

We were asked if teams were still to put the ball in straight at an uncontested scrum. The answer is Yes, but it really doesn’t matter. There is no contest – as uncontested suggests. Putting the ball in straight is asked for in order to produce the contest. There is no contest. It does not therefore matter whether the ball is put in straight or not.

1. Forcing the ball

After JP Pietersen had scored a try and Percy Montgomery converted it, Morne Steyn kicked off for the Bulls. He kicked too far. It went into the Sharks’ in-goal area where Ruan Pienaar picked up the ball. He trotted back to his goal-line where he dotted the ball down.

The referee ordered a drop-out from the 22. Butch James wanted a scrum on the half-way line.

The referee says to James: “You’ve got to force it straightaway.”

Commentator: “Interesting bit of law that. If that restart kick had been forced straightaway, it would have been a scrum on the half-way line, which is what we’re used to. Last season, Michael Katzenellenbogen tells me, they changed that law. You’ve got to force it straight away. If you don’t it’s a drop-out from the 22.”

Law 13 deals with kick-offs.

Law 13.9 9 BALL GOES INTO THE IN-GOAL

(a) If the ball is kicked into the opponents’ in-goal without having touched or been touched by a player, the opposing team has three choices:

To ground the ball, or
To make it dead, or
To play on.

(b) If the opposing team grounds the ball, or if they make it dead, or if the ball becomes dead by going into touch-in-goal or on or over the dead-ball line, they have two choices:
To have a scrum formed at the centre of the half-way line, and they throw in the ball, or
To have the other team kick-off again.

(c) If they opt to ground the ball or make it dead, they must do so without delay. Any other action with the ball by a defending player means the player has elected to play on.

The referee (and the commentator) was right. The commentator was not entirely right. It’s been like that since 1996!

Forcing the ball is an old-fashioned term but still much in vogue in New Zealand. There is also the verb to minor. Minoring the ball is grounding it in your own in-goal. At one stage that was called a rouge and there were points for it when people were trying to introduce a system of points for scoring.

2. Ups and downs

The Bulls throw in at a line-out. With Wessel Roux in front of him and Danie Rossouw behind him Victor Matfield goes high into the evening sky,. He topples over and comes to earth with a thump.

OK?

Not in law, it’s not.

Law 19.9 (l) Lowering a player. Players who support a jumping team-mate must lower that player to the ground as soon as the ball has been won by a player of either team.
Penalty: Free Kick on the 15-metre line

3. Obstruction times 2

We have two incidents to discuss here, one from the Super 14 and one from the Heineken Cup.

i. The Lions are playing the Waratahs and early in the match they come left from a maul. Enrico Januarie passes to Louis Strydom who passes to flank Ernst Joubert who passes a short pass to Cobus Grobler who bursts ahead. As he bursts ahead and Elsom and Peter Hewat grab him Grobler flips back a pass to Joubert on the loop and Joubert breaks and heads for the goal-line.

OK?

It’s hard to see how obstruction is possible here.

This is Law 10.1 1 OBSTRUCTION

(a) Charging or pushing. When a player and an opponent are running for the ball, either player must not charge or push the other except shoulder-to-shoulder.
Penalty: Penalty Kick

(b) Running in front of a ball – carrier. A player must not intentionally move or stand in front of a team-mate carrying the ball, thereby preventing opponents from tackling the current ball-carrier or the opportunity to tackle potential ball-carriers when they gain possession.
Penalty: Penalty Kick

(c) Blocking the tackler. A player must not intentionally move or stand in a position that prevents an opponent from tackling a ball-carrier.

(d) Blocking the ball. A player must not intentionally move or stand in a position that prevents an opponent from playing the ball.

(e) Ball-carrier running into team-mate at a set-piece. A player carrying the ball after it has left a scrum, ruck, maul or line-out must not run into team-mates in front of the player.
Penalty: Penalty Kick

(f) Flanker obstructing opposing scrum-half. A flanker in a scrum must not prevent an opposing scrum-half from advancing around the scrum.
Penalty: Penalty Kick

That’s the whole law.

Look at the ones which do not apply – (a), (b) because Grobler was the ball carrier and both would-be tacklers grabbed him, (c) because Grobler who was penalised was the ball-carrier, (d), (e), (f).

The ball-carrier cannot be penalised for crossing, certainly not if he is ahead of his team-mates. That he passed to them is OK. That he passed backwards is what the law demands.

ii. Leinster were playing Ulster and Leinster had the ball going left. It came to Brian O’Driscoll, called Bod, which rhymes with god. It was the last match at the old Lansdowne Road before the wreckers moved in. It was referred to as the Last Stand.

From a wobbly Leinster scrum Chris Whitaker passed to O’Driscoll going left with left wing Denis Hickie close on his left. O’Driscoll lobbed a pass over Hickie’s head and Hickie and Paul Steinmetz clashed. O’Driscoll looped around Hickie caught the ball and was off racing ahead.

Obstruction?

Look to the law again.

Not (a), (d), (e), (f).

(b) or (c)?

Hickie did not run in front of O’Driscoll when O’Driscoll was carrying the ball. In fact O’Driscoll was ahead of him. When O’Driscoll caught the ball he was wide of Hickie and Hickie and Steinmetz had already run into each other. Steinmetz could not have got to O’Driscoll. Hickie was not stopping anyone from getting to O’Driscoll.

The referee in this case let play go on. It’s hard to find a reason not to!

4. Drinks, gentlemen

It was hot, hot in Perth when the Western Force played the Highlanders.

The referee stopped the match for a “water break”?

OK?

Yes – in terms of commonsense and in law, though once it was forbidden to do so. The rugby rulers in cold climes could see not need for such an interruption.

Now Law 5.7 (g) When the weather conditions are exceptionally hot and/or humid, the referee, at his discretion, will be permitted to allow one water break in each half. This water break should be no longer than one minute. Time lost should be added on at the end of each half. The water break should normally be taken after a score or when the ball is out of play near the half-way line.

5. Release

The Lions lose control at a tackle and the ball emerges on the side. Rocky Elsom of the Waratahs picks it up and charges ahead. Ernst Joubert of the Lions meets him head on and they grapple as others gather.

There is movement and most of the maul falls to ground with the ball still in the air. Joubert who has been a part of the maul from its inception is still in the maul but on the Waratahs side of the ball. He is on his feet. The referee tells him to release the ball, which he does.

Why should he release the ball?

He was a part of the maul from the start. He does not leave the maul at any stage. He is on his feet. The ball is in the air and so there is no ruck.

Why should he not play the ball?

6. Uncalled for?

It was not quite the Saturday of the TMO but there was controversy in Dublin and complaint in Bloemfontein.

Slender, speedy Phillip Burger of the Cheetahs sped down the right touch-line as desperate Stormers covered. Burger cut inside a tackler but was stumbling. Big Selborne Boome fell on him to bring him to ground, just before the line. Gio Aplon of the Stormers arrived and the ball went back into the Stormers’ in-goal where Aplon pout a hand on it before Meyer Bosman dived on it.

The referee referred the matter to the television match official.

The television match official watched replays.

After a while the commentator said: It was certainly no try. I’m not sure what the delay is about. It’s clearly not a try.”

Eventually after six replays the TMO told the referee that Aplon had taken the ball off Burger and played it back into his in-goal. There he had grounded the ball. He advised a five-metre scrum, Cheetahs’ ball.

Commentator: I really don’t understand why it took so long to make that decision. One of the things one wants to do in rugby is keep the continuity going. But I suppose the officials need to be a hundred per cent sure, but I really think that was uncalled for.”

Too quick in London, too slow in Bloemfontein!

The try is, of course, not the only decision that needs to be made.

What needs to be decided would probably include:

a. Did Burger score a try?
b. Who played it into the in-goal?
c. Was Aplon liable for penalty for going off his feet to play the ball?
d. Was a penalty try possible?
e. Did Aplon really ground the ball?
f. Did Bosman score a try?

The answers probably went:

a. No.
b. Aplon
c. No.
d. No.
e. Yes
f. No.

It was probably easy to work out that Burger had not scored but when that decision had been made what was to be done next? The try is not the only decision to be made.

If we are goring to have the TMO, we should give him every opportunity to be right.

7. Gaining ground

Morne Steyn of the Bulls kicks from within his 22 a long way downfield. The ball goes directly into touch about ten metres outside of the Sharks’ 22. The ball bounces and Percy Montgomery of the Sharks collects it about five metres outside of his 22. He runs back inside his 22 and throws in to himself. He then kicks the ball a long way downfield where Fourie du Preez tries to catch it at the touch line and then spills it over the touch-line for a line-out to the Sharks.

There is nothing untoward in all of that and nothing really to discuss. After all Montgomery is entitled to throw the ball in behind the place where it went out.

But take it a step further.

What if Du Preez had not played the ball and it had gone directly into touch. Where would the line-out be?

Law 19.1 1 THROW-IN

NO GAIN IN GROUND

(a) Outside a team’s 22. A team member kicks directly into touch. Except for a penalty kick, when a player anywhere in the playing area who is outside the 22 kicks directly into touch, there is no gain in ground. The throw-in is taken either at the place opposite where the player kicked the ball, or at the place where it went into touch, whichever is nearer that player’s goal-line.

(b) Player takes ball into that team’s 22. When a defending player gets the ball outside the 22, takes or puts it inside the 22, and then kicks directly into touch, there is no gain in ground.

Montgomery got the ball outside of his 22 and ran back behind his 22 and kicked from there. But the ball was dead. The ball came live again and by then it was inside the 22, and Montgomery played from there.

If we are saying no gain of ground because Montgomery in effect took the ball back into his 22, what would have happened if he had thrown the ball to Ruan Pienaar? A player outside of his 22 is allowed to pass the ball back to a team-mate inside the 22 and he is allowed to kick out on the full.

Let’s all think about this one.

We shall come back to it. But it would be good to hear opinions.