Schalk Burger's try
The 'double movement' and what Hadden said
This is one of those perennials it seems – double movement, and it comes from an incident in the match between South Africa and Scotland in Durban on Saturday. Whoever invented the term "double movement" should be condemned to watch nothing but soccer for the rest of his mindless life!
We shall discuss this here because it has been brought into public view. We shall discuss other matters arising from the matches later in the week.
In the first half, South Africa make a maul from a line-out on the Scotland 22 and then drive it at and over the Scottish line. A heap of players flops over the line. The referee is close by, bending and looking. He decides to refer the matter to the television match official though he, the referee, probably had the best view of the possible try, as is often the case when groups flop over the line.
The television match official has a decision for the referee – a five-metre scrum to South Africa. That was eminently reasonable and in fact after the match, John Smith, the South African hooker who was carrying the ball when his lot spilled over the line, confirmed that he had not scored.
From the five-metre scrum Joe van Niekerk, the South African No.8, drives at the goal line and is stopped. The forwards pile in and there is some activity from the South Africans left close to the line, and again the referee refers the matter to the television match official, asking him to check the grounding.
There are several replays. Then, for the first time since Van Niekerk was stopped, the ball becomes visible. It is in the possession of Schalk Burger, who is lying on the ground, parallel to the touch-lines with the ball just in front of his head and firmly grasped by both hands.
It is hard to make out the relationship between the ball and the goal-line but it may well be that the ball is fractionally short of the line. In that position the ball moves fractionally forward, still in Burger's grasp, and makes contact with the line.
The referee got in a bad position for this one. He was infield of the action and diagonally opposite the place where Burger had the ball, leaving him a view of large behinds and no view of the ball at all. It seems that now that there is increased touch-judge and TMO activity and jurisdiction, the referee no longer needs to be in the best possible position to decide rugby's most important activity – the scoring of a try.
Again the referee asks the TMO to judge the grounding.
While the replays are happening the commentators comment.
This is the relevant comment: "Is it touching the line? If it's not, when it touches the line a second time, is it a double movement?"
That particular commentator is the quickest in the English-speaking world to refer to "double movement". He does it persistently and consistently, and has been wrong, wrong, wrong every time.
There are short cuts in dealing with the law which are worthwhile – such as lazy runner and truck-'n-trailer. There is no ambiguity about those. but there is about "double movement".
There is no mention of 'double movement' in law. The problem comes in what a player falling short of the line is allowed and is not allowed to do.
If he is tackled short of the line, one of the things he is allowed to do is place the ball on or over the line and get himself a try.
If he is allowed to do that, what is 'double movement'? What is 'single movement' for that matter.
What the player is not allowed to do is propel his body forward. He is allowed to move his hands and arms forward – placing the ball in any direction – but not propel his body – by crawling or leverage – forward to get to the line.
Law 15.5 (f) If a tackled player’s momentum carries the player into the In-goal, the player can score a try or make a touch down.
(g) If players are tackled near to the goal-line, these players may immediately reach out and ground the ball on or over the goal-line to score a try and make a touch-down.
That's the law. Look, Joel Stransky, no double movement.
Frank Hadden, the Scottish coach, said afterwards: "It looked like a penalty to us instead of a try for them.
"But then you don't know what speed it is being played at, so it was difficult to see how long he took to get the ball to the line.
"He obviously came up short of the line and moved the ball forward on to it.
"He might be allowed a second movement, but it looked like he took a while to get it there.
"Obviously we could have done without that because, afterwards, we were always behind on the scoreboard and struggling."
If getting the ball forward onto the line is a second movement, Schalk Burger was allowed it. This seems to suggest that going to ground is the first movement. Let's take it as such and just say that a second movement – using hands and arms to put the ball on the line – is a perfectly permissible movement, whatever its numbering is.
The speed of doing that is no different from the speed – "immediately" – of what is allowed at tackles all over the field. A criterion is if there is an opponent wanting to play the ball and is prevented from doing so – which was not the case here.
Hadden makes the point that it is hard to judge because what is available to the world is a slow-motion replay – a remarkably clear one.
There is a check-list:
1. Was Burger off his feet when he picked up the ball?
No.
2. Was he held when he went to ground?
Yes. That means it was a tackle.
3. Did he knock-on?
No.
4. Was the ball short of the line at its initial grounding?
Yes.
5. Did he ground the ball on the line?
Yes. He had the ball in his hands and it was in contact with the line – in other words grounded.
6. Did he propel his body forward to get to the line?
No.
7. What did he move forward?
His hands and arms.
8. Is he allowed to do that?
Yes.
From all of that it would seem that the television match official was right when he said with great calm: "Donal, I have a decision. You may award the try."
The idea of having a checklist is not a bad one for a TMO as he can, one by one, eliminate reasons for not awarding a try. If the answer to 1. had been Yes, he would not have needed to go a step further. That is true of 3. as well. If the answer to 4. had been No, he could have awarded the try there – and so on.
