Six Nations, Week 3 - Incidents
An old Roman said that there was always something unusual coming from Africa. There is always something unusual from every rugby match that is worth talking about.
If the laws are so changed after the World Cup that they are simple and obvious we shall be deprived of a lot of fun!
We have so far this week given statistics for Six Nations matches and for Super 14 matches this past weekend. Now we shall look at incidents from the three Six Nations matches – Scotland vs Italy, Ireland vs England and France vs Wales. Later we shall look at Super 14 matches. There are not many but they are interesting.
We shall produce one hybrid – a bit of Six Nations and a bit of Super 14.
And for the third week we shall discuss a mark. It’s a little law the mark. But in two of the three incidents it was wrongly handled.
By the way, there was a free kick for a crooked feed into a scrum at Croke Park. England did it. And Scotland lost a tighthead.
1. Popham’s try
Early in the match Wales win a line-out not far from the French goal-line. They make a maul and then, suddenly, Alix Popham broke away between the maul and the touch-line on his left. He got past Raphael Iba?ez and headed for Christophe Dominici who was in his path. Dominic brought Popham down and the blond flank sprawled beyond Dominici about half a metre from the French line, the ball under his right arm. He lifted up the ball and placed it over the goal-line where it squirted away.
The referee referred the matter to the television match official.
While the TMO was deliberating, the commentator discussed the matter.
Commentator: There is the question of double movement and then the question whether he was in control of the ball.
The commentator also spoke of momentum.
Who invented “double movement”? It is a shortcut to woolly thinking. What is the first movement in the minds of the double-movementers? Is being tackled the first movement?
Secondly whenever the ball squirts away someone will talk about control. That, too, is a shortcut to wrong decisions.
First there was no momentum in this case. Momentum occurs when the impetus of the ball-carrier is unbroken when he is brought to ground. He carries on sliding and scored. Popham did not do that.
Secondly, his movement to lift up the ball and place it on or over the line was entirely in keeping with what the law requires.
Thirdly he does not need downward pressure on the ball if he is carrying the ball.
Lastly, it does not matter to the ball after he has placed it on the ground.
Law 22.1 GROUNDING THE BALL
There are two ways a player can ground the ball:
(a) Player touches the ground with the ball. A player grounds the ball by holding the ball and touching the ground with it, in in-goal. ‘Holding’ means holding in the hand or hands, or in the arm or arms. No downward pressure is required.
(b) Player presses down on the ball. A player grounds the ball when it is on the ground in the in-goal and the player presses down on it with a hand or hands, arm or arms, or the front of the player’s body from waist to neck inclusive.
Law 22.4 (d) Momentum try. If an attacking player with the ball is tackled short of the goal-line but the player’s momentum carries the player into the opponent’s in-goal, and the player is first to ground the ball, a try is scored.
Law 22.4 (e) Tackled near the goal-line. If a player is tackled near to the opponents’ goal-line so that this player can immediately reach out and ground the ball on or over the goal-line, a try is scored.
Control does not come into the law. It does not come into Law 12 either, which deals with the knock-on.
2. Primitive off-side
The ball bounces high. Ronan O’Gara jumps with arm stretched above his head but all he manages to do is knock it forward, into the arms of prop Perry Freshwater who is immediately tackled by Simon Easterby of Ireland, quite some way ahead of O’Gara.
The referee penalises Easterby, showing off-side.
There are lots of forms of off-side – a rucks, mauls, line-outs scrums and even, though we dare not say it, at the tackle. But none of these existed in early law which had a form of off-side which antedated all of these and still exists.
That was first written down in 1846 in the Rules at Rugby School:
A player is off his side if the ball has touched one of his side behind him, until the other party kick it.
A player being off his side is to consider himself out of the game and is not to touch the ball or in any way to intercept the play, and is of course incapable of holding the ball.
In those days it was not naughty to be in an off-side position but to do something in the off-side position.
Law 11 – Off-side and On-side in General Play
DEFINITION
At the start of a game all players are on-side. As the match progresses players may find themselves in an off-side position. Such players are then liable to be penalised until they become on-side again.
In general play a player is off-side if the player is in front of a team-mate who is carrying the ball or in front of a team-mate who last played the ball.
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.
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.
(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.
Easterby was in front of O’Gara and Easterby interfered in play.
3. Kicking the mark
This is the third time we are discussing he mark. In the first one, Ronan O’Gara prevented James Hooke from kicking and a scrum ensued. The next time Johan Muller prevented Charlie Hore from kick. Hore dummied lost the ball and some body else picked up and play went on.
This time Ronan O’Gara op Ireland kicks a high kick towards the English 22. Olly Morgan jumps, catches the ball and claims the mark as Brian O’Driscoll clatters into him and drives him back. The referee awards the free kick. Harry Ellis the England scrumhalf snatches up the ball, taps it and runs down field. Play goes on.
The referee was right in the first case but wrong in the second. A free kick must be taken with a kick.
In the third case the kick was taken but by the wrong person.
In the case of the free kick awarded for an infringement, any one of the non-infringing team may take the kick. In the case of the mark, which also results in a free kick, only the catcher takes the kick,. In this case only Olly Morgan could take the kick. If the catcher cannot take the kick, his side gets a scrum.
There is a clip of the incident on www.sareferees.co.za
Reader’s question: Is it OK to call “Mark” when the ball is in the air and afterwards catch the ball? Should the referee award this anticipated mark?
Thank you very much,
Aitzol Ezeiza – Basque Country
Comment: No. The catch and the cry must happen together.
Law 18.Tthe player must make the clean catch direct from a opponent’s kick and at the same time shout “Mark!”
4. Two incidents
a. Scotland attack Italy. Rob Dewey of Scotland runs at the Italians. He has the referee in front of him to his left and to his right Andrew Scanavacca. Behind the referee is the Italian wing Kaine Robertson, directly behind the referee. All four people are in close quarters. Dewey brushes the referee. Robertson pushes the referee to get to Dewey.
Dewey goes past, stops, looking frustrated, and eventuallay dots down as Alessandro Troncon jumps on him.
The referee awards the trey.
b. Rua Tipoki of the Crusaders dashes forward. Ahead of him are the rerferee and to the right Herkie Kruger. Behind the referee is the Cheetahs prop Jannie du Plessis, directly behind the referee. All four people are in close quarters. Du Plessis pushes the referee who skips out of the way as Tipoki races past.
The referee blows the whistle and says to Tipoki: “You can’t use me.”
These two incidents have a great deal of similarity – enough to suggest that top referee would treat them the same. There is a huge difference between a try and no try,
The law speaks of the ballcarrier touching the referee and then if there is advantage the play is stopped.
Law 6.A.10 THE BALL TOUCHING THE REFEREE
(a) If the ball or the ball-carrier touches the referee and neither team gains an advantage, play continues.
(b) If either team gains an advantage in the field-of-play, the referee orders a scrum and the team that last played the ball has the throw-in.
(c) If either team gains an advantage in in-goal, if the ball is in possession of an attacking player the referee awards a try where the contact took place.
(d) If either team gains an advantage in in-goal, if the ball is in possession of a defending player, the referee awards a touch-down where the contact took place.
Let’s accept that in neither case did the ball-carrier touch the referee. It seems wrong that the referee should force a gap for the ball-carrier.
How can we justify the second referee’s action to stop play? After all it is the decision which makes sense.
The game is, after all to be played fairly. between two teams of 15. The intrusion of the referee as a try-maker is hardly fair.
Law 6.A.8 (b) The referee has the power to stoop play at any time.
If he thinks something is unfair, he can stop play.
Then what does he do.
Law 20.4 (d) Scrum after any other stoppage. After any other stoppage or irregularity not covered by law, the team that was moving forward before the stoppage throws in the ball. If neither team was moving forward, the attacking team throws in the ball.
Scrum to the Crusaders, which is what the referee did.
That second way of acting seems fairer.
