Tri-Nations, Week 2, Incidents

There was again a thriller in the Tri-Nations. At Newlands South Africa came from behind to win. In Durban New Zealand did likewise.

Let’s hope that Melbourne will be another high-speed, high-intensity thriller – and then hope that the Tri-Nations does not degenerate into another fiasco as the World Cup rules rugby in 2007, as those opposed 20 years ago predicted that it would.

Mercifully, the Durban match passed without controversy about the refereeing, which is as much as a referee can hope for.

That does not mean that we do not have an incident or two to talk about.

There are four clips on www.sareferees.co.za which may well be of interest to those interested in the laws of the game.

The scrums were again not perfect but better than they have been in matches before the Tri-Nations. There were just 16 scrums with five collapses. That is a long way from 20 scrums and 23 collapses when Italy played Argentina.

There were no penalties at scrums and just one free kick when Ruan Pienaar was slow to get the ball into the scrum. As the match wore on the All Blacks developed greater domination of the scrums.

As in the first Tri-Nations match there were just over 70 stoppages in Durban.

1. Spectator off-side

We have two cases of things that looked off-side and weren’t.

a. Greg Rawlinson of New Zealand heads for a bouncing ball. As he bends down to pick it up, Jean de Villiers grabs him and the ball is back loose behind Rawlinson where Schalk Burger coming up behind Rawlinson and De Villiers kicks the ball back towards the South African side where Jaque Fourie picks it up and passes it.

Was Burger off-side?

The player who last played the ball was a New Zealander. (You hear the referee saying: “Lost forward by a Black player.”)

There does not seem to have been a tackle as Rawlinson lost the ball in the act of picking it up. De Villiers does not dive on a player on the ground. He grabs Rawlinson when Rawlinson has the ball.

There is no reason to consider Burger off-side.

Play on, by advantage, seems a good idea.

b. Rodney So’oialo of New Zealand gets a pass from Luke McAlister and is bursting for the South African goal-line but Danie Rossouw mows him down. On his back So’oialo passes the ball well back. It bounces and Pienaar, falling back, picks up the ball a couple of metres on the New Zealand side of So’oialo.

Was Pienaar off-side?

He is not off-side because a tackle does not produce and off-side line. Clearly there is a tackle and only a tackle. No ruck is formed at So’oialo which could form an off-side line.

Pienaar is on his feet when he plays the ball and he is not near So’oialo. (Near is defined in law as being Within one metre.) He is allowed to play the ball.

Law 15.6 OTHER PLAYERS

(a) After a tackle, all other players must be on their feet when they play the ball. Players are on their feet if no other part of their body is supported by the ground or players on the ground.
Penalty: Penalty Kick

(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

Play on seems a good idea.

2. A thinker’s off-side

This one was much more subtle, but was Keven Mealamu in the incident which led to the winning try by Joe Rokocoko?

Ruan Pienaar kicks a long way down the right touch-line. The ball bounces on and on towards the New Zealand 22 where scampering Piri Weepu gets the ball and passes it to Joe Rokocoko who runs upfield and then, challenged by Danie Rossouw, kicks. The ball pops out of JP Pietersen’s breadbasket as Mealamu homes in on him. Leon MacDonald picks up the ball, runs, draws a man and sends Rokocoko in for the winning try.

Mealamu was certainly well within ten metres of Pietersen, but was he off-side?

After Rokocoko kicked the ball, a low grubber kick, the ball strikes Victor Matfield’s right foot and flies upwards to Pietersen who knocks it on.

When Rokocoko kicked Mealamu was in an off-side position because he was ahead of a team-mate who had last played the ball. In fact 12 New Zealanders are in an off-side position for only Weepu and MacDonald are behind Rokocoko when he kicked. But being in an off-side position does not mean the players should be penalised..

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.

A player who receives an intentional throw-forward is not off-side.

A player can be off-side in the in-goal.

(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.

(c) Off-side and moving forward. When a team-mate of an off-side player has kicked ahead, the off-side player must not move towards opponents who are waiting to play the ball, or move towards the place where the ball lands, until the player has been put on-side.

When Rokocoko kicked, Mealamu did not interfere with play, move forward or fail to comply with the 10-metre law. Mealamu was not subject to penalty.

What must happen for Mealamu to be allowed to play the ball? The only way Mealamu could have come on-side was by an act of an opponent.

Law 11.3 BEING PUT ON-SIDE BY OPPONENTS

In general play, there are three ways by which an off-side player can be put on-side by an action of the opposing team. These three ways do not apply to a player who is offside under the 10 Metre Law.

(a) Runs 5 metres with ball. When an opponent carrying the ball runs 5 metres, the off-side player is put on-side.

(b) Kicks or passes. When an opponent kicks or passes the ball, the off-side player is put on-side.

(c) Intentionally touches ball. When an opponent intentionally touches the ball but does not catch it, the off-side player is put on-side.

Matfield played the ball. He was running forward, he placed his foot forward and his foot struck the ball, sand it happened a reasonable distance ahead of where Rokocoko kicked the ball. That looks an intentional effort to play the ball. It certainly was not an attempt to catch the ball.

It would seem that Matfield’s action had ensured that Mealamu was on-side.

On such a small thing the outcome of a great match turned.

3. Back into the 22

There were a lot of kicks in the game. The player who kicked best was Aaron Mauger. He kicked a long grubber down towards the Springbok 22 on the Springboks’ left. The ball bounced high and Percy Montgomery, perfectly positioned, put a hand up to the ball. The ball struck his hand and went over his head into his 22. Montgomery gathered the ball and left-footed kicked to touch.

If the ball bounced before it went out, the line-out to New Zealand would be where it went out.

If it went out on the fill, where would the line-out be?

It would be opposite the place where Montgomery kicked the ball inside his 22.

4. Answer the question

The conversation between referee and television match official needs to be exact. The International Rugby Board’s protocol requites to be succinct, which makes precise wording all the more important.

Aaron Mauger grubbers towards the South African line. Falling back Ruan Pienaar grabs the ball as Rodney So’oialo grabs him. Pienaar drops the ball backwards and reaches out to ground the ball. So’oialo lifts Pienaar’s leg up, bends him double with his neck on the ground and falls on him. Percy Montgomery drags So’oialo away from Pienaar.

The referee tells the TMO that he intends to order a drop-out but asks if there was the possibility of foul play by New Zealand No.8 on Ruan Pienaar of South Africa.

Referee: “Can you look for any foul play, if Black 8 responsible for any foul play on Green No.9”

It is a legitimate question for the TMO protocol says: c) The official may be consulted if the referee is unsure when making a decision in in-goal with regard to the scoring of a try or a touch down when foul play in in-goal may have been involved.

The TMO has a look and says: “It was just an altercation between Green 15 and 8 Black. Go with your original decision”

The question the TMO had been asked was the action of Black 8 on Green 9, not what Montgomery did later. That was the question which should have been answered.

Pienaar did not have the ball and had grounded it when So’oialo grabs Pienaar’s leg, lifts it up and drives him towards the ground, using his right knee to add impetus. Pienaar is doubled over, neck down, with So’oialo dropping onto him.

So’oialo’s action is hardly acceptable. Montgomery’s action hardly amounted to an altercation!

The TMO also recommends that the referee go with his original decision – a drop-out. But replays suggest that that, too, was wrong because Pienaar had carried the ball back into his in-goal area and a five-metre scrum should have resulted.

If the referee had penalised So’oialo, where would the penalty have been?

If it was going to be a drop-out, the penalty would have been anywhere along the 22.

If it was going to be a five-metre scrum, the penalty would have been five metres from the goal-line at the place where the scrum would have been..