Tri-Nations, Week 4 - law incidents
The 2007 Tri-Nations continue to intrigue. The Wallabies came from 17-0 behind to win well in Sydney in this round. We look at some incidents from the match from a law point of view.
We have already published statistics of the match.
1. Lazy Sharpe running
After a line-out Ruan Pienaar of South Africa hoists yet another high kick. Mark Gerrard of Australia fumbles into the hands of Wikus van Heerden of South Africa and Bob Skinstad takes the ball further. There is a ruck and the Springboks win the ball and Pietersen passes the ball from the base to his right where Sharpe is falling back. Sharpe tries to turn away from the ball which strikes him. He is penalised.
Sharpe had been involved in the mauling and tumbling after the line-out and had been left behind by the speed of the play. He was trying to get back on-side, as the law requires of him.
The same thing had happened to Pierre Spies in Cape Town when South Africa played Australia and it had earned him a yellow card, a harsh penalty for a player trying to do what the law required but it was the third penalty against him. This was only the second one against Sharpe and he did not even merit a talking to.
Shape was off-side but was it his intention? Did he try to interfere with play? The answer to both of those seems clearly to be no.
Penalising is within the letter of the law, it seems.
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.
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.
Law 11.1 (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.
In a sense the ball played Sharpe, not Sharpe the ball.
The law is even more explicit.
Law 11.9 LOITERING
A player who remains in an off-side position is loitering. A loiterer who prevents the opposing team from playing the ball as they wish is taking part in the game, and is penalised. The referee makes sure that the loiterer does not benefit from being put on-side by the opposing team’s action.
Penalty: Penalty Kick
Was Sharpe remaining off-side or trying not to remain off-side? He oprevents but did he wish/intend to prevent?
The penalty was right but is there not a case for making this sort of thing “accidental off-side” and therefore a scrum? On the other hand would that not open the game to the abuse of gamesmanship?
2. Getting up again
As George Smith of Australia charges past him, Gary Botha of South Africa grabs him by one ankle and brings him lightly to ground. Smith keeps possession of the ball and stands up. He is penalised.
Law 15 DEFINITION – A tackle occurs when a ball-carrier is held by one or more opponents and is brought to the ground.
There was a tackle.
Law 15.5 THE TACKLED PLAYER
(a) A tackled player must try to make the ball available immediately so that play can continue.
(b) A tackled player must immediately pass the ball or release it. That player must also get up or move away from it at once.
(c) A tackled player may release the ball by putting it on the ground in any direction, provided this is done immediately.
(d) A tackled player may release the ball by pushing it along the ground in any direction except forward, provided this is done immediately.
Smith neither passed nor released the ball. The penalty was the right one.
3. Mind the gap
There are from time to time free kicks for closing the gap, usually the tactic of the team not throwing the ball into the line-out.
What about the team throwing in? Are they allowed to close the gap.
The South Africans used it regularly in Sydney. The man at No.2 in the line-out – Johann Muller, Johan Ackermann or Albert van den Berg – would step across the gap and the ball would then be thrown beyond him. Stepping across would be a tactic to stop the opposing No.2 from getting up and intercepting the throw. The player steps across and then the ball is thrown in.
Law 19.7 (j) Opposing players forming a line-out must keep a clear space between their inside shoulders. This space is determined when players are in an upright stance.
(k) Metre gap. Each line of players must be half a metre on their side of the line-of-touch.
The line-out starts when the ball leaves the thrower’s hand.
Then
Law 19.9 (b) Players jumping for the ball may take a step in any direction providing they do not step across the line-of-touch.
Penalty: Penalty Kick on the 15-metre line
4. Scrums
The scrums in this match were the best they have been in the four Tri-Nations matches so far in terms of fewer resets, no free kicks and no penalties at all.
Both sides and the referee deserve pats on the back for that.
There were 18 scrums, four collapses, three resets.
Just a little nitpick.
There were two scrums in succession which needed resetting.
At the first one, the engagement was too early, the referee said: “Loosehead Gold, just wait for the call, please.”
The second time, the referee said: “Loosehead Gold, I see you as the culprit there.”
It would seem that the free kick and the penalty were the right thing is the guilty party could be so clearly identified. That is what happens with other infringements in the match – like forward passes, hands in a ruck, collapsing a maul and so on.
5. Clean catch?
Stephen Larkham of Australia kicks a high ball down into the South African 22 where Breyton Paulse, under pressure, catches the ball which bobbles in his grabs it. The referee award a free kick for the mark.
Law 18 To make a mark, a player must be on or behind that player’s 22-metre line. A player with one foot on the 22 metre line or behind it is considered to be ‘in the 22’. The player must make a clean catch direct from an opponent’s kick and at the same time shout “Mark!”.
Clean catch? It is not defined in law. It is also the only place where it occurs in law. Presumably its differs from just catching the ball without a knock-on or dropping it. Presumably it then means without a fumble.
6. Yellow for Botha
South Africa are attacking on the right. CJ van der Linde gives to Gary Botha who drives ahead. He is tackled and the South Africans drive over him, leaving him behind. The ball comes out but there is no receiver to play the ball. The ball is behind the prone Botha as Adam Frier of Australia hovers. Frier leans down to pick the ball up and Botha kicks it back towards his side.
The referee penalises Botha and gives him a yellow card.
It is the only time Botha was penalised in the match, which means it was not a question of repeated infringement by a player though his team had been three penalised for infringements at the tackle.
What was Botha’s infringement?
It is clear in law.
Law 15.6 (g) After a tackle any player lying on the ground must not prevent an opponent from getting possession of the ball.
Law 16.4 (d) Players on the ground in or near the ruck must try to move away from the ball. These players must not interfere with the ball in the ruck or as it comes out of the ruck.
And there are other laws one could invoke. Gary Botha was in the wrong.
Yellow card in the wrong?
The incident happened near the Australian 22. That would mean a vastly extended “strike zone”.
It as the deliberate and perhaps cynical nature of Botha’s act which earned him a yellow card.
That said, it did not seem intrinsically different from three collapsed mauls – one by Nathan Sharpe which did not warrant a talking to, one by Jannie du Plessis which earned an immediate talking to and one by Sean Hardman which earned a talking to. Hardman’s infringement as the Springboks rumbled ahead was much nearer the “strike zone” than Botha’s.
Botha’s action hurt nobody. Pedrie Wannenburg’s high tackle and George Smith’s high, swinging arm could certainly hurt. Smith did get spoken to: “I want you to be more careful with a swinging arm.” It was around the neck.
The goose and gander and gander principle is important when referees are weighed in the balance because perceptions are so important and perceptions of bias destructive to the game and to the referee concerned.
7. Only for a scrum
Gary Botha, South Africa’s hooker, was in the sin bin. Soon afterwards they had a throw in to a line-out and wanted to bring on a hooker to throw in and let a loose forward sit out.
The referee stopped this, calling: “Only at a scrum.”
The law allows for the replacement of a front row player when one of their number is in the sin bin,
Law 3.13 FRONT ROW FORWARD SENT OFF OR TEMPORARILY REPLACED
(b) After a front row player is sent off or during the time a front row player is temporarily suspended the referee, upon awarding the next scrum, will ask that player’s captain whether or not the team has another player on the field of play who is suitably trained to play in the front row. If not, the captain chooses any player from that team who then must leave the field of play and be replaced by a suitably trained front row player from the team’s replacements. The captain may do this immediately prior to the next scrum or after another player has been tried in the front row.
The referee was right.
