Tri-Nations - Week 4, Part 2
A few incidents
Australia played New Zealand in Brisbane and lost. For the first time this Tri-Nations there were no post-match complaints about the refereeing. A mercy!
The only silliness about the refereeing came from the commentators who, early on, predicted a plethora of penalties because there was – Heaven forbid – a Northern Hemisphere referee in charge.
The match yielded 19 penalties, which was not a remarkable number at all. And one wished that this hemispheric nonsense about refereeing would die out.
We shall look at some incidents, nothing big, but to refresh ourselves about the laws and we have a comment from a reader.
1. Off-side Joe
In Week 2 we discussed briefly the place of the penalty when Matt Giteau of Australia was judged off-side. (Click here.)
In the first minute of the Brisbane match, Daniel Carter of New Zealand kicked on a high diagonal. Joe Rokocoko on the left wing took off after the ball. The referee saw that he was off-side and penalised him.
What was the place of the penalty? Where Rokocoko started running forward.
Which was right.
2. Mealamu mauling
Australia win the ball at No.2 in a line-out and drive forward. Keven Mealamu of New Zealand is in the maul infield from the touch-line. He then detaches himself and drops back behind the last feet. Then from behind he drives back into the maul.
When Mealamu drives in, the maul has wheeled and the players he drives into are Wallabies.
Does that mean he has come in from the side?
No. He needs just to come from behind. But in fact he drove into them not head-on, but from the side.
3. Smith on the side
Australia are attacking, and Joe Rokocoko goes back to collect a kick. He runs forward and two Australians tackle him and bring him to ground. He falls in a reverse L – not quite a foetal position but bent at the waist, his legs pointing back towards his own goal-line. George Smith of Australia comes to grab the ball. His does so by approaching Rokocoko's behind but infield of Rokocoko.
The referee penalises Smith for being off-side, a decision which Smith does not approve of. Nor do the commentators who wonder where the gate is.
Where is the gate?
In this case it would be the length of Rokocoko's upper body, from behind to head, but not infield of that.
4. Collins's hands
Stirling Mortlock of Australia has the ball. He is knocked to ground by Joe Rokocoko. Jerry Collins is first there and puts his hands down to the ball as Mark Gerrard of Australia drives in on Collins. The ball is on the ground. Others gather.
The referee penalises Collins who apparently did not hear the referee call Ruck.
Calling is just to help the players. That the player could not hear the call does not change the situation.
When Gerrard drove in on Collins a ruck was formed, a simple ruck in terms of the law.
Law 16 Definition
A ruck is a phase of play where one or more players from each team, who are on their feet, in physical contact, close around the ball on the ground. Open play has ended.
Collins and Gerrard were on their feet and in physical contact and the ball was on the ground – a ruck.
A player should probably know that, especially if his job is getting the ball at the tackle.
5. Line-out time
In the first half Daniel Carter of New Zealand kicked the ball out into touch. Jeremy Paul was to throw the ball in. there was much shouting of instructions and straining to hear and Paul had time to tell the referee that he was dissatisfied with the alignment of the players in the line-out. Eventually the referee ran off and awarded a free kick to New Zealand because of excessive delay.
From the time that the ball had gone out till the free kick was 46 seconds.
There were 37 line-outs in the match, If each one lasted `46 seconds that would have taken some 28 minutes. That's a lot of down time.
The crowd were upset when Keven Mealamu was to throw in at a line-out. Twice he lifted the ball above his head before, on the third lift, throwing it in. That one took 35 seconds from ball out to ball in. If each of the 37 line-outs had lasted that long, it would have been 21 minutes with the ball out of play.
Clearly it is not a desirable situation.
6. Out on the full
After Australia have goaled a penalty in the second half to make the score 13-9, Daniel Carter kicks off to his right. It flies high. Ali Williams, in the field of play, reaches up a right hand. The ball strikes his hand before it got to the touch-line and goes directly over the touch-line.
What next?
Law 19 Definition
‘Kicked directly into touch’ means that the ball was kicked into touch without landing on the playing area, and without touching a player or the referee.
Williams is a player. That means that the ball is not directly into touch.
If Williams knocked it forward it would be a scrum. If it simply went into touch without being knocked forward, it was a line-out – which is what happened in this case.
6. Untie to retie
Reader: I read last week about the South Africans wasting time. (Click here.) Mentioned were two cases of trying laces. In a Currie Cup match here in Witbank last week, a player bent down to tie a lace and the referee with a laugh said to him: "That lace is tied. Don't untie it." The referee was clever and knew the player wanted to waste time.
Why is time allowed to tie laces?
Ben Leibbrandt – Witbank
Comment: The short answer is that the law allows it. It used not to be the case. What happened then was that, if a team-mate a loose lace, a player would feign injury to give him time to tie it. That was not a good situation because it encouraged dishonesty. If we went back to disallowing tying laces we would go back to dishonesty. That, of course, may mean that players would stop for laces only when necessary – not to untie to retie.
7. All Black cheating
Reader: The All Blacks have a very simple strategy for winning their games. They simply work on the basis of NEVER allowing the opposition to score a try. It is better to foul them continually and concede thee points than to risk them getting seven points. They therefore continually pull down mauls, handle the ball in the mauls and kill the ball by launching their bodies over the ball and fighting off opposition players attempting to get anywhere near the ball. They seldom get penalised for these offences and even if they do…its just another penalty.
I would suggest that a new ruling be brought in to counter this form of negative play. A maximum of three penalties should be awarded to the attacking team for fouls against them INSIDE THEIR 22 METRE AREA and then a penalty try MUST be awarded. This would see the All Blacks losing many, many more of their games like last night's Blesidloe clash with the Wallabies (who played the better game according to the statistics)
Joe – New Zealand
Comment: This is quite sweeping. Continually is a big, big word. Surely if their villainy were as great as suggested here they would be penalised more than they are.
Let's leave out handling in the maul because that is legal. The matter of protecting the ball ahead of their own tackled player was much, much less in evidance this week than it had been the week before.
With your "three in the 22 rule" in place, the All Blacks would not have conceded a single penalty try against the Wallabies in Brisbane. Of the ten penalties awarded against the All Blacks only one was within their 22 – when Jerry Collins was penalised for handling in a ruck. Stirling Mortlock missed the subsequent kick at goal.
