Try, try, try and no try

Cueto, Larkham, Williams and Festuccia

There were six incident-filled matches. We look here at four incidents which concerned tries or possible tries or unlikely tries in four of the matches.

The incidents concern Mark Cueto of England, Stephen Larkham of Australia, Martyn Williams of Wales and Carlo Festuccia of Italy.

We have already given some statistics. (Click here.) We shall later deal with some other bits and pieces of law to keep ourselves refreshed.

1. Cueto's try

This was probably the most controversial decision of the weekend.

Andy Goode kicks a high diagonal towards the South African line where leapers are waiting. They run in, leap and palm the ball back. Mathew Tait darts and a try seems inevitable but somehow Wynand Olivier hauls him down, but there they are centimetres from the line. Mark Cueto picks up and scores the try.

The referee is standing right there, and awards the try.

There are umpteen replays of the action and it would seem that Cueto lost the ball.

The commentators comment on it at length as slo-mo follows slo-mo. They become increasingly doubtful that Cueto did indeed score a try.

Commentator 1: Andy Goode needs to take this conversion quickly to make sure that the try is not taken away from England.

Commentator 2: Does he have control? Does he have downward pressure? He's lost it. There's no downward pressure. There's no control.

Commentator 1: He does not need downward pressure. He just needs to be in control.

Law 22 deals with in-goal, including the scoring of a try, which, needless to say, happens in in-goal – well, most of the time.

Definition:  When attacking players are first to ground the ball in the opponents' in-goal, the attacking players score a try.

So it's all about grounding and the two ways of doing it.

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.

The second way does not apply to Cueto because he had the ball and the ball was not on the ground. It's (a) we must look at.

There is, we see, no downward pressure, which Commentator 2 asked for and which Commentator 1, correctly, pointed out was not needed.

It may be worth noting that the word 'control' is also not there in the Law. What the law requires is that Cueto hold the ball when he touches the ground with it. He does not need to be holding the ball with a hand on top of it, just holding it.

From the evidence it may well be that he was not holding the ball but the ball had slipped from his grasp. When the ball comes down it seems that his left hand, which is the top hand in contact with the ball, leaves the ball and slips behind it. The right hand is below the ball, but it also seems that he is not holding the ball.

So possibly it was not a try in terms of the way a try should be scored in law. It will, of course, remain a try forever in the records of the game.

The referee was in a perfect position, right next to Cueto. That he exercised his judgement in such a case was desirable. The "but" was that he was upright – a tall man well above what Cueto was doing at ground level. It may well have been prudent to talk to the television match official.

As a matter of interest, how quickly Goode took the conversion was irrelevant. The referee had awarded the try and that was that.

Law 6.6 REFEREE ALTERING A DECISION

The referee may alter a decision when a touch judge has raised the flag to signal touch or an act of foul play.

That did not apply here.

TMO?

The referee consults the television match official. The television match official is not allowed to give gratuitous advice.

2. Larkham's try

Scotland play Australia at Murrayfield and lead 10-3 as the Wallabies batter at their line. From left of the posts Matt Giteau passes to Stephen Larkham on his right. Larkham runs at a slight angle. Marcus Di Rollo, the Scottish centre, goes to stop him and knocked Larkham beyond him to ground. Larkham places the ball over the line and the try is awarded.

OK?

First of all, Larkham was not tackled, in that he was not held and being held is a requirement for a tackle in terms of law.

But if Di Rollo had held onto him and brought him to ground, the Law would regardwhat happened.

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.

(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.

Commentator: He wasn't held and so entitled to spin out and roll over.

As a player on the ground with the ball, what was he not allowed to do?

He must not lie on the ground holding onto the ball. He must not make the ball unplayable. He must not stop opposition from getting to the ball. He must not stay on the ground with the ball, crawling along with it for example.

Larkham was not guilty of any of these things. In fact even if Larkham had been held, it would seem that what he did would have been crowned with the award of a try.

Awarding the try seemed a sensible thing to do.

3. Penalty try

From their left about 50 metres out the All Blacks swing into action. Sitiveni Sivivatu makes the initial cut and then gives top Rico Gear, left wing to right wing. Gear runs through lots of gentle tackling from about 30 metres out till, about six metres from the Welsh line, Martyn Williams jumps on his back and Shane Williams is in front. They get Gear down a metre or so from the line. Martyn Williams is on the All Black side of Gear his body horizontal to the goal-line, wrapped in a close clinch with Gear. He clearly could move away. He does not as All Blacks come slamming in and Welshmen gather.

The referee runs off to award a penalty try.

He must have decided that what Williams did prevented the probable scoring of a try. It was a weekend in which there was a lot of close-quarter bashing at goal-lines without the scoring of a try, which suggests that proximity to the line does not necessarily make for the probable scoring of a try.

Perhaps it was the delay that Martyn Williams effected that prevented the probable scoring of a try.

There is only one reason to award a penalty try. It has nothing to do with repeated infringements. It is awarded if a try would have been scored but for unlawful play by the defending team.

Law 22.4 (h) Penalty try. A penalty try is awarded if a try would probably have been scored but for foul play by the defending team. A penalty try is awarded if a try would probably have been scored in a better position but for foul play by the defending team.

Probably? On a scale of 0 to 10, probably would be 8 or 9 where certainly was 10. (Possibly is anywhere from 1 up. It's not about possible but about probable.)

So that is what the referee had to judge. Would New Zealand probably have scored a try but for Martyn Williams' intervention.

The referee's answer was apparently Yes and so he awarded the try.

That he did not award a yellow card to Williams may be a mystery. After all he had sin-binned both Richie McCaw and Andrew Hore for fiddling illegally at a tackle.

Perhaps it was because the two All Blacks were habitual offenders. After all in the match the New Zealanders were penalised nine times at tackle/rucks, the Welsh five times. When McCaw was sin-binned it was his third tackle/ruck offence,. In Hore's case it was his second.

Williams's offence was his first but it was serious enough to cause a penalty try.

Law 10.2 UNFAIR PLAY

(a) Intentionally Offending. A player must not intentionally infringe any Law of the Game, or play unfairly. The player who intentionally offends must be either admonished, or cautioned that a send off will result if the offence or similar offence is committed, or sent off. After a caution a player is temporarily suspended from the match for a period of ten minutes playing time. After a caution, if the player commits the same or similar offence, the player must be sent off.
Penalty: Penalty Kick

A penalty try must be awarded if the offence prevents a try that would probably otherwise have been scored. A player who prevents a try being scored through foul play must either be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off.

Was Martyn Williams guilty of foul play?

Law 10 deals with foul play.

Foul play is anything a person does within the playing enclosure that is against the letter and spirit of the Laws of the Game. It includes obstruction, unfair play, repeated infringements, dangerous play and misconduct which is prejudicial to the Game.

It would seem that Martyn Williams was guilty of foul play and that he should have been cautioned and a caution carries with it temporary suspension, i.e. a yellow card.

4. No penalty try

Canada are battling against Italy. They are down 41-6 but are attacking. Italy concede penalties. First Marko Stanojevic tackles high, is penalised and sent to the sin bin. The keen Canadians attack on.

Despite much exhorting Scanavacca refuses to get off a tackled player – in a way that incurred yellow cards for Richie McCaw and Andrew Hore.

The referee again penalises Italy, this time about six metres from their line. Flank Mike Webb taps and charges forward. Replacement hooker Carlo Festuccia has not retreated to his goal-line but stands firm and about three metres from his line tackles Webb bringing him to ground about a metre from the line, where a brawling maul/pile-up thing happens.

The referee penalises Festuccia for not being back 10 metres.

There were other Italians in the vicinity but it seemed that but for Festuccia's intervention Webb would have scored.

The further argument that if Festuccia had been back the required distance, he would have been able to stop Webb does not hold water. He was not back ten metres and not being back ten metres he could not get back ten metres.

The action looked as if but for Festuccia a try would almost certainly have been scored. The degree of probability looked greater than it had been in Martyn Williams's case in Cardiff.

Nor did Festuccia get a yellow card – at least not then, for he got one soon afterwards.

But in matters such as penalty tries and yellow cards, the decision rests solely with the referee, which means that what he does is right…