Two English incidents for law discussion
We have, since the Six Nations, been concentrating on the Super 14 with its demanding seven matches a weekend for our law discussions. But we have two queries from Premiership rugby in England which are certainly worth discussion.
1. Penalty tries
There were a couple of interesting penalty try situations in the Gloucester vs Saracens game.
Ryan Lamb, for Gloucester, put through a delicate chip. It crossed the goal-line and rolled on for a couple of metres before going into touch-in-goal. The wing, Mark Foster, was in hot pursuit, but as he crossed the goal-line a metre or so behind the ball, Thomas Castaignede “tackled” him.
Wayne Barnes asked the TMO, Geoff Warren, if a foul had been committed that prevented a probable try. Geoff said yes, and so a penalty try was awarded.
Curiously, no card, despite IRB Ruling 9 of 2004: “Therefore, if a penalty try is awarded as the result of a player intentionally offending, then the player must be either be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off.” It is hard to see Castaignede’s action as unintentional.
Criticism varied from “It should have been a red card!” to “There was no way he was going to score”.
A little later Lamb put in a perfectly weighted crosskick for Iain Balshaw on the other wing. As Balshaw jumped to catch it his opposite number, Kameli Ratuvou, instead of contesting, just ran underneath him and grabbed a leg, causing him to crash to the ground. That obviously pulled something. After treatment Balshaw tried to play on but eventually had to go off.
The catch was about on the five-metre line, and Balshaw had cancelled most of his forward pace when he jumped. Although the Gloucester’s James Simpson-Daniel, was in support, several defenders were also coming across hard. This time no penalty try was awarded, but Ratuvou received a yellow card.
Again a lot of people claimed it should have been red, and why not a penalty try?
Two tough judgement calls. I felt the penalty try decisions were correct, having seen the replays, but the second card must have been borderline red.
– Peter Shortell
Comment: Firstly, the penalty try is awarded if the try would probably have been scored or scored in a better position but for foul play. The referee alone can decide this on the evidence of his own eyes or, in this case, of the television match official. He is allowed to ask that in the case of foul play in the in-goal.
Secondly, it’s hard to justify awarding a penalty try – foul play that stopped a probable try from being scored – and then not send the player to the sin bin. Otherwise it is impossible to justify sending any other player to the sin bin for infringing to stop a possible try. Probable is more serious than possible.
The colour of the card is the judgement of the referee who has no replay to help him. But this tackle sounds eminently redable. Presumably there was still the option of citing Ratuvou, for a possible red card seems to be the criterion for citing.
2. In or out
In the Bristol vs Leicester game there was an incident that raised a question.
Leicester attacked out wide. The Leicester runner was tackled near the touch-line. The tackled player and the Leicester ruckers all stayed in the field of play. David Lemi, however, was standing over the tackled player attempting to steal possession. Before the ref called for the players to release the ball or that a ruck had formed, Lemi clearly put his left foot in touch and began pleading with the touch judge for a line-out.
My question is, if Lemi still had his hands on the ball and put his foot in touch, should it be a line-out? Is this the same as player deliberately catching the ball with a foot in touch? Also, if the line-out is given, who gets to throw the ball in?
Thanks
Comment: Would you say that Lemi was a ball-carrier? If he was a ball-carrier, then the line-out was and against Lemi’s team. If he had hands on the ball but was not holding/carrying it, then it was not out.
