What readers say

Tests are coming

The November Tests are on the doorstep. We shall then give stats and do Law Discussions as we usually do.

This week we shall record what readers have to say with a bit of comment.

1. Talking

There is an important meeting at Lensbury near Twickenham in which the referees for these matches will discuss matters under Paddy O'Brien, the IRB's refereeing manager.

O'Brien intends to talk to referees about handling talking to and by them. You may like to reward about that by clicking here.

There were recently two Southern Hemisphere finals. In the Currie Cup final, the referee penalised the Blue Bulls captain, Gary Botha. The referee told him that he was not to query every decision, captain or no captain.

The problem with a player who talks on the referee's hand is that it breaks down his own team's trust in the referee and annoys their opponents. The referee may be allowing advantage for a knock-on but the captain is telling the referee it is a knock-on. If advantage does not accrue and the referee then blows his whistle, it creates the impression that the talkative captain is running the referee – which destroys the other side's confidence in him.

In  that match he also stopped players from sledging opponents. "No talking between teams."

The referee in the Air New Zealand Cup Final was less direct. He said: "Thanks for the advice."

There was also an interesting bit of conversation in the New Zealand final.

Jerry Collins of Wellington charged. Marty Holah of Waikato tackled him. Both went to ground, Holah behind Collins.  Others gather in a heap and suddenly the ball flicks back to Waikato. The referee penalises Waikato.

Commentator 1: "The referee didn't see what we saw."

Commentator 2: "Yeah. I think they were hard done by. It looked like a Wellington boot that kicked it."

Commentator 2: "Yeah."

Then as Jimmy Gopperth is lining up a kick at goal, there is a slow motion replay which slows clearly that the boot that kicked the ball back belonged to Holah.

Commentator 1: "Ah no. Fair enough. It was Marty Holah. Well spotted, Mr Lawrence. He did see more than us, Nesbo."

Commentator 2: "On this occasion, John."

Question: which commentator wins the Generosity of Spirit award?

2. Hollywood dive

Reader: Question for you about the Currie Cup final.

The question is about Johan Roets' sending off, which I thought was a harsh call, though I'm not blaming Jonathan Kaplan because he was acting on the advice of his touch judge.

Johan Roets had been penalised once before, for a high tackle. According to your report, he was sin-binned for repeated infringements – how so? If the sin-binning was for an illegal tackle rather than repeated infringement, I think the touch judge was in error. When the alleged tackle took place, Roets had his back towards Philip Burger. To me, it appears that Burger ran into him, not the other way round, and then indulged in some theatricals, soccer-style, to win the penalty. Burger's reaction afterwards – when he was shown on camera grinning and winking as Roets walked off – seems to confirm that.

Leaving aside this particular incident for the moment, my question is this: if a player tries to deceive the referee into awarding a penalty – for example by diving, soccer-style – and the referee notices that, am I right in assuming that would qualify as foul play under the law? Could that result in a yellow card for the offending player? And if the player succeeds in deceiving the referee, but there is no on-field punishment though the deception is clear in television replays, can the player be cited for foul play afterwards?

Robert Brand – Grahamstown

Comment: It certainly looks as if Roets backs into Burger, winking notwithstanding. 

The laws allow for a penalty for unsporting behaviour.

Law 10 Foul Play Definition  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 infringement, dangerous play and misconduct which is prejudicial to the game.

It would be more than just silly to expect a yellow card for that, let alone a citing for this sort of thing. Normally one would expect such acting to be ignored so that play can go on.

After all, the only effect on play by such an action is to take the perpetrator out of the game.

3. Kicked dead and then …

Reader: When a kick goes past the dead ball line, when is it a scrum and when is it a 22m drop-out?  Is it the 10m, half-way, 22m?

Jonathan Bell

Comment: If the kicker is kicking for goal and the kick is missed, it is a 22m drop-out.

If the kick is not for goal, then there will be a scrum where the ball was kicked.

If the penalty goal or drop was successful, then it is a kick-off from the half-way line.

I am not sure what the second part means.

4. Is it a ruck?

Reader: I often hurl abuse at the commentator (and at referees sometimes), but this time I found myself curious and more or less wondering what should be done.

It was the Wellington – Auckland clash. There was a pile up of bodies after a tackle near the Wellington try line. The ball was lying on top of someone lying on the floor, with people pushing and shoving over the top of them.

Jerry Collins shoved, picked the ball up and passed it back and got pinged for handling in the ruck. I believe that's the correct call.. the player the ball was in contact with was on the ground. But… what is he to do? The laws suggest he should only use his feet. The pile of bodies on the floor was big enough that, even if he'd tried I suspect he'd have raked one or more, and, in my first and second sight of it too big to step over whilst in contact with someone pushing back.

So… what is he supposed to do? Not contesting the ball seems like the best bet… but (as the commentator said) not very rugby like…

Lewis – York

Comment: Same referee, same result in Durban in 1998.  Same mistake?

A player lying on the ground is not the ground. If the ball is on a player who is on the ground, the ball is not on the ground. How on earth could anybody expect Collins to use his feet? Surely he must be allowed to use his hands because it is not a ruck because for a ruck the ball needs to be on the ground. It is not on the ground.

That bit about being on a player refers only to the definition of a player brought to ground, i.e. not on his feet.

Law 15.3 (b) If the ball-carrier is sitting on the ground or on top of another player on the ground, the ball-carrier has been 'brought to ground'.

For a ruck the ball must be on the ground.

4. Hair is out!

Reader: Ross Filipo of Wellington crossed the line for a try in the corner. The referee asked the TMO for advice. His advice was that Filipo's hair had struck the corner post before he grounded the ball, and so it was no try but a drop-out.

Is this so?

Comment: Yes. The hair is part of the man – just as his hand or foot is.

Law 22.11 (b) When a player carrying the ball touches the corner post … the ball becomes dead.

5. Slack's Law

We have two bits of comment on Andrew Slack's proposal for law changes. (Click here.)

(a) Reader: There is much to be said for Slack's law. However, the result may be fewer defenders committing themselves to the breakdown and so even greater congestion in midfield.

As an alternative, there is a simple law change that might achieve a similar objective.  Rather than keep the offensive and defensive lines apart by an extra 5m, the answer may be to change the laws so as to produce faster possession.

At a tackle, the law could be changed to require the first player to play the ball after the tackle (i.e. not the tackled player or the tackler) to use both hands.  A supporting player could therefore pick and go (using two hands) or pick and pass having collected the ball with two hands. 

This would prevent the defenders placing one hand on the ball and thereby slowing down retained possession.  A defender who stays on his feet can pick up the ball so long as he uses two hands.  The genuine contest for the ball is not eliminated, but the player whose intent is to slow down possession so as to enable the defensive line time to form is thwarted.  It is difficult for a defender to keep his balance while using two hands to pick up the ball so only genuine attempts to collect the ball will succeed.

Defenders reaching over the tackle with two hands are open to being driven off the ball more easily than a player with both feet and one hand on the ground who is more stable and less easy to shift.  Reaching over with one hand, the defender is unlikely to win the ball – he is more likely just slowing possession down.

The split second between the first of a pair of hands touching the ball should be ignored as common sense is applied.  The mischief that this law would eliminate is the solitary arm that reaches around or through the bodies at the tackle with the intention of slowing down recycled ball rather than winning possession.

If the referee sees one hand on the ball only then he should give a penalty and consider a yellow card. 

Simon Pigden

(b) Reader: I have thought this law would work for a while however I think that if a player was either directly behind the ruck & or connected with it then they should be able to stay within the off-side line therefore allowing halfbacks and pick & go's, the defensive line should only apply to the team without the ball & not to the attacking team. Very easy to referee & if the off-side line started from the edge of the breakdown & went back 5 metres marked by the touch judge then even if players were a step off-side as they currently are they would still be 5 metres further back then they are now, we may see open running rugby again, attack oriented & not defence oriented as it commonly is today.
 
Rob