Law Discussion - 30 May

The day of the Barbarians

There was a lot of fun with the retirement of great players and lots of sentiment and skill on display, but it was also a game of rugby, which may just have been more fun for the older men than for the younger men.

Being a game of rugby there were also laws, and some bits of interest for those who observe them in action. Matches are after all laws in action.

We shall have a look at a few little things and answer some readers' questions as we rest gently on our oars, catching our breath as June rushes closer with all those Tests scattered about southern lands.

If you look at stats of the game, you wonder how the Barbarians won it by such a large margin. The penalties went 17-6 against them, the line-outs 18-11, the scrums 20-8. But what happened afterwards counted. England forfeited ten line-outs, battled in the scrums and did little with the penalties to put pressure on the Barbarians.

1. The prologue to a yellow card

The referee penalises the Barbarians at a tackle. There are many people at the tackle, as there often are.

England decide to play quickly. Centre Kevin Sorrell grabs the ball, does something with it and sets off to run.

Barbarian Bob Skinstad grabs Sorrell before he has run a pace and pulls him to ground.

The referee penalises Skinstad and sends him to the sin bin.

He then goes to remonstrate with the Barbarians' captain, Anton Oliver.

In defence of his man Oliver tells the referee that the ball had not been kicked at all but bounced off a knee. "He kicked it with his knee," said Oliver to a referee who was not interested.

The referee marches back to the place of the infringement.

The commentator says of the event: "I don't think you can get more yellow card than that in terms of a yellow card."

The commentator was sure that what had happened was right. "Not much doubt there."

Referee right? Oliver right? Commentator right?

Let's look to the Law.

Law 21 3 (b) Bouncing the ball on the knee is not taking a kick.

That's pretty clear. Sorrell did not take a kick. All he did was bounce it off his knee. He was thus not entitled to run with the ball.

Skinstad was silly and perhaps even cynical but he was not guilty of stopping a player from running for 10 metres after taking a tap kick, simply because Sorrell had not taken a kick at all.

Oliver was right, the others wrong, and Skinstad suffered his indignity for no good reason.

For no good reason? One had the feeling that if Sorrell had kicked correctly, Skinstad would still have grabbed him. Not that that's a reason to sin bin him when the start to the affair was incorrect.

2. Deliberate knock-on

David Humphreys, the Barbarians' flyhalf, chips delicately towards the touch-line on his right. Big Anthony Horgan races down the touch-line after the ball as Michael Horak, England's fullback approaches the ball, and sturdy Andy Hazell falls back. Horgan then, like Maradona of old, fists the ball, beyond Horak.

The referee blows for a knock-on.

Deliberate knock-on?

We are used to the deliberate knock-on when a player slaps down an opponent's pass, but knock-on your own ball, your flyhalf's foot-pass?

The law forbids a deliberate knock-on whosoever's ball it is, your ball or theirs. Otherwise we could have all manner of overhead slaps.

Up comes their centre as the pass comes to you. You fist it over his head and run round him to catch the ball. It would produce a racial change in the game.

In this last case, even if you catch the ball before it reaches the ground, it is a penalty against you for a deliberate knock-on.

3. Line-out over?

England throw into a line-out and Alex Brown catches it at No.2. The referee holds up his hand to tell the Barbarian backs to stay back 10 metres from the line-out. Brown with the ball is shoved towards touch and over the five-metre line. The referee drops his hand to show that the line-out is over.

Right?

Yes.

A line-out is between five and 15 metres from touch. If it goes nearer touch than five metres or further from touch than 15 metres, it is over.

Readers' questions:

4. Skew throw-in

Reader: My understanding of the rules is that every throw-in must be straight. But when players take quick throw-ins, they frequently throw it backwards to their player. Why is this never penalised? Have I misinterpreted the rule?

Answer: The throw is required by law to be straight.

For a referee to judge whether it is straight or not he needs to be in a good position to see the throw. Referees should not guess.

By its nature a quick throw-in happens mostly when it is taken far from where play - and the referee - was. That gives the referee little tike to be in a good position to see.

A skew throw is not penalised. The other team has the option of a scrum or a throw-in of their own.

Reader: It happens very often that the throw-in is way backwards. I agree that the referee is often way upfield, but surely the touch official's job is to ensure that the throw-in is straight. He is often on the spot. So can't he flag it?

I have never seen this happen. Players often take a quick throw-in in such a way that there is no way they could have been trying to throw straight and they don't seem too worried about giving up a scrum.

I know there is not much advantage to the team throwing in, since there is no line out contest, so one might argue that it doesn't really matter. But the advantage of throwing the ball backwards is that you are less at risk of throwing it forwards than if you had to throw it straight (if you get my meaning!). And anyway, rules are rules and you can't just let it go because there was no impact on the other team.

Any thoughts? Do you share my view that this happens often?

Answer: Whether the throw is straight or not is the referee's area of adjudication, not the touch judge's, as is the place where the throw-in happens. And then too, the touch judge is often caught out by the length of the kick and the speed of the throw-in.

Throwing in "forward" has the same sanction as throwing in backwards. It is not a forward pass but a skew throw.

Quick throw-ins do not happen all that often.

5. Keeping in touch

Reader: Ask the Oracle here .A player stands outside the field of play. The ball is kicked to him on the full. He makes no attempt to catch it. He merely deflects it backwards back into the field of play. Is it true that under the laws the ball has not gone out? That it's play on?

Answer: No, it's not a case of play on. The ball is out when it touches a person or object on or beyond the touch line.

6. Chisholm's dive revisited

This refers to a moment early in the Super 12 Final when Radike Samo foots the ball through. Aaron Mauger falls on it. Chisolm goes to ground next to Mauger. Play goes on and the Brumbies score their second try.

Reader: Chisholm did not dive on Mauger, OK. But what can a player on the ground (not on his feet ) do? Nothing. He has to be on his feet to do something against a player of the other team or to play the ball. "He puts a left arm on Mauger. " Your words. Penalty kick.

Not so nothing. If the action takes place in the In- goal a player not on his feet can touch down the ball to score a try or make the ball dead.

Answer: I don't think that Chisholm put his arm on Mauger in order to hold him down. It was just a matter of his arm going somewhere. Both players were in fact in the process of getting up when the Brumby forwards swarmed over them.

If Chisholm, lying on the ground, had held Mauger down, then it would have been a penalty.

7. Goal-line and touch-line

Part of this was discussed last week but there is an addition. By the way, if Clément Poitrenaud had known the law, as well as Doug Howlett does for example, he would not have waited for the ball to bounce over the line. He could have stood there, back foot on the line and front foot stretched infield while he received the ball - and perhaps the Heineken Cup would now be in Toulouse!

Reader: I may be mistaken but I'm sure I noticed players during the Super 12 standing with 1 foot in-field and 1 foot in the in-goal area when fielding a kick rolling back and looking like it's not going to roll over the line. Their feet were placed as such before actually fielding the ball and thus the ball was deemed not carried over although the ball itself had not crossed the try line yet. A 22-metre drop was awarded. Is this correct? Was this perhaps previously discussed?

Answer: It was correct. It has been previously discussed. It is covered by the definitions in Law 22: A defending player who has one foot on the goal-line or in the in-goal who receives the ball is considered to have both feet in in-goal.

Reader: Does the same rule apply for the touchline?

If a ball is kicked from outside the 22 and it is going to bounce half a metre infield from the touch-line, could I stand under the ball with one leg outstretched so as to have one foot over the touch-line before I catch the ball, then when I catch this ball, will it be deemed to have gone directly into touch? In an earlier reply to me you stated: "The ball is out if it or someone carrying it touches the ground or ground, a person or an object beyond the touch-line." Am I misinterpreting this?

Answer: You are right. The kick would be deemed to be directly out