First Tests of June - Part Two

The nit-pickers' picnic

Refereeing Tests, like playing them, is not for sissies. The four matches this past weekend were excellently refereed, but then the referees were all at the top of their profession, each one chosen amongst the 16 referees at the 2003 Rugby World Cup - the best 16 in the world.

The discussion is not meant to be a nit-pickers' picnic, but really just a way of discussing law.

We shall also deal with some readers' questions.

1. In is in

This is just a reminder of a law change - or rather the cancellation of a silly ruling.

The All Blacks throw in at a line-out. Xavier Rush of New Zealand is standing out of the line-out in the position a scrum-half often adopts. He steps in at No.2 in the line-out. The All Black hooker Keven Mealamu throws to the No.4 position, but it goes over the head of Keith Robinson.

The referee had no interest in Rush.

Earlier this year Rush would have been subject to a penalty - a full penalty - for intruding when the ball was not thrown to him, a ruling made by the IRB and added to when there were queries. The Reds of Queensland had a weekly problem with this in the Super 12.

Now that has been scrapped. The player in the scrum-half position is allowed to enter and do whatever line-out forwards are allowed to do.

The same happened in the match between Australia and Scotland when Bill Young stepped in and, unsurprisingly, did not jump for the ball.

2. Lines in unpleasant places

The psalmist wrote: The lines have fallen to me in pleasant places.

In Bloemfontein there were lines from soccer matches, but there was worse on the posh cabbage patch in Melbourne where there were lines all over the place.

The Laws of the Game lay down precisely what lines are to be where.

One would have thought that in this inventive age lines could be more effectively washed away when there is a change of game at a venue.

3. Commentators' words

Commentators have a tough job - getting facts right, words in the right order, being impartial, and doing it all off a little monitor.

There was one case of getting the words in the wrong order in a Spoonerism which referred to the Irish as the holders of the 'cripple trown'.

a. In the first half of the England-New Zealand match there were fisticuffs. Danny Grewcock and Carl Hayman fought. Keith Robinson was involved. But the two touch judges - and they were excellently supportive in this match - pointed out only Grewcock and Hayman. The referee did not warn or caution. He told them to calm down, and the match, mercifully, proceeded with 15 men on each side.

Then the touch judge reported another bit of unfair play. Richard Hill and Keith Robinson had been doing silly things at close quarters. The referee did not warn either but told the captains to calm their men down. Again nobody was warned or cautioned.

After Joe Rokocoko - with elastic majesty - had scored a try, the touch judge reported that Simon Shaw of England had punched Keven Mealamu of New Zealand.

Commentator: "Simon Shaw has been warned for punching twice. How many more times?"

The fact is that Shaw had not been warned at all.

"Warned" has gone out of law and been replaced by "admonished or cautioned". A yellow card (sin-binning) goes with a caution.

There had been no caution, and Shaw had not been involved in the previous two incidents.

b. The Springboks attack. Jaco van der Westhuyzen slides a grubber kick through towards the Irish goal-line. In defence Gordon D'Arcy of Ireland stoops low and, a tiny fraction before his goal line, hits the ball with his left hand into touch-in-goal, behind the corner flag.

The commentators have the chance to watch replays.

Commentator 1: "You can't deliberately hit the ball out. That should be a penalty."

Commentator 2: "I think that inside the in-goal you might be allowed to do that."

Commentator 1: "No. you're not allowed to do that."

Commentator 2: "That's not over the line. I think you're right."

Commentator 1: "Even if it's over the line, you're not allowed to do it."

Commentator 1 is right throughout.

Law 10.2 (c) Throwing into touch, etc. A player must not intentionally knock or throw the ball into touch, touch-in-goal, or over the dead-ball line.
Penalty: Penalty Kick on the 15-metre line if the offence is between the 15-metre line and the touch-line, or, at the place of infringement if the offence occurred elsewhere in the field of play, or, 5 metres from the goal-line and at least 15 metres from the touch-line if the infringement occurred in in-goal.

When D'Arcy slapped the ball his feet were in the in-goal. If he could have grabbed the ball and dotted it down, it would have been a drop-out, even if he had grabbed the ball short of the line.

4. Caught short

From the ensuring five-metre scrum, after Gordon D'Arcy's action, the Springboks shove the Irish backwards and their scrum disintegrates. They all fall down. Jacques Cronjé, the Springbok No.8, grabs the ball and plunges at the line. Brave Peter Stringer and burly Anthony Foley tackle him and he falls a millimetre or two short of the line.

What now?

It seems that there are two possibilities.

(i) a penalty to Ireland because Cronjé hung onto the ball;
(ii) a scrum to South Africa for going forward at the tackle or, if it was static, for being in the Irish half.

5. Knock-on?

The Springboks have a five-metre scrum after Fourie du Preez was held up in the corner.

They get a shove on and the Irish scrum disintegrates. This time the whole affair stays up and the Springboks speed at the goal-line.

The speed makes it hard for Pedrie Wannenberg, a flank now at No.8, to control. The ball hits his foot and rebounds into his lock's foot from where it rebounds to him.

Wannenberg falls. The ball goes forward off his lower torso and his left hand grounds the ball on the line.

The referee refers the matter to the television match official, who suggests that a try had been scored. The referee heeds his advice and awards the try.

Two things.

(i) As long as Wannenberg was bound - fully, from hand to shoulder - by one arm, it was still a scrum and so no problem with the nudge and rebound.

(ii) Even if the ball had gone forward off his lower body, it was not a knock-on. For a knock-on the ball must be propelled forward by hand or arm.

6. Places

Now this really is nit-picking!

(i) The Irish batter at the Springbok line in charge after charge. Simon Easterby picks up and charges, but about two metres from the line he is brought to ground and then penalised for holding on.

Where is the penalty?

Law 21.2 WHERE PENALTY AND FREE KICKS ARE TAKEN

(a) The kicker must take the penalty or free kick at the mark or anywhere behind it on a line through the mark. If the place for a penalty or free kick is within 5 metres of the opponents' goal-line, the mark for the kick is 5 metres from the goal-line, opposite the place of infringement.

South Africa were about 98 metres from the Irish line. The place of this penalty was where Easterby infringed.

Federico Méndez of Argentina throws into a line-out. Puma lock Ignacio Fernández Lobbe taps the ball back. Flank Lucas Ostiglia peels round and grabs at the ball but knocks it back to the line-out where Pumas No.8 Gonzalo Longo catches the ball.

You decide that a scrum should be awarded.

Where would you award the scrum?

Where Ostiglia knocked on.

7. Ruddock's complaint

Mike Ruddock, the new Welsh coach, was to present the referee with a tape showing his "errors" after the match between Argentina and Wales. He had objections about the tackle.

Then the report said: Ruddock also believes skipper Colin Charvis' sin-binning was a harsh decision by Courtney.

The Wales coach said: "Colin was sin-binned and his was certainly a penalty offence. But we had mounted 25 minutes of pressure on their line and they had slowed down a lot of our ball in the collision area.

"Then on the first occasion we were under pressure, Colin got sin-binned and I thought that was harsh. That is something we have to look at."

Slowing the ball down is not an offence. If your pack contests well and drives the opponents back, that is a legal way of slowing the ball down. Just before the Colin Charvis sin-binning, Felipe Contepomi tackled Sonny Parker, stood up on the Welsh side of the tackle and played the ball. That, too, was a legal way of slowing the ball down.

Just after that Pumas fullback Hernán Senillosa claimed and was awarded a fair catch. Before he could run 10m Dwayne Peel of Wales tackled him.

That is not a legal means of slowing the ball down.

Felipe Contepomi hoofed the ball down field, brother Manuel caught and gave to Martín Gaitán who gave to Senillosa. Shane Williams tackled Senillosa and Pumas wing Lucas Borges drove in over Senillosa and the ball.

Colin Charvis came from the side and drove into Borges, thus creating a ruck. He then put his hand down and handled the ball back to the Welsh side - hands in a ruck.

Charvis had offended twice - by coming in at the side and by using his hands in a ruck.

This was in the 31st minute of the half and the third time that Charvis had been penalised. A sin-binning did not seem inappropriate.

By then Duncan Jones and Dwayne Peel had also been penalised at the tackle while Gaitán and Ignacio Fernández Lobbe of Argentina had been penalised.

8. Who kicks?

Hernán Senillosa claims and is awarded a fair catch. He taps and runs. Dwayne Peel of Wales stops him and the referee advances the free kick ten metres.

Felipe Contepomi takes the free kick and hoofs it downfield.

OK?

Advanced kick stays a free kick? Yes.

Different kicker allowed? Yes.

Law 21.8 WHAT OPTIONS THE OPPOSING TEAM HAVE AT A FREE KICK

This deals with eight things the opposing team must not do. If they infringe the law then says:

Penalty: Any infringement by the opposing team results in a second free kick, awarded 10 metres in front of the mark for the first kick. This mark must not be within 5 metres of the goal-line. Any player may take the kick. If the referee awards a second free kick, the second free kick is not taken before the referee has made the mark indicating the place of the free kick.

9. Reversal of fortune

England attack in wave after wave, their most likely time of the match.

They go down the left and them move right. The ball comes from Matt Dawson of England to Mike Catt who has Ben Cohen of England on his inside. Anticipating that Catt will play to Cohen, Tana Umaga of New Zealand thumps into Cohen who does not have the ball. Play goes on. The ball comes to Charlie Hodgson of England who thumps ahead. He plays the ball back to Dawson.

Lurking on the side of the tackle thing is Carlos Spencer of New Zealand who thrusts out a boot to the ball, but Trevor Woodman of England grabs the ball and plunges forward. He is brought to ground and the All Blacks get the ball.

The referee penalises Spencer right in front of his posts.

Cohen suddenly arrives, belligerently, on the scene shouting: "Late hit, late hit."

This did not impress the referee, it seems.

Cohen then expressed his hurt and displeasure succinctly.

The referee reversed the penalty.

Law 6.A.6 PLAYERS DISPUTING A REFEREES DECISION

All players must respect the authority of the referee. They must not dispute the referee's decisions. They must stop playing at once when the referee blows the whistle except at a kick-off.
Penalty: Penalty kick at the place of infringement or where play would next commence.

Referee right in the Cohen case?

Yes.

10. Reader's question

Reader: On the TV, it was apparent that each of the three New Zealand tries included at least one forward pass (and that is ignoring the ones that might have been lateral with a bit of generous leeway given). I know that referees have a difficult job to spot them at speed, but it appears the All Blacks are getting away with forward passes as part of their fast paced back play, and are playing right up (and beyond) the limits of the law.

In Rugby League, a forward pass on video review would overturn the try - shouldn't this be the case with Union now so that players truly do try to pass backwards as the law says?

Tony Cleare, London, UK.

Answer: We have dealt with this several times - including the possibility of the error of parallax and the scientific thing about the man standing still and the passer running, which means the ball goes forward.

We have not had the suggestion of using television in this matter before.

The IRB is looking to extend the scope of the television match official, but such things move slowly as the TMO is available in only a miniscule fraction of the rugby matches played around the world.

Secondly, one would presumably require the TMO to interject.

Thirdly, the television evidence may frequently not be conclusive for not being in a good line.

One last point: the passer does not have to pass backwards. Straight is OK. The pass must just not be forward.

11. Whose ball?

Reader: My penalty. I am kicking for posts. I fall in the mud as take my final run-up step to kick and the ball flies into touch. Who throws in at the line-out?

Leonard Kaplan - no relation of Jonathan's apparently.

This could happen with a kick from one touch-line that flies at a horrible angle across the field and out on the other touch-line.

Answer: Has anybody seen it happen?

That does not detract from discussing a bit of law.

Firstly, the kicker has indicated that he is going to kick for goal. That's what he must do, though there is no obligation to succeed.

In the case described here he intended to carry out his obligation of kicking at goal.

Secondly, the law forbids using a place kick for touch. A drop or a punt is OK. Let's presume the kick here described is a place kick.

Thirdly, if a penalty kick goes into touch, the kicker's team throws in at the line-out.

OK. There was nothing intentional about what the kicker did here, but then a knock-on is seldom intentional, but the player knocking on is sanctioned with a scrum against him.

That would seem to suggest that a scrum at the place is appropriate here with the non-kicking team to throw the ball in.