June madness - Part Three

Action from matches

We are actually going to discuss bits of Law in the midst of all the other excitement at and after the weekend and we have so much to discuss that we are going to have Part Four this week when we deal with readers' questions because there are many of them.

1.Tackle the ref, dammit!

Scotland are on the attack and Andy Henderson has a short ten metres to the line. Ahead of him by about five metres is the referee, slightly to his left, and to the side of the referee, further left by about three metres, is George Gregan. Gregan does not go towards Henderson. He goes towards the referee, head to the right arms out and tackles the referee. Henderson gets over for the try as Gregan appeals to the referee.

The referee awards a scrum.

OK?

Not if you are playing rugby football which has its own laws. It makes no allowance for a collision of a defender and a referee.

Law 6.11 deals only with the ball or the ball-carrier touching the referee.

(a) If the ball or the ball-carrier touches the referee and neither team gains an advantage, play continues.
(b) If either team gains an advantage in the field-of-play, the referee orders a scrum and the team that last played the ball has the throw-in.
(c) If either team gains an advantage in in-goal, if the ball is in possession of an attacking player the referee awards a try where the contact took place.
(d) If either team gains an advantage in in-goal, if the ball is in possession of a defending player, the referee awards a touch-down where the contact took place.

The law is wise not to make allowance for a collision between defender and referee if the defender does not have the ball. It could lead to all manner of gamesmanship.

2. To play or not

The Irish do some clever things in midfield but fail to fool Wayne Julies of South Africa who tackled David Humphreys and drives him back. Both players go to ground, about a metre on the half-way line side of the Irish 10-metre line. Julies gets to his feet. Paul O'Connell arrives and drives into Julies, thus creating a ruck. The ball comes free, rolling back to the Irish side. It reaches the Irish 10-metre line where Brian O'Driscoll bends and starts to pick it up. Julies moves forward, drops a hand and bats the ball back to his side.

The referee penalises Julies, gives the hands gesture and shows him a yellow card.

OK?

If Julies was not on his feet, the penalty against Julies was OK.
If the ball was still in a ruck, the penalty against Julies was OK.
If the ball was not still in a ruck, the penalty was not OK.

Not only was Julies penalised and sent to the sin bin, but he was also flattened by Brian O'Driscoll, who had a petulant afternoon, and Malcolm O'Kelly.

3. Charge-down off-side

Brian O'Gara of Ireland kicks under pressure from Pedrie Wannenberg of South Africa. His kick is charged down by Schalk Burger of South Africa. The ball comes forward off Burger's hands and Wannenberg with all the instincts of a predatory loose forward heads to the bouncing ball to grab it.

The referee penalises Wannenberg.

OK?

Oh yes. It is the most basic of all off-side cases - being in front of your man who last played the ball.

That was first written down in 1846 in the Rules at Rugby School:

A player is off his side if the ball has touched one of his side behind him, until the other party kick it.

A player being off his side is to consider himself out of the game and is not to touch the ball or in any way to intercept the play, and is of course incapable of holding the ball.

Note: off his side, i.e. off-side. It's singular, not off-sides as some people say.

In 1873 it was first mooted that there be a "penalty of a free kick" for off-side but the suggestion was turned down. In 1882 the penalty for off-side was a scrummage. In 1888 it became either a free kick or a scrummage. In 1891 it became possible to score a goal from such a kick.

4. Charge-down drop-out

Wales put the ball into a scrum five metres from their goal-line. Argentina shove them back and a ruck thing develops. Wales win the ball and their scrumhalf, Dwayne Peel, in his in-goal, gets the ball and kicks. Hasan Omar of Argentina dives forward and charges the ball down. It goes forward and dead.

Decision? Five-metre scrum to Argentina or a drop-out?

Law 22.11 BALL DEAD IN IN-GOAL

(a) When the ball touches the corner post, the touch-in-goal line or the dead-ball line, or touches anything or anyone beyond those lines, the ball becomes dead. If the ball was played into in-goal by the attacking team, a drop-out shall be awarded to the defending team. If the ball was played into the in-goal by the defending team, a 5-metre scrum shall be awarded and the attacking team throws in the ball.

(b) When the ball or a player carrying it touches the corner post, the touch-in-goal line or the dead-ball line, or touches the ground beyond those lines, the ball becomes dead. If the ball was carried or played into in-goal by the attacking team, a drop-out shall be awarded to the defending team. If the ball was carried or played into in-goal by the defending team, a 5-metre scrum shall be awarded and the attacking team throws in the ball.

In this case the ball was played into the in-goal by a defending player (Peel). The ball did not get out of the in-goal.

So a five-metre scrum to Argentina seems the appropriate call.

If Hasan had charged the ball down after it crossed the goal-line, a drop out would seem to be the appropriate call.

It's a tough one to get right. It is tougher since the change in the law from the one that deemed it immaterial whether the ball had crossed the line or not. Then it was always a five-metre scrum if the defending team had taken the ball into the in-goal initially.

5. Carter's try

Joe Rokocoko of New Zealand in all his majesty strides through the England defence and passes to his left, to Daniel Carter. There is nobody in front of Carter as he sets off for the line but about six metres from the line England wing Tom Voyce tackles him from behind. Both go to ground, Carter surges up and to the line as Mike Tindall comes to add his weight to the defence.

Lying on his back, ball in hand, Carter touches the ball down.

The referee consults the television match official who advises him that it was indeed a try.

The commentators speak of control.

The law is simple and does not speak of control or downward pressure.

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.

From (a), Carter was holding the ball and touched the ground with it. That adds up to try.

His earlier rising in the tackle is a different issue. It was the referee's decision and may well have been deemed to be simply a part of the momentum of the running and the tackle

6. Hand up at line-out

Argentina throw in at a line-out. They have five men in the line-out. The player one from the back and deep catches the ball and brings it down. When he lands he is beyond the 15-metre line.

The referee lifts a hand to warn the backs that the line-out its not over and keeps it up for some time as the maul of players nudges further infield. Then he drops it.

The retraining hand is a good thing, apparently, as it is part of the refereeing management that reduces penalties, but the line-out was over when the ball and its carrier crossed the 15-metre line. There was no more a line-out and so no more a place for the restraining hand.

7. Please, sir, let us play

Here are several incidents from the match between Argentina and Wales. It happened too often for it to be an accident.

a. Omar Hasan of Argentina tackles high. Dwayne Peel of Wales, who is next to the place where the referee is awarding the penalty taps and runs. The referee calls him back, saying: "Wait, wait, wait.

"No. Three, that's high. Don't do it again."

He repeats that and then adds: "I needed to speak to him."

b. Wales are penalised five metres from their line for collapsing a maul. Argentina's scrumhalf Nicolás Fernández Miranda stands at the place where the referee awards the penalty, taps and darts over the line. He is called back. He speaks to the touch judge, explains that he is penalising for a collapsed maul and then lets Argentina take the kick again.

c. Wales are close to the Argentinian line. There is a ruck thing and Mario Ledesma of Argentina comes in the side and is penalised. At the place where the referee awards the penalty, Michael Owen of Wales taps and charges. The referee calls him back, saying: "No, no. Back you come.

"No.16 in the side." And he talks to props.

d. Juan de la Cruz Fernández Miranda, a replacement centre for Argentina, is penalised for holding on. Nicky Robinson of Wales runs up to the place where the referee is standing and awarding the penalty. Slightly in front of the referee , Robinson taps and runs. The referee calls him back.

e. Argentina are on the attack. a few metres from their line Shane Williams of Wales tackles Matias Albina of Argentina. Williams folds over the tackled player and stays there as urgent Argentinians drive in. The referee penalises Williams. At that place, Nicolás Fernández Miranda taps and darts for the line. The referee blows his whistle, stops the scrumhalf and shows Williams a yellow card.

f. Still close to the Welsh line, Gethin Jenkins of Wales is penalised for going in at the side. Again, at that place, Argentinian Nicolás Fernández Miranda taps to attack the line. The referee stops him, saying: "Wait. No, no."

That is six occasions. There were no tap kicks taken in the entire match, for none was allowed.

The quick kick is allowed by law. The kick must be taken at the correct place (at or behind the mark) and the ball must be kicked.

Of the cases a-f (six cases) there may have been a case for stopping Nicky Robinson for being ahead of the mark. He was ahead of the mark because the referee was still on the mark. There may have been a case for stopping to send Shane Williams to the sin bin because Wales were required to play on with only 14 men, but that leaves four cases where play could have gone on.

Could have or should have?

The answer would seem to be should have because the law makes provision for quick kicks and the referee is not allowed to opt out of law. Secondly the idea of the game is to play quickly. The referee should not be the pone guilty of slowing the ball down.

8. Standard time

In Argentina in both Tests, there were long halves - long, long halves and remarked upon for being long.

The television clock did not stop for injury time. They ran on. 40 minutes passed and the clock ticked on.

In Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, the clocks stopped with injury or other stoppage. That meant when the clock got to 40 times was up. The halves do not seem as long.

It's a better system.

But it depends on the referees. In Cape Town the referee signalled to stop time but did not give a signal that time should restart, causing a fraction of concern. He, presumably, was not used to it.

Would it not be better to have the same practice everywhere so that referees become accustomed to it

9. The angel to the saint

French is the language of the angels, the French claim. Ireland is the land of saints and scholars, the Irish claimed.

The French referee to Malcolm O'Kelly when O'Kelly was getting excited: "Please, play with your head."

10. Coaches' disapproval

The same referee refereed both Tests a week apart in Argentina. After the first one the Welsh coach, Mike Ruddock, expressed his disapproval of the referee's handling of the tackle, claiming that he allowed the Pumas too much latitude in abusing the ball.

The result may have been in the statistics:

In Test One the Pumas were penalised 10 times, 6 times at the tackle, twice in the first half.
In Test Two the Pumas were penalised 14 times, 10 times at the tackle, six times in the first half.

The statistics may well reflect an accident and not be the result of pressure - not if you believe in the integrity of a referee.

As a matter of interest, does any other sport allow the public criticism of referees and their decisions that rugby seems to allow?

In 1993 Frank Clark, the CEO of League Managers Association (i.e. soccer) said: "There is no place for public criticism of referees."

The IRB has in fact a code of conduct which states:

Regulation 20 - Code of Conduct

20.1 All Unions, Associations, Rugby Bodies, Clubs and Persons

20.1.4 shall accept and observe the authority and decisions of referees, touch judges, Match Officials and all other rugby disciplinary bodies, subject to Regulation 17;

20.1.5 shall not publish or cause to be published criticism of the manner in which a referee or touch judge handled a Match.

20.1.7 shall not engage in any conduct or any activity on or off the field that may impair public confidence in the honest and orderly conduct of a Match, tour, tournament or Series of Matches (including, but not limited to, the supply of information in relation to the Game, directly or indirectly, to bookmakers) or in the integrity and good character of any Person;

20.1.10 shall not abuse, threaten or intimidate a referee, touch judge or other Match Official, whether on or off the field of play; touch judges or other Match Officials or spectators.

20.2 Each Union and Association is under an obligation to:

20.2.1 Comply with and to ensure that each of its members comply with this Code of Conduct; and

20.2.2 Adopt procedures to monitor compliance with and impose sanctions for breaches of the Code of Conduct by Persons under its jurisdiction.