June madness - Part Four

Churchill Cup and readers

Whew! This has been a hectic week with lots of laws thrown about. Let's make an end to it with something taken from the Churchill Cup in Canada and readers' questions. We shall also revisit a question which we discussed last week because it has provoked interest.

Let's start with that one.

1. Whose ball?

This was last week's discussion:

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.

That produced reaction from readers which is entirely with talking about further.

Reader: Just wanted to comment on a reader's (excellent) question about a penalty attempt at goal that goes into touch.  While I don't disagree with your decision to award a scrum with the other team putting in, could this not be considered a failed attempt at goal?  Does a failed attempt that goes into touch differ from a failed attempt that goes into touch in goal or over the dead ball line?  I could be wrong, but to me, as a referee, a penalty attempt that isn't successful results in a 22 drop out.  Does it matter where the ball ends up while being unsuccessful?  Maybe I'm making assumptions of Law, but I'd be inclined to award a 22 drop out. 
 
Just Wondering.
Travis Braden, Utah Rugby Referee Society

Answer: It would not be a drop-out in this case as the ball did not go into in-goal but into touch.

Then the law says that we are not to use a place kick to kick the ball into touch. That is also clear. That means that the kicker who used the place kick to kick the ball into touch used the wrong sort of kick, hence the scrum.

There is another argument: Just as the missed kick at goal becomes a drop-out, so the penalty accidentally kicked into touch should become a line-out.

Then we are back to the whose ball question. Could we have a line-out - non-kicker's ball?

Perhaps we should try asking the highest authority about this one.

2. Churchill Cup incident

Reader reports: The game between England and NZ Maori is tied at 19-19 with about five minutes left, Dave Walder has a penalty to win the game (or take the lead at least!). He strikes the ball straight and true through the uprights, which admittedly are not very tall, but the touch judges' flags do not go up. Walder, a mild-mannered chap, is furious, and TV replays show that the penalty did indeed sail plum through the posts. It was not a borderline call by any means.
 
Deep into injury time, Glen Jackson, the Maori fly half, hits a drop goal from 40 metres or so. Again it sails high and handsome and Jackson turns away to celebrate winning the Churchill Cup. He turns round, to his shock, to see the referee hasn't given this one either. TV camera angles are not as good as the Walder one, but the angles they do have suggest that again the ball sailed through the sticks for three points.
 
Question: Does the TMO come into this equation? I remember a Rugby League Grand Final where a disputed drop goal was found by the TV ref to have dropped short, for instance.
 
To his credit, Walder said after the game: "I thought it went over but it wasn't given and it's one of those things - you have to get on with it."
 
The whole thing just seemed bizarre to me (and we had an English ref and touch judge so no accusations against their honesty whatsoever!)
 
Answer:  The referee has the final say and is perfectly entitled to overrule the touch judges., especially if they were so obviously wrong.

But the question is really about the use of the television match official. The IRB has a protocol on the TMO. It lays down areas of adjudication and says:

2 AREAS OF ADJUDICATION

2.1  The areas of adjudication are limited to Law 6. 8(b), 6.8(d) and 6.8(e) and therefore relate to:

- grounding of the ball for try and touch down
- Touch, touch-in-goal, ball being made dead during the act of grounding the ball.

This includes situations where a player may or may not have stepped in touch in the act of grounding the ball on or over the goal line.

The TMO could therefore be requested to assist the referee in making the following decisions:

· Try
· No try and scrum awarded 5 metres
· Touch down by a defender
· In touch line-out
· Touch-in-goal
· Ball dead on or over the dead ball line
· Penalty tries after acts of foul play in in-goal
· Dropped goal.

Dropped goal! It seems that the referee could have consulted the TMO in the case of the dropped goal but not in the case of the penalty goal which really should not have required a TMO at all.

3. Who guards the guards?

Reader: If an Official stuffs up a decision then it can't be questioned? Who polices Officials and why are they so silent? Or is it that Officials never ever get it wrong?

I do agree with Eddie Jones' comments as to coaching staff (amongst others) upholding Rugby traditions, but does a process exist in which to lodge complaints against Officials and if so, is it transparent and Honest?

Answer: There are processes for dealing with mistakes by officials. There is constant scrutiny of referees.

(i) At all test matches there are assessors who send in detailed reports on the referee's performance. This report together with a video of the match is sent to the IRB's referees' committee.

(ii) The captain of each team sends a report on the referee.

(iii) The manager of each team sends in a report.

That means that three are five reports - two from on-the-field participants, two from off-the-field participants and one independent.

Of course, steps are taken against a referee regarded as not up to standard, as happened last year and again this year. That can be seen quite clearly and is transparent in that sense.

In sport generally it is not acceptable for people such as players and managers to criticise referees in public. There are practical and philosophical reasons for this.

It is, by the way, also not ethical for referees to criticise players and coaches in public.

By the way, the result of a match - an any sport - does not change because of an official's error.

4. Irish queries

Firstly, let me say that I am Irish and therefore probably see everything with a tint of green.  However there were three incidents in Saturday's match that I would like your rules experts to clarify.
 
(i)  At one stage, Montgomery fielded a ball closed to his own line and was on the ground and isolated.  Four Irish players all on their feet surrounded them and tried to get the ball.  Why was Montgomery not penalised for holding on to the ball.
 
(ii)  Ireland nearly scored in the corner but the Irish player had just gone into touch.  The South Africans took a quick throw.  If the Irish player had been in touch, surely he had touched the ball in touch.  I understood that a quick throw could only be taken if no other person had touched the ball once it was in touch.
 
(iii) A South African player kicked the ball from outside his 22.  The ball landed on or close to the touch line and then bounced back in field.  The linesman gave a throw where the ball landed.  If the ball had landed in touch should it not have been deemed straight out?  If it hadn't, then why was a throw given?  Is this a case where landing on the line is both in and out of touch simultaneously?
 
Keith

Answer: (i) One presumes that Montgomery was not penalised because the referee did not see that he had done wrong.

(ii) The Irish player took it into touch. That made it dead. It is only after that that only the thrower must have played the ball for a quick throw-in.

Law 19.2(d) For a quick throw-in, the player must use the ball that went into touch. If, after it went to touch and was made dead, another ball is used, or if another person has touched the ball apart from the player throwing it in, then the quick throw-in is disallowed. The same team throws in at the line-out.

(iii) If the ball landed on the line, it was out. In this case it would have been directly out.

The touch judge deemed that the ball had bounced just infield. It then bounced out. That is why the line-out was given.

5. Substitutes

Reader: A team can substitute up to two front row players and up to five other players. Substitutions may only be made when the ball is dead and with the permission of the referee.

Why then were Wales allowed to substitute their entire front row in one go in both tests against Argentina? Am I missing something here?

Answer: You quote Law 3.12.

There is a distinction Law 3 between substitutes and replacements.

Replacement: A player who replaces an injured team-mate.
Substitute: A player who replaces a team-mate for tactical reasons.

It may well be that Wales's third replacement was just that - a replacement, a player coming on for injury. There is different later treatment. A substituted player may return for bleeding but a replaced player may not do so.

6. Bleeding time

Reader: In the 2nd Test between Ireland and SA at Newlands Marius Joubert went to the blood bin with a what looked like broken nose.
 
He left the field with about 14½ minutes of the 1st half to play and returned with 2 minutes to play, a time of 12½ minutes off the field.
 
Should he have been allowed back on?

Rob Booth

Answer: Yes.

Law 3.10 (a) When a player leaves the field to have bleeding controlled and/or have an open wound covered, that player may be temporarily replaced. If the player who has been temporarily replaced does not return to the field-of-play within 15 minutes (actual time) of leaving the playing area, the replacement becomes permanent and the replaced player must not return to the field-of-play.

7. The Sevens scrum

Reader: In Sevens, is it allowed for hooker to bind under the props so as to enter quickly into play when the scrum is over?

Sant Cugat Rugby Club -Barcelona.

Answer: The IRB's laws make no difference between the 15-man and the sevens game when it come to binding in the front row.

Law 20.3 (b) The hooker may bind either over or under the arms of the props.

That applies to Sevens.

8. Yellow or red?

Reader: The referee says: "I  saw him punch."

Result: a yellow card

Why not red?

Answer: The referee has three options - to admonish the player (Tell him he is naughty), caution him and give him a yellow card, and give him a red card.

The choice the referee makes is entirely at his discretion. Obviously not all punches are the same. The referee must be allowed to exercise his own discretion.

9. Penalty try?

Reader: I have often wondered about this as a theoretical problem, but it actually happened during the Springbok warm-up game (not quite as I describe it! I have forgotten the details).

The flyhalf kicks across the field for his wing to score. Before the wing can touch down he is illegally tackled by his opponent. Certainly a penalty try. However, the attacking full back following up manages to touch down and scores the try.

OK - so a try is definitely awarded. But a penalty try is in front of the posts while the fullback touched down in the corner.

Should the attacking team not be given the advantage of the penalty try? I know this would be rather unfair on the full back who actually scored and might like to be credited with it!

Bill

Answer: There are two reasons for the penalty try - if the foul play prevented a try from being scored or if it prevented it from being scored in a better place.

In your case the try was scored.

The referee then has to decide if it would have been scored in a better place. Presumably he decided that it would not have been scored in a better place and so did not award a penalty try.