June calm - Part Two

Early tackle?

In Part One we gave loads of stats, some of them with help from Cheltenham in the far West. Now we are going to talk about points of law - some from Saturday's Tests in Pretoria, Hamilton and Sydney. Then we are going to deal with some questions from readers.

Probably the most interesting one was Josh Lewsey's tackle on Lote Tuqiri in Sydney. But there are also other topics, like good manners.

Let's start with brave Josh Lewsey.

1. The early Lewsey catches the wing

The Wallabies attack on their left. Stephen Larkham puts a calm grubber ahead towards the England 22. Lote Tuqiri, the rapid Wallaby wing, sweeps after the ball which bounces high. He put up a right hand and touches the ball.

Coming across in defence is the England fullback Josh Lewsey. Lewsey looks up, sees Tuqiri touch the ball, drops his head and charges in to tackle Tuqiri, knowing that he does not have a lot of time if he is to stop the faster man from scoring a try.

But Tuqiri cannot catch the ball cleanly. It bounces ahead in the air. He puts up his left hand and touches the ball, but already he is falling in Lewsey's tackle.

Penalty?

When Tuqiri reaches up with his right hand, he is on the 22. When he reaches up with his left hand he is about 10 metres over the 22. Such is his speed and impetus.

He had run at least 10 metres after a juggled ball. If he could have juggled it again with his left hand he would then have been at the goal-line.

If a juggled catch is not a knock-on, why should Lewsey not tackle him? Why should Tuqiri get greater leeway for not catching the ball properly than he would have if he had caught the ball properly. As my learned friend from Cheltenham would say: "If not, he gains an unfair advantage from his incompetence."

First, we know that it is not legal to hit the ball forward deliberately.

Law 12.1 (e) Intentional knock or throw-forward. A player must not intentionally knock the ball forward with arm or hand, nor throw-forward.

Gauging a deliberate knock forward is not easy. It's not easy in general play and is regularly disputed. Imagine how much more it would be open to dispute in this case.

Did Tuqiri deliberately knock the ball forward?

Unlikely. He was probably trying to gather it in albeit with one hand. He just was not good enough to do so at that moment.

Is Lewsey meant to tag along to see if and when Tuqiri is going to catch the ball before he can tackle him? In other words are we expecting Lewsey to watch Tuqiri score a try with a juggled run of 20 metres?

That does not make sense. Laws make sense.

If Tuqiri played the ball and was in the process of catching the ball, he had the ball. He was not a player who did not have the ball. All he was doing was trying to control the ball which he had.

If this had happened in midfield and Lewsey had tackled Tuqiri from the front as he juggled the ball, nobody would rule it an early tackle.

It would not take much for the law-makers to make this unclear issue abundantly clear.

2. Talk to the ref

This one follows on the one before. The incident described above was followed by a penalty.

Before the penalty a sedentary Lote Tuqiri was seen to signal wildly that he had been tackled without the ball while he said things. Josh Lewsey on the other hand, erect and walking, shows that Tuqiri had been playing the ball with his hand.

After the penalty, Lawrence Dallaglio, England's captain, had a go at the touch judge with a face that appeared to be snarling.

It was not the only time this happened in the match. He had a go at the referee and then told his opponents to shut up, and later the referee said to him: "I'm not going to back down."

The Dominion Post of New Zealand reports that Tana Umaga, the All Black captain, regretted that he had "harangued" the referee of their match with Argentina at half-time and during the match.

Is rugby going the way of some sports where players' tantrums are commonplace?

One of the great advances in the developments of the laws of the game came in 1892 with the abolition of the umpires and the ending of disputes by making the referee the sole judge of fact and law.

Now it seems that disputes are on the way back, that players are less willing to accept rulings and that the game is losing something treasured - good manners towards all.

The Laws still state: 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.

Most referees will follow Dave Bishop's method: to give the captain the right to ask a question and to give him the courtesy of a reply but allow no debate.

3. Knock

Australia put the ball into a scrum. Australia heel. The ball comes back to David Lyons, the Australian No.8. He comes away from the scrum and picks up the ball. He loses it forward. It bounces off the rump of his lock, John Roe and back into his hands.

OK for play to go on?

No.

Law 12: If the ball goes forward as in a knock-on while a player attempts to catch the ball and that player catches the ball before it has touched the ground or another player, play continues.

When it touched Roe, it became a knock-on.

4. Knock-knock

The Springboks are attacking. Their flyhalf Jaco van der Westhuyzen chips ahead and sets off after it. The ball goes forward off his elbow. It bounces and Gareth Llewellyn of Wales tries to gather but knocks on. The referee blows his whistle and awards a scrum to Wales.

OK?

Oh, yes.

He says it to Van der Westhuyzen who looks puzzled: "The elbow's as good as a hand."

Law 12 DEFINITION - KNOCK-ON

A knock-on occurs when a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, or when a player hits the ball forward with the hand or arm, or when the ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, and the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it.

5. Whose ball

This is one we should have discussed last week. It is of interest.

Carlos Spencer of New Zealand kicks an up-and-under. Ben Cohen and Josh Lewsey await the ball's descent. Lewsey catches it. Immediately Mils Muliaina grabs him. They both go to ground. Others gather and the ball will not emerge.

The referee blows his whistle and says: "From the kick. White ball."

Right?

Probably not.

The law referred to here is Law 17.6 (h) Scrum after a maul when catcher is held. If a player catches the ball direct from an opponents kick, except from a kick-off or a drop-out, and the player is immediately held by an opponent, a maul may form. Then if the maul remains stationary, stops moving forward for longer than 5 seconds, or if the ball becomes unplayable, and a scrum is ordered, the team of the ball catcher throws in the ball.

Direct from an opponents kick means the ball did not touch another player or the ground before the player caught it.

That deals only with a maul, not with a tackle. In the incident we mentioned there is no maul. Lewsey catches, Muliaina tackles and they go to ground. There is no maul.

That would suggest that the award of the ball should have gone with the tackle.

6. Maul-maul

A penalty becomes a line-out to South Africa five metres from the Welsh line. The Springboks catch, form a maul and drive. The maul charges over the Welsh line and collapses.

The ball is held up.

The referee awards a five-metre scrum to South Africa.

OK?

Oh yes.

It is not a maul that ended unsuccessfully because it ceased to be a maul when the group went over the goal line.

Law 17.1 FORMING A MAUL Where

A maul only takes place in the field-of-play.

Pity about the illogical use of "only" but the point being made is that there is no maul in the in-goal area.

7. Consistency?

Reader's question: Just on half-time, there was a line-out to England. The England prop, Julian White, is down receiving treatment, England fail to form line-out waiting for prop to receive treatment.

The referee insists that England forma line-out. Lawrence Dallaglio debates the matter with the referee. England are slow to respond, The referee awards a free kick to Australia. Australia move the ball quickly and Clyde Rathbone scores a try.

In the second half Australia are to throw in at a line-out. Stirling Mortlock of Australia is injured and receiving treatment, The referee stops play to allow Mortlock treatment.

Consistency? No wonder Woodward looks bemused.

SF of New Zealand

Answer: Incidents are never the same!

White was injured well within the England 22, about eight metres from their line. The line-out - to England, by the way, as it followed a penalty - was to take place on England ten-metre line.

The injured player, White, was a long way from the line-out. He was not needed to take part in the line-out, as he would have been at a scrum. He was clearly not seriously injured. There was no reason why the referee had to stop play.

The Mortlock case was different. He was close to where the line-out was about to take place. It was then a different matter as he could easily have been involved in the line-out when he was being treated.

In his debate with the referee Dallaglio complained that the referee had allowed time for treatment to Brendan Cannon when he was injured.

That, too, was a different case. First he had been injured in a matter of foul play, a high tackle by Simon Shaw. There was going to be a penalty to Australia. Then the extent of the injury to Cannon was uncertain. He was down and groggy and in fact was taken off the field.

There was an incident in the South Africa- Wales match where the referee stopped the match without a stoppage at all.

Alix Popham of Wales was hurt. He tackled South Africa's Jacques Cronjé and went down, clearly out. Play went on ahead and then away to the left. Then it came back towards where Popham was lying. Immediately the referee blew his whistle and stopped play. Play was stopped for quite some time while Popham was removed from the field.

It would seem that in all instances the referees acted correctly.

8. May I play?

Reader: Two teams, A and B.

If two players from team A are sprinting and chasing down a loose ball, and as they reach the ball at speed, a player from team B dives on the ball (at the feet of the team A players) and sets the ball back. There has been no tackle. So neither of the team A players is "the tackler" and there are no other players from either side in support. Can the team A players pick up the ball or do they have to ruck over?

Methinks they have to ruck over - even if it does look a bit weird with no other players in support.

Ray of the USA

Answer: They are allowed to pick up the ball. There is no reason for them not to - no tackle and no ruck.

There is no question of coming from behind because there has been no tackle. There is no question of off-side because there has been no ruck and because an opponent last played the ball.

9. Knock?

Reader: I am an aspiring referee from Sri Lanka. (Yes! We play rugby in SL). I have a question on the laws although the game is a school game and of miniscule profile in the grand scheme of things. The match was hotly contested with Reds leading 8-5 in the last minute.

The referee awards a penalty against Red in the dying minutes of the game and the Blues kicker lines it up. I am touch judge on hand along with my colleague. The kick misses narrowly to the left. Play goes on.

The Red defender claiming the kick wisely turns his back to the attackers facing his own dead-ball line and fields the kick. In his attempt he drops the ball. It is not a knock-on because the ball went back. The rugby ball being what it is it freakishly bounced back through the very same Red defender's legs and moved forward. The Red defender was tackled by the enthusiastic Blues player following his mate's kick. Another Red defender, beats the Blues attackers to the loose ball and grounds it.

I was about five metres away from the action. So was the excellent referee who blew a drop out and simultaneously full time. Some experts were of the view that the second Reds attacker touched the ball down from an off-side position as the ball came forward when last played by his own man, thereby
preventing the Blues from grounding for a try.

Is this off-side and should it have been a penalty try? Or is it, as I gathered from your columns correct to assume off-side laws have no applicability in-goal.

Shanaka

Answer: There are many things here.

Firstly, If you gathered that off-side laws do not apply in in-goal then you have picked up something horribly wrong. Ordinary off-side as from being in front of a player of your side who last played the ball, apply. It is just that there is no scrum, ruck, maul or tackle in in-goal to produce a case of off-side..

Secondly, you have the possibility of a tackle without the ball - Blue on the Red player who dropped the ball. That would be a judgement call for the referee. If he judged it to be a tackle without the ball, he should blow it immediately as there was no possibility of advantage.

Thirdly, the Blue player who dived on the ball would seem - from your description - to be off-side. He is in front of a player of his side who last played the ball.

If the referee judges that this is sufficient to warrant a penalty try, he would be well within his rights to do so.

If he decided that it warranted only a penalty, it would be five metres from the Reds' goal line opposite the place where Red infringed.