The thriller in Perth

Stats and discussion

Another exciting Tri-Nations encounter! This could just be the most thrilling Tri-Nations yet with huge interest in the second Bledisloe clash this weekend.

We look at some statistics from the match and discuss a few points of law. Then there are also questions from readers, a very interesting one concerning time-keeping.

1. Penalties conceded:

These represent the number of times each team was penalised.

Australia: 8
South Africa: 10

Reasons for the penalties:

Australia:
Tackle/ruck: 5 (Rathbone, Smith, Giteau, Baxter*, Waugh)
Scrum: 2 (Baxter*, Young)
Discipline: 1 (Punching - Mortlock)

South Africa:
Tackle/ruck: 3 (Venter, Burger, Joubert)
Off-side: 4 (Andrews - 2, Britz*, Barry)
Discipline: 3 (Venter - early tackle, Botha* - air tackle, Joubert - high tackles)
* penalty goal

2. Line-outs:

This is the number of times a team throw into a line-out. South Africa threw in 18 times.

Australia: 21 (2 free kicks, 1 penalty 2 skew)
South Africa: 18 (7 lost, 1 skew)

3. Scrums:

This the number of times a team put the ball into a scrum, South Africa 12 times.

Australia: 5 (2 reset)
South Africa: 12 (10 reset, 2 penalties, 1 lost)

4. Free-kicks:

This is the number of times a team received a free-kick, Australia three.

Australia: 3 (mark, 2 line-outs)
South Africa: 1 (mark)

5. Drop-outs:

Australia dropped out twice, South Africa four times.

6.Tri-Nations:

Penalties conceded:

	vs Aus 1	vs NZ 1	vs SA 1	vs Aus 2	vs NZ 2	vs SA 2
Australia		11	8
New Zealand	5		5
South Africa	10	13

Sanctionary punishments - cards and citings:

Mercifully there have been no disciplinary sanctions since the very first Tri-Nations match, though De Wet Barry may well have been lucky in the second match - and Marius Joubert, Clyde Rathbone and Chris Latham lucky in the third.

	vs Aus 1	vs NZ 1	vs SA 1	vs Aus 2	vs NZ 2	vs SA 2
Australia		Y,C
New Zealand	Y
South Africa

Y = Yellow card
C = Citing with suspension

Tries scored:

	vs Aus 1	vs NZ 1	vs SA 1	vs Aus 2	vs NZ 2	vs SA 2
Australia	1		3
New Zealand	1		1
South Africa	3	3

7. Line-out numbers:

South Africa got them wrong twice.

a. Australia throw in at a line-out. Justin Harrison stands out on the Wallaby side in the position of receiver, the sort of job the scrum-half does. Gerrie Britz does the same on the Springbok side.

Britz steps into the line-out near the back, where the Wallabies throw. Harrison stays out of the line-out.

The referee awards a free kick to Australia, saying to the Springboks: "You've come in. They haven't"

OK?

Yes. The team throwing in at a line-out determine the number of players in the line-out. When Britz moved in South Africa had one more than Australia.

b. Australia throw in at a line-out. It is a short line-out. Gerrie Britz and Eddie Andrews are there but not in the line of the line-out players. They are on the Springbok side of the line-out players. The referee allows advantage, telling the players that it is a "free kick advantage". When no advantage accrues, he awards a free-kick against South Africa, saying: "You had two scrum-halves."

OK?

Yes. Teams are each allowed only one receiver/scrum-half at a line-out.

Telling the players what kind of advantage seems wise as there are possibly different criteria for scrum advantage, free kick advantage and penalty advantage in deciding when it's over.

Do you like the use of "You"?

8. Line-out off-side:

There are two bits to this section - one incident from Saturday, and then a reader's question from the previous week. We may as well deal with both here.

a. South Africa throw in deep at a line-out and, with assistance, Gerrie Britz rises high towards the back to catch the ball. He holds on and is held up there while De Wet Barry, a centre who had been the regulation 10 metres back from the line-out, runs up and takes a pass 'off the top' from Britz. Barry does so about three metres from the line-out.

OK?

Two things.

If Britz was still in the line-out, that is inside the 15-metre line, then it was not OK in terms of the law as the line-out was not yet over and the backs on both sides are required to stay back.

If Britz and his helpers ha moved back so that Britz was over the 15-metre line when he caught the ball, then the line-out was over and then Barry was perfectly legal in coming up to receive the pass.

Who said refereeing was easy?

In this incident Britz was well over the 15-metre line. That means that the referee was perfectly correct to let play go on.

b. Reader: "If the ball is thrown into the line-out, is a non-catcher allowed to step across to the other team's side to catch the knock-down?" Schalk Burger and Albert van den Berg did this against New Zealand last week.

Answer: It's a matter of timing. Until the ball is tapped, the non-catching side is required to stay on their side of the line of touch - i.e. the line down the middle between the two lines of player in the line-out, the line the hooker throws along.

Once the ball is tapped out of the line-out - away from the payers in the line-out - then off-side lines vanish and Burger and Van den Berg are allowed to play on the All Black side. But they are not allowed to move there till after the tap that ends the line-out.

9. Latham on Gaffie:

Much has been said about Chris Latham's block on Gaffie du Toit after Du Toit had chipped beyond Latham.

We could talk about all sorts of things in this regard but just one little point maybe worth making.

After Latham went into Du Toit, Du Toit flew into the air like a soccer player wanting a penalty. Perhaps that is why the referee - who had no action replay - was persuaded that nothing untoward had happened. Perhaps Du Toit had hammed it up too much.

If that was in fact the case, it seems like a worthwhile happening. Decisions are best left to referees and situations are best left unmilked.

10. Advantage time and the TMO:

With time running out Chris Latham attacks the goal-line, reaches out in an attempt to score a try. The next thing the ball is in the hands of the Springbok scrum-half Fourie du Preez. Du Preez hoofs the ball a long way down the field. He chases and Clyde Rathbone of Australia comes across in cover. Rathbone saves brilliantly and the Wallabies come back on the attack.

The play eventually ends when Latham and Marius Joubert scuffle and Clyde Rathbone joins in in a silly fashion.

Now that there is a stoppage the referee goes to the television match official to see whether Latham had scored a try.

The television match official advises him that he had lost the ball, leaving Du Preez in a position to take advantage.

Reader: "Would the seconds that elapsed between the break in play and the moment at which the referee went back to the Bok goal-line for a TMO ruling on a suspected Wallaby try have been "added" back in if the try had been awarded?"

Answer: In fact, it took 73 seconds between Latham's losing the ball and the eventual stoppage. At that desperate time of the game, 73 second was vital - as the All Blacks had shown at Christchurch the week before.

If Latham had scored, it seems that those 73 seconds should have been put back on, which would have left precious little time after the ensuing conversion.

The logistics of adding time back on are difficult.

In Tri-Nations match the timekeeping is done off the field. The referee signals time-off and time-on. Clocks are stopped and the television clock becomes actual time, thus eliminating mysterious injury time.

But in this case the clock could not be stopped. It was running time. It would not be all that easy for the timekeeper to work out how much time to add on. And the conversion would have effectively ended the match in any case.

But this could have happened with five minutes to go and then the 73 seconds would count.

Nemo ad impossibile tenetur. Nobody is bound by the impossible. It would be impossible to add the time back on. It's just hard luck.

A similar case: The wing charges down the field and just puts a bit of foot on the line, causing the touch judge to hoist his flag. The wing speeds on. The defenders scurry. Play goes on for quite some time before the referee becomes aware of the touch judge, standing like a statue.

Nobody can expect that time to be added on. It's tough luck.

11. Why the retaliator:

Reader: "Marius Joubert hit Stirling Mortlock first. Mortlock hit back. Why is it that the retaliator is penalised, as happened to Mortlock?"

Answer: It does not always make sense. After all the player who punches first, Joubert in this case, is the instigator. That the retaliator - Mortlock - retaliates is understandable in an emotional contact sport. But he becomes guilty of taking the law into his own hands.

Law 10.4 (j): Retaliation. A player must not retaliate. Even if an opponent is infringing the Laws, a player must not do anything that is dangerous to the opponent.
Penalty: Penalty Kick.

The truth is that both players should be penalised, but the laws do not allow for that! Perhaps the referee should penalise the first puncher and then penalise the retaliator, thus making it clear that both have done wrong.

Some referees in some circumstances would opt to be more severe on the instigator.

In the incident you mention, the surprising thing is that Clyde Rathbone was not penalised or spoken to. After all he came running in from outside, even later than the retaliator, and he knocked Joubert to the ground.

It would seem that players who join in a scrap which is not theirs, should be severely dealt with. They are just making the situation worse.

12 Maul on and on:

Reader: "I have a question about the rolling maul. A well-organised maul is very difficult to stop once it gets going, especially close to line. The defending team has few options, as it may not collapse the maul, and trying to stop it or push it back doesn't always work if the attacking team is given the time and opportunity to regroup and redirect the maul. The odds are stacked in favour of the attacking team.

"However, I think referees give attacking teams far too much lenience in reorganising and redirecting mauls once they come to a stop. The law is actually very clear on this: If a maul remains stationary or stops moving forward FOR LONGER THAN FIVE SECONDS, the team in possession has to produce the ball or concede a scrum. If a stationary maul starts moving forward within five seconds but then stops moving forward a second time, the team in possession must produce the ball or concede a scrum. In other words, when a maul stops moving forward for the second time, it is over. And note, moving sideways doesn't count: the only movement that counts is forward. (See Law 6 (a), (c) (d) and (e).)

"Five seconds is a very short time. Yet we often see mauls stopping or moving sideways for a lot longer than five seconds before resuming their forward march or stopping and starting again, ad nauseam. If referees started applying the five-second rule, we would see a lot less mauling and, perhaps, a lot more open rugby.

"I would be interested in your thoughts on this matter."

Answer: I am not sure that this is a question as the reader seems to have dealt with it fully enough. This is now a matter of application, not law.

13. 10-metre error:

Reader: "I have seen no further comment or had a reply on the mistake made in your law comment section with regard to the 10m Law. There is no 20 m band, just one line 10 m ahead of the player waiting to receive the ball and everyone from the kicker's team must be behind it even if they are originally 10 m further downfield from the player waiting to receive the ball. The change in Law from the 10 m circle was made in part to rule out this type of situation."

Answer: I am sorry if I did not reply but I did not get an earlier query. I am not altogether I understand either. Does that mean that a player of the kicker's team who is a metre behind the catcher is not off-side under the 10-metre law? That does not make sense. But the la we does suggest just the line in front of the catcher.

Law 11.4 OFF-SIDE UNDER THE 10-METRE LAW

(a) When a team-mate of an off-side player has kicked ahead, the off-side player is considered to be taking part in the game if the player is in front of an imaginary line across the field which is 10 metres from the opponent waiting to play the ball, or from where the ball lands or may land. The off-side player must immediately move behind the imaginary 10 metre line. While moving away, the player must not obstruct an opponent.

(b) While moving away, the off-side player cannot be put on-side by any action of the opposing team. However, before the player has moved the full 10 metres, the player can be put on-side by any on-side team-mate who runs in front of the player.

(c) When a player who is off-side under the 10-metre law charges an opponent waiting to catch the ball, the referee blows the whistle at once and the off-side player is penalised. Delay may prove dangerous to the opponent.

14. Tackle or not

Reader: "The IRB has amended the definition of a tackle and tackler. It is not clear to me whether a tackle has occurred when the ball-carrier is brought to ground and held by an opponent who remains on his feet. The opponent is not a tackler under the new definition.

"If this does not constitute a tackle then Law 14 applies - the ball-carrier can get up with it and the opponent cannot prevent him.

"However, if a tackle is deemed to have occurred, the opponent cannot play the ball as a tackler under Law 15. He must make sure he plays the ball from his side of it.

"Can a tackle only occur when there is a tackled player and a tackler, that is both the ball carrier and an opponent holding him on the ground?

"Your comments please."

Answer: You are right - and wrong.

It is still a tackle in terms of the law.

Law 15 Definition: A tackle occurs when a ball-carrier in a standing position is simultaneously held by one or more opponents and is brought to the ground and/or the ball touches the ground.

That player is known as the tackled player. Any opponents of the tackled player who go to ground are known as tacklers.

It is a tackle but there is no tackler within the definition. That means that the player who tackles stays on his feet must play the ball from behind the tackled player, as is the case with all players.

15. Kicker off-side?

Reader: "The questions I have relates to the recent NZ vs SA game. Would you please explain the off-side law relating to the following scenario?

"NZ win a scrum/maul. Marshall passes to Carlos Spencer who kicks ahead. Spencer runs past the Springbok player who is jumping to catch the ball. The ball deflects from the Springbok player straight to Spencer standing behind him (effectively off-side?).

"The reason why I ask is as a result of the following scenario published on the website:

"This is from a Currie Cup match in Witbank. The Pumas kick the ball a long way down the field. Inside the Blue Bulls' 22, the ball comes low to a Blue Bulls player who tries to trap the ball like a soccer player. The ball bounces off his foot towards the Blue Bulls' try-line and about ten metres infield at an angle towards the posts. There is a Puma player between the Blue Bulls player and the Blue Bulls' try-line, about five metres behind the Blue Bulls player."

"The Puma player scored a try. The try was awarded. Is this all right?"

Answer: The player is off-side. That the player did not actually catch the ball does not matter as the 10 metres starts from where the ball lands. That the player is behind the catcher, does not matter as the 10 metres is on each side of the catcher/place of bounce. That the Pumas player is infield does not matter because the 10-metre no-go zone now stretches right across the field - from touch-line to touch-line. That makes it a huge no-go zone of 20 metres by 70 metres, that is 1400 square metres! That's 0,14 hectares, 0,35 acres.

Let's look at Law 11.44 OFF-SIDE UNDER THE 10-METRE LAW

(a) When a team-mate of an off-side player has kicked ahead, the off-side player is considered to be taking part in the game if the player is in front of an imaginary line across the field which is 10 metres from the opponent waiting to play the ball, or from where the ball lands or may land. The off-side player must immediately move behind the imaginary 10 metre line. While moving away, the player must not obstruct an opponent.
Penalty: Penalty kick

(b) While moving away, the off-side player cannot be put on-side by any action of the opposing team. However, before the player has moved the full 10 metres, the player can be put on-side by any on-side team-mate who runs in front of the player.

(d) When a player who is off-side under the 10-metre law plays the ball which has been mis-fielded by an opponent, the off-side player is penalised.
Penalty: Penalty kick

(f) The 10-metre law does not apply when a player kicks the ball, and an opponent charges down the kick, and a team-mate of the kicker who was in front of the imaginary 10 metre line across the field then plays the ball. The opponent was not 'waiting to play the ball' and the team-mate is on-side.

Penalty: When a player is penalised for being off-side in general play, the opposing team chooses either a penalty kick at the place of infringement or a scrum at the place where the offending team last played the ball. If it was last played in that team's in-goal, the scrum is formed 5 metres from the goal-line in line with where it was played.

I suspect that he may not have been off-side due to the fact that he kicked the ball and moved effectively from an on-side position to where he caught the ball.

Answer: Carlos Spencer was on-side. The player who last played the ball was a Springbok, not an All Black. There was no ruck/maul/tackle.
 
There was no reason at all why Spencer should have been considered off-side. It would be impossible for the kicker to put himself off-side at a kick!