The Sydney Test - Part One

Stats and discussion

New Zealand won the first Bledisloe Cup encounter more convincingly than the 16-7 scoreline suggests. Australia won the second Bledisloe Cup encounter more convincingly than the 23-18 scoreline suggests.

We give some statistics, discuss a matter or two, and deal with readers' questions. We shall give the readers' questions here with brief answers. In Part Two we shall deal with off-side, including the vexed matter of off-side in the Tri-Nations, which may well cover readers' questions in greater detail.

1. Penalties conceded

These represent the number of times each team was penalised.

Australia: 9
New Zealand: 13

Reasons for the penalties

Australia:
Tackle/ruck: 4 (Harrison*, Smith** 2, Sharpe*)
Off-side: 2 (Young, Sharpe*)
Scrum: 1 (Young)
Discipline: 2 (Verbal - Gregan, Man without ball - Waugh*)

New Zealand:
Tackle/ruck: 5 (Umaga*, Hayman, Meeuws*, Umaga, Gibbes)
Off-side: 6 (Rush* 2, Spencer, Mealamu*, Williams 2, Marshall*)
Discipline: 1 (Man without ball - Rush*)
* = penalty goal

2. Line-outs

This is the number of times a team throw into a line-out.

Australia: 8 (2 lost, 1 penalty)
New Zealand: 15 (5 lost)

3. Scrums

This the number of times a team put the ball into a scrum.

Australia: 7 (5 reset, 1 free kick)
New Zealand: 9 (2 reset, 1 penalty)

4. Free-kicks

This is the number of times a team received a free kick.

Australia: 1 (scrum)
New Zealand: 0

5. Drop-outs

Australia dropped out three times, New Zealand not once.

6. Full 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	9
New Zealand	5		5	13
South Africa	10	13

Sanctionary punishments - cards and citings

The yellow card this week went to Ali Williams for being the fifth All Black penalised for being off-side in the first half.

The fracas in touch, over the hoardings, in the first half was not edifying or worthy of a match of this calibre, but it produced no citing or indeed any form of punishment.

	vs Aus 1	vs NZ 1	vs SA 1	vs Aus 2	vs NZ 2	vs SA 2
Australia		Y,C
New Zealand	Y			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		1
New Zealand	1		1	0
South Africa	3	3

7. In or out?

George Smith has the ball, running towards the touch-line on his left. Keven Mealamu of New Zealand drives into him. Smith tries to stay on his feet in-field and then as he is forced over the line he lifts his feet and airborne over the line flings the ball back inside straight to George Gregan.

In touch or not?

The touch judge hoisted his flag for a line-out to New Zealand.

Commentator: "A bad decision by the touch judge. A mistake. The ball was flung in-field while Smith was in mid-air. Thats not out."

Law 19 Definitions

The ball is in touch when a player is carrying it and the ball-carrier (or the ball) touches the touch-line or the ground beyond the touch-line.

Neither Smith nor the ball touched the touch-line or the ground beyond it.

One to the commentator?
 
8. Reversed penalty and the captain

The referee penalises Carlos Spencer of New Zealand for being off-side right under the New Zealand posts. It is the second time a New Zealander has been penalised for being off-side.

There is nothing in the Laws of the Game, which suggests that the referee needs to debate decisions with players, even the captain. Man management suggests that the referees should give reasons for their decisions which they do verbally and with a set of approved signals.

That is as far as it goes. There is still not debate, and the habit of some captains to give the referee advice is not a good one.

Interestingly, the week before Gregan and had insisted to John Smith, the Springbok captain, that the referee was the one making decisions when Smit was making suggestions about how stamping should be handled!

Law 6.A.6: All players must respect the authority of the referee. They must not dispute the referees decisions.

9. "Hands off, Gold"

Daniel Carter of New Zealand is tackled. Inevitably George Smith of Australia is there. George Gregan of Australia is also there. In drives Keven Mealamu and Ali Williams of New Zealand to drive the predatory Smith away. They are on their feet, as are Smith and Gregan.

The referee calls: "Gold, let go, let go."

Smith does not let go but comes away with the ball in his hands.

The referee penalises Smith.

Commentator 1: "George Smith looked like he was on his feet. And George Gregan's not happy."

And, at the replay: "There you see No.6 with the hair - George Smith - on his feet."

Commentator 2: "The referee said halfway through - 'gold let go, let go'. Then George has come and had a chop at it. I think he was hard done by."

Commentator 3: "I disagree. I think there was definitely a ruck formed there and it's a fair penalty to New Zealand. Player in contact over the ball, which was on the ground."

Which commentator was right? The third. It was a ruck. Smith was on his feet and so complying with the law concerning the tackle, but he was using his hands which violated the law concerning the ruck - and this was a ruck.

10. One-sided off-side?

When England were in Australasia, there was talk about obstruction. When the Pacific Islanders were playing, the talk was about dangerous tackles. Now that we have had four rounds of the Tri-Nations, there is talk about off-side - lots of talk.

So far in the Tri-Nations, after four matches, there have been 16 penalties for off-side - two against Australia in three matches, six against New Zealand in three matches and eight against South Africa in two matches.

Reader: I don't really understand the way that the offside rule can apply to the NZ players but not the Aussie loosies...I'm all for conforming to the games laws but there has to be some consistency!

And how did Ali Williams get penalised.....he was no where near the play?

Guess where I come from......

Answer: The simple answer is that perhaps the Australians were not off-side, or at least as often as New Zealand. In fact in three Tri-Nations matches they have been penalised for being off-side only twice. In their earlier Tests this year - against Scotland twice, England and the Pacific Islanders - they were penalised five times. That's seven times in seven Tests. They actually doubled their average this last weekend!

We shall deal with the Ali Williams case in Part Two, but certainly he was on the scene of the action - very much so - and off-side.

11.  Two-man ruck

a. Reader: This is a comment to the article on your website 4 August. Mr. André Watson commented on the All Blacks complaint of the Boks being off side at the tackle/ruck.

Law 15 7 c states: At a tackle or near to a tackle, other players who play the ball must do so from behind the ball and from behind the tackled player or the tackler closest to those players' goal-line.

No place in the tackle section does it say other defenders off the ball and in front of the tackled player may play the ball when switched to another offensive player thus claiming "open play".

Another quote from the article: "frequently on Saturday, the only defending Bok actually committed to the 'ruck' was the tackler himself. Except for that man, the SA defence preferred to stand off and string across the pitch, while a couple of token All Black forwards stepped over the tackled player and his tackler. In that moment, neither a ruck nor a maul was formed, as the tackler had no supporting player joining him, and so therefore the defence was free to be wherever it chose because it was still open play. The moment a second defender joined at the point of the tackle, a ruck was formed, and the defence had to retreat."

If there is in fact a ruck, then the other defenders are offside, not playing in open play. Was there a ruck or not? Just because the only defending Bok actually committed to the "ruck" was the tackler himself who started the ruck, he is still considered in the ruck. I don't understand Mr. Watson's theory. As pointed out above, all other players who attempt to play the ball must do so from behind the ball. Does the question of a ruck even enter into it?

I respect Mr. Watson as the finest ref in the world but I would appreciate some clarity in the case.

Shaun Gaffney
Coach, Xavier University
Cincinnati, Ohio USA

b. Reader (from South Africa): I don't understand. Your article "Off-side law key to NZ v Aus clash" contains the statement:

"Frequently on Saturday, the only defending Bok actually committed to the 'ruck' was the tackler himself. Except for that man, the SA defence preferred to stand off and string across the pitch, while a couple of token All Black forwards stepped over the tackled player and his tackler.

"In that moment, neither a ruck nor a maul was formed, as the tackler had no supporting player joining him, and so therefore the defence was free to be wherever it chose because it was still open play. The moment a second defender joined at the point of the tackle, a ruck was formed, and the defence had to retreat."

But the law says:

A ruck is a phase of play where one or more players from each team, who are on their feet, in physical contact, close around the ball on the ground. Open play has ended.'

So, surely, if the Springbok player was in contact with any of the opposition, a ruck was formed? There seems no requirement for a second Springbok.

Answer: In terms of the law a tackler is a player who goes to ground:

Law 15: Any opponents who go to ground are known as tacklers.

If the tackler is on the ground he is not in a position to form a ruck as only players on their feet can form rucks.

In Part Two we shall go into off-side in greater detail on this matter.

12. Line-out off-side?

Reader: While your analysis of the breakdown off-side is quite correct, I think if you look at the tape that only covers a few of the situations in the game. The classic was Burger who constantly went off-side at the line-out by crossing the line of touch and moving in front of the ball before the line-out was over - in the hope of securing a ball popped off the top (A breach of law 19 9 a). If you look at the tape you will see he did this consistently throughout the game and was never once pinged for it.

Then look at play when rucks (remember - only one person from each team need to be in contact over the ball for this to form) and mauls actually formed, and you'll see the Springboks were often offside - particularly the outside backs starting with De Wet Barry.

So while you're technically correct in your observation of one aspect of the Springbok's play, I think you've missed several other critical incidents that led to the New Zealand backs being closed down prematurely.

Having said that of course, New Zealand didn't help themselves by running such a flat backline in attack - which obviously cut down their room for manoeuvre and allowed the 'Boks a better chance of getting to the first tackle before the gain-line.

Aaron Martin, Referee with the LSRFUR

Answer:  Often in criticising a referee people use the word "blatant". If the referee misses something which they think was wrong it is often "blatant". The top referees in the world make blatant mistakes, it seems.

I fear "consistently" in this case may fall into that category.

In the first half the All Blacks threw into 11 line-outs. Burger went across the line of throw in just one of them the ninth. It would perhaps be fairer to say that he consistently did not cross the line of touch, that he was not constantly off-side. That maybe why he was not "pinged".

Lets look at that ninth line-out.

Keven Mealamu throw in deep. Jerry Collins backed to catch it. In backing up, he crossed the 15-metre line. When he did that the line-out was over and Burger was entitled to do what he did cross the line of touch which no longer was an off-side line because there was no longer a line-out.

In the second half there were ten line-outs to New Zealand. Burger went across the line of throw twice - at the 17th and the 21st line-outs.

In the case of the 17th he was at receiver (scrumhalf, if you like) and standing at the back,. The ball was thrown to Jono Gibbes at the back who backed over the 15-metre line. When the ball reached him, Burger went across the line of throw, but by then the line-out was over.

In the case of the 21st line-out Keven Mealamu threw deep to Jerry Collins who backed beyond the 15-metre line. Again the line-out was over.

That means that Burger did it three times out of 21 and on each occasion legally.

Perception deceives us all. Three times out of 21 line-outs hardly makes for "consistently throughout the game" or "constantly".

There is no doubt that we should be slow to criticise our top referees who are top referees because they make a habit of getting things right.

13. Advantage at a touchdown?

Reader (from the USA): Regarding the use of the TMO during the final moments of the match in Perth, it appeared to me that du Preez applied downward pressure to the ball while in-goal and then picked it up and played on.

Question: If the referee never asked the TMO whether the ball was grounded is the TMO barred from providing that information? Alternatively, did the TMO have the authority to bring the matter to the referee's attention and suggest/recommend that play be brought back to be restarted with a 22 drop? Certainly advantage does not apply if the ball is well and truly grounded in in-goal by the defenders (or does it?).

Answer: The referee clearly did not think that Fourie du Preez had grounded the ball, but picked it up, as Du Preez's subsequent actions suggest he himself thought, for he played on quickly.

Secondly, the television match official is allowed by the IRB's protocol only to answer requests and not to proffer advice where he was not asked. He could not then volunteer comment on Du Preez's grounding of the ball because all the referee asked was about Chris Latham's grounding of the ball.

You are right. There is no advantage if the ball is grounded in in-goal. Play stops. The ball is dead.

14. Two movements?

Reader: Larkham's try.. were there two movements?

Answer: The "two movements" business is always a worry. It does not exist in law and being undefined can be an unuseful shortcut.

What would be the first movement?

If the first movement is the tackle, the player is allowed to place the ball afterwards.

If the momentum of the tackle is such that it takes him further than the place of the tackle, then that is fine. But if he uses some means to propel his body towards the line after his forward movement has stopped then he is penalised.

He is not required to keep his body still but to move it only in the act of playing the ball. That may require a lifting of the body.

The act of placing must be done immediately.

Placing at the goal-line does not differ materially from placing elsewhere in the field of play, and one would not have penalised Larkham in this case for "two movements".

It is the outcome which differs at the goal-line. Differs greatly.

In this incident Stephen Larkham cuts sharply for the line. He is tackled from the side by Joe van Niekerk and Jacques Cronjé. Larkham falls short of the line. He places the ball for the try. The referee has an excellent view of what Larkham does and awards the try.