Readers' questions

Bits and pieces related to recent happenings

There have been several readers' questions of late, and it may be fairer to answer them now rather than leave them to the post-Test wash-up.

1. Nonexistent tackler:

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.
 
"The definition of a tackle in your Laws section differs from the wording in the Laws book.
 
"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?"
- Mike Dimambro, CUDRRS

Answer: Bizarre as it sounds we can have a tackle without a tackler - but only in terms of the laws and only in one application of the laws.

The law of the tackle now defines the tackler and what he is allowed to do.

Law 15 Definition: Opposition players who hold the ball-carrier and bring that player to ground and who also go to ground, are known as tacklers. Opposition players who hold the ball-carrier and do not go to ground are not tacklers.

That means a tackle without a tackler is within the scope of the law.

What it means in practice is that the standing tackler must play the ball from the right direction, i.e. from directly behind the tackle.

2. Latham's long wait:

Reader: "Close to the end of the Tri-Nations match in Perth last weekend, there was a long passage of play after  Chris Latham attempted to place the ball over the try-line, ending with a  bit of push and shove between the two teams. The TMO found that Latham had  knocked on and so the ref had correctly let play go on (one excellent  decision in a great performance by this referee).

"Here's my question. Had the TMO found that Latham scored the try,  but the ongoing play had ended with a piece of foul play unquestioningly  deserving at least a penalty, what could the officials do?"
- Rob, Camden, NSW

Answer: The referee would award the try and then deal with the foul play. What is possible is that he send off the miscreant(s), allow the conversion and then restart the match with a penalty against the guilty party, if one is so defined, on the half-way line.

3. Gregan "baulks":

Reader: "In my opinion, a number of the so-called off-side decisions in favour of Australia in the two Wallaby home games were caused by Gregan baulking at the base of the ruck. This used to be popular some 30-40 years ago but was outlawed fairly quickly.

"If a halfback is standing, then goes down apparently to pick up the ball it is virtually impossible for players waiting behind their own side of the ruck to see that he does not, in fact, intend to collect the ball. The referee should have penalized Gregan, not the defensive players. This was the case when Williams was given a yellow card, which had a major influence on the outcome of the match."

Answer: Let's look at the law.

Law 19.16 (f) A player must not take any action to make the opposing team think that the ball is out of the ruck while it is still in the ruck.

Wouldn't you have thought that this is aimed at eliminating the pretended pass, a big gesture, not bending to pick up the ball?

If we treated that as baulking we should have a plethora of penalties and poor scrum-halves doomed to stand upright until they dart down to the ball at the last moment.

4. Bleeding:

a. Reader: "Fairly early in the game Stirling Mortlock hurt his arm and received some on-field attention. About five minutes later he went off, holding his arm. I thought it was a permanent replacement because I looked for blood and couldn't see any. I later noticed that he had come back on and his arm seemed fine. Maybe there was some blood that I couldn't see on TV.
 
"My question is: Is there some sort of rule ensuring that players going off for blood are treated for that, and nothing else? If there isn't, there should be, as it seems to happen fairly often."

Answer: At all matches at this level there are match officials controlling the coming and going of players - one for each team. When Mortlock comes off, the match official attending to the Australians would look at Mortlock and see whether or not he was bleeding, and it does not take a lot of blood to be bleeding.

Then there is a match doctor, unattached to either team. He will also examine the player. If the player is bleeding he will confirm it to the match official looking after Australia.

If the bleeding is stopped in time and the player then wants to go back onto the field the match official attached to the Wallabies will control his return.

If you look at the match, you will see Mortlock coming off the field with an attendant holding his right arm. The official charged with the comings and goings of the Wallabies then goes up to Mortlock, examines the side of his head and gives Matthew Burke the thumbs-up to go onto the field.

5. The tackler and the ruck:

Reader: "Say New Zealand is playing Australia.  McCaw tackles Mortlock from behind and both players go to ground.  McCaw gets to his feet and starts playing the ball from the 'wrong side' as he is allowed to do as the tackler.  McCaw fails to steal the ball and is cleared out by Smith.

"A) Is a ruck formed when McCaw and Smith make contact or does McCaw retain his status as the tackler in the tackle situation, thus open play?

"B) If the situation above does constitute a ruck, would the ruck cease to exist if McCaw fell over, thus leaving no players on their feet over the ball?"

Answer: A) It could constitute a ruck if they are over the ball which is on the ground.

I am not sure what you mean about his retaining his status as a tackler. It is certainly no longer "open play".Law 16 Definition: 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.

He is not allowed to use his hands to get the ball.

B) The ruck does not cease to exist till the ball emerges from the formation that formed the ruck. In other words the off-side lines remain until the ball is clear of the feet and bodies of the ruck. When the ruck is formed, off-side lines are formed. They cease to exist when the ball emerges not because a player has toppled over.

6. Wrong place:

Reader: "In the Australia v NZ game there was a free-kick given at a scrum, I think it was in the second half. The player taking it took the kick from the wrong place and the referee pulled him back and asked him to retake the kick. Law 21.2a says the kick must be taken on or behind the mark and the penalty written at the end of Law 21.2 says if there is an infringement there should be a scrum with the opposing team putting in the ball. Any thoughts on why the referee did not implement this law, or have I got it wrong?"

- Martin Stephenson

Answer: You do not have it wrong. Mostly when this happens the referee has not given the place. That means that there is no right place or wrong place.

Players are told repeatedly, for example, that they will be allowed to take a tap kick if they do it even before the referee has raked the place, provided they do it from the right place.

If the infringement is in the bowels of the scrum, they would be allowed to tap from behind the scrum, not next to the referee. But in the heat of battle even top players get this one wrong and then the poor referee gets tagged pedantic.

7. Tuqiri and Meeuws on the ground"

This is a tough one to answer.

Reader: "A question regarding Tuqiri's disallowed try (The referee actually said he was 'short').

"Law 15 says a tackle can only take place in the field of play and Law 22 says that a defender on his feet can prevent a tackled player from placing the ball over the goal line in the act of scoring. Tuqiri was tackled very near to the goal line and tried to force the ball on the goal-line but was pushed back by the elbow of a Kiwi defender lying on the ground. Tuqiri's body never made it to the goal line as he was dragged to the ground in the field of play. Conversely the Kiwi defender's body was lying partially in the field of play and partially in the in-goal as the tackle was completed.

"My question is whether or not the tackle took place in the field of play? If it did take place in the field of play then a penalty try could have ensued because the defender (the tackler) was on the ground and continuing to hold onto Tuqiri whilst Tuqiri was trying to place the ball (over the goal line). In other words, did the tackler violate Law 15 and Law 22 (by not first getting to his feet before attempting to grab the ball from Tuqiri)?"

- Phil (Sydney)

Answer: It was an extremely difficult situation, as you have pointed out.

First when Kees Meeuws tackled Lote Tuqiri both players were on their feet. There was nothing wrong with the manner in which Tuqiri and Meeuws went to ground.

Meeuws pushes back the ball as he and Tuqiri are almost on the ground, or so it seems in real time. It was not as if they hit the ground, lay on the ground for some time and then Meeuws pushed the ball back.

The ball at that stage was not on the ground. It was in the air and looked to be over the line in the air.

The referee asked about the grounding of the ball in in-goal, which is the advice he is allowed to ask. He is not allowed to ask about what happened in the field of play. He said to the television match official: "Just check for me on the grounding of the ball. The touch judge and I couldn't see it. If you're not certain we're going back for a penalty for gold."

On the tape which I have there is no clear evidence that Tuqiri who has the ball in his left hand/arm actually tries to place the ball over the line.

The situation is not clear.

It would seem that the referee and the television match official made the best of a tough situation.

It would also be asking unnatural virtue of Meeuws not to play the ball. You are right when you say that a defender on his feet is allowed to pull the ball from the arms of a player trying to place it over the line.

Meeuws was on the ground. What he did on the ground was not clear. Whether Tuqiri tries to place it was unclear. Whether Tuqiri was prevented from trying to place it was unclear.

A penalty try may be a theoretic possibility in such a case but it would have to be a clearer case than this one seemed to be.

8. Fine the ref!

Reader: "I think it is time referees get financial penalties when making bad decisions.

"The rugby players get fined for dirty play, professional fouls and mistakes they make, but referees get away with their mistakes. I know we need referees, otherwise the game can't be played! But, that gives no referee the right not to be penalised. I know that reports are written by both teams (hopefully). But harsher measures need to be taken to keep the referees on their toes."

- James Longland

Answer: I have omitted some of the letter and just want to comment on first statement.

A mistake is not the dame as foul play. Players are fined for foul play but imagine what would happen if they were fined for mistakes - so much for a knock-on, so much for a missed tackle and so on.

Then who would be the person to evaluate a refereeing error? You cannot go dishing out fines on perception. Otherwise a lot of time will be spent in some kind of court or another.

The truth is that the top referees make few mistakes - which is why they are top referees!