Durban decider - Part Three

Reaction to readers' reactions

The Tri-Nations decider between South Africa and Australia in Durban produced a lot of reaction from readers. We consider a few points and publish some comments below.

1. Time, please

Reader: "I have a small suggestion. When you are discussing actual game situations, might you consider giving us a time code to help us relocate the situation when we go back and examine the situation in light of your comments. It shouldn't be too hard because you have clearly gone back to review the tape and aren't doing it from memory. Something along the lines of '1st half 21:30'."

Marty Perry, Chicago

Comment: Of course, we can do that if it helps with one little proviso. The idea of referring to incidents is really to discuss the laws and see if we cannot make the complex simple and clearer. It's not a finger-pointing exercise.

2. Paulse and that yellow card

Reader A: "It is my opinion that rules and laws are set to govern, generally, what is not allowed as opposed to what is allowed. I think that Paulse was correct in playing the ball, in fact, I believe that the penalty should have gone the other way for not releasing the ball. The fact that it was a yellow card is unacceptable either way!"

Robert Elliott

Answer: By the way, rugby football speaks of laws, not rules - much more elevated!

You have a point about the not releasing. It seems from the tape - seems - that Breyton Paulse pushes the ball back with his hands through his legs, which would constitute a knock-on, as back through his legs was towards the Wallaby line. It then seems - seems - that Jeremy Paul, lying on the ground, grabbed the ball back. That would be illegal as he was tackled and on the ground and no longer entitled to play the ball.

Reader B: "All very interesting and valid, but what about the card? You never mention if it was right or wrong.

"Do you think he was intentionally slowing the ball down? Did he think he was doing anything illegal at the time or did he react like any other player would have? The team had just been warned for slowing the ball down but was Paulse trying to do the same thing."

"I personally don't think so, but do agree it is a borderline decision. All the more reason for it not being a yellow card.

"A good thing is that O'Brien called it the way he saw it. At least he is consistent on that front."

Clayton Delplanque, Arabian Gulf

Comment: We were discussing the law. I should have thought than when we decided that Paulse was not doing anything illegal that there existed no reason for him to be shown a yellow card.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with slowing the ball down. If Paulse was legal in what he did, then it was all right for him to slow the ball down, though it really looked as if he was trying to get possession of the ball.

The player slowing the ball down must not employ legal means to slow it down - for example by lying on the ground and holding on to the ball, by using hands to block its emergence from a ruck.

Was there really anything borderline about the decision?

Reader C: "Firstly it was clear that Breyton's yellow card was a refereeing error

"Secondly the only players that received warnings at the ruck and/or maul were Springboks

"The fact that Monty had 3 kicks at goal arising from ruck and maul situations (twice by the same player) did not cause our the referee to consider a warning

"As there is no rule in Rugby that defines the severity of a foul based on the position on the field (and if there was, within kicking distance would be getting close to a 'scoring opportunity') it does seem strange that an referee warns only one side and then gets what could have been a crucial decision wrong."

Dave Johnstone, South Africa

Comment: You are right there is nothing explicit in the laws about the position on the field, but I should have thought that it was acceptable practice to be stricter on such offences in the "red zone", that is close to a goal-line. That seems a mater of commonsense, especially as such an act is linked to a penalty try which is normally the result of some illegal action close to the goal-line.

None of the Wallaby offences were close to their goal-line.

Secondly the South African offences late in the match were in a pretty concentrated period - three in three minutes.

I did not hear everything the referee said but I did hear him warn Brendan Cannon that he would show him a yellow card if he delayed the throw in once more. Cannon was then substituted.

The whole question of repeated infringements is a matter for the referee to decide.

Reader D: "I do not see what the fuss is all about. Breyton Paulse tackled Jeremy Paul, Breyton Paulse then got to his feet (which he is allowed to do) and tried to play the ball back (which he is allowed to do). The things he did wrong (yes there are two things) were: 1. He was facing the wrong way when he got to his feet, which puts him in front of the ball, Offside. 2. When he played the ball he tried to put it through his legs (which he is allowed to do), but because he was facing the wrong way.....Knock on.

"Did he not put some amazing tackles in? He got yellowed because the ref had just warned John Smit, just a minute and a half before, that any further infringements would result in a yellow. Yes, Breyton did not realise he was on the wrong side, but he made an infringement."

Terry Quirke, Cambridgeshire

Comment: There was nothing wrong with the way he was facing. There was nothing wrong with having feet in front of the ball. There is no off-side line at a tackle. A tackle does not produce an off-side line. The ball does not produce an off-side line.

In order for a player to get a yellow card, he needs to do something wrong. A knock-on of an unintentional nature is no reason to give a yellow card.

Reader E: "I hope you intend covering the sequence of events, and legalities, that led to Breyton Paulse of SA being yellow carded a few mins before the end of the match, in your 'laws discussion' column, later this week. If so please explain the law as it applies to the Aussie Smith who came from the SA side to 'form the ruck'.

"I think I understand, but not having the luxury of replay, nor a ref's knowledge of the laws, it's easier for you just to elucidate if you don't mind, rather than for me to go through what I think happened and my interpretation of the application of the laws.

"Despite the ref's prior warning, that the next deliberate infringement by SA would be yellow carded, I feel the card was harsh. The 'ruck, tackle thing', as you so accurately call it, is a minefield of changing legalities and needs simplification."

Tim Hunter

Comment: I think we covered the event in fair detail. In the matter of Smith, let's just say that at a tackle all players who are not the tackler or the tackled player musty come from behind. That would include Smith. But that is about the tackle, not a ruck.

If there was no ruck and he formed it by his arrival then it does not matter - as far a ruck is concerned and not taking the tackle into consideration - what side he comes from.

Reader F: "During the second half of the Tri-Nations decider Breyton Paulse was penalized at the Tackle/Ruck. He was on his feet and the play by play man was quite confused as to the call. I am aware that the law interpretation has changed recently to say that all players must retire to 1 meter behind the tackle on their side of the ball.

"I assume that the referee was applying this new interpretation of the law. This interpretation was imparted to me by the referee that operates out of my local club. Is he and was the referee correct...I can understand why the interpretation has been changed because in some instances, in my own experience it is very difficult to tell who the tackler was at ground level and requiring all players to retire makes it much easier for all involved to make sure that the laws of the game are abided. Any info in this issue would be much appreciated."

Eric Wittmer, Miamisburg, Ohio

Comment: The word "interpretation" is not a happy one. There should be just application. That applies above all to this business of retiring one metre behind the tackle. I am sure that no such law exists. I am sure than any such suggestion is dangerous.

Reader G: "Breyton Paulse got sent off. At first look, we thought the referee had got it right. He'd just warned the side and Paulse had infringed at the ruck.

"But in the replay, it suddenly looked very different. Paulse was the tackler. He went to ground, got to his feet and played the ball. It seemed to me that Larkham should actually have been penalised for coming in from the side. Did my eyes deceive me?"

Patrick Cairns, South Africa

Comment: Your eyes did not deceive you. There was an error. And Stephen Larkham may well have been penalisable for coming in at the side.

3. Time, please, more time

Reader: "There didn't seem to be much extra time given taking into consideration the amount of times Paddy stopped the game to have words with people."
 
Mark, Sydney, Australia

Comment: There is no such thing as extra time. There is playing time. When the referee talks to the player, he calls 'time-out'. The clock stops.

In SANZAR matches there is a time-keeper. He would stop his clock. He would then start it again when the referee calls 'time- on'.

4. Poor Percy

Percy Montgomery of South Africa kicked a high ball and chased after it. Chris Latham of Australia leapt for the ball. Montgomery is on his feet when his shoulders make contact with the leaping Latham at knee-level. Brendan Cannon is about six metres in the front of Latham.

Reader A: "Percy clearly had his eyes on the ball and was looking up, obviously intending to compete in the air for the ball. He was, in fact tripped by Wallaby hooker Brendan Cannon, he stumbled, and ended up falling into Latham's legs - completely innocent on Monty's part, and a very harsh call by the ref."

Comment: After the match Montgomery said that he had stumbled as his foot had struck a divot. He certainly did not claim that he was tripped nor was there any clear evidence of any such trip. There is evidence of a slight stumble.

"When he made contact with Latham he was on the ground, his eyes down. He was not leaping up to play the ball.

"It would be difficult indeed to expect the referee not to give a yellow card in such a case. Doubtless his eyes were on Latham, for he was the vulnerable player."

Reader B: "Just a short note concerning the yellow card given to Montgomery in the Tri-Nations 'Final'. I agree that based on the rules, the tackle was made in the air, and subsequently the ref had no choice - but surely a question of intent should be raised?

"As was pointed out by Nick Mallet, our former coach in a post-match analysis, slow-mo clearly shows Monty stumbling (in full flight), bare metres before crashing into Latham, after Monty had connected with an Australian player who was in the vicinity.

"From the replay, I honestly think that even had Monty not wanted to connect, his momentum, on account of having stumbled - left him with no real choice. In short, an unavoidable error. How crucial an error it could have been too!

"Surely the IRB should consider distinguishing between dangerous play with intent on the one hand, and dangerous play without on the other? In demonstration, Marius Joubert can perhaps be considered lucky for not receiving a yellow because of an earlier infringement in the air - also on Latham (who, by the way - deserves an Oscar!). What are your thoughts on this matter?"
 
Bradley Greenhalgh

Comment: The fact is that Latham was in the air and Montgomery made contact with him, causing him to fall. That is illegal.

Law 10.4 (h) Tackling the jumper in the air. A player must not tackle nor tap, push or pull the foot or feet of an opponent jumping for the ball in a line-out or in open play.
Penalty: Penalty Kick

The referee did not have any slow-motion replay of any kind. He had to react on what he saw.

I presume you are speaking of the Marius Joubert late tackle when he, not Latham, was in the air. I don't think there was any thought of giving him a yellow card.

5. Go to the TMO

Reader: "Another interesting observation was the speed with which the ref gave the pushover try to the Aussies - no waiting for telly ref, no wasting time."
 
Mike, Johannesburg

Comment: The protocol for the use of the television match official suggests that the referee should in fact try to make up his own mind:

The referee must make an effort to make an adjudication. If he is unsighted or has doubt, he will then use the following process (3).

In this case the referee obviously had a good view of what happened. He may well have had a better view than any camera could have had.

Giving the decision quickly is a virtue.

6. Hammer them

Reader: "While the South African resurgence in world rugby is impressive, I am firmly of the opinion that if the current batch of International Referees had any idea, then maybe the Springboks would be at the same lowly level they were after the World Cup.

"How many times will players be allowed to use the 'swarm defence' (translation: being a mile off-side, and not being adequately penalised for it), and the referee just warn the player, or the team, and do nothing?

"The Boks have been allowed to get away with professional fouls time and again, but the refs do nothing, and that is little short of weak on their behalf. South Africa had a player sent off for the grand total of 1½ minutes, and for continual professional fouls, that is no punishment at all, particularly with an international trophy on the line. They should have been forced to play out an extra 8 and a half minutes with 14 men, and then the punishment would have been felt. Anything else is a joke.

"Further, why is any side allowed to get away with that sort of nonsense, and only be penalised so late in the game? The first time a professional foul of that nature is committed, the captain of the infringing side should be put on notice. The second time, a blunt warning should be given. For any related infringement thereafter, the card should come out. Then sides would take referees seriously, and the spectators could enjoy a cleaner and more satisfying game."

R. Astill, Adelaide, Australia

Comment: What you have to say about off-side is too unspecific to deal with. Suffice it to say that if it was so obvious, it is strange that three of the very top referees in the world should have missed it!

If your suggestion were carried out about early warning, the first players in that match who would have been sent to the sin bin may well have been Wallabies! Smith was penalised three times in the match tackle-related infringements, Waugh twice and Lyons twice. The Wallabies were penalised right times for tackle-related offences, the Springboks seven times.

The idea of playing on for as long as the players is supposed to be in the sin bin has no foundation in Law whatsoever. It's bizarre. The game is governed by laws. Both teams know the laws before the match, and that's it.

How long would you play on for if the player was sent off entirely with a minute to go?

7. TMO protocol

The question here refers to the penalising of Os du Randt when he was close to the goal line and used his knees to propel himself forward. The referee consulted the television match official asking two questions - about the grounding of the ball and whether Du Randt had in fact propelled himself forward illegally.

Reader: "The ref called in the TV ref and asked him to comment - if the ball was grounded.
 
"Surely then the answer should have been NO and a five-yard scrum awarded.
 
"So the question is. Is the third ref allowed to comment on something that happened earlier and if so how much earlier?

"If the ref did not see Os then too bad. If he did see Os then why go upstairs?"

Robert

Comment: The television match official does not give advice off his own bat. He responds to referees questions. The referee in this case asked the two questions above.

The question is whether it is within the protocol to ask for advice on what happened in getting to the goal-line.

The protocol: The TMO must not be requested to provide information on players prior to the ball going into in-goal (except touch in the act of grounding the ball).

It may have been by letter of law possibly the wrongish sort of thing to do, but it got the right answer, which is the object of the exercise.