Cards and penalty tries

Law discussion

We look at bits from NPC and Currie Cup matches again. This includes a penalty try - again, though this time in the Currie Cup - and cards.

We also have a reader's question about an in-goal incident.

During the week we are going to deal with the forward pass.

In addition the You be the Ref tests are active again. To go to the latest, click here!

1. Penalty try at a scrum

The Free State Cheetahs attack the Blue Bulls. Juan Smith is over with Keegan Fredericks and Fourie du Preez clinging to him. The television match official suggests that Smith did not score. The referee then awards a five-metre scrum, Free State ball - as he should do.

Free State put the ball in quickly, and, astonishingly, considering the Blue Bulls' pack and proud history as scrummager, Free State shove the Blue Bulls back towards their goal-line, the ball at the feet of Johan Erasmus, the Free State No.8.

As the Free Staters shove rapidly ahead, the Blue Bulls' scrum disintegrates. The Free Staters shove on. The ball is some 10 or 15 centimetres from the Blue Bulls goal-line when Erasmus breaks up to grab the ball but he cannot because Fourie du Preez, the Blue Bulls' scrumhalf, has grabbed the ball.

The referee awards a penalty try.

It certainly looked that Free State were on the way to scoring a try. A try looked probable, certain in fact. If they were stopped by the actions of the Blue Bulls' forwards through their leaving the scrum, a penalty try was on. If Erasmus was still bound - and one arm would do - and it was still a scrum when Du Preez grabbed the ball, Fourie was wrong and again the penalty try was on.

But by then the scrum was over, because the Blue Bull forwards had, humiliatingly, rendered the scrum nil by pulling out, which they are not allowed to do. If this were allowed, the easy tactic to prevent a push-over try would be to pull out of the scrum, thereby rendering it over.

The penalty try looked the perfectly correct decision.

2. No penalty try at a scrum

Griqualand West play the Lions at Ellis Park in a match crucial to the semi-final aspirations of both teams. The Lions lead 28-24, but Griquas are attacking furiously.

Dries Scholtz is over the line but the new wunderkind of South African rugby, Schalk Britz, gets under the ball and forces a five-metre scrum to Griquas.

Griquas put the ball in. The scrum collapses and is reset. Griquas hook and nudge on about a metre and a half. On the Lions' left flank is Cobus Grobbelaar. He lifts his head up and nudges forward to the Griqua side as the Griquas nudge towards the Lions' line.

The ball is over the five-metre line and at the feet of the Griqua No.8, Phillip van Schalkwyk, when Grobbelaar definitely detaches and picks up the ball for which he is penalised.

Griquas attack again but fail to score and eventually lose the match.

Penalty against Grobbelaar right?

Yes.

3. Cards

In the situation in 2. above Grobbelaar is not spoken to or given any form, of sanction apart from the penalty.

Earlier in the match, about seven metres from the Griquas' goal line, the referee tells Attie Winter, the Griqua prop, to leave the ball. The prop does so, reaching up high with his hand to demonstrate his compliance.

The referee penalises Winter and shows him a yellow card.

He says: "That is the second time you have done this over here. You know better."

Winter went off shaking his head, suggesting that he knew better!

The question here is a matter of consistency.

What Winter did was not obviously wicked. In fact he appeared to be complying. What Grobbelaar did was obviously wicked.

What Grobbelaar did was nearer the goal-line. The play was more fluid with Griquas moving towards the goal-line and in with a chance of scoring.

Is a yellow card only for repeated infringements?

The answer is probably No though it looked Yes in practice. Certainly in Law a repeated infringement is a serious offence.

Then go to 1. above and no card of warning.

Seeing that the reason for the penalty try was the disintegration of the Blue Bulls' scrum it would have been ridiculous to dish out a host of yellow cards! Anyway the Blue Bulls had had humiliation enough in conceding the scrum.

4. Card for cheek

Western Province play Natal at Newlands. In the second half, the referee penalises Werner Greeff, the Western Province fly-half, for holding on. The fly-half objects and the referee marches him on ten metres. The penalty takes the score to 32-26 to Western Province.

OK?

Yes.

Later, when Western Province are leading 32-26 with about six minutes to go, Greeff runs down the touch line and is tackled into touch. Brett Hennessey of Natal gets the ball and attempts a quick throw-in from touch. Greeff knocks the ball down as he starts to throw.

The referee penalises Greeff.

Greeff objects and does so in language which even in this day of relaxed public speech would be regarded as obscene and insulting.

The referee marches Greeff on ten metres and gives him a yellow card, which prompts another dismissive gesture from the objecting fly-half.

Law 6.6 PLAYERS DISPUTING A REFEREES DECISION

All players must respect the authority of the referee. They must not dispute the referee's decisions.

Law 10 - Foul Play

DEFINITION

Foul play is anything a person does within the playing enclosure that is against the letter and spirit of the Laws of the Game. It includes obstruction, unfair play, repeated infringements, dangerous play and misconduct.

But let's go pack to the introduction to the Laws of the Game.

Object of the Game

The Object of the Game is that two teams of fifteen, ten or seven players each, observing fair play according to the Laws and sporting spirit, should by carrying, passing, kicking and grounding the ball score as many points as possible, the team scoring the greater number of points being the winner of the match.

It is the duty of the Unions to ensure that the Game at every level is conducted in accordance with disciplined and sporting behaviour. This principle cannot be upheld solely by the referee its observance also rests on Unions, affiliated bodies and clubs.

There is no doubt that referees have a duty to uphold the spirit of the game, the sporting spirit, sporting behaviour. It is their duty to see that players play and behave accordingly. The referee was dead right in giving Greeff his yellow card and would have been within his rights to make it one of a more violent hue.

It would be interesting to see what action Greeff's union takes in upholding the principle of sporting behaviour - unless we consider what he did acceptable.

One wonders if there is any game that would allow a player to say to a match official: "You are all f**ked up."

5. Ball falls over

Morné Steyn of the Blue Bulls, a young man with a great boot, prepares to kick at goal. He places the ball at the mark, that is at the place of infringement. The ball falls over off the tee and rolls forward. He runs for the ball, picks it up and kicks a drop kick, two metres in front of the tee and a metre to the right.

The referee orders a scrum.

Commentator 1: On a penalty, if the ball falls over, can you start again?
Commentator 2: He'd started his run. If you've started your run-up ..... (and then get gets on with commentating)

a. When the ball falls over at a penalty, whether he has started his approach or not, the kicker is entitled to replace the ball as long as he is within the minute allowed.

The conversion is another matter, which may have confused the commentator.

b. A little bit of hypothesis: If Steyn had taken the ball back for the kick and it had then fallen over and gone forward, would he not be allowed to kick the drop from the forward position?

Interestingly both commentators were goal-kickers in their playing days, and the laws have not changed since then. Players should know the laws pertaining to their area of play.

6. Not 10 metres

Natal Sharks score a brilliant try early in their match with Western Province. Gaffie du Toit of Western Province restarts. He kicks to his left, a high kick, which lands some eight metres beyond the half-way line. It is short. It bounces. The Western Province players stand close, watching the ball. The Natal players approach, also watching the ball. The ball bounces a second time, striking Albert van den Berg of Natal. It bounces on towards the touch and the Natal ten-metre line. Just before the Natal ten-metre line Warren Brits of Natal taps the ball into touch with his left foot.

The referee chats to the touch judge and they decide on a line-out where the ball went out.

Commentator 1: It came off a Sharks player but it never went ten yards.
Commentator 2: I think that was a wrong decision.
Commentator 1: Wrong decision - definitely.

Actually it was definitely the right decision.

Law 13.7 KICK-OFF OF UNDER 10 METRES BUT PLAYED BY AN OPPONENT

If the ball does not reach the opponents 10-metre line but is first played by an opponent, play goes on.

Commentators definitely wrong!

7. Whose ball?

Otago play North Harbour. Shaun Webb, the Otago fly-half, kicks a high ball. Nick Evans, the North Harbour fullback, catches the ball. As he does so Neil Brew, the Otago wing, tackles Evans and they fall to ground with other players in attendance.

The referee decides that the ball will not emerge from the heap and awards a scrum to North Harbour, making a gesture to suggest that the ball had been caught.

It had been caught and it did go to ground, but there is a subtle distinction between the tackle and the maul which collapses.

If what happened to Evans had been only a tackle, the scrum would be awarded according to the laws governing the tackle, i.e. going forward and that sort of thing.

If a maul had in fact been formed, then the law of the maul would have applied and then - and then only - the business of the swamped tackle would come into action.

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.

This applies only if a maul has been formed.

8. With my chinny chin chin

Luke McAlister of North Harbour grubbers towards and into the Otago in-goal. Nick Evans dives for the ball. The closest any part of his body gets to grounding the ball is his chin.

If his chin had made contact with the ball while it was in contact with the ground, would it have been a try?

No.

Law 22.1 (b) Player presses down on the ball. A player grounds the ball when it is on the ground in the in-goal and the player presses down on it with a hand or hands, arm or arms, or the front of the player's body from waist to neck inclusive.

9. Off-side?

Wellington foot the ball ahead and Lome Fa'atau, their right-wing, chases. He overruns the ball. Matt Harvey of Taranaki falls on the ball and pushes it back. Fa'atau, who has overrun the ball, turns back and grabs it as he comes slithering back.

Off-side?

No.

There was no reason why Fa'atau was off-side. He was not in front of a player of his side who had last played the ball and there had been no phase of play to produce an off-side line.

And that is why the referee did not penalise Fa'atau.

10. Sacking

Sacking is a new term in rugby, taken apparently from gridiron.

In gridiron sacking is defined as tackling the quarterback before he can get off a pass.

In other words it is nipping an offensive action before it can get started.

Referees use the term when they want to indicate that a player has not collapsed a maul but just as a single individual tackled an opposition player who may be grouped with team-mates, thus preventing the start of the rolling maul - nipping the rolling maul in the bud. This happen most often in a line-out.

North Harbour win a ruck/tackle thing. The scrumhalf Billy Fulton passes to the hooker, Joe Ward. Ward has a prop on each side of him. The props bind on Ward. The first Otago player to approach is prop Carl Hoeft. He grabs Ward and pulls him, to ground.

Legal?

Yes. That is what referees refer to as sacking. There is no maul while the North Harbour trio are all cozily bound together. It would take a North Harbour player to bind onto them to create a maul.

Hoeft would have made the maul if he had bound on. If after that he had collapsed the thing, he would have been guilty of collapsing a maul and so penalised. But he did not bind on. He brought Ward to ground, which seemed a legitimate thing to do.

11. Over the top

John Smit of Natal is to throw in at a line-out. He throws over the top. Brent Russell, the Natal flyhalf, who started ten or so metres back, runs up and catches the ball as it comes down, some 15 metres from the touch-line. He makes running and sets Sam Gerber charging. Gerber gives to Adrian Jacobs who powers over for a splendid try.

Is Russell off-side as somebody suggested in a television programme?

Law 19.10 OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO PLAYERS NOT IN THE LINE-OUT

In general, a player not taking part in a line-out must stay at least 10 metres behind the line-of-touch, or on or behind that player's goal-line if that is nearer, until the line-out ends.

There are two exceptions to this:

Exception 1: Long throw-in. If the player who is throwing in throws the ball beyond the 15-metre line, a player of the same team may run forward to take the ball. If that player does so, an opponent may also run forward.

Penalty: Penalty Kick on the offending team's off-side line, opposite the place of infringement but not less than 15 metres from the touch-line.

Exception 2: The receiver may run into the gap and perform any of the actions available to any other player in the line-out. The receiver is liable to penalty for offences in the line-out as would be other players in the line-out.

Penalty: Penalty Kick on the 15-metre line

It's exception 1 that matters. It tells us that what Russell did was perfectly OK.

12. Grabbing in in-goal

Reader's question: In a Currie Cup match recently, Etienne Botha of the Blue Bulls scored a try but he was off his feet when he grabbed the ball from the Lions player. Then he turned over and scored a try. Doesn't he have to be on his feet?

Barend Smith, Centurion

The incident occurred when the Lions played the Blue Bulls. The match was dying, but the brave Lions were still battling for victory. They moved the ball from behind their goal-line but Derick Hougaard of the Blue Bulls caught Doppies le Grange of the Lions behind the goal-line. Warren Brosnihan of the Blue Bulls joined in. Then Etienne Botha of the Blue Bulls arrived, flopped on the trio, grabbed the ball from Le Grange's grasp, turned and grounded it.

The referee gave a try.

Answer: In in-goal the laws regarding tackle, ruck and maul do not apply. A tackle, like a ruck and a maul, can occur only in the field of play.

The referee was right to award the try.