Heineken incidents and readers' questions

Mostly short

It was a better Heineken Cup weekend, for one thing the weather was a lot better, however, there was still an amount of petulance and eleven cards issued.

In addition Darren Fox was cited and suspended, and Barry Irving sent off and suspended in the Challenge Cup. Richard Mustoe may just have been fortunate to escape with just a yellow card, the same as Jim Williams and Craig Quinnell received - perhaps unluckily.

There was wonderful bit of commentating as the exciting Munster-Ospreys match came to an end at the Gnoll. The score was 20-18 to Munster.

Commentator: "The referee looks at his whistle."

Presumably he blew his watch.

His partner really made watching television an ordeal with his monotoned patriotic fervour and inaccuracy.

Apart from a few incidents we shall also take readers' questions. In fact we shall start with them. I have left off readers' names lest it discourage other queries. If people would like their names, published, that would be delightful.

1. Against the padding

Reader: Quote from your site

"1. Hitting the padding

"Canterbury attack. Daniel Carter was a strong break down the left. The ball comes back right to Nathan Mauger who breaks but is tackled. Hooker Corey Flynn picks up and heads for the posts as Wellington's tall centre Conrad Smith tackles him. Flynn ploughs into the padding ball first and face first, the ball nearly a metre up the padding. He rolls to his right on his back and loses the ball.

"The referee and the television match official chat and decide that Flynn lost the ball forward. A scrum is ordered.

"Right?

"Yes.

"For the try to be scored the ball would need to be in contact with the padding and the ground at the same time."

Why? Law 22.4 "Other ways to score a try" makes no reference to the ball needing to touch both the ground and the post or padding! In fact the law make specific reference to the ball being grounded AGAINST a goal post or padding. How can this you ground against both the post and ground when the padding covers the bottom Part of the posts? He their been an IRB ruling to clarify this or is this conjecture on your part?

Answer: The secret is in the grounding. The ball must be grounded. That means it must make contact with the ground. Pushed against the goal-post a metre above the ground is not grounding.

Law 22.1 GROUNDING THE BALL

There are two ways a player can ground the ball:

(a) Player touches the ground with the ball. A player grounds the ball by holding the ball and touching the ground with it, in in-goal. 'Holding' means holding in the hand or hands, or in the arm or arms. No downward pressure is required.

(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.

There. Grounding is about making contact with the ground.

2. TMO action

Reader: "I'm interested to hear your and your readers' opinion on the video referee decision for the D'Arcy try in the Bath vs Leinster game this afternoon.

Two camera angles clearly showed that D'Arcy did not get downward pressure on the ball, that Lipman had swiped the ball from D'Arcy's hand and that Lipman also
had his hand underneath the ball.

How can this travesty happen? The whole point of a video ref is that mistakes aren't made in crucial decisions. I'm not suggesting that Bath would have won if the decision had gone the other way, but in a highly balanced game, that try had a very large impact. I have never seen such an outrageous decision. The video ref can take as much time as he likes, see as many camera angles as he desires and yet he made a rash or even a blind decision. Can the video referee be disciplined? Since he has as much time as he wants to make his decision, he is in a very different position from a standard referee and thus ought to be accountable for all his decision-making. I hope strong action is taken and that the video referee is prevented from officiating any more Heineken Cup games."
- OW, Edinburgh

Answer: Others may be able to help with the details as I did not and do not have access to the video of the match.

May I just say in general terms that I find it strange that an experienced, highly rated referee from Wales would make such an obviously incorrect decision as you seem to imply.

May I also say that it does not make for good discussion when we approach it with emotion. Words like travesty, outrageous, rash and blind are judgemental and emotional. They do not make for good argument.

It is, of course, possible that the TMO made a mistake. Players do not get "disciplined" for making mistakes, and I imagine that the TMO in this match will not be disciplined. Players get dropped for making mistakes, and the same can happen to the TMO, if indeed it was a mistake.

The appointments to matches are made by the relevant authorities, in this case the European Rugby Cup.

You are wrong about that downward pressure thing. In the matter of grounding the ball, which we have quoted above, Law 22 specifically says: No downward pressure is required.

3. Kicking directly out

"I have a question regarding the Laws of rugby for your referee panel. When did the law change regarding kicking the ball into touch on the full? I seem to remember that it used to be that if the ball was kicked out on the full, the line-out occurred where the ball went into touch irrespective of where the kicker was standing when he made the kick. Now, of course, if the kicker is outside his 22 and he kicks the ball out on the full, the line-out takes place where the kick was made. When did this law change?"
M

Answer: Interestingly the law was first proposed by New Zealand in 1927. It took nearly 40 years to become law, first experimentally and then as part of the law.

4. Tackle time

Reader: I know that the law demands that the tackled player immediately releases the ball, but it equally requires the tackler to allow the tackled player to place the ball. The anomaly which allows us to have a tackle without a tackler has led to some strange situations: two players (both on their feet) wrestle for the ball. One goes down on one knee making him a tackled player. He is immediately blown for not releasing the ball. It seems unfair somehow!

The Britz Incident:

The Blue Bulls win a scrum. Pedrie Wannenburg goes blind where he is tackled by Joe van Niekerk. There is a resultant nothing, just a tackle as the Western Province players fan out behind the area. Hooker Dawid Britz falls back on the far side of the scene. Norman Jordaan, the Blue Bulls scrumhalf picks up the ball and passes it to Britz, who looks guilty but runs round and starts the move that ends in a brilliant try.

First, if there was no ruck, only a tackle, Britz was on-side. Second if there had been a ruck - which looked unlikely - then Britz was on-side when he reached the last feet on his side of the ruck.

Sorry - that is not how I saw it! Britz must have been off-side. He was falling back behind the ruck and Jordaan passed the ball straight to him. Absolutely no way that he could have been behind the last line of feet and on-side!

But this did not detract from an excellent game of rugby which was very well refereed.

Bill, South Africa

Answer: I have looked at it over and over and cannot find a ruck, which requires at least one player from each side on his feet over the ball which is on the ground. All the elements must be there simultaneously - the players, their feet, the ball and the ground.

5. Reversing penalties

It happed twice in the Heineken Cup. When the Scarlets played the Saints, Scott Quinnell did something naughty at tackle time and then Matt Lord did something naughty back.

The referee told Quinnell that he would have penalised him. But then he told Lord that he had retaliated. He then blew the whistle to indicate a penalty against the Scarlets. Then he blew it again, turned round and indicated a penalty against the Saints.

That was all fair and perhaps helped the spectators and the television, but in fact he was not reversing a penalty as he had not yet given one. But it did reinforce the law which says that players are not to retaliate.

It was different when the Ospreys played Munster. Ryan Jones tackles Shaun Payne and a sort of heap develops at the scene. The referee penalised the Ospreys. But the touch judge stuck his flag out. He told the referee that Peter Stringer of Munster had stamped on Jones away from the ball. Certainly Stringer's action was not a rucking action. Stringer was indignant because Jones was lying there.

The referee then blew his whistle again and reversed the penalty, penalising Munster. Stringer was not entitled to use his boot on Jones.

Don't feel too sorry for Stringer - not when you realise that the career-stopping injury to Rob Howley was caused in the same way - a stamp, on that occasion on the wrist.

6. TMO drop?

Gavin Henson unleashes a drop at goal from just inside his half. The ball soars and is dropping towards the juncture of the crossbar and the right upright. The referee, quite rightly, decides that it was not over.

If he had been unsure, could he have consulted the TMO?

Yes.

From the IRB: The Council at its Annual Meeting on 10th April 2003 agreed that the jurisdiction of the Television Match Official (TMO) be extended to include adjudication as to the success or failure of drop kicks at goal where the referee is unsure of the outcome. This will take effect from 1st June 2003.

7. Off the roof

Ronan O'Gara of Munster kicks for touch. He wants to be sure of his touch and sure that the Ospreys would be unable to take a quick throw-in. He kicks high. The ball lands on the roof of the stand, runs along it and then pops back to the field where Shane Williams of the Ospreys wants to take a quick throw-in.

OK?

Yes.

It is only if it has been played by a person other than Williams that Williams is not allowed a quick throw-in.

8. Not 10 metres

Christian Cullen of Munster collects an Osprey kick. He runs up and on about his 10-metre line kicks high to that the ball drops just beyond the Osprey 10-metre line.

When Cullen kicks the whole of Munster is ahead of him. Cullen chases. Standing watching proceedings is big Gordon McIlwham of Munster. Cullen runs past him while the ball is still in the air. Gavin Henson of the Ospreys comes forward and catches the ball. Cullen goes to tackle Henson, and McIlwham, who is only about three metres from Henson, moves to join in the tackle. The referee penalises McIlwham for being off-side and talks about 10 metres.

Right?

Yes.

McIlwham stays off-side because he is within 10 metres of Henson even if Cullen runs past him. He must retreat.

9. Place of high-tackle penalty

Munster are attacking. Shaun Payne gets the ball near the touch-line on his left. He moves to cut back inside but about four metres from touch Matt Mustoe of the Ospreys grabs him round his neck and stops his progress. The referee penalises Mustoe.

Where?

Four metres from touch. He would penalise 15 metres in only if the high tackle had happened over the touch-line.

10. Not 5 metres

Frankie Sheahan of Munster pops the ball to big Donncha O'Callaghan who is at the front of the choreographed line-out. O'Callaghan pops the ball back to Sheahan who is off like a pickpocket.

The referee calls him back and says not five metres.

What if O'Callaghan had been standing five metres and then reached out over the five-metre line?

No good. The ball must travel five metres through the air.

11. Forward pass or forward catch?

Jason Spice passes a long pass to his left to Shane Williams. The referee blows for a forward pass. The commentators have another look, helped by the presence of the 10-metre line, and decide that it had gone forward.

It's important for us to remember that it is a forward pass, not a forward catch. Where Williams catches the ball is not relevant. How Spice passes is what is relevant.

12. It's a ruck

There is a tackle. Big Jim Williams of Munster is there first and bends down to get the ball as Sonny Parker tries to drive him back. Williams and Parker are on their feet. The referee penalises Williams.

Williams protests his innocence. "I was on my feet."

The referee says: "You were on your feet. It's true, but it's a ruck and you cannot play the ball with your hands."

Right?

Yes.

He gives Williams a yellow card. "Too many penalties."

True?

At that stage, in the first half, Munster had been penalised nine times - six times at tackles. That's a lot for one team in one half.