The November Tests - II

Laws and refereeing

Wales played South Africa in Cardiff. Scotland played Australia in Edinburgh. In Part 1 we looked at some statistics. In Part 2 we discuss laws and refereeing.

Inevitably there are issues to discuss about the laws and the refereeing. Here are some interesting issues, including the size of a field, timekeeping and commentators' laws.

We also have a reader's interesting question about a goal-line decision and another about the last scrum in Cardiff.

1. The clock

Jake White was truculent after the Wales-South Africa match. He claimed that the clock had been running time, not playing time, and so he had mistimed his substitutions - which seems to suggest that his substitutions were to give caps and not to improve the team.

Law 5.3 TIME KEEPING

The referee keeps the time but may delegate the duty to either or both the touch judges and/or the official time-keeper, in which case the referee signals to them any stoppage of time or time lost. In matches without an official time-keeper, if the referee is in doubt as to the correct time the referee consults either or both of the touch judges and may consult others but only if the touch judges cannot help.

White is no doubt used to what has become the custom in southern Tests - the use of a timekeeper, who stops the clock on the referee's instructions so that when the stadium clock signals that time is up, time is up - as was the case at Murrayfield on Saturday. In some places a hooter/siren is also used to tell the referee. Sometimes the timekeeper tells the referee by radio connection.

Not using a timekeeper is almost anachronistic in the Test rugby of 2004 and White will have learnt the lesson of making sure beforehand of how the time is to be kept.

2. Field size

The laws of the game are deigned for all rugby.

Law 1.2 REQUIRED DIMENSIONS FOR THE PLAYING ENCLOSURE

(a) Dimensions. The field-of-play does not exceed 100 metres in length and 70 metres in width. Each in-goal does not exceed 22 metres in length and 70 metres in width.

(b) The length and breadth of the playing area are to be as near as possible to the dimensions indicated. All the areas are rectangular.

(c) The distance from the goal-line to the dead-ball line be not less than 10 metres where practicable.

Not all playing fields, even where rugby is played, are able to be "fullsize". That does not stop people from playing. Then other games have different sizes.

Soccer, for example, has the following dimensions:

The field of play must be rectangular. The length of the touch line must be greater than the length of the goal line.

Length Minimum 90 m (100 yds) Maximum 120 m (130 yds)

Width Minimum 45 m (50 yds) Maximum 90 m (100 yds)

International Matches

Length Minimum 100 m (110 yds) Maximum 110 m (120 yds)

Width Minimum 64 m (70 yds) Maximum 75 m (80 yds)

When grounds are used for both soccer and rugby, the lines of the unwanted code are usually masked with some sort of green paint, leaving the outline of the other field because of the different colour green.

If you looked at Murrayfield on Saturday, the "other" green of the soccer markings was obvious. Soccer uses a broader field, hence the impression that the Scots had narrowed the field to confine the wide-ranging Australian backs.

On Thursday night Heart of Midlothian had played at Murrayfield against Schalke 04 of Germany in an UEFA Cup match.

The Wallabies had practised at Murrayfield the day after the soccer match when the soccer markings were still there. They did not think to ask if those markings would be the same on Saturday. No normal person would.

As with the clock, coaches may well become used to asking all sorts of questions they have come to take for granted - like will there be water, is this the sort of padding that will be on the goal posts, will the dye come off on our shorts? It has ridiculous possibilities.

Maybe that is why management squads have grown huge!

But it does seem silly and gamesmanship to reduce the field width when ground enough is available. Apparently the field was 65m wide on Saturday - good enough for the letter of the law, but pretty niggardly.

3. Commentators' law

We shall get to the law that the commentators promulgated wrongly, but this actually is a wide topic and a universal problem, though at its worst in South Africa where discussing the referee seems to be the point of playing rugby!

Here are two unhelpful comments from the match in Cardiff:

Commentator 1: "It's a simple reality in the Southern Hemisphere, in the Super 12. There isn't much challenge for the ball on the floor."

The sad part of this - apart from its inaccuracy - is that it perpetuates the old North vs South argument and so on. It does no good and is not even right. Generalisations of this sort seldom are right, are often asinine.

Commentator 1: "I'm saying nothing about Paddy O'Brien. Just remember Fiji-France in the World Cup. He didn't have his best day then."

That is a lot of nasty "nothing". It really is cruel and unfair. The World Cup referred to was in 1999, five years ago. Paddy O'Brien has refereed several matches since then which have been wonderfully refereed, so much so that he is universally regarded as one of the top referees in the world.

Apparently, according to the commentators this weekend in Cardiff, he made a mistake. Not that they were free from mistake. For eleven minutes, even when he scored a try, they called Jean de Villiers Brent Russell! The two players do not look or move alike. But the law error was worse as it may well have been believed. It happened three times, as if to reinforce their validity. Three times. Amen, Amen, Amen I say unto you. That sort of thing.

John Smit of South Africa is about to throw into a line-out.

Commentator 1: Matfield is a yard outside the line-out. If he steps in, he must be the target.

Steve Jones of Wales throws into a line-out. It is a three-man line-out with Michael Owen of Wales standing in the position of the receiver.

Commentator 1: Michael Owen comes in. He'll have to take it if he comes in.

Wales throw in at a line-out.

Commentator 2: I don't know what the South Africans are thinking. I can only presume they're not really sure of the law, because the man who's standing out there, if he joins the line-out, he's got to be the receiver. So you don't need to mark anyone else. It doesn't matter where anyone else runs in the line-out, they've got to stand opposite that man and that's twice they've missed him.

It never has been law that the receiver had to receive the ball if he stepped into a line-out. That was a ruling made by the IRB in September 2002 - not a good ruling. When the IRB next made changes to the laws after the 2003 World Cup and made them known in April 2004, Law 19.10's exception read:

Exception 2: The receiver may run into a 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 any other players in the line-out.

That replaced that unhappy ruling. So there was no need for the team throwing in to throw to the receiver if he entered the line-out. It has been this for seven months.

4. "Loitering at the tackle"

Now there's a new one.

The law has for years and years inveighed against loiterers, those who take too long to get back on-side and then, while idly loitering, do something wicked. This happens usually at rucks.

Law 11.10 LOITERING

A player who remains in an off-side position is loitering. A loiterer who prevents the opposing team from playing the ball as they wish is taking part in the game, and is penalised. The referee makes sure that the loiterer does not benefit from being put on-side by the opposing team's action.
Penalty: Penalty Kick

Referees, possibly eschewing pomposity, have come to call them lazy runners.

Wales win a scrum and the ball goes right. Haldane Luscombe comes from the right wing and is tackled by De Wet Barry. In his surge Luscombe goes beyond Marius Joubert.

Luscombe plays the ball back with his hand. Joubert, who is well on the Welsh side of Luscombe, bends, picks up the ball and passes to Paulse.

At the tackle, Jaco van der Westhuyzen comes to make contact with a Welsh player on the ground. Gareth Thomas of Wales comes to make contact with Van der Westhuyzen.

A lot of the action in these last two paragraphs happens simultaneously and quickly.

Was there a ruck?

If there was it lasted a nanosecond.

If there was this rapid ruck, then did Luscombe use a hand in a ruck to get the ball back? Presumably, but then that does not seem to matter a whole lot these days unless you are grabbing the other side's protected ball.

If there was no ruck, was Joubert entitled to play the ball?  Not if he was near (= within a metre of) the tackle. But he was allowed to play the ball if he was more than a metre from the tackle, which seemed to be the case.

It's all too knife-edged. It's so knife-edged that it's hardly worth three points in a rugby match.

Again, would it not be simpler to make an off-side line at a tackle so that a player knows when he can play and from where?

5. Loitering differently

The Wallabies have the ball at close quarters through several tackles and stumbles. They are getting the ball back from one of these ruckish things when substitute Matt Rogers takes up a position on the side, well in front of the last feet, clearly looking to drive any Scot away should he want to make a grab for George Gregan.

The referee calls: "22. 22." For Rogers has 22 on his back. This does not budge Rogers.

The referee penalises Rogers.

Right?

Yes.

Law 16.5 (b) Players must either join a ruck, or retire behind the off-side line immediately. If a player loiters at the side of a ruck, the player is off-side.

6. Inside the 5

Scotland are to throw in at a line-out. Jeremy Paul of Australia is in that tram-line between touch and the five-metre line, just back from the line of throw. Matt Dunning, the wallaby prop, is on. He stands just on the touch-line side of the five-metre line. He is facing lock Justin Harrison who is obviously therefore to jump in front of the Scottish jumper. But Gordon Bullock gets the throw over Harrison's head to Ali Hogg.

What about Dunning?

He was in the wrong position all right. Either Paul had to be back 10 metres from the line-out or Dunning had to be on the field side of the five-metre line.

7. Peel on the line

Wales score and Jaco van der Westhuyzen kicks off for South Africa. He kicks to his right. Near the touch-line, Dwayne Peel of Wales catches the ball. The ball is dropping and approaching the touch-line when he catches it. The ball may have bounced in the field of play but Peel caught it. As he caught it his right foot well forward, his left foot was on the touch-line. The referee blew, gave Wales the option of a line-out, a kick again or a scrum. They opted for the scrum, because the ball was deemed to have been kicked out on the full.

Right?

Yes.

8. Accidental off-side?

The ball comes back to Wales from a tackle thing. The Welsh scrumhalf Dwayne Peel picks up the ball and looks to kick it over his forwards, but it goes into bulky figure of Adam Jones in front of him and ricochets off him up and ahead. Stephen Jones charges up and catches the ball.

Accidental off-side?

Distinctly possible as Wales may have been assisted by the intrusion of the Adam bulk to enable Stephen to get the ball.

Law 11.6 ACCIDENTAL OFF-SIDE

(a) When an off-side player cannot avoid being touched by the ball or by a team-mate carrying it, the player is accidentally off-side. If the player's team gains no advantage from this, play continues. If the player's team gains an advantage, a scrum is formed with the opposing team throwing in the ball.

9. Reader's question

Reader: I feel is an important one because the outcome was a try for South Africa. A South African charges for the line, he is tackled by Gareth Thomas (I think) who rips the ball. He is then tackled and the referee blows, signals held up and five-metre scrum to SA. Was this correct? I would have thought at the very least the scrum was for Wales as they had the ball. Should it not have been a 22 drop out?

MD of England

Answer: It was a hard decision. It seemed that Haldane Luscombe and Gareth Thomas tackled Barry short of the line. Thomas got to his feet and took the ball from Barry before the ball had crossed the line, though his feet were over the goal-line. He was then driven back in in-goal and the ball became dead.

It would seem that the decision was right on the grounds that he had taken the ball into his in-goal, in other words carried it over. That meaans a five-metre scrum to South Africa.