November 13 - Part II 

Dublin moments

We are actually going to have three parts this week because the Dublin incidents are so long - because they have provoked so much discussion. This part will deal with three aspects of the match between Ireland and South Africa in Dublin.

At least in one case there has been an enormous amount of talking, verging on shrieking. It has seemed better to let the spirits calm a little as the purpose of this column is really quite sober - a discussion of laws in action.

As promised we shall talk about the Irish try, if there is any body left with an open mind in the matter, and the yellow cards for Schalk Burger.

Schalk Burger has arrived like a meteor on the world rugby scene, but he gets yellow cards. He got another one on Saturday.

It may be worth a look at Burger as there are claims that he is being unfairly targetted - by opponents and referees. That is also an issue for discussion, as it no doubt is between referees and coaches before matches in which Burger will be an opponent. But we are interested in the card.

Then we have Part III. In it we shall talk about simple things - the Lote Tuqiri knock-back in in-goal, with an interesting question from a reader, and other matters.

1. On the ground

The South Africans are much penalised in this aspect of play. Let's look at three incidents:

a. Ireland throw in at a line-out a metre or so inside their 22. They win it and Anthony Foley charges. Schalk Burger tackles him a metre or so beyond his 22. The two players move forward with Burger on top of Foley as Johnny O'Connor bashes into and onto Burger.

The referee penalises Burger with a "roll away" gesture.

b. Ireland attack. About 15 metres inside the South African 22, Brian O'Driscoll surges ahead and is tackled by Jaco van der Westhuyzen. De Wet Barry, who was close by, falls back and grabs the ball. Geordan Murphy smashes into Barry, bringing him to ground. On his back Barry then places the ball back on the South African side. The referee penalises Barry.

c. Ireland turn the Barry penalty into a five-metre line-out. South Africa stop them but are penalised for going in at the side. Ireland make that a five-metre line-out. South Africa "win" the ball but in sloppy style and it becomes a third five-metre line-out to Ireland. Ireland win the ball but South Africa stops the maul. Johnny O'Connor surges forward with a player slightly ahead to help him but Bakkies Botha tackles O'Connor, and both go to ground. Joe van Niekerk stands over O'Connor, bends down and grabs at the ball. Shane Byrne knocks Van Niekerk down. The referee penalises Van Niekerk. "He went off his feet and played the ball."

Law 15.3 BROUGHT TO THE GROUND DEFINED

(a) If the ball-carrier has one knee or both knees on the ground, that player has been 'brought to ground'.

(b) If the ball-carrier is sitting on the ground, or on top of another player on the ground, the ball carrier has been 'brought to ground'.

Burger, Barry and Van Niekerk were on the ground, as per definition, at least eventually.

Burger did not play the ball but he did not roll away. (Mind you, it would have been hard to roll away with O'Connor playing the limpet on top of you!)

At a tackle, the only player on the ground allowed to play the ball is the tackled player. Foley, O'Driscoll and O'Connor (c. above) could have played the ball - released it, passed it, placed it. Barry and Van Niekerk had no such right. Once Barry was off his feet he had no right to play on and place the ball back. If Van Niekerk kept on playing the ball when he was off his  feet, he, too was wrong.

The only possible way for Barry to have played on is if he was deemed to have got possession of the ball and was then tackled by Murphy, giving him the right to place the ball as he did. (Mind you, Barry, who was not the tackler, certainly did not initially play from behind and so was in any case liable to penalty though penalised for playing the ball while off his feet.)

The best thing is for the player on the ground to do is to pull his hands back with open palms as in a gesture of surrender - like a priest saying Peace be with you!

2. Yellow for blond Burger

Burger was penalised at a tackle near the Irish 22. He was next penalised at a tackle 48 minutes later - a tackle which we shall discuss. The referee told the South African captain that he had already warned South Africa, which was true.

He had done so 31 minutes earlier, when he said: "Next time I'm going have a penalty, it's going to be a different option. It's not going to be a penalty - all right?"

The team was on a warning, which may have made Burger the unlucky one to take the rap.

The actual incident is extremely difficult to work out from video evidence even with sophisticated equipment for slowing and freezing and highlighting.

Shane Horgan dashes forward. Eddie Andrews tackles him. Horgan is on his feet when Burger, falling back, grabs him, his left hand at the ball. As he is subsiding, Simon Easterby of Ireland grabs Burger by the collar and pulls him away. They all go to ground, Burger's right hand initially near the ball is pulled back from it by a hand with green and white tape at the wrist, as Johnny O'Connor smashes into Burger. From then on Burger is not really close to the ball. The ball then squeezes out of the side of the fallen players. It seems - only seems - to be propelled out sideways by a hand with green and white tape at the wrist, that is an Irish hand. The ball then seems to strike O'Connor's left hand and then John Hayes's boot/shin. It then goes forward to Breyton Paulse who picks it up.

That is about as much as one can divine from watching the tape with blurring eyes - which suggests that it was a difficult decision for the referee who had none of the benefits of sophisticated technology.

If it is so difficult from technology, imagine how difficult it is for the referee. But then the trained eye and the trained instinct may work better than technology.

By the way the referee did not miss 19 tackles. The Springboks did!

3. The try

When the referee penalises Joe van Niekerk in the incident we mentioned above, he blows the whistle and raises his hand for the penalty, explaining his decision as he does so.

Then he backs away, blew his whistle again and raised his hand to indicate time off (as in Signal 46 in the Law Book). He says: "Time off, Malcolm." Malcolm Changleng was the television match official who presumably was acting as timekeeper.

Then he calls over John Smit, the South African captain, and says to him: "He went off his feet and played the ball. Next time I'm going to have a penalty it's going to be a different option. It's not going to be a penalty - all right?

"Talk to your players, please." He points with his finger at the South African players.

Smit then goes back and a metre or so from the goal line starts to talk to his players. He faces his players to do so, which is normal. They come close to hear him, which is normal. Facing them Smit has his back to the rest of the field.

The referee goes to the mark and says: "Time on".

Ronan O'Gara, the Irish flyhalf is standing at the mark and so next to the referee. He is placed to hear the "Time on" call. He taps the ball, runs and scores.

People will have made their minds up, and the minds, lacking all bias, support the action if  Irish and condemn the action if South African. Here is some comment:

a. The referee is not obliged to give players warning instructions. He does not have to say "Hands off", "Stay back" or "Talk to your players" - but he does. The IRB encourages such communication and has a protocol about it.

b. That communication needs to be clear and concise. A "different option" is a poor euphemism for the sin bin or the yellow card.

c. The IRB's protocol on communication says: 8. Referees should converse only with the captain, not other players.

There was no conversation, just an instruction which the captain was required to carry out. There were seven seconds between the instruction and "Time on" - not much time for much instruction.

d. Referees manage penalties close to the line. In this match, at the penalty before, the referee had checked where the South Africans were and said: "Get back, please." He did not do so this time. Had he done so he would have seen that Smit was still in the field of play and not back and that the South Africans were not ready.

e. There is a law of commonsense. Commonsense says that the South Africans were not ready to defend and that they were not ready because they were carrying out the referee's instructions. Being penalised does not make the offending teams such pariahs that they have no rights and are excluded from the game's principle of fair contest. They have the right to defend according to the laws of the game.

f. Justice must be seen to be done.

The Irish commentator said: "I think it was a very poor refereeing decision. Brent and I concur. Should never have been a try. Told the captain: Speak to your players. Very wrong. Very unfair."

Further to this point, the referee said that before the match he had instructed the captains that they were to talk to their players at a break and not have time off to do so. Smit denied receiving this instruction and, sadly, the millions who watch are unaware of such private instructions.

In summary, the incident, which has provided so much discussion and emotion, was probably at best poor communication and poor game management. It has nothing to do really with law but a lot to do with refereeing.

Some of what is said is not good. It is not good for the referee to justify himself by calling the captain inexperienced and naive - a captain who has 36 caps, a lot more than the referee, and is into double figures as a captain. It's not good for other referees to express critical views.

Silence is often a sign of strength and honesty incontestable.

Perhaps Smit should have asked the referee if he would have time out to talk to his players - as the management should have checked on the time in Cardiff and the field dimensions in Edinburgh.

Perhaps there should be a set way of doing all these things.