From NPC, CC and HC

We are looking at some incidents in the NPC final, the Currie Cup final and some Heineken Cup matches as a way of refreshing our knowledge of the laws in action.

We are also going to look this week at another incident of intrusion into a match.

First of all the finals - in Auckland and Pretoria, two gripping matches, two different kinds of match but two matches excellently refereed.

It is fascinating to hear criticism of a top referee doing a top job in a top match and wonder what on earth is expected of a referee.

Such criticism is often by way of generalisation - He had a match he'll want to forget, He lost control, He missed a lot. That sort of thing. (He lost control is perhaps the strangest one. Not that the player lost control of himself or the captain lost control of his players or that the management lost control of their team but the referee with his little whistle lost control.)

That great, original thinker, William Blake once said: "To generalise is to be an idiot. To particularise is the alone distinction of merit."

Would that the critics - almost all people who have never put a whistle to their lips, who have just a rudimentary knowledge of the Laws of the Game - would just for once particularise. If they would pinpoint problems we could have worthwhile discussion, but just chucking a random handful of mud is not helpful. Mind you, as another original thinker said: "Throw enough mud and some is bound to stick."

Enough!

Later this week we shall speak about intrusions onto the field of play by unwanted people.

1. Why can't they?

a. Sale Sharks play Munster. Charlie Hodgson kicks off after a Munster score and kicks directly into touch.

Munster catch the ball in touch and look to take a quick throw-in. The referee stops them and they end up having a scrum in the middle of the half-way line.

OK?

Law 13.8 BALL GOES DIRECTLY INTO TOUCH

The ball must land in the field-of-play. If it is kicked directly into touch the opposing team has three choices:

To have the ball kicked off again, or
To have a scrum at the centre and they have the throw-in, or
To accept the kick.

If they accept the kick, the line-out is on the half-way line. If the ball is blown behind the half-way line and goes directly into touch, the line-out is at the place where it went into touch.

That means Munster could opt for the line-out.

Now referees manage situations like this. They don't want to be caught unawares and they don't want the opposition to be caught unawares and so they ask the Munster captain what he would like. Once he says Scrum, scrum it is.

If he says line-out then the quick throw is possible, not just on the half-way ,line but nearer the Munster line.

So that seems as if the referee is knocking the stuffing out of the game and taking away initiative and surprise. "They'll be banning the dummy next," you say.

But the quick-throw in is not all that easy - same ball, catcher to be thrower, in straight, travel five metres. Perhaps one needs a modicum of management.

b. It is the NPC final

From outside of his 22 Tasesa Lavea of Auckland kicks a along punt down the field. The ball bounces on the touch-line. The touch judge raises his flag and hares back to a place opposite where Lavea had kicked the ball.

Glen Horton catches the ball just in touch and throws it up the line to Craig Newby who is standing in touch. Newby throws in quickly.

OK

The referee stopped play.

OK?

The referee was right.

Law 19.2 QUICK THROW-IN

(d) For a quick throw-in, the player must use the ball that went into touch. If, after it went to touch and was made dead, another ball is used, or if another person has touched the ball apart from the player throwing it in, then the quick throw-in is disallowed. The same team throws in at the line-out.

2.  I want a free kick

The Ospreys -play Stade Français in their fancy outfits.

Stade kick the ball ahead and, with Mirco Bergamasco chasing, the ball rills into touch not far from the Ospreys corner flag. Between touch and the five-metre line, Bergamasco turns his back to Spice who has the ball. Spice then throws in at Bergamasco's back, hoping for a free kick because Bergamasco has stopped it going in five metres. The referee would have none of it.

Law 19.2 (g) At a quick throw-in, a player must not prevent the ball being thrown in 5 metres.

There must be some element of intent on Bergamasco's part, and in a sense Spice is the one who prevented the ball from being throw in as he chose to throw it at an obstacle within five metres knowing full well that it could not go five metres.

The sensible referee had the line-out taken.

3. All I did was knock it out.

Phil Godman, the Edinburgh Gunners' flyhalf, kicks the ball down towards the Wasps' goal-line. Francisco Leonelli of the Gunners chases. About five metres from touch Paul Sackey of Wasps dives but cannot get to the ball. Instead he uses his hand to knock it into touch.

The referee penalises Sackey.

OK?

Yes.

Where?

15 metres in from touch.

OK?

Yes.

Law 10.2 (c) Throwing into touch, etc.  A player must not intentionally knock, place, push or throw the ball with his arm or hand into touch, touch-in-goal, or over the dead-ball line.

Penalty: Penalty kick on the 15-metre line if the offence is between the 15-metre line and the touch-line or at the place of infringement if the offence occurred elsewhere in the field of play or 5 metres from the goal-line and at least 15 metres from the touch-line if the infringement occurred in in-goal.

A penalty try must be awarded if the offence prevents a try that would probably otherwise have been scored.

Those are heavy sanctions. Obviously it is regarded as a wicked deed indeed.

4. Collapsing over the line

Mark van Gisbergen of the Wasps has the ball just infield from his goal line as eager Gunners head for him. A maul forms which the Gunners drive over the goal-line. There it falls to ground.

a. What if the Gunners deliberately pulled it down?
b. What if the wasps deliberately pulled it down?
c. What if it just fell down?

The answer is the dame ion all three cases - a five-metre scrum, Gunners' ball.

But, you say, what about deliberately collapsing the maul.

Ah but there is no maul in in-goal.

Law 17.1 1 FORMING A MAUL Where

A maul only takes place in the field-of-play.

Pedants would prefer the law to read: A maul takes place only in the field-of-play!

5. Colour coding

This is not law, just a bit of commonsense.

When the Gunners played the Wasps, the wasps ran out in jerseys which were mainly a pale shade of grey. When the Gunners ran out, the jerseys were mainly white. It did not make for easy distinction or vibrant colour.

At half-time, the Gunners changed into black, which was a relief.

When he did the kit inspection, a referee would do well to advise against such confusing colouring.

There are after all many colours to choose from, including, it would seem, pink.

6. Unbound and bound

a. Andy Lloyd, till he was knocked out, played No.8 for the Ospreys. The Ospreys put the ball into the scum. They heeled and the ball came back to Lloyd's feet. He trapped it there but the Stade Francais scrumhalf, Jérôme Fillol, kicked the ball away.

The referee let play go on.

b. Later in the game Lee Beech was at No.8 for the Ospreys. The Ospreys put the ball into the scum. They heeled and the ball came back to Beech's feet. He trapped it there but the Stade Francais scrumhalf, Jérôme Fillol, kicked the ball away.

The referee confused Fillol by penalising him.

Why the difference?

a. Lloyd drew his shoulder back from the backsides of his locks with just his bunched hands on them. The scrum was thus over because he was no longer bound.

b. Beech drew one arm back but the other remained bound, hand to shoulder, to his lock. The ball was thus not out of the scrum.

7. OK to come back?

In the second half of the NPC final, Sam Tuitupou came on as a substitute for Isa Nacewa who walked off, looking unscathed.

On 61 minutes in the NPC final, Tasesa Lavea of Auckland left the field with what looked like a troublesome hamstring. Back came Nacewa.

OK?

It would have been OK if Lavea had been a front row player but he was a flyhalf.

It would have been OK if Lavea had been bleeding which he seemed not to be doing. The blood was not apparent and he did not return during the match.

8. Time to stop?

The hectic Currie Cup final is reaching its close. The Cheetahs are pushing the Blue Bulls further and further back but they win a turn-over on their own 22. Fourie du Preez of the Blue Bulls passes to JP Nel who passes to Bryan Habana. The pass is forward. The referee awards a scrum to the Cheetahs. He stands there with his arm out.

After some time the siren/hooter goes to tell the anxious world that the match is over. The referee blows the final whistle.

OK?

In theory it is not OK.

Law 5.7 (e) If time expires and the ball is not dead or an awarded scrum, line-out, mark, free kick or penalty kick has not been completed, the referee allows play to continue until the next time when the ball becomes dead. If time expires and a mark, free kick or penalty kick is then awarded, the referee allows play to continue.

So the Cheetahs could have put the ball into the scrum, won it and hoofed it out for the final whistle. But if they had lost the scrum..............

9. Provocation vs Retaliation

Three times in the cantankerous Currie Cup final, the referee reversed penalties because the aggrieved party had retaliated.

In the first instance Kees Lensing, the Blue Bulls prop, held onto  Jannie du Plessis, the Cheetahs' prop. The Cheetah hit the Blue Bull.

What would have been a penalty for the Cheetahs became a penalty for the Blue Bulls, and Morné Steyn kicked the goal.

In the second instance Victor Matfield came sailing in over the tackle area to hit Os du Randt with a shoulder/elbow. Immediately Du Randt smashed a fist into Matfield.

What would have been a penalty for the Cheetahs became a penalty for the Blue Bulls - and both players went off.

In the third instance Johan Roets, uncharacteristically, was the instigator when he stuck a shoulder into Juan Smith and Smith retaliated. Again the Cheetahs were penalised.

That accords with the Laws of the game which say that retaliation is not allowed. But something in the back of one's mind there is a little noise that says But surely the instigator is worse. That does not work in law.

Law 10.4 (j) Retaliation. A player must not retaliate. Even if an opponent is infringing the laws, a player must not do anything that is dangerous to the opponent.
Penalty: Penalty Kick

There was a measure of justice in the second case in that both players went to the sin bin.

But what about the first case?

Would you send a player to the sin bin for holding a jersey?

Probably not.

But surely if Du Plessis was to go to the sin bin, the agent provocateur should accompany him.

When Naka Drotské, the Cheetahs' captain asked the referee, what they should do if they were being unfairly held, as Du Plessis was, the referee told him to tell the player to put his hand up.

Not easy for a big man in the heat of battle.

Drotské explained to the referee that his side would not tolerate intimidation.

10. The calming word

The calm, gentle word from the referee, we hope, diverts players' wrath - more than an angry word which may inflame and exacerbate the wrath of men who have temporarily lapsed from being gentlemen.

There was a bit of physical anger in the match between the Sale Sharks and Munster. The referee stopped it and said to the captains in his French accent: "A scuffle. It's stupid. Please, calm down. I stop the watch. Talk to the players."

Not for the first time there was anger in the Currie Cup final, this time because Jacques Cronjé had twice punched an opponent.

The referee said to Anton Leonard, captain of the Blue Bulls: "Your No.4 has a warning, No.5 is in the bin and now No.6 has a warning. It's a good time to talk to your guys."

11.  Three prop subs

The Cheetahs have three props on their bench and they use them as props. Cheetahs cheating?

They are allowed to have seven props on the bench if they so choose. Nobody is born labelled prop. A prop is just a player.

But listen to Law 3.4 A team can substitute up to two front row players and up to five other players. Substitutions may only be made when the ball is dead and with the permission of the referee.

That means that having three front row players on the bench will mean that once two are used in the front row, the third will be allowed on only outside of the front row. But then if there is an injury, three replacements look better than uncontested scrums.

One would prefer such injuries to be real, of course, in the interests of honesty but then how does a referee work out if an injury is feigned or not, especially if it is something hidden like an ankle or a hamstring!

12. Airborne inside?

Reader: It looked to me like Shane Williams caught a long kick as he was  running backwards and was in the air. He landed inside the 22 and  kicked it straight back.

I'm not entirely sure, it was full speed, etc. but if he was in the  air and over (literally) the 22 is he in or not? If he'd jumped from  outside, caught it and landed inside is he allowed to kick straight  to touch?

Comment: The decision will of course depend on the referee's  position and how keen he is to split hairs. The crux of the matter is that the player must be in the 22, i.e. on his side of the 22 when he catches the ball which need not be in the 22.

Lewis

13.  Peeler

Reader: At a 5m line-out, a team in red  caught the ball they put in off the top, and flicked it down to  someone else who had been in the line-out but was peeling round. This  player was clearly (to my mind) behind some of the other line-out  players on his side. Are they obstructing if someone tries (with the  right timing etc.) to go through the line-out and tackle the player  who's just received the ball?

Lewis.

Comment: Peeling off is allowed by law. The player peeling off must just keep moving and not shelter behind his t team-mates in front of him nor must they get up to naughty tricks like tugging opposition jerseys as they break through to get to the player peeling off.