Law Discussion - Wellington ending

There was grievous upset at the final whistle at Westpac Stadium in Wellington on Saturday evening and huge controversy.

Loud rang the Joe Jacobs cry of 76 years ago: "We wuz robbed." 76 years and it's still in use. Nearly 70 years after Jacobs died it's as fresh as ever.

Let's look at what happened.

The score was 13-all and the Sharks won a line-out. They mauled. When that fell down they gave the ball to Frédéric Michalak who kicked down towards the touch-line on his right, a high ball into the Hurricanes' 22. Hosea Gear marked the ball.

Gear tapped and gave to Piri Weepu who raced past Adrian Jacobs and down the field till Jacques Botes tackled him near the Hurricanes' 10-metre line. There was a tackle ruck and the urgent Hurricanes drove the Sharks a long way off the ball and fell to ground, leaving Weepu lying at the ball behind them.

Ryan Kankowski approached the ball and was penalised.

Willie Repia tapped immediately and the ball went right. Ma'a Nonu gave to Conrad Smith who stepped brilliantly inside Stefan Terblanche. There was only François Steyn to beat. Smith gave to Shannon Paku. Steyn tackled Paku into touch a metre or so from the corner flag but Paku had managed to fling the ball infield as the final siren sounded. Falling back Terblanche put a left hand up and knocked the ball back over his goal-line. Half a metre from the line Brad Barritt grabbed Smith. Terblanche and Thomas Waldrom scrambled for the ball. Terblanche seemed not to ground it and Waldrom may well have but that was all in vain as the referee had blown the final whistle for what he perceived as a knock-on by Smith, who was indignant.

Lots of people were indignant.

Clearly the referee thought that Smith had knocked on. He had a ground view of the incident and no replay. Two hands went up for the  ball, close to the ball and the ball went on into the Sharks' in-goal. He presumed that Smith had knocked on.

Presumption is dangerous. It happened at Ellis Park when the presumed that Jano Vermaak had knocked on and so denied a try which would have won the match. Then no hands were near the ball. This time two hands were near the ball and just a split second for the referee to make a decision.

He made the wrong decision and in fact Waldrom may well have scored.

But once the referee decided that Smith had knocked on all other decisions became irrelevant. The Barritt tackled Smith without the ball was irrelevant. That Waldrom may have grounded the ball became irrelevant. It would be a scrum to the Sharks, but time was up. It was time for the final whistle.

There are some other thoughts about the incident.

Knocking a pass back is not an infringement. Knocking it forward is.

Could the referee have referred the knock-back to the television match official to determine who had knocked it back?

The International Rugby Board's television match official's protocol states:  The TMO must not be requested to provide information on players prior to the ball going into in-goal (except touch in the act of grounding the ball).

The knock-back could not be referred to the TMO.

Could the referee have referred the early tackle to the TMO?

For the same reason the answer is No. An early tackle/tackle without the ball is foul play. The referee is entitled to refer that to the TMO but only if it is in in-goal. The week before the Bulls were unhappy that Keven Mealamu's try had been as a result of obstruction. The referee did check with his touch judge as to where such possible obstruction could have occurred. It could have occurred only in the field of play, and so the referee was not allowed to refer the matter to the TMO and so the Bulls lost by two points.

It does question the protocol.

The purpose of the TMO is to get a right and fair result.

In the cases of the Lions, the Bulls and the Hurricanes, the decisions were not right or fair. They were also costly.

But then how far do you take it back? In a try-scoring movement- which could be going back 100 metres?

Within five metres of the goal-line? Then what about six, seven and so on, and such a case would not cover the Jano Vermaak incident.

Or does one just accept the bounce of the ball and the bounce of the referee as part of the game's hazards.

And does one then say: the referee's error was not the only error that jeopardised the Hurricanes' (Lions'/Bulls') chances of winning the game. Players also contributed.

The perception remains that players make mistakes; referees cheat!

Oh - and was Kankowski really off-side?

The lesson for referees in this case and the Vermaak case is that it is better to see and believe what you see than to presume/guess.

So what does the referee do if he is not sure? He lets play go on. That is the lore of the referee which used to be written in the law book. It said: If the referee has any doubt play goes on. Any doubt.

In this case the referee could not have been sure that Smith's hand struck the ball, simply because it did not strike the ball.

If play had gone on the result of the match may well have been different.

A clever question could have got to a fairer outcome. To adapt a saying: The protocol was made for rugby, not rugby for the protocol.