Incidents for discussion - S14 semis
The semi-finals of the 2007 Super 14 have come and gone but we still have a few incidents to hang discussions of laws on, and we have one which we should have done the week before.
We have three bits from commentators. It's not anything against commentators but when they get laws wrong they broadcast misinformation to millions. Often this could be avoided if the commentator would listen to the referee but then it is probably hard to talk and listen at the same time. But the referee will without fail know the laws better than the commentator does. That is as it should be. It's his job to know the laws better than the commentator does. But then the commentator needs to be sure of his facts before he proclaims on the world's most complicated set of laws.
Earlier in the week we gave some statistics from the semis.
1. Long drop
The Blues played the Force in Perth.
Isa Nacewa of the Blues missed with a penalty kick at goal early in the first half. Matt Giteau of the Force dropped out hard and long. It bounced down into the Blues' in-goal area where Luke McAlister of the Blues wandered over to the ball, picked it up and did a bit more of a wander before dotting it down and pointing up far for a scrum way back.
If he had known his laws he could have had a scrum way back - on the Force's 22 in fact. Instead the referee awarded a drop-out.
Law 13.15 BALL GOES INTO THE IN-GOAL FROM A DROP-OUT
(a) If the ball is kicked into the opponents' in-goal without having touched or been touched by a player, the opposing team has three choices:
To ground the ball, or
To make it dead, or
To play on.
(b) If the opposing team grounds the ball, or makes it dead, or if the ball goes dead by going into touch-in-goal, or on or over the dead-ball line, they have two choices:
To have a scrum formed at the centre of the 22m-line from where the kick was taken and they throw in the ball, or
To have the other team drop out again.
(c) If they opt to ground the ball or make it dead, they must do so without delay. Any other action with the ball by a defending player means the player has elected to play on.
McAlister did not do it without delay. He picked the ball up and did a little wander and it cost his team a great attacking opportunity.
Not that it mattered as the Blues won well.
2. Scrum award after catch
Leon MacDonald of the Crusaders kicks the ball high and chases it. Johan Roets of the Bulls catches the ball. MacDonald tackles Roets and they both go to ground.
The referee decides that the ball is unplayable and awards a scrum to the Bulls on the grounds that Roets was moving forward when he was tackled.
The referee says so: "Going forward. Blue ball."
Commentator 1: "Johan Roets took the ball from the up-and- under, and so therefore it is a Bulls scrum."
Commentator 2: "Certainly if he takes the ball from the up-and-under and he grounds it and it doesn't come out, it has to be a Bulls scrum."
That is simply not right. There is a confusion of laws here.
The business of the catcher getting the scrum when he is swamped, applies only to the maul. The maul - and nothing but the maul.
That the commentators get it wrong is understandable because some referees get it wrong as well, and there is less excuse for them.
If the catcher catches the ball and a maul forms and becomes unplayable, then the scrum goes to the catcher's side. If there is no maul the criteria for awarding a scrum are different.
In this case there was a tackle. There was no maul. The ball-carrier was grasped by an opponent and went to ground. MacDonald tackled Roets and Roets went to ground with MacDonald holding him. Then the criteria for awarding the scrum are those laid down for the tackle.
Law 15.8 DOUBT ABOUT FAILURE TO COMPLY
If the ball becomes unplayable at a tackle and there is doubt about which player did not conform to law, the referee orders a scrum immediately with the throw-in by the team that was moving forward prior to the stoppage or, if no team was moving forward, by the attacking team.
If what took place became a ruck, the criteria are those for the ruck.
Law 16.7 UNSUCCESSFUL END TO A RUCK
(a) A ruck ends unsuccessfully when the ball becomes unplayable and a scrum is ordered. The team that was moving forward immediately before the ball became unplayable in the ruck throws in the ball. If neither team was moving forward, or if the referee cannot decide which team was moving forward before the ball became unplayable in the ruck, the team that was moving forward before the ruck began throws in the ball. If neither team was moving forward, then the attacking team throws in the ball.
The maul is different from a tackle and a ruck in the award of the ball at a scrum. It is a different kettle of fish altogether. The maul is a different way of playing and so has different laws governing it, including the way the scrum is awarded if the ball does not come out of a maul.
Law 17.5 SUCCESSFUL END TO A MAUL
A maul ends successfully when the ball leaves the maul or a player with the ball leaves the maul. The maul ends when the ball is on or over the goal-line.
6 UNSUCCESSFUL END TO A MAUL
(a) A maul ends unsuccessfully if it remains stationary or has stopped moving forward for longer than 5 seconds and a scrum is ordered.
(b) A maul ends unsuccessfully if the ball becomes unplayable or collapses (not as a result of foul play) and a scrum is ordered.
(c) Scrum following maul. The ball is thrown in by the team not in possession when the maul began. If the referee cannot decide which team had possession, the team moving forward before the maul stopped throws in the ball. If neither team was moving forward, the attacking team throws in the ball.
(d) When a maul remains stationary or stops moving forward but the ball is being moved and the referee can see it, a reasonable time is allowed for the ball to emerge. If it does not emerge within a reasonable time a scrum is ordered. +
(e) Once a maul has stopped moving forward it may start moving forward again providing it does so within 5 seconds. If the maul stops moving forward a second time and if the ball is being moved and the referee can see it, a reasonable time is allowed for the ball to emerge. If it does not emerge within a reasonable time, a scrum is ordered.
(f) When the ball in a maul becomes unplayable, the referee does not allow prolonged wrestling for it. A scrum is ordered.
(g) If the ball-carrier in a maul goes to ground, including being on one or both knees or sitting, the referee orders a scrum unless the ball is immediately available.
(h) Scrum after a maul when catcher is held. If a player catches the ball direct from an opponent's kick, except from a kick-off or a drop-out, and the player is immediately held by an opponent, a maul may form. Then if the maul remains stationary, stops moving forward for longer than 5 seconds, or if the ball becomes unplayable, and a scrum is ordered, the team of the ball catcher throws in the ball.
'Direct from an opponent's kick' means the ball did not touch another player or the ground before the player caught it.
If a maul moves into the player's in-goal, where the ball is touched down or becomes unplayable, a 5-metre scrum is formed. The attacking team throws in the ball.
There it is in (h), but only there and only for a maul. It's been like that for 15 years.
It's always a pity when what looks the same is not governed by the same laws. That leads to confusion.
3. Marking kick-offs
Derick Hougaard of the Bulls goals a penalty and Dan Carter kicks off for the Crusaders, deep down the middle of the field. Hougaard catches the ling kick inside his 22 and kicks a long touch-finder to his right.
Commentator 1: "Of course, you're allowed to mark those kick-offs."
Indeed you are not.
Law 18: A mark cannot be made from a kick-off or a restart kick except for a drop-out.
It used to be allowed. It changed in 1999.
4. A knock-out
I am not sure what the commentator was getting at here but let's just make things clear.
The Crusaders run and big Mose Tuiali'i charges. Little Derick Hougaard of the Bulls tackles him. They fall to ground, Hougaard on top of Tuiali'i.
As they go down, Hougaard knocks the ball with his hand from Tuiali'i's grasp and the ball goes to Wynand Olivier of the Bulls but the referee stops and penalises the Bulls, telling Hougaard he should be on his feet. Dan Carter kicks the ball out.
Commentator 2: "Hougaard knocked the ball out with his hand. I don't think he pulled it over. He just knocked it out."
When Hougaard did so his knees were on the ground and he was falling down on top of Tuiali'i till he was on top of him.
It was a tackle.
Law 15.4 (c) The tackler must get up before playing the ball.
Penalty: Penalty Kick
Hougaard was the tackler. He was on the ground. He played the ball. He merited a penalty.
Definition:
Played: The ball is played when it is touched by a player.
Hougaard touched the ball all right.
5. The Matfield juggle
We seem to have discussed this one often now. There is a clip of it on www.sareferees.co.za.
If there is such disparity between top referees - the tackle allowed in one Super 14 match and penalised in another Super 14 match - perhaps the laws need to spell it out.
Admittedly Matfield's juggle was a high one. If it had been a close juggle, nobody would have penalised the tackler. But if it was a high juggle, as was the case here, it seems one is more likely to penalise the tackler.
It makes little sense as the close juggler may actually be playing better!
Penalising a player because of an opponent's inadequacies seems harsh indeed.