Law Discussion - the caught kick

We here discuss some points of rugby law from incidents over the weekend, especially the award of the scrum after a kick is caught.

There are each week clips from matches over the weekend on www.sareferees.co.za.

1. The caught kick

This incident happened at Newlands in the match between Western Province and the Blue Bulls. the referee's decision seemed to surprise the Blue Bulls during the match and led to a query by their assistant coach after the match. 

Peter Grant of Western Province kicks high downfield. Juan de Jongh, the Western Province centre chases the ball. Zane Kirchner of the BB is immediately tackled by De Jongh and the tackle drives Kirchner back some way as he and De Jongh go to ground.

Other players are involved and the referee quickly blows his whistle and awards a scrum to Western Province, gesturing to show that they had been going forward.

This surprises the Blue Bulls who believe that they should get the scrum and one of them makes a catching gesture to indicate that Kirchner had caught the ball and so should get the scrum.

This is frequently a query and even one that referees get wrong. It needs some clear thinking.

The scrum is awarded because the ball has become unplayable.

Law 6.A.8 (e) The referee must blow the whistle when the ball has gone out of play, or when it has
become unplayable, or when a penalty is awarded.

The ball becomes unplayable when a scrum does silly things and the ball will not come out or when it will not come out of a tackle, ruck or maul.

Let's start with 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.

That's it. There is nothing about the catcher of a kick. It's about moving forward.

Let's look at 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.

Again there is nothing about the catcher of a kick. Again it's about moving forward.

Let's look at the maul.

17.6 UNSUCCESSFUL END TO A MAUL

(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.

(f) When the ball in a maul becomes unplayable, the referee does not allow prolonged wrestling for it. A scrum is ordered.

(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.

That's it. That's where the catcher comes in.

You see the whole of maul is different when it becomes unplayable. It has different criteria from the tackle and the scrum. No longer does it matter which side is moving forward and it has this catcher business.  This became law in 1993. The reason was that a catcher who is immediately grabbed is not a player who, of his own volition, starts what becomes a maul. Under pressure he catches the ball, is grabbed and a maul forms.

When this law was brought in 1993, it read: If a player catches the ball direct from a kick by an opponent, other than from a kick-off or a drop-out, and is immediately held by an opponent, so that a maul ensues and the maul becomes stationary or the ball becomes unplayable, his team shall put in the ball at the ensuing scrummage.
‘Direct from a kick’ means the ball has been caught without having bounced off a playing surface or with having touched or been touched in flight by another player.

The wording has changed slightly but the essence is the same. That is how it has been for some time and for all that time it concerned only the maul after the catch.

At Newlands there was no maul. The catcher did  not come into reckoning. There was a tackle and possibly a ruck. That is why moving forward was the criterion in awarding the scrum.

The referee at Newlands was right. Those who queried him, including the assistant coach, were wrong - not that they were alone in being wrong.  Commentator: "It's from a kick. He's taken it in. It should be Blue Bulls' ball."

The commentator was wrong.

2. Place of kick.

Bath play Gloucester on the opening day of the Premiership.

Michael Claassens of Bath passes to Nick Abendanon who chips, chases and then falls to ground. Eliota Fuimaono-Sapolu was penalised for making late, illegal contact with Abendanon, causing him to fall to ground. The referee penalises Sapolu. 

Where?  When Abendanon kicked he was about 12m in from touch. The ball bounced about five metres in from touch.

The referee  awarded the penalty where the ball bounced, i.e. about five metres in from touch.

Right? 

No. Wrong.

Law 10.4 (n) Late-charging the kicker. A player must not intentionally charge or obstruct an opponent who has just kicked the ball.
Penalty: The non-offending team may choose to take the penalty kick either at the place of infringement, where the ball lands, or where it was next played.

Place of infringement. If the infringement takes place in the kicker’s in-goal, the penalty kick is taken 5 metres from the goal line in line with the place of infringement but at least 15 metres from the touchline.
The non-offending team may also choose to take the penalty kick where the ball lands or is next played and at least 15 metres from the touchline.
Where the ball lands. If the ball lands in touch, the mark for the optional penalty kick is on the 15-metre line, in line with where it went into touch. If the ball lands within 15 metres of the touchline, the mark is on the 15-metre line opposite where it landed.

Bath should have been given the option of a penalty where Abendanon kicked the ball (12m form touch) and a penalty where the balk bounced but 15m from the touch-line. The extra 10m in from touch would make a difference.

Oddly enough in 1. above the referee was right and was criticised; in 2. he is wrong and not criticised.

3. On the far side

Lee Dickson of Northampton Saints puts the ball into a scrum but Worcester Warriors wheel the scrum and get possession of the ball.

Dickson nips round the scrum and on the far side from where he put the ball in, kicks at the ball. The referee awards a scrum to Worcester Warriors for successfully wheeling the scrum.

What about Dickson?

Dickson is liable to a penalty on two counts.

First he is offside.

Law 20.12 (d) The scrum half whose team does not win possession of the ball must not move to the opposite side of the scrum and overstep the offside line. For that scrum half that runs through the hindmost foot of that player’s team in the scrum.
Penalty: Penalty Kick

Secondly, he kicked the ball while it was in the scrum.

Law 20.9 (g) Scrum half: Kicking in the scrum. A scrum half must not kick the ball while it is in the scrum.
Penalty: Penalty Kick

4. Lifting leg

Worcester Warriors form a maul and drive it forward. Suddenly the referee blows his whistle and penalises Willie Walker of Worcester Warriors for grabbing an opponent's legs and trying to lift them.

This ploy is tried more often by the team not in possession of the ball. Whoever does it, it is illegal. It is illegal because it is liable to cause the maul to collapse, and that is illegal.

5. The tough one

a. Northampton Saints are on the attack and drive on past Pat Sanderson, the Worcester Warriors' captain.

When the Saints win the ball from a tackle/ruck Lee Dickson, the Saints' scrumhalf, passes the ball into Sanderson who is on all fours. The referee penalises Sanderson.

b. Western Province attack and Gio Aplon makes good ground and the ball comes back quickly to Dewaldt Duvenhage who passes to his right towards Deon Fourie of Western Province but the ball strikes Flip van der Merwe of the Blue Bulls as he falls back hands in the air to protest the innocence of his intentions. The referee awards a scrum to Western Province.

A penalty vs a scrum. That's a huge difference.  There were differences.

in a. the ball was slow; in b. it was quick.
In a. Dickson seemed to be passing to Sanderson; in b. Duvenhage was passing to a team-mate.
in a. Sanderson was on his knees, his back to play; in b. Van der Merwe was on his feet, and facing play.

A greater case of accidental offside could be made in favour of Sanderson than in favour of Van der Merwe, though the decisions were vice versa.

Accidental offside?

Law 11.6 ACCIDENTAL OFFSIDE

(a) When an offside player cannot avoid being touched by the ball or by a team-mate carrying it, the player is accidentally offside. 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.

Could Sanderson have avoided been touched by the ball? Highly unlikely.
Could Van der Merwe have avoided by the ball? Possibly. In his favour Van der Merwe was doing what the law requires of an offside player - trying to get onside.

Was either a lazy runner trying to be in the way?

Sanderson was not a runner and it's hard to know what other path Van der Merwe could have taken. Perhaps the lock - not a nimble man - could have ducked or held back out of the way.

6. Outside arm

Northampton Saints throw into a line-out but Tom Wood at No.2 for Worcester Warriors wins the ball. The referee penalises Worcester Warriors saying: "Use of outside arm."

Penalty or free kick?

Law 19.10 (l) Catching or deflecting. When jumping for the ball, a player must use either both hands or the inside arm to try to catch or deflect the ball. The jumper must not use the outside arm alone to try to catch or deflect the ball. If the jumper has both hands above the head either hand may be used to play the ball.
Penalty: Free Kick on the 15-metre line

That sounds like a free kick for using the outside arm.  If the inside arm is up to no good, that's a different matter,

Law 19.10 (c) Levering on an opponent. A line-out player must not use an opponent as a support when jumping.
Penalty: Penalty Kick on the 15-metre line

(d) Holding or shoving. A line-out player must not hold, push, charge, obstruct or grasp an opponent not holding the ball except when a ruck or maul is taking place.
Penalty: Penalty Kick on the 15-metre line

Those are possible misuses of the inside arm while the outside arm is fluttering above.