Law Discussion: Thorn and Wulf

In the Tri-Nations match between New Zealand and South Africa, there were two telling moments which are worth looking at - Brad Thorn's action against John Smit and the off-side decision against Rudi Wulf. Which is worse - missing what happened or blowing for what did not happen?

Surely it must be the latter. It means that the referee has guessed. Guessing is not good. It is not honest and flies in the face of the refereeing principle of clear and obvious. If an infringement is not clear and obvious, play goes on.

a. The score was 16-8 when the All Blacks attacked and Dan Carter stabbed a kick through into the Springboks in-goal where Wulf sped to the ball, grabbed it and "scored". He did everything necessary for a try to be awarded but the referee had judged him to be off-side.

If he was off-side it was by a toenail.

Awarded that try would probably have taken the All Blacks into a 23-8 lead.

Later the referee is reported to have apologised for his error. It should have been a try.

b. Conrad Jantjes of Springboks counterattacks. Adam Thomson of New Zealand clamps a left forearm around Jantjes's neck as Jantjes ducks slightly. Nearby is Brad Thorn who falls down on Jantjes with his forearm leading. John Smit then drives in on Thorn. The whistle goes. The referee is about to penalise Thomson - or so it seems.

Smit then pushes Thorn's head. It is not a punch nor much of a push.

Thorn rises, grabs Smit by the legs, lifts him into the air and then  lets him go. Smith falls down heavily on his back.

The referee consults the touch judges and then penalises Thorn. He then talks to both captains. Smit asks the referee about the possibility of a spear tackle. The referee says that "we" were not sure.  Later he is reported to have said that it should have been a yellow card but that he had not been looking. Thorn was subsequently cited and suspended for a week for "an act contrary to good sportsmanship rather than a dangerous tackle".

Presumably, differently from in Super 14 which is also a SANZAR competition, a tackle of this nature is not regarded as a red-card offence and therefore not subject to citing. In the match between Australia and France Benjamin was given a yellow card for a similar tackle and was not cited. Accept that but let's listen to the referee who is reported afterwards as saying he did not see it as he was concentrating on the party guilty of the high tackle, Thomson. There are irregularities in what he has to say.

At the time, after blowing his whistle and when Smit is pushing at Thorn's head, the referee starts to speak and he speaks as Thorn lifts Smit.

He says: "No, no, Two, Two." (Smit was wearing the number two.) Presumably he started speaking before Thorn lifted Smit. Presumably he was looking at Smit and not at Thomson at the time. As Thorn lifts Smit the referee has a clear view and is an arm's length away. In fact the referee puts out his left arm towards Smit and actually touches him.

As the fighting breaks out, the referee calls "No, No, No."

When the "fighting" stopped - and it was more protest than fighting - the rest of what is said is important.

Referee: "Time out."

Then he meets with both touch judges.

Referee: "I've got the original one for a high tackle."

The three agree it was "Number 6" - Thomson.

Touch judge: "Four Black has carried on afterwards and lifted the green player off the ground and upended him and he lets him go in the air." He accompanies what he says with gestures. (Four is Thorn's number.)

Referee: "So we're just talking about reversing the penalty there."

Touch judge: "Four Black."

Referee: "Against Four Black.

"So the first penalty was against Black for the high tackle. So we're going to penalise Four Black there now for that one. OK."

The referee brings Rodney So'oialo and Thorn to him and says: "Penalty's already gone and you lifted him in the air and dropped him, OK. Keep your discipline.

"We're turning the penalty around. It's against you. OK. Thank you."

The referee calls So'oialo and Smit to him and said: "You've probably got that out of your system. The penalty's now going against Four Black for dropping him there. Just have a quiet word, calm them down and we'll get on with the game."

Smit said to the referee: "What about the spear."

Referee: "We're not sure. "

Things to talk about are obvious. It is obvious that the referee had full view of the whole action.

Normally when the referee speaks of reversing the kick or turning the kick around, he means changing the penalty from one team to the other team. But it's hard to see how the Springboks could have been penalised in the action before Thorn's action. What he proably meaant that where the penalty would have gone against Thomson it was now going against Thorn.

Then there is the reply to Smit about we and being unsure. If the we was meant to mean the referee and the touch judges, there was no discussion about a yellow card at all. But it was clear that the touch judge was sure what had happened, unless he was not a part of we. If we really meant I then one wonders, with the view he had, how thew referee could ever be sure about any other decision.

He certainly could not have been sure that Wulf was off-side.

Mind you the calm of replays is much, much easier than the heat of battle.