Law Discussion: Time, gentlemen, time

Last week we discussed the matter of the time to end the match.  It provoked two responses, one from Peter Shortell of Cheltenham and one from Mark Lawrence of Standerton. We give both here.

Should you wish to read the original discussion, go to  https://rugby365.com/laws_referees/discuss/149218.htm.  It's Number 3.

Peter Shortell:

I enjoyed your recent item (15 May) on when a half ends.

One tricky point is to decide when a scrum or line-out is "awarded" (in terms of Law 5.7 (e) ).

For a scrum it can be only when the referee blows his whistle, because he might well play advantage until then. For a line-out there is no advantage option, and so it makes sense to say that it is awarded at the moment when the ball is in touch. Thus it does not depend on how quickly the touch judge or the referee reacts in signalling it. Although different, both seem to me to be clear cut and fair.

Whose time is it? In the local park it can only be the referee's decision, but in TV matches it is normal to have timekeeping delegated to another official. Subject to any disagreement by the referee, it is then the timekeeper's decision that matters. In the Guinness Premiership he controls a countdown clock which is also shown on the TV screen. In the Super 14 it appears he sounds a siren when time has expired, though the on-screen clock does not always reflect this.

Once the siren has gone or the clock reached zero, then it is up to the referee to decide when to stop the game. If a scrum has to be reset, it is generally agree that it is the same scrum, so play continues. I remember on one occasion Chris White ruled that a 90 degree wheel and turnover was still the same scrum.

The only one of your line-out cases that is unclear is (b), when the throw was skew. Has the awarded line-out been completed? I would say it has not, on the same grounds as a reset scrum. Obviously therefore if the team chooses a line-out, play can continue. It seems only sensible to consider the scrum option to be equivalent, and allow it to be taken.

But you are right - it certainly does need tidying up.

Mark Lawrence:

The problem arises with the interpretation of the word “awarded”. In the case of a line out, the assistant referee raises his flag and indicates the throw. Is this awarded?

Up to this point the referee has done nothing. Now he blows his whistle. Is this awarded?

Then he marks the centre of the line-out. Is this now awarded? 

In the scrum the referee indicates whose put in as he blows the whistle and then gives the secondary signal to indicate the infringement. For transparency, we always indicate whose ball it is as we blow the whistle. Then we explain the infringement. The old “blow, show, talk” issue.

Only after this do we consider matters like full-time, etc. So at what point was the scrum really awarded?

The problem is further compounded by delays in communication from timekeeper to referee to indicate half-time or full time and then the wonderful siren, which at times is not heard immediately by the referee or players, and then at times we have spectators let off false sirens to confuse everyone, which is apparently  amusing,  but which can result in a delay which could technically now be the difference between “awarded or not”

I believe it is not a game of chess, where we deal in black and white only!

I believe Law 23 applies, the commonsense law, which makes allowance for the above problems referees encounter from time to time.

In the real world this issue is so small over the whole scheme of things, we are turning a molehill into a mountain. Proof is did the bonus point try of the Chiefs make a difference in the end. NO!