Mandela Plate - 2
Stats, bits
After Australia had South Africa 30-12 at Telstra Stadium in Sydney, South Africa turned the tables and beat Australia 33-20 at Ellis Park. We give some statistics and discuss incidents.
Later in the week we shall comment on what readers have to say.
1. Statistics
(i) Penalties conceded:
Australia: 7
South Africa: 12
South Africa goaled four penalties, Australia one.
(ii) Reasons for the penalties:
Australia:
Tackle/ruck: 2 (*Latham, Sailor)
Off-side: 3 (*Chisholm, Smith, Lyons)
Scrum: 1 (*Young)
Discipline: 1 (*Elsom - not back 10)
South Africa:
Tackle/ruck: 6 (*Van Niekerk, Tibylika, Fourie 2, Julies 2)
Off-side: 4 (Matfield, "entire backline", Smit, Paulse)
Discipline: 2 (Fourie - obstruction, Burger - high tackle)
* = points scored
(iii) Free kicks awarded
Australia: 4 (1 mark, 3 scrums)
South Africa: 0
(iii) Line-outs awarded
Australia: 17 (6 lost, 1 quick)
South Africa: 11 (1 lost, 1 quick, 1 skew)
(iv) Scrums awarded
Australia: 13 (8 reset, 2 free kick)
South Africa: 6 (6 reset, 1 free kick, 1 penalty)
(v) Drop-outs
Australia: 2
South Africa: 1
(vi) Total Stoppages: 85
(vii) Resets as a % of scrums: 73,7%
(ix) Tries
Australia vs South Africa: 3 + 3 = 6
(x) Tackle/Rucks: 155 of which only two were unplayable, one for each side.
(xi) Kicks
By Australia: 22
By South Africa: 20
(xii) Advantage
The referee tried to play advantage on 24 occasions. It worled six times.
(xiii) Comparison with 1st Mandela Plate match:
a. Penalties conceded
1st: Australia vs South Africa: 3 + 9 = 12
2nd: Australia vs South Africa: 7 + 12 = 19
b. Line-out throws
1st: Australia vs South Africa: 19 + 21 = 40
2nd: Australia vs South Africa: 17 + 10 = 27
c. Line-outs lost
1st: Australia vs South Africa: 4 + 1 = 5
2nd: Australia vs South Africa: 6 + 2 = 8
d. Scrum put-ins
1st: Australia vs South Africa: 7 + 7 = 14
2nd: Australia vs South Africa: 13 + 6 = 19
e. Stoppages
1st: 66
2nd: 83
f. Resets as percentage of scrums
1st: 57
2nd: 73,7
g. Tries
1st: Australia vs South Africa: 5 + 0 = 5
2nd: Australia vs South Africa: 3 + 3 = 6
h. Sanctions
1st: None
2nd: South Africa two yellow cards - Paulse and Burger.
2. Lines again
It is amazing how much debate lines produce. In the first Mandela Plate match we had two, both in fact erroneously adjudicated.
a. Stephen Larkham of Australia chips and chases towards the South African line. Bryan Habana of South Africa turns and chases after the ball, ahead of Larkham. The ball bounces, he hovers and when the ball is beyond the line, he grabs it and falls to ground. When he grabs the ball it is in the air and his feet are in the field of play. The ball does not touch the ground in the in-goal until he plunges to earth with it.
Decision?
Drop-out. That is what happened. The ball was certainly over the goal-line when Habana grabbed it. He then fell straight to ground with it. He did not take the ball back into the field of play.
There may have been confusion for some in the law that allows a player with one foot in the in-goal and one in the field of play to grab a ball moving towards him and drop it down to get the drop-out.
b. Australia kicks off to start the match. The ball does not travel 10 metres. It is played. Australia get the ball and play on.
How is this possible?
It is possible only if South Africa played the ball before it had reached the 10-metre line. If they did play the ball before it had travelled 10 metres, play goes on.
3. Cleaning out
Look at two incidents:
a. South Africa are defending but Australia make a mess after a tackle. The ball is lying on the ground. Jean de Villiers of South Africa beats George Gregan of Australia to the ball. De Villiers lies beyond the ball and South Africa are going to get it. A few other players gather. Nathan Sharpe of Australia is on the players where the ball is and Stephen Larkham of Australia is there, slightly behind, more or less at the side, bending down as if to get the ball, touching Sharpe. Jaque Fourie of South Africa comes in and drives Larkham away.
b. George Smith of Australia is tackled in midfield. Other players gather. One of them is Gurthro Steenkamp of South Africa but detached from the tackle/ruck and in a position to tackle. Mark Chisholm of Australia goes beyond the tackle/ruck and drives Steenkamp back.
Fourie was penalised, Chisholm not - which may have been oversight or no sight or wrong sight - or Fourie may have infringed and Chisholm not. But would it not be easier if "cleaning out" stopped, players were not allowed to play a man without the ball and at the tackle/ruck were obliged to play to the ball and bind on their own players? Would it not then be easier to be consistent?
Law 16.2 (b): A player joining a ruck must bind onto the ruck with at least one arm around the body of a team-mate, using the whole arm.
Fourie did not do that - but then neither did Chisholm (and there were other examples in the match).
Just a thought.
4. Obstruction
Again let's look at two incidents.
a. André Pretorius of South Africa has the ball, going left. He crabs across the field as Jaque Fourie of South Africa cuts back. Fourie runs ahead of Pretorius and into an approaching Wallaby.
The referee penalises Fourie.
b. Drew Mitchell of Australia has the ball. Phil Waugh of Australia is in front of Mitchell. Mitchell runs into Waugh who, but his position ahead of Mitchell, prevents the approaching Breyton Paulse from getting to Mitchell.
The referee awards a scrum to South Africa.
OK?
That is the way the law is, which is not altogether fair, it seems. Fourie certainly did not intend to obstruct but the only sanction for what he did is a penalty. Waugh also did not intend to obstruct but did so. The difference is that Mitchell ran into him. In that case the sanction is a scrum.
Would it not be better if both eventualities received the same treatment?
5. On the cards
Breyton Paulse of South Africa and Schalk Burger were sent to the sin bin - Paulse for repeated infringements, Burger for a reckless, high tackle that knocked Rocky Elsom out.
a. Breyton Paulse
Let's look at a timetable of events all well within the Springbok 22.
29.10: Bryan Habana dives in from the side of a tackle/ruck. The referee plays advantage.
29.12: The Springbok backs are off-side. The referee penalises them. The Wallabies opt for a line-out.
30.50: Jaque Fourie tackles Matt Giteau and gets the ball. He is penalised. The Wallabies opt for a line-out.
32.10: John Smit is off-side. The Wallabies tap and charge.
33.30: Jaque Fourie is penalised for a "clean-out?. The Wallabies opt for a scrum.
34.23:Breyton Paulse is off-side. The referee plays advantage.
34.30: Breyton Paulse is off-side. The referee penalises him and sends him to the sin bin.
Paulse's offence, which earned a period in the sin bin, was the seventh infringement in 5 minutes 20 seconds and all in the "red" zone, well within the Springbok 22.
Was the referee too patient?
b. Schalk Burger
The Wallabies were on the attack on their right. Stirling Mortlock passed inside to Rocky Elsom who started to swerve to his left as the zestful Burger came charging across. As he overran Elsom he reaches back with a long arm and his hand hit Elsom's jaw, knocking him out.
The referee acknowledged that Burger's action was not "deliberate" but said that it was reckless. "Because it was reckless, I'm putting you in the bin."
The referee's summary seemed accurate.
The law allows players to tackle. That is part of the mode of play, which is not the case in all games. But it does require a player to tackle legally and not dangerously. Tackling above the line of the shoulders is a high tackle, a form of dangerous tackling.
That Elsom was laid out and the fact that he left the field may well have increased the gravity of the recklessness.
Burger's action happened after he had been on the field for only 1 minute 18 seconds, which may be a Test record of some unenviable kind!
6. Tying time
Chris Latham of Australia lost his boot. The referee allowed time for him to put it back on.
OK?
Yes.
Law 5.4 (b) Replacing players' clothing. When the ball is dead, the referee allows time for a player to replace or repair a badly torn jersey, shorts or boots. Time is allowed for a player to re-tie a boot-lace.
It was not ever so, which caused players to resort to the subterfuge of feigned injury to create time for a team-mate to get a boot on or tied.
7. Up and down
Jaque Fourie of South Africa tackles Matt Giteau of Australia. They both go to ground. Fourie is behind Giteau, that is nearer the Australian goal-line than Giteau is. In that position Fourie gets up and plays the ball.
Is he allowed to do that from that postion?
Yes, because he is a tackler within the definition of Law 15: Opposition players who hold the ball-carrier and bring that player to ground and who also go to ground are known as tacklers.
Opposition players who hold the ball-carrier and do not go to ground are not tacklers.
But what is up? It is the opposite of being on the ground. If a player is not supported by both feet, he is not "up". Being one knee is enough to make him on the ground and so not "up".
What else can stop him from playing? If he is up and a ruck forms before he gets the ball up off the ground, he is not allowed to use his hands to get it up.