S14 incidents - Round 9

Questioning the maul

We have some serious incidents to discuss seriously and we have some serious questions about the maul. The maul is especially interesting.

Before we do so let's quote two Mextedisms from a most endearing commentator.

The great man questioned a referee when he penalised the Crusaders for coming in at the side: "He certainly came from behind - perhaps a trifle to the side."

The other, much more dubious, is from the match between the Highlanders and the Force: "He was running across the field exposing himself."

1. Ins and outs - i

Matt Henjak of the Force kicks a rolling kick down towards the Highlanders' cornerpost on the Force's right. The ball rolls and rolls and with an accuracy that would have pleased Tiger Woods hits the corner post.

The referee turns to the Highlanders and gives them an option of a drop-out or a scrum where Henjak kicked the ball.

OK?

Yes.

The cornerpost is a part of touch-in-goal.

Law 22.8 BALL KICKED DEAD IN IN-GOAL

If a team kicks the ball through their opponents’ in-goal, into touch-in-goal or on or over the dead ball line, except by an unsuccessful kick at goal or attempted dropped goal, the defending team has two choices:

To have a drop-out, or
To have a scrum at the place where the ball was kicked and they throw in.

2. Ins and outs - ii

Neil de Kock of the Stormers kicks high downfield from within his 22. Nick Williams of the Blues waits to catch the kick. When he catches it the ball has not quite reached the plane of the line but Williams has one foot over the line and the other foot on the line.

Whose ball?

Law 19 DEFINITIONS

The ball is in touch if a player catches the ball and that player has a foot on the touch-line or the ground beyond the touch-line.

De Kock kicked. The Blues should get the throw-in from touch.

3. He lost the ball

a. The Stormers attack. Marius Joubert of the Stormers drives at the line. The ball is under his right arm. He drops the ball.

The referee consults the television match official.

Commentator: Does he recover it before it hits the ground?"

b. Adam Ashley Cooper is in the clear. He dives and he drops the ball.

Does dropping the ball rule out the possibility of the try?

In a. above, the referee consulted the television match official. he verdict was: Ball lost forward.

If the ball is lost forward and not caught again before it hits the ground, that is a knock-on and so no try.

If it is dropped straight down or backwards and then grounded - pressing down on it when it is on the ground - then it is a try.

If Ashley Cooper had lost the ball backwards under his torso and his torso had grounded it, then it was a try.

4. Get out of there

The Blues throw in to a line-out and make a maul which they move forward.

From time to time the referee issues commands:

"Out of there, Three White."
"Out of there, Two White."
"Out of there Seven White."
"Out of there." This to Two and then Three. Three does not get out.

Then came the penalty. "Get out of there. I asked you to get out. Get out."

We had recently a discussion about the maul which Gareth Simmonds launched. You may like to read it again (Click here), because this is a case in point.

The second command is especially relevant. Two White, goes behind the maul, bends down at the back, binds on team-mates and pushes forward. His pushing forward takes him amongst the Blues where he is told to get out.

Why should he get out?  Surely getting there legitimately and staying caught up in the maul entitled him to stay where he was, even if it was inconvenient to the team with the ball.

Law 17.2 2 JOINING A MAUL

(a) Players joining a maul must have their heads and shoulders no lower than their hips.
Penalty: Free Kick

(b) A player must be caught in or bound to the maul and not just alongside it.

That would seem to be what Hanyani Shimange was doing.

Law 17 DEFINITION

A maul occurs when a player carrying the ball is held by one or more opponents, and one or more of the ball-carrier's team-mates bind on the ball-carrier. A maul therefore consists of at least three players, all on their feet the ball-carrier and one player from each team. All the players involved must be caught in or bound to the maul and must be on their feet and moving towards a goal-line. Open play has ended. 

That "moving towards" clearly does not mean actually going in the direction of an opponent's goal-line. Otherwise everybody stopping a defensive maul is liable to a penalty because they are being shoved backwards. Perhaps it means facing a goal-line. In that case many players in the maul are penalisable for not facing a goal-line, their own or their opponents'. It would be interesting to know what it's doing there - and it's new.

But the main point: if a player joins the maul legitimately and remains bound to or caught up in the maul there is no reason to tell him to get out even if he is inconvenient.

5. TMO times 2

We have two incidents from the same match.

a. André Pretorius of the Cats drops for goal as David Croft of the Reds leaps to put pressure on him. The ball his Croft'S lofted hand and flues towards the posts.

The Referee consults the television match official

Referee: "I want you to check that. I couldn't see it against the white post."

b. The Reds attack from a five-metre line-out. They batter at the line till David Croft picks up the ball and goes in low with Sean Harman urging him on.

The referee consults the television match official.

Referee: "Double check for me. I'm not sure if he actually lost the ball before he got to the goal-line."

OK.

It is OK for the referee to consult the TMO about the dropped goal. That is in the protocol. It is not all right to ask about the knock-on before the goal-line except in the act of grounding the ball, which was probably the case here.

The IRB's protocol on the TMO:

2.1  The areas of adjudication are limited to Law 6. 8 (b), 6.8 (d) and 6.8 (e) and therefore relate to:

- grounding of the ball for try and touch down
- Touch, touch-in-goal, ball being made dead during the act of grounding the ball.

This includes situations where a player may or may not have stepped in touch in the act of grounding the ball on or over the goal line.

The TMO could therefore be requested to assist the referee in making the following decisions:

• Try
• No try and scrum awarded 5 metres
• Touch down by a defender
• In touch – line-out
• Touch-in-goal
• Ball dead on or over the dead ball line
• Penalty tries after acts of foul play in in-goal
• Dropped goal.

The TMO must not be requested to provide information on players prior to the ball going into in-goal (except touch in the act of grounding the ball).

The TMO must not be asked to assist in any other decision other than those listed including acts of foul play in the act of grounding the ball or otherwise.

In both these cases the right result was obtained, which is the object of the exercise.

It may just be worth noting got old-timers that the drop stands even if the ball is touched, which used not to be the case in days before the flood.

As the referee explained to the Reds the outcome would be a five-metre scrum because Croft had deliberately played the ball.

6. Replacement quandary

The Cats take off lock Gordon Gilfillan and substitute him with Jannes Labuschagne. It is a substitution. There is neither bleeding nor other injury involved.

But Labuschagne is injured.

Is Gilfillan allowed back?

Only if Labuschagne is bleeding. He is not bleeding, and so the Cats send on a prop Lawrence Sephaka, which unbalances their scrum and reduces their options in the line-out.

Then prop Pietman van Niekerk is injured. They afire allowed to replace him.

So Sephaka, who is on the field steps into the front row and Gilfillan makes his return.

It's slightly skewed. While Gilfillan is replacing Van Niekerk, he does not go into Van Niekerk's place in the front row.

It could all have been avoided if Labuschagne had bled a little. There is, after all, no stipulated quantity of blood to constitute bleeding!