S14, Week 6 - Incidents
We could produce a booklet of law discussion on Week 6 of the Super 14, but will try not to bore too many people.
There are some big one's to discuss - Jimmy Gopperth's try, Neemia Tialata's non-try and Tana Umaga's try - all in one match - the penalty count in Sydney and the suspension of JP Nel. There are other matters as well, but those five seem to have loomed largest.
So far this week we have given statistics for the six Super 14 matches and the three Six Nations matches. We have already discussed the matter of timekeeping in Rome.
Later we shall take incidents from the Six Nations and deal with the compliance report, including dissent with a twist - a kind of pre-dissent.
1. Tana's try
The Hurricanes attack down their left. Corey Jane is near touch and passes inside to big Paul Tito he gallops on till felled. Tana Umaga is right behind, picks up off the ground and stumbling ploughs ahead through Matt Giteau who causes him to stumble past David Pocock. Umaga falls to the ground. Neither Giteau nor Pocock holds him. Nobody holds him. Umaga has the ball in his right arm and with his left hand he pushes himself up so that the whole of his body is clear of the ground. From that position he plunges over the line.
The referee awards the try.
Umaga was not held and so he was not tackled and so he was not obliged to release the ball. He was allowed to get up with the ball. He was then allowed to dive for the line and score the try.
Law 15 A ball-carrier who is not held is not a tackled player and a tackle has not taken place.
2. Neemia's non-try
Down 11-10 and with the match nearing an end, the Hurricanes attack the Force's goal-line, right under their posts. Thomas Waldrom drives ahead and his brought down where a heap of players form a tackle/ruck thing. Suddenly Neemia Tialata, the Hurricanes prop darts forward for the line. Matt Henjak of the Force tackles him. Tialata falls beyond Henjak, held by Henjak, the ball under his right arm. He opens his body and with his right arm stretches out to place the ball. The ball makes contact with the padding a little way off the ground and then topples forward.
The referee consults the TMO and asks him to see if the ball was grounded on the ground and against the posts.
The padding is post in this case, large though it is.
The TMO examines and then advises that Tialata lost the ball above ground.
The point in this is that if he had brought the ball against the post and in contact with the ground at the same time it would have been a try. He lost it against the post but above ground. The result was a five-metre scrum to the Force.
Just as a side show, imagine that he had lost the ball forward and against the padding but from there it had come back into his grasp and he had scored the try. Would you award the try?
After all a knock-on occurs when the ball touches the ground or another player when the player loses it forward. What about the post?
It's not in the book but the point probably is that a knock-on occurs when a player loses the ball forward and fails to gather it of his own accord and without any other intervention.
3. Jimmy's try
We actually have a clip of this on the South African Referees' website - www.sareferees.co.za.
At the scrum in 2. above the Hurricanes destroy the force and win a tighthead. They immediately bash and then release the ball to Jimmy Gopperth of the Hurricanes who charges at the line, spins and goes over. The referee, Mark Lawrence, is right on the spot and awards the try.
There is no demur about the try, not by the players gathered there or by anybody else - till the third replay in slow motion which asks the question whether Gopperth had lost the ball.
It is a hard one.
Firstly, losing the ball does not eliminate the possibility of a try. It is only if the ball is knocked forward that a try should not be awarded but a five-metre scrum to the defending team.
Gopperth's left hand with the strapping at the wrist and not as obvious as his right hand does not leave the ball. He brings it to ground with his hand always on the ball. He does not need downward pressure - just the ball in contact in contact with the ground while he is holding it. His right forearm, too, stays in contact with the ball though his upper arm loses contact with it.
Clever men whom Soundure enables to work clearly frame by frame at a tenth of a second concluded that Gopperth did not lose the ball and that the try was scored.
The referee did not have the luxury of that - and nor did the TMO or the crowd in Subiaco Oval who thought that their hopes had been unfairly dashed.
Law 22.1 GROUNDING THE BALL
There are two ways a player can ground the ball:
(a) Player touches the ground with the ball. A player grounds the ball by holding the ball and touching the ground with it, in in-goal. 'Holding' means holding in the hand or hands, or in the arm or arms. No downward pressure is required.
(b) Player presses down on the ball. A player grounds the ball when it is on the ground in the in-goal and the player presses down on it with a hand or hands, arm or arms, or the front of the player's body from waist to neck inclusive.
The relative bit is (a). Gopperth holds the ball and touches the ground with it in the Force's in-goal.
4. How long is my arm?
The Hurricanes attack and in a tackle Thomas Waldrom passes to Paul Tito on his right. The ball bounces off Tito and goes forward. The referee whistles for a knock-n. Tito does not quite believe him.
The referee tells Tito that the ball came off the outside of his upper arm just below the knob of his shoulder.
Law 12 DEFINITION - KNOCK-ON
A knock-on occurs when a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, or when a player hits the ball forward with the hand or arm, or when the ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, and the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it.
'Forward' means towards the opposing team's dead-ball line.
The ball went forward. If it hit his chest or collarbone, it was not a knock-on. But it hit his arm, which includes his upper arm it was a knock on. According to the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary the arm goes from the shoulder to the hand.
5. Tackler plays
a. Heinke van der Merwe, the Lions prop, gets the ball at flyhalf and charges ahead. Three Blues players stop him, one if tall Anthony Boric. Franco van der Merwe and Brian Mujati join in. The referee calls Maul. As they grapple, the six players, Boric is more on the Lions' side. The maul collapses with the ball on the Lions side where Boric is standing. Boric bends, giraffe-like, and picks up the ball which he passes back to his side.
The referee says: "He made the tackle."
What he said may have been confusing. Boric may have made the tackle but there was no tackle before the maul was formed as all the players were on their feet. Nor was Boric a tackler when Van der Merwe went to ground, for Boric did not go to ground and the bizarre law allows for a tackle in which there is a tackler only if the tackler also goes to ground. So the fact that Boric grabbed Van der Merwe - "made the tackle" - is irrelevant.
That there was a maul, meant that Boric, who had joined legally, was not off-side. When that fell down he was still not off-side and so allowed to play.
Law 15 A tackle occurs when a ball-carrier is held by one or more opponents and is brought to the ground.
A ball-carrier who is not held is not a tackled player and a tackle has not taken place.
Opposition players who hold the ball-carrier and bring that player to ground and also go to ground are known as tacklers.
Opposition players who hold the ball-carrier and do not go to ground are not tacklers.
b. Matt Giteau darts past Conrad Smith of the Hurricanes, but has he does so Smith grabs him and the two come to ground, Smith holding Giteau's legs, Smith on the Force side of Giteau. Immediately David Pocock of the Force joins them and Tamati Ellison of the Hurricanes holds onto McIsaac.
Smith is behind McIsaac but gets up to play the ball. The referee penalises Smith who explains to the referee that he was the tackler. The referee explains to Smith that the ruck had been formed.
If there had been no ruck Smith, being the tackler, was perfectly entitled to play the ball from the side he did. There was no need for him to go round and play from his wide. But if there was a ruck he was off-side. To play he did have to go round from behind.
If Pollock was not on his feet, there was no ruck. If Ellison did not have physical contact with Pollock there was no ruck.
Complicated for a player in the heat of the moment.
6. On-side at the tap
The Brumbies are penalised and Bolla Conradie of the Stormers takes a tap and runs. Jeremy Paul of the Brumbies is falling back (retiring) with him but does not interfere with him. Stephen Hoiles of the Brumbies penalises Hoiles for not being back 10 metres.
Commentator: "If you're retiring and he's run five metres, it's play on. It was at least five metres. Tough call there, Steve Walsh."
What the commentator said just is not true.
Law 21.7 WHAT THE OPPOSING TEAM MUST DO AT A PENALTY KICK
(a) Must run from the mark. The opposing team must immediately run towards their own goal-line until they are at least 10 metres away from the mark for the penalty kick, or until they have reached their goal-line if that is nearer the mark.
(b) Must keep running. Even if the penalty kick is taken and the kicker's team is playing the ball, opposing players must keep running until they have retired the necessary distance. They must not take part in the game until they have done so.
(c) Kick taken quickly. If the penalty kick is taken so quickly that opponents have no opportunity to retire, they will not be penalised for this. However, they must continue to retire as described in (b) above or until a team-mate who was 10 metres from the mark has run in front of them, before they take part in the game.
(d) Interference. The opposing team must not do anything to delay the penalty kick or obstruct the kicker. They must not voluntarily take, throw or kick the ball out of reach of the kicker or the kicker's team-mates.
Penalty: Any infringement by the opposing team results in a second penalty kick, 10 metres in front of the mark for the first kick. This mark must not be within 5 metres of the goal-line. Any player may take the kick. The kicker may change the type of kick and may choose to kick at goal. If the referee awards a second penalty kick, the second penalty kick is not taken before the referee has made the mark indicating the place of the penalty.
6. Mr Sandman
Andre Pretorius of the Lions is about to kick for posts. Instead of a kicking tee, he uses sand - makes a little heap and then sets out a line goalwards.
Commentator: "I thought it [sand] was illegal in this game. I thought you could only use the tee."
Law 9.B deals with conversions and Law 21 with penalty kicks. Both say this: The intention to kick is signalled by the arrival of the kicking tee or sand or the player makes a mark on the ground."
There are three ways of placing the ball - tee, sand, mark on the ground.
Historically they occurred in reverse order - first mark, then sand, then tee, which was introduced into rugby by a Canadian, Don Burgess. At one stage the law also allowed the use of sawdust. That seems to have fallen by the wayside.
7. Long peel
This is the second week in a row that this has happened. We mentioned it last week.
The Blues throw into a line-out towards the back where Jerome Kaino rises high to catch the ball. As Chris Heard throws in, Greg Rawlinson leaves the front of the line-out peels off on a wide arc towards the back. When Kaino catches the ball, he comes to ground and Heard comes in on him as the maul is formed.
By that time Rawlinson has crossed the 15-metre line and is infield of it. The referee penalises him.
The line-out is not yet over and Rawlinson has left the line-out - which is why he is penalised.
8. How can you accidentally?
The Sharks kick high. Tiger Mangweni, the Cheetahs fullback, runs forward to catch the ball and at the same time Ronnie Cooke, the Cheetahs centre, runs back towards Mangweni, straight in a line towards him.
Mangweni knock-on. It is a hard knock-on, shooting from his hands straight at Cooke's lower waist where he catches the ball and then tries to get rid of him.
The commentator intermediately proclaims off-side, and is excited about it.
The referee blows his whistle and says: "Accidental off-side."
The commentator is indignant and says: "How can you accidentally catch the ball."
I suppose that reflex does that for you if the hard ball is heading like a missile for the most tender lower part of your torso.
The referee seemed to understand that and get the decision right. After all Cooke made no real effort to go out of his way to catch the ball. All he did was protect his interests.
9. Just lying there
Jimmy Cowan of the Highlanders kicks a high ball down towards the touch-line on his right. Falling back with his back to the direction of the ball Peter Hines jumps and catches the ball. When Hines has come to ground, Lucky Mulipola of the Highlanders grabs him and wrestles him to ground as Glen Horton and Jason MacDonald of the Highlanders and Berrick Barnes of the Reds arrive. Hines is left behind as the three-against-one battle continues. Three-against-one wins and the ball comes back towards Hines who is lying there. Lying there Hines puts out at right foot towards the ball and taps it, ineffectually, and so he does it again and taps it into touch.
OK?
Not at all.
He is lying on the ground and so not allowed to play the ball. If what had happened in three-against-one was a ruck - and it gave every impression of being a ruck - he was off-side.
There were two good reasons to penalise him.
Did he affect play?
Yes he did as the Highlanders were keen to get the ball which had come back to them quickly with lots of Reds out of play.
10. JP suspended
The Bulls management had a complaint about the length of the suspension of JP Nel.
Rocky Elsom is in the process of being tackled by Fourie du Preez and is sinking towards the ground, his head exposed. JP Nel arrives, his right arm hanging straight down. He brings this arm forcibly against and around Elsom's head. Elsom and Du Preez go to ground. Nel stays on his feet.
Nel's action at close quarters was not seen by the referee or the touch judges. Elsom was attended to and played on.
Nel was cited, admitted his guilt and was suspended for three weeks. His previous record was regarded as a good one, he was found to be obviously remorseful, which were seen as a mitigating circumstance.
Some people felt that the suspension was harsh in its length.
The International Rugby Board has Recommended Sanctions for Offences within the Playing Enclosure (Regulation 17).
Its recommendations divides the offence into three categories - Lower End, Mid Range and Top End and then Maximum.
10.4(a) Striking another Player with a hand, arm or fist
LE - 2 weeks
MR - 5 weeks
TE 8+ weeks
Maximum: 52 weeks
Three weeks for Nel is just a little over the Lower End.
Mauro Bergamasco punched Stephen Jones of Wales and was suspended for four weeks.
Neither player could really complain about the length of the suspension.
The Bulls' coach complained that about double standards - that no action was taken against Josh Valentine. He said: "In the same match (in Sydney on Saturday) a Waratahs player blatantly used his elbow to hit Wikus van Heerden in the face. He did not even receive a yellow card."
The Bulls were on the attack. Gary Botha plunged at the Waratahs line and was tackled. A Waratah hauled the ball out and it shot back into their in-goal. Valentine ran back to it and Wikus van Heerden hunted him down. Near the dead-ball line, Van Heerden grabbed Valentine from behind and held onto him. Valentine tried to free himself from Van Heerden's grasp and held by him and facing away from him flung his arm back, which annoyed Van Heerden who held Valentine down some more.
When Valentine touched down the referee blew for a five-metre scrum. He was busy with the scrum situation and did not see what had happened. But the touch judge saw it and reported it: "White 7 wouldn't release Blue 20 on the ground. He retaliated by throwing his elbow backwards towards the player."
The referee spoke to Valentine and penalised him where the scrum, would have happened.
There were dissimilarities:
The Valentine incident was seen by the match official, who reported it and the player was dealt with. Nel was not seen and not dealt with, which makes him a more likely candidate for citing.
Valentine was on the ground with the player on top of him. Nel was on his feet and the player was stumbling to ground.
Valentine was not looking at his opponent. Nel was looking at his opponent.
Valentine's action was described as retaliation, Nel's was not. Elsom had not done a thing to Nel.
Valentine's blow did not compare with Nel's in severity. Severity is important in determining sentence.
11. 18-4
That was the penalty count in the match between the Waratahs and the Bulls. It was a match between the least penalised side in Super 14 and the most penalised side. Disparity is not altogether surprising.
And it could have been even bigger if the match officials had picked up JP Nel's punch and Pedrie Wannenburg's attempt to trip
That was the penalty count in the match between the Waratahs and the Bulls. It was a match between the least penalised side in Super 14 and the most penalised side. Disparity is not altogether surprising.
And it could have been even bigger if the match officials had picked up JP Nel's punch and Pedrie Wannenburg's attempt to trip Kurtley Beale.
It is the biggest disparity in penalties conceded in this year's Super 14. It has led to some questioning of the referee's honesty as if he were obliged to "dish out" penalties on a 50-50 basis. After all accusing the referee of bias is the same as accusing him of cheating.
It is understandable up to a point. People who watch matches are pretty well all supporting a team, often passionately. For them it is hard to believe that there could be anybody on earth not supporting a team.
On this score Tom Canterbury, an American basketball player, said: "The trouble with referees is that they just don't care which side wins."
12. Forearm padding
JP Nel had a strapped forearm and in this match so did Victor Matfield of the Bulls and Will Caldwell of the Waratahs. There are players, not only in the Bulls, who wear it habitually and some rarely.
Wearing such protection is subject to the laws of the game and the referee's inspection.
It is not in the IRB's list of protective clothing because it is not protective clothing.
The Laws do speak of additional items of clothing. It speaks of shin guards, ankle supports, mitts, shoulder pads, a mouth guard, headgear of soft, thin material but not these arm guards with a custom-made look about them as worn by Nel and Matfield.
Law 4.1 ADDITIONAL ITEMS OF CLOTHING
(a) A player may wear supports made of elasticated or compressible materials which must be washable.
(h) A player may wear bandages and/or dressings to cover or protect any injury.
(i) A player may wear thin tape or other similar material as support and/or to prevent injury.
5 BANNED ITEMS OF CLOTHING
(b) A player must not wear any item that is sharp or abrasive.
(c) A player must not wear any items containing buckles, clips, rings, hinges, zippers, screws, bolts or rigid material or projection not otherwise permitted under this law.
(g) A player must not wear any item of which any part is thicker than 0.5 cm when uncompressed or is denser than 45 kilograms per cubic metre unless specified within this law.
(h) A player must not wear any item that is normally permitted by law, but, in the referee's opinion that is liable to cause injury to a player.
Let's say that 4.1 (a) and 5 were complied with - the thing is elasticated and washable, unharmful and of the right thickness and density.
It looked as if Caldwell was wearing bandages. The other two seemed not to be wearing bandages to protect an injury and, if they were used as injury protection, Matfield would have been protecting an injury for too many years to be playing rugby still.