Tri-Nations, Week 1 law from incidents

If the Tri-Nations continues in the thrilling fashion of its opening match at Newlands, it is going to be a thrilling competition this year, and if we have as much to talk about in matter of laws, it is going to be interesting.

Our law discussions have been going for some seven years and it is astonishing how, week after week, there is so much to discuss from the laws in action. Perhaps it is a comment about the complex nature of the game. Perhaps it will be less so after the law changes which will follow the World Cup. But would it not be boring if the laws became so simple that there was nothing to discuss?

Some of the incidents we shall talk about are shown in clips on www.sareferees.co.za. The clips are provided by Soundsure.

1. Scrum check

The following is the record of scrum resets and collapses in the match between South Africa and Australia and the match between New Zealand and Canada:

South Africa vs Australia

Scrums: 13

Resets: 7 (53,8%)

collapses: 5 (38,5%)

New Zealand vs Canada

Scrums: 15

Resets: 3 (20%)

collapses: 4 (26,6%)

There have been worse. But at the first scrum that collapsed John Smit, the Springbok hooker, was injured and left the field. The injury was to a thigh.

2. Boiling emotions

There were two incidents in the match when emotions threatened to get out of hand. They did not get out of hand but expressed themselves in some clumsy wrestling of the kind found in nursery school playgrounds.

The two on Saturday were not serious, but the second one went a step further than the first and the referee responded accordingly. The result was that there was not a third incident.

How detached should a referee be in dealing with such things?

Firstly he needs to be calm so as not to chuck petrol on what are only embers, thus causing a greater conflagration. Secondly he should keep his hands off the players. His only weapon is a whistle. He should use that. Players are used to reacting to the whistle. It goes and they stop playing. It goes and they may well stop wrestling. Then, fourthly, when things calm down he should be decisive. He may well consults his tough judges but ultimately he is the man closest and in charge.

3. A harsh shade of yellow?

From the back of a tackle/ruck, George Gregan chips ahead towards the Springbok line. As Gregan chips Pierre Spies jumps to charge the kick down. Julian Huxley chases and gathers the ball. JP Pietersen and Percy Montgomery grab him. This produces another tackle/ruck. The ball comes back to George Gregan who passes to his left. The pass hits Spies who partly turns his body to avoid the ball, but Gregan's pass is too accurate for avoidance.

The referee calls Victor Matfield and Pierre Spies and shows Spies a yellow card as this is his third infringement.

Spies had been penalised twice as the tackler, both of which happened when the Wallabies were on the attack and close to the Springbok line. After the second occasion, which followed hot on the heels of a high tackle by Juan Smith, the referee warned of serious consequences, saying: "The next penalty in this area may give me a little decision. Do you understand?"

That is fine. But should there not be some intent in the action that leads to the yellow card? Spies clearly had no intention of infringing. After trying to charge down the kick he was falling back to get on-side, which the law required him to do. He was not dawdling, as only three forwards had managed to get to the tackle/ruck that had made an off-side line, because of the speed of the play. His action of turning away from the ball suggested that he had no intention of interfering with play.

There was certainly less intent on infringing than there was in either of the collapsed maul near the Wallaby line later in the game.

This situation is open to forcing a penalty - spot the retiring player and throw the ball against him.

It's not the law but should this not be treated as accidental off-side? Accept that then player is in an off-side position but also accept that he had found himself there because of the speed of the play and had not intentionally interfered with play.

Just one little thing more. Is it not best to say what we mean? Instead of talking about "a little decision" should we not say send to the sin bin or give a yellow card? That is clearly what the referee meant because it is clearly what he, willy-nilly, carried out.

4. Off-side, Mr Ref

After a line-out the Springboks are going through a pick-'n-go routine. Fewer and fewer players are left standing when Schalk Burger picks up and goes to ground, possibly creating a ruck.

Victor Matfield of South Africa stands on the right side, ahead of the last feet on his side. If it is a ruck, he is off-side - a pillar and off-side.

Daniel Vickerman of Australia is opposite Matfield and on-side, in that he is behind the last foot on his side. He moves forward, pushed Matfield out of the way and then charges at Ruan Pienaar who has picked up the ball. Pienaar knocks the ball on and the referee awards a scrum to Australia. Matfield is angry and queries the legality of Vickerman's actions.

If there was a ruck and Vickerman moved forward against Matfield before the ball was out, he could well have been in the wrong, not as obviously as Matfield was in the wrong, but in the wrong. Once the ball was out his action of coming forward and straight onto Pienaar was perfectly in order.

It would seem that South Africa's inadequate protection of the ball was a bigger problem than anything which Vickerman did. Perhaps that is why Matfield had a grim visage.

5. It looked like obstruction

Australia are on a multiphased attack. They come left and Matt Giteau passes to Stephen Moore, the Wallaby hooker. Moore heads straight ahead. In his path is his own prop, Guy Shepherdson, facing Moore. Also in his path, beyond Shepherdson but up against Shepherdson's back is Victor Matfield of South Africa. Moore slips down the left side of Shepherdson who is in physical contact with Matfield who is unable to get to Moore. Gurthro Steenkamp tackles Moore who gets a pass to Giteau who scores.

This was not a matter of decoy running or crossing but just straight obstruction, gridiron style. Shepherdson did not appear to be doing what he did do intentionally and Moore made contact with him. A scrum for accidental off-side would seem to be the desirable decision. If the referee felt that Shepherdson had done what he did deliberately he would have been entitled to award a penalty.

6. Knock-on?

This may just have been the hardest decision of the afternoon. Even with slow motion it's a hard decision.

The Wallabies swing round on attack going from left to right and Matt Giteau grubbers down towards the Springbok goal-line. Giteau chases.

The ball bounces up and Montgomery gets it but Lote Tuqiri gets him and he drops the ball backwards towards his own line. Matt Giteau dives for the inviting ball as Ashwin Willemse from his left and JP Pietersen from his right close in on him. Giteau's hands are down to the ball, Pietersen's right boot coming in to the ball.

The referee orders a scrum.

Did Giteau knock on?

It seems clear that Pietersen's boot kicked the ball back but did Giteau's left hand knock the ball?

If he did not his contact with the ball was with his torso which cannot knock-on and it would then mean that Larkham scored a try.

The referee ruled a knock-on.

Ask the television match official?

One could ask about the grounding of the ball which may have given the television match official scope to talk about the legality of the "try".

It looked the sort of situation TMOs were created for.

7. Out? Whose ball?

Ruan Pienaar of South Africa kicks the ball downfield. It bounces high near the touch line.

Running back Drew Mitchell of Australia jumps to keep the ball in play. He knocks it back infield and he lands in touch. He steps back infield and grabs the ball which is still bouncing and still infield.

Is it out?

Law 19 Definitions

If a player jumps and catches the ball, both feet must land in the playing area, otherwise the ball is in touch or touch-in-goal.

A player in touch may kick or knock the ball, but not hold it, provided it has not crossed the plane of the touch-line. The plane of the touch-line is the vertical space rising immediately above the touch-line.

Mitchell does not catch the ball, but he lands in touch. He is a player in touch. The ball has crossed the "plane of the touch-line".

The ball is out - across the plane and in contact with a player in touch.

Whose ball is it?

Australia's ball. South Africa kicked it and it went into touch.

There is a beautiful clip of this on the SA Referees' site. It was also a situation in a test which Mark Lawrence compiled on the touch-line and related situations.

8. Booers boobed

The Springboks threw into a line-out five metres from the Australian line. It was not the only such line-out in the match as they would have another three. Victor Matfield caught the ball but the Wallabies, as they did on the other three occasions, offered stern resistance.

The maul broke and reformed and the Springboks mauled ahead again till Schalk Burger went down with the ball on top of a squirming heap of players, and the referee blew his whistle for an unsuccessful ending to the maul. He put an arm across his chest and award the scrum to Australia though the Springboks had shunted forward some four metres.

Some people booed.

Some people were wrong.

Law 17.6 UNSUCCESSFUL END TO A MAUL

(a) A maul ends unsuccessfully if it remains stationary or has stopped moving forward for longer than 5 seconds and a scrum is ordered.

(b) A maul ends unsuccessfully if the ball becomes unplayable or collapses (not as a result of foul play) and a scrum is ordered.

(c) Scrum following maul. The ball is thrown in by the team not in possession when the maul began. If the referee cannot decide which team had possession, the team moving forward before the maul stopped throws in the ball. If neither team was moving forward, the attacking team throws in the ball.