Law discussion – Wellington and others
There's been quite a lot of mail from irate Hurricans fans about the finale of the match between the Sharks and the Hurricanes last Saturday, most of the ire directed at referee Paul Marks.
There's been quite a lot of mail from irate Hurricans fans about the finale of the match between the Sharks and the Hurricanes last Saturday, most of the ire directed at referee Paul Marks.
So we'll have a look at that one for the opening part of this week's law discussion…
Penalty try or not?
Shannon Paku broke down the right and was tackled into touch, but managed to flip the ball inside before putting a foot in touch himself. The covering Stefan Terblanche got a hand to the ball and batted it into his in-goal before Conrad Smith could get onto the pass.
Brad Barritt, not seeing Terblanche's efforts, tackled Smith, who was not carrying the ball. Thomas Waldrom grounded the bouncing ball. But by that time the referee had already blown, perceiving that Smith had knocked the ball on rather than Terblanche knocking it back.
This is the most important aspect. Once the referee had blown for the knock-on, everything after it is rendered irrelevant. He certainly could not refer the matter to the TMO as the knock-on was not in the act of scoring or trying to score.
Lots of people have written in saying the referee was wrong. That itself wrong. Going on what he saw or believed he saw, Paul Marks did not one single thing wrong. he awarded a scrum for a knock-on, and then blew the final whistle as the game had run out of time. Anything that happened after Terblanche's bat-down is irrelevant. One criticism that could be levelled at Marks is that he guessed the ball had been knocked on, in which case he should not have blown. But only he knows that for sure.
The other accusation that may be reasonably levelled at Marks is that he could have shown a degree of initiative, broken with protocol, and used the TMO anyway, given the fury shown by the Hurricanes players. But to actually ask a referee to break with protocols during a match is quite a thing.
Would it not be better to change the protocols now? There have been a few experiments around the world with the TMO, most notably in France where the TMO can now be called in in case of fighting, in order to find the real miscreants. Perhaps a tweak to the protocol in order to ensure that the passage of play in the build-up to a score can be referred to the TMO, as well as the act of scoring itself would clear things up.
Corner flag differences between north and south
How kind of the game to produce two instances, one in each hemisphere, of the same instance in order to clear up a difference under the ELVs.
Francois Steyn kicks the ball downfield, and the ball hits a corner flag in the Super 14 match between the Hurricanes and the Sharks, then bounces into touch.
Jean-Baptiste Elissalde does the same in the Heineken Cup match between Toulouse and the Blues, with the ball bouncing back into play.
In the case of the Super 14, the corner flag is in play, and therefore the ball is in touch, resulting in a line-out. In the case of the Heineken Cup, the ball is ruled dead if it hits the corner flag, and therefore a 22 drop out is ordered.
There is another variation on this though. Had the ball bounded back into play for Steyn, and had one of his Sharks done what Vincent Clerc did to Elissalde's ball – pick it up and score – the try would have stood!
The scrum-half's offside line
Jimmy Cowan thought he was being clever, but he was penalised. Jano Vermaak had put the ball into the scrum and his hooker won it. Cowan then skipped round to the other side of the scrum, but advanced to the line of the ball down the side of the scrum.
Non-ELV Laws
Law 20.12 (d) The scrum-half whose team does not win possession of the ball must not move to the opposite side of the scrum and overstep the offside line running through the hindmost foot of that player's team in the scrum.
Penalty: Penalty Kick
ELV
Law 20.12 (d) The scrum-half whose team does not win possession of the ball must not move to the opposite side of the scrum and overstep the offside line for that scrum-half that runs through the hindmost foot of that player's team in the scrum.
Penalty: Penalty Kick
The scrum-half can only move to the offside line of the ball on the open side of the scrum, not the blind side.
In the line-out or not?
The Blues took a shortened line-out, and their jumpers shuffled well enough that the Waratahs jumpers were well forward of the Blues jumper by the time the ball was thrown in.
Phil Waugh, who was not in the initial line-out, ran up towards it, and crucially, just as the ball was thrown in. By the time he got there, the Blues had secured the ball and Waugh was there to stop them.
Waugh incurred a penalty. Why?
Law 19.10 Options available to players not in the line-out
In general, a player not taking part in a line-out must stay at least 10 metres behind the line of touch, or on or behind that player's goal line if that is nearer, until the line-out ends. There are two exceptions to this:
Exception 1: Long throw in. If the player who is throwing in throws the ball beyond the 15-metre line, a player of the same team may run forward to take the ball. If that player does so, an opponent may also run forward.
Penalty: Penalty kick on the offending team's offside line, opposite the place of infringement but not less than 15 metres from the touchline.
Waugh had run up early to join a perfectly normal line-out, and was thus offside.