Law discussion: Diving onto a kick covering man and no such thing as double movements

Lawrence Nolan
Add as a preferred source on Google
Springboks skipper Siya Kolisi in split picture with referee Matthew Carley.

Springboks skipper Siya Kolisi in split picture with referee Matthew Carley.

Naturally, the debate about head shots continues to rage, not least in the light of the footage of Jesse Kriel’s tackle on Huw Jones doing the rounds.

But is it really worth debating any more? We can debate all we like, the ongoing confusion about what is valid, what is not, what a tackler is liable for and what not, what is dangerous and what is not, is unlikely to be cleared up soon.

Moreover, the brains our shiny new head contact laws are supposedly designed to protect continue to be rattled to the point of dysfunction by the sort of shuddering clashes that had the Bordeaux crowd regularly gasping last night. Just watch a rerun of Josh Adams‘ fabulous tackle on Waisea Nayacalevu and let us know if you think either player in that situation had his brain less shaken up than Tom Curry or Juan Cruz Mallia.

Fortunately, rugby has other laws that occasionally cause confusion as well, and we’ve picked out two that we reckon were both relevant in terms of perceived misapplication over the weekend.

In the South Africa v Scotland game, the Springboks kicked a ball through. Not an uncommon sight these days, nor is the sight of an opponent scrambling to retrieve the ball and cover the space the South Africans have often cleverly looked to exploit. Nor indeed, is the sight of a South African kick-chaser closing said space down; it’s what they do.

However, in this instance we did see something that happens far too much and causes much debate. Ben White was the cover player, executing a textbook slide across the ground onto the ball to regain possession. Siya Kolisi, giving chase, arrives later, but with White still lying on the ground and barely away from horizontal, Kolisi wraps the helpless scrum-half up in a bear hug and makes it impossible for the Scottish player to either release the ball cleanly or make any attempt to play it, before falling over and onto White as a result of the struggle.

Kolisi dives on White

The law as it is written is a little confusing. Law 13 pertains to players on the ground in open play and states as its overriding principle that ‘The game is played only by players who are on their feet’.

Law 13.1 then states that a player who goes to ground to gather the ball must immediately either a) get up with the ball, or b) play the ball, or c) release the ball. Which is already a bit hard to interpret, being as a and c almost completely contradict each other.

But it is Law 13.4 that causes the trouble for observers, yet also makes the distinction between the two. This one says that ‘Players on their feet and without the ball must not fall on or over players on the ground who have the ball or who are near it’.

This is often misinterpreted as being that you must allow a player to get to his feet before playing or tackling him, but this is not the case. What it does imply, however, is that you should very specifically go for the ball, just as you would if jackalling at a ruck, whereas if you bodily contact the player on the ground and/or go to ground with him, you are infringing. If you go for the ball, the player on the ground, under the law, MUST release it as he would otherwise be playing it off his feet /holding onto the ball.

Often however, and in the case of Kolisi on Sunday, the chasing player will simply tackle him while he is on his knees or wrestling him on the ground to prevent him playing or getting to his feet, which is in direct contradiction to Law 13.4.

It is this act which is too rarely penalised, and which many say to be ‘not letting someone to his feet’ but in reality, the infringement is ‘not going specifically for the ball’.

So Scotland should have had a penalty, and didn’t. But not for the offence that many believe.

Meanwhile, Fiji. Already having beaten both the improbably long patience of referee Matthew Carley and scored a try to get back to within touching distance, the forwards are once again rumbling. Eventually Peni Ravai thunders around the left side of a ruck and seemingly gets the ball over.

A TMO check looks to be a formality; after all, he was tackled slightly short of the line but simply seemed to move the ball over it, right?

Sadly, it is not that simple. Many have said that the try was disallowed for a double movement, but this is a horrible misnomer, there is nothing about double movement not being allowed in the laws of the game. In fact, the laws of the game explicitly allow for a second movement. The crucial law is Law 8.2.d, Scoring a Try, which states that: ‘A try is scored when an attacking player is tackled near to the opponents’ goal-line and the player immediately reaches out and grounds the ball’.

The most important word here is ‘reaches’. Although Ravai does move the ball over the line, not only does he not reach himself, he is almost picked up and heaved over the line by a team-mate. Either way, the momentum that carries the ball over is neither natural, nor is he reaching.

So what would the right decision have been? It’s difficult for all with attempts on the goal-line, as quite understandably, neither tackler nor carrier is in any way inclined to do what the laws say he should do. If the tackler releases, the carrier can place the ball over the line. If the carrier releases, he will do so – assuming he’s going for the line he’d have the ball in front of him – in a position where he’s almost presenting it to the opposition, rather than if he was tackled in normal open play where he’d strive to place it behind him for ruckers. For the referee to enforce either of these acts simultaneously could lead to a game-changing score or turnover and would be grotesquely unfair.

Assuming then that there is not an advantage being played, we have to look at two options: either held up and unplayable short of the line, resulting in an attacking scrum, or perhaps held up and unplayable over the line, resulting in a goal-line drop out.

Ireland start strongly

Interestingly, Nika Amashukeli blew the latter during Ireland’s win over Romania even though from your correspondent’s perspective behind the goal, the carrier was a good half-metre short of the line. It seems right that a good goal-line tackle that stops a would-be scorer within reach of the line, and also prevents a reach for the line because of the perilous considerations of the situation for the tackler, be rewarded with a clearance opportunity as well.

But law 11.d is unequivocal: ‘The tackle ends when the ball is unplayable. If there is doubt about which player did not conform to law, the referee orders a scrum. The throw is taken by the team moving forward prior to the stoppage or, if no team was moving forward, by the attacking team’.

This, we think, should have been the correct outcome for Ravai’s goal-line attempt.

READ MORE: Loose Pass: Rugby World Cup travel diary as heatwave hits opening weekend

Features