Law discussion: Should the All Blacks’ opening try have stood and did Aphelele Fassi deserve a card?
Following a thrilling and controversial encounter at Ellis Park between the Springboks and All Blacks, we dive into two hotly debated decisions from early in the first half.
It was a helter-skelter start to the game at Ellis Park as the All Blacks put the Springboks under pressure in the opening stages of the first half, with South Africa’s defence initially holding firm.
Eventually, the pressure told when Codie Taylor forced his way over the line at the back of the driving maul once the Springboks had gone down a man following a yellow card to fullback Aphelele Fassi.
In front of a hostile Ellis Park and dealing with the pressure of officiating rugby’s greatest rivalry is no easy feat, but in these two cases did Andrew Brace and his officiating team come to the correct decisions?
Aphelele Fassi’s yellow card
Let’s start with Fassi’s yellow card, where he was adjudged to have been in an offside position when tackling All Blacks‘ flanker Sam Cane, having quickly got back to his feet following his shot on his teammate Ethan Blackadder near the Springboks’ try line.
Before getting stuck into the decision, it is worth noting that there has clearly been a push from World Rugby and SANZAAR for the officials to make quicker, decisive decisions in order to speed up the flow of the matches. This has also led to fewer explanations to the captains in the game and ultimately to the public.
“The match official teams, led by the referee, should attempt to make speedier decisions and limit replays where not necessary,” A World Rugby Law Application Guideline read in January 2023.
After some slick hands from Damian McKenzie and Beauden Barrett, Sam Cane receives the ball in space and duly shifts it onto Blackadder, with a man on his outside, the flanker fancies his chances against the Bok fullback but he is met by a strong tackle by Fassi who is assisted by Ruan Nortje – who plays no further part in the passage of play. He places the ball and Cane is eager to attack quickly and grabs the ball but Fassi – identifying the threat – is back on his feet and targets Cane’s arms to dislodge the ball from the ex-captain’s arm.
Law discussion: Springboks’ controversial Bongi Mbonambi try was the correct decision, here’s why
Initially, Brace judged it to be a knock-on but upon review, he changed his call as he believed that Fassi was offside as the ruck had been formed. However, Fassi can certainly feel hard done by as it was incredibly tight.
Brace explained the decision stating: “The tackler gets up the wrong way and has to go around, cynical play.”
Article continues below
— Jared Wright (@jaredwright17) September 2, 2024
Due to the complexities of this decision and the one to follow, Planet Rugby sought the advice of an elite professional referee who verified the views expressed in regard to the laws and accuracy.
As the responsibility of the tackler, according to law 14.5 Fassi must:
a. Immediately release the ball and the ball-carrier after both players go to ground;
b. Immediately move away from the tackled player and from the ball or get up.
c. Be on their feet before attempting to play the ball.
d. Allow the tackled player to release or play the ball.
e. Allow the tackled player to move away from the ball.
The fullback crucially adheres to all of the above, however, it is in accordance with law 14.6 where he goes wrong: Tacklers may play the ball from the direction of their own goal line provided they have complied with the above responsibilities and a ruck has not formed.
Referees also refer to this as the ‘tackle zone’ and players are required to be outside of one metre from where the tackle occurs to go for the ball. Fassi did not play the ball or Cane from the direction of his own goal line.
Additionally, law 14.10 reads: Offside lines are created at a tackle when at least one player is on their feet and over the ball, which is on the ground. Each team’s offside line runs parallel to the goal line through the hindmost point of any player in the tackle or on their feet over the ball…
Cane could be viewed as being over the ball before he picks up and runs.
Even our expert found this decision to be rather harsh and suggested that a play-on and a scrum to South Africa could have still been a fair call. Ultimately, this was a rather tricky decision and it is understandable that Brace initially signalled for a scrum to the Springboks before changing his decision.
Springboks v All Blacks: Rassie Erasmus’ five selection headaches for Cape Town showdown
Codie Taylor’s try and the All Blacks ‘double banking’
From the resulting penalty, the All Blacks kick to the corner, setting up a lineout five metres from the Springboks try-line, which leads to Taylor’s try from the maul.
However, the issue with the try is in the manner in which the All Blacks set up their maul using a tactic colloquially known as ‘double banking’.
Effectively, the lineout lifters when bringing the jumper to ground advance forward and block the opponent’s access to the jumper. This denies the opposition the opportunity to sack or compete for the ball by effectively being in an offside position. In this case, it is All Blacks prop Tyrel Lomax (#3) who blocks the Springboks’ access to Ardie Savea as the number eight comes to the ground – as explained well in the video below by rugby analyst Angus Usher.
Short video explaining “Double Banking” and the All Blacks maul try 🔍👇
For educational, not whinging purposes. pic.twitter.com/VDqImtc8oi
— Angus (@AnalystGus) September 1, 2024
The All Blacks peel to the side and breakaway to score the try but ultimately it shouldn’t have been a five-pointer for the All Blacks because this tactic is effectively obstruction – much like a player running in front of a ball carrier.
This is in fact, a rather technical call and one that the match officials have been particularly hot on notably during the 2023 Six Nations.
While Siya Kolisi did attempt to raise this with the officials, the Springboks’ skipper’s pleas were ignored.
READ MORE: All Blacks legends demand that World Rugby provide clarity on Springboks’ controversial try