|
<--Back Apart from many other things it was a great exhibition of man-management. It was an object lesson in how to treat the game and its players. It also emphasised the advantages of fitness and speed. O'Brien addressed the players as gentlemen and treated them as gentlemen. Clearly the players respected him as well. He spoke briefly and in terms of the law and the situation only. He did not debate and waffle. He did not take excuses. He accepted the evidence of his eyes and acted on it. Fitness meant that he was in control of himself and the situation. He could approach it with calm, not huffing and puffing and flustered. There are still some issues to discuss, not necessarily entirely matters of law but still matters of the games good conduct. 1. Citing - who cites A citing commissioner is appointed to matches of this nature. He does the citing. The teams do not do any citing. All that they are allowed to do is ask the citing commissioner to cite a player. He makes up his own mind whether to cite or not. Australia could not cite Corné Krige, for example. The citing commissioner, Steve Hinds of New Zealand, was charged with that. South Africa could not cite Chris Latham, for example. That was Steve Hinds's job. Corné Krige was the only player cited. The case investigated was a punch on George Smith. (Joubert was not cited. He had to appear before the inquiry because he was sent off - red card - and there is always an inquiry in such circumstances.) Smith had just tackled scrumhalf Neil de Kock high. It was a nasty high tackle. Krige came in wrapping an arm around Smith. The both went to ground. Smith stood up with a bleeding nose. Bless him, there were no histrionics on his part, just an impassive face with a trickle of blood. There was also no evidence of a punch, and so Krige was found not guilty - which is not the same as innocent. This was the second time he as found not guilty, which brings to our second episode on citing. 2. Citing in Tri-Nations George Gregan has asked that citing procedures be tightened up. There certainly have been anomalies in this year's Tri-Nations. It is odd that there should be inconsistencies. Referees are repeatedly lambasted for being inconsistent. Their job is instantaneous and in the heat of battle without replays. A citing commissioner can take his time and make sure that his case is watertight. The referee has hundreds of things to attend to during the passing of a match. The citing commissioner has only one thing to look for and he can do it in his own time with replays and devoid of surrounding emotion. The first citing was that of Krige, accused of biting Scott Robertson. Robertson denied that he was bitten. There was no bite mark on the back of his leg, which was the only possible place where the bite could have happened. The citing commissioner was Tim Harding of Australia. The evidence of the eyes would suggest that there was a clearer case of biting at Ellis Park. Furthermore, unlike Robertson, De Wet Barry claimed that he had been bitten. But Latham was not cited. Is that saying that the citing of Krige was wrong and the wrong should not be repeated? Then Krige was cited for going to his player's defence when Smith tackled De Kock high. In Wellington Tana Umaga did the same when Marius Joubert tackled Doug Howlett high. Umaga was not spoken to on the field or cited afterwards. Is that saying that not citing Umaga was wrong, and so Krige should be cited? We accept that wrongs should not be repeated. But if we talk about punching then it is hard to understand why Bob Skinstad was not cited after the Brisbane battle or Breyton Paulse after Ellis Park. They punched, as did Nathan Sharpe. Ah, but Sharpe was penalised. Justin Harrison and Jeremy Paul were penalised and sent to the sin bin in Brisbane but that did not stop them from being cited. Perhaps that, too, was wrong. Perhaps the power of the punch counts. That's not unreasonable. 3. Tramping When is tramping on a player on the ground legal? The law sounds clear: A player must not stamp or tramp on an opponent. That's in Law 10 on foul play. Looking at the match on Saturday, it would seem that AJ Venter stamped/tramped on Owen Finegan, and not too far from his head. It would seem that Hendro Scholtz stamped/tramped on Matt Cockbain, and not too far from his head. In both cases the result was a scrum to South Africa and no citing. Imagine aggressive Ellis Park on Saturday if Scholtz had been penalised! The match had just over a minute to run. Brent Russell had attacked and gone down in a tackle. Scholtz tramped on Cockbain. A penalty at that stage would certainly have lost the match for South Africa. Imagine the hue and cry that would have ensued. At best it is silly to tramp in such circumstances, at best a non-productive act. 4. Retaliation This follows from the idea that I am allowed to tramp if you are on my side of the tackle. De Wet Barry claims that Chris Latham had bitten him. Lying there, open to the near touch judge, Barry punches Latham on the head. Barry is shown a yellow card. He tells the referee that he had been bitten, to no avail because he is sent off looking bewildered. Latham played on. In these times when touch judges join referees in looking for foul play and citing commissioners check up afterwards, it is irresponsibly unprofessional to indulge in foul play. There was a time when a player's sixth sense told him that the referee was somewhere else and he could exact retribution. No more, for many eyes now keep check on him. It is folly to take the law into your own hands. It actually runs deeper than that. There is a certain reckless arrogance in weighing damage, however slight, to your own ego and body above the needs of the team Any referee will tell you that a bite is very difficult to see, but not a punch. 5. Celebration Francis Palmade, the sturdy, thoughtful French referee, was refereeing a Test. A centre scored. His flyhalf ran up joyfully and put an arm around his shoulder as he walked back. Palmade blew his whistle and wagged a finger for them to stop such public display of affectionate approval. He said afterwards that we should not allow it as such behaviour could incite the crowd. One wonders what Palmade would say now as the celebrations become increasingly hectic. George Gregan's defiant gesture after Brendan Cannon's try proved the validity of Palmade's prophecy. And a final whistle goes with players too busy hugging and jumping on each other to thank the opposition for the game. There is nothing against it in terms of the Laws of the Game, but the whole affair is not in keeping with rugby's etiquette. Remember the good old days when a try was scored and the scoring team trotted back to await the kick-off with blank faces. The message to the opposition was frightening. It said: "This is nothing unusual. We have done it before and we'll do it again." 6. Directly into touch We are going to talk about two things: a. Matthew Burke kicks off after Brent Russell's try. He drops to his right. It is deep. Joe van Niekerk catches the ball. His left leg is in touch, his right leg pretty well on the touchline. If the ball had not yet reached the plane of the line, which it may well not have done, is the ball directly out or not? Law 19: DEFINITIONS ‘Kicked directly into touch’ means that the ball was kicked into touch without landing on the playing area, and without touching a player or the referee. If a player has one foot in the field of play and one foot in touch and holds the ball, the ball is in touch. Law 13.9: BALL GOES DIRECTLY INTO TOUCH The ball must land in the field-of-play. If it is kicked directly into touch the opposing team has three choices: To have the ball kicked off again, or All that happened on Saturday when Van Niekerk caught the kick-off and the Springboks had a scrum at the middle of the half-way line. b. The Springboks are passing the ball to their right. They are not passing well. The ball goes backwards off Jannes Labuschagne and Stirling Mortlock steps forward to the ball, which is about a metre outside his 22. He fly-kicks the ball downfield with a thump. It goes directly into touch. Where is the line-out? Opposite the place where Mortlock kicked the ball. The fact that is a flykick is irrelevant. It is a kick - as is a drop-kick or a place-kick and the ball went from his boot directly into touch. The player looked surprised when the touch judge got it right! 7. Deliberately or not The Springboks are attacking on their right. Not too far from the line. De Wet Barry looks to pass inside. Stephen Larkham is further infield from him and stretches out his arm, perhaps to discourage Barry. The ball strikes his hand/he strikes the ball with his hand. The ball goes forward. Quickly Larkham dives on the ball. Paulse is first there, standing over Larkham to get the ball. Latham arrives, initially on his feet to contest. Kefu also arrives. Kefu goes beyond Larkham and is off his feet. Latham curls beyond the ball and with his hand flicks it into touch. Lots of things for the pressurised referee to decide there. Was it a deliberate knock-on? The referee think so. To penalise would have been dubious and debateable enough to suggest that penalising was not a good idea. Latham is more of an issue. Look at it and it looks like a ruck as the ball is on the ground and he and Paulse are in physical contact over the ball. If it is indeed a ruck, he is wrong to use his hands. Then the matter of throwing the ball into touch. Law 10.2 (c): (c) Throwing into touch, etc. A player must not voluntarily knock or throw the ball into touch, touch-in-goal, or over the dead-ball line. Penalty: Penalty Kick on the 15-metre line A penalty try must be awarded if the offence prevents a try that would probably otherwise have been scored. For an offence in the player’s In-goal, the mark for the kick is 5 metres from the goal-line in line with the place of infringement. That's a tough bit of law. It was also a tough bit of decision-making. As a Law 10 situation, the touch judge, Chris White in this case, was allowed to help. It ended in a line-out. 8. High tackle "Tackle low!" It is an ancient cry. It has two bits of common meaning that may differ from the law. Tackle to the layman means stop the ball-carrying opponent's progress. Tackle in terms of the law means hold the ball carrying opponent to the ground while you are holding him. Tackle low to the layman means below the waist. Tackling high to the layman means tackling above the waist. Tackling high in terms of the law has a clear definition: Law 10.4 (c): Dangerous tackling. A player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously. A player must not tackle (or try to tackle) an opponent above the line of the shoulders. A tackle around the opponent’s neck or head is dangerous play. A ‘stiff-arm tackle’ is dangerous play. A player makes a stiff-arm tackle when using a stiff arm to strike an opponent. The referee decides whether or not a tackle is dangerous. The referee takes into account the circumstances, such as the apparent intentions of the tackler, or the nature of the tackle, or the defenceless position of the player being tackled or knocked over. Any of these may result in serious injury. All forms of dangerous tackling must be punished severely. A player who commits this type of foul must be sent off. Advantage may be played, but if the offence prevents a probable try, a penalty try must be awarded. When George Smith, Bob Skinstad, Werner Greeff and Marius Joubert tackle above the line of the shoulders, they are tackling high in terms of rugby law. When Brent Russell whips Mat Rogers around with a tackle under his armpit and across his chest, that is not a high tackle in legal terms. The high tackle must be penalised. After that the referee must decide on further sanctions. Look at the four. Skinstad's is clearly innocuous. Penalty enough. It was also at a stage when the temperature of the game was moderate. Smith's tackle was certainly a nasty one and one could debate more of a sanction than just a penalty - because it looked more than just a reflex and in the same category as Joubert's. But then too the game was not heated - not really. Now comes Greeff. He tackles high and is only penalised. Then Marius Joubert puts an arm out to obstruct Larkham after a kick - a form of late obstruction. He is penalised only. Then Joubert tackles Rogers high and hard. The temperature of the game is rising. The tackling thing is degenerating, as these are successive penalties against the Springboks. The referee shows Joubert a red card. In about 18 minutes Barry had punched, Greeff had charged past a tackle-thing into Gregan, Greeff had tackled high, Joubert had obstructed a kicker and Joubert tackled high. That is not a bright passage of play. Clearly in such a match the referee would not want things to get even worse. He had tried speaking to both teams. What may appear as different treatment for different offences may not really be so in the referee's attempt to manage a match acceptably. 9. Penalty stats The penalty counts, in terms of penalties conceded, in the Tri-Nations are interesting: New Zealand: 9 + 7 + 10 + 8 = 34 The order in which the teams ended seems to accord with the penalties conceded! Penalised high tackles only: New Zealand: 0 South Africa conceded the most penalties and came last. It also scored the most tries! That almost suggests that penalties count more than tries. Interestingly South Africa scored nine tries against Australia where New Zealand scored one! |