Readers talk up

Including the scrum

It is always good to get readers' comments on laws and the law discussions we have. From time to time we publish what they have to say or ask. Here are some to end 2006.

It has again been a fascinating year with the prospect of an even more fascinating year to come. There will be a modification of the scrum law to kick off the year, the World Cup and the possibility of law changes in its wake.

This week we discussed a "tricky try". (Click here) We have two comments on it to start what readers have to say.

1. Tricky try

a. Reader: David Humphreys had not indicated anything to the referee who at the time was talking to the London Irish player for the infringement. Only when the referee turned and started walking towards Humphreys did he tap and go. Therefore to the referee his intention was the tap penalty. Spirit of the game. Depends on your point of view. Ulster needed a win and the four try bonus.

b. Reader: If the tee was brought out and Humphreys kicked at goal without the referee signalling, then it would be a scrum back whether it went over or not.  It's quite simple, you stand there until the referee signals, then you can turn your back.

Comment: This is not quite true, as Law 22.5 (d) says. Law 21.5 (d) If the kicker has not indicated an intention to kick at goal but takes a drop-kick and scores a goal, the goal stands.

The law is about the kicker indicating his intention to the referee. It's not about the referee's indication. The arrival of the tee or the sand or the making of a place to kick is indication enough. If the player does not do any of these but kicks a drop, the goal stands.

Law 21.4 (b) No delay. If a kicker indicates to the referee the intention to kick a penalty kick at goal, the kick must be taken within one minute from the time the player indicates the intention to kick at goal. The intention to kick is signalled by the arrival of the kicking tee or sand, or when the player makes a mark on the ground. The player must complete the kick within one minute even if the ball rolls over and has to be placed again. If the
one minute is exceeded, the kick is disallowed, a scrum is ordered at the place of the mark and the opponents throw-in the ball. For any other type of kick, the kick must be taken without undue delay.

5 SCORING A GOAL FROM A PENALTY KICK

(a) A penalty goal can be scored from a penalty kick.

(b) If the kicker indicates to the referee the intention to kick at goal, the kicker must kick at goal. Once the kicker has made the intention clear, here can be no change of the intention. The referee may enquire of the kicker as to the intention.

(c) If the kicker indicates to the referee the intent to kick at goal, the opposing team must stand still with their hands by their sides from the time the kicker starts to approach to kick until the ball is kicked.

(d) If the kicker has not indicated an intention to kick at goal but takes a drop kick and scores a goal, the goal stands.

(e) If the opposing team infringes while the kick is being taken but the kick at goal is successful, the goal stands. A further penalty is not awarded for the infringement.

(f) The kicker may place the ball on sand, sawdust or a kicking tee approved by the Union.

2. Passing for a quick throw
 
Reader: Can you please clarify exactly what governs a ball going dead in touch and hence not allowing a quick throw in? I know it is dead if anyone except the person taking the quick throw in touches it. Does this include team-mates?
If the ball goes out on the half way line, the fullback catches it on the 22m line and passes it to the wing standing on the 10m line, can the wing take a quick throw-in? Or only the fullback in this case?
If the ball hits an advertising board, water bucket, seat, etc. can a quick throw in be taken?
If the ball hits a dog can a quick throw in be taken?

Roelie Smit

Comment: We actually discussed this in a test match recently. (Click here.)

Only the person throwing in may touch the ball after it has gone into touch. But if the ball is carried into touch, the quick throw-in is possible after the ball carrier has released it. in the case here, the wing is not entitled to throw in quickly.

Also, if a line-out has been formed - a minimum of two players from either side lining up along the line of touch - a quick throw-in will be disallowed.

An inanimate object is not a person. Nor is a dog. If the ball hits any hoarding, bucket, seat or dog, the quick throw-in may still be taken.

Law 19.2 QUICK THROW-IN

(c) A player must not take a quick throw-in after the line-out has formed. If the player does, the quick throw-in is disallowed. The same team throws in at the line out.

(d) For a quick throw-in, the player must use the ball that went into touch. If, after it went to touch and was made dead, another ball is used, or if another person has touched the ball apart from the player throwing it in, then the quick throw-in is disallowed. The same team throws in at the line-out.

(h) If a player carrying the ball is forced into touch, that player must release the ball to an opposition player so that there can be a quick throw – in.

Penalty: Penalty Kick on 15 - metre line

3. TMOs

a. Reader: I certainly agree that TMOs should include play including the lead-up to a try – however, in the Wales vs Pacific Islands match, Mark Jones’ try was referred to see if he put a foot in touch in the lead-up. Surely this is outside the referee’s current remit? As I understand it the law allows the referee to ask the TMO if the player put a foot in touch in the act of grounding the ball, not before he had even crossed the line. And if the TMO had run the recording back just a bit further, he would have seen the forward pass to Jones! It would be absurd to have a situation where the TMO reports ‘No, his foot wasn't in touch, but the last pass was forward, however you can't do anything about that as it’s outside my terms of reference to report it!’

I believe that the TMO should have the authority to report any incident missed by the on-field officials; these would not be referred by the ref, but a little message in the referee’s ear should then allow him to take the appropriate action.

Angela Briggs

b. Reader: How come they used the video referee in the Welsh game to check if a player was in touch 20 yards back?  Thought you could only check the actual act of scoring, hence the reason that Bobo’s try in the Heineken Final could not be referred to the video ref?

Comment: The IRB has a protocol to govern the referee's relationship with the television match official.

Amongst other things the protocol says: 2 AREAS OF ADJUDICATION

2.1  The areas of adjudication are limited to Law 6. 8 (b), 6.8 (d) and 6.8 (e) and therefore relate to:

- grounding of the ball for try and touch down
- Touch, touch-in-goal, ball being made dead during the act of grounding the ball.

This includes situations where a player may or may not have stepped in touch in the act of grounding the ball on or over the goal line.

The TMO could therefore be requested to assist the referee in making the following decisions:

• Try
• No try and scrum awarded 5 metres
• Touch down by a defender
• In touch – line-out
• Touch-in-goal
• Ball dead on or over the dead ball line
• Penalty tries after acts of foul play in in-goal
• Dropped goal.

The TMO must not be requested to provide information on players prior to the ball going into in-goal (except touch in the act of grounding the ball).

It would take a big leap of faith and imagination to suggest that the act of grounding the ball would include running with the ball under the armpit! Twenty yards back may be hyperbole!

The purpose of using the TMO is to ensure that tries scored are awarded and tries that should not be awarded are not awarded.  For this reason it may well happen that the area of adjudication is broadened.

4. Clothing

Reader: I am surprised that the IRB did not make a ruling on the material of appropriate rugby attire.   I remember in the last World Cup in which some countries such as England and France looked like they were wearing nylon togs we are accustomed to see on racing-bike cyclists …or is there already a ruling ?

Comment: The IRB has rulings about clothing  all right, but the concern is largely player safety, not fashion

5. Carrying the can

Reader: I watched with great frustration the All Blacks playing France on the weekend.  The setting of scrums was impossible.
 
I have a question. Who determines the rules of rugby, the referee or the rules that are interpretted by the referee? On last weekend we saw the referee enforcing a rule that is not a rule as yet, "Same Height, Crouch, etc". Obviously the teams weren't aware that the referee was going to enforce some rule that hadn't been introduced; players complained and were told to get on with the game. So who instructed the referee to play this way in what was obviously the major game of the weekend (with all due respect to the other teams)?
 
If this had been discussed prior to the game with the management of both camps I am sure the All Blacks would have come better prepared; if not, then what right does someone have to change the rules and not tell anyone?
 
The other question would then have to be for what reason? Less cynical would say it was a trial; others may say it was the Northern Hemisphere's way of stopping the All Blacks. Who knows. All I know is that a referee on the weekend enforced a rule that wasn't there to be enforced, stymied what should have been a great game and really did nothing to enhance the image of rugby.
 
Now comes the ultimate question. If a referee decides to play a rule that doesn't exist, what happens:
a. If someone gets seriously injured;
b. The losing team complain;
c. To the referee?

I can see perhaps in the future New Zealand referees allowing good old fashioned rucking (you know like the All Blacks and Canterbury used to do), Australian referees allowing the famous Brumby cross-over play, etc etc.
 
Warren T Lee

[This letter has been altered slightly to remove uncomplimentary things which were not helpful.]

Comment: Are you sure that the referee did not communicate with the teams before the match. That seems too unlikely to be true.

It's not really a change in laws - and, by the way, it is customary to talk of laws in rugby, not rules. The only command the referee is required to give is Engage. Crouch and hold are not in law, though the teams are required to crouch and pause. It is also better to have them at the same height, hence the effort the referee made in this case, at a time when there were many complaints about New Zealand's method of scrumming.

It is worth noting that a referee does not collapse a scrum. One would expect players at international level to be able to scrum legally and safely.

If there is injury and the possibility of negligence, there is an inquiry. Both teams have the means of lodging complaints, as they have reports to fill in on the referee. What happens to the referee depends on the outcome of inquiries.

6. 5-metre off-side at rucks

Reader: The proposal for off-side lines to be 5m from the ruck has been trialled in the inter-college competition at Cambridge University about eight years ago.

Having played and refereed under these conditions I have to say that the idea proved largely unworkable. Defending around the ruck was nearly impossible against well-drilled forwards, leading to continual pick and drives. Against this was the constant stream of penalties caused by 2 players accidentally moving into the scrumhalf position.

Nor do I see the need for such a law. Looking at the recent internationals there has been little problem with finding space to attack (though holding the ball seemed more difficult for some teams).

Dominic - Cardiff

Comment: It seems that there may well be a five-metre off-side line at scrums, which may be more feasible.

7. Scrums

a. Reader: Having played 1st Grade at Sydney University in the 80s the scrum was considered king and moreover Australian Rugby developed real credibility as a scrummaging power. My observations are that tests between 1975 to 1990 were quick and clean in relation to scrums.

There was real no trouble in using the scrum for restarts then in tests at home against any nation (bar 79 when the Irish killed us ) and in New Zealand. We struggled in the 70s and early in the 80s in Europe but after the 84 tour it was fine.

Test and interstate game scrums were always good value as they formed so quickly and were over. Collapsing scrums were not a problem until they got to lower grades. I had one mate break his neck in scrums in colts and saw another player paralysed in 1st grade when the referee would not step in to act when that player was completely outclassed.

The accidents came about because the game plans often made the scrum the end in itself. This is understandable as these scrums were often great contests of strength and coordination. These were great fun to me and if not repeated too often were exciting to an informed crowd.

I do not know if the many attempts to police the engagement have helped to reduce injuries.

It has been a problem though of philosophy. Some coaches have made the scrum the centre piece of the game ( "The keys to Buckingham Palace", Brockhoff) and others have not got the patience to teach it all, e.g. the loss of regular live scrum practice as a weekly feature of club football. Balance would help as practice in a controlled though realistic setting (say 40 live scrums a fortnight as a minimum) makes one prepared for the games. I do not get agreement from others involved in coaching that is appropriate.

Professionalism has not helped because many of the props at Super 14 and tests squad are not true props but overmuscled breakaways who are picked very young because their potential as props who may be more mobile than those who held the position than in the past and have not spent years toiling on the club scene to build their craft.

Terry O'Riain - Albury NSW 

b. Reader: Having watched many of the games this year on the TV it is clear to me that the revised ruling that Loosehead props must bind with their left arm to the opposing tight-head prop could (and in my opinion does) lead to the scrum collapsing and consequently putting all six of the front row in danger of neck injuries.
It is extremely worrying when watching teenagers and junior sides, where it is quite clear that the front rows do not have the strength to hold the scrummage up.
 
Without the option of left-arm stability on the upper leg there is a grave danger that there will be catastrophic consequences on collapse. Will someone loosing the use of there legs be the only reason for change to what was a perfectly adequate form of scrummaging previously.
 
Who so ever was responsible for the change to the new rule would then be responsible for that particular tragedy - we don't need it, do we?
 
Steve Newman - Bury St Edmunds

c. Reader: Having played in the position of hooker for many years before the "crouch, hold, engage" came in I can honestly say that things were much better when the front rows were left to get on with things. I fully understand the safety aspect and, when youngsters are learning the game, it would be no bad thing to coach them into learning how to engage safely. However, if the union scrum is not to become a silly parody of the real thing (as in rugby league), and just be used as a means of re-starting the game we must allow players to compete, that's why they play the game. Rugby union is all about personal battles, skills, techniques and sometimes brute force used to beat your opponent and therefore, hopefully, help win the game, we must allow competition. I can count the number of referees who refereed me that had played in the front row on the fingers of no hands and, when it is all said and done it's only the six in the front who really know what went on!!
 
Brian Marsh