|
Written by MvJ
|
|
Sunday, 04 September 2005 |
This was a match refereed with scrupulous fairness, by a competent referee who showed a level head. His performance in these respects contributed significantly to an enjoyable, tense test match. Overall, an excellent performance.
I have selected a grab-bag of incidents and issues arising for discussion. They have not been selected necessarily because they might have seemed controversial at the time, although some did.
Issues to arise for me in the first half were as follows:
(1) Lineouts:
There were problems with and penalties for taking the jumper in the air, and for barging through the lineout. The first point is that, unlike previous weeks, every time it happened the referee picked it up. Secondly there was good variation in positioning from the referee. Players are cunning. They’ll work out a way to infringe that you cannot see if you always stand in the same place.
At the ten minute mark Chisholm was correctly penalized for taking out McCaw in the air (10.15). It looked suspiciously like he tried the same thing again at the lineout from the ensuing penalty (10.45), this time on Jack but got away with it because Chisholm was so incompetent as to not even cheat successfully. This set the tone for much of the night.
Late in the half So’oialo takes out Elsom in the air (35.40). Note the use of the same test they apply in other codes—So’oialo’s eyes were not looking at the ball. Referee is at the front of the lineout looking directly at him.
At the lineout from the resulting penalty (36.10) Elsom comes barging across the lineout and is penalized. It looked a blatant infringement.
However a review of the tape shows that Elsom actually moves to block Mealamu who enters the lineout from the receiver position before the ball is thrown. (Woodcock is standing within the tramlines as the opponent of the thrower.) Mealamu’s entry into the lineout in those circumstances is not legal, because it would give the All Blacks one extra man, and would ordinarily have been a free kick offence.
It was made worse here because Mealamu didn’t just enter the lineout, he actually crossed the line of touch (a penalty offence). So if Elsom hadn’t moved he would have, or should have, got the penalty. As it was, all anyone saw was Elsom barging.
(2) Maul:
The law says that if team A takes the ball into a maul, and it collapses or otherwise doesn’t emerge as permitted by law, then team B gets the ball. The exceptions are if the ball is taken by team A from a kick and the maul forms immediately. The exception to the exception is that the exception doesn’t apply to kick-offs or re-starts. Yes, it is needlessly confusing.
Anyway in the 11th minute Muliaina runs the ball back and his held by two Australian would-be tacklers, but not brought to ground (11.20). Williams and MacDonald bind onto him and the players collapse very shortly thereafter. The referee blows his whistle just as Smith is picking up the ball from the Australian side, and awards a New Zealand scrum—“attacking ball.” Somewhat adding insult to injury he says “it’s not there” when the Aussies told him they had the ball. It certainly was there; Smith was holding it above his head!
This was an incorrect decision, in my view; once the ball carrier, a team-mate and an opponent are bound together then by law there’s a maul and if it collapses through no infringement (as here) there should have been a turnover awarded. Note that it would have made no difference had Australia won the ball in the maul before it collapsed.
Later in the half (31.10) the referee correctly ruled a turnover for a collapsed maul. Unfortunately it was the hapless Aussies who lost possession as Umaga held up Mitchell until the troups arrived to bind onto him.
(3) Tackle:
One decision has already been the subject of debate on the message boards, from late in the first half. Williams attempts to tackle Rathbone but in doing so grasps the ball from Rathbone and Williams ends up on the ground with the ball (38.45). He gets up with the ball, and runs, and is penalised. The referee is apologetic. Everyone is slightly bewildered including MvJ.
A look back at the tape shows the referee was correct. After Williams goes to ground Cannon, who is on his feet, grasps hold of Williams’ back. Williams is therefore held (i.e. is a tackled player), a tackle is completed and Williams can only pass or place the ball. He is not entitled to get up and run. Tough luck, as the referee said.
Questions for MvJ about issues of law that arose in the first half? Leave them on the message boards.
|
![550med[1].jpg](http://www.thesilverfern.com/images/abs_157/550med[1].jpg)
