Super 15: Bulls vs Blues - Loftus Versfeld (10/3/2012 17:10 GMT)

[TRF_heineken]

Sorry about above, I thought the incident all happened after time had expired. Someone of SA refs has given this viewpoint, if it is the official SANZAR/IRB one, then Walsh (if he was aware time hadn't expired at the time of the offence) could have gone to a penalty at the next restart.

Read here: http://www.sareferees.co.za/news/ref_news/2856944.htm

Thankyou! This article helped a lot - another rule which again is not in assistance of the team who didn't commit the foul... It basically says, during play, you shouldn't dive onto a try scorer as the other team will get a penalty after the conversion from the restart, but, if time is up, by all means go ahead, but you might get cited...

 

[Gavin]

From the one minute mark you can see the incident with Mealamu. In terms of what Ranger I am in the opinion that he was attempting to push the Bulls player into touch. He attempts to use his arms but when he sees he is too late he pulls out and hits with a shoulder(ish). This is far less dangerous than players going in with knees after a try is scored (and this method is becoming more prominent).

 

[sonnench]

From the one minute mark you can see the incident with Mealamu. In terms of what Ranger I am in the opinion that he was attempting to push the Bulls player into touch. He attempts to use his arms but when he sees he is too late he pulls out and hits with a shoulder(ish). This is far less dangerous than players going in with knees after a try is scored (and this method is becoming more prominent).

Yeah but what really bugged me was Ranger's reaction afterwards, he looked at Basson after he had badly hurt him and just walked away didn't even bother to check up on him. For me I think it was more of he's going to score anyway, I might as well hurt him situation.

 

[Gavin]

Yeah but what really bugged me was Ranger's reaction afterwards, he looked at Basson after he had badly hurt him and just walked away didn't even bother to check up on him. For me I think it was more of he's going to score anyway, I might as well hurt him situation.

I was under the impression it was 'he looks like he's going to score, so let's try and stop it'. It's all down to interpretation of the situation; either way Ranger should have checked on Basson the the Bull's supporter was utterly stupid.

 

[Gena_ZA]

he got 2 weeks, have fun watching...

 

[FlukeArtist]

Geez- come on... it was stupid and he has been pinged for it. Give it a rest.
He didn't deliberately try and injure someone, he just tried to stop a try.

I checked in here today thinking you guys would be discussing that douche bag supporter's excuse for throwing a bottle... what a complete 4ucktard that guy is.
I'm pretty sure Mealamu wouldn't be getting all worked up if it was as innocous as he claims.

 

[TRF_heineken]

See what Lyndon Bray had to say about Walsh - http://www.supersport.com/rugby/super-rugby/news/120313/Walsh_was_wrong_on_Bulls_penalty

 

[Larksea]

the tackle wasn't that bad. If ranger had made more of an effort to make contact with his hands first it would have been leagal, it least he didn't lead with a Knee which has been quite popular. Chiefs vs. Sharks last year I remember a sharks player leading with a knee into Stephen Donalds back. Donald ended up with a fracture and was out for 4-6 weeks and it was actually more than that till he was able to move freely on the field, probably cost the chiefs any chance of making the playoffs. The sharks player got nothing.

 

[smartcooky]

1st Question - The Braid Brothers made a lot of tackles which made them lie in the Bulls side of the scrum, they released the tackled person, but remained to lay there on the field which at some stages obstructed both the flow of play and also prevented the bulls players from coming into the ruck... Is that legal? if so, great ploy by them as that worked very well.

Firstly, I assume you mean "tackle" or "ruck", not "scrum"

I don't think Walsh policed this particularly well. The Law says

[TEXTAREA]15.4 THE TACKLER
(a) When a player tackles an opponent and they both go to ground, the tackler must immediately release the tackled player.

(b) The tackler must immediately get up or move away from the tackled player and from the ball at once.

(c) The tackler must get up before playing the ball and then may play the ball from any direction.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/TEXTAREA]

So the tackler cannot remain on the "wrong" side of the tackle if he is on the ground or off his feet - 15.4 (b) - HOWEVER, if he gets to his feet, he can play the ball from any direction - 15.4(c) - so this means he can remain on the wrong side of the tackle and could end up standing in the wrong side of the ruck. So long as he keeps his feet, he can remain there indefinitely. In addition to this, the referee will not always penalise the player who hasn't rolled away or got to his feet, because he may decide that the offence is immaterial, that is, the player is either nowhere near where the ball is, or if he is near the ball, his presence is not hindering or preventing this opposition from playing the ball as they choose.

2nd Question - The Ranger incident... My question is: Steve Walsh told Pierre Spies that "Normally you would get a penalty on the half way line after the conversion, but because time is up, after the conversion, the penalty won't be given"... This I don't understand at all, in plenty of games, the refs will ALWAYS give a penalty even after time is up, why was this different?

This is a very tricky one, and one that depends a LOT on timing, not only the game clock, but the timing of when the offence actually occurred.. There has been quite a bit of debate on this. The Rugbyrefs forum is divided, ReUnion thnks he was wrong, the SA Referees website has an article which is really having a bob each way.

http://www.sareferees.co.za/laws/laws_explained/clips/2857484.htm

My take on it is that Steve Walsh was right under the letter of the Law because time expired and the ball went dead when the try was scored and after the conversion is taken

[TEXTAREA]GENERAL DEFINITIONS
Dead: The ball is out of play. This happens when the ball has gone outside the playing area and remained there, or when the referee has blown the whistle to indicate a stoppage in play, or when a conversion kick has been taken.[/TEXTAREA]

[TEXTAREA]22.17 MISCONDUCT OR UNFAIR PLAY IN IN-GOAL
(c) Any other foul play. When a player commits any other foul play in the in-goal while the ball is out of play, the penalty kick is awarded at the place where the game would otherwise have re-started.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/TEXTAREA]

So the issue here is that the game would not otherwise have restarted because time had expired. It would be different if the conversion was completed before time expired, then there would normally have been time for the restart, and in the case of the penalty offence in-goal, the game would have restarted with a penalty kick to the Bulls on half way.

To sum up....

TRY SCORED then PENALTY OFFENCE then CONVERSION ATTEMPT then TIME EXPIRED = Penalty kick on Half-way

TRY SCORED then TIME EXPIRED then PENALTY OFFENCE then CONVERSION ATTEMPT = Game over

TRY SCORED then PENALTY OFFENCE then TIME EXPIRED then CONVERSION ATTEMPT = Game over

FWIW, if Walsh had awarded a PK to the Bulls on half-way, I don't think I would have had a problem with it, because there is another Law that appears to allow it.

[TEXTAREA]5.7 OTHER TIME REGULATIONS
(e) If time expires and the ball is not dead, or an awarded scrum or lineout has not been completed, the referee allows play to continue until the next time that the ball becomes dead. The ball becomes dead when the referee would have awarded a scrum, lineout, an option to the non-infringing team, drop out or after a conversion or successful penalty kick at goal. If a scrum has to be reset, the scrum has not been completed. If time expires and a mark, free kick or penalty kick is then awarded, the referee allows play to continue.
[/TEXTAREA]

Clearly, there is a conflict in the Laws.... nothing new there then!!

 

[TRF_heineken]

Thanx Smartcooky for your input!

When Basson scored the try, there was still time on the clock and Steve Walsh said Timeout to confer with with the TMO and the Assistant referee. Say for Instance during time was off, and Morne Steyn lined up the kick for the conversion, so that he can immediately kick it when Walsh eventually awards the try... would this assist the Bulls?

My main concern about these types of laws and the way that they are interpreted by the referees are that the team that was not offending, comes off second best because of the way it is interpreted. What I mean by that is just because time was up, now the Bulls won't be able to get the full advantage of the laws...

 

[smartcooky]

Thanx Smartcooky for your input!

When Basson scored the try, there was still time on the clock and Steve Walsh said Timeout to confer with with the TMO and the Assistant referee. Say for Instance during time was off, and Morne Steyn lined up the kick for the conversion, so that he can immediately kick it when Walsh eventually awards the try... would this assist the Bulls?

My main concern about these types of laws and the way that they are interpreted by the referees are that the team that was not offending, comes off second best because of the way it is interpreted. What I mean by that is just because time was up, now the Bulls won't be able to get the full advantage of the laws...

I'm not sure he can do that or even if he would want to. What if, after conferring with the Assistant Ref, the referee rules out the try, or if he awards a penalty try, which would put the kick in a different place?

I used to wonder why top level goal-kickers don't line the ball up while there is an injury break after a try, or a penalty is given, but after talking to Mehrts a few years ago, he explained that most kickers like to go through a predetermined routine that includes stuff like picking the exact spot for the tee, setting up the ball, checking the wind, setting the strike point and backing away from the ball to the point where they start their run up. All that takes time; and since there was only two seconds on the clock. I doubt Steyn could have got through all that in the time left.

Also, it was an important kick and not an easy one that wide out. There was a bonus point at stake. If he had hurried the kick and missed it, the Bulls could have come away with nothing.

I think this kind of incident throws up inconsistencies in the Laws. The iRB's Rugby Committee should be looking at this and trying to determine how they can make the Laws around foul play in goal more consistent.

 

[TRF_heineken]

I'm not sure he can do that or even if he would want to. What if, after conferring with the Assistant Ref, the referee rules out the try, or if he awards a penalty try, which would put the kick in a different place?

I used to wonder why top level goal-kickers don't line the ball up while there is an injury break after a try, or a penalty is given, but after talking to Mehrts a few years ago, he explained that most kickers like to go through a predetermined routine that includes stuff like picking the exact spot for the tee, setting up the ball, checking the wind, setting the strike point and backing away from the ball to the point where they start their run up. All that takes time; and since there was only two seconds on the clock. I doubt Steyn could have got through all that in the time left.

Also, it was an important kick and not an easy one that wide out. There was a bonus point at stake. If he had hurried the kick and missed it, the Bulls could have come away with nothing.

I think this kind of incident throws up inconsistencies in the Laws. The iRB's Rugby Committee should be looking at this and trying to determine how they can make the Laws around foul play in goal more consistent.

There will always be some inconsitencies in our game because of the human-factor, but is just one example of many incidents where the laws are to an advantage to a team or player that are not abiding by the rules. I get the time was up thing, but this opens up the problem that because time is up, players have a little bit more freedom to do things which they are more harshly penalised for earlier in a game.