LAW DISCUSSION: CONTROL AND TRIES; Rugby 365

EXCLUSIVE: RUGBY365 LAW GURU PAUL DOBSON TAKES A CLOSER LOOK AT TWO TRIES, TWO POSSIBLE KNOCK-ONS AND THE TALK ABOUT 'CONTROL'.

South Africa play New Zealand. New Zealand are on the attack as Anton Lienert-Brown bursts for the line but is tackled by Francois Louw. TJ Perenara (No.9) of New Zealand picks up, dummies and ducks for the line as Tendai Mtawarira of South Africa tackles him. The ball ends up in in-goal with Perenara pressing down on it. The referee consults the TMO.

There is a discussion about control during which the referee says: "We never see a separation between the hand and the ball. The referee says that Perenara had "maintained control of the ball" and decides that it is a try and the TMO agrees with him.

In the second clip, Dane Haylett-Petty of Australia runs with the ball and is tackled by Joaquín Tuculet of Argentina. He flies through the air, holding the ball in his right hand and falls to the ground where a ruck is formed. The ball comes back to Australia and Adam Coleman stretches to score. The referee consults the TMO about a possible knock-on by Haylett-Petty when he came back to earth. Again control is mentioned and the TMO gives the referee the guarantee that Haylett-Petty "does not lose control of the ball. He holds onto it". On the TMO's guarantee, the referee awards the try.

The word "control" does not appear in the law book when it comes to knock-ons or scoring a try. It is a pity that match officials use the word. They should instead use the simple rugby term "knock on". The question then would be: "Does he knock on?" It would apply to the Perenara incident and the Haylett-Petty incident. To be fair to the referee in the Haylett-Petty incident, the referee does ask about a knock-on but then control makes a comeback.

Law 12 DEFINITION: KNOCK-ON
A knock-on occurs when a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, or when a player hits the ball forward with the hand or arm, or when the ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, and the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it.
‘Forward’ means towards the opposing team’s dead ball-line.

Perenara has the ball in his left hand while he right arm goes to ground. The ball leaves his left hand, touches the ground and is then grabbed, on the ground, by both hands and placed over the line.

It would seem that he lost possession, the ball went forward and touched the ground. That would be a knock-on.

Haylett-Petty had the ball in his right hand. The ball leaves his right hand, goes forward and touches the ground before his left-hand plays it.

It would seem that he lost possession, the ball went forward and touched the ground. That would be a knock-on.

It is hard to see how it was possible that these not be ruled knock-ons But then you go back to that business of separation between the hand and the ball.

This used to be a reason for awarding a try - continued contact between hand and ball, even the back of the hand.

But recently at a course in South Africa, Alain Rolland, World Rugby's referee boss, brought people back to the law - about holding the ball. Mere contact between hand or arm and the ball is not holding the ball, is not being in possession of the ball. It makes sense.

In these two incidents, the referees are French, the one TMO Scottish, the other English. The message may not have got through to those countries.

In the first incident, it seems there should have been a scrum to South Africa instead of a try to New Zealand.

In the second incident, it seems that there should have been a scrum to Argentina instead of a try to Australia.

The difference is huge.

By Paul Dobson
@rugby365com

 The Law is clear as stated above. However, some refs are using this "contact" argument, all the players really want is consistency. I was surprised when TJs try was awarded.

Dr Win, interesting post but the problem exists in ruling and law...law being a no-no in rugby...the letter of the law has been substituted by ruling...ie the ref is the interpreter of the law...which is a ruling...it depends on the expertise of the ref to determine it's application. We often hear the screetch and bleat of rugby fans and followers as to the ref's ruling.

Yes the ref is always under scrutiny but his rulings must always be respected...it's a bloody difficult occupation that none of us here could ever do...the integrity of the ref must be always protected.

I don't honestly believe that you have crooked refs...indeed you have some refs that penalise certain indiscretions and biased supporters read too much into this...there is a tendancy to attack ie French refs...who may or may not look at BORDERLINE indiscretions differently.

We have to realise that refs are human and therefore not computers and are prone to error but the spirit of the game must supercede this...they are not rogues as some label ...errors occur in all sports but so does fanatical prejudice...

Dr Win it's a good challenge and worth a debate...and what your'e stated is worthy of consideration.

Every sport has it's peculiar happenings...umpires in cricket have to be sharp as needles...rulings in boxing are not often clean cut (no pun intended) and scoring of points is contraversial at times...even golf can have it's oddities.

Lets leave the refs alone for a change...yes make them accountable but give them credit to a job that none of us could improve on.

 If you have not tried your hand at the whistle thing then it will be difficult to understand.  We have the benefit of very good television coverage.  That poor bugger with the whistle is in most cases dwarfed by the looming bodies on the field.  Mostly difficult to see in real time.  ut having said that, there is a problem with interpretation of certain situations.  The try and in-goal area as per above is one, the other this silly "drifting" of a pass and looking at the hands i.e. intent.

I have a problem with scrum feeds.  Two seasons ago it was very strictly policed only to be "forgotten" again and now the pall goes way back.  Very few lineouts are actually straight as well.  Then there is the crazy lottery played by referees when it comes to scrum time.  This inconsistency and varied interpretation is very frustrating for fans and supporters.  More so for those who never played the game.

 For sure being a ref of a rugby game is one of the tougher & most scrutinized jobs around & the audience is not exactly unbiased (we are fans, i.e. fanatics  after all).
Mach, I agree with your point about refs letting certain infringements of the laws go & the examples you cite.  It is clear that they are under instructions to let such things go & you see it by all refs in all games. What we hope for & get some consistency from them so the players & fans know what to expect & their is fairness.
Seb, I agree that the refs are not corrupt only human.

Yeah Machy... The ruling of scrummy feeding the ball straight in the channel of scrum is another baffling one...no, no 9 is doing it...refs just turn a blind eye???