Law discussion: 'In the side'; Rugby 365

This happens right at the beginning of the match between the Springboks and the All Blacks at Ellis Park on Saturday. What happened on the field is a pretty happy situation, but what was said about it at the start deserves examination.

Ma'a Nonu kicked the ball out about five metres outside the Springbok 22. Bismarck du Plessis threw into the line-out and Lodewyk de Jager caught it and brought it down. All the Springbok forwards gathered around De Jager in a maulish position, but none of the All Blacks joined in.

The Springboks worked the ball back to Heinrich Brüssow who was at the back of the embryo maul which wasn't a full formed maul. Tony Woodcock then came in and attacked Brüssow. The referee allowed play to go on.

The All Blacks got stuck in and the Springboks got the ball back to Ruan Pienaar who kicked the ball up in the air. Charles Piutau jumped and got the ball but the Springboks got him. The All Blacks got the ball back to Aaron Smith who gave to James Broadhurst who was immediately grabbed  by Eben Etzebeth with help from De Jager. They drove Broadhurst back. Broadhurst and Etzebeth go immediately to ground, others follow and the referee penalises the Springboks for going over the ball.

Let's look at commentary which was sent out to millions and believed by Springbok supporters.

When Woodcock played Brüssow: "Looks as if he came in from the side."

The commentary got going when the referee penalised the Springboks.

"This is what we talk about early in every week - how thew referee is going to react, what the difference is that he's going to make. Jérôme Garcès has said that the Springboks have piled over. You could say that was a counter ruck. A fantastic early tackle."

Then there is a replay of the post line-out action.

"Look at that. That's Tony Woodcock. That's completely offside, missed by the referee. Already Jérôme Garcès is making two quick mistakes at the beginning of this match. It's a big concern in international rugby - the Northern and Southern referees are not necessarily on the same page."

Then comment on consequences: "Just going back to the side entry from Tony Woodcock - right in front of the assistant referee as well - it ended up in a penalty for Sopoaga."

There is a lot to talk about in this. But we should start with the definition of a maul.

Law 17 DEFINITIONS
A maul begins when a player carrying the ball is held by one or more opponents, and one or more of the ball-carrier’s team-mates bind on the ball-carrier. A maul therefore consists, when it begins, of at least three players, all on their feet; the ball-carrier and one player from each team. All the players involved must be caught in or bound to the maul and must be on their feet and moving towards a goal-line.

The All Blacks did not join in. There were only Springboks in their maul-like formation. If there were only Springboks there was no maul

If there was no maul, what was Woodcock entering from the side?
If there was no maul, what was Woodcock offside at?

It could only have been at the line-out, but  when the ball was handed back to Brüssow, it had left the line-out and the line-out was over.

Law 19.9 BEGINNING AND ENDING A LINE-OUT
(b) The line-out ends. The line-out ends when the ball or a player carrying it leaves the line-out.

What Woodcock did was clearly legal. Sadly the commentary is spreading wrong information to people liable to believe it.

Then the "counter-ruck".

Was there a ruck at all?

Law 16 DEFINITIONS
A ruck is a phase of play where one or more players from each team, who are on their feet, in physical contact, close around the ball on the ground. Open play has ended.

The only All Black who makes any contact is Owen Franks and he does so from the side and only after De Jager has already fallen over the ball. Brüssow arrived and dived over the area. Tendai Mtawarira arrived and went straight to ground.

If there was no ruck, there could be no counter-ruck.

And if the players - De Jager, Brüssow and Mtawarira go to ground they are not acting as players should in a ruck.

It seems wrong to suggest that the referee made mistakes when he had not done so and a pity to broadcast this to the world.

By Paul Dobson
@rugby365com

 

 We are all getting sick of the discussions about refs but this one is interesting because of the laws related to the maul which is a major weapon of the Boks. Apparently concerns about Woolc*ck being offside or entering from the side were not justified.

 The saffa comentators seemed to be in a competition with Rod kafer to see who is the more biased

 Remember the Kiwi commentators about Bismarck's tackle on Carter.............. anybody.........?

 The issue here is not as simple as was stated above.   It is very difficult for line-out jumpers/other players  to disengage from line-outs to prevent driving mauls.  There should be no engagement in that situation -even one player being engaged can prevent a driving maul from being formed.
Now look at what happened in that line-out and see what Cole was doing - was he totally disengaged?  From the video clip it was clear that he did not disengage and that a driving maul could proceed.   That means that technically Woodc ock was entering a maul from the side. - consequently a penalty should be given.  If you can convince me that Cole was standing back and not engaged must please indicate how he arrives at that conclusion.      

 CleverMike, I noticed that also. Cole had one hand on Etzabeth's arm, is that enough to call it engagement? I don't know, probably could have gone either way. What is amazing is the commentators didn't have a clue.

 Probably the attacking team with ball in hand is likely to get the benefit in that case.  But that in itself is not clear.  However, no decision has been made by the ref and that should be the end of the Story.  
I would have given Cole a good talking to about engagement and non-engagement if I was the captain or coach - he came from a whisker from being spoiling a good plan.  
Sure to listen to commentators at matches is except for Marshal - is just a waste of time.   Look at the game yourself and form your own opinion.  That is actually the best option available.  

@mikey,

i mentioned coles involvement with that lineout on another thread and believe the ref made a wrong call, but the refs error favoured the Boks, it didnt disadvantage them.

assuming that cole was part of that maul, he was the first and only All Black player involved.
this is important, because it means the Boks were obstructing coles from making a tackle, a penalty offence.

before any rolling maul from a  lineout can be formed, defenders must have immediate access to the ball carrier, this is clearly not what happened, as u can see from the video above, the ball was already at the back of the Boks maul, before coles got involved.

uzumaki clan, always ahead of the curb, XD

@ceradyne,

"Remember the Kiwi commentators about Bismarck's tackle on Carter.............. anybody.........?"
its only natural for Bok fans to not want to watch a replay of a Bok loss, especially the number of times the Boks face the All Blacks and wallabies,,,,,,,and ireland and wales.

but i would recommend u watch that replay of that game again, u dont have to watch the whole game, but that pig marck tackle in particular all the way up to the yellow card pigmarck gets.

u will hear the kiwi commentators intially say off side and no arms in the tackle, but once the replay is shown, they all say nothing wrong with that tackle, it was just a monster hit.
when pigmarck gets the yellow card, commentators call the referees decision a rubbish call.

u really trying to compare that, to those brainless one eyed unprofessional idiots who called last weekends game???
even with the aid of the replay, commentators especially booby skinhead, are not smart enough to make the distinction between the right call and bad call.
they are insanely biased, u only have to watch a handful of saffa games in the spXV to know this.