It was a try. The referee awarded the try and the referee is ‘the sole judge of fact and Law during a match’. But was his judgement right.

He did take advice from the TMO whose scripted advice was: ‘You may award the try.’

But should it have been awarded? Was the judgement right? Was the Law correctly applied? It is an interesting situation.

sareferees

The Springboks have a five-metre line-out. They look to set a maul on Eben Etzebeth but England repulse it. The Springboks bash and then look to go wide. Ruan Pienaar passes to Juandré Kruger who goes into the tackle but loses the ball backwards. Ben Youngs of England kicks the ball but straight onto JP Pietersen. The ball ricochets off Pietersen and flies forward through the air towards the England goal-line. Ben Morgan of England puts up a hand to the ball but does not catch it. He knocks the ball forward into Willem Alberts’s grasp, and the big flank plunges over for a try.

The distances may be relevant. Kruger loses the ball backwards before making contact just over five metres from the England line. The ball goes back and is about seven metres from the line when Youngs kicks it. He kicks it upwards and it strikes Petersen above the knee. It flies forward. Morgan, who had been involved at defence near the England line, tries to play the ball. He is then about a metre from the England line. Vermeulen, who had been involved in the attack on the England line, is about a metre further infield from Morgan.

The try took the score to 16-6, just enough for the Springboks to win by one point.

 

Was Alberts offside?

Law 11 – DEFINITIONS
In general play a player is offside if the player is in front of a team-mate who is carrying the ball, or in front of a team-mate who last played the ball. Offside means that a player is temporarily out of the game. Such players are liable to be penalised if they take part in the game.

The ball was last played by Morgan, an opponent.

Alberts was well in front of Pietersen when Pietersen played the ball but then Morgan played it.

 

Did Morgan’s action put Alberts onside?

Law 11.3 BEING PUT ONSIDE BY OPPONENTS
In general play, there are three ways by which an offside player can be put onside by an action of the opposing team. These three ways do not apply to a player who is offside under the 10-Metre Law.
(a) Runs 5 metres with ball. When an opponent carrying the ball runs 5 metres, the offside player is put onside.
(b) Kicks or passes. When an opponent kicks or passes the ball, the offside player is put onside.
(c) Intentionally touches ball. When an opponent intentionally touches the ball but does not catch it, the offside player is put onside.

Morgan intentionally touched the ball.

 

But then there is this ‘under the 10-Metre Law’ thing.

Law 11.4 OFFSIDE UNDER THE 10-METRE LAW
(a) When a team-mate of an offside player has kicked ahead, the offside player is considered to be taking part in the game if the player is in front of an imaginary line across the field which is 10 metres from the opponent waiting to play the ball, or from where the ball lands or may land. The offside player must immediately move behind the imaginary 10-metre line or the kicker if this is closer than 10 metres. While moving away, the player must not obstruct an opponent.
Sanction: Penalty kick

 

The 10-metre law is only from a kick. There is an obvious question here: did Pietersen kick the ball?

Law DEFINITION
Kick: a kick is made by hitting the ball with any part of the leg or foot, except the heel, and from knee to toe, but not including the knee. A kick must move a visible distance out of the hand.

First, it seemed that the ball hit Pietersen, rather than vice versa. Secondly, it hit him above the knee. That means that he did not kick the ball at all.

Pietrersen did not kick the ball. Morgan played the ball

 

From this it would seem that the it was the correct decision to award the try.

But, be fair, it is a lot of information for the referee and his helpers to process.

 

Here’s the try:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbcqZ8gJayg

9 Responses to End Of Year Tours: Was Alberts’ try ligit and correctly awarded?

  • 1

    A try… a bit of a lucky confluence of events.. but well pounced on… and it stands in the history books.

  • 2

    Yesssss. 3 wins out of three achieved by playing inventive, scintillatingly entertaining and innovative Rugby.

    Such crisp and effective passing, offloads and ball recycling throughout the tour.

    SA Rugby is saved and must surely be a “shoe in” for the next RWC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • 3

    3 BIGGEST PRATS IN THE RUGBY WORLD THIS WEEKEND.

    1. Chris Robshaw. FFS young man, even if you’re doing Grade 12 Maths Literacy lower grade in South Africa, you would know that if you’re 4 points behind, and score 3 points for a successful penalty, YOU’RE STILL 1 POINT BEHIND – CHOP.

    2. Nigel Owens. You really must cancel your subscription to the Bryce Lawrence School Of Rugby Officiating video library. You Cretin, the rule at scrum time is quite explicit in that the prop that puts his hand on the ground is in contravention of the rules. Further, if you can’t see that an Italian Englishman with a number 1 on his back is scrumming at a 45 degree angle to the original line of scrummage then you’re not only a blind prat, but a cheating blind prat. One word describes your performance from Saturday 24th November – RUBBISH (and bordering on CHEAT).

    3. SARU – Just because I say so.

  • 4

    @ Scrumdown:
    100% agreed. On all counts.

    Pleasure

  • 5

    @ Scrumdown:
    LOL!!!

    It seemed as JDP had a big fat bulls eye on his back. Nothing he tried worked. Notice how well we scrummed when Pat Cilliers came on? I wonder what he had against Jannie?

    As bad as Mr Owens reffed, I am glad he awarded the try.

  • 6

    5 @ Lion4ever:
    Yup. Young Cilliers is developing nicely. Owens certainly had it in for the food Doctor.

    Did JdJ even have the ball passed to him? If he did it didn’t stick out in my mind.

    I for one was bitterly disappointed in the type of Rugby played by SA throughout this tour.

  • 7

    Nice article. Cleared up a lot of things for me. It was obviously a very complicated situation in which the correct decision resulted, most importantly the one in our favour 😉

  • 8

    Interesting one, looking at the video footage my first gut feeling was that he scored from an offside position but then looking at all the laws quoted it’s clear that he wasn’t but that is a lot for the referee to judge in a short time so quite correct that he went to TV ref, it just highlights the value of the TV ref in the game these days. The one annoying thing is to see Robshaw trying to talk to the ref to influence the decision after he has referred it to the TV ref and was waiting to hear what he said, I don’t like to see this creeping into our game.

  • 9

    6 @ Scrumdown:
    Or maybe his opponent was just better than him, didn’t watch the game but this is a rating from another source quite clearly an ‘unbiased neutral’s’ opinion Wink “Alex Corbisiero: Persuaded the ref that he was in the right in most of the messy scrums. England missed him when he was replaced – 8. Jannie du Plessis: Found Corbisiero very difficult to counter. Demonstrated that the Boks are not a nation of great scrummagers-4.”

Users Online

Total 17 users including 0 member, 17 guests, 0 bot online

Most users ever online were 3735, on 31 August 2022 @ 6:23 pm