Much as been made of Craig Joubert’s final call against Scotland in the do-or-die quarter final. Did Joubert make a complete hash of it, or not?
By no means is this article designed to take anything away from how well Scotland played, It’s simply a closer look at the laws surrounding a decision that seems to have caused much confusion and contention. At first, I will admit, I thought Joubert got the call wrong, but as more information and footage became available, my stance did shift.
One thing many people are asking is, why couldn’t the referee go to the TMO?
The TMO can only be used only in the following circumstances:
- Determining the grounding of the ball in-goal for a try or touchdown and/or whether players were in touch or touch in goal before grounding
- Determining whether a kick at goal has been successful
- Confirm if an infringement has occurred in the build-up to a try or prevention of a try (infringement must be within two phases of the try or touchdown)
- Considering acts of possible foul play
In the video below, you can see Denton tap the ball back off the lineout and Hardie scrambled after the ball. Now, there is no doubt that the ball travels forward off John Hardie, onto Phipps and then to Strauss, but should it have been a penalty or a scrum?
Law 11.8 states:
When a ruck, maul, scrum or lineout forms, a player who is offside and is retiring as required by Law remains offside even when the opposing team wins possession and the ruck, maul, scrum or lineout has ended. The player is put onside by retiring behind the applicable offside line. No other action of the offside player and no action of that player’s team mates can put the offside player onside.
If the player remains offside the player can be put onside only by the action of the opposing team. There are two such actions:Opponent runs 5 metres with ball. When an opponent carrying the ball has run 5 metres, the offside player is put onside. An offside player is not put onside when an opponent passes the ball. Even if the opponents pass the ball several times, their action does not put the offside player onside.
Opponent kicks. When an opponent kicks the ball, the offside player is put onside.
Neither of those two things occurred. Strauss was still in an offside position when the ball ended up in his possession.
Many people are also pointing out Law 11.3:
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.
As section (c) points out, when Nick Phipps played at the ball, should it have been play on?
Not according to Law 11.9:
A player who remains in an offside position is loitering. A loiterer who prevents the opposing team from playing the ball as they wish is taking part in the game, and is penalised. The referee makes sure that the loiterer does not benefit from being put onside by the opposing team’s action.
While Strauss was attempting to make it back to an onside position, the simple fact he was still in front of Hardie, and by the direct wording of law 11.9 “A player who remains in an offside position is loitering”, he is still at fault.
Joubert running off the field at full time, amid reports missiles were thrown in his direction
Many people would argue that when the ball initially made contact with Strauss it was accidental offside. Yes, the footage of the initial contact would support that, however, Strauss then dived over the ball, and prevented the Wallabies from taking their advantage.
Result, penalty Wallabies.
The Ball came off Hardies back so was not a knock on (a knock on if off the hands or arms). It may have come off the Scottish No20’s shoulder but was touched by Phipps. So as soon as it was touched by Phipps it would be a scrum (assuming the no 20 knocked it on). It can only be a penalty for being offside after a knock on if the next person to touch the ball is a team mate of the person who knocked it on.
Also re the TMO in Maitland yellow card initiated the review with Joubert. I don’t think he can do this. he can be reffered to for a number of things but he is not allowed to initiate the enquiry. Also the rules around the TMO involved the identification of clear and obvious. How Maitlands ‘intent’ to knock on was clear and obvious is a mystery.
Good article however it is flawed, your point re law 11.8 “When a ruck, maul, scrum or lineout forms, a player who is offside and is retiring as required by Law remains offside even when the opposing team wins possession and the ruck, maul, scrum or lineout has ended.” as straus was onside when the lineout ended he cannot be interepted as offside under this law. neither can you refer to law11.9 as he was retiring so hence not loitering. Therefor law 11.3 stands so the player was not offside.
Hardie was on-side during the lineout – as a participant he was always on the Scotland side of the ball as it was thrown. As soon as the ball was tapped back away from the line of touch, the lineout is over, and open play exists. So the first paragraph here is irrelevant, as it only deals with offside at the lineout whilst the lineout is taking place. Hardie was clearly not offside under that law.
Now, with the ball back in open play, there is a knock-on by Scotland, and immediately afterwards the ball is played by an Australian player. The result of that is that all Scottish players are now back onside. Hardie is therefore perfectly entitled to play the ball when it bounces to him, and the end result should have been a scrum with put-in to Australia as they gained no advantage from the initial knock on.
The law quoted regarding loiterers is for situations where a ruck/maul or quickly taken throw (line-out) is taken and completed whilst players are still retiring. Now there is no offside line for them to retreat behind (the ruck/maul/line out is over) and so they can’t be put onside other than by action of the opponents. Again this is not relevant to what happened yesterday, as we were in open play.
Only the laws of offside/onside in open play apply to this situation, and so the key question is did the Australian player intentionally play the ball after the knock on? For the ball to ricochet so far my suggestion is that he must have done so , so all bets are off and all players on-side.
Admittedly this was a tricky one at full speed, but I am convinced that Joubert failed to spot the playing of the ball by Australia and if he had seen this he would have acted differently. If there had been no contact by Australia (as Joubert must have seen it) then he has made a correct decision to penalize Scotland for offside. Alternatively he may have considered that the playing of the ball by Australia was not intentional, so leaving Hardie in an offside position and liable to penalty. Only if you see the act of playing the ball as intentional can Hardie be placed back on-side.
Surely now the TMO regulations need to be tightened to include the possibility of referring an incident prior to a penalty kick at goal, so that in future these controversial incidents can be checked . After all if Australia had scored a try in the last minute, it could have been chalked off for an infringement (missed by the referee at the time) in the lead up to scoring, but the award of a penalty allowed Australia to kick a penalty goal – which was just as effective as a try with the scores that close. However, the penalty award – leading to the winning score – could not be checked for possible errors/oversights. It makes no sense to me.