Clancy - Namibia v Georgia

[Waspsfan]

Georgian lineout in Namibian 22. Time for the first half has elapsed. Georgia throw the ball in not straight. Clancy whistles for not straight. Half time thinks I, but George disagrees! Doesn't obviously give the option to Namibia just awards them a lineout and says 'we have to have the lineout'. Surely a fairly basic error.

The half continues for a long time! It actually runs into a 50th minute and ends 68 minutes after the game kicked off!

 

[beckett50]

GC is not covering himself with glory in this game. Even the future Mrs B is saying that he appears confused and like a rabbit in the headlights.

Penalised Namibia for in at the side of a maul and yet 5 minutes earlier the Georgia #1 came in at the side of a driving maul that was collapsed in front of the posts and GC awards a Georgia scrum? Some puzzling decisions, but all credit to Namibia for their efforts thus far.

 

[crossref]

Georgian lineout in Namibian 22. Time for the first half has elapsed. Georgia throw the ball in not straight. Clancy whistles for not straight. Half time thinks I, but George disagrees! Doesn't obviously give the option to Namibia just awards them a lineout and says 'we have to have the lineout'. Surely a fairly basic error.

The half continues for a long time! It actually runs into a 50th minute and ends 68 minutes after the game kicked off!

This is correct - you can't force half time by not throwing straight.
I think he did offer the option and they chose lineout

 

[beckett50]

I think he did offer the option and they chose lineout

Not sure that he did; but with the gabbling ITV commentator I could be wrong; I'm sure all I heard was GC saying "We have to have the line out" What happened to the option?! Although with the pressure that Namibia are under at scrum time, would you call that as the captain?!:chin:

 

[FlipFlop]

My money is on Clancy getting confused with the "Restart direct to touch" - must offer options, even if time is up, ruling. And possibly mixing in the "Scrum must be completed" issue. And extending to touch. If he offered the options at a lineout, then time is up.

If he said it was a deliberate infringement, then the restart was not right. All Namibia were going to do was kick to touch...

That extra time - 2 YCs and almost a try. Pretty critical decisions, all caused by a bad one. All in all, so far GC is living up to my opinion of him, and the game shouldn't be hard for him.

Sadly - I don't think he is the worst performer on the field, in fact he is probably one of the better people, with all the knock-ons, missed tackles, dropped balls, etc.

 

[crossref]

well, I guess it's a great Law question.
Lineout is awarded.
time expires
the throw is not straight
is that the end of the half, or do you offer the options?

 

[Waspsfan]

This is correct - you can't force half time by not throwing straight.
I think he did offer the option and they chose lineout

It was a Georgia attacking line out which they gained by kicking a penalty to touch. They wanted the ball. It wasn't a deliberate not straight to force half time. It was just an error by the attacking team who definitely didn't want half time.
(Plus deliberate not straight is a penalty to Namibia)

 

[crossref]

meanwhile - quite a late tackle, wasn't it? and a clattering. players all tired and angsty.
I wouldn't be surprised if we see some more YC before game is over..

 

[crossref]

It was a Georgia attacking line out which they gained by kicking a penalty to touch. They wanted the ball. It wasn't a deliberate not straight to force half time. It was just an error by the attacking team who definitely didn't want half time.
(Plus deliberate not straight is a penalty to Namibia)

yes, I realise, but what I meant was that if (in general) throw not-straight would end the half, then the door is wide open for teams to accidentally throw not straight to allow time to expire

 

[FlipFlop]

yes, I realise, but what I meant was that if (in general) throw not-straight would end the half, then the door is wide open for teams to accidentally throw not straight to allow time to expire

Currently - not straight ends the half, as the ball is dead. Unless you go with deliberately infringing. It was a clear and simple law error, that has had a huge impact on the game.

If there was any doubt about GCs ability to handle a QF game......

 

[Waspsfan]

If you are good enough to accidentally throw it not straight, so the referee doesn't think it was deliberate, and guarantee the other team don't get possession and accrue an advantage - then you are good enough to just regain possession from your own lineout and have the ball to do with it whatever you wish!

 

[crossref]

uncontested scrums, and clancy now telling the non-throwing scrum half to stay back at the tunnel and not to go forward with the ball

 

[beckett50]

uncontested scrums, and clancy now telling the non-throwing scrum half to stay back at the tunnel and not to go forward with the ball

Spotted that with a degree of incredulity. GC making it up in the fly?!

 

[Waspsfan]

End of the game he seemed to ignore a penalty advantage and then ignore a knock on. Think he just wanted to get out of there!

 

[FlipFlop]

Saw the end of the game. Not only did he ignore the PK advantage, he then waited after the drop kick missed, and then ignored the knock on, and then waited until the ball was dotted down, to blow for the something (not PK or FK) and end the game. He was waiting for the clock to tick over.

If he gets a QF appointment (or other play-off game), then I really will be amazed. Said he wasn't good enough to be at the RWC. Even JL has been better. And his performance tonight - wonder how many words on his assessment.

 

[Phil E]

Georgian lineout in Namibian 22. Time for the first half has elapsed. Georgia throw the ball in not straight. Clancy whistles for not straight. Half time thinks I, but George disagrees! Doesn't obviously give the option to Namibia just awards them a lineout and says 'we have to have the lineout'. Surely a fairly basic error.

He should have ended the half at the not straight, unless he thought it was a deliberate and therefore penalty offence (which he didn't).
See situation 2 below.

[LAWS]Clarification 3 2009

Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee
Ruling3-2009
Union / HP Ref ManagerFFR
Law Reference5
Date 8 April 2009
This Clarification was incorporated into Law in 2010
Request
Law 5.4 stipulates that “time-keeping may be delegated to an official responsible for time keeping”.

Law 5.7 (e) stipulates that “if time expires and the ball is not dead or a scrum or lineout has been awarded, the referee allows play to continue until the next time that the ball becomes dead.”

The ball is dead “when it has gone outside the playing area, or when the referee has blown the whistle for a stoppage, or when a conversion kick has been taken.”

Law 20.4 (g) sets out that “if a scrum collapses or lifts up in the air without penalty a further scrum will be ordered and the team who originally threw in the ball will throw the ball in again.”

Situation 1
Following these provisions, the FFR would like a ruling from the Designated Members with regards to the situation as described below:
1. The referee awards a scrum for Team A.
2. After blowing the whistle for this scrum and setting it up, there is the siren indicating the end of the match (real playing time).
3. The referee allows for this scrum to be played.
4. The ball is put in then the scrum collapses without any penalty from either team.
5. The referee blows the whistle.

The “technical” decision to be made would be to award a new scrum.

Question:
Does the referee have to have this scrum played or does he have to blow for the end of the match?

For an “identical” situation for a lineout in the facts chronology, the FFR would like the following ruling:

Situation 2
1. The ball is kicked in touch by Team A.
2. After the lineout has been formed, there is the siren indicating the end of the match (real playing time).
3. The referee allows for this lineout to be played.
4. The Team B thrower does not throw the ball straight.
5. The referee blows the whistle.

The “technical” decision to be made would be to give the choice to Team A between a new lineout or a scrum.

Question:
Does the referee have to give the choice to the opposing team (lineout to be redone or scrum) or does he have to blow for the end of the match?
Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee
Situation 1
Despite the Referee being able to delegate responsibility for time keeping the referee is still the sole judge of fact and Law and the game ends with the referee’s whistle.

The scrum has been set in playing time and collapses. The referee is obliged to blow the whistle in accordance with Law 6.A.8 (g). The original scrum has not been completed and has had to be reformed in accordance with Law 20.4 (g) and therefore the match would continue and end at the next stoppage of play in accordance with Law 5.7(e).

Situation 2
The referee ends the match as there has been an offence that ensures that the ball is dead after the lineout has been completed and therefore the match ends in accordance with Law 5.7 (e). [/LAWS]

[LAWS]5.7(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.[/LAWS]

 

[crossref]

well, that's clear enough...

 

[The Fat]

I'm wondering if the elite guys have received information to the contrary.
Earlier this year I had requested clarification regarding scrums near half and full time from NSWRU and the ARU. Part of the response is as follows.

"In the past there have been instances of where there has been a stoppage in play prior to half time or full time and the team that is to bring the ball back into play, delayed doing so and then did something which ensured that the ball didn’t come back into play and the referee was obliged to call half time or full time. These teams used the then law to ensure that the ball was not brought into play and the score remained as is. An example would be a 22 metre drop out awarded before full time and kicked directly into touch after full time. The then laws did not allow for any further scrum and the half or entire game was then over.

The IRB decided that the only way a game could finish in these circumstances (stoppage just before half or full time and a scrum, drop-out or line-out awarded) was that the ball must be brought into play and then played out until the next stoppage. If you look at the definitions of a Scrum, Lineout and 22 metre Drop-out, you will see that they are merely a means to bring the ball back into play. If you use this logic then you don’t have to worry about clouding the issue with wheeled scrums and turnover balls. The ball has to be brought into play."


My first reaction to the George Clancy LO near half time scenario was remembering the 2009 Clarification that Phil E posted. Then I remembered the above response I had received earlier this year.
The best I can do to follow this up is ask the question at a course I will be attending in a couple of weeks time that will have presenters from the ARU, NSWRU and a Super Rugby referee, to see if we are getting the latest info from WR (i.e Clarification 3-2009)

 

[Dixie]

well, that's clear enough...

Is it though?

[LAWS]5.7(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.[/laws]

[LAWS]19.9(b) Lineout ends. The lineout ends when the ball or a player carrying it leaves the lineout.
This includes the following:
• When the ball is thrown, knocked or kicked out of the lineout, the lineout ends.
• When the ball or a player carrying the ball moves into the area between the 5-metre line and the touchline, the lineout ends.
• When a lineout player hands the ball to a player who is peeling off, the lineout ends.
• When the ball is thrown beyond the 15-metre line, or when a player takes or puts it beyond that line, the lineout ends.
• When a ruck or maul develops in a lineout, and all the feet of all the players in the ruck or maul move beyond the line of touch, the lineout ends.
• When the ball becomes unplayable in a lineout, the lineout ends. Play restarts with a scrum.[/LAWS]

So the law requires that if a lineout has not been completed, play must continue until the ball next becomes dead. 19.9b tells us when a lineout ends - with the implication that it is incomplete unless one of these scenarios happens. The lineout in question was incomplete so play must continue - but the ball was dead by virtue of George blowing for not straight.

Not clear at all!

 

[crossref]

for me - the Law alone is NOT clear, hence the 2009 quesiton, and clarification which covers this exact scenario. The 2009 clarificaiton is perfectly clear - so we follow it.

Of course then we have to ask why, in the six years since 2009, haven't the IRB tweaked the Law, so that it IS clear.

If the IRB have issued a secret-email to RWC referees telling them to ignore the 2009 clarification, well then I despair.