LAW DISCUSSION: WERE CARDIFF ‘ROBBED’ IN BELFAST?

This week’s law discussion centres around the action in Belfast with two contentious decisions during Ulster v Cardiff in the United Rugby Championship.

It wasn’t just red cards that proved game-changers in matches over the weekend. ‘Robbed’ was how the WRU described the finale to the Ulster v Cardiff clash on Friday night as two controversial calls in two minutes split opinions.

These are interesting because while many contestable laws have been reduced to protocols and frameworks down the past couple of years which provide a fair measure of objective clarity (if not always perfection), these two were of a much more subjective nature and a reduction in controversy would only be possible if there were a way to objectivise them better.

Incident 1: Thomas Young’s non-try

With thirteen minutes to go, Cardiff flanker Thomas Young is set away down the right towards the corner. He is pursued by Ulster’s Cormac Izuchukwu. Young’s stutter-step gives him an edge in the foot race, but Izuchukwu manages to grab Young’s waistband and swings his body around Young by it.

Welsh Rugby Union slam TMO after ‘plucky losers’ Cardiff are ‘robbed of statement victory’

Young stands strong for a moment despite this before slumping to his knees. Izuchukwu’s bodyweight is still swinging around so that at this point his legs are now in front of his body. Young reaches out forward to place the ball down but Izuchukwu’s legs are so far round now that his feet are by the ball. As Young goes to place the ball, Izuchukwu’s left foot (his right has swing round beyond the ball and is under Young’s body) connects with the ball and knocks it out of Young’s clutches. The referee awards a knock-on, and the TMO decides he is right.

The crucial law is this one:

Law 21.10: If a tackled player is in the act of reaching out to ground the ball for a try or touch down, defending players may knock the ball backwards or pull the ball from the player’s possession but must not kick or attempt to kick the ball.

But in this case, the decision is very subjective: Izuchukwu’s ‘kick’ is hardly a classic one, after all, he is in the act of tackling and is unsighted for much of the action. There is no law, or protocol, or framework defining what a kick or attempt to kick of this kind might look like.

It puts the officials in a highly unenviable position of having to subjectively judge that. It is quite plausible that Izuchukwu is trying to get his feet under the ball – this is where his right foot ends up – which would be perfectly legal.

There is, in slow motion, a possible jabbing movement with his left foot however, while a freeze-frame of the moment his foot makes contact shows him clearly looking at the vicinity of the ball. But at real speed, neither of these are at all obvious, especially not the jabbing motion. And although perceivable in slow-motion, neither is clear and obvious even then. So, the officials have, in this case, to stand by their on-field decision, which was that Izuchukwu did not commit a penalisable offence.

Incident 2: Rhys Carre’s knock-on

Ulster are on the attack on Cardiff’s 22m line. There are nine minutes to go. Cardiff’s defence is very slow into position around the fringe, and Ulster’s John Cooney snipes on the left, stopping Rhys Carre in a moment of indecision and then flicking the ball left to Ethan McIlroy. The flick is not ideal, a 2m pass which goes higher and further backwards than probably intended and causes McIlroy to have to turn his body inward to catch it cleanly.

Carrre’s right arm shoots out. We can’t see the ball as it is obscured by McIlroy’s body; when the ball returns to sight it is moving forward through the air as though it has rebounded from McIlroy’s arm. Cardiff play on and, several phases later, are celebrating what they think is a game-clinching try in the corner.

But we have an intervention: the TMO has seen the ball come off Carre’s hand…

The replay is pretty conclusive: Carre touches the ball before McIlroy. But the question is now what to do. It could be a knock-on, which would result in a scrum, or it could be a deliberate knock-on and a penalty. After some deliberation, referee Mike Adamson decides that yes, Carre deliberately knocked on – i.e. he had no chance of catching it, and awards Ulster the penalty that wins them the game. Carre is yellow-carded.

Nigel Owens weighs into controversial disallowed URC try debate after Cardiff ‘robbed’

Here’s the technical bits:

Law 11.3: A player must not intentionally knock the ball forward with hand or arm. Sanction: Penalty.

Law 11.4: It is not an intentional knock-on if, in the act of trying to catch the ball, the player knocks on provided that there was a reasonable expectation that the player could gain possession.

Players must endeavour to catch the ball. Referees are asked to show good judgment when deciding if a player has a reasonable expectation of catching and gaining possession and then in determining a sanction. There is no formula for determining a yellow card sanction in these situations.

The pertinent question here is: What did Carre think he was doing – as in, was he really going for a catch or – as often happens, was his arm shooting out in anticipation of a possible tackle?

The video still evidence is not on his side – as we can see from the still here.

His heels are on the floor, so he’s not accelerating forward. McIlroy saunters past him after the ball is mishandled and not into him, so Carre was not in any good position to tackle or block the run, while his right arm shooting forward to McIlroy’s right-hand side means any chance of a tackle is gone. His left arm is by his side. And most pertinently, at the point of contact (in the picture) the ball is barely to his fingertips, which are pointing forward. What kind of percentage chance does he have here of catching a ball with this act? We’d guess less than 10, especially because he is not even close to moving forward in order to have a second bite.

Importantly, the law does not define what an intentional knock on is, only what it is not. And as we can see here, this does not meet the criteria of a non-intentional knock-on, as Carre is not in a reasonable position to claim the ball. The decision was a good one.

2024-04-22T08:58:28Z dg43tfdfdgfd