There were several decisions this last weekend which are worth debating. One of them was the try scored by Chiliboy Ralepelle of the Bulls, a try which took the home team to 25-10 with 13 minutes to play.
The Bulls were attacking when Francois Hougaard grubbered the ball towards the Stormers’ line as Siya Kolisi on one side and Frans Malherbe on the other side tried to stop him. The ball went between the two defenders. Ralepelle raced onto the ball, grabbed it and dived over.
The referee referred the decision to the TMO. It was clear that Ralepelle had been in front of Hougaard when Hougaard kicked the ball. The referee wanted to know if he had kicked the ball into a defender.
The TMO examined the situation. The ball had not touched Kolisi but he believed that the ball had touched a sliver of the toe of Malherbe’s boot.
On the strength of this the referee awarded the try.
Right?
Hougaard’s grubber was a kick.
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.
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.
Ralepelle was in front of Hougaard when Hougaard kicked the ball. Ralepelle was in an offside position. He took part in the game all right. So he was liable to be penalised unless he had been put onside.
There are three ways that an offside player can be put onside by an opponent. The third one is relevant.
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.
It is debatable whether Malherbe intentionally touched the ball. He was trying to tackle Hougaard. But leave that aside.
When Hougaard kicked the ball Ralepelle was to his left about a metre in front of Hougaard. Let’s look at offside under the 10-metre law.
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
Hougaard kicked the ball.
Ralepelle was in front of Hougaard when Hougaard kicked the ball.
The ball landed almost immediately – just beyond Kolisi.
Ralepelle was in front of the line 10 metres from where the ball landed.
Does Malherbe’s toe put Ralepelle onside?.
Law 11.5 BEING PUT ONSIDE UNDER THE 10-METRE LAW
(a) The offside player must retire behind the imaginary 10-metre line across the field, otherwise the player is liable to be penalised.
(b) While retiring, the player can be put onside before moving behind the imaginary 10-metre line by any of the three actions of the player’s team listed above in 11.2. However, the player cannot be put onside by any action of the opposing team.
The player cannot be put onside by any action of the opposing team.
There were several decisions this last weekend which are worth debating.
One of them was the try scored by Chiliboy Ralepelle of the Bulls, a try which took the home team to 25-10 lead with 13 minutes to play.
The Bulls were attacking when Francois Hougaard grubbered the ball towards the Stormers’ line as Siya Kolisi on one side and Frans Malherbe on the other side tried to stop him. The ball went between the two defenders. Ralepelle raced onto the ball, grabbed it and dived over.
The referee referred the decision to the TMO. It was clear that Ralepelle had been in front of Hougaard when Hougaard kicked the ball. The referee wanted to know if he had kicked the ball into a defender.
The TMO examined the situation. The ball had not touched Kolisi but he believed that the ball had touched a sliver of the toe of Malherbe’s boot.
On the strength of this the referee awarded the try.
Right?
Hougaard’s grubber was a kick.
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.
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.
Ralepelle was in front of Hougaard when Hougaard kicked the ball. Ralepelle was in an offside position. He took part in the game all right. So he was liable to be penalised unless he had been put onside.
There are three ways that an offside player can be put onside by an opponent. The third one is relevant.
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.
It is debatable whether Malherbe intentionally touched the ball. He was trying to tackle Hougaard. But leave that aside.
When Hougaard kicked the ball Ralepelle was to his left about a metre in front of Hougaard. Let’s look at offside under the 10-metre law.
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
Hougaard kicked the ball.
Ralepelle was in front of Hougaard when Hougaard kicked the ball.
The ball landed almost immediately – just beyond Kolisi.
Ralepelle was in front of the line 10 metres from where the ball landed.
Does Malherbe’s toe put Ralepelle onside.
Law 11.5 BEING PUT ONSIDE UNDER THE 10-METRE LAW
(a) The offside player must retire behind the imaginary 10-metre line across the field, otherwise the player is liable to be penalised.
(b) While retiring, the player can be put onside before moving behind the imaginary 10-metre line by any of the three actions of the player’s team listed above in 11.2. However, the player cannot be put onside by any action of the opposing team.
The player cannot be put onside by any action of the opposing team.
Malherbe’s toe could not have put Ralepelle onside.
It would seem that the referee should not have asked the TMO the question he asked him and the TMO should not have given the advice that he gave him: that the ball had been touched by 17 Blue [Malherbe] and that Ralepelle had thus been put on side and the try should have been awarded.
It would seem that the correct decision would have been a penalty to the Stormers.
But, in case there is doubt, the law is even more explicit.
Law 11.4 (f) The 10-metre Law does not apply when a player kicks the ball, and an opponent charges down the kick, and a team-mate of the kicker who was in front of the imaginary 10-metre line across the field then plays the ball. The opponent was not ‘waiting to play the ball’ and the team-mate is onside. The 10-metre Law applies if the ball touches or is played by an opponent but is not charged down.
Malherbe’s toe could not have put Ralepelle onside. It certainly was not charging the kick down!
It would seem that the referee should not have asked the TMO the question he asked him and the TMO should not have given the advice that he gave him: that the ball had been touched by 176 Blue [Malherbe] and that Ralepelle had thus been put on side and the try should have been awarded.
It would seem that the correct decision would have been a penalty to the Stormers.
NB The try that Willem Alberts scored against England was not similar. In that incident an Englishman kicked the ball. The ball struck JP Pietersen above the knee and it flew forward. But that means that Pietersen did not kick the ball. If he did not kick the ball there was no 10-metre restriction. The ball was then intentionally played by an Englishman, which pout Alberts onside.
In this case there was a kick and so the 10-metre restriction.
It would seem that the referee should not have asked the TMO the question he asked him and the TMO should not have given the advice that he gave him: that the ball had been touched by 176 Blue [Malherbe] and that Ralepelle had thus been put on side and the try should have been awarded.
It would seem that the correct decision would have been a penalty to the Stormers.
NB The try that Willem Alberts scored against England was not similar. In that incident an Englishman kicked the ball. The ball struck JP Pietersen above the knee and it flew forward. But that means that Pietersen did not kick the ball. If he did not kick the ball there was no 10-metre restriction. The ball was then intentionally played by an Englishman, which pout Alberts onside.
In this case there was a kick and so the 10-metre restriction.
I personally think it was a lottery whether the ball touched any Stormer, and seemingly the incorrect decision was made. My gripe is that it was never conclusive that either Stormer player had touched the ball. Very dubious decision. Helped my Superbru though
Ai tog, nou moet ek hierdie artikel ook fix…. en ek het so baie tyd vandag…. hehehe
@ grootblousmile:
2
ag jammer , ek weet ek het droog gemaak baas, maar eish ek het vinnig getry toe dail die vrou en se die kar battery hy werk nie to moes ek hol
Thanks for that but you forgot one thing
The referee awarded the try and the referee is ‘the sole judge of fact and Law during a match.
End of story.
Now how about this?
http://www.sport24.co.za/Rugby/Super15/Kings-ashamed-of-white-squad-20130226
3 @ superBul:
My battery is ook flat!
Ai, moenie komkommer nie… kyk net mooi na die mail wat ek gestuur het om jou te wys waar kan die verandering gebeur.
Ek wil op ‘n stadium ‘n BEHOORLIKE TUTORIAL VIDEO maak vir julle Outeurs om so klompie basics uit te sort en dan aan die einde bietjie heelwat dieper te delf in die advanced gedeeltes van artikels, waarvan julle noggie eers weet nie.
Anyway… dis nou eendag wanneer ek tyd kry en wanneer my Batterye nie pap is nie.
@ Bliksem:
4
words used to stir a article again, News 24 does that every time with great success.
You can run with any story the way you want and because of the heaped hatred towards Cheeky they know they will get hits and the racial comments willfollow. Did you read the comments too?
Kings did not dream about a visit at the Superugby Zoo, they wanted permanent residence, like any respected Franchise wanted.
They were cornered with the late decision of SARU , no one in their right mind would disagree.
What CW said is just fine with me. He is not ashamed of the white players, but rather the fact that he is forced into a situation where he could not get and build more.
Anyway what am i trying to explain, NO one here will agree.
I am just glad that he is not a puppet and he speaks his mind, he might eventually expose ……..
bliksem @ 4
Pool SA
Kings 1 1 0 0 22 10 12 0 4
Bulls 1 1 0 0 25 17 8 0 4
Sharks 1 1 0 0 29 22 7 0 4
Cheetahs 1 0 0 1 22 29 -7 1 1
Stormers 1 0 0 1 17 25 -8 0 0
super @ 6
“Anyway what am i trying to explain, NO one here will agree.”
..
since when do you make up my mind for me?
#7
hmmm, if a few results go the “right way”, the kings may actually top the log 2 weeks running!! now that would be a sight to behold!!
@ Ashley:
sorry Sir
Imagine the Kings get a bonus point off the Sharks the next round.
@ Ashley:
http://www.sarugbymag.co.za/blog/details/Solid-foundation-for-Kings
baie ouens klim nou uit die kas en neem notisie van die Kings
super @ 10
i presume you’re talking about a losing bonus point? i think even that would be quite an achievement for the kings …. sorry cant see it happen, though …. unless ….
@ Ashley:
hey wat van n 4 try bonus
nee jong ek dink hul sal met zilts wegstap teen die Sharke, maar een ding is seker die Sharks gaan oefen volgende week en nie op die strand le en rus nie.
super @ 13
ek dink die sharks gaan die stormers verniel die week so daai “unless” staan nog!
http://www.ballz.co.za/the-rugby-panel.php
“Bray has confirmed that the decision was indeed incorrect and that a penalty should have been awarded to the Stormers, instead of a try to the Bulls.
The argument whether this would have made a difference or not is pure conjecture, but Jaco Peyper has received a dressing down from his superiors, although Bray has called it “disappointing” that the try was awarded in the first place.”
So this can be layed to rest now, during a long season you will, ahve some for and some against you, let’s move on
**correction no tthat edit button is removed**
“Bray has confirmed that the decision was indeed incorrect and that a penalty should have been awarded to the Stormers, instead of a try to the Bulls.
The argument whether this would have made a difference or not is pure conjecture, but Jaco Peyper has received a dressing down from his superiors, although Bray has called it “disappointing” that the try was awarded in the first place.”
It’s a simple answer really – Jaco knows he was wrong and he has to take accountability for that,” Bray explained.
“In the incident, we see the Bulls 9 kick the ball and the Bulls 2 is in front of 9. At best the Stormers player plays the ball if it indeed does hit him, and in that case the law is very clear. Number two is within 10 metres of the ball, and he needs to retire. He may have been close to the player receiving the ball, but the reality is he is offside and not allowed to come within 10 metres of the player who plays at the ball.
“The fact that the Stormers player plays the ball does not put him onside unless he is retiring. The only way he could have been onside would have been if the ball was charged down, and it is clearly not that, so the referee got that wrong.
“What is disappointing is that the law is really very well known to referees at this level and it is very disappointing that he got that wrong.”
So this can be layed to rest now, during a long season you will have some for and some against you, let’s move on
@ superBul:
Did Cheeky said it or not?
And concerning the try yeah it wasn’t a try cause no matter he touched it or not. He didn’t retire 10 yards.
But I’m a bias one eyed Stormers fan but Stormers didn’t deserve to win and it was a mess of a game for both sides. The Bulls supporters are even quiet about the game cause they know it was a ugly game. Best to forget about and move on.
@ Gena_ZA:
Peyper made a mess in the CC final last year as well cost WP 3 points in the end. This time 7. Someone send him back to Vodacom
@ Ashley:
I will refer you to this post in 4 weeks time or when the Kings comeback from their overseas tour.
@ superBul:
Nah I don’t read comments. Its irrelevant to the article.
Users Online
Total 249 users including 0 member, 249 guests, 0 bot online
Most users ever online were 3735, on 31 August 2022 @ 6:23 pm
No Counter as from 31 October 2009: 41,818,337 Page Impressions
_