The laws of rugby and their loose connection with common sense

You know what they say about common sense, about it being not that common and all that, and it seems that idiom has never had a better working example than the laws of rugby, the application thereof, and all the commentary that surrounds it.

On paper, 21 laws look like they should be a doddle to get the head around, but as anyone who has tried to find clarity on even the simplest of matters knows, the laws are a lot more complicated than just 21 parts.

There’s sub-parts, and clauses within those sub-parts, and then of course there’s the application guidelines and the law variations, and the decision-making frameworks, not to mention the protocols of the workings of officialdom and very specifically, the TMO.

There’s a small section of a forest chopped down right there, to produce all the required paper, and I haven’t even mentioned the official tweaks for the seven- and ten-a-side games (be thankful 12s looks dead as a concept).

It’s little wonder any given referee on any given day in any given match can appear a bit confused.

It’s also a rare event these days that a game at any decent level will go past with little or no comment about the refereeing in said game, and whether it did or didn’t have an impact on the final result.

The Wales-New Zealand game at Cardiff on the weekend certainly falls into that category. And while the several contentious decisions or non-decisions didn’t have any real impact on the game – thankfully – they certainly served to underline that the laws and the applications sometimes have a very loose grasp of common sense.

(Photo by Warren Little/Getty Images)

Just when you think common sense has been rightfully applied, it is conspicuously absent in the next moment.

It started with the Beauden Barrett deliberate knockdown. And there’s no doubt it was deliberate. Yes, he may well have been going for an intercept, but he’s also been around long enough – and taken enough intercepts – to know that it remains a high risk play.

‘Where was the yellow card?’ they asked.

‘Where’s the consistency?’ they demanded.

Well, for one thing, it happened on Wales’ side of halfway. That alone kills off any claims of a try being likely, and was the first sign some common sense was in play.

From there, the refereeing guidelines took over. Having already determined Barrett wasn’t likely to regather the ball he deliberately played at, referee Mathieu Raynal then really only had to assess whether a line break was possible or not.

And it wasn’t. The arriving presence of Anton Lienert-Brown would almost certainly have made contact with Welsh centre Johnny Williams. This was one that felt pretty right, and well judged.

I’m not sure that applied to the Josh Adams-Jordy Barrett aerial contest a few minutes later.

The first thing that stood out here was that play continued for more than 30 seconds after the event, and there at least that much time again had elapsed waiting for the lineout restart that should have followed. Raynal was on his way to where the lineout was to resume play from.

Wales winger Josh Adams (Photo by Stu Forster/Getty Images)

But suddenly, it becomes clear that he’s being spoken to by the TMO, with Raynal replying “Sorry?” Presumably, he was being told about the contest, and to which he replies, “Yeah, it’s okay?” confirming his thoughts at time, in which he allowed play to continue. The TMO thought otherwise.

“Would you like to put it on the big screen?” Raynal then asks.

And we know what happened from there. The replays showed Adams comfortably beat Barrett into the air and both players converged on where the ball was descending with eyes only on the descent itself.

“So, it’s a timing issue,” the TMO then explains. “He’s not in a realistic position to play the ball.”

Adams’ arms were both extended well above his head at this point, seemingly at very clear odds with the TMO’s view about his ability to play at the ball. Also seemingly clear was that common sense was out of the TMO’s booth at the time, presumably sourcing food and beverages.

Adams’ only misjudgement in this was he went up in a slightly different location to where the ball came down.

I absolutely do not buy the argument that he had “jumped past the ball” because the replays showed the ball coming down at the same lineal point on the field. Yes, the ball came down behind Adams, but only because of the way he twisted as he jumped, and momentum carried him through the air. But at no point did he pass the ball.

And Adams certainly hadn’t illegally played Barrett in the air, because the first time he’d have known about Barrett’s presence was when they collided.

But by now, Raynal was agreeing with the “jumped past the ball” argument and moved to give a penalty. It’s worth nothing that at the moment of the collision, no All Blacks player launched any serious protest. TJ Perenara – who knows and argues the laws better than anyone – was closest to the contest and offered muted concerns, at best.

Adams, rightly, couldn’t believe what he’d been penalised for.

Common sense returned in time for Nepo Laulala’s yellow card just before halftime, although it had by then departed the Sky Sports NZ commentary box.

(Photo by Warren Little/Getty Images)

Welsh blindside Ross Moriarty probably did take bracing low for impact a touch too far before thumping into Ethan Blackadder’s shoulder – which itself quite likely escaped scrutiny because of what happened next.

The shoulder on shoulder contact with Blackadder cannoned Moriarty into the path of Laulala, who similarly led with the shoulder and made contact with the Welsh flanker’s head and neck. Note, it was the initial shoulder contact that forced Moriarty from the field.

Raynal and his officials rightly ruled that Laulala didn’t wrap his arm, but ruled that the initial contact with Blackadder was sufficient enough to keep things at the yellow card level.

Where common sense departed the scene was the Sky commentators placing all fault with Moriarty, who they continually argued “led with his head,” rather than focus on the ricochet effect from Blackadder.

Their argument, that Moriarty leading with the head left Laulala with nowhere to go, completely overlooks that even knowing that Moriarty’s head was potentially much lower than it should have been, Laulala still aimed where he did.

I think the yellow card was right, but I don’t like the line of commentary that Moriarty’s height was more at fault than the diverted impact from Blackadder to Laulala.

Regardless of Moriarty’s height, Laulala led shoulder-first. And defenders are faced with that same leading-head scenario whenever an attacking cleanout hits a ruck. At that point, you aim for the body and roll; you don’t hit up front on the closest part of the ball-carrier.

It was curious that after calling for common sense application of the laws and the refereeing guidelines in the aerial contest, the commentators then wanted to apply a different sort of common sense again.

(Photo by Dan Mullan/Getty Images)

But such is the state of the laws and everything that comes with it. Confusion is easier to find than common sense.

Remember, this is the same game that has tries being disallowed for supposed double movements, despite the concept not once being mentioned in the laws.

This is the game that will rule the ball is out the moment a player’s toe touches the sideline, but will then allow a player – and Jordy Barrett has become very adept at this – to jump from a standing start well outside the field of play and bat a penalty kick for touch back into the field of play and for play to carry on because the player was not grounded at the time he touches the ball.

I’ll say it again: just when you think common sense has been rightfully applied, it is conspicuously absent in the next moment.

What is up is not always up. What is down may not be down enough.

It really is a strange old game, sometimes.