THE CAPTAIN’S CHALLENGE trial in the Rainbow Cup has thrown up plenty of talking points but it hasn’t been universally popular.
In fact, after four rounds, there are widespread calls for the trial to end with the conclusion of this competition.
The captain’s challenge has been discussed regularly by Eoin Toolan and Murray Kinsella on The42 Rugby Weekly Extra – an analysis podcast available to members of The42 every Monday – and today’s episode saw the theme continue.
A question from Conor in the rugby WhatsApp group for members of The42 about Munster’s use of the challenge against Cardiff Blues sparked this week’s debate.
Eoin: “I completely agree with Conor. I think materiality is the key there, isn’t it? If there’s a glaringly obvious miss from the officials in the lead-up to a try, I think it’s fair enough to go to a challenge of some sort.
“But for what it was – it wasn’t even an obvious free-kick. Was the ball definitely out? I could see the right foot was potentially keeping the ball from being out of the ruck and I know Olly Hodges (the TMO) was trying to intimate to Andrew Brace (the referee) whether he was definitely 100% sure the ball was out.
“It was such a small, technical offence. It would have been a dramatic finish because Cardiff had done so well to get field position and Munster would have been nervous to defend the penalty.
“Human error is a part of sport and the unpredictability of sport is something we love. Look, definitely use the technology when it’s in the act of try-scoring where it was clearly awarded in error.
“For the small, technical offences that we saw, I would completely disagree with using it.”
Murray: “I’m not even sure if this was a legit challenge. We have another question from David Cunningham asking if it should have been allowed and that was my thinking on it at the time.
“So the challenge comes in and I thought it must be at that exact ruck where Brace has given the penalty because you can query a decision but you can’t actually challenge a non-decision, as we’ve seen before with Munster [against Leinster].
“The incident was two or three rucks before Brace has made the decision. The protocols say you can’t challenge a non-decision where the referee doesn’t actually whistle and play continues. It didn’t lead to any try or foul play.
“Also the fact it came from the stand. If you watch it back, the moment happens live in the match and not a single player reacts. The Munster lads are all staring at it and no one says a thing. Brace is in the vicinity looking at the offside line and clearly no one notices.
“You hear the challenge come in and one of the assistant referees is saying Munster have a specific timestamp for their challenge and you’re thinking that obviously none of the players would have been aware of that either.
“Do we really want a member of the coaching staff sitting there poring over the footage with a five-second delay, trying to find anything at the end of a game? I don’t know, it just feels messy to me.
Eoin: “This is a variation put into trial in some competitions before being implemented in a global context, so you can applaud World Rugby for trialling certain things.
“There have been sections of the rugby fraternity who have called for some form of challenge.
“The trial hasn’t worked and I don’t think it’s going to feature beyond the Rainbow Cup, if I’m being honest.”
This week’s edition of The42 Rugby Weekly Extra includes Eoin’s analysis of a mixed performance from Munster, while the lads also discussed Connacht’s disappointing showing against Benetton, who remain in the title hunt.
Eoin filled us in on the latest events in Super Rugby, where there was finally an Australian win, and answered an interesting question on teams kicking the ball on penalty advantage.
You can sign up as a member of The42 here in order to listen to the extra rugby podcasts and a wide range of other shows on sportswriting, football, GAA, and coaching, as well as getting weekly newsletters and access to our lively member-only Whatsapp groups.
Regarding the Stander challenge, it didn’t matter if the ball was out or not. When the scrum half kicked the ball forward it struck one of his own players who therefore would have been off side. I talked to 2 referees over the weekend and they both said the same thing.
@Brendan Fogarty: Surprised the two referees are not aware of Law 16.4 – A player must not kick the ball out of a ruck. The player can only hook it in a backwards motion. – since it was kicked forward it was a foul. Doesnt matter about hitting his own player or anything like that, So if it was in the ruck moving it forward is a foul, if out he cannot put it back in as its a foul, either way its a foul Brace was aware of the law and called it correctly and didnt need to check in or out as its a foul either way, the TMO didnt know the laws which is poor from them.
@Kingshu: I think your given brace an easy option as you said he was aware of the law. So when asked if the ball was out a number of times he just ignored the Tmo rather then confirm the tmo was wrong? Oh and if the the challange came from the coaching staff as suggested in the article, should he have allowed the challenge.
@Chris Mc: I think it was Brace not wanting to point that out to the TMO, he very clearly ignored the question more than once in the review. I didn’t notice it coming from the coaching staff. I thought CJ identified the time as being two rucks back.
Defo a non runner, some you win and some you lose that’s the way it should be for the very minor stuff. Personally I think some of the knock ons that happens around rucks are a bit of a joke, people flying in for clear outs and if the balls rolls forward an inch its another scrum that we all have to endure. Fair enough if the scrum half picks and drops it but between the ball being placed and the scrum half picking it, a little blind eye should be given.
@Ronan: but the point of enforcing it there is about trying to ensure controlled action at ruck time and during clearing out especially. Its about risk reduction when players are at their most prone.
I think the issue here is the application as well as the concept. Munster had no right to challenge the action by the scrum half at the ruck as you can’t challenge a non-decision, so the reason the game ended in such an unsatisfactory way is that the referee made an error in the application of the law.
Contrast that with the end of the Ulster-Connacht game where Connacht challenged the knock on decision at the end and it was correctly changed to penalty Connacht from which they won the game.
I’m not fully convinced on the captain’s challenge but it hasn’t been totally bad and shouldn’t be judged on the basis of a referee error in the Munster game.
@Killian Fitzgerald: Read up the rules on captains challange. ‘Foul play challenges can be made after any stoppage in play if the captain believes foul play has been missed by the match officials’
The SH broke law 16.4 which under Law 9 is deemed foul play. The referee got it spot on allowing the captains challenge for foul play, and foul play was committed by moving the ball forward in a ruck. Both decisions Brace got correct. The TMO didn’t and because it was quite technical, most armchair fans didn’t either.
@Kingshu: breaking a law is not automatically foul play. The foul play infringements are obstruction, dangerous play etc. A ruck infringement with a free kick sanction is not foul play.
@Kingshu: I just had a look at the ruck laws and 16.5 says you are not allowed to kick the ball out of the ruck. It’s hard to argue he was kicking it out of the ruck. 16.6 says you are not allowed to return the ball to the ruck, but it would have to be judged out first for that to apply. I don’t think it’s as clear an infringement even the the challenge was allowed.
@Killian Fitzgerald: Did you read it properly? Law 16.4 – A player must not kick the ball out of a ruck. The player can only hook it in a backwards motion….CAN ONLY HOOK IT BACKWARDS…sorry if looks shouty but no otherway to highlight it. In short you can only move the ball backwards in a ruck, he moved it forward with his foot in the ruck so a foul.
@Killian Fitzgerald: This one can be interpreted and would need tidied up if the captain challange were to remain. Foul play is anything a player does … that is contrary to
Law 9 governing obstruction, unfair play, repeated infringements, etc
Law 9 – 7a stats a player cannot’ Intentionally infringe any law of the game’
Therefore the SH kicking the ball forward was an intentional infringement of law 16.4 (can only move ball backwards in ruck) so is classed as foul play under law 9. If he accidentally kicked it forward it wouldn’t have been foul play, but he clearly used his foot to move it forward intentionally. So intentionally broke law 16.4 which is classed as foul play under law 9.
@Kingshu: I think there’s a bit of room for interpretation there. There are plenty of infringements which are deliberate but not deemed foul play e.g. dummying from the ruck, dummy throw at lineout, crooked feed into scrum. I get what you’re saying but I’m not sure I agree that any action which is deliberate and a breach of a rule is automatically foul play. Willing to accept I could be wrong here though.
On the kicking the ball in the ruck issue the copy of the laws I’m looking at on the world rugby website doesn’t say anything about hooking the ball backwards, it just says you can’t kick the ball out of the ruck. Maybe I’m missing some guidelines not something.
@Killian Fitzgerald: *or something
@Killian Fitzgerald: Yeah I think there is interpretation. I’m not a fan of the captains challange as if you look hard enough you can find an infringement at most rucks etc. If being kept what is a foul needs tidied up, and if information has come for coaching team etc, overall its too messy. Also technically law 9, part 7c a player must not ‘Do anything that may lead the match officials to consider that an opponent has committed an infringement.’ Means using the captains challenge should technially be a penalty to the opposition. Maybe an unsuccessful challange should be a pen to opposition?
Surprised Murray and Eoin are questioning the decisions, firstly it doesn’t matter if it was whistled or not ‘Foul play challenges can be made after any stoppage in play if the captain believes foul play has been missed” so he can challange at anything for foul play. Foul play is: Anything a player does …that is contrary to
Law 9 governing obstruction, unfair play, repeated infringements, dangerous play and misconduct.’
Secondly does not matter if the ball was in or out the SH broke law 16.4 which states the ball can only be moved backwards in a ruck. In doing so they also broke Law 9 ‘A player must not: Intentionally infringe any law of the game.’
So under law 9 its foul play, Captains challange is allowed and under law 16.4, its a foul Brace to his credit got all these correct.
@Kingshu: you contradict yourself here – foul play is a breach of law 9. The ruck infringement was a breach of law 16 therefore not foul play.
@Kingshu: but the captians challenge didn’t come from the captian it came from the coaching staff. Surely they should question that.
@Killian Fitzgerald: cleared it up above for you, by intentionally kicking it forward he broke law 16.4. Intentionally breaking a law, is deemed a foul under law 9. @Chris Mc: you saw in Leinster Ulster game that when the ref was aware it came from the sideline the ref didnt allow it, think its very hard in a ref to decide or prove if it came from the sideline or not. The challange itself was made by the captain to the ref, not from the sideline to the ref.
@Kingshu: he was told ‘they have a specific time stamp’ that Kinda gives the game away. So if this did in fact come from the coaches and not the captian.
It would be very tough on benneton of they lose out on a final becuase of what would be basically cheating?
@Chris Mc: The captain made the challange on the field to the ref as he is allowed to, some staff told the tmo they have a timestamp, the tmo relayed that to the referee. Nothing against the rules in that. The TMO shouldn’t have taken the timestamp or listened to the coaching team, but it may be argued they were just helping and speeding it up. But since the challange came from the captain to the ref, and not from the coaching team, to the ref or TMO as you are making out, there wasnt anything wrong, except for a TMO relaying information from the coaches to speed it up which may have been bad judgement on his behlaf.
@Kingshu: I’m not making it out the article does.
Captains challenge went Munsters way and suddenly the rule is ridiculous and has to go. Ok Dublin based rugby media. Okay.
@Finbarr Ryan: captain’s challange didn’t come from the captian.
@Finbarr Ryan: Comments made by former Munster player Murray Kinsella and a rugby coach who once played with Greystones in Wicklow. ThE dUbLiN mEdIa AgAiN lAdS