British and Irish Lions win raises Laws of Rugby questions 

As the British and Irish Lions bask in the glory of the series win over the Australians, the media is awash, yet again, with controversy over the application of the Laws of Rugby. 

Hugo Keenan (Irish fullback) scored in the closing seconds of the second Test to clinch the game and series in front of over 90,000 fans at the Melbourne Cricket Ground, in a game that at one point The Lions were trailing 23-5. 

Broadly, if you are an Australian supporter, you believe that at a ruck seconds before the winning try, a penalty should have been awarded against Jac Morgan (the only Welsh player in the Lions side), the try disallowed, and Australia wins the game. Former Wallabies Captain, Michael Hooper, is reported as saying “…there’s a penalty there. Whether it’s on head, on neck or going straight off his feet to the ground”. 

But, if you were a supporter of the Lions, you are likely to see the Morgan clearout as being legal, and that the Keenan try and the Lions win stand. In fact, you probably think that the Australians are guilty of excess winging. 

It is remarkable that with the enormous number of rucks that have taken place in rugby over the years that there is doubt on the application of the Laws. 

At the relevant breakdown, Carlo Tizzano was leaning over the ball in jackal style, Morgan came rushing in, positioning his head under Tizzano’s left shoulder and left arm briefly across Tizzano’s neck, before Morgan’s hand went to ground. Tizzano was pushed backwards by the move, sits down and rubs the top of his head in possibly approximately the place where you might assume Morgan’s top of arm to have been in contact with Tizzano’s back of head. The move allowed the Lions to recover possession and pass the ball to Keenan, who then scored. 

The Australians say that Law 9.20b states that “making contact above the line of the shoulders with an opponent is a dangerous play and is prohibited”, and that because Morgan’s arm came into contact with Tizzano’s neck or head, there was a clear breach of this Law and a penalty should have been awarded to the Australians. On first blush, this does seem a pretty clear-cut application of Law 9.20b. 

The problem for the Australians, however, is that following a detailed review, the referee, the two assistant referees and the television match official all concluded that there had been no breach and the try stood. 

Will Schmidt (Australian Head Coach) said: “You cannot hit someone above the level of shoulder and there’s no bind with the left arm, the hands on the ground”. Andy Farrell (Lions Head Coach) says though: “It was a brilliant clearout. I couldn’t understand what they are going back for”. 

The referee emeritus Wayne Barnes (fellow lawyer – and therefore can be trusted – and alumni of The University of East Anglia) said in The Telegraph of the incident: “That every time there is head contact, it does not mean that there is foul play”. 

This is the problem with what Will Schmidt claims. Despite the wording of Law 9.20, it does not always apply. This is clear from the referee’s analysis of the incident when he concluded that he did not see foul play – Rule 9 is entitled ‘Foul Play’. Firstly, Morgan had attempted to wrap his arms in a legal move and his left arm only went to ground after Tizzano moved backwards. Secondly, Tizzano, in his attempted jackal move had his head below his hips in contravention of Law 15.3. It is accepted practice that when an opponent is leaning over the ball in a ruck attempting to pick it up, a player can enter the ruck, placing his head under the shoulder of the opponent and wrap his arm around the exposed body of the opponent – which necessarily includes the neck of the opponent. In fact, it is almost impossible for a player to do anything else to push a jackal back, especially if, as occurred in the view of the referee, the two relevant players arrive at the ruck at the same time. Otherwise, it would be almost impossible for a player to attempt to drive a jackal back. As is made clear in the Laws of Rugby, the purpose of a ruck is to allow players to compete for the ball. 

In an associated claim, the Australians say that Morgan charged the ruck without binding contrary to Law 9.20a. But it is pretty clear that Morgan attempted to bind on to Tizzano and so the grounds can be dismissed fairly confidently. The Australians also claim that Morgan dived off his feet contrary to Law 15.12, which states “players must endeavour to remain on their feet throughout the ruck”. This seems a closer call and is a matter of judgment. But, in my view, Morgan only loses balance and goes to ground when Tizzano moves backwards and so it is a legal drive by Morgan rather than an illegal dive. 

Whilst the ultimate decision seems correct, at least to the Lions supporters, the argument does highlight the difficulty in understanding and applying the Laws of Rugby. There are few players that claim to have a truly comprehensive understanding of the Laws of the game, let alone non-playing supporters. Perhaps there is more that can be done by World Rugby to improve the drafting of the Laws and the understanding of their application. But, in any case, this controversy is likely to lead to increasing interest in the Laws of the game and, possibly, the use of lawyers in Rugby, which surely can only be a good thing. 

Adrian Possener is Honorary Solicitor to Norwich Rugby Club and is currently advising the Norfolk Rugby Union Referees Society.