The Waratahs just barely got by the Sharks this past weekend–got by just by their fingertips, in fact. Late in the match, Sharks fullback Stephen Treblanche’s pass to unmarked teammate Ryan Kankowski was swatted away by Waratahs outside back Kurtley Beale, stopping a line break that was on its way to the white line. Beale earned a penalty and an enforced ten-minute rest for his troubles, but the Sharks camp believes a penalty try would have been more appropriate.

Renowned Australian rugby commentary site Green and Gold Rugby offers a useful discussion of the controversy, including some key points of law regarding both intentional knock-ons and penalty tries. Green and Gold’s insight regarding whether or not Beale truly robbed the Sharks of a sure five-pointer are helpful, but the site’s comments on when an intentional knock-on should be awarded raise a more general issue about the difficulty involved in assessing a penalty for a deliberate knock-on. As Green and Gold indicates, the law states:

A player must not intentionally knock the ball forward with hand or arm, nor throw forward.

If the knock-on is intentional, a penalty is awarded. If unintentional, of course, the result is a scrum. A big difference, even when the situation is not as dramatic as it was when Beale committed his knock-on. The law makes perfect intuitive sense, as swatting a ball away is a cynical offense that should be punished much more strictly than an accidental case of butterfingers. But there is one problem. It’s challenging enough for a referee to see everything on the park, even with the help of assistant referees. But the “intentional” wording requires a referee to see inside a players’ mind.

The Green and Gold discussion does a good job of mentioning some ways Beale’s intent might be judged, such as the position of his body, the motion of his arms, and his pursuit of the ball after the knock-on occurred. However, all of these indicators could be construed as ways to judge Beale’s acting ability as much as his legitimate intent, so the question remains: How does a referee judge a player’s intent? Few other laws are construed in the same manner. While intent might be used in a decision to award a yellow or red card, intent doesn’t seem to be a factor in awarding penalties for infractions like offsides, late tackles, and so forth.

So, regardless of how you view the Beale situation, our question is: Should referees really be in the mind-reading business? And if not, how do you judge a deliberate knock-on more empirically? By whether they got both hands to the ball? By body position?

It’s a tricky question, and one we’d rather ask than answer. Mull it over as you watch the below video, and please post a comment if you have a solution worked out!

Incidentally, Green and Gold also points out that there was a similar incident on the same weekend involving Will Chambers of the Reds where not even a penalty was awarded, as you can see here (we won’t comment on whether Chambers’ teammate Quade Cooper might have had sticky enough fingers to hang on to the football):

And if you’re not yet convinced that the deliberate knock-on issue is a bit murky, consider this referees’ discussion of another dubious example from 2008.

This Saturday is a pleasant exception to that trend, as Brigham Young University will play the University of Utah Saturday in a match that will be broadcast live worldwide on BYUTV. The match should be a big one, as BYU are the defending Collegiate Division I national champions and Utah are perennial national contenders. BYU and Utah will kick off at 1:00 p.m. local time (Noon Pacific U.S. time, 3:00 p.m. Eastern U.S. time).

To see the match, check whether your television provider has access to BYUTV or watch it live online on BYUTV’s online streaming site.

In the meantime, here are some highlights from BYU’s 2009 season to give you an idea of what’s in store for Saturday:

Based on this weekend’s first round of matches, we’d have to say the new interpretations look like a success even if there were a few high penalty counts as players get used to the new guidelines. In fact, we’re already hoping that the new guidelines catch on worldwide. We may get our wish, considering that the new interpretations may be seen in international tests in a few months. But we’ll let you be the judge after taking a look at these highlights from three of the weekend’s matches:

Bulls v. Cheetahs:

Blues v. Hurricanes:

Brumbies v. Force:

If you live in the United States, it’s easier than ever to catch the action because BBC America is covering a match each week. Setanta Sports is also covering the competition in the US as the network enters its last month on the air in the United States, but BBC America is available to a lot more US households as it is not a paid subscription channel.

If you’d rather give yourself a bit more control over the tournament’s outcome, you can play it yourself with the BBC’s online Six Nations game. The game is a very simple one you can play with your Web browser, but it is surprisingly addictive. Beware–you may be surprised to find yourself spending hours enjoying the various “drills” and trying to top your score in the simulated matches.  Don’t say we didn’t warn you!

While you wait for the tournament to start tomorrow, here are some highlights from its last two incarnations:

2009:

2008:

Instead of trying to capture McLaren’s contribution to the sport, we’ll just let him speak for himself here:

A less gruesome incident in a Heineken Cup match last week, however, reminds us that the next area of “dirty” play meriting disciplinary attention may be a much less violent one.

Defending Heineken Cup champions Leinster picked up a bonus-point win over Brive Saturday by a comfortable 27-10 margin, but it wasn’t easy going all the way through. In the 37th minute, Leinster were ahead only 7-0 when center Gordon D’Arcy chipped ahead near the sideline. His kick was likely a bit too long as it was easily caught on the full for a mark by the opposition … but not before D’Arcy was floored face-first after bumping into the arm of a Brive player whie pursuing his kick.

A penalty kick was awarded to Leinster with the choice to be taken from either the spot where the kick was taken or where it landed, as is appropriate for a late tackle or charge on a kicker. The only problem was that, as a frustrated Brive captain indicated in vain, it didn’t look much like anyone actually tried to stop D’arcy. He may have touched an arm, but … well, we’ll let the words of a Setanta Sports television commentator, who was covering the match for the Irish network, speak for themselves: “They’ve been done. They’ve been conned by experienced Mr. D’Arcy there.”

Now, we can’t read D’Arcy’s mind, but discussion on a Leinster supporter forum compared him to Michael Phelps.

One might argue that a little bit of gamesmanshaip to draw a penalty is part of the sport, and that it doesn’t hurt an opposition player the way eye-gouging and other serious offenses do. On the other hand, though, one might argue that penalty “simulation” might need the type of increased attention from disciplinary bodies that it is beginning to receive in soccer/football.

Unfortunately, we couldn’t track down footage of the D’Arcy incident available online for you, but we can offer a glimpse of what rugby union could start to look like if simulated foul play isn’t dealt with proactively:

To be fair, the Leinster-Brive Match wasn’t all flops. Here are some more exciting moments from the match to restore your faith in the sport:

Clever, who also plays for the Golden Lions in South Africa, put his fitness on display on a recent episode of Fox Sports Net’s Sport Science. The clip, which is featured on USA Rugby CEO Nigel Melville’s blog, investigates Clevers athletic performance before and after a bout of dehydration.

The clip is instructive regarding the level of fitness achieved by top rugby union players, but it does leave one question: does Sport Science try to kill all of its guest atheletes?

And here’s an idea of how he got that fit:

If you’re a fan, you’ve probably seen most of the material in this clip before, but we hope you’ll enjoy seeing them again a much as we did. Enjoy!

Although some players had opted not to perform the cibi even before its removal from the team’s pre-match events, the decision to scrap it was controversial and the dance has now been reinstated.

Controversy surrounding the few teams who perform war dances before matches has been around for decades, though more often due to concern surrounding its effects on fair match play than the issues surrounding Fiji’s cibi last year. Despite Fiji’s temporary removal of their dance, most of the dances probably won’t be going anywhere any time soon, especially given the popularity of the New Zealand All Blacks’ haka dance.

How do you feel about the appropriateness of the dances performed by New Zealand, Fiji, Samoa, and Tonga? To help us dance in the New Year, have a look below and judge for yourself:

Fiji’s Cibi:

New Zealand’s Haka:

Samoa’s Siva Tau:

Tonga’s Sipi Tau:

And a video with Fiji, Samoa, and Tonga all together:

Now, back to your feasting and merrymaking.