[Law] May in-goal hold back?

[Balones]

Yes, it's Foul Play, but there are different levels of Foul Play, ranging from technical offences up to the worst.

I haven't read the "simplified" lawbook but I'm sure there was a section in the previous book that said an offence by the scoring side could effectively be ignored if the try would probably have been scored anyway.

This was not a technical offence. It was tackling or obstructing a player without the ball. What do you usually do in such circumstances in open play? Simply ignore it?

 

[OB..]

I thought May was making a legal tackle on the French player. He is allowed ( now ) to tackle the player as the defender is attempting to gain possession ( the French player's hand tried to control the ball ). The defender makes himself liable to a tackle as soon as he touches the ball with his hand. This is similar to how Jack Nowell tackled Jacob Stockdale who was juggling the ball in the in-goal last week.
Or am I stretching it ?

The two players are going for a loose ball. It has always been the case that shoulder to shoulder contact is OK under such circumstances. In this case the French player put his arm across in front of May to try and reach the ball as he slid; May was also trying to reach out for it. The arms tangled well short of the ball. I don't see that the Frenchman was prevented from reaching the ball. I remain of the view that it was just a rugby incident. I think the officials are likely to have taken the same line.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

In 1978 John Conlee released a song called "Rose Colored Glasses", I was in 8th grade. I didn't hear the song till this thread sent me on a google search.

When all is said and done. A try was awarded.

PMWOB

 

[menace]

I cant see the video (some area blocking thingo)...but as described 2 players werent on their feet...so Im more surprised someone (yes you Crossref :biggrin::wink hasnt wanted to penalise one or both of them for being off their feet and playing the ball!!


Ill get me coat....:redface::tongue:

 

[Dickie E]

I cant see the video (some area blocking thingo)...but as described 2 players werent on their feet...so Im more surprised someone (yes you Crossref :biggrin::wink hasnt wanted to penalise one or both of them for being off their feet and playing the ball!!

Ill get me coat....:redface::tongue:

have a look from 2:50 youtube time. It follows on from a quick tap taken before the whistle :wtf:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sy4HfmFqboo

 

[crossref]

I cant see the video (some area blocking thingo)...but as described 2 players werent on their feet...so Im more surprised someone (yes you Crossref :biggrin::wink hasnt wanted to penalise one or both of them for being off their feet and playing the ball!!


Ill get me coat....:redface::tongue:

They go to ground to play the ball .. which is ok 13.1

As opposed to being on the ground, and playing the ball when it comes near which is not ok 13.3

 

[crossref]

have a look from 2:50 youtube time. It follows on from a quick tap taken before the whistle :wtf:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sy4HfmFqboo

Watching the video Youngs takes the tap before the PK is awarded, and when he taps it NO obliges by blowing the whistle for him..

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

Watching the video Youngs takes the tap before the PK is awarded, and when he taps it NO obliges by blowing the whistle for him..

deep down inside, everyone despises the French, I don't know why, even the French don't really like the French, NOone really likes to admit it, it just is

 

[Taff]

This was not a technical offence. It was tackling or obstructing a player without the ball. What do you usually do in such circumstances in open play? Simply ignore it?

But was it "material"?

Imagine a 5m scrum. The attacking SH runs blindside with the ball and the attacking openside Flanker barges the opposing openside Flanker. Yes, technically there has been an infringement (playing the man with the ball / obstruction etc - take your pick) but did it really prevent a probable try? No, because there wasn't a chance in hell the openside Flanker could have done anything about it. I'm pretty sure the lawbook says that's OK.

 

[Balones]

But was it "material"?

Imagine a 5m scrum. The attacking SH runs blindside with the ball and the attacking openside Flanker barges the opposing openside Flanker. Yes, technically there has been an infringement (playing the man with the ball / obstruction etc - take your pick) but did it really prevent a probable try? No, because there wasn't a chance in hell the openside Flanker could have done anything about it. I'm pretty sure the lawbook says that's OK.

Your scenario outlines a situation away from the actual action. The May incident was directly involved in the action.
How your scenario is handled would depend on the force of the barge. ‘Assault’? ARs frequently stop play if there is foul play with the attacking side in possession at the level I observe, and the referee is following the ball. Depending of course on the severity of the foul play. (Barge)

 

[menace]

They go to ground to play the ball .. which is ok 13.1

As opposed to being on the ground, and playing the ball when it comes near which is not ok 13.3

(Ive since seen the footage)
Yes I know....very much tongue in cheek.
But they both did try to crawl after the ball after going to ground....as such lucky neither of them caught up to otherwise the debate may be different. :wink:

 

[Taff]

Your scenario outlines a situation away from the actual action. The May incident was directly involved in the action.

He was. But given that the French player was on the floor and scrambling after a ball bouncing away from him, I still think the England player on his feet would probably have got to the ball first. I assume that's what NO and the TMO saw too.

 

[DocY]

I think we're missing the wood for the trees.

The interesting point is why they didn't even discuss it.

It's pretty obvious that it was at least questionable, whatever your thoughts on whether it should be penalised, and we've seen incidents in the past when the ref and TMO have taken a careful look at something before declaring it immaterial, so why didn't they do that here?

I'd expect one or the other of them to state that they'd seen it at least, even if they went on to say they thought it immaterial.

We've seen a lot of TMO incidents this Six Nations go back a long way to pick up an infringement, so it was particularly strange.

 

[OB..]

Watching the video Youngs takes the tap before the PK is awarded, and when he taps it NO obliges by blowing the whistle for him..

NO has shouted "Advantage" and is signalling for a PK.

 

[crossref]

NO has shouted "Advantage" and is signalling for a PK.

I agree , but BY takes the PK before the whistle goes
And when NO sees him taking it, he helpfully blows the whistle

The sequence should be
Advantage
Whistle (no advantage gained)
Tap

Not
Advantage
Tap
Whistle (let him go)

 

[OB..]

I agree , but BY takes the PK before the whistle goes
And when NO sees him taking it, he helpfully blows the whistle

The sequence should be
Advantage
Whistle (no advantage gained)
Tap

Not
Advantage
Tap
Whistle (let him go)

If the referee shouts "Advantage" you do not wait to him to blow the whistle because that usually means the advantage is cancelled. Youngs did not really need to tap the ball because he was not actually taking a penalty (but it was perfectly legitimate), and NO probably should not have blown the whistle unless he had decided there was no advantage gained. I think both instinctive actions effectively cancelled each other out and did not in practice disadvantage France.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

But was it "material"?

Imagine a 5m scrum. The attacking SH runs blindside with the ball and the attacking openside Flanker barges the opposing openside Flanker. Yes, technically there has been an infringement (playing the man with the ball / obstruction etc - take your pick) but did it really prevent a probable try? No, because there wasn't a chance in hell the openside Flanker could have done anything about it. I'm pretty sure the lawbook says that's OK.

Have you a supporting law for that?

In my book, "foul play" is always material. I am prepared to change my stance on that if you can support your view in law.

Did Nigel see the incident? I doubt it in rel time and from his angle. The TMO would have seen it as wouldd Nigel on the stadium screen. I can only assume that both took OB's, reasonable, position that the was two players getting tangled "nothing to see here, move along".

 

[Marc Wakeham]

deep down inside, everyone despises the French, I don't know why, even the French don't really like the French, NOone really likes to admit it, it just is

I always thought it was the Yanks no one likes. The French bring so much to the party Wine food style etc I like them. One of the reasons I cringe watching the french of recent (non) vintage. It is so sad to see their colapse as a rugby nation on the international stage.

As an aside, what is lso worrying is just how poor Wales' display was a week ago. Now that the England side has put some perspective on it.

 

[crossref]

NO probably should not have blown the whistle unless he had decided there was no advantage gained. I well



.

Well, definitely he shouldn't..

 

[Dickie E]

If the referee shouts "Advantage" you do not wait to him to blow the whistle because that usually means the advantage is cancelled. Youngs did not really need to tap the ball because he was not actually taking a penalty (but it was perfectly legitimate), and NO probably should not have blown the whistle unless he had decided there was no advantage gained. I think both instinctive actions effectively cancelled each other out and did not in practice disadvantage France.

Let me get this straight. You're seriously suggesting that NO blowing the whistle after the tap was a play-on situation?