[In-goal] 22 drop?

[DocY]

So the direction of travel off the hands is clearly forward. The ball has travelled far enough away from the ball carrier to clear the opposition player. for me that is scrum time. The latter juggling is secondary. I'll disagree with you on this one.

I have to agree with Pegleg here - that's losing possession of the ball and it going forward.

 

[Dickie E]

So the direction of travel off the hands is clearly forward. The ball has travelled far enough away from the ball carrier to clear the opposition player. for me that is scrum time. The latter juggling is secondary. I'll disagree with you on this one.

I'd be OK with it as it is not a deliberate ploy to knock the ball past the defender

 

[DocY]

I'd be OK with it as it is not a deliberate ploy to knock the ball past the defender

Would you penalise an opponent for tackling them while the ball is in the air?

 

[crossref]

it seems to me that a genuine juggle is a near knock-on, which is saved
an intentional juggle is a throw forward (to yourself) and therefore an infringement

 

[OB..]

So the direction of travel off the hands is clearly forward. The ball has travelled far enough away from the ball carrier to clear the opposition player. for me that is scrum time.

I wish that were the case, but it isn't. For a knock-on, the ball has to hit the ground or another player before being caught, however far forward it has gone. I don't like it, but the law is too clear in this case.

The latter juggling is secondary. I'll disagree with you on this one.

As an assessor I would have to call that a law error.

 

[OB..]

Would you penalise an opponent for tackling them while the ball is in the air?

My argument is that given an overly lax knock-on law,the only way to prevent a player from gaining a huge advantage by his own error is to say he is deemed to be in possession because he has not yet lost it (no knock-on yet). Therefore it is legal to tackle him.

This probably means the ball will not be caught, so the referee can then play advantage for the knock-on.

This point was argued whenTim Stimpson was tackled by Andre Vos in South Africa, but on a technical point it was not answered (Stimpson happened to be touching the ball in an attempt to catch it when the tackle first contact occurred).

 

[crossref]

which brings problems in itself -- while I think it was perfectly in order for Andre Vos to tackle Tim Stimpson, and in general I agree that a juggling player can be tackled - -- in extremis it falls down - it can't be the case when any person ever knocks on he remains 'in possession' and can be tackled right up until the moment ball hits the ground...

 

[Pegleg]

Exactly common sense must apply.

For me the player and the ball must be pretty damn close for the player to be deemed in possession and if it has flown forward over a player I am going to be very doubtful as to the players claim to be a ball carrier.

 

[DocY]

Surely in practice, common sense kicks in. Taking OB's example (which I think is a typical example of this sort of thing), how many people would penalise the would-be tackler if he tackled the flanker-who-knocked-forward-but-not-on?

 

[Pegleg]

I'm not arguing against that. But if you have knocked the ball forward enough to go over an oncoming player such that you can't reather cleanly one you've run past him. That ball has left your control.

Of course if there is a small fumble then the ball might not physically be toughing the player as he his tackled. But there are differences in the two scenarios.

 

[OB..]

I'm not arguing against that. But if you have knocked the ball forward enough to go over an oncoming player such that you can't reather cleanly one you've run past him. That ball has left your control.

Unfortunately merely leaving your control does not, under current law, constitute a knock-on. (How I wish it did!)

 

[Pegleg]

So would you allow a play the throw the ball forward and run forward to catch it?

 

[crossref]

So would you allow a play the throw the ball forward and run forward to catch it?

Brian O'Driscoll was allowed to do exactly that...

(quite wrongly in my opinion, I think that's a trow forward ... but others called it genius )

 

[Christy]

Re: 22 drop? Deliberate forward pass ,penalty opposition

Brian O'Driscoll was allowed to do exactly that...

(quite wrongly in my opinion, I think that's a trow forward ... but others called it genius )

Deliberate pass forward to him self , penalty awarded to opposition

 

[Christy]

Hi , not sure if i posting this correctly ,
For me a deliberate pass forward to your self is a penalty . ( season finished cant see him getting away with same ,,this game is a few years old im sure )
But leinster nr 11 also took out opposition when o driscoll caught his own pass forward .
I think even if throw forward debatable ,,deffinately obstruction would of been my call

 

[Taff]

Brian O'Driscoll was allowed to do exactly that... (quite wrongly in my opinion, I think that's a trow forward ... but others called it genius)

My best guess is that it didn't clearly and obviously go forward.

Having now watched the slip 3 times in slo-mo, personally I would have given a PK, but in real time I wouldn't have said that was a "clear and obvious" throw forward.

There is always the possibility that the Ref ballsed it up. I would like to think he just felt the pass was flat and not forward.

 

[crossref]

My best guess is that it didn't clearly and obviously go forward.

Having now watched the slip 3 times in slo-mo, personally I would have given a PK, but in real time I wouldn't have said that was a "clear and obvious" throw forward.

There is always the possibility that the Ref ballsed it up. I would like to think he just felt the pass was flat and not forward.

for me if a player performs that trick the benefit of the doubt is absolutely the other way: I need to see that it clearly and obviously went backward.

 

[L'irlandais]

Hi , not sure if i posting this correctly ,
For me a deliberate pass forward to your self is a penalty . ( season finished cant see him getting away with same ,,this game is a few years old im sure )
But leinster nr 11 also took out opposition when o driscoll caught his own pass forward .
I think even if throw forward debatable ,,deffinately obstruction would of been my call

Hi Christy,
Welcome to the forums.

That game was 31 December 2006, nearly 10 years ago. Certainly TMO protocol was very different back then.

6.A.7 Referee consulting with others". IRB Laws of the Game (PDF). Dublin: International Rugby Board. 2007. p. 22

The incident is not foul play, it doesn't happen on the run in to a try. Not sure the referee could consult the TMO on it today. If he did, it would be boo'ed as time wasting.

The last ever contest in the old Lansdowne Road Stadium was a rugby match that took place on 31 December 2006. Leinster beat Ulster 20 points to 12 in a Magners League game that set a record attendance of 48,000 for such a league match. Demolition of the stadium began in May 2007.
Lansdowne Road was replaced by the Aviva Stadium.

. Source online
Crossref, in a game without TMO you will not stop play unless there was a clear and obvious infringement. Very hard for the referee to call it in the traffic of a high speed game. Especially, as he is slightly behind the run of play, having stepped out of the scrumhalf's way seconds before the "juggling" act. I suggest fans are influenced by the fact the juggle happen right over a line on the FOP. Which opens the whole can of worms of momentum.

 

[Phil E]

There is always the possibility that the Ref ballsed it up.

....and we all know who the referee was!!

I thought at the time it was a forward pass, and I still do.

 

[DocY]

The incident is not foul play, it doesn't happen on the run in to a try. Not sure the referee could consult the TMO on it today. If he did, it would be boo'ed as time wasting.

Intentional infringement is foul play - it's not uncommon to see referees consult the TMO for potential deliberate knock-ons (and not in try-scoring positions). Much as I dislike that practice, I think it could be applied here.