Amlin Cup Final

[duncanb]

A group of us mostly Saints but 1 Bath supporter were watching the Amlin final last night. All agreed that generally JG had a decent enough game and got most of the calls right.

We were split on the award of the second Saints try when in goal and the wrestling match between the Saints and Bath players.
The replay seemed to show that the attempt to ground the ball the first time, the ball was placed onto the boot and then at the second attempt the ball was grounded by both Saints and Bath players.
I would have been comfortable with this had this not been the second attempt to score.
Tried to find a reference to this scenario but all could find was reference to double movement. This whole passage of play was probably approx. 4 seconds.

NB cannot post a clip as at work and you tube etc not allowed.

 

[Taff]

We were split on the award of the second Saints try when in goal and the wrestling match between the Saints and Bath players. The replay seemed to show that the attempt to ground the ball the first time,
the ball was placed onto the boot and then at the second attempt the ball was grounded by both Saints and Bath players.

Grounding the ball on a boot is no try.

Was anyone holding the ball when "the ball was grounded by both Saints and Bath players" or was it loose?

If it was loose and grounded by 2 opposing players at the same time, I would have given an attacking 5m scrum.

 

[duncanb]

Carried into goal by Burrell who is then held by defender Foden and North then join in Foden gets ball from Burrell goes to ground ball it hits bath defenders boot he when swivels and grounds the ball along with a bath defender who has also now got hands on the ball.

 

[leaguerefaus]

Carried into goal by Burrell who is then held by defender Foden and North then join in Foden gets ball from Burrell goes to ground ball it hits bath defenders boot he when swivels and grounds the ball along with a bath defender who has also now got hands on the ball.

Try time! The original player was still holding the ball, and this is not negated by another player putting hands on the ball. Simultaneous grounding is for loose balls.

Note: This is my view on the scenario described - I have not seen a video of the incident.

 

[Taff]

Try time! The original player was still holding the ball, and this is not negated by another player putting hands on the ball. Simultaneous grounding is for loose balls.

That's how I understand it.

If the ball is still being held when grounded, that's all the defender has done is helped the BC score.

 

[duncanb]

I agree with both holding ball point I was concerned about was this was 2nd attempt as Foden's first attempt to ground was against boot of Bath player, then re-attempts to ground which was done.

 

[Taff]

I agree with both holding ball point I was concerned about was this was 2nd attempt as Foden's first attempt to ground was against boot of Bath player, then re-attempts to ground which was done.

I can't see the problem with having a second stab at it if I'm honest. IIRC the book says we shouldn't allow "prolonged wrestling" I think is the phrase used. No prolonged wrestling here from what I can see.

 

[Dixie]

The fact that the incident took place in-goal means that the try was scored. There can be no tackle, maul or ruck in-goal, so the brief melee that resulted in the eventual grounding was fine, as was North taking a second bite of the cherry when his first attempt was frustrated. Those situations end only when the ref blows up. Some may have blown earlier than Joel - but I thought he was quite right to see what transpired.

To those who argue that a defender assisting North to score casts no doubt on the score - law reference? AS a matter of policy I agree with you, but it's not covered specifically, and in other parts of the field we may well take a different view. For example:

Red winger carrying the ball close to the touchline. His oppo attempts a tackle, but it only slows him. A second defender grabs at the ball, and the two players wrestle for it as they go into touch. Who gets the throw? If we were clear that the later set of hands only assists the original ball carrier to go to touch, it would be a defending team ball. But the law takes a different view:

[LAWS]19.4 - The throw-in is taken by an opponent of the player who last held or touched the ball before it went into touch. When there is doubt, the attacking team takes the throw-in.[/LAWS]

 

[irishref]

My thought was: maul formed in-goal, ergo blow up and 22 drop.

If we do get a video we will see clearly that the ball carrier was on his feet when play moved into the in-goal and a bone fide maul was formed before the ball carrier wormed his way to the ground. The grounding itself was fine.

 

[OB..]

1974 Lions v South Africa Final Test

With the scores level at 13-13 in the final international, Slattery went over the line to touch down, only for the referee to declare that he hadn't been able to see the Dubliner ground the ball and then blow the final whistle before the Lions could mount another attack from the five-yard scrum.

.http://www.lionsrugby.com/history/legends/fergus_slattery.php
There are various versions of the story, but my recollection is that Slattery initially "grounded" the ball on somebody's leg (his own?) before grounding it properly, and the referee said he blew because grounding on the leg had looked dangerous. Another was that the referee said afterwards "I have to live here". The Times recorded that he sprinted for the tunnel.

 

[Dixie]

My thought was: maul formed in-goal, ergo blow up and 22 drop.

If we do get a video we will see clearly that the ball carrier was on his feet when play moved into the in-goal and a bone fide maul was formed before the ball carrier wormed his way to the ground. The grounding itself was fine.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by the words in bold, irishref. You seem to suggest that because there was a maul in-goal, the ball carrier should not have been allowed to worm his way to the ground. I refer you to Law 17.1

[LAWS](a) Where can a maul take place. A maul can only take place in the field of play.[/LAWS]

and the definitions to law 1:

[LAWS]The Field of play is the area (as shown on the plan) between the goal lines and the touchlines. These lines are not part of the field of play.
The Playing Area is the field of play and the in-goal areas (as shown on the plan). The touchlines, touch-in-goal lines and dead ball lines are not part of the playing area[/LAWS]

So it is not possible for a bona fide maul to take place in in-goal; and so if that was the only reason you felt the try should not stand, you may need to reconsider.

 

[Browner]

I can't see the problem with having a second stab at it if I'm honest. IIRC the book says we shouldn't allow "prolonged wrestling" I think is the phrase used. No prolonged wrestling here from what I can see.

Prolonged wrestling is a maul phrase, not applicable in this scenario me thinks.

 

[irishref]

What I meant to say was the conditions for forming a maul were met and because it took place in-goal I felt the ref should have blown up for that - before the wrestling that took place which then resulted in the grounding.

The eventual grounding didn't happen quick enough in my opinion. I recall a slightly different scenario in Paris a couple of seasons back when Tommy Bowe and a french player had a bit of a wrestling match before Bowe eventually grounded the ball, but the ref didn't award a try because it took too long. A fair enough call in the end I thought.

 

[Taff]

Prolonged wrestling is a maul phrase, not applicable in this scenario me thinks.

Just checked it and you're right.

"Prolonged wrestling" doesn't appear in the In-Goal section, but even so we don't allow it.

 

[Browner]

What I meant to say was the conditions for forming a maul were met and because it took place in-goal I felt the ref should have blown up for that - before the wrestling that took place which then resulted in the grounding.

The eventual grounding didn't happen quick enough in my opinion. I recall a slightly different scenario in Paris a couple of seasons back when Tommy Bowe and a french player had a bit of a wrestling match before Bowe eventually grounded the ball, but the ref didn't award a try because it took too long. A fair enough call in the end I thought.

Immediate ..... Invariably gets a different time allowance, by all refs, in all areas of the enclosure, its a subjective and personal judgement

OB's "Mexican stand off" applies here , defenders have the same time allowances as attackers in this situation I'd say.

Consistency between refs in different matches/situations is a utopian wish

 

[chbg]

What I meant to say was the conditions for forming a maul were met and because it took place in-goal I felt the ref should have blown up for that - before the wrestling that took place which then resulted in the grounding.

Are you suggesting that, because a maul can only take place in the field of play (17.1), if one or more players from both sides bind around the BC on their feet (to paraphrase the Law) in in-goal, then referee stops play? Most (I always thought) take it to mean that Law 17 does not apply to this situation, but that play carries on until there is another reason to stop it.

 

[irishref]

My reference moves to law 22.6

A scrum, ruck or maul can take place only in the field of play. As soon as a scrum, ruck or
maul is pushed across the goal line, a player may legally ground the ball.This results in a
touch down or try.

I read "as soon as" to be immediate and thus any prolonged in-goal wrestling should not be permitted. Obviously there is no exact definition of what "as soon as" means but I felt that the wrestling went on a bit too long to award the try in this case. I presume there's a reason for specifically using the words "as soon as".

 

[OB..]

My reference moves to law 22.6

A scrum, ruck or maul can take place only in the field of play. As soon as a scrum, ruck or
maul is pushed across the goal line, a player may legally ground the ball.This results in a
touch down or try.

I read "as soon as" to be immediate and thus any prolonged in-goal wrestling should not be permitted. Obviously there is no exact definition of what "as soon as" means but I felt that the wrestling went on a bit too long to award the try in this case. I presume there's a reason for specifically using the words "as soon as".

I think it only means that scrum/ruck/maul laws no longer apply from that instant. I do not see any implication about the length of time a maul-like play can continue.