Australia v England 3rd test - unusual occurences

[Ian_Cook]

Two unusual things happened in the third test

1. A high kicked ball struck the spider-cam support wires

NO said "50/50 Play on", which IMO (unless there has been specific ruling to cover this) is incorrect and a Law error.

[LAWS]Law 19 Definitions
The ball is in touch when it is not being carried by a player and it touches the
touchline or anything or anyone on or beyond the touchline."[/LAWS]

IMO, since the spider-cam support wires are attached to support structures that are in touch, that puts the wires in touch as well. If power wires crossing the pitch, or a tree branch protruding into the playing area are in touch/touch in goal, the the support wires should be too.

2. The AR pushed Steven Moore in the back as he was throwing into a line-out.

I don't know what to make of this, and I cannot see anything in Law that would rectify it.

Should Steven Moore have gone to NO and said he was pushed by the AR? Can he do that?

I see this as distinctly different form the scenario where a referee gets in the way of a player; the referee has to be somewhere, but the AR has no requirement to be anywhere else at the line-out other than in a position to mark the LoT.


Opinions?

 

[crossref]

When the ball hit the camera wire you would have had a lineout??

I think that would be a bit weird.

 

[Ian_Cook]

When the ball hit the camera wire you would have had a lineout??

I think that would be a bit weird.

Well I have seen it happen,. There was a ground we used to play on that had a tree with branches overhanging the FoP. If the ball ever struck the tree before it crossed the plane of touch and then remained in the field of play, it was ruled in touch and the place where the ball went into touch was the place where the branches crossed the plane. (the rationale was that the tree is an object beyond the touchline)

However, in the OP scenario, I'd probably order a scrum, attacking team feed on the basis that the ball hitting the spider-cam wires would be an "irregularity not covered by Law".

[LAWS]20.4 THE TEAM THROWING THE BALL INTO THE SCRUM
(d) Scrum after any other stoppage. After any other stoppage or irregularity not covered by
Law, the team that was moving forward before the stoppage throws in the ball. If neither
team was moving forward, the attacking team throws in the ball.[/LAWS]

 

[Pegleg]

On point one

Technically Ian is right. However, I think that a common sense approach must apply. Did the ball hitting the wire MATERIALLY effect the path of the ball or the game? If not I would say play on. If it did I would go for a scrum (Stoppage for any reason not covered in law). A line out just seems odd. Presumably the spider cam wires cross the touch line at a number of places so which one would we take as the LOT?

On point two

I think that the Australians should / will review the incident possibly asking the AR for an explanation of his actions. If that explanation is not satisfactory then they should instigate action against the AR. THe comparison with the ref "has to be somewhere" is not quite right. It is true that BOTH the Ref and his ARs must be somewhere BUT niether have the need or right to push / strike an opponant in order to be where they want / need to be. The situation is not a dynamic one so it can't be seen to be "running into" as might happen in open play. Of course if the explanation if considerd by the Aussies as understandable OR if it goes further and WR consider no action required we move on.

 

[damo]

Well I have seen it happen,. There was a ground we used to play on that had a tree with branches overhanging the FoP. If the ball ever struck the tree before it crossed the plane of touch and then remained in the field of play, it was ruled in touch and the place where the ball went into touch was the place where the branches crossed the plane. (the rationale was that the tree is an object beyond the touchline)

However, in the OP scenario, I'd probably order a scrum, attacking team feed on the basis that the ball hitting the spider-cam wires would be an "irregularity not covered by Law".

[LAWS]20.4 THE TEAM THROWING THE BALL INTO THE SCRUM
(d) Scrum after any other stoppage. After any other stoppage or irregularity not covered by
Law, the team that was moving forward before the stoppage throws in the ball. If neither
team was moving forward, the attacking team throws in the ball.[/LAWS]

Yep I have refereed on a premier club ground where they had a tree with branches overhanging the field and this was the ground rule. No ifs no buts, if the ball hit the tree branch it was a lineout in line with where it hit the tree (and you would not go back to where the kick was taken if it was from outside the 22m). If I recall correctly, this rule was etched in bronze in the clubroom and everyone knew about it.

I think there should be a similar rule for the spidercam, except it should be a scrum to the team who last played the ball. No ifs and no buts. I also would not be wholly opposed to a rule that said if the ball hits the spidercam you just play on and you take your chances. Either way it should be a set rule IMO.

In any case, I was not impressed with NO's assertion that neither team benefited from the 50-50 occurrence. It looked pretty clear to me that England got a tangible benefit from it. The ball was propelled off its course and into the hands of an English chaser who would likely have been nowhere near the ball had it not hit the ropes. Even on his own explanantion it should have been a scrum.

 

[Pegleg]

Yep I have refereed on a premier club ground where they had a tree with branches overhanging the field and this was the ground rule. No ifs no buts, if the ball hit the tree branch it was a lineout in line with where it hit the tree (and you would not go back to where the kick was taken if it was from outside the 22m). If I recall correctly, this rule was etched in bronze in the clubroom and everyone knew about it.

I think there should be a similar rule for the spidercam, except it should be a scrum to the team who last played the ball. No ifs and no buts. I also would not be wholly opposed to a rule that said if the ball hits the spidercam you just play on and you take your chances. Either way it should be a set rule IMO.

In any case, I was not impressed with NO's assertion that neither team benefited from the 50-50 occurrence. It looked pretty clear to me that England got a tangible benefit from it. The ball was propelled off its course and into the hands of an English chaser who would likely have been nowhere near the ball had it not hit the ropes. Even on his own explanantion it should have been a scrum.

Eminent sense.

 

[Rich_NL]

My initial reaction was white scrum for irregularities.

the place where the ball went into touch was the place where the branches crossed the plane.

Given that the spidercam wires go to the four corners of the pitch, a 5-metre lineout seems far less equitable to anyone!

 

[crossref]

I think there should be a similar rule for the spidercam, except it should be a scrum to the team who last played the ball. No ifs and no buts. I also would not be wholly opposed to a rule that said if the ball hits the spidercam you just play on and you take your chances. Either way it should be a set rule IMO.

I agree with the last sentence -- it would be better to have a set rule - either always play on, or always have a scrum.

I'd be tempted to give the scrum to the team who didn't kick it - when you kick the ball you generally are conceding possession.


NO was treating it like ball-hits-referee which is, I guess, another way of doing it.

 

[Dickie E]

I think there should be a similar rule for the spidercam, except it should be a scrum to the team who last played the ball. No ifs and no buts.

The problem with that is a team could kick and aim at spidercam confident that they will get the scrum feed.

 

[damo]

The problem with that is a team could kick and aim at spidercam confident that they will get the scrum feed.

That is a bit of a stretch. How many kickers would be confident of being able to hit spidercam from a kick? Those that gave it a crack would be taking a risk because if they missed it would in all likelihood be a rubbish kick. The Spidercam is normally pretty high and far away from the action, except at a scrum.

Seems an unlikely thing to worry about IMO.

 

[Ian_Cook]

The problem with that is a team could kick and aim at spidercam confident that they will get the scrum feed.

Its this first time I have heard of this happening.

You could stand in the same place in a static situation, kick the ball at the wires and you be lucky to hit them 1 in 25 times or greater. Add to that a dynamic situation where the kick doesn't really have time to aim, and the fact that the spider-cam wires also change their height above the ground as the camera head is moved, and I find your scenario extremely unlikely.

 

[crossref]

I think we should have a set rule: and TBH I think the rule could be just 'play on' - treat it like a weird bounce, whatever happens.

I don't like the idea that you'd always stop play -- like a net-call in tennis -- as the impact could be completely inconsequential.

If you want to have referee discretion, play on when it doesn't matter, stop play if it seems unfair, then I think the best thing would be to treat it the same as ball-hits-ref, we already have a framework for that event, we can use the same for ball hits wire (and for ball hits waterboy and ball hits dog for that matter)

 

[crossref]

On the push -- I didn't notice it, and I can't find a video of it - why did he push him? It seems an odd thing to do!

 

[Ian_Cook]

On the push -- I didn't notice it, and I can't find a video of it - why did he push him? It seems an odd thing to do!

AIUI, he stepped forward to tell the England line-out forwards to get out of the gap, and pushed Moore just as he was throwing in.

http://www.news.com.au/sport/rugby/...d/news-story/08890800193b9f4f77a89de5e2ff9005

 

[crossref]

AIUI, he stepped forward to tell the England line-out forwards to get out of the gap, and pushed Moore just as he was throwing in.

http://www.news.com.au/sport/rugby/...d/news-story/08890800193b9f4f77a89de5e2ff9005

hmm, that's very odd, isn't it?

As a ref you'd never notice that happening, but if you did notice then clearly you'd take the throw again.

I can't see the video (not in my region) but if seemed deliberate you'd relieve AR of his duties and make a report. Very odd.

 

[Lex Hipkins]

Has any kick ever hit the roof of the Millenium Stadium and/or the Glasshouse in Dunedin? Have protocols for this event ever been established?

 

[OB..]

There have been occasional cases previously (of the ball hitting the camera rather than the wire IIRC) but as yet no WR ruling.

However that cannot be blamed for the England try - too remote.

The "tap" (or was it a push?) on Stephen Moore was surely wrong. (Was it really enough to cause the error?!) Fraser should have notified Owens that he had potentially affected the throw and asked for a re-set.

 

[Lex Hipkins]

AIUI, he stepped forward to tell the England line-out forwards to get out of the gap, and pushed Moore just as he was throwing in.

http://www.news.com.au/sport/rugby/...d/news-story/08890800193b9f4f77a89de5e2ff9005

It may possibly have been a distraction to Moore but to call it a push is a bit of an exaggeration ... From what I can see it was no more than a light tap with his finger tips, looking like he was trying to get Moore to stand more centrally to the tunnel (there was a gap already). Moore looked around like somebody had kicked his pet cat ... But this was probably more to do with the atrocious throw (not his first). I think it is pushing it to say that there was cause and effect by the AR. But as it was England didn't score anyway... It took poor scrum defending, not the ball hitting the wire or a poor line out throw, to give England the 5 points.

 

[Phil E]

AIUI, he stepped forward to tell the England line-out forwards to get out of the gap, and pushed Moore just as he was throwing in.

http://www.news.com.au/sport/rugby/...d/news-story/08890800193b9f4f77a89de5e2ff9005

I suppose that when you lose 0-3 when you expected to win 3-0 you have to look for excuses? However you say pushed and the article says tapped.

 

[Camquin]

I think he was telling Moore that his toes were over the line. <fx: ducks and runs>