Check double movement

[stuart3826]

Is there any hope for us in the weeds when England's finest asks the TMO to "check double movement"? :deadhorse:
I don't have a clip, but this was during the Worcester v Harlequins clash on Friday.

 

[Jacko]

I know people don't like it and it can give people watching the wrong idea about what the law is, but among that team of officials it is the most effective way to convey what he wants the TMO to look at.
"Can you look to see whether, rather than releasing the ball immediately as required by law, the ball carrier made an illegal body movement forward in order to ground the ball" is rather more cumbersome than "check double movement" wouldn't you agree?

 

[Dixie]

Great game! Almost worth the cost of BT Sport HD (incidentally, my first foray into HD. So I forgot, and recorded the game on the normal BT Sport channel without looking a page further down the channel list. Doh!).

 

[didds]

or

"please check for illegal play by the tackled player"

??

didds

 

[irishref]

I agree with Jacko, for what it's worth. We're talking about 2 experts who speak eachother's language and must communicate concisely but effectively.

Perhaps commentators/Rugby shows could have a piece on such misconceptions in the game, presented by a top ref, to try to clear the air a bit...

I had a player mumbling about "he's got to let him get up Sir" during my game yesterday. I didn't mumble back to him but told him clearly he was guilty of believing Rugby Urban Myth #1 and we'd discuss it after the game if he needed further explanation.

 

[Dan_A]

I'd much prefer "Check for tackled player not releasing" or similar becaus ethye know that their communication is now being broadcast to the wider rugby audience.

For example, my u12 training game yesterday had a classic case of this scenarion yesterday and because we are in Quins territory, a lot of the boys had seen the game and were all repeating the "double movement" phrase.

 

[Jacko]

I'd much prefer "Check for tackled player not releasing" or similar becaus ethye know that their communication is now being broadcast to the wider rugby audience.

For example, my u12 training game yesterday had a classic case of this scenarion yesterday and because we are in Quins territory, a lot of the boys had seen the game and were all repeating the "double movement" phrase.

I have sympathy for this, but his main responsibility is refereeing the game. Wider education is the RFU's problem. As an employee, if they want him to be an educator too then they can pass the message on.

 

[Toby Warren]

Double movement is handy shorthand. Albeit technically wrong.

You say double movement everyone I bet is picturing a very similar offence.

 

[OB..]

You say double movement everyone I bet is picturing a very similar offence.

ONly thosed who know what it really means. The rest are looking for two separate movements.

I much prefer the phrase "illegal movement".

 

[Simon Thomas]

I would expect to hear "double movement" called, and have done for years, whilst knowing that in Law it is not the correct term.

Key issue is the clarity of communication between Referee and the TMO and correctness of the decision.

 

[menace]

When leagies in my area claim "double movement"... I just tell them "a double movement is allowed in union, as long as they do it immediately". That usually quiets them down as they know you've seen it and let them know it's permitted! I've given up fighting against the term but just twist it to my benefit.

 

[TheBFG]

what would be wrong with "please can you check for a legal grounding"?

 

[Jacko]

what would be wrong with "please can you check for a legal grounding"?

He is being specific about why he suspects that the grounding might not have been legal. Additional info for the TMO.

 

[Account Deleted]

"Was the ball grounded IMMEDIATELY?".

Correct in Law and clear. Surely!?

 

[Waspsfan]

Why is everyone being so pedantic? I see no issue with this question.

Those of you who are unhappy, are you happy for the ref to ask the TMO 'was there a forward pass?' because this term also isn't in the law book!

 

[PaulDG]

Why is everyone being so pedantic? I see no issue with this question.

Because some of us have to cope with pitches that do not have spectators roped back 5m and Touch Judges (i.e. players who are currently subbed off wearing their shirts inside out) who are convinced a try must be disallowed because of "double movement".

And, since they know for certain (cos they heard it on the telly) "double movement" is illegal, when we say, "no the try was OK", they then know (having previously only suspected) we're cheats and are in the pocket of the opposition.

They will make certain their team mates know we're lying cheats and what was quite a decent game to that point now becomes a major discipline and management issue.

 

[Browner]

Is there any hope for us in the weeds when England's finest asks the TMO to "check double movement"? :deadhorse:
I don't have a clip, but this was during the Worcester v Harlequins clash on Friday.

He was merely following the IRB TMO PROTOCOL, which [unhelpfully?] read .......... 1.2. If the referee agrees to refer the matter to the TMO he will indicate what the potential offence was and where it took place. Potential infringements which must be CLEAR and OBVIOUS are as follows:
 Knock-on
 Forward pass
 Player in touch
 Off-side
 Obstruction
 Tackling a player without the ball
 Foul play
 Double movement in act of scoring

 

[Browner]

(cos they heard it on the telly) .

is this the same as..... "read it in

" :buttkick:

 

[Account Deleted]

The point is a double movement is NOT illegal. Therefore the IRB protocol should not be referring to it in a way that suggests it is. If fact you are, as a tackled player, specifically allowed to make that second movement to place to ball in any direction IMMEDIATELY.

HOWEVER:

A forward pass whilst not a illegal term IS illegal. Under no circumstances are you allowed to throw the ball forward for a team mate to catch it (Forward pass - in all but words)

There is a subtle but significant difference between the two states.

 

[KML1]

The point is a double movement is NOT illegal. Therefore the IRB protocol should not be referring to it in a way that suggests it is. If fact you are, as a tackled player, specifically allowed to make that second movement to place to ball in any direction IMMEDIATELY.

HOWEVER:

A forward pass whilst not a illegal term IS illegal. Under no circumstances are you allowed to throw the ball forward for a team mate to catch it (Forward pass - in all but words)

There is a subtle but significant difference between the two states.

ATTR - are you saying that you would allow a double movement without penalty? Or would you penalise it but say "holding on" or "not releasing"?