Connacht/Wasps - penalty awarded at 80m kicked to touch

[Rawling]

Video here.

Penalty is awarded very close to the TV clock going red.

After some debate, the referee allows it to be kicked to touch, and the game is won from the ensuing lineout.

As far as I remember, the law variation allowing a penalty awarded after time to be kicked to touch and the lineout taken is not being applied to the RCC this season.

Has there been a recent change to the Law that lets a penalty awarded before time but taken after time to do so?

Or, just out of interest, a penalty kicked before time but going into touch after time?

 

[Phil E]

If it crosses the line before the clock goes dead, even by 1 second, then the line out takes place.

 

[OB..]

If it crosses the line before the clock goes dead, even by 1 second, then the line out takes place.

Technically the ball is not in touch until it touches someone or something in touch.

In the famous Italy-Wales (Chris White) case, the ball was still in the air when time expired and nobody asked if it had crossed the plane or not.

 

[Rawling]

If it crosses the line before the clock goes dead, even by 1 second, then the line out takes place.

And if the flag goes up 30 seconds after time? (Note in the video the referee does seem to think time has expired, so it's not a game/ref clock issue.)

 

[OB..]

And if the flag goes up 30 seconds after time? (Note in the video the referee does seem to think time has expired, so it's not a game/ref clock issue.)

It is the ball landing that matters - the flag merely confirms that fact and will necessarily be after it (even if only slightly).

 

[The Fat]

If it crosses the line before the clock goes dead, even by 1 second, then the line out takes place.

The chain of events from the OP was (all relative to the game clock);
1. At 79:59 or 80:00, the PK is awarded
2. Discussion between Connacht captain and ref re will lineout take place if kick to touch
3. Ball kicked to touch around 80:30
4. Lineout set and Connacht score winning try from ensuing maul

Had that been a Super Rugby match in 2016, I would have said ref got it right but I thought that Law Trial was only for Super Rugby. It definitely was at the start of 2016 i.e. in February 2016 Super Rugby = Yes, 6N = No. Did that change in the NH from July 1 2016? I can't even remember if it was in use in the recent November Internationals.

 

[winchesterref]

A statement has been released saying it was incorrect to allow the line out.

http://www.premiershiprugby.com/news/epcr-statement-connacht-rugby-v-wasps/

EPCR would like to clarify an issue arising from yesterday’s European Rugby Champions Cup, Round 4 match between Connacht Rugby and Wasps at The Sportsground.

The assistant referee, who had taken over as match referee following an injury to Jerome Garces, awarded a penalty to Connacht after time had elapsed. Connacht kicked the ball into touch and from the resultant line-out, scored a converted try to win the game 20-18.

However, as time had elapsed, Connacht should not have been permitted to take a line-out throw-in once the ball had been kicked into touch as stipulated in Law 5.7 (e) of World Rugby’s Laws of the Game.

EPCR would like to thank all parties for their understanding and would also like to confirm that the result of the Pool 2 match stands.

 

[Ian_Cook]

The whistle for the PK goes at 80:01

The ball goes into touch around 80:29

As far as I can work out, the Law trial involving the allowing of a line-out from a PK kicked to touch after time has expired does not apply to the RCC, so the kick to touch should have ended the game. If so, then that looks like a Law error by the referee.

 

[Camquin]

The statement makes it clear the [assistant] referee made an error.
But Connaght asked what would happen and made a decision based on the referees answer.
Had Sir correctly told them that the line out would not happen, they would have taken a different option.
I am sure he will get a marked down for the error, but once he had said that there was time, he had to allow the line out.
He is the sole judge of fact, so on his watch there was still time - especially if there wasn't.

 

[L'irlandais]

Champions Cup: Connacht v Wasps

Official statement from EPCR Connacht's late try shouldn't have stood

“However, as time had elapsed, Connacht should not have been permitted to take a line-out throw-in once the ball had been kicked into touch as stipulated in Law 5.7 (e) of World Rugby's Laws of the Game.
“EPCR would like to thank all parties for their understanding and would also like to confirm that the result of the Pool 2 match stands.”

Source:RTE

 

[Rawling]

I am sure he will get a marked down for the error, but once he had said that there was time, he had to allow the line out.
He is the sole judge of fact, so on his watch there was still time - especially if there wasn't.

He didn't say there was time. He said there wasn't time and that no lineout could be taken. After being questioned by the Connacht captain, he said there wasn't time and that a lineout could be taken.

 

[Pegleg]

Re: Champions Cup: Connacht v Wasps

I wonder when we will get the first case of a club going to court over loss of income?

 

[Ian_Cook]

Re: Champions Cup: Connacht v Wasps

I wonder when we will get the first case of a club going to court over loss of income?

I can't see it ever happening TBH.

While I have every sympathy for Wasps, this is not like a Law error in awarding a match winning penalty in front of the sticks after time has expired.

1. If Wasps were good enough they could have repelled the threat

2. If the referee had correctly informed the Connacht captain that the game would end if he kicked for touch, then he probably would have opted for a scrum, and they might have won the match anyway

 

[MrQeu]

I saw it elsewhere

 

[DocY]

but once he had said that there was time, he had to allow the line out.

I seem to remember Chris White blowing up after saying there was time for the lineout, so I wouldn't be too sure about that.

I agree that's what should happen, but a top referee clearly thought otherwise.

 

[menace]

Re: Champions Cup: Connacht v Wasps

I can't see it ever happening TBH.

While I have every sympathy for Wasps, this is not like a Law error in awarding a match winning penalty in front of the sticks after time has expired.

1. If Wasps were good enough they could have repelled the threat

2. If the referee had correctly informed the Connacht captain that the game would end if he kicked for touch, then he probably would have opted for a scrum, and they might have won the match anyway

True but I'm sure the match assessor / RC will be viewing that as a 'critical incident' of the highest order.:wink:

 

[DocY]

Re: Champions Cup: Connacht v Wasps

I can't see it ever happening TBH.

While I have every sympathy for Wasps, this is not like a Law error in awarding a match winning penalty in front of the sticks after time has expired.

1. If Wasps were good enough they could have repelled the threat

2. If the referee had correctly informed the Connacht captain that the game would end if he kicked for touch, then he probably would have opted for a scrum, and they might have won the match anyway

I hope you're right, but unless there's something in the competition rules stating that you can't sue for refereeing mistakes, I can see it happening. I expect it would come down to how surely it affected the result and you'd have to be close to 100% sure that whichever team would or wouldn't have scored had it not been for the error.

It would open a huge can of worms, though, and I can't see any logical reason it would be limited to law errors.

If it ever does happen, it will be the death of the sport.

 

[didds]

If it were possible as a general rule, surely it would have been done in football by now?

didds

 

[pedr]

There have been a number of soccer games replayed when the referee made errors in understanding what the (sport's) laws said should happen in specific circumstances. Two examples of referees choosing the wrong restart after infringements at penalty kicks are reported here: https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.in...ror-by-referee-opens-can-of-worms-421759.html

 

[L'irlandais]

He didn't say there was time. He said there wasn't time and that no lineout could be taken. After being questioned by the Connacht captain, he said there wasn't time and that a lineout could be taken.

He did actually indicate there was time. (Even though, as we now know, he was incorrect in thinking there was sufficient time for the line out.)

Connacht captain John Muldoon asked the referee whether there was time for the throw in. The match official, who began the game as a touch judge and later replaced Jerome Garces after he suffered a hamstring injury, indicated they would have sufficient time.

in fairness I think the "AR" was a little overwhelmed by being thrown in the middle of proceedings.
Also he could still have blown for time, had he realized his mistake subsequent to the kick being taken. It's not a "got ya" professional players should know the Laws of the game. Pro players are not beyond (mis)leading the match officials into taking a decision favorable to their own side either. No way any match referee should feel cornered into doing something against the LOtG. If at the lower levels, we can apologize for awarding a try incorrectly and come back for the restart, then why not do so in the Elite game. Better the confusion of a scrum restart, than the horror of replaying a game with no room in anybodies' agendas for such a replay.