[Law] Conor Murray Try.

[Decorily]

https://youtu.be/K3vt7b6QzVE
Double movement?

 

[Balones]

Not for me because he hadn't gone to gound. He was sort of partially held up and then drove over. However,
I do appreciate the argument that if you are on top of a player on the ground then you are in effect on the ground. On this occasion I thought he was also on his feet. Bit of a 'zombie' situation.

 

[Pegleg]

He's off his feet for me.

Would you let a Defender tackle an attacker if the defender was where Murray is?

 

[ChuckieB]

I didn't think it was a try at the time and on closer inspection I am satisfied with my gut instinct and can now justify in my mind why.

Just focussing on CM only, he does (momentarily) go off his feet which arrests his initial progress. He somehow regains ground contact with his feet, pretty instantaneously, which then allows him to propel himself forward. For me that is a reasonable straight forward and clear double movement. Had he been able to just reach out immediately using the initial movement, off his feet or not, then I think I would have been ok.

 

[Treadmore]

It does seem that in the instant of the tackle ending his upper body and ball are in the in-goal. Owens mentions something about going over. I'd guess Owens decided it was in-goal so tackle law doesn't apply.

If he wasn't in goal, then it does seem a bit more than reaching out.

 

[Pinky]

Looked to me like he was held and brought to a halt (ground as he was on top of other players) and he had to do a lot more than reach out to ground the ball, so no try from me.

 

[ChuckieB]

It would solve a multitude of problems if we could get wind of what NO said. I am taking it there was something he spotted, not necessarily with CM, judging by his gesticulations. Unfortunately at the critical point, the only thing I can make out is his final conformation that the try was good.

 

[irishref]

Double movement for me... from a prone position he regains enough height to use his legs to propel himself forward.

His initial momentum was halted and he did more than reach out.

 

[Ian_Cook]

The first time the ball carrier's forward motion is stopped, the ball is over the goal-line, so no tackle, therefore, no obligation to release.

Play on... the ball carrier is now allowed to do whatever he likes with the ball

As St Nige would say ... "Try is good"

He's off his feet for me.

Would you let a Defender tackle an attacker if the defender was where Murray is?

Yes, because the tackle laws don't apply in-goal. If the defender wants to prevent a try being scored, there are avenues in the Law which allow him to do so.

[LAWS]Law 22.4
(e) Tackled near the goal line. If a player is tackled near to the opponents’ goal line so that
this player can immediately reach out and ground the ball on or over the goal line, a try is
scored.
(f) In this situation, defending players who are on their feet may legally prevent the try by
pulling the ball from the tackled player’s hands or arms, but must not kick the ball. [/LAWS]

 

[Pegleg]

Ian I was referring to the specific point Balones made about the player not being off his feet and not the question of in goal.move the tackle to the hlf way line would Bslones allow a "tackler to make a tackle ifthey were lying on a body of players?

 

[Nigib]

Ian I was referring to the specific point Balones made about the player not being off his feet and not the question of in goal.move the tackle to the hlf way line would Bslones allow a "tackler to make a tackle ifthey were lying on a body of players?

But was it actually a tackle? I can't see any holding of CM, just a sort of bulldozing, resulting in CM on top of the heap and the ball over the goal line but not grounded. He then regains his feet (albeit from a mound of players) and grounds the ball.

However, what about Green 8 lurking in goal, coming round to join in the heap - is he not offside?

 

[Pegleg]

Nigib, I'm trying to make sense of the following points:

Not for me because he hadn't gone to gound.

Yet

However,
I do appreciate the argument that if you are on top of a player on the ground then you are in effect on the ground.

And further

On this occasion I thought he was also on his feet. Bit of a 'zombie' situation.

So parking the questions:

1: Was he in goal?

2: Was he tackled?

They raise other issues which can also be discussed.

The point of my question is to try and establish whether or not you can be both on and off your feet and whether the defender would be aforded the same luxury of interpretation as the attacker.

SO
IF CM was in field OR not is he allowed a second movement when lying on top of players on the ground?

If the answer is yes then question two.

IF a defender had been lying in the same position as CM would you allow him to tackle a player?

O just want Balones to confirm whether both the ball carrying and non-ball carrying teams are going to be afforded the same "zombie rights" as it were.

You can go on to ask Does it matter whether CM was tackled or whether he went to ground by choice. You can also move on the Ian's point and discuss wheter or not he was in goal and therefore not subject to Tackle etc law.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Ian I was referring to the specific point Balones made about the player not being off his feet and not the question of in goal.move the tackle to the hlf way line would Bslones allow a "tackler to make a tackle ifthey were lying on a body of players?

OK.

No I would not allow it in the FoP because Law 14. This would also apply in this case if my judgement was that the ball had not reached the goal line.

In this case, however, I judge that the ball had reached the goal line, so there is no issue with "double movement" even if the player appears to have done all the actions that look like it (lifted up and propelled himself forward etc)

 

[Ian_Cook]

You can go on to ask Does it matter whether CM was tackled or whether he went to ground by choice. You can also move on the Ian's point and discuss wheter or not he was in goal and therefore not subject to Tackle etc law.

He does not need to be in-goal, only the ball does (although obviously, if he is a ball carrier, then some part of him must be in-goal if the ball is).

The game changes the moment the ball is in-goal. None of the "ball contest" phases of the game (tackle, ruck, maul & scrum) exist once the ball is in goal, and even though it does not state it in Law, IMO, Law 14 also does not apply in goal (at least not the restrictions on the second player to the ball).

 

[Pegleg]

I agree. Now I await Balones answer.

 

[DocY]

I'm not sure the ball was over the goal line, but in real time I didn't think it was an obvious double movement - it took a few replays for me to see the case for that.

To me, he just placed it, albeit going a bit further than was expected.

Genuine question: if he was initially short, tried to place it legally, got it over the goal line but not grounded it, could he then shuffle forward double movement style and try to place it again? I'm thinking he can.

 

[crossref]

Ian's point about the ball being in goal is correct..

..but I don't think that's why NO allowed the try, he wasn't really in a position to see that, I think he was OK with Murray's movement regardless.

 

[crossref]

Genuine question: if he was initially short, tried to place it legally, got it over the goal line but not grounded it, could he then shuffle forward double movement style and try to place it again? I'm thinking he can.

I am thinking that

he was initially short, tried to place it legally, got it over the goal line but not grounded it.

is the moment you blow for held up..

 

[DocY]

I am thinking that

is the moment you blow for held up..

Thanks, but are you sure about the second bit? I'd not blow up if the situation is still 'evolving'.

 

[crossref]

yes, you don't want to be too quick, but on the other hand neither do you want pile of bodies any larger than it needs to be.