[Law] Conor Murray Try.

[OB..]

I agree with Ian that he was over the line when first stopped.

 

[L'irlandais]

And he grounded the ball (2 minutes16 seconds into the highlights clip)! in under a second after the failed tackle(2'15") that's immediately, surely?

 

[ChuckieB]

Just trying to establish a sequence of facts to add some colour to my own judgement.

Either on or off his feet, tackled or not tackled, I think there is sufficient evidence to accept that he managed to make it to the "plane" of the goal line in the initial movement.

At some point he went of his feet

The ball was not grounded in the period he initially went off his feet.

A ball carrier who is not held is not a tackled player and a tackle has not taken place.

Law 14. Ball on ground - No tackle - "It also occurs when a player is on the ground in possession of the ball and has not been tackled."


If you accept this he is on the ground and not tackled, albeit in a pile up, he must immediately do one of three things. 14.1 (a), i.e. in this instance the only option relevant is "get up with the ball".

We then can ask ourselves if we accept he regains his feet. - Law 14 - "The Game is to be played by players who are on their feet". (In line with my observance of laws applied to rucks there is no way you can say he has regained his feet as he is not supporting his own body weight).

A momentum try applies in tackle situation only.

Those are the facts as I have identified. I have had to add one interpretation. So, unless NO didn't see him off his feet, I can't say the facts, with that necessary interpretation, for the sequence of events support a "try is good decision".

As the try is awarded it is a mute point to suggest how you would determine the restart. CM penalised perhaps?

footnote. I am new to the forum but I assume there must be a debate somewhere here that talks about climbing or diving over a pile of bodies in-goal. Such a discussion surely hinges around players not being on their feet. Goodness knows. it then raises the question of the validity of an "Ashtonesque" swallow dive?

 

[Balones]

I agree. Now I await Balones answer.

The ball was over the line.
Basically I don't think he was tackled so did not have to release the ball. The No 6 went under him and the defender in front just bumped into him. I do not see him being 'held and brought to ground' so as to comply with a tackle. So if this happened open play (I.e. not tackled.) the player does not have to release the ball but simply get up and this is what I believe CM did.

 

[OB..]

And he grounded the ball (2 minutes16 seconds into the highlights clip)! in under a second after the failed tackle(2'15") that's immediately, surely?

I don't think immediacy is relevant here. If a player is tackled short of the line and immediately pushes his body forward, that is illegal.

 

[ChuckieB]

The ball was over the line.
Basically I don't think he was tackled so did not have to release the ball. The No 6 went under him and the defender in front just bumped into him. I do not see him being 'held and brought to ground' so as to comply with a tackle. So if this happened open play (I.e. not tackled.) the player does not have to release the ball but simply get up and this is what I believe CM did.

Is his action to lunge an accepted interpretation of "getting up"? I would admit getting up to a position where you are supporting your own body weight is quite challenging and so there looks to be some benefit of the doubt given to an attacking side in this case.

 

[DocY]

Is his action to lunge an accepted interpretation of "getting up"? I would admit getting up to a position where you are supporting your own body weight is quite challenging and so there looks to be some benefit of the doubt given to an attacking side in this case.

You have to use a bit of empathy - close to the goal line it's unrealistic to expect a player to fully get back to his feet before trying to touch the ball down.

It doesn't always benefit the attacking team, though - you wouldn't necessarily penalise a defender for trying to hold up a ball that hadn't quite crossed the goal line, for example.

 

[Pegleg]

The ball was over the line.
Basically I don't think he was tackled so did not have to release the ball. The No 6 went under him and the defender in front just bumped into him. I do not see him being 'held and brought to ground' so as to comply with a tackle. So if this happened open play (I.e. not tackled.) the player does not have to release the ball but simply get up and this is what I believe CM did.

This is the question I was wanting to see your answer to:

"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?

I 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."

I am looking fgor clarification to you comment about CM being in a "zombie" situation. Do both ball carriers and non ball carriers get the same "zombie rights"?

 

[Ian_Cook]

The ball was over the line.
Basically I don't think he was tackled so did not have to release the ball. The No 6 went under him and the defender in front just bumped into him. I do not see him being 'held and brought to ground' so as to comply with a tackle. So if this happened open play (I.e. not tackled.) the player does not have to release the ball but simply get up and this is what I believe CM did.

Is his action to lunge an accepted interpretation of "getting up"? I would admit getting up to a position where you are supporting your own body weight is quite challenging and so there looks to be some benefit of the doubt given to an attacking side in this case.

If the bit in red is true then everything else is moot; none of the provisions of Law 15 apply, ergo

► even if he was tackled, he does not have to release the ball

► even if he is on the ground and held, he can get up and move again.

► the gate no longer exists. Opponents can come from any direction to play the ball

 

[beckett50]

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

I can understand why you have reached the conclusion stated, but I see it differently.

Connor Murray is felled short of the line and lands on the pile of bodies from the previous breakdown. He is not held - so there is no tackle - and immediately moves to place the ball over the line.

If there wasn't the pile of bodies he could have reached out an arm to place the ball over the line, but as there wasn't NO allowed him a little latitude to score the try (and his actions were entirely positive play IMHO).

 

[Decorily]

I can understand why you have reached the conclusion stated, but I see it differently.

No conclusion reached or stated by me... yet!
Just decided to ask a question to generate some discussion.

Thanks for your opinion.

 

[L'irlandais]

I don't think immediacy is relevant here. If a player is tackled short of the line and immediately pushes his body forward, that is illegal.

Fair enough. I agree with Ian, no doubt he was in the ingoal area.
I was thinking along the lines of this particular immediately ;
[LAWS]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.[/LAWS]Although the ball was already over the goal line, his initial grounding was on the pile of defenders.
He re grounded the ball pretty quickly, I suspect if he hadn't it could have been considered held up in goal.

 

[Balones]

This is the question I was wanting to see your answer to:

"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?

I 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."

I am looking fgor clarification to you comment about CM being in a "zombie" situation. Do both ball carriers and non ball carriers get the same "zombie rights"?

My apologies Pegleg I wasn’t sure which question you were asking because the posts were coming thick and fast.

Yes. He hasn’t been tackled; just fallen on a body/floor.
Question 2 – no because he is off his feet and on the floor. (or a body which is on the floor.

The difference perhaps can be explained by –
If a ball carrier slips and goes to ground (or lands on a body) he can hang on to the ball and simply get up. (Or dive forwards?)
If a non-ball carrier slips and goes to ground (or lands on a body) he has to get up before he participates (tackles) again.

By 'zombie' situation I meant that he was somewhere between a tackle and a slip/dive to ground. I am now of the opinion having watched it a few times that he was not tackled by using the definition of a tackle. He was 'stopped' but that is not the same thing, I'm sure you will agree. ??

 

[Balones]

If the bit in red is true then everything else is moot; none of the provisions of Law 15 apply, ergo

► even if he was tackled, he does not have to release the ball

► even if he is on the ground and held, he can get up and move again.

► the gate no longer exists. Opponents can come from any direction to play the ball

You are right Ian. I missed a word out. I meant to write - Basically I don't think he was tackled ANYWAY ........
I was actually agreeing with you but wanted to make the point that it didn't matter if the ball as over the line or not.
I hope that clarifies my position.

 

[ChuckieB]

My reading of this is that the ball busting the goal line changes even more than you might read? He doesn't have to get up even and can can thrust/dive forward with an intent to ground the ball. If Murray was on a bigger pile of bodies (no tackle) he would still have been able to get up, scramble or dive to go over them however many of them there were?


If the ball hadn't broken the line would the view be different? He would perhaps need to properly retake his feet, i.e. supporting his own body weight before he could go again?

Such a view would support that can't be legitimate to launching an assault from near the line and over a pile of bodies assuming some sort of breakdown) from the ball being within the field of play, American football style? I am sure this will have been mooted before? HE would surely be treated as going off the ground? Still raises the query as to whether a Swallow dive is legitimate. It is certainly dangerous!

 

[DocY]

My reading of this is that the ball busting the goal line changes even more than you might read? He doesn't have to get up even and can can thrust/dive forward with an intent to ground the ball. If Murray was on a bigger pile of bodies (no tackle) he would still have been able to get up, scramble or dive to go over them however many of them there were?


If the ball hadn't broken the line would the view be different? He would perhaps need to properly retake his feet, i.e. supporting his own body weight before he could go again?

Such a view would support that can't be legitimate to launching an assault from near the line and over a pile of bodies assuming some sort of breakdown) from the ball being within the field of play, American football style? I am sure this will have been mooted before? HE would surely be treated as going off the ground? Still raises the query as to whether a Swallow dive is legitimate. It is certainly dangerous!

In this case the ball crossing the goal line doesn't actually change that much since he wasn't actually tackled - the restrictions on what you must do only apply after a tackle (which cannot occur in goal).

The situation is more like him being ankle tapped or diving on a loose ball than being tackled.

I'm afraid I don't understand your last paragraph, but a swan dive is not illegal, even if Chris Ashton does it.

 

[ChuckieB]

In this case the ball crossing the goal line doesn't actually change that much since he wasn't actually tackled - the restrictions on what you must do only apply after a tackle (which cannot occur in goal).

The situation is more like him being ankle tapped or diving on a loose ball than being tackled.

I'm afraid I don't understand your last paragraph, but a swan dive is not illegal, even if Chris Ashton does it.

I see the momentum situation for a tap, fall or otherwise as different to a situation where he generated his own momentum in a new movement.

Paraphrasing Balones, "a ball carrier can hang on and simply get up (or dive forwards?) but a non ball carrier must get up".

I don't see diving forwards as getting up (Balones has a ? for hanging on). For me he could be deemed off his feet, i.e. not supporting his own body weight and surely that must be evidence I could take into consideration when choosing not to award a try for a ball not initially breaking the goal line under these adjusted circumstances.

I want to see it but I still can't. If not 100% clear could I be reasonably criticised for not awarding a try ?


Swallow dives are for another time.

 

[Ian_Cook]

The situation is more like him being ankle tapped or diving on a loose ball than being tackled.

I see the momentum situation for a tap, fall or otherwise as different to a situation where he generated his own momentum in a new movement.

In this case, Law 14 applies

[LAWS]LAW 14 DEFINITIONS
This situation occurs when the ball is available on the ground and a player goes to ground to gather the ball, except immediately after a scrum or a ruck.
It also occurs when a player is on the ground in possession of the ball and has not been tackled.
The Game is to be played by players who are on their feet. A player must not make the ball unplayable by falling down. Unplayable means that the ball is not immediately available to either team so that play may continue.
A player who makes the ball unplayable, or who obstructs the opposing team by falling down, is negating the purpose and Spirit of the Game and must be penalised.
A player who is not tackled, but who goes to ground while holding the ball, or a player who goes to ground and gathers the ball, must act immediately.

LAW 14.1 PLAYERS ON THE GROUND
(a) A player with the ball must immediately do one of three things:
• Get up with the ball
• Pass the ball
• Release the ball.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]

A player in this situation just short of the goal-line is entitled to get up, still holding the ball and put the ball over the line.

 

[ChuckieB]

In this case, Law 14 applies

[LAWS]LAW 14 DEFINITIONS
This situation occurs when the ball is available on the ground and a player goes to ground to gather the ball, except immediately after a scrum or a ruck.
It also occurs when a player is on the ground in possession of the ball and has not been tackled.
The Game is to be played by players who are on their feet. A player must not make the ball unplayable by falling down. Unplayable means that the ball is not immediately available to either team so that play may continue.
A player who makes the ball unplayable, or who obstructs the opposing team by falling down, is negating the purpose and Spirit of the Game and must be penalised.
A player who is not tackled, but who goes to ground while holding the ball, or a player who goes to ground and gathers the ball, must act immediately.

LAW 14.1 PLAYERS ON THE GROUND
(a) A player with the ball must immediately do one of three things:
• Get up with the ball
• Pass the ball
• Release the ball.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]

A player in this situation just short of the goal-line is entitled to get up, still holding the ball and put the ball over the line.

100% with the laws. Ball short of the goal line - In the absence of a definition of law definition getting up I am trying to understand why the motion of regrounding your toes and thrusting yourself forward in a prone position can be construed as "getting up". He was in no way supporting his body weight. Lifting yourself and even stumbling forward on your feet is at least supporting your own body weight as might be the case in a tap situation? If you are not supporting your own body weight you are off your feet. Surely?

 

[Decorily]

Not speaking for Ian, he is well capable of doing that for himself, but I think you will find that he is of the opinion that in CMs case the ball was in-goal and therefore 14.1 doesn't apply.