Dan Coles 5s error

[Browner]

BCM on Talksport a few moments ago asked Nigel Owens to explain why Dan Cole was penalised for jumping the gun at the England Goal line ruck defence v scotland.

It became a discussion on whether a player accurately allign/mirror a referees counting speed before targetting the ball , but its got nothing to do with such timing!

this discussion direction surprised me , whilst the ball remains within the Ruck defenders must observe the ruck offside lines. The expiry of 5s countdown - doesnt create a right for the defender to now overstep offside lines nor does it end the ruck.

it merely gives the referee the authority to order a scrum [if he chooses to].

 

[didds]

so why would he choose not to? when the laws provide for that very sanction for non compliance?

weasel words?

didds

 

[Dixie]

so why would he choose not to? when the laws provide for that very sanction for non compliance?

weasel words?

didds

The answer seems obvious - he would never choose not to. If he didn't award a scrum, it's because in his view 5s has not elapsed. Cole is said to have had a different view - but as Browner mentions, that does not give him the right to jump the gun. The ruck does not end after 5s; it ends after the referee blows his whistle, having concluded that 5s has passed since he called "use it".

 

[didds]

That's fair enough Dixie. Tx.

So why didn't Cole get a YC?

didds

 

[didds]

akchurley - and I haven;t had the benefit of 438 replays yet - was the ball even in a ruck? Assuming laidlaw's hand resting on top of the rear and nearest (white) prone player doesn't constitute being bound into the ruck?

didds

 

[crossref]

I think the 5s is a complete red herring.

the issue is whether the ball actually came out of the back of the ruck during those 5s. If it did Cole was entitled to play it.

Poite called use it, and then the ruck moved very slightly, the rearmost player shuffled his feet forwards slightly and Cole took the view that the ball was no longer in the ruck, it had come out the back -- and went for it.

Poite's opinion was different, he thought the ball was still in, so it's a PK. My guess is that he didn't give a YC as he didn't see it as a cynical attempt to block the ball, he saw it as knife-edge judgement, the ball was a gnat's whisker of being out, Cole was attempting to play positively not negatively. So didn't deserve a card. (although I would have given him one anyway!)

 

[liversedge]

The incident is at 28:13 on the game clock in the first half. Its on iplayer for UK residents.
There is no way Coles thinks 5s has passed as he goes 1-2s after the ref calls 'Use it'.

The ball is clearly out of the ruck, even when the referee calls to use it -- because there are no players on their feet contesting the ball on the ground.

 

[didds]

so if the ball is out of "the ruck" then why can't Cole come around from an onside position? why has the referee called "use it" for a ball that is no longer in the ruck?

didds

 

[OB..]

Shortly before the Cole incident, at 26:00+ Hogg passes to Fife, and continues running while still ahead of him. He is now offside. As England defenders try to converge on Fife, Hogg is in the way.

Why did that not get penaiised?

 

[Browner]

Useful vid liversage.

Its interesting that Laidlaw has several looks to see if the white line is visible, I can only imagine that had it been then he would've dabbed it on it, to get a try.

If that ball has not exited a ruck, then when would it ever??? Such protections of 9 are giving far too much licence IMO.

I'm (disappointed!) surprised that BV& DC aren't ascertively suggesting to the referee that the ball had exited.

 

[Browner]

I'mI'm happy that hogg continued running a bonafide support line, without C&O deviation, and although he was well aware that his positioning impinged defenders attempts to cover tackle, his line didn't offend IMO.

 

[liversedge]

so if the ball is out of "the ruck" then why can't Cole come around from an onside position? why has the referee called "use it" for a ball that is no longer in the ruck?

didds

Beats me.

 

[TheBFG]

The incident is at 28:13 on the game clock in the first half. Its on iplayer for UK residents.
There is no way Coles thinks 5s has passed as he goes 1-2s after the ref calls 'Use it'.

The ball is clearly out of the ruck, even when the referee calls to use it -- because there are no players on their feet contesting the ball on the ground.

Not in the opinion of the ref, (who as we all know has ultimate say), because if it was he wouldn't have said "use it!"

Cole SHOULD have gone to the bin, simples! :noyc:

 

[liversedge]

Not in the opinion of the ref, (who as we all know has ultimate say), because if it was he wouldn't have said "use it!" Cole SHOULD have gone to the bin, simples! :noyc:

I agree, but do wonder if Romain Poite had that in the back of his mind as the scottish 4 crawled away from the ball.

 

[didds]

Or Poite had in the back of his mind that he had right royally farked that up and YCing Cole for a P_K that was in fact Poite's error would have been too much.

As for Poite not believing the ball was out of the ruck and calling use it - that is presumably the case. I'm more interested in why an elite level referee believes that a ball that is in no way beneath a player bound into a ruck is still actually IN a RUCK and not in fact OUT.

To roll out a trite and hackneyed phrase, here was certainly one time when a bird could have shit on it. In fact a whole flock of birds could have shit on it from varying angles!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVWEeDZoVG4&t=2m27s

didds

 

[crossref]

I agree with Didds -- I think Poite made an error when he called 'use it' which is a call you make when the ball is in the ruck. He should have called 'ball out' (or said nothing at all).

Having made the error Cole put him in a pickle.

just a second before he called 'use it' implying that the ball was still in -- so he couldn't easily allow Cole to play it
but to YC card Cole for an action that was clearly legal, seems a bit harsh
so he PK'd him.

What Cole should have done, perhaps, was asked - is it out?

 

[didds]

well, what he COULD have done was

* played on as Cole was actually correct

OR

* _maybe_ in the interests of equity (?!) blown, awarded a scrum 5m out to England (Cole having legally secured the ball)

AND apologised to Scotland for his gaff in treating ball out as ball in with "use it". But that would have meant admitting on live TV that he had royally stuffed up.

As it was it ids C&O he royally stuffed up AND then exacerbated it with a critical error by awarding a PK for a thoroughly legal action.
What he actually did was the worst of those three options.

didds

 

[OB..]

If the referee calls "use it", then surely Cole should assume that in the referee's opinion the ball is not out of the ruck? Others may well disagree (and be right), but they do not have the whistle.

 

[crossref]

but - generally speaking - the ball could be IN, the referee calls Use It, and then subseqeuntly the ball or the ruck move, and the ball becomes OUT.

 

[Browner]

If the referee calls "use it", then surely Cole should assume that in the referee's opinion the ball is not out of the ruck? Others may well disagree (and be right), but they do not have the whistle.

'ball obviously out' could have followed any "use it" call.

RP doesnt come out of this very well - as there is scrum half protection and there is scrum half over protection !!!!