England try disallowed for obstruction ?

[CrouchTPEngage]

Clear and obvious ? Material ?
would you have allowed that England try against Wales ?

 

[Browner]

What is the timeliness criteria for these obstructions , looked like the ball had been passed before the contact happened.

Irrespective , it didn't directly create the try or the space for the try IMO, strange decision.

 

[Pegleg]

Can't say yes or no. I think yes but I might be seeing it with a Wales hat on. I'm ,guess if I was English I'd be saying the opposite. I guess it's:

Could have gone either way. You win some. You lose some.

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

I'm English definitely obstruction, called it in the bar before the slomo

 

[dave_clark]

really? given it was a fly half that was "taken out", and that the tackle was made...

(i was six pints in by this stage, so i may not have been entirely balanced)

 

[irishref]

Taking out a potential tackler off the ball. PK for me.

 

[Pegleg]

I guess the question is: Was it material? The answer to that may lie in where an individuals loyalties lie. It was a close call If the try had stood I think I would have felt it to be a wrong call but understandable. You see worse examples result in a try. A judgement call.

 

[Browner]

I applauded BCM666 commentary when ( on talking through another decision) , he said something along the lines of " the referees given it - so that's it"

Well done that commentator, no over exuberant protestations or review calling.

 

[Browner]

Can't say yes or no. I think yes but I might be seeing it with a Wales hat on. I'm ,guess if I was English I'd be saying the opposite. I guess it's:

Could have gone either way. You win some. You lose some.

On the A4054 from Cardiff to Taff's Well .......... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iIIuR-HjFho

:eng::wales:

 

[RobLev]

Can't say yes or no. I think yes but I might be seeing it with a Wales hat on. I'm ,guess if I was English I'd be saying the opposite. I guess it's:

Could have gone either way. You win some. You lose some.

It certainly wasn't material by the time the try was scored, but that's not the issue, as I understand it.

As I saw it, all the tackles that the Welsh defence intended to make were made. To that extent IMHO Garcés's decision was wrong (in his explanation he said that the obstruction had prevented a tackle being made).

Having said that, the decoy runner did go ahead of the ball and in that position did draw a tackle from a Welsh defender.

Was that material, however, since (i) his tackler wasn't going to get to the ball-carrier - that was someone else's job, (ii) the ball-carrier was tackled immediately (and quicker than he would have been had he been left for the taken-out defender , and (iii) there was time for the defence to reset at and after that tackle.

So on balance I would have thought the decision was wrong - but Garcés saw the facts differently in a crucial respect, and on his view the decision was correct.

 

[Pegleg]

That's a fair view. People will disagree. I have no issue with the call. I would have no issue had he seen it your way.

 

[Pegleg]

On the A4054 from Cardiff to Taff's Well .......... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iIIuR-HjFho

:eng::wales:

Not been there then.

 

[didds]

The ONLY query I would have is if the same decisionwould have been made 30m upfield. Or maybe, would have been TMO reviewed, especially if it was jujst some inconclusive action.

It woud also appear that - from the commentary - that had there been a 3rd breakdown, and a try had been scored it would have been ignored. As it was, the actual "action" was BEFORE 2 breakdowns prior to the try. If indeed BCM was correct (and I have no reason to disbeliwve him!)

didds

 

[Pegleg]

Fair point. The call appears "reasonable". Was it within "protocol"? Does it matter if the right call is made and damn protocol?


Interesting debate to be had by some.

Why have a protocol if you are not going to follow it? Vs We want to get the right outcome regardless of the protocols.

 

[FlipFlop]

My issue is - anywhere else on the field, and that isn't being given. And that is not consistent.

Personally I don't think a tackler was prevented from making a tackle, or getting into defensive line. Which is why it wouldn't be called anywhere on the field. And so play on for me.

 

[TheBFG]

nothing to do with Shaun Edwards claim of "dirty tricks" by the English, surely the ref would fall for that :sarc:

Agree that the right decision was achieved, BUT did he go outside protocol??? KML you must be able to tell us or is it on a secret email :wink:

 

[Browner]

My issue is - anywhere else on the field, and that isn't being given. And that is not consistent.

Personally I don't think a tackler was prevented from making a tackle, or getting into defensive line. Which is why it wouldn't be called anywhere on the field. And so play on for me.

Biggar was committed to tackling the first receiver, (the whole point of the dummy run!) , this made no difference to Roberts who then tackled Vunipola(m) , by this time Biggar then repositioned and tackled George Ford. This obstruction had no effect on the try scoring or Biggars ability to rejoin the defensive effort.

Interestingly & disappointingly.... SAReferees now cast doubt on "2.2 The potential infringement must have occurred between the last restart of play (set piece, penalty/free-kick, kick-off or restart) and the touch down but not further back in play than two previous rucks and/or mauls."

http://www.sareferees.com/News/law-discussion-tmo-phases/2830348/
They opine that the shallow rucks on Vunipola & Brookes that occurred after the offence aren't "rucks" and so therefore the Review was inside TMO '2phases' protocol.

IMO SARefs are being naughty, the purpose of the protocol is to determine the continuance of play relativity/continuity/time, not to micro analyse the shallowness of the last clearout/ruck or use a 'definition loophole' to give the opportunity to cancel a try that occurred well after a potential 'offence' ..... Ffs!

The article writers lose face on this subject with me.