[Law] Exeter Quins

[Camquin]

The incident where Townsend lifts Dombrant's legs, before he picked up the ball.
This caused him to bobble the ball, but get the pass away and Quins dot down.
Brought back for the knock on and a penalty given for taking out Dombrant.
Could the TO3 have thought about a penalty try?

 

[crossref]

I thought it there was an opportunity to watch it once and decide that the bobble was NOT clearly and obviously forward.

 

[Dickie E]

As a suggestion. Discussions are easier to participate in if:

1. you attach a video link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0K9ek_P6dLc

2. time stamp it with either game time or youtube time (52:33 game time)

3. use player colour & number instead of surname (ie Black 9 and White 8)

I think a try was not "probable" so no PT.

I also don't think it was even a penalty. As per our other discussion about "possession", once White 8 plays the ball he is in possession and liable to be tackled.

 

[belladonna]

As a suggestion. Discussions are easier to participate in if:

1. you attach a video link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0K9ek_P6dLc

2. time stamp it with either game time or youtube time (52:33 game time)

3. use player colour & number instead of surname (ie Black 9 and White 8)

I think a try was not "probable" so no PT.

I also don't think it was even a penalty. As per our other discussion about "possession", once White 8 plays the ball he is in possession and liable to be tackled.

Thanks for the video link Dickie, now I can see what the OP is talking about!

I agree with you about it not being a penalty as the player attempting to bring the ball under control is liable to be tackled legally.

But strangely, the ref had his arm out before the tackle, presumably for a scrum infringement, so there would have been a penalty to Quins nevertheless.

(And the ref was unsighted from the tackle by red 9 on black 8 as he was on the other side of the scrum.)

 

[crossref]

not shown in the highlights - CMK actually told Dombrandt 'you were tackled without the ball' Does that make a difference?

the timing on tackling a #8 pick up is very fine.

 

[Balones]

You can hear that the penalty was for a scrum collapse. Not convinced it was a knock-on. If it wasn’t a penalty for the collapsed scrum I think we could have had a penalty against H8 for playing the ball while on floor. There does still seem to be inconsistency here.

 

[crossref]

You can hear that the penalty was for a scrum collapse. Not convinced it was a knock-on. If it wasn’t a penalty for the collapsed scrum I think we could have had a penalty against H8 for playing the ball while on floor. There does still seem to be inconsistency here.

if he was legally tackled, he's OK to pass the ball from the floor
if he was illegally tackled, then PK to Quins?

 

[BikingBud]

You can hear that the penalty was for a scrum collapse. Not convinced it was a knock-on. If it wasn’t a penalty for the collapsed scrum I think we could have had a penalty against H8 for playing the ball while on floor. There does still seem to be inconsistency here.

Ref clearly states, vid time 2:48, "9 tackling player off the ball"!

I would also be concerned about the way the black 9 is stood on white 4's right ankle!

 

[Balones]

if he was legally tackled, he's OK to pass the ball from the floor
if he was illegally tackled, then PK to Quins?

I agree if he maintains possession of the ball in a tackle. I believe he lost possession and had to regather it and then pass it off the floor.

 

[Balones]

Ref clearly states, vid time 2:48, "9 tackling player off the ball"!

I would also be concerned about the way the black 9 is stood on white 4's right ankle!

He did clearly say that but just before that and under the voice if the commentator he mentions the collapse. Also at 51.46 he holds his arm out to award the penalty and mentions the 9 playing the 8. It was possibly two penalties in a row. He plays advantage. There was no doubt in the mind of the referee about the collapse. He was not really sure about the playing of the 8. He went to TMO about a possible knock on; possiblly because of input from the TMO. He decided it was so went back to the first penalty and also decided the playing of the 8 was illegal. From what we can see in the video I would say there was some doubt about the knock-on and the playing of the 8.