Gloucester v Perpignan

[Chogan]

On the 44th minute ref Leighton Hodges awarded a FK to Gloucester from a scrum 5m out from Perpignan's line.
The ball was on Perpignan's side of the scrum and after he blew the whistle he "played" the ball with his foot to get it to Gloucester. Gloucester took a quick tap and scored a try.

Should this have been called back for outside interference?

 

[Simon Thomas]

now that I would love to see - missed that match at the weekend. Anyone got a YoutTube url ?

Sounds as if the referee got too involved.

 

[Browner]

ooops, his helpfulness backfired on that one........!

 

[Chogan]

Found a clip. Go to 1:40

 

[Loïc]

I think he "played" the ball to make sure that the PK is played at the good place by Gloucester. But by this move, he helped involuntary the red 9.

 

[Browner]

I think he "played" the ball to make sure that the PK is played at the good place by Gloucester. But by this move, he helped involuntary the red 9.

It's still an unwise intervention, however if Blue 11 had stopped the try, then PT & YC for cynical offside <10m & not retreating, surely?

 

[Chogan]

It's still an unwise intervention, however if Blue 11 had stopped the try, then PT & YC for cynical offside <10m & not retreating, surely?

Agreed. But let the players make that decision. We can't physically help a team

 

[MrQeu]

When did Glocuester change it's logo to Toulousain's one? :biggrin:

 

[Loïc]

It's still an unwise intervention, however if Blue 11 had stopped the try, then PT & YC for cynical offside <10m & not retreating, surely?

Don't get me wrong, I totally agree with you. I'm just saying that I think the ref didn't realize that his move could help Gloucester.

 

[Dixie]

Same game, end of the first half Jimmy Cowans is awarded a FK 5m out after time exires when Perpignan shove early at a scrum. Perpignan players never retire, and engage Cowan before the line, but a Gloucester drive takes him close. TMO confirms that the ball was grounded by 6" short of the line. Ref comes back to the same mark as before with another FK.

Questions - given that the margin was so fine between score and no score, it is clear that only the offence prevented the try.

a) Should the ref at the very least have YC'd the offender(s)?
b) Should the ref have awarded a PT?

Relevant factors in b) include whether engaging a dangerous attacker without retiring 10m is an example of deliberate offending. If the consensus is that no PT was warranted under current law - should the law be changed? If the only mreason a try was not scored was ebcause the defence committed a PK or FK offence, why does the law of the game not allow that offence to be "looked through" to get to what would otherwise have happened?

 

[Dixie]

Third issue:

At 51:25, Blue 7 is rampaging through. Red 7 makes a despairing effort from behind, but can't reach him. Fortunately, Red 4 is immediately on hand and tackles Blue 7. Red 7 rolls, approaches the tackle from his side and notes that the SH has collected the ball. He dives over the two players on the ground to grab the ball from Blue 9's hands, and incurs both PK and YC.

There was no ruck, and no hint of a ruck. We were in open play at all times. Kvesic entered the tackle zone legally, and arguably once the tackle phase had ended. I wonder what was his offence?

 

[dave_clark]

what was the signal?

 

[Dixie]

what was the signal?

Brandished YC IIRC. But the ref was playing advantage which didn't ultimately accrue, so went back to the offence.

 

[Browner]

Same game, end of the first half Jimmy Cowans is awarded a FK 5m out after time exires when Perpignan shove early at a scrum. Perpignan players never retire, and engage Cowan before the line, but a Gloucester drive takes him close. TMO confirms that the ball was grounded by 6" short of the line. Ref comes back to the same mark as before with another FK.

Questions - given that the margin was so fine between score and no score, it is clear that only the offence prevented the try.

a) Should the ref at the very least have YC'd the offender(s)?
b) Should the ref have awarded a PT?

Relevant factors in b) include whether engaging a dangerous attacker without retiring 10m is an example of deliberate offending. If the consensus is that no PT was warranted under current law - should the law be changed? If the only mreason a try was not scored was ebcause the defence committed a PK or FK offence, why does the law of the game not allow that offence to be "looked through" to get to what would otherwise have happened?

PT, would be enough for me, all advantages are with the non offending side 'going' quickly............ but we see it all of the time. + 3rd issue, bad call IMO.