Har vs Sal

[Blackberry]

At about 61.30 a pundit says (paraphrasing) "Well, he came in from the side but because the ball was over the try line the ref didn't give it, he was lucky"
Sob, wail.

 

[Iron_Lung]

Every country has a particular commentator who is often completely certain about a law and completely wrong at the same time. In Australia that title is frequently fought over by Messrs Kearns, Kafer and Martin. Hence the reason I turn down the sound on the TV and try to find some alternate commentary...

 

[Dickie E]

why sob, wail? Sounds like a reasonable description. Or is it the "try line" bit you don't like?

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

Watched the game in the pub and thought the ref had a poor game. Penalised sale at one point for binding in front at a 5m line then later on totally ignored harlequins doing exactly the same.
Also some very dubious penalties at the end of the first half when I thought sale came through the middle of a maul and he said they came around.
Sale seemed to take some guys off to avoid getting singled out for penalties

 

[Blackberry]

why sob, wail? Sounds like a reasonable description. Or is it the "try line" bit you don't like?

I was thinking that the maul he came in at the side off ended as it crossed the try line.

 

[Dickie E]

I was thinking that the maul he came in at the side off ended as it crossed the try line.

still not seeing your beef. In your paraphrase he didn't use the word "maul". And even if he did, it was a reasonable descriptor of the mass of bodies with the ball in the middle.

 

[L'irlandais]

[laws]22.6 Scrum, ruck or maul pushed into in-goal
A scrum, ruck or maul can take place only in the field of play. As soon as a scrum, ruck or maul is pushed across the goal line, a player may legally ground the ball.This results in a touch down or try.[/laws]the maul has ceased to exist, in-goal, the question is ;
1). Is coming in from the side an infringement in the in-goal area?
2). Or was the referee right in awarding the try?

 

[RobLev]

still not seeing your beef. In your paraphrase he didn't use the word "maul". And even if he did, it was a reasonable descriptor of the mass of bodies with the ball in the middle.

Presumably that " he was lucky" implies that the ref should have penalised him?

 

[Taff]

I was thinking that the maul he came in at the side off ended as it crossed the try line.

.. the maul has ceased to exist, in-goal, the question is ;
1). Is coming in from the side an infringement in the in-goal area?
2). Or was the referee right in awarding the try?

I don't see why Maul laws should apply in-goal if the Maul can't exist in-goal; just like tackle laws don't apply once the goal line's been crossed. :chin:

 

[L'irlandais]

So the referee's decision to award the try was correct. quod erat demonstrandum