HC Semi - Niggle Owens makes some big, big calls

Dixie


Referees in England
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
12,773
Post Likes
338
Surprised no-one has yet commented on St Nigel's decision for a PT and YC in the Sarries v Clermont Auvergne HC semi final.

Someone with better skills than me will doubtless post a clip. Red charge-down a White kick in goal, ball goes high, remains in-goal and is dropping to a red player about 2m from the DBL. A White player arrives, and legally challenges Red attacker for the ball - neither collects cleanly. White then makes a second movement, batting the ball backwards away from the Red player, who by now is landing and off balance. The ball, directed backwards, bounces across the DBL and goes dead.

St Nige consults the TMO to ask whether the ball was deliberately knocked out of play. The replay on the big screen is not sufficiently granular, and St Nige offers the TMO the suggestion that there was no deliberate knock. TMO pauses, and offers the Saint a further replay. St Nige then deems that it was a deliberate knock, and that the appropriate sanction is a PT and YC. I was severely discomfited to find myself in agreement with Stuart Barnes's misgivings.

Firstly, while there knock backwards was clearly deliberate to get it away from the Red challenger, I found it impossible to say that the intent was to knock it dead. The White player had very few options as to where to put it, ad the fact that it bounced into touch rather than going forcefully there on the full gives me serious doubt as to whether it even entered the player's mind to put it dead. Sometimes, things just happen.

As to the PT, the offence occurred once the Red player had lost out in the challenge for the ball, and was unbalanced. It looked to me like St Nige "beamed White up" before the White challenger could make any challenge, leaving Red (in his mind) to catch and score uncontested. But the contest had been lost -if White was beamed up immediately before making the alleged illegal second contact with the ball, Red is unbalanced, unlikely to catch a bouncing ball close to the DBL and with other players arriving to contest the catch off the bounce. That doesn't sound to me like a probable score.
 
Last edited:

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,680
Post Likes
1,760
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
I thought it was a good call. With the DBL so close, Brock James had to expect that knocking the ball towards it would put it dead. Transfer that whole scenario to the same relative position outside the goal-line, and ask yourself whether you think he would have knocked the ball gently into in-goal


A try only has to be probable, and with the kind of try-scoring acrobatics we see from players these days, I think it was quite likely.
 

Fatboy_Ginge


Referees in England
Joined
Dec 14, 2012
Messages
126
Post Likes
29
Current Referee grade:
Level 15 - 11
10.2 c covers it Throwing into touch. A player must not intentionally knock, place, push or throw the ball with his arm or hand into touch, touch-in-goal, or over the dead ball line.
Sanction: Penalty kick on the 15-metre line if the offence is between the 15-metre line and the touchline, or, at the place of infringement if the offence occured elsewhere in the field of play, or, 5 metres from the goal line and at least 15 metres from the touchline if the infringement occured in in-goal.

A penalty try must be awarded if the offence prevents a try that would probably otherwise have been scored

There's the decision... Would Red have scored had the offence NOT occurred. I'm not so sure that it was probable that it would. It MAY have done but I'm not sure it was PROBABLE.
 

Skids


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2010
Messages
326
Post Likes
9
Current Referee grade:
Level 10
There was another doubtful call 2nd half IIRC.

Didn't prevent it form being a monstrously good performance from Sarries though.
 

beckett50


Referees in England
Joined
Jan 31, 2004
Messages
2,514
Post Likes
224
Current Referee grade:
Level 6
Agreed with the YC for deliberately making the ball dead; but felt that the PT was harsh as there was no player in the vicinity who would probably have scored. The Sarries player who jumped for the ball had Brock between himself and the ball and there were no other Saracens players close enough to ground the ball when it (should have) alighted
 

L'irlandais

, Promises to Referee in France
Joined
May 11, 2010
Messages
4,724
Post Likes
325
If the offence was worthy of a card, then you accept it was foul play.

[laws]22.17 Misconduct or unfair play in in-goal (b)...

A player who prevents a try being scored through foul play must either be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off.[/laws]

If it was foul play then you must award a penalty try.

[laws]22.4 Other ways to score a try

(h) Penalty try. A penalty try is awarded if a try would probably have been scored but for foul play by the defending team. A penalty try is awarded if a try would probably have been scored in a better position but for foul play by the defending team.[/laws]

So the double whammy is written in the laws.
(I'm not saying I agree with Nigel Owens' decision. Just pointing out that once he'd come to the conclusion that the ball had deliberately knocked dead, the penalty try + yellow card were inevitable.

Had the ball remained in the in-goal somebody would have grounded it, that much is sure. ;)
 
Last edited:

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,680
Post Likes
1,760
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
If the offence was worthy of a card, then you accept it was foul play.

< polite snip >

Had the ball remained in the in-goal somebody would have grounded it, that much is sure. ;)


While I don't agree at all with your reasoning, I do agree with that last part.

Had White 10 not given the ball that extra nudge, it seemed clear that it was travelling near parallel to the DBL and was going to come down in-goal.

SarvclePT.png


IMO, it would end up somewhere along the red line (yes, the ball is odd-shaped so it could have bounced out, but equally, it could have bounced onwards parallel to the DBL, or even further away from it. Discount White 10 (yellow arrow) because he's the infringer, so one of the four blue arrowed players (two red, two white) were candidates to get to it first.

Unfortunately, the views available in the highlights packages do not show the crucial one that was shown in the full replay, from the ground level goal-line camera on the other side of the field (Red's attacking right side). It gave the best indication of the direction the ball was travelling in before White 10 gave it the second nudge over the DBL.
 
Top