Heineken Cup - Ospreys vs Saracens - Penalty after TMO No Try decision

[rubyref]

Early on second half, Ospreys get ball down very close to Sarries goal line. Ref blows and goes to TMO.

Didn't catch what TMO said but it looked like ball didn't get as far as the goal line.

Ref restarts with penalty to Sarries with a secondary signal which looked like he was saying Ospreys didn't roll away.

I guess there's an argument to say Ospreys ball carrier didn't release as it didn't get in-goal and therefore not held up. But that wasn't what the ref signalled, and would seem very harsh.

Unless something else happened that I haven't seen.

 

[Dixie]

It was clearly not releasing. he either made it to the line or he held on in the tackle. No score - so PK the only rational outcome.

Jerome Garces had a very poor game IMO. Tough one for him - back to back Heinekens are not really a good idea; too much undissipated ill feeling. But he lacked control adn was struggling. Having sent the Ospreys prop to the bin, he then sent Brits to the bin for an early engage - he's a hooker for God's sake! Sandwiched between two props - how can he alone go early? the second Osprey binning for a trip looked harsh.

Unimpressed - I think he also missed a blatant changing of the ball by Farrell prior to a crucial kick - fortunately missed.

 

[colesy]

The signal the ref made was for a double movement - at least, that was my interpretation of his signal and that's what the commentator thought as well. Looking at the close in replay, I didn't see the double movement but I did see the ball grounded short of the line.

 

[Davet]

There is no offence of "double movement".

It can only ever be not releasing, this phrase is unfortunately used as shorthand. Anyone caught using it should be found having fallen down the steps in a tragic accident.

 

[Taff]

There is no offence of "double movement". It can only ever be not releasing, this phrase is unfortunately used as shorthand.

The problem with that though is that international refs use the phrase "double movement".

I admit it doesn't bother me unduly; it's what players and spectators understand after all.

 

[OB..]

The problem with that though is that international refs use the phrase "double movement".

I admit it doesn't bother me unduly; it's what players and spectators misunderstand after all.

Corrected that for you.

A player is allowed to reach out to score as long as he only uses his arm(s) and does not move his body forward. What part of that does "double movement" describe?

 

[Ian_Cook]

The term seems to come from Rugby League, where they call it a "Second Movement"

[LAWS]Section 11. The Tackle and Play-the-Ball
NOTES:
Second Movement after tackle: When an attacking player is tackled within easy reach of the goal line he should be penalised if he makes a second movement to place the ball over the line for a try.
[/LAWS]

 

[andyscott]

It was clearly not releasing. he either made it to the line or he held on in the tackle. No score - so PK the only rational outcome.

Jerome Garces had a very poor game IMO. Tough one for him - back to back Heinekens are not really a good idea; too much undissipated ill feeling. But he lacked control adn was struggling. Having sent the Ospreys prop to the bin, he then sent Brits to the bin for an early engage - he's a hooker for God's sake! Sandwiched between two props - how can he alone go early? the second Osprey binning for a trip looked harsh.

Unimpressed - I think he also missed a blatant changing of the ball by Farrell prior to a crucial kick - fortunately missed.

I think if you look the hooker did go early and 2 very strong correct decisions, not sure about the trip though. Zero tolerance we ask for, then people complain it wasn't just managed.

He is one of the only referees that referees properly at that level and the players are not used to it, and cannot respond. Thereby the game looks out of control.

The ball wasn't it a PK? Its only a conversion that has to use the same ball IIRC. JW ball wasn't an approved match ball AFAIK.

 

[Taff]

...The ball wasn't it a PK? Its only a conversion that has to use the same ball IIRC.

I thought the kicker has to use the same ball even for a PK, FK or conversion - unless it is defective. The other general restriction IIRC is that no team can try and gain an advantage by changing balls. And unless the kicker feels he's getting an advantage, why change it?

... A player is allowed to reach out to score as long as he only uses his arm(s) and does not move his body forward. What part of that does "double movement" describe?

Spectators and players know that a tackled ball carrier can place the ball in any direction. They also know that the same tackled player can't move his body forward after he's been tackled, but it's ok as long as his momentum takes him over the line - there never seems to be any questioning of this. The technical offence is "not releasing" but the phrase "double movement" explains things better in the spectators and players eyes. The only ones that seem to get our collective knickers in a twist about it is us referees; as long as we know what the technical offence is, does it really matter if we call it "double movement" if it describes it perfectly for the other 30 players, 14 subs, 5 wet "Yummy Mummys" and one border collie? :biggrin:

We've even seen international refs call it "double movement" in the RWC; I'm sure they know what the technical wording is, but it's just easier to call it what everybody else calls it - the sanction is the same.

 

[Phil E]

he then sent Brits to the bin for an early engage - he's a hooker for God's sake! Sandwiched between two props - how can he alone go early?

If the hooker lunges forward, the props are going to go with him, but he will have caused it. Simples.

 

[OB..]

Spectators and players know that a tackled ball carrier can place the ball in any direction. They also know that the same tackled player can't move his body forward after he's been tackled, but it's ok as long as his momentum takes him over the line - there never seems to be any questioning of this. The technical offence is "not releasing" but the phrase "double movement" explains things better in the spectators and players eyes. The only ones that seem to get our collective knickers in a twist about it is us referees; as long as we know what the technical offence is, does it really matter if we call it "double movement" if it describes it perfectly for the other 30 players, 14 subs, 5 wet "Yummy Mummys" and one border collie? :biggrin:

Then you have not had to spend as much time as I have explaining the real situation to various aggrieved players and spectators, and even clarifying it to some referees. It costs nothing to do it properly.

 

[Davet]

Its lazyness and should be stamped on from a great height. Perpetuating a falsehood simply because it's convenient is no excuse.

Firing squad time :chair:

 

[beckett50]

Had no issues with the YCs, but he got some 'early engagements' wrong. If u can call it in real time on the TV why can't he or the AR - who are much closer and looking for it.

I have to say that I don't mind his officiousness but he was a little inconsistent, and he wasn't helped by poor AR assistance (or lack of it); I refer, in part, to Opsreys player that dropped his knee and then got a "cauliflower bag" for his troubles.

An what's with that logo on the back of the Ospreys' shorts?!!!!!

 

[Account Deleted]

... but the phrase "double movement" explains things better in the spectators and players eyes...We've even seen international refs call it "double movement" in the RWC; I'm sure they know what the technical wording is, but it's just easier to call it what everybody else calls it - the sanction is the same.

It is wrong end of. The second / double movement can be legitimate e.g. placing the ball IMMEDIATELY. Just because others know no better / don't care, does not me we should join in as well.

We may as well ping people who don't "let him up" if we are going to pander to the myths and uniformed.

 

[The Fat]

Corrected that for you.

A player is allowed to reach out to score as long as he only uses his arm(s) and does not move his body forward. What part of that does "double movement" describe?

What game did Allain Rolland have this weekend? There was a try scored in that game where I thought the player used his knees to move forward to place the ball. AR went to his assistant and asked a question before awarding the try. I know there was a French team involved as AR was using French for some communication. If anyone can name the game, I'll see if I can find a video clip.

 

[Taff]

It is wrong end of.

In fairness ATTR nobody is suggesting that the tackled ball carrier can crawl his way to the line. That's all we're discussing is whether the use of the phrase "double movement" is wise. I've penalised players for it twice; in both cases the players asked (politely) why they were penalised. What do you do?

• Say "double movement" (like Allain Rolland did in the RWC) which everyone understands and accepts or
• Explain that they were penalised for not realeasing - and which as OB points out takes more time?

 

[The Fat]

In fairness ATTR nobody is suggesting that the tackled ball carrier can crawl his way to the line. That's all we're discussing is whether the use of the phrase "double movement" is wise. I've penalised players for it twice; in both cases the players asked (politely) why they were penalised. What do you do?

• Say "double movement" (like Allain Rolland did in the RWC) which everyone understands and accepts or
• Explain that they were penalised for not realeasing - and which as OB points out takes more time?

The signal should be "not releasing" and therefore the explanation should match the signal. If they then say "But I'm allowed to reach out and place the ball sir", your answer would be "It has to be your first movement/option" and that's all you should need to say on the field. If they want to take it up with you in the bar afterwards, you will still only need a minute to explain your decision.

 

[Davet]

• Say "double movement" (like Allain Rolland did in the RWC) which everyone understands and accepts or
• Explain that they were penalised for not realeasing - and which as OB points out takes more time?

Both are 4 syllables, and take exactly the same time to say. So why not say the one that is correct?

 

[Dixie]

An what's with that logo on the back of the Ospreys' shorts?!!!!!

I thought it might be for the Playboy club!

 

[The Fat]

What game did Allain Rolland have this weekend? There was a try scored in that game where I thought the player used his knees to move forward to place the ball. AR went to his assistant and asked a question before awarding the try. I know there was a French team involved as AR was using French for some communication. If anyone can name the game, I'll see if I can find a video clip.

Found it.
Your thoughts on this try please OB?
I know it could go either way but to me it looks like he gets back to his knees to propel himself towards the line. See from about 1:40
[video]http://www.ercrugby.com/eng/matchdaytv/play/media/id/10240[/video]