Hurricanes v Rebels

[Dickie E]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIzIZkVFTOA

I can be as 1 eyed as the next and I know one decision doesn't alter a game but have a look at game time 70:03.

Rebels deep in attack, Hurricanes SH in bin, Hurricanes scrum struggling. Then Conrad Smith goes off feet at break down and the whole fabric & momentum of the game shifts.

Pissed. Off.

I hate Conrad Smith. And Stu Berry. In equal amounts.

 

[The Fat]

And this is after you've had all weekend to calm down!

If it's any consolation, I thought there was going to be another YC at that point and was surprised when it didn't come

 

[Dickie E]

Never mind. Storm can make amends by smacking Cowboys tonight.

 

[Ian_Cook]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIzIZkVFTOA

I can be as 1 eyed as the next and I know one decision doesn't alter a game but have a look at game time 70:03.

Rebels deep in attack, Hurricanes SH in bin, Hurricanes scrum struggling. Then Conrad Smith goes off feet at break down and the whole fabric & momentum of the game shifts.

Pissed. Off.

I hate Conrad Smith. And Stu Berry. In equal amounts.

I see it differently.

White 15 (Mike Harris) is tackled by Gold 2 (Motu Matu'u) who releases the tackled player as Gold 13 (Conrad Smith) enters through the gate. Smith is on his feet when he jackles for the ball and Harris holds onto it. Gold 13 then falls forward onto the wrong side of the tackle and gathers the ball as he goes off his feet.

There is nothing to see here. The first offence - Harris not releasing, is the only potential PK, however gold cleared the ball quickly so not materiel; play on.

It was the incident a minute or two earlier (68:30 on the game clock) that really pissed me off. Gold 9 (TJ Perenara) slaps the ball out of the hands of White 9 (Nic Stirzacker) and gets YC for his trouble. This was a complete bullshit call by Stu Berry. The ball was slapped towards Gold's goal-line, so it wasn't a knock-on. Stirzacker has the ball lifted off the ground (so its out) and Perenara was perfectly entitled to knock it out of his opponent's hands, provided he was onside when he did so (and he was). If you can rip the ball out of an opponent's hands then you can knock it out too.

 

[Browner]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIzIZkVFTOA

I can be as 1 eyed as the next and I know one decision doesn't alter a game but have a look at game time 70:03.

Rebels deep in attack, Hurricanes SH in bin, Hurricanes scrum struggling. Then Conrad Smith goes off feet at break down and the whole fabric & momentum of the game shifts.

Pissed. Off.

I hate Conrad Smith. And Stu Berry. In equal amounts.

CS arrives at the TZ from the correct direction and gets his hands on the ball , so what is his offence exactly? ...ie There wasn't a ruck formed.

 

[irishref]

I see it differently.

White 15 (Mike Harris) is tackled by Gold 2 (Motu Matu'u) who releases the tackled player as Gold 13 (Conrad Smith) enters through the gate. Smith is on his feet when he jackles for the ball and Harris holds onto it. Gold 13 then falls forward onto the wrong side of the tackle and gathers the ball as he goes off his feet.

There is nothing to see here. The first offence - Harris not releasing, is the only potential PK, however gold cleared the ball quickly so not materiel; play on.

Interesting points Ian. I think Harris did actually place the ball as he is supposed to (you can see it better from the real-time camera angle since the slow-mo replay is from the blind side) but yes there is absolutely no ruck formed through lack of a supporting Rebels player.

But either way, I simply can't see how you think that Conrad Smith gathered the ball as he goes off his feet. The ball was on the ground either way so he can't be gathering a ball in a tackle, he's falling onto the wrong side of it. If Conrad Smith was a tackler and the tackled player manages to get the ball onto the ground before the tackler falls, then we'd ping Conrad all day, every day for lying on that side of it, would we not?

Surely we are in 14.1.(c) or even 14.2 territory and Conrad Smith is liable for a sanction.

 

[Browner]

Irishref,
Tackle complete
No ruck
Ball available to be played
CS arrives correctly and gets ball into his possession (its likely his opponent is actively resisting this lawful possession gathering)
He falls over as he gathers but he isn't being tackled
[LAWS][FONT=fs_blakeregular]A player who is not tackled, but who goes to ground while holding the ball, or a player who goes to ground and gathers the ball, must act immediately.[/FONT][/LAWS]

So he is now required to act in accordance with Law 14.1(a)
[LAWS][FONT=fs_blakeregular]14.1 Players on the ground(a)

A player with the ball must immediately do one of three things:


[/FONT]
[/LAWS][LAWS]

• Get up with the ball
• Pass the ball
• Release the ball.

[/LAWS]

He doesn't do the first, or the second, but he releases/makes the ball available ( the third) for others in the same way everyone routinely allow all BCs to do.

So its play on for me, well done referee.

 

[irishref]

Browner,

Sure the margins in this one are very fine and this is a great discussion, but I'll be stubborn and say I don't think Conrad had the ball in his falling-down action. I think his falling over the ball helped to secure possession.

I think the definition of law 14 you quoted "a player who goes to ground and gathers the ball" is a little misleading since, in my view, that covers the loose ball chase (mainly after a kick) and subsequent actions scenario and not this tackle area scenario. We could just as well quote the paragraph of the law 14 definition prior to yours and say "a player who obstructs the opposing team by falling down is negating the purpose and spirit of the game" etc...

I also feel that 14.1.(c) and 14.2.(c) apply absolutely and clearly to this particular scenario. If Conrad stays on his feet and "jackals" for the ball he'll get either clean ball or a penalty for his actions, but to me it is clear that his falling over the ball was the key element to his team gaining possession.

We're no doubt discussing this situation after watching the replay a few times, but my gut feeling when watching for the first time in real time was to ping yellow for going off their feet. I found it a pretty strange call to be honest.

But that's just me!

 

[Browner]

Browner,

Sure the margins in this one are very fine and this is a great discussion, but I'll be stubborn and say I don't think Conrad had the ball in his falling-down action. I think his falling over the ball helped to secure possession.

I think the definition of law 14 you quoted "a player who goes to ground and gathers the ball" is a little misleading since, in my view, that covers the loose ball chase (mainly after a kick) and subsequent actions scenario and not this tackle area scenario. We could just as well quote the paragraph of the law 14 definition prior to yours and say "a player who obstructs the opposing team by falling down is negating the purpose and spirit of the game" etc...

I also feel that 14.1.(c) and 14.2.(c) apply absolutely and clearly to this particular scenario. If Conrad stays on his feet and "jackals" for the ball he'll get either clean ball or a penalty for his actions, but to me it is clear that his falling over the ball was the key element to his team gaining possession.

We're no doubt discussing this situation after watching the replay a few times, but my gut feeling when watching for the first time in real time was to ping yellow for going off their feet. I found it a pretty strange call to be honest.

But that's just me!

We agree irishref that this is a decision that is on the margins ( and tbh i wouldnt have been surprised had it gone the other way ) perhaps my leaning towards rewarding legally entitled jacklers tips my balance in this marginal/slow mo review judgement - but that aside, there are ample TZone and Ruck laws already, so let's not constrict 'open play possession gatherings' beyond the C&O law 14 offences otherwise turnovers will become a thing of historical reference only.

PS... If you lean forward and try to pull a held ball, it often results in you overbalancing, especially at game speed etc.... Now if the BC had clearly released then maybe CS would've pulled the ball up into play without falling over ...ie, first offence??

Maybe JP also saw the continuation of play as the best flow outcome , who knows.

 

[RobLev]

Browner,

Sure the margins in this one are very fine and this is a great discussion, but I'll be stubborn and say I don't think Conrad had the ball in his falling-down action. I think his falling over the ball helped to secure possession.

I think the definition of law 14 you quoted "a player who goes to ground and gathers the ball" is a little misleading since, in my view, that covers the loose ball chase (mainly after a kick) and subsequent actions scenario and not this tackle area scenario. We could just as well quote the paragraph of the law 14 definition prior to yours and say "a player who obstructs the opposing team by falling down is negating the purpose and spirit of the game" etc...

I also feel that 14.1.(c) and 14.2.(c) apply absolutely and clearly to this particular scenario. If Conrad stays on his feet and "jackals" for the ball he'll get either clean ball or a penalty for his actions, but to me it is clear that his falling over the ball was the key element to his team gaining possession.

We're no doubt discussing this situation after watching the replay a few times, but my gut feeling when watching for the first time in real time was to ping yellow for going off their feet. I found it a pretty strange call to be honest.

But that's just me!

With you; for me his right knee goes down before he gets his hands anywhere near the ball, and he then completes his collapse by lunging for the ball.

 

[Ian_Cook]

But either way, I simply can't see how you think that Conrad Smith gathered the ball as he goes off his feet. The ball was on the ground either way so he can't be gathering a ball in a tackle, he's falling onto the wrong side of it.

If Conrad Smith was a tackler and the tackled player manages to get the ball onto the ground before the tackler falls, then we'd ping Conrad all day, every day for lying on that side of it, would we not?

I think its a 50/50 call. Does CS get his hands on the ball before or after his knee touches the ground? Or is it simultaneous? None of the video frames show this for sure and it is not as C&O as Dickie is making it out to be. The referee in this case has made a judgement call, I would have no problem with CS being pinged or not being pinged.

ETA - NOTE: The referee is in the best position to see this close up; better than any of the camera angles, and he didn't ping it.

Surely we are in 14.1.(c) or even 14.2 territory and Conrad Smith is liable for a sanction.

No, absolutely not. There has been a tackle. Law 14 cannot apply

Never mind. Storm can make amends by smacking Cowboys tonight.

Oh Dear! :biggrin: