Ireland v AllBlacks #2

[davidlandy]

It does seem like the team were ignoring 13.3

I wonder if that is because it wasn't in the 2017 Law Book and no-one has drawn their attention to the new Law ? epper:

That had me laughing out loud :biggrin:

 

[davidlandy]

From https://rugbyreferee.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/TMO_Protocol_Nov_18_Tier1_Hosted_Matches_EN.pdf



and situations relating to



So not just foul play for a try, so I would suggest yes, a TMO can suggest it, and it's within this protocol. Of course if he didn't suggest it then again kinda academic!

True enough, but what about this (from the same source), which would seem to indicate they can't consider it:

[LAWS]2.3 If the referee agrees to refer the matter to the TMO he will indicate what the potential offence
was and where it took place. Potential infringements which must be CLEAR and OBVIOUS are
as follows:
• Law 8.1. Scoring points
• Law 9.1 to 9.6 and 10.11 t0 10.23. Foul play: obstruction, dangerous play, tackling a
player without theball
• Law10.4. Offside: player in front of the kicker
• Law 11 Knock-* *on or throw forward
• Law 15.5 to 15.9 Ruck: offside at the ruck – players not joining the ruck
• Law 16.5. Maul: offside at the maul – players not joining the maul
• Law 18.1 and 2. Player in touch
• Law 18.3 to 18.7. Lineout: quick throw
• Law 21 In goal (including ball grounded by a defending player)
• Law 21.7 and 21.8 In goal: Grounding the ball and double movement.
2.4 Referee judgment decisions for all other aspects of the game are not included in the protocol
and may not be referred to the TMO.[/LAWS]

 

[crossref]

Its strange isn't it
Hee hee , perhaps no one told the authors of the protocol about the existence of new law 13.3 either !

 

[davidlandy]

Its strange isn't it
Hee hee , perhaps no one told the authors of the protocol about the existence of new law 13.3 either !

LOL again

 

[crossref]

So let's sum up ..

If something very like this happened again, but there was no knock on, who would give the try, and who would penalise green for handling on the floor, per 13.3 ?

I can give you my answer .. PK under 13.3

 

[CrouchTPEngage]

I agree wit crossref: PK for playing the ball on the floor

 

[seanaodh]

I agree too. I'll admit it didn't occur to me in the moment but once it did it's very clear. You can't do that. I'm glad the correct decision happened in the end because I thought Barnes overall had a good game, though he could have shown a YC to both teams.

 

[crossref]

So is it the case that the reason it doesn't occur to us in real time is that prior to the 2018 Law Book we would have thought it was ok ??

 

[davidlandy]

OK so what about law 7.1 from the 2017 law book?

[LAWS]7.1 Any player may fall on the ball.[/LAWS]

Although under 14.1 (a)...

[LAWS]14.1 PLAYERS ON THE GROUND
(a) A player with the ball must immediately do one of three things:
• Get up with the ball
• Pass the ball
• Release the ball.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]

But if his momentum carries him over the goal line or so close to it that he can reach out and score, does he really have to get up to his feet before scoring rather than reaching out and scoring?

If so, and although it seems counter-intuitive it seems logical to say so, why is this different to a player who is tackled to ground with the ball, whose momentum carries him so close to the line that he can reach out and score?

In the latter case (being tackled) he doesn't have to get to his feet again, even if released by the tackler, before reaching out and scoring.

Maybe this is why it seems so counter-intuitive to say that in this case green would have had to get back up to his feet before scoring?

Ah here it is - it's specifically allowed by 15.5 (g)

[LAWS]15.5 THE TACKLED PLAYER

(f) If a tackled player’s momentum carries the player into the in-goal, the player can score a try
or make a touch down.
(g) If a player is tackled near the goal line, that player may immediately reach out and ground
the ball on or over the goal line to score a try or make a touch down.
[/LAWS]

Think I've answered my own question!

 

[crossref]

It's really silly to discuss the meaning of the 2017 Law Book now we have the 2018 one .. but here goes
In 2017 the definitions said

This situation occurs when the ball is available on the ground and a player goes to
ground to gather the ball, except immediately after a scrum or a ruck.
It also occurs when a player is on the ground in possession of the ball and has not
been tackled

That combined with 14.1a I always argued allowed a player on the ground to grab the passing ball and immediately play it .

But new law 13.3 definitively makes such a thing illegal

 

[davidlandy]

It's really silly to discuss the meaning of the 2017 Law Book now we have the 2018 one .. but here goes
In 2017 the definitions said


That combined with 14.1a I always argued allowed a player on the ground to grab the passing ball and immediately play it .

But new law 13.3 definitively makes such a thing illegal

Thanks CR, but doesn't 13.3 (in new money) apply only to a player who is on the ground without the ball?

In our case the player went to ground to gather the ball, in which case isn't he allowed to immediately play it according to 13.1?

[Laws]13 The game is played only by players who are on their feet.


1. Players, who go to ground to gather the ball or who go to ground with the ball, must immediately:
a. Get up with the ball; or
b. Play (but not kick) the ball; or
c. Release the ball.[/laws]

So given that he immediately played the ball (attempting to place it to score), isn't he legal?

 

[crossref]

Yes
But thought he fell over in a tangle of feet with an opponent, and then the ball fortuitously bounced to him?

 

[davidlandy]

I thought he fell over in as tangle of feet with an opponent, and then the ball fortuitously bounced to him?

Sorry yes! You are quite right. Having watched it again after my previous posting, from the highlights real kindly posted earlier by another member, I agree that RK fell over in the act of trying to catch the ball, rather than diving on it to gather it, so in theory it should be Law 13.1 and PK black.

But, I had to watch the slow-mo TMO replays to be sure; at full speed and from the distance of the initial camera angle I couldn't really tell, despite having the huge advantage that I knew in advance what I was looking for.

So, if I had the benefit of a TMO replay, and if the protocols allowed me to review it for that law (which they don't), as above I would agree with the call of PK black.

However, I still think it's possible that the team of 4 considered Law 13 and decided on their one and only viewing in real time that it wasn't C&O, and that it could just as well have been falling on the ball to gather it, so "play on", and the protocols don't allow a TMO review for Law 13.

 

[crossref]

Yes
We are simultaneously discussing the general law and the specific incident .. which is always a confusing discussion.

In real time you give the tryscorer the benefit of the doubt
The tmo has to try and work out what actually happened