[6N] Ireland v England

[didds]

What I'm questioning is that 20W ends up in front of the ball when he plays it. Is that allowed?

I feel that if you aren't going to allow this then you open a whole new can of worms going forward. NH has complied with all other requirements and picking the ball up a metre (or less?) further forward then he might have hardly seems heinous.

Perhaps the defense should have defended that space better?

didds

 

[OB..]

I feel that if you aren;ty going to allow this then you open a whole new can of worms going forward. NH has complied with all other requirements and picking the ball up a metre (or less?) further forward then he might have hardl;y seems heinous.

Perhaps the defense should have defended that space better?

didds

didds

I find this approach more helpful than discussing the exact wording of the laws.

 

[The Fat]

I find this approach more helpful than discussing the exact wording of the laws.

Not looking for a forensic analysis of the wording OB, simply asking if the wording relates to two different actions and not just entry.
The first being where a player needs to be in relation to the ball WHEN he plays the ball and,
The second being the entry requirements for other players.
Fair question I would have thought.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

Did NH play the ball from behind the ball?

Nope, Try this one also. NH was Offside in general play. Open play does not end with a tackle as in a ruck or maul.

 

[ChuckieB]

Nope, Try this one also. NH was Offside in general play. Open play does not end with a tackle as in a ruck or maul.

check it out more closely. He was not offside in open play as he was behind the ball and JL when he made initial contact.

 

[The Fat]

28 minutes into the Leinster v Wasps game and Nigel Owens penalises a Leinster player for reaching back and picking up the ball that was behind his feet at the breakdown. He explains his decision saying the player picked the ball up that was behind where his feet were

 

[The Fat]

28 minutes into the Leinster v Wasps game and Nigel Owens penalises a Leinster player for reaching back and picking up the ball that was behind his feet at the breakdown. He explains his decision saying the player picked the ball up that was behind where his feet were

Incident at about 28 minutes. Watch closely, you will probably miss it at full speed but NO was right near the incident .
Also for those interested in maul laws, have a look at about 26 minutes and you'll see NO ping Leinster for a Long Placement from the jumper at a lineout.
All of my time references are for the game clock.

 

[ChuckieB]

Incident at about 28 minutes. Watch closely, you will probably miss it at full speed but NO was right near the incident .
Also for those interested in maul laws, have a look at about 26 minutes and you'll see NO ping Leinster for a Long Placement from the jumper at a lineout.
All of my time references are for the game clock.

most certainly feet in front of the ball when first contact with the ball made.

Somewhat different to the NH incident who contacts from behind and moves forward beyond the ball without ever losing finger tip contact before he picks it up.

...and so both decisions correct.

 

[The Fat]

most certainly feet in front of the ball when first contact with the ball made.

Somewhat different to the NH incident who contacts from behind and moves forward beyond the ball without ever losing finger tip contact before he picks it up....and so both decisions correct.

This is where we must agree to disagree on the NH incident and I'm cool with that.
The point of my last post was to indicate, IMO, that the Laws say that a player at the breakdown must play the ball from his side of the ball and not, as Nigel Owens explains, reach behind to pick the ball up.

 

[ChuckieB]

This is where we must agree to disagree on the NH incident and I'm cool with that.
The point of my last post was to indicate, IMO, that the Laws say that a player at the breakdown must play the ball from his side of the ball and not, as Nigel Owens explains, reach behind to pick the ball up.

Cool with it too! But then I have done the frame by frame analysis, which in itself is sad, but I needed to convince myself! Either impressive by NH to know the laws or, more likely, he needed to feel his way around the ball to be more certain of not fumbling it.

 

[didds]

(edited) see below

didds

 

[didds]

Incident at about 28 minutes. Watch closely, you will probably miss it at full speed but NO was right near the incident .
Also for those interested in maul laws, have a look at about 26 minutes and you'll see NO ping Leinster for a Long Placement from the jumper at a lineout.
All of my time references are for the game clock.

Think I got it now.

So what we are saying then that as long as you join the mess while putting you hand on the ball and keeping it there whatever else you do, its fine. What you can;t do is come past the ball then reach back and pick it up. Even though your body etc is in the same place eventually its all about having a fingertip on the ball first and maintaining that touch.

Got it.

didds

 

[The Fat]

I don't expect anyone to agree with me but that's petty by NO.

didds

I think that if you listen to the commentators after the PK, BOD says he rang NO about the one in the Ireland v England game the week before, so NO was probably primed and ready to go (blow) if something similar happens in the near future.

 

[ChuckieB]

And that's the only way you can interpret it for both decisions to be accepted as correct. However as RP never had to say anything, and we'll never be sure, just prefer to assume he saw it ( he was quite unsighted) and applied the right interpretation
Only scrum laws seem to clarify feet positioning in relation to the ball but they do not help here.

 

[didds]

I think that if you listen to the commentators after the PK, BOD says he rang NO about the one in the Ireland v England game the week before, so NO was probably primed and ready to go (blow) if something similar happens in the near future.

Actually TF having reviewed the NH video, I retracted my earlier statement which is why you'll no longer see it above - LOL. If that is what the laws say then fine. (I still think its a tad daft but its is B&W and so to be understood).

As I followed up with clearly the nuance is as you arrive to put a finger on the ball before walking past it, and then all is fine.

didds

 

[ChuckieB]

Not looking for a forensic analysis of the wording OB, simply asking if the wording relates to two different actions and not just entry.
The first being where a player needs to be in relation to the ball WHEN he plays the ball and,
The second being the entry requirements for other players.
Fair question I would have thought.

How prophetic these words turned out to be!

.........Almost the very next week we have NO stepping in with a relevant call to help sort us out with one half of our problem.

We now know if your feet are in front and you then seek to touch it you are definitely committing an infringement!



but, was it hands in the ruck, offside or something else? He didn't exactly say did he?:shrug:

 

[ChuckieB]

......Anybody see the Highlanders vs Sunwolves game and the disallowed try at 6.30 into the game?

I can't lay reference to the clip yet but, it's in this vein, and our Scotland Australia RWC Scenario so rather than start it as a new thread......

A bit of confusion at the time. The try was initially awarded by Jamie Nutbrown but was eventually reviewed and the TMO (Glenn newman) t/o the call for an accidental offside?


At the tackle the ball was kicked back through onto the #9 and bounced forward off his legs (he was trying to play it but hadn't actually managed to) and then another Red player at the tackle, just in front of him reached, down picked it up and went on to score.

I feel at a bit of a loss to understand how this is perhaps meets the definition of an accidental offside if the ball hadn't actually been played by the #9. Does this meet the criteria?

Jamie Nutbrown didn't looked convinced in my view. He was close enough at hand to award the try in the first place.

There may have been other reasons to disallow the try. Reaching down to pick it up when his feet were in front, perhaps? But on this call?

I am asking as I am wondering how it would have been treated in more open play and a more likely scenario if someone had kicked through a ball and it had bounced off a defender (not knocked on) and was then picked up by a team mate in front. Does AO always apply in such situations?

 

[Camquin]

the law says you are offside if are in front of a team mate who last played the ball.
Played: The ball is played when it is touched by a player.

But is the ball touching you the same as you touching the ball?
That is left to the reader.
In everyday usage that can depend on whether you are in a maths proof or a harassment case.

 

[Pinky]

KO and picked up in front is usually a penalty as is deliberately playing the ball eg a kick. Some refs suggest accidental off side (with a scrum sanction) where ball hits a player and is then picked up in front as was the case here. Definitely no try.

 

[didds]

KO and picked up in front is usually a penalty as is deliberately playing the ball eg a kick.

isn't it usually also down to whether an oppo was prevented from claiming the KO'd ball though?

Not that has always sat comfortably with me, as if a kick was caught in such a manner with no oppo anywhere near we'd still expect it to be penalised. Maybe its the distance involved?


didds