Leinster v Bath - final decision

[JJ10]

For those that saw the game (I'll try and find a clip), thoughts on Garces' last decision? Hands whilst on the floor? Bath player in the side? Neither, play on?

I can see an argument for both...

 

[The umpire]

What about the Yc for Watson taking out Kearney n the air? No attempt to jump. Hasn't Garces been reading the memo? Nailed on Red for me after all the 'clarifications' following Russel's citing and ban.

 

[liversedge]

For those that saw the game (I'll try and find a clip), thoughts on Garces' last decision? Hands whilst on the floor? Bath player in the side? Neither, play on?

I can see an argument for both...

C&O Bath penalty because;

a) Bath player cleaning out clearly comes through the gate
b) Leinster player plays ball when a ruck has formed

The fact the Leinster player is debatably off his feet when he plays the ball is neither here or there since a ruck has formed.

Mark

 

[JJ10]

I agree. That was my reaction in real time. Garces goes with in the side - I can see *why* but I think he gets it wrong - he is at the side of the gate, but still comes through it for me! Only just.

 

[Wolrabs]

Hi,

I thought a ruck was only formed when there was one or more players from both sides who are on their feet and contesting for the ball. Until the ruck is formed, I thought layers could enter from an onside position and didn't have come through the gate. Watching the game, the ruck wasn't formed until Garvey got involved, so how could he come in from the side? Am I wrong in this?

The penalty should have gone Bath's way because of the Leinster player laying the ball on the floor.

Sean

( I support Bath, but I think they threw the game away earlier than this......)

 

[Ian_Cook]

Hi,

I thought a ruck was only formed when there was one or more players from both sides who are on their feet and contesting for the ball. Until the ruck is formed, I thought layers could enter from an onside position and didn't have come through the gate. Watching the game, the ruck wasn't formed until Garvey got involved, so how could he come in from the side? Am I wrong in this?

The penalty should have gone Bath's way because of the Leinster player laying the ball on the floor.

Sean

( I support Bath, but I think they threw the game away earlier than this......)

No. There is no offside at the tackle and the "the Gate" only applies at the tackle which is defined by this Law

[LAWS]Law 15.6 (d) At a tackle or near to a tackle, other players who play the ball must do so from behind the
ball and from directly behind the tackled player or the tackler closest to those players’ goal
line.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]

or in illustrated form....

 

[Taff]

Wolrabs, there is no "gate" at a ruck, but having said that a player joining the ruck must do so from behind or alongside the hindmost player.

 

[Wolrabs]

Wolrabs, there is no "gate" at a ruck, but having said that a player joining the ruck must do so from behind or alongside the hindmost player.

Hi,

And if you are the first to arrive?

Regards

Sean

 

[Ian_Cook]

Hi,

And if you are the first to arrive?

Regards

Sean

At the tackle....

Tackler must release, then get to his feet then he may play the ball from any direction (the gate doesn't apply to him)

Tackle Assist must release, then then move to the gate position to play the ball

All other players arriving at or approaching the tackle must enter through the gate

 

[Taff]

Hi, And if you are the first to arrive? Regards. Sean

Don't forget you need 2 players (from opposing teams) in "physical contact" to form a ruck.

So if you're the first to arrive it isn't a ruck yet, ie it's probably still a tackle, so tackle laws apply. Ie you can play the ball but you need to come in through your own "gate" and stay on your feet.

If you are in physical contact with an opponent before you play the ball, it's now a ruck and it's too late to play it.

They are very very fine margins I know (fractions of a second sometimes) but if it was easy, everybody would be doing it. :biggrin:

 

[Dixie]

I hope I am not hijacking the thread if I ask people to comment on another situation from the same game.

Bath (I think) put up a high ball. Both Matt Banahan and (inevitably) Rob Kearney challenged for the ball in the air, perfectly legally. Both got hands to it at the same time while still in the air; neither released it on landing. The ball did not emerge from the wrestling that ensued. How to restart?

[edit] Scrum obviously, but whose put-in? [/edit]

 

[crossref]

If Banahan had possession it's a turnover to Leinster,

[LAWS]c) Scrum following maul. The ball is thrown in by the team not in possession when the maul began. If the referee cannot decide which team had possession, the team moving forward before the maul stopped throws in the ball. If neither team was moving forward, the attacking team throws in the ball. [/LAWS]
but if Kearney had posssession then it's still Leinster

[LAWS](h) Scrum after a maul when catcher is held. If a player catches the ball direct from an opponent’s kick, except from a kick-off or a drop-out, and the player is immediately held by an opponent, a maul may form. Then if the maul remains stationary, stops moving forward for longer than 5 seconds, or if the ball becomes unplayable, and a scrum is ordered, the team of the ball catcher throws in the ball.[/LAWS]

If no one had possession .... well no need to go there --- give a Leinster scrum...

 

[OB..]

If neither team had possession[LAWS]c) Scrum following maul. The ball is thrown in by the team not in possession when the maul began. If the referee cannot decide which team had possession, the team moving forward before the maul stopped throws in the ball. If neither team was moving forward, the attacking team throws in the ball. [/LAWS]

 

[Dixie]

Thank you Crossref and OB. But what then is the answer? Crossref has highlighted an interesting lacuna in the laws - if the non-kicking side catch and are immediately held, they get the turnover. This does not seem to apply to the catcher if he is on the kicking team. However, that is only relevant if Banahan was deemed to be in possession. Much more likely is that the referee was unable to decide which of them was in possession, as they both took possession at the same time and neither relinquished it. that looks like a scrum to the side going forward - agree?

 

[OB..]

Thank you Crossref and OB. But what then is the answer? Crossref has highlighted an interesting lacuna in the laws - if the non-kicking side catch and are immediately held, they get the turnover. This does not seem to apply to the catcher if he is on the kicking team. However, that is only relevant if Banahan was deemed to be in possession. Much more likely is that the referee was unable to decide which of them was in possession, as they both took possession at the same time and neither relinquished it. that looks like a scrum to the side going forward - agree?

Correct.

 

[menace]

Thank you Crossref and OB. But what then is the answer? Crossref has highlighted an interesting lacuna in the laws - if the non-kicking side catch and are immediately held, they get the turnover. This does not seem to apply to the catcher if he is on the kicking team. However, that is only relevant if Banahan was deemed to be in possession. Much more likely is that the referee was unable to decide which of them was in possession, as they both took possession at the same time and neither relinquished it. that looks like a scrum to the side going forward - agree?

Correct.

So is that going forward once the ball is caught or going forward prior to the ball being caught (ie the kicking team is going forward)?

I presume it's the former? So if they catch the ball and they fall in heap instantaneously and no one is going forward - who gets it then? I presume the attacking team (I'm sure I read that somewhere).

(Just as an aside and probably not make a deal of difference but with this example did a maul form before they went to ground or did they go to ground and then the ball didn't emerge from the bodies over the top (ie Rucky/muckle thing?)??

 

[Dixie]

(Just as an aside and probably not make a deal of difference but with this example did a maul form before they went to ground or did they go to ground and then the ball didn't emerge from the bodies over the top (ie Rucky/muckle thing?)??

Maul formed briefly before collapsing legally without successful completion. Referee awarded scrum to defending team in all senses - the team in their own half, the team defending the high ball and (it seemed to me) the team going marginally backwards in the maul prior to collapse - Leinster. Tight decision though - I wouldn't criticise the ref. I just wondered what his thought process was. My guess is that he ignored Banahan's existence (hard, but seems to have happened), and gave Kearney the maul turnover on the basis that he caught it and was immediately enveloped.

 

[TheBFG]

not the only 50/50 that went the "home way" :wink:

 

[crossref]

it's a peculiar scenario. If either one of them had possession it's a scrum to Leinster .. but if you decide that neither of them had possession (or can't decide at all) then it's a scrum to Bath. Odd one.

For most scenarios, I think refs are best advised to avoid the 'can't decide' option and just make a call one way or another.

So in general terms when a maul commences, I'd normally make a call "maul taken in by blue" (and if it's a close one, well that's exactly what the ref is there for: to make close calls).

But I guess sometimes you really don't know, or two players really do get hold of the ball at the precise same moment.

 

[Phil E]

.. but if you decide that neither of them had possession (or can't decide at all) then it's a scrum to Bath. Odd one.

If neither of them had possession.......is it a maul?