Lions Series - Accidental Offsite?

[wayner]

So did Poite get the call correct in the end? In his discussion with Ayoub during the TMO discussion it sounded like they were going to stick with the penalty

He said "..are you happy for the knock on ,challenge in the after and penalty kick against 16 red in front" and George Ayoub said "Yes I am". Then Poite says "Oui Jean" appears to listen. He then calls the Captains together and explains that he is giving a scrum.

Was it the correct call?

And what did "Jean" say to change his mind when both he and the TMO agreed with the penalty but he changes his mind a few seconds later.

 

[Pegleg]

For me Owens caught the ball from instinct. He dropped the ball as soon as he realised. Whilst you could argue that it was a PK. Empathy with the players says; no way. Just as the PK that won it for the lions last week was poor game management this time it was good. The Lions gained from both. Such is life.

 

[DocY]

I'll start by saying that ultimately, I think the PK/scrum decision was 50:50. Ball played forward and hits a team mate in front who doesn't do anything: accidental; player in front actively goes for the ball: deliberate. This was between the two. Had Owens done nothing, the ball would have hit him, but he momentarily caught it and immediately dropped it, which I think is very pertinent. Had he held onto it, definite penalty.

As as for the use of the TMO, you're allowed to use it for potential foul play (which he did), and if you see something else can you act on it? I don't know the protocol for this series, but I don't think it's clear cut that it was wrongly used.

 

[The Fat]

And what did "Jean" say to change his mind when both he and the TMO agreed with the penalty but he changes his mind a few seconds later.

Forget, for a minute if the call was correct or not, your last sentence is where I had the WTF? moment. Something changed between the sideline when he talked to TMO and when he got to the captains. Is it possible for the TMO to bring down the "Cone of Silence" and say something to the referee, that we can't hear, to change his mind. I don't know, maybe something along the lines of, "Pssst, Roman. Scotland, RWC, Joubert"

 

[wayner]

Something changed between the sideline when he talked to TMO and when he got to the captains. Is it possible for the TMO to bring down the "Cone of Silence" and say something to the referee, that we can't hear, to change his mind. I don't know, maybe something along the lines of, "Pssst, Roman. Scotland, RWC, Joubert"

I could be wrong in that he could have said Oui George rather than Oui Jean. That would corroborate what you are saying.

 

[Nigib]

It was a stonewall PK, no provision for 'accidental' in law.

11.7 When a player knocks-on and an offside team-mate next plays the ball, the offside player is
liable to sanction if playing the ball prevented an opponent from gaining an advantage.
Sanction: Penalty kick

Poite gave the correct decision initially, and then for some reason not clear on audio changed his mind. If there was no opponent likely to gain advantage, then the call should have been scrum for knock on.

 

[wrighty]

Is the shoulder part of the arm ? If not then no knock on . However Williams still played the ball and Owens interfered with play, from an offside position therefore PK . I think Poite was trying to avoid a Craig Joubert moment ! AB's rightly annoyed as it as clearly one of their ''go to'' restarts .

 

[crossref]

it doesn't matter whether it was arm or shoulder - either way Williams was offside.

 

[The Fat]

it doesn't matter whether it was arm or shoulder - either way Williams was offside.

Did Read touch the ball first and knock-on?

 

[DocY]

It was a stonewall PK, no provision for 'accidental' in law.

So if a scrum half took the ball out of a scrum then lost it forward and it bounced off his no. 8's arse, you'd give a penalty?

 

[Dixie]

It was a stonewall PK, no provision for 'accidental' in law.

11.7 When a player knocks-on and an offside team-mate next plays the ball, the offside player is
liable to sanction if playing the ball prevented an opponent from gaining an advantage.
Sanction: Penalty kick

Poite gave the correct decision initially, and then for some reason not clear on audio changed his mind. If there was no opponent likely to gain advantage, then the call should have been scrum for knock on.

Well yes, there is a strong case for that. The counter-case, however, is 11.6:

[LAWS]11.6(a) When an offside player cannot avoid being touched by the ball ... the player is accidentally offside. ... If the player’s team gains an advantage, a scrum is formed with the opposing team throwing in the ball.[/LAWS]

Owens was very close indeed to the knock-on. He could not, in my view, have evaded the ball - it was going to touch him come what may. Instinctively, he caught it - i.e. he made sure the ball did not bounce away from him after contact. The question is whether that action negated the fact that the ball would hit him regardless. Poite clearly went with the routine call initially, which I'm sure we all factor into our thinking - if you catch it, you are responsible for it hitting you - the more so the higher up the levels you play. But I think Poite, perhaps on seeing a big-screen replay, realised this may have been more nuanced.

I initially thought the AB's were robbed by that decision. On reflection, I think he displayed why he is an elite ref and I never rose above mediocrity.

 

[Pegleg]

It was a stonewall PK, no provision for 'accidental' in law.

11.7 When a player knocks-on and an offside team-mate next plays the ball, the offside player is
liable to sanction if playing the ball prevented an opponent from gaining an advantage.
Sanction: Penalty kick

11.6 and common sense Owens was retreating and the ball goes into him. Accidental. Empathy with the game.

 

[Pegleg]

I've made similar calls in the sticks many times and never has an advisor pulled me up on it.

 

[The Fat]

It is certainly going to raise forensic analysis of the Laws and what actually happens and how the two are interpreted.
There is no doubt 16 Red starts in front of Williams???
I cannot tell from the angles I have seen if Kieran Read gets a hand to the ball or not.
The ball then hits the Red jumper on either the head or shoulder when he is about level with the "L" in Standard Life painted on the ground. The ball's trajectory is altered at this stage. Will need frame by frame analysis to tell if it actually goes towards the AB's DBL, Goes sideways, or continues to ever so slightly continue towards the BIL's DBL.
When Red 16 touches the ball, it is between the "r" and the "d" in Standard. Therefore Red 16 is actually closer to his own DBL when he makes contact with the ball than where the Red jumper made initial contact.
Body contact between Read and the Red jumper means that the Red player's momentum sees him fall towards his own DBL, instead of landing where he made contact with the ball, and thus keeps him "goal side" of Red 16 throughout the whole incident. Had the jumper landed where he had made contact, Red 16 would have been behind him when he caught the ball.

Maybe the crux of the matter rests with
(a) Did Read knock-on?
(b) Can you be offside if the ball doesn't actually travel forward?

Or could simply be,
11.6(a) When an offside player cannot avoid being touched by the ball ... the player is accidentally offside

 

[Camquin]

More importantly did the ref have to blow the whistle.
The ball was gathered by black 13 who looked to be clear for the line.

 

[BikingBud]

He says "Oui Jerome"

So he was getting something from JG on the touch line.

But i think letting the ABs play on was probably the call.

 

[Nigib]

So if a scrum half took the ball out of a scrum then lost it forward and it bounced off his no. 8's arse, you'd give a penalty?

Would it prevent an advantage being gained by an opponent? If yes, then PK, but very unlikely so scrum highly probable in that instance.

 

[CrouchTPEngage]

Yep. Agreed. I heard it as "Oui, Jerome" and surprised no advantage was played as AB's had regained possession and were advancing towards the goal line.
It would have been a horrible way to decide the game and the series though

 

[wrighty]

No . Ken Owens was running back and CAUGHT the ball , his choice , at what stage of the split second did he decide to drop it ? He was better placed than anyone to see who played the ball first and should have left it as he was in front of his own man .

 

[Rushforth]

Did Read touch the ball first and knock-on?
View attachment 3568

Thank you for a better video than the live feed I had. My initial impression was that the challange wasn't fair, and this confirms it - although not for the reason I thought at the time.

Going for a ball with a single hand and knocking it on is a penalty when the receiver is expecting a pass from a team mate. I don't have a problem with it not being a penalty in a fair challenge for the high ball, even if there is a knock-on just with a single hand - it isn't deliberate, just desperate - but it has to be one or the other.

What worries me more though is in that video right towards the end, around 5:15:

No, no. No. (Ref clarifies) I know, I know, in the rules it is not an accidental offside.

Note that this is from the person who was jumping with his back turned himself, the captain. Just to be clear, if he's going for a fair contest, he does have the right to face back towards his own support players, but the thing is that he isn't vaguely able to see the alleged action in real time:

Given that both knock-on by Black 8 and dangerous play by Black 8 happen before any potential off-side by Red 16, downgrading the penalty reflex decision to just a scrum is giving Black the benefit of the doubt not once but twice, in my opinion (which is almost as humble as that of Ian_Cook).

Never mind the fact that Red 16 first gets a touch of the ball closer to his own DBL than where the ball was touched in the air, from the camera angle available. Black 8 clattering into the Red jumper creates the illusion that Red 16 remains in front of the jumper, but this excellent video explains all of that: