Here are some questions about a game we all saw.
There was a maul that was pulled down by Fiji near the goal line and referee Peyper awarded a penalty try.
From the lineout there was a period when England sheared off a couple of times (defenders did not leave it voluntarily) and contact was made by this "tank" of players with defenders.
After some pin-balling by the "tank" into defenders the "tank" was pulled down.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=MvHWltT1yc
Questions:
1. Did the Fijians leave the maul voluntarily before contact was made at 2:15 or did England just sheer off and power through them leaving the attackers clear - and could not a case for powering through be made earlier leaving no defenders involved then either?
2. If the defenders didn't leave voluntarily, did not obstruction occur at the next contact since the ball carrier was in the rear?
3. Would obstruction have been clear and obvious to a TMO if the matter had been reviewed?
4. Since so many TMO reviews were requested on the weekend, would it not have been prudent of Peyper to review the first try of the RWC?
.
There was a maul that was pulled down by Fiji near the goal line and referee Peyper awarded a penalty try.
17.4 (f)
When players of the team who are not in possession of the ball in the maul voluntarily leave the maul such that there are no players of that team left in the maul, the maul may continue … etc etc
When players of the team who are not in possession of the ball in the maul voluntarily leave the maul such that there are no players of that team left in the maul, the maul may continue … etc etc
From the lineout there was a period when England sheared off a couple of times (defenders did not leave it voluntarily) and contact was made by this "tank" of players with defenders.
After some pin-balling by the "tank" into defenders the "tank" was pulled down.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=MvHWltT1yc
Questions:
1. Did the Fijians leave the maul voluntarily before contact was made at 2:15 or did England just sheer off and power through them leaving the attackers clear - and could not a case for powering through be made earlier leaving no defenders involved then either?
2. If the defenders didn't leave voluntarily, did not obstruction occur at the next contact since the ball carrier was in the rear?
3. Would obstruction have been clear and obvious to a TMO if the matter had been reviewed?
4. Since so many TMO reviews were requested on the weekend, would it not have been prudent of Peyper to review the first try of the RWC?
.
Last edited:
