[Law] May in-goal hold back?

didds

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,072
Post Likes
1,800
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUVUCTF5LUM

Ball is kicked in goal, May and French defender (FD) in a foot race for the ball. They both end up on tyhe ground and slide into in-goal after the ball. May's right arm hooks around FD's left arm and potentially holds him back/down, and Farrell follows through and scores.

When NO went to the TMO neither of them discussed this (though the commentary team did).

So... was it just that neither NO or TMO spotted it? Or cos NO never asked the TMO cannot comment?

My query is not so much whether it should have been a try or not, but more why wasn't it discussed (do we think).

didds
 
Last edited:
Phil E

Phil E


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
16,104
Post Likes
2,365
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
I am guessing that they didn't think the French defender on his belly would have got to the ball before Farrell, so it became immaterial?
 
didds

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,072
Post Likes
1,800
That's my thought Phil - but then again it wasn't even discussed to be then discarded...

didds
 
T

TheBFG


Referees in England
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
4,392
Post Likes
237
Current Referee grade:
Level 6
50:50 they were both pulling at each other "playing incident"
 
P

pedr

Getting to know the game
Joined
Jan 22, 2011
Messages
96
Post Likes
6
The TMO seemed to be about to say something else after confirming the ball only touched a French arm, but was talked over by NO. I expect that if he’d been intending to discuss something which would rule out the try he would have persisted.
 
beckett50

beckett50


Referees in England
Joined
Jan 31, 2004
Messages
2,514
Post Likes
224
Current Referee grade:
Level 6
When NO went to the TMPO he said (IIRC and to paraphrase) that the '....on field decision was that the try was scored...' but that they wanted to check whether there was a knock-on. Based upon that brief from NO I'm guessing that the TMO was only looking for the potential knock-on.

Was the hold back C&O? Yes, IMO
Would it have stopped Farrell scoring? I doubt it.
 
A

Arabcheif

Player or Coach
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
680
Post Likes
74
Current Referee grade:
Level 1
I'm not sure how the French player was was holding May TBH. Plus the French player was on his knees when he got pulled back down. I think hat this was definitely material, given the ball was literally 1m a head of him. But I'm surprised there was no YC for the High Tackle.
 
beckett50

beckett50


Referees in England
Joined
Jan 31, 2004
Messages
2,514
Post Likes
224
Current Referee grade:
Level 6
Arabcheif said:
I'm not sure how the French player was was holding May TBH. Plus the French player was on his knees when he got pulled back down. I think hat this was definitely material, given the ball was literally 1m a head of him. But I'm surprised there was no YC for the High Tackle.
Click to expand...

May was holding back the French player, by hooking his right arm around the left one of the French player.
 
C

CrouchTPEngage


Referees in England
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
498
Post Likes
58
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
I thought May was making a legal tackle on the French player. He is allowed ( now ) to tackle the player as the defender is attempting to gain possession ( the French player's hand tried to control the ball ). The defender makes himself liable to a tackle as soon as he touches the ball with his hand. This is similar to how Jack Nowell tackled Jacob Stockdale who was juggling the ball in the in-goal last week.
Or am I stretching it ?
 
T

Taff


Referees in Wales
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
6,942
Post Likes
383
Phil E said:
I am guessing that they didn't think the French defender on his belly would have got to the ball before Farrell, so it became immaterial?
Click to expand...
Exactly what I was thinking.

The French player was on the floor and I can't see any way he could have scrambled to the ball before Farrell, even if his left arm hadn't been hooked.
 
B

Balones

Referee Advisor / Assessor
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
1,426
Post Likes
479
Taff said:
Exactly what I was thinking.

The French player was on the floor and I can't see any way he could have scrambled to the ball before Farrell, even if his left arm hadn't been hooked.
Click to expand...

Isn’t foul play, foul play regardless of materiality? The French player wasn’t allowed to make an attempt to get to the ball. He probably wouldn’t have made it but it is not up to May to decide.
 
A

Arabcheif

Player or Coach
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
680
Post Likes
74
Current Referee grade:
Level 1
Watch the video. They slid in-goal, the French player was on his knee and was just about to lunge forward. May hooked his arm and dragged him back down. If it was the opposite way around you'd have a PT and a YC. Of course it's material. He was denied (unfairly) the chance to play the ball (touch it down), for a 22 DO.
 
didds

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,072
Post Likes
1,800
There's no doubt it happened - that's not in question. Hence my actual question - why do we think NO+TMO ignored it?

they didn't see it?
they saw it but considered it totally immaterial?
or... ?

didds
 
A

Arabcheif

Player or Coach
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
680
Post Likes
74
Current Referee grade:
Level 1
I hope that it's just a case that they were focusing on the who touched the ball to see if it was a knock on off white. I'd suggest that if they saw it and they didn't think it was material, then that's a very poor judgement call.
 
O

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,981
Post Likes
1,838
The French player is initially behind May and tries to get an arm across in front of him when going for the ball. That traps May's arm. Rugby incident.
 
A

Arabcheif

Player or Coach
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
680
Post Likes
74
Current Referee grade:
Level 1
OB.. said:
The French player is initially behind May and tries to get an arm across in front of him when going for the ball. That traps May's arm. Rugby incident.
Click to expand...

Respectfully, are you watching the same incident. I would give you slide in with legs slightly closer to May. But is arm were no where near May until May grabbed one of them. The French player just dived for the ball and thats how he got in front of May. Never a hint of an arm from the french bloke.
 
T

Taff


Referees in Wales
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
6,942
Post Likes
383
Balones said:
Isn’t foul play, foul play regardless of materiality? The French player wasn’t allowed to make an attempt to get to the ball. He probably wouldn’t have made it but it is not up to May to decide.
Click to expand...
Yes, it's Foul Play, but there are different levels of Foul Play, ranging from technical offences up to the worst.

I haven't read the "simplified" lawbook but I'm sure there was a section in the previous book that said an offence by the scoring side could effectively be ignored if the try would probably have been scored anyway.
 
Ciaran Trainor

Ciaran Trainor


Referees in England
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
2,851
Post Likes
364
Location
Walney Island
Current Referee grade:
Level 7
I think that May held the Frenchman illegally. Now, France clearly put the ball in goal before play was stopped.
The offence took place in goal so where is the penalty, 5M out?
 
Z

Zebra1922


Referees in Scotland
Joined
Dec 20, 2017
Messages
717
Post Likes
233
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
I think May clearly held the French player. To the original question I suggest it was not discussed by NO/TMO as it was not material. Without the contact from May there was no possibility of the defender reaching the ball prior to the try being scored.

If this happened the other way round, defender holding back the attacker, same result (there is an offence, it is not material, defender touches down in goal).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top