[Law] May in-goal hold back?

[Taff]

Have you a supporting law for that?

I could have sworn I'd read it in a pre 2018 lawbook, but I've had a look on the online version and I can't find it.

... In my book, "foul play" is always material. I am prepared to change my stance on that if you can support your view in law. ... I can only assume that both took OB's, reasonable, position that the was two players getting tangled "nothing to see here, move along".

Foul Play is either "always material" or we decide it's immaterial and play on. It can't be both surely.

Personally, I'm in the "If it's immaterial, we play on" camp, but

1. it would depend on the offence - eg a headbutt would be treated differently to a sly shirt tug 20m back from play and
2. I would feel happier if I could find reference to it in the online lawbook.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

But was it "material"?

Imagine a 5m scrum. The attacking SH runs blindside with the ball and the attacking openside Flanker barges the opposing openside Flanker. Yes, technically there has been an infringement (playing the man with the ball / obstruction etc - take your pick) but did it really prevent a probable try? No, because there wasn't a chance in hell the openside Flanker could have done anything about it. I'm pretty sure the lawbook says that's OK.

Red by NKW
I thought you were just kidding, until

I could have sworn I'd read it in a pre 2018 lawbook, but I've had a look on the online version and I can't find it.


Foul Play is either "always material" or we decide it's immaterial and play on. It can't be both surely.

Personally, I'm in the "If it's immaterial, we play on" camp, but

1. it would depend on the offence - eg a headbutt would be treated differently to a sly shirt tug 20m back from play and
2. I would feel happier if I could find reference to it in the online lawbook.

I'm not sure if you are serious, or this is some 5th column tactic. Either way, it is fascinating

 

[Marc Wakeham]

I could have sworn I'd read it in a pre 2018 lawbook, but I've had a look on the online version and I can't find it.


Foul Play is either "always material" or we decide it's immaterial and play on. It can't be both surely.

Personally, I'm in the "If it's immaterial, we play on" camp, but

1. it would depend on the offence - eg a headbutt would be treated differently to a sly shirt tug 20m back from play and
2. I would feel happier if I could find reference to it in the online lawbook.

Perhaps you'd be better off if you stop digging until you find your law reference? I can send you a pre 2018 book if you'd like!

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Well, definitely he shouldn't..

Agreed it was an error but I can understand why it happened and why it did not become a real issue. But he'd have been better of not doing it.

 

[Taff]

Red by NKW
.... I'm not sure if you are serious, or this is some 5th column tactic. Either way, it is fascinating

Perhaps you'd be better off if you stop digging until you find your law reference? I can send you a pre 2018 book if you'd like!

Why would I want to undermine anyone? :chin:

Genuine question. If there was a 5m scrum and the attacking SH got the ball and went say blindside to score but the attacking openside Flanker pulled back the opposing Flanker (who for the sake or argument we will assume didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of stopping the Try because it was at the other side of the scrum) what would either of you give?

Would you award the Try or give a PK against the offending Flanker?

 

[Arabcheif]

Looking at the video (just refreshed there). May hooks his arm around the French lads arm and pulls it back. These guys can get up at an astonishing speed and he was on at leasts one knee when his arm was dragged back. I concede that Nig wouldn't have seen it from his angle in real time.

I believe this unfairly impeded the French lad. He may not have been able to get to the ball to touch it down (for a scrum - white). But for me there he was denied the opportunity.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Why would I want to undermine anyone? :chin:

Genuine question. If there was a 5m scrum and the attacking SH got the ball and went say blindside to score but the attacking openside Flanker pulled back the opposing Flanker (who for the sake or argument we will assume didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of stopping the Try because it was at the other side of the scrum) what would either of you give?

Would you award the Try or give a PK against the offending Flanker?

Did I mention "undermine"? You are digging a hole for yourself.


To answer your question from a 5m scrum who is to say that the flanker could not have got back to support a tackler / defend a ruck of maul situation. So yes if I saw it PK.

Now about that law reference?

 

[didds]

so my question remains - its not whether May did it or not, but why NO+TMO didn't even discuss it.

didds

 

[Taff]

Did I mention "undermine"? You are digging a hole for yourself.

You didn't, but NKW did. I had to look it up ..

DEFINITION: A fifth columnist is a person who undermines a larger group from within, usually in favour of an enemy group or nation.

... To answer your question from a 5m scrum who is to say that the flanker could not have got back to support a tackler / defend a ruck of maul situation. So yes if I saw it PK.

So any Foul Play gets penalised regardless of how minor or how material. Forget getting back to support anyone - the assumption in the question was the defending Flanker had no chance of supporting anyone.

.. Now about that law reference?

I can't find it even in a 2015 book. OB may know if it ever existed, but until last night I would have put £100 on it.

So my question remains - its not whether May did it or not, but why NO+TMO didn't even discuss it.

My best guess is either

• Both NO and the TMO missed it or
• Both NO and the TMO saw it but thought it obviously wasn't material and not even worth querying.

 

[OB..]

Now about that law reference?

I can't find it even in a 2015 book. OB may know if it ever existed, but until last night I would have put £100 on it.

I believe the original claim was that foul play should always be penalised? If so, what about the Advantage law?

 

[crossref]

I think the origin of this is the - useful - rule of thumb that in age grade rugby you shouldn't play advantage after an act of dangerous play .

Also good advice at adult levels .. but at adult levels there is more flexibility as circumstances direct

 

[Arabcheif]

I believe the original claim was that foul play should always be penalised? If so, what about the Advantage law?

But in this case the "non-offending" team didn't have an advantage. I believe the foul play to be punished would mean issuing either stern words/YC/RC to the offending player once play goes dead after advantage or no advantage - brought back for penalty. So play the advantage and then deal with the foul play.

 

[Balones]

One thing is certain. We won’t know if he could have got to the ball because he was held back.

 

[thepercy]

Watching the video Youngs takes the tap before the PK is awarded, and when he taps it NO obliges by blowing the whistle for him..

I disagree, the timing is perfect. At 2:41 in video NO hand in air, whistle at mouth, ball yet to be tapped. I tried to screen shot this, but it turns out I don't have the technical acumen to make that happen.

 

[Arabcheif]

TBF this is one of the only aspects of this I don't have an issue with. Pen awarded an tap taken quickly in front of the ref (as close to the mark as poss, as the players were still down). Tap is good, run is good, pass is good. May, I felt was marginally in front of the kicker. Then there was the pull back leading to the try.

 

[thepercy]

Where in the Law of the Game does it discuss Material Effect? Is this just something referees get from training documents and society meetings?

 

[crossref]

I disagree, the timing is perfect. At 2:41 in video NO hand in air, whistle at mouth, ball yet to be tapped. I tried to screen shot this, but it turns out I don't have the technical acumen to make that happen.

He may have had the whistle in his mouth , but he hadnt exhaled

 

[crossref]

Where in the Law of the Game does it discuss Material Effect? Is this just something referees get from training documents and society meetings?

it's not in the Laws, but it is embedded in official places - eg
https://officiating.worldrugby.org/index.php?module=1&section=19&subsection=89&page=2147&language=en

 

[Taff]

Where in the Law of the Game does it discuss Material Effect? Is this just something referees get from training documents and society meetings?

If every Ref penalised every single offence they saw (regardless of whether it was serious, immaterial etc) the game would be reduced to just endless penalty kicks. Where's the fun in that?

 

[OB..]

One thing is certain. We won’t know if he could have got to the ball because he was held back.

Go back a few frames from the shot of May's arm entangled with Dupont's. You will find that Dupont puts his arm across in front of May first. They are both trying to reach for the ball but it has rolled away too far, so they need to regain their feet. They both try to do this using their arms, hence the entanglement. I see no sign that May prevented Dupont from reaching the ball.

They were never going to get to the ball before Farrell anyway, so I don't think it was of interest to the officials.