[Law] May in-goal hold back?

[Marc Wakeham]

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

Page 1 of the 2019 book states

[LAWS]APPLICATION
There is an over-riding obligation on the players to observe the laws and to respect the
principles of fair play. The laws must be applied in such a way as to ensure that the game is
played according to the principles of play. The match officials can achieve this through
fairness, consistency, sensitivity and, when appropriate, management. In return, it is the
responsibility of coaches, captains and players to respect the authority of the match officials.[/LAWS]

I take that to include using the principles of Material effect.

 

[Arabcheif]

OB.... I've just looked at the video again and specifically looked for what you've said. Nope I think your interpretation was incorrect. I saw the French lad with both hands on the ground (underneath himself) trying to get up. Then May hooked the French lads arm. Other than OB, does anyone else disagree with how I viewed it?

 

[OB..]

OB.... I've just looked at the video again and specifically looked for what you've said. Nope I think your interpretation was incorrect. I saw the French lad with both hands on the ground (underneath himself) trying to get up. Then May hooked the French lads arm. Other than OB, does anyone else disagree with how I viewed it?

Do you agree that the first arm contact was Dupont putting his arm across in front of May?

 

[Arabcheif]

No, the first was May putting his arm across Dupont. He reached forward (in my opinion the camera angle makes it look like it is cross May. Even if it was this is the rugby incident that you were talking about. Both players going for the ball, so yeah if May had scored the try, or Dupont got the ball down. All good. It's what happened after that. Dupont has both hands on the ground and is past (just) halfway back to his feet when May hooks his right arm round Dupont's left arm.

Now I get that Farrell may well have still scored, but Dupont was unfairly impeded and there's a 40/60 chance in my view that had he not been pulled back down he'd have stopped the try. To me this is not immaterial. if it was 10/90 or maybe even 20/80, then I'd have a different view. So everything was fine till May hooked Dupont's arm, then Pen France at that point.

 

[Balones]

Do you agree that the first arm contact was Dupont putting his arm across in front of May?

I have reviewed the video several times and in slo-mo. The only reason that Dupont has his arm in front if May is because he was in front of May and actually got to the ball first. There is no change of running action or movement towards the ball. Unlike May who does a deliberate action to pull back.

 

[collybs]

But Dupont was the ground and out of the game. Under law 13.3a he must allow a player (Farrell) on his feet to play the ball.

Law 13
A player on the ground without the ball is out of the game and must:
a) Allow opponents who are not on the ground to play or gain possession of the ball.
b) Not play the ball.
c) Not tackle or attempt to tackle an opponent.
Sanction: Penalty.

 

[Thunderhorse1986]

I have reviewed the video several times and in slo-mo. The only reason that Dupont has his arm in front if May is because he was in front of May and actually got to the ball first. There is no change of running action or movement towards the ball. Unlike May who does a deliberate action to pull back.

Viewing the video *in slow motion and several times* before coming to a conclusion suggests the offence is a long way from "clear and obvious" and it is very hard to definitively conclucethat this was not just a rugby incident. Play on.

 

[OB..]

I don't see that either Dupont or May had a realistic chance of getting to the ball before Farrell. Their slide was beaten by the bounce of the ball.

 

[Taff]

I don't see that either Dupont or May had a realistic chance of getting to the ball before Farrell. Their slide was beaten by the bounce of the ball.

And even if the French player managed to scramble back to his feet, does anyone honestly reckon he would have beaten Farrell to the ball?

 

[Arabcheif]

Collybs -Except a player can ground the ball while not on their feet while in-goal.

And

OB - The ball was literally just over a meter away when he was pulled down. While I concede that it is unlikely he would've got to the ball before Farrell, I contend that there was a non-slim chance he may have, had he not been impeded. I've seen crossing over given (or obstruction) to a player who was not making an attempt to tackle as he was approx 2m away (from the "screen") and not in a position to make a tackle. This was far more material.

 

[Arabcheif]

And even if the French player managed to scramble back to his feet, does anyone honestly reckon he would have beaten Farrell to the ball?

Most likely not, but the point is he was denied the opportunity. If it ws the other way round I suspect there would be a pen try and card.

 

[Phil E]

Most likely not, but the point is he was denied the opportunity. If it ws the other way round I suspect there would be a pen try and card.

So now your suggesting the referee was biased to England and cheated?
Totally out of order and untrue.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Most likely not, but the point is he was denied the opportunity. If it ws the other way round I suspect there would be a pen try and card.

If so that would be against the laws of the game.

- - - Updated - - -

OB.... I've just looked at the video again and specifically looked for what you've said. Nope I think your interpretation was incorrect. I saw the French lad with both hands on the ground (underneath himself) trying to get up. Then May hooked the French lads arm. Other than OB, does anyone else disagree with how I viewed it?

I disagree with you.

 

[Arabcheif]

Phil E - I've not once suggested that NO was bias towards England. I'll thank you not to a) make assumptions - and b) make wild baseless accusations toward me (and anyone else for that matter).

I've said previously that NO wouldn't have seen that from his angle and that I believe that they didn't look at that, they just reviewed whether it was a knock on against England (which it wasn't). Errors can be made without being bias, I'm suggesting that the referee team made an error in this case.

I understand that your from England and that you may be seeing these things as suggested by a previous poster though "Rose Tinted Glasses" but again stick to the facts in my statements. By all means ask i I am suggesting something. Don't make a statement that I am suggesting something, when I'm in actual fact not.

Marc - Fair enough, can you please describe what you saw? I've went through still frames and can hopefully at some points share them if I can figure out how to lol.

And I'm not sure which part is against the Laws of the game. Are you agreeing that there would be a penalty try and a card or disagreeing?

 

[Phil E]

Phil E - I've not once suggested that NO was bias towards England. I'll thank you not to a) make assumptions - and b) make wild baseless accusations toward me (and anyone else for that matter).

I've said previously that NO wouldn't have seen that from his angle and that I believe that they didn't look at that, they just reviewed whether it was a knock on against England (which it wasn't). Errors can be made without being bias, I'm suggesting that the referee team made an error in this case.

I understand that your from England and that you may be seeing these things as suggested by a previous poster though "Rose Tinted Glasses" but again stick to the facts in my statements. By all means ask i I am suggesting something. Don't make a statement that I am suggesting something, when I'm in actual fact not.

No glasses as I haven't commented one way or the other on the decision.

You stated that if it was the other way round (Blue player hooking White arm) it would have been a penalty try and a card. That means you suggested the referee would penalise Blue but not White. How else are we meant to read that?

 

[Arabcheif]

I'm guessing you disagree with this. Would you be happy if this happened the other way around and a try wasn't scored as a result? You can read that an error was made. If blue had held white back, I'd FULLY expect a PT to be awarded after a review, unless the same error was made and that he focus was on who's hand touch ed the ball over the line.

You have commented, you made the first comment. You stated that you thought that the action may have been deemed immaterial. Therefore you agree with the decision to award the try. Therefore you agree that there was no infringement/foul play. Please advise me if I'm wrong, this is just my observation from your comments thus far.

 

[Phil E]

You have commented, you made the first comment. You stated that you thought that the action may have been deemed immaterial. Therefore you agree with the decision to award the try. Therefore you agree that there was no infringement/foul play. Please advise me if I'm wrong, this is just my observation from your comments thus far.

You are wrong.
I made no comment on whether the decision was right or wrong, just answered a question on why the referee might not have discussed it.
Do not put words into my mouth.

Question asked:
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

My response to that specific question was:
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?

 

[crossref]

I actually suspect they were focusing so hard on whether there was a knock on, they didn't even notice the arm tangle

Admittedly this suspicion is based on the fact that .. on the day .. when I watched the replays, I was focused so hard on the possibility of a knock on, I didn't notice the arm tangle

I would evidently be a rubbish TMO

 

[Taff]

I actually suspect they were focusing so hard on whether there was a knock on, they didn't even notice the arm tangle.

I assume the TMO is in a soundproof bubble and doesn't even see the general TV coverage.

In this case it may have helped because it was one of the first things the commentators picked up on.

 

[Arabcheif]

Phil E - Respectfully - The comment made strongly suggested agreement to the on-field and subsequent TMO decision. This has been reinforced to me with our own interactions here. My comment was an assertion based on our back and forth. Apologies if I've misinterpreted your responses which seem to be supporting the premise that as a player, I can grab a fellow player, not in possession of the ball. Again apologies if that is me getting it wrong - again.

I conclude for the day that, it was you sir, that was putting words in my mouth by inferring I was calling NO a cheat. Personally I think he's a fine ref. But in this instance he's made an error.


For the record - again - I do think that they were focusing on the knock-on and didn't review the rest of the action, so didn't see the hook of the arm.