[Law] No clear separation no knock on?

[Baylion]

During the Stormers vs Brumbies game the Stormers (Blue) "scored" a try where the blue player "lost" the ball during the dive but according the TMO there was "no clear separation" of the ball from his arm and the try was awarded.

https://youtu.be/ZytbA9CoIQw at about 2:00 (full version not available yet)

Looking through the laws, clarifications and guidelines I couldn't find anywhere where this interpretation is addressed.

Law 22.1 (a) the states that to ground the ball (unless it's loose on the ground) a player must hold the ball in his hand or arms. Merely maintaining contact with the ball isn't mentioned.

Is this interpretation the generally accepted interpretation?

 

[menace]

During the Stormers vs Brumbies game the Stormers (Blue) "scored" a try where the blue player "lost" the ball during the dive but according the TMO there was "no clear separation" of the ball from his arm and the try was awarded.

https://youtu.be/ZytbA9CoIQw at about 2:00 (full version not available yet)

Looking through the laws, clarifications and guidelines I couldn't find anywhere where this interpretation is addressed.

Law 22.1 (a) the states that to ground the ball (unless it's loose on the ground) a player must hold the ball in his hand or arms. Merely maintaining contact with the ball isn't mentioned.

Is this interpretation the generally accepted interpretation?

I can see how if there is no seperation from the palm of the hand as it is grounded ( ie not strictly gripped) how that could be called 'held'. And i can see how some benefit is given to the attacking side as the score seems inevitable (imo - we should not look for small bobbles to try and not award a try). But how the f@ck the Tmo could allow that to ge awarded is beyond me! Must be in a secret TMO email?
That was a critical incident at that time with that score line. I'm sure On review Jaco will not be pleased with his Tmo.

(Ps I'm a brumbies fan)

 

[Treadmore]

During the Stormers vs Brumbies game the Stormers (Blue) "scored" a try where the blue player "lost" the ball during the dive but according the TMO there was "no clear separation" of the ball from his arm and the try was awarded.

https://youtu.be/ZytbA9CoIQw at about 2:00 (full version not available yet)

Looking through the laws, clarifications and guidelines I couldn't find anywhere where this interpretation is addressed.

Law 22.1 (a) the states that to ground the ball (unless it's loose on the ground) a player must hold the ball in his hand or arms. Merely maintaining contact with the ball isn't mentioned.

Is this interpretation the generally accepted interpretation?

A clarification from 2012 seems to cover an analgous situation (courtesy FlipFlop)

Request
The FFR request a clarification for the following:

Following a kick ahead, the ball goes over the goal line and whilst it is still up in the air, a player places his hand on it and grounds it. However, before this player grounds the ball, his feet are in touch.

We would like to know:

• Whether Law 22.4 (g) applies only to a ball already on the ground before it is touched down or other situations as described above;
• Whether the situation, as described above, is equivalent to “carrying the ball”.

Clarification in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee

.
.
.
The designated members confirm that:

1. A try should not be awarded,
2. The player is considered to be carrying the ball as the ball is in the air when it is first played and,
3. Law 22.4 (g) only applies if the ball is on the ground.

 

[Ian_Cook]

I can see how if there is no seperation from the palm of the hand as it is grounded ( ie not strictly gripped) how that could be called 'held'. And i can see how some benefit is given to the attacking side as the score seems inevitable (imo - we should not look for small bobbles to try and not award a try). But how the f@ck the Tmo could allow that to ge awarded is beyond me! Must be in a secret TMO email?
That was a critical incident at that time with that score line. I'm sure On review Jaco will not be pleased with his Tmo.

(Ps I'm a brumbies fan)

Well I"m not a Brumbies fan (not at all) and I also think the awarding of that try was a crock. The ball clearly came out of his hand.

https://www.youtube.com/watch&v=IJ0A2QYUKHg#t=131

There were two other very poor try-award decisions on the weekend too... the last two Waratahs tries against the Highlanders

In the first of these, Tom Robertson, Waratahs player who picked the ball up when it came out of the Highlanders side of the ruck, was so far offside he was on the other side of the Sydney Harbour Bridge.

https://www.youtube.com/watch&v=gUCgP7U6XIs#t=145

Even if you try to make the argument that it was a tackle only (spurious IMO as it is clearly a ruck) then he has still played the ball from the wrong side of the tackle (not through the gate)

The second one of these was the ruck/maul/tackling thingy near the goal line. (No video yet, sorry)
You can't even tell who has even got the ball (White or Blue) let alone see a clear grounding.

(PS. I'm not a Highlanders fan, they are the mortal enemy)

 

[Dickie E]

Is this interpretation the generally accepted interpretation?

Generally speaking, in that kind of situation, continuous contact between hand and ball will result in a try

 

[menace]

Well I"m not a Brumbies fan (not at all) and I also think the awarding of that try was a crock. The ball clearly came out of his hand.

https://www.youtube.com/watch&v=IJ0A2QYUKHg#t=131

There were two other very poor try-award decisions on the weekend too... the last two Waratahs tries against the Highlanders

In the first of these, Tom Robertson, Waratahs player who picked the ball up when it came out of the Highlanders side of the ruck, was so far offside he was on the other side of the Sydney Harbour Bridge.

https://www.youtube.com/watch&v=gUCgP7U6XIs#t=145

Even if you try to make the argument that it was a tackle only (spurious IMO as it is clearly a ruck) then he has still played the ball from the wrong side of the tackle (not through the gate)

The second one of these was the ruck/maul/tackling thingy near the goal line. (No video yet, sorry)
You can't even tell who has even got the ball (White or Blue) let alone see a clear grounding.

(PS. I'm not a Highlanders fan, they are the mortal enemy)

Oh wow we laughed at the offside being missed.
Fortunately the tahs didn't jag a win from it!

 

[Baylion]

Generally speaking, in that kind of situation, continuous contact between hand and ball will result in a try

Thanks

 

[Dickie E]

Here are some other angles:

http://www.foxsports.com.au/video/rugby/super-rugby/leyds-gets-lucky-with-try!509793/

3 comments:

1. ref calls time off and asks for a review. 2 slo-mos showns then TMO comes back with "do you want me to check it?" LOL
2. AR jumping around like a cat on a hot tin roof. Hardly best practice position-wise
3. if (and a big IF) the criteria is that contact between skin and ball be maintained then it wasn't a C&O knock on so try a reasonable call. The money shot from front on doesn't show any daylight between skin & ball.

 

[leaguerefaus]

It's a bad call. Even if it's just an issue of separation, there is separation.
Also, I would think it would be best practice to not be talking to players while the decision is being made.

 

[Baylion]

It's a bad call. Even if it's just an issue of separation, there is separation.
Also, I would think it would be best practice to not be talking to players while the decision is being made.

There does seem to be clear separation

https://twitter.com/BlockaDutton/status/711357774379134976

 

[Dickie E]

There does seem to be clear separation

https://twitter.com/BlockaDutton/status/711357774379134976

none of those photos show C&O separation

 

[DocY]

It looked a C&O knock on. Clear separation between the ball and the hand, IMO.

The interpretation itself makes sense to me, even if the application was wrong.

Strange how the TMOs are shifting the burden of proof on to the infringement, rather than the try: without the TMO it's definitely not a C&O try, but with the TMO it's a try unless there's a C&O knock on.

 

[DocY]

SAReferees have posted something on this now, saying that the TMO was right and that there was no C&O knock-on: http://www.sareferees.com/News/law-discussion-the-leyds-try/2830633/

Can't say I agree.

 

[beckett50]

Bad call, whichever way you look at it. He's lost that ball.

 

[crossref]

every time I look at that I just see a knock on. I think they have used the TMO, and some technical sophistry to arrive at plainly the wrong conclusion.

 

[leaguerefaus]

Rugby don't want to start using clear and obvious as a cop out, or they will have the same problem the NRL had a few years ago when the video refs were using "benefit of the doubt" to the attacking team to award tries that were obviously not tries. If they don't want to make the tough calls, find a different profession.

 

[DocY]

Rugby don't want to start using clear and obvious as a cop out, or they will have the same problem the NRL had a few years ago when the video refs were using "benefit of the doubt" to the attacking team to award tries that were obviously not tries.

I think that's exactly what happened here!

 

[Dickie E]

separation isn't the issue here. A player can lose the ball foward, juggling it, provided he has ball contact as it hits the ground.

 

[OB..]

separation isn't the issue here. A player can lose the ball foward, juggling it, provided he has ball contact as it hits the ground.

Not quite. If he loses it forward, he has to catch it, not just regain contact.

 

[Phil E]

I've just watched it for the first time.
I would have no hesitation in giving a knock on.