"no grounding, scotland attacking, scrum 5, scotland ball"

[didds]

Really?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YCIJ6fXDLXk

Around 54 minutes game time.

Scotland 10 grubs in goal. TMO cannot see downward pressure by Scotland 13.

Ref awards Scotland 5m scrum as Scotland attacking.

Hmmmmm

Didds

 

[ChrisR]

Can't see the video in USA.

If there is no 'downward pressure' then the ball stays live unless a knock-on or the ball goes dead. So, what happened next?

 

[didds]

I think part of the problem is the ref blew before the ball had actually been made dead... England 11 ends up with it but stood in-goal. We have no grounding, nor ball tig or over the dbl.

So in that regard I suppose the ref is correct... But surely he shouldn't have put himself in that position initially?

Didds

 

[Paule23]

I think part of the problem is the ref blew before the ball had actually been made dead... England 11 ends up with it but stood in-goal. We have no grounding, nor ball tig or over the dbl.

So in that regard I suppose the ref is correct... But surely he shouldn't have put himself in that position initially?

Didds

This is a difficult one, assuming the ref had a similar sort of view as to the first camera, it looks like someone has grounded the ball in the first instance. In hindsight this wasn't the case, but it would be strange to allow play to continue in that circumstance as white could run the ball out and you might never go back to check if there was any grounding and who grounded it.

I think it was fair enough to blow (on the grounds you thought someone grounded it) consult with AR and TMO and go from there.

 

[CrouchTPEngage]

Really?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YCIJ6fXDLXk

Around 54 minutes game time.

Scotland 10 grubs in goal. TMO cannot see downward pressure by Scotland 13.

Ref awards Scotland 5m scrum as Scotland attacking.

Hmmmmm

Didds

First time ,I saw it , it looked like England 23 kicked the ball into the in-goal ( by accident maybe ).
Hence Attacking scrum was right call.
And the camera was almost in-line with the ref.

Of course, he could have been thinking law 22.15, "doubt about grounding" which mandates an attacking scrum. Although, I got to admit, this seems unlikely. But he said "inconclusive"

 

[didds]

but it would be strange to allow play to continue in that circumstance as white could run the ball out and you might never go back to check if there was any grounding and who grounded it.

well, we do see incidents where (very occassionally) exactly that has happened, and a try has been scored at the other end and the ref has to go to the TMO to - in effect - find out which side scored .

There was an example here debated fairly recently I thought.

In effect I have foiund the answer I initially sou8ght even though having post6ed this I worked it out myself

I suppose the secondary question is really

"at what juncture do you allow play toi proceed with a virew to eventually having to go to the TMo to check?

I can see examples of time out and play continuing for several minutes before the ball becomes dead, time is over but the match in effect hangs in the balance because of the TMO check. etc etc.



didds