[Tackle] NZ vs. Aus Womens - Sarah Goss Steal

[Mandrason]

Hi there,

So far I've only followed this forum as a spectators, now I want to get involved.

I saw a clip just now that made me curious what the right call would be:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdzOeHOWxsw

What I see is:
- No ruck is formed after the tackle
- Referee indicates offside lines for NZ, so she must think that a ruck has been formed? Otherwise there should be no offside lines?
- Black 7 is not the tackler but comes from behind the tackle and picks up the ball

As Black 7 is not the tackler, she was obliged to enter the tackle (assuming its no ruck) from her side, which she didn't do. Therefore PK against Black 7.
If a ruck had been formed (as the referee indicates IMO), same decision.

Do you agree? Or am I missing something?

 

[Pegleg]

There are four possible lines:

1: It's a tackle

If so the player does not enter "through the gate".

Sanction: PK

2: It's a Ruck

If so the player does not enter from behind or alongside the hind most foot.

Sanction: PK

3: It's a collapsed Maul

If so has the maul ended? The Law requires the ball to be immediately available. So I would say logically the OS lines must still be in place.

So for me it's a PK again.

4: It's Open play

If so then it is the rules for retreating players applies if it had been a Ruck or maul. And normal post tackle laws apply if it was just a tackle.

For me, whichever way you look at it (and the fact that the ref is clearly indicating that she wants Black behind the offside line suggests either a R or a M) It's a material offence an the ref gets it wrong.

I would say it is a maul as at 0.06 whe have at least two Gold (Ball carrier's side) and at least one Black bound and on their feet fullfilling the criteria for a maul.

 

[Phil E]

My flabber has never been so gasted :wow:

How on earth could you not ping that?

 

[The Fat]

Hi there,

So far I've only followed this forum as a spectators, now I want to get involved.

I saw a clip just now that made me curious what the right call would be:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdzOeHOWxsw

What I see is:
- No ruck is formed after the tackle
- Referee indicates offside lines for NZ, so she must think that a ruck has been formed? Otherwise there should be no offside lines?
- Black 7 is not the tackler but comes from behind the tackle and picks up the ball

As Black 7 is not the tackler, she was obliged to enter the tackle (assuming its no ruck) from her side, which she didn't do. Therefore PK against Black 7.
If a ruck had been formed (as the referee indicates IMO), same decision.

Do you agree? Or am I missing something?

Looks like a tackle only situation however, as the ref is enforcing an offside line for the NZ girls, she is treating it as a ruck. No matter which of these two scenarios you want to go with, Black 7 acting illegally. Complete brain fart by the referee.

 

[Dickie E]

nice entry to the fray, Mandrason.

 

[Mandrason]

Thanks

Seems like you all agree. I was just baffled when I saw it and thought I may have missed some new law or clarification throughout the summer. Good to know that I wasn't wrong

 

[didds]

the kiwi commentator needs some help too, or some glasses or something. Goss was never the tackler!

didds

 

[TheBFG]

Is that Ian_Cook commentating? :biggrin:

Sometimes it's so wrong it just confuses people!

 

[Ian_Cook]

That is a real head scratcher. What the hell was the ref thinking?

 

[didds]

and aside form trying it on, what was Goss thinking that she thought she could get away with it? (Im assuming this is a standard approach by refs in the female agme!)

Unless the ref had shouted something that she understood meant she could do this. Very weird.

anecdote: I once did something similar in a game at Coombe Down (IIRC) - the game descended into farce towards the end when both sides realised that the ref had absolutely no clue (bless him). I did exactly what Goss did, then everybody stopped as no player cold "compute" what they had just seen, and I just gave the ball to their scrumhalf out of embarrassment as the ref was shouting something about not offside (of course I was!). My how we chortled!

didds

 

[OB..]

[...] a game at Coombe Down [...]

My first game in the 1st XV was there - a tough baptism.
Fond memories of the fence alongside the pitch with a boy posted the far side to retrieve overly enthusiastic kicks to touch. No QTIs in those days.

 

[TheBFG]

My first game in the 1st XV was there - a tough baptism.
Fond memories of the fence alongside the pitch with a boy posted the far side to retrieve overly enthusiastic kicks to touch. No QTIs in those days.

About to become a housing estate, MoD gone!

 

[thepercy]

That is a real head scratcher. What the hell was the ref thinking?

And how did an international player get it so wrong?

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

The only way Fern #7 is legal is if no tackle, ruck or maul took place. Since it is from kick off there is not a previous r or m to be offside to from loiter.

I believe there was a maul, the Ferns detach, but where is offside line since no hindmost foot exist for the Ferns?

 

[didds]

here we go with OB's thing that a ref has to make sense of the laws... if there is no player in it but its still a maul (ie fens left voluntarily) then the ref has to come up with the next best thing presumably, which may be the closest player in the "maul" to them, whether that is a black prone player or a gold player etc

??

didds

 

[Taff]

My flabber has never been so gasted :wow: How on earth could you not ping that?

... Sometimes it's so wrong it just confuses people!

That is a real head scratcher. What the hell was the ref thinking?

Where the hell were the ARs and the TMO?

Looks like a tackle only situation however, as the ref is enforcing an offside line for the NZ girls, she is treating it as a ruck.

Which is very common; even the players were treating it like a ruck - when it wasn't. Apart from the lack of help from the ARs and TMO, what surprises me is that none of the Black players look shocked by what she did. The Ref will have nightmares about that for months. :biggrin:

 

[Phil E]

The Ref will have nightmares about that for months. :biggrin:

Assuming she knows it was wrong :chin:

 

[DocY]

here we go with OB's thing that a ref has to make sense of the laws... if there is no player in it but its still a maul (ie fens left voluntarily) then the ref has to come up with the next best thing presumably, which may be the closest player in the "maul" to them, whether that is a black prone player or a gold player etc

??

didds

If a team voluntarily leaves a maul it's still a maul, isn't it?

 

[Guyseep]

The only way Fern #7 is legal is if no tackle, ruck or maul took place. Since it is from kick off there is not a previous r or m to be offside to from loiter.

I believe there was a maul, the Ferns detach, but where is offside line since no hindmost foot exist for the Ferns?

Good question - if there was no tackle and the gold player had just fallen over with the ball in hand, does the black player still have to enter through the gate? I would think not as this is not a tackle or breakdown of any sort just yet.


If the maul forms and then Black players detach, then the idea of the "hind foot" gets a bit muddy, but it's still there. In this case the maul would still exist, but the "hindfoot" would be the front most gold player in the maul

 

[DocY]

Good question - if there was no tackle and the gold player had just fallen over with the ball in hand, does the black player still have to enter through the gate? I would think not as this is not a tackle or breakdown of any sort just yet.

No, no offside lines - it's still open play with law 14 applying.