Quins v Bristol - try saving “tackle”

[Mipper]

I’m afraid that I cannot embed the actual incident but it is all over social media anywa. I’m sure that many of you have seen it.

Toward the end of the game Andre Esterhuizen appeared clean through the Bristol defence and on course for a certain try. He was then tap-tackled by AJ MacGinty, and ended up sliding on his stomach toward the try line. He would certainly have slid over the try line and scored, if it were not for Tom Whiteley who came sliding in himself and ripped the ball from Esterhuizen’s grasp.

No try, knock-on, scrum Bristol being the result. Also a win for Bristol as it was virtually the last minute of the game.

My question is; how were Whiteley‘s actions legal? He was definitely off his feet, as was Esterhuizen, and I’m not sure how he could play the ball, whilst off his feet. Equally I am not sure how else a try could have been prevented.

Any thoughts?

 

[Balones]

You are allowed to go off your feet to tackle ball carriers. In this case it was a continuous movement, as was the action of the ball carrier and the reason why he was not penalised for holding onto the ball while on the floor.

 

[Mipper]

You are allowed to go off your feet to tackle ball carriers. In this case it was a continuous movement, as was the action of the ball carrier and the reason why he was not penalised for holding onto the ball while on the floor.

I can go with that. It makes sense.

My issue is that I can’t see how that holds up in the Laws. 14.5.c says that the tackler must be on their feet before attempting to play the ball.

 

[crossref]

I don't see that it was a knock on either, ball was ripped

11.5 The ball is not knocked-on, and play continues, if

1. 1. A player knocks the ball forward immediately after an opponent has kicked it (charge down).
   2. 
   3. A player rips or knocks the ball from an opponent and the ball goes forward from the opponent’s hand or arm.

11.5.b

Who was first to the loose ball, wasn't it another Quins player ? Try

 

[Balones]

Watched it live. I thought it was ripped after watching the replays. Ref deemed knocked-on. Neither the ref (nor TMO) looked at follow up action of supporting players or other defenders and there was no clear replay of that grounding.
It’s all about equity. If we allow players to dive to score a try then we must allow tacklers to do dive to stop it. Similarly if we allow a player to slide in for a try then we have to allow a slide to stop it. Otherwise we need to penalise the slider for not releasing the ball or trying to get up. He is as much out of the game as a defender in theory.
14.5.c refers to what happens after a tackle and not during it as what happened in this instance. Some would argue that 13.4 or 13.3 could be applied but this is where law application comes into play, which we know are open to interpretation, and really they refer to more static situations.

 

[Volun-selected]

Hopefully this works for all. Starts from this well taken lineout. Looks like the carrier fumbled during the slide and lost it - so knock on. Makes his reaction fully understandable.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

The Bristol player is not a tackler Were it in-goal law 21.10. would seems to "sanction" his actions. Why would we not give the same "latitude" to the player here.

The Quins player is "in the act of scoring" and the Bristol player knocks the ball out of his grasp.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

The Bristol player is not a tackler Were it in-goal law 21.10. would seems to "sanction" his actions. Why would we not give the same "latitude" to the player here.

The Quins player is "in the act of scoring" and the Bristol player knocks the ball out of his grasp.

Further, if we look at 13.1 (The Bristol player "goes to ground to gather the ball" He is unsuccessful as the ball goes lose. But He (the Bristol player does not contrvene this law. either. If fact yo ucan argue that he "gathers" and immediately releases it ( in accordence with13.1.c).

 

[crossref]

I am happy with both players being on the ground and attempting to play the ball (for the reasons Balones gives)
But I think it was a rip by the defender, not a KO, so play on

 

[Volun-selected]

I am happy with both players being on the ground and attempting to play the ball (for the reasons Balones gives)
But I think it was a rip by the defender, not a KO, so play on

Or at least play on and come back to look and rule the KO in/out once the dust settles since they have the luxury of a TMO.

 

[didds]

. Similarly if we allow a player to slide in for a try then we have to allow a slide to stop it.

This is a REALLY interesting point...

because...
The slifing player wasnt doving. He was tap tackled, lost his footing, ended up on prone and slid with momentum. He didnt end up on the ground deliberately and everything afterwards was momentum.
Meanwhile he didn't end up there via a tackle, or even half tackle (ie not even a jot of not-brought-to-ground ...) it was a tap tackle - which as oft debated here is at best a dubious legal manoeuvre as the player is not grasped/attempted to be grasped etc etc

merely mentioning this for moot discussion.

As for "how doi9d you stop it" - as OB once pointed out to me - dont allow the attackers to get to that position in the first place.

 

[Dickie E]

But I think it was a rip by the defender, not a KO, so play on

for me it wasn't a C&O rip (based on the camera angle shown) so I'd go with knock on. Great defence.

 

[Dickie E]

As for "how doi9d you stop it" - as OB once pointed out to me - dont allow the attackers to get to that position in the first place.

that is undeniable but not very helpful. Bit like saying best way to avoid having your pocket picked is by leaving your wallet at home

 

[Mipper]

The Bristol player is not a tackler Were it in-goal law 21.10. would seems to "sanction" his actions. Why would we not give the same "latitude" to the player here.

The Quins player is "in the act of scoring" and the Bristol player knocks the ball out of his grasp.

Lots of really interesting perspectives on this, but to my mind, 21.10 does seem to cover it. I also support the “equity” perspective that someone mentioned.

Whether it was ripped or knocked forward is interesting, and I wonder if the ref was influenced by the negativity of the Quins players and the jubilation of the Bristol players?

 

[didds]

that is undeniable but not very helpful.

you'd have to take that up with OB.

 

[Volun-selected]

Just managed to watch the full replay (on a U.S. streaming service I have, sorry can’t share the clip) and although the commentators take a look at the rip/KO you can hear the ref calling the scrum in the background - which sounds like he was not interested in seeing a replay and was happy with his call.

To @Mipper ‘s question, I wonder what would have happened if a following quins player had jumped on the ball and the jump up celebrating. Would that have got the TMO involved with “on-field decision is knock and scrum”? (And get us a some better angles)