[In-goal] Reaching Out

[Decorily]

Intrigued, so if he reaches out, realises he's short your expected next action is? Just release?

Yes..

 

[OB..]

I'm trying to envisage the action where a player reaches out, realises he has touched down short of the line, yet still thinks it is worth trying again. Why did he miss first time?

In any case, a second effort can hardly be described as "immediate".

 

[thepercy]

I'm trying to envisage the action where a player reaches out, realises he has touched down short of the line, yet still thinks it is worth trying again. Why did he miss first time?

In any case, a second effort can hardly be described as "immediate".

The ball carrier dives for the goal-line, arms fully extended, is inches short, the momentum of the tackle and/or arriving players moves the player a few inches closer, they reach out or even readjust their grip on the ball and get ball to paint

 

[OB..]

The ball carrier dives for the goal-line, arms fully extended, is inches short, the momentum of the tackle and/or arriving players moves the player a few inches closer, they reach out or even readjust their grip on the ball and get ball to paint

So you posit that the tackled player is still moving forward in the tackle when he first grounds the ball short. I struggle to see this as realistic - and it still fails to meet the "immediate" requirement.

I think we are wasting too much time on this. Let's wait to see if we ever get a real life case to study.

 

[thepercy]

So you posit that the tackled player is still moving forward in the tackle when he first grounds the ball short. I struggle to see this as realistic - and it still fails to meet the "immediate" requirement.

I think we are wasting too much time on this. Let's wait to see if we ever get a real life case to study.

The OP question was about Rees-Zammit non-try during the Lion's tour. Jaco Peyper said his second reach was short, so irrelevant, but my question was about if it wasn't millimeters short. The conversation between officials made it seem if they had differing views on this.

 

[Dickie E]

I'm trying to envisage the action where a player reaches out, realises he has touched down short of the line, yet still thinks it is worth trying again. Why did he miss first time?

In any case, a second effort can hardly be described as "immediate".

the most likely occurrence is tackled player reaches out, realises he is short then brings ball back in to set for next phase. Provided no jackaler, I'd allow that

 

[OB..]

the most likely occurrence is tackled player reaches out, realises he is short then brings ball back in to set for next phase. Provided no jackaler, I'd allow that

So we are dropping the "momentum of the tackle" scenario allowing him to score.

I agree that pulling the ball back to maintain possession is unclear. I'd certainly wait to see what happened next.

 

[didds]

Had one like this last week.

Tackled close to the line ending up on his knees.
He then fell forward onto his front, thereby gaining another 3 feet or so.
He then reached out solely with his arm to place the ball on the goal line.

Opposition claimed it was a double movement, as they saw the fall forward as a second motion.
I conferred with my AR and he (like me) saw the fall forward as part of the tackle, so not a second movement.
The gap between being on his knees and falling forward was less than a second.

Thoughts?

without seeing it... try.