[RWC] France v Romania

[irishref]

Guitone's second try. He's tackled just short of the try line, the ball is grounded just short and then he lifts the ball from the ground and dots it down just on/over the try line. He makes no body movement at all, purely an arm stretch, and there is no natural body momentum either.

Try is awarded. Your thoughts?

Mine - we know the laws state the tackled player can place the ball in any direction but can you pick up a stationary ball that's been grounded already?

 

[crossref]

this is the one where JP awards the try, and then the AR tells him -- go to the TMO. So he does

 

[Pegleg]

Try for me.

 

[Dan_A]

The commentator on ITV4 (Ben Kay??) was going on and on about the player not having the momentum to get over the line. Was he just talking nonsense or is this in some way relevant?

For me the player comes up just short but immediately places the ball on the line.

Also IIRC the referee asked asked the TMO to check for a 'double movement'. Maybe this is just shorthand but with a global audience listening in, why use this phrase?

 

[Phil E]

The commentator on ITV4 (Ben Kay??) was going on and on about the player not having the momentum to get over the line. Was he just talking nonsense or is this in some way relevant?

For me the player comes up just short but immediately places the ball on the line.

Also IIRC the referee asked asked the TMO to check for a 'double movement'. Maybe this is just shorthand but with a global audience listening in, why use this phrase?

A momentum try is normally where a player dives short of the goal line and then slides over it.

Immediately is the key phrase in reaching out.

Double movement isn't in the law book, so is misleading. However, everyone knows what you mean (or thinks they do) when you say it.

[LAWS](d) Momentum try. If an attacking player with the ball is tackled short of the goal line but the
player’s momentum carries the player in a continuous movement along the ground into the
opponents’ in-goal, and the player is first to ground the ball, a try is scored.[/LAWS]

[LAWS](e) Tackled near the goal line. If a player is tackled near to the opponents’ goal line so that
this player can immediately reach out and ground the ball on or over the goal line, a try is
scored.[/LAWS]

 

[Dan_A]

A momentum try is normally where a player dives short of the goal line and then slides over it.

Immediately is the key phrase in reaching out.

Double movement isn't in the law book, so is misleading. However, everyone knows what you mean (or thinks they do) when you say it.

[LAWS](d) Momentum try. If an attacking player with the ball is tackled short of the goal line but the
player’s momentum carries the player in a continuous movement along the ground into the
opponents’ in-goal, and the player is first to ground the ball, a try is scored.[/LAWS]

[LAWS](e) Tackled near the goal line. If a player is tackled near to the opponents’ goal line so that
this player can immediately reach out and ground the ball on or over the goal line, a try is
scored.[/LAWS]

Thanks for this, helpful to understand the two different scenarios. The commentator certainly didn't have this clarity!

 

[crossref]

I would give that as a try.

the shadow of a doubt is that having come to rest Guitone initially lifts the ball and grounds it short of the line, then tries again and this time is able to lift it and score. Is that two bites at the cherry ?

For me : Try.

 

[OB..]

Double movement isn't in the law book, so is misleading. However, everyone knows what you mean (or thinks they do) when you say it.

The problem is defining what the two movements are - that is why is is a bad phrase. Sometimes a single movement is illegal.

 

[Jarrod Burton]

For me - at normal speed its a try, but in slow motion the ball appears to be grounded, promoted and is grounded very briefly and then promoted again and grounded for the "try" - No Try.

Off topic, but the breakdown at the start of the clip was no longer a ruck in my opinion based on the birdsh*t "rule", but the defenders close enough to do anything were all offside anyway.

 

[Phil E]

For me - at normal speed its a try, but in slow motion the ball appears to be grounded, promoted and is grounded very briefly and then promoted again and grounded for the "try" - No Try.

Off topic, but the breakdown at the start of the clip was no longer a ruck in my opinion based on the birdsh*t "rule", but the defenders close enough to do anything were all offside anyway.

If its not a try then its a PK for tacklers not releasing.

 

[irishref]

I think the ball has been grounded twice and thus my gut reaction is no try. However I'm more than happy to go along with the majority opinion if it differs.

I had a similar situation in a game last weekend - gave no try stating it was first grounded short of the try line. Attacking team had no issue with my decision, defending team captain said "nice and clear reasoning sir, thanks"

 

[FlipFlop]

Try for me as well. No different to if he had rolled and placed at the back. Same time allowed to place it forward as backwards.

He doesn't move his body etc, so no reason not to award it.

 

[buff]

Try for me. He went to ground with the ball, then reached out as quickly as you can reasonably demand.

 

[Jarrod Burton]

If its not a try then its a PK for tacklers not releasing.

Haven't we already had this discussion?

Given that the tackler must release requirement is there to allow faster recycling of the ball at the ruck and neither of the Romanian tacklers are preventing a placement, a PK for not releasing seems pretty much a gotcha.

Also the law does say that the placement in any direction must be immediate, the French player fiddles it and then places, not immediate. I feel that the spirit of this rule is to allow a player to make a desperate lunge at the line as they hit the ground in the same action rather than transferring the ball in your hands and then having a second bite at the cherry.

 

[Taff]

Try for me.

I would give that as a try.

Same here. In my book, that's a Try.

The tackled player must pass, push, place or release the ball immediately. That looks like a pretty immediate place to me.

 

[crossref]

in a tackle, there is often an incentive for a player to act as slowly as possible, to safeguard the ball. So the natural tension is a player stretching the definition of 'immediate'... and the ref saying 'no, that was too long'.

In this situation it was completely different! Guitone was getting that ball over the line absolutely as immediately as he possibly could.

 

[OB..]

I think the ball has been grounded twice and thus my gut reaction is no try. However I'm more than happy to go along with the majority opinion if it differs.

I had a similar situation in a game last weekend - gave no try stating it was first grounded short of the try line. Attacking team had no issue with my decision, defending team captain said "nice and clear reasoning sir, thanks"

The mere fact that the ball hits the ground as a consequence of the tackle does not invalidate reaching out to score.

 

[Pegleg]

The mere fact that the ball hits the ground as a consequence of the tackle does not invalidate reaching out to score.

Agreed.

 

[tim White]

There were no players on their feet contesting for the ball so I think the very slight delay is still within acceptable limits-and it was clearly the only option he considered and does not constitute 'two bites at the cherry' for me.