Saracens v Edinburgh non-try

[Chunky Charvis]

Anyone see or have a link to the Saracens non-try from last Sunday's Heineken Cup game?

I believe it was well into the 2nd half, and it was a "double movement" call (ok, "tackled player holding on" then)

 

[Phil E]

Anyone see or have a link to the Saracens non-try from last Sunday's Heineken Cup game?

I believe it was well into the 2nd half, and it was a "double movement" call (ok, "tackled player holding on" then)

If its the one I think it was.....

I remember the commentaters saying double movement, and me thinking "no such thing".

I think the ref did him for not releasing.

 

[OB..]

If its the one I think it was.....

I remember the commentaters saying double movement, and me thinking "no such thing".

I think the ref did him for not releasing.

Was that the one where the TMO said he grounded the ball short and then pushed it over the line?

 

[Phil E]

Was that the one where the TMO said he grounded the ball short and then pushed it over the line?

My recollection was that he grounded short and rather than immediately reaching out to place the ball he shuffled his whole body forward and then reached out.

 

[The Fat]

If its the one I think it was.....

I remember the commentaters saying double movement, and me thinking "no such thing".
I think the ref did him for not releasing.

I had the same thought Phil, when the TMO told Wayne Barnes, in the Munster v R Metro game, that the player placed the ball short of the line and then made a "double movement". WB repeated the TMO's advice back to the TMO for confirmation and then relayed the decision to the players complete with the explanation it was a "double movement".
Maybe it's time the phrase was added to the Definitions section of the LoTG?

 

[Davet]

The phrase "double movement" is a problem - because a double movement is perfectly legal; tackled short, then instead of releasing reach out and ground the ball - immediately.

Just call and signall "holding on", you can clarify with "too slow, and too much body movement"

Or you could just say, "Double movement"<sigh!> I'll explain in the bar, your round."

 

[crossref]

The phrase "double movement" is a problem - because a double movement is perfectly legal; tackled short, then instead of releasing reach out and ground the ball - immediately.

that's a single movement.

 

[OB..]

that's a single movement.

But so is driving your body over the line with your legs after a tackle.

 

[Dickie E]

My recollection was that he grounded short and rather than immediately reaching out to place the ball he shuffled his whole body forward and then reached out.

oh, a double movement, then

 

[SilverMoon]

I had the same thought Phil, when the TMO told Wayne Barnes, in the Munster v R Metro game, that the player placed the ball short of the line and then made a "double movement". WB repeated the TMO's advice back to the TMO for confirmation and then relayed the decision to the players complete with the explanation it was a "double movement".
Maybe it's time the phrase was added to the Definitions section of the LoTG?

Sadly this is incorrect The Fat as the TMO may not rule on a double movement. The TMO advised Wayne Barnes that the first grounding of the ball was short of the line. WB deduced the rest and instructed the players accordingly.

 

[Browner]

For me , any repositioning of the ball [ as long as done quick enough ] is fine, but as soon as the knees start moving [try going forward without moving your knees] then i classify as a ..... 'you should have released the ball beforehand ' moment

But as with all these interpretations, momentum etc have a bearing on my 'judgement'

My guess we'll always be debating these type of calls