Scotland vTonga

[Stuartg]

Time 63 mins

Scotland win the ball in a line out in Tonga 22. Tonga do not engage the resulting 'maul'. Scotland take the ball to the back and start to trundle forwards. Tonga player comes to the back to tackle ball carrier. Comments please. I (like JPD?) hate refereeing this ploy.

 

[RobLev]

Time 63 mins

Scotland win the ball in a line out in Tonga 22. Tonga do not engage the resulting 'maul'. Scotland take the ball to the back and start to trundle forwards. Tonga player comes to the back to tackle ball carrier. Comments please. I (like JPD?) hate refereeing this ploy.

Legal once the lineout is over; and once the ball has been passed back from the lineout, it's over.

Or, my preference, before you get to judgment of the legality of the Tongan tackle, deliberate and cynical obstruction by the players in the maul ahead of the ball-carrier; PK (and YCs for all those obstructing...).

Unfortunately, the IRB wants the laws to be ignored.

 

[Rushforth]

Time 63 mins

Scotland win the ball in a line out in Tonga 22. Tonga do not engage the resulting 'maul'. Scotland take the ball to the back and start to trundle forwards. Tonga player comes to the back to tackle ball carrier. Comments please. I (like JPD?) hate refereeing this ploy.

http://www.rfu.com/takingpart/coach...ljournal/2006/2ndquarter/melrose20posers.ashx - see point 5.

 

[Stuartg]

Now read the IRB clarification

Line out

IRB clarification for teams choosing not to engage at the lineout

 if the defenders in the line out choose to not engage the line out drive by "leaving the line out as a group", PK to attacking team;

 if the defenders in the line out choose to not engage the line out drive by simply opening up a gap & "creating space" & not leaving the line out, the following process would be followed:

- attackers would need to keep the ball with the front player, if they were to drive down-field (therefore play on, general play - defenders could either engage to form a maul, or tackle the ball carrier only);

- if they had immediately passed it back to the player at the rear of the "group",

the referee would tell them to "use it" which they must do immediately...

- if they drove forward with the ball at the back (did not release the ball), the referee would award a scrum for "accidental offside" rather than PK for obstruction.

- - - Updated - - -

http://www.rfu.com/takingpart/coach...ljournal/2006/2ndquarter/melrose20posers.ashx - see point 5.

That's EIGHT years old. Life has moved on.

 

[RobLev]

Now read the IRB clarification

Line out

IRB clarification for teams choosing not to engage at the lineout

 if the defenders in the line out choose to not engage the line out drive by "leaving the line out as a group", PK to attacking team;

 if the defenders in the line out choose to not engage the line out drive by simply opening up a gap & "creating space" & not leaving the line out, the following process would be followed:

- attackers would need to keep the ball with the front player, if they were to drive down-field (therefore play on, general play - defenders could either engage to form a maul, or tackle the ball carrier only);

- if they had immediately passed it back to the player at the rear of the "group",

the referee would tell them to "use it" which they must do immediately...

- if they drove forward with the ball at the back (did not release the ball), the referee would award a scrum for "accidental offside" rather than PK for obstruction.

....

As I said, the IRB wants the Laws to be ignored. It is difficult to see how this could possibly be "accidental" offside - but it has been discussed here at length...

As it happens what the Tongans did, as described, is clearly legal - both under the Laws of the game and under the IRB directive.

 

[didds]

As I said, the IRB wants the Laws to be ignored. It is difficult to see how this could possibly be "accidental" offside - but it has been discussed here at length....

Well, as I am sure was proffered previously, presumably it is accidental - at least the first time - because the catchers have a mindset that expects a maul to result and so act accordingly. ie its not done deliberately in a this non-maul scenario to deprive access to the ball per se.

Subsequently that mindset should maybe have aleterd!

didds

 

[didds]

but while we are here...

Tongan 7 (IIRC) twice in a very short period, very close to his own line, comes in at the side of mauls and correctly gets a YC.

At the very next Scottish maul, the Tongan #1 (IIRC!) tries to collapse the maul and it results in a PK. BUT... no YC, despite it being the 3rd maul offense in succession, veryu close to the Tongan line.

Was this because

- it is a different offence to the in at the side so therefore has a different "count up" in place?
- it is a different player so has a different "count up" in place?
- there is an unwritten rule/acceptance that test teams don't get 2 me in the bin at the same time (CF NZ v Eng 2003 in NZ)
- the ref just bottled the 2nd YC.

Again, IIRC the ref to be fair did have a word with the Tongan skipper about to many penalties...

didds

 

[Shelflife]

Interestingly Scotland conceded 13 pens and received no warning about repeat offences, afaik there were a number of these close together in the 2nd half which killed off Tongan momentum (not in the red zone). Sometimes i wonder do refs go out with a preconceived idea about what to expect and find it.

Tongan ill discipline results in a YC yet similar indiscipline from Scotland is ignored. Also two scottish players cynically pulled back a Tongan at a lineout and no YC.

Samoan dangerous big hit on Ford results in a pen and YC yet it took 7-10 replays to find evidence of this dangerous play that Ford himself jumped up from, if it was the other way around would it have even been looked at ? if anything the SH should be YC for the hospital pass.

I feel sometimes that the minnows get a raw deal from refs who may feel that they have to watch out for what might happen as opposed to what IS happening in front of them.

 

[RobLev]

...

Samoan dangerous big hit on Ford results in a pen and YC yet it took 7-10 replays to find evidence of this dangerous play that Ford himself jumped up from, if it was the other way around would it have even been looked at ? if anything the SH should be YC for the hospital pass.

I feel sometimes that the minnows get a raw deal from refs who may feel that they have to watch out for what might happen as opposed to what IS happening in front of them.

At full speed first time round, I saw a classic Ma'a Nonu "tackle" with contact with the jaw - nailed on YC, tinged orange; it's only the slowmo that made clear that there was an attempt at a wrap. It might even be that the TMO was trying to talk himself out of a red, rather than into a yelllow; that the 7-8 replays were looking for evidence of legality, not illegality....

 

[Ian_Cook]

At full speed first time round, I saw a classic Ma'a Nonu "tackle" with contact with the jaw - nailed on YC, tinged orange; it's only the slowmo that made clear that there was an attempt at a wrap. It might even be that the TMO was trying to talk himself out of a red, rather than into a yelllow; that the 7-8 replays were looking for evidence of legality, not illegality....

If it takes 7 - 8 replays, then its not C&O!!

 

[RobLev]

If it takes 7 - 8 replays, then its not C&O!!

If it looked illegal at full-speed, and the replays showed no evidence to the contrary, that makes it C&O illegal, surely?

 

[OB..]

If it takes 7 - 8 replays, then its not C&O!!

I like RobLev's suggestion that they may have been checking for Red! For me it was C&O.