Stade Toulousain - Saracens

MrQeu

Avid Rugby Lover
Joined
Sep 18, 2011
Messages
440
Post Likes
37
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
So, there was this maul which ended unsuccessfully and, I quite frankly don't understand totally AR's decision nor what he says.


Why is it Toulouse's ball in the subsequent scrum?

Not a direct catch? AR's unsure of who put the ball in the maul nor who had possesion so attacking team's ball?
 

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
14,106
Post Likes
2,131
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Why is it Toulouse's ball in the subsequent scrum?

Not a direct catch? AR's unsure of who put the ball in the maul nor who had possesion so attacking team's ball?

Seems a bit odd to me. He originally gives the feed to White then changes his mind after a discussion with Asst Ref (I think). Perhaps he ruled that White caught the ball but a maul didn't form immediately?
 

chbg


Referees in England
Joined
May 15, 2009
Messages
1,479
Solutions
1
Post Likes
439
Current Referee grade:
Level 7
Listen around 1:30 - 'Black' considered to have caught (comment: had more control over) the ball from their own kick.
 

MrQeu

Avid Rugby Lover
Joined
Sep 18, 2011
Messages
440
Post Likes
37
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
But that's not the way it should be. If black caught the ball from a teammate kick, then it's turnover ball, shouldn't it?


(c) Scrum following maul. The ball is thrown in by the team not in possession when the maul began. If the referee cannot decide which team had possession, the team moving forward before the maul stopped throws in the ball. If neither team was moving forward, the attacking team throws in the ball.

(h)
Scrum after a maul when catcher is held. If a player catches the ball direct from an opponent’s kick, except from a kick-off or a drop-out, and the player is immediately held by an opponent, a maul may form. Then if the maul remains stationary, stops moving forward for longer than 5 seconds, or if the ball becomes unplayable, and a scrum is ordered, the team of the ball catcher throws in the ball.

‘Direct from an opponent’s kick’ means the ball did not touch another player or the ground before the player caught it.
 

chbg


Referees in England
Joined
May 15, 2009
Messages
1,479
Solutions
1
Post Likes
439
Current Referee grade:
Level 7
Of course - I stand corrected, thank you. But I think that AR and the AR made the same mistake. Easy to do!
 

Chogan


Referees in Ireland
Joined
Feb 3, 2012
Messages
412
Post Likes
8
Current Referee grade:
National Panel
Thanks MrQeu
 
Last edited:

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,035
Post Likes
1,775
yep.. ref and AR decided that black kick + black catch plus unsuccessful end to a maul = black scrum.

Cock up.

didds
 

talbazar


Referees in Singapore
Joined
Apr 19, 2010
Messages
702
Post Likes
81
17.6.(h) states "kick from an opponent", as such, you guys are right to say it doesn't apply...

But, see 17.6.(c):
[LAWS]17.6.(c) Scrum following maul. The ball is thrown in by the team not in possession when the maul began. If the referee cannot decide which team had possession, the team moving forward before the maul stopped throws in the ball. If neither team was moving forward, the attacking team throws in the ball.[/LAWS]

It looks to me like both players are catching the ball at the same time. Hence, it looks like we are in the bolded case above...
Me thinks the decision is ok...

Did I miss something?
Cheers,
Pierre.

Edit: The explanation to the player isn't correct though :chin:
 

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
14,106
Post Likes
2,131
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
17.6.(h) states "kick from an opponent", as such, you guys are right to say it doesn't apply...

But, see 17.6.(c):
[LAWS]17.6.(c) Scrum following maul. The ball is thrown in by the team not in possession when the maul began. If the referee cannot decide which team had possession, the team moving forward before the maul stopped throws in the ball. If neither team was moving forward, the attacking team throws in the ball.[/LAWS]

It looks to me like both players are catching the ball at the same time. Hence, it looks like we are in the bolded case above...
Me thinks the decision is ok...

Did I miss something?
Cheers,
Pierre.

Edit: The explanation to the player isn't correct though :chin:

But in this case it doesn't matter which team had possession when the maul began.

If White took it in direct from a Black kick, then it is a White feed.
If Black took it in direct from a Black kick, then it is a White feed.
 

menace


Referees in Australia
Joined
Nov 20, 2009
Messages
3,657
Post Likes
633
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
But in this case it doesn't matter which team had possession when the maul began.

If White took it in direct from a Black kick, then it is a White feed.
If Black took it in direct from a Black kick, then it is a White feed.

But if he didn't know who had possession when taken in, then black was moving forward when it ended bad, AND black were the attacking team...so black feed.

But personally, I think AR had it right and equitable the first time, and looked to be more of a catch by white than black. I think his AR made him look a dick by chiming in. In crickets DRS terms it was a "umpires call!", and Roland should have stuck to his own decision.
 

Jarrod Burton


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
725
Post Likes
208
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Seems to me that its difficult to determine who took that ball in as both players had a mitt on it and neither had control when the maul formed. Black put the drive on and were moving forward, so I would be giving it to black, if I had a good veiw of the contest (AR may have been slightly blindsided by the black player). Can equally see it being given to white depending on how you see the catch though and would probably be a fairer call.
 

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
14,106
Post Likes
2,131
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Seems to me that its difficult to determine who took that ball in as both players had a mitt on it and neither had control when the maul formed. Black put the drive on and were moving forward, so I would be giving it to black, if I had a good veiw of the contest

That doesn't make sense to me.

If White had clearly caught the ball, the scrum would be to White. If Black had clearly caught the ball, the scrum would be to White.

You're suggesting that because it was unclear who caught the ball, the scrum should be to Black???
 

menace


Referees in Australia
Joined
Nov 20, 2009
Messages
3,657
Post Likes
633
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
That doesn't make sense to me.

If White had clearly caught the ball, the scrum would be to White. If Black had clearly caught the ball, the scrum would be to White.

You're suggesting that because it was unclear who caught the ball, the scrum should be to Black???

True...but that's what the law says you should do (ie probably one of those "when in doubt reward positive play..yadda yadda yadda"). No one is saying the law makes sense!
 
Last edited:

Account Deleted

Facebook Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2004
Messages
4,089
Post Likes
1
Not listening to the audio, I felt that the call was unclear who took it in etc so the scrum goers to the side going forward / attacking side etc. Both of which point to a Black put in. However, whichever side caught the ball the scrum was to blue/ grey. Logic suggest that the "correct" call is therefore Blue / grey ball. The other possibilitie, that post to this thread suggest, are that either; the sight of Black catching a kick made the official "assume" the kick came from blue / grey Hence a Black scrum or there the maul did not form immediately. Neither are convincing.

So, I guess it was one of those moment where logic deserts you in an unusual situation.
 

Jarrod Burton


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
725
Post Likes
208
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Could it be that AR/the TJ felt that white took it in and then black stripped it, drove forward and because of this they were the team in possession and going forward and gave it to them. Can't think of it in the Laws and for some reason can't get on to them but just a stab in the dark?
 

Camquin

Rugby Expert
Joined
Mar 8, 2011
Messages
1,653
Post Likes
310
If you are clear Black took it in White get the scrum- team not in possession.
If you are clear White took it in - direct from a Black kick - White get the scrum
However, if you think there was a delay between White fielding the kick and the maul forming scrum goes to Black as team not in possession.
If you are not clear who took it in scrum goes to side going forward - but in this case the maul was stationary, therefore scrum goes to the attacking team - Black,

And they say the laws are too complicated.

Camquin
 
Last edited:

Browner

Banned
Joined
Jan 20, 2012
Messages
6,000
Post Likes
270
At original speed I thought black got the better of the 'contested' catch
So I was looking for a white feed ...next

Rolland looked to have made the same decision (he says "they caught the ball" as an explanation to the querying borthwick) , but then reversed it on the suggestion of his assistant (seemingly on the immediate maul law)

Which meant it became the wrong decision IMO

(Borthwick re-queries and Rolland says something about ' his' interpretation)

A good example though well done for posting it,
 
Last edited:

Mat 04


Referees in Wales
Joined
Mar 22, 2005
Messages
906
Post Likes
0
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
But in this case it doesn't matter which team had possession when the maul began.

If White took it in direct from a Black kick, then it is a White feed.
If Black took it in direct from a Black kick, then it is a White feed.

This is what crossed my mind also.
 

FlipFlop


Referees in Switzerland
Joined
Jun 13, 2006
Messages
3,227
Post Likes
226
What if White took it is, but the ball was touched by Black before White caught it? So it isn't "Direct from a kick". So then White formed the maul, and didn't get it back, so Black ball?
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,035
Post Likes
1,775
then surely its a knock on by black (ball went towards white DBL) and scrum white?

didds
 
Top