Tigers v Irish

[chopper15]

34min+: Tiger's forward pass. Ref. calls ' Passed this side of line . . . caught(?)that side of line'

Surely he knows what we all know . . . .? :biggrin:

 

[chopper15]

62min. No try . . . TMO should've seen Tiger's ball- carrier hit his own man in front of him before he touched down?

. . . . or wouldn't that matter if the man in front is over the GL ?

 

[collybs]

law 11.6
a) When an offside player cannot avoid being touched by the ball or by a team-mate carrying it, the player is accidentally offside. If the player’s team gains no advantage from this, play continues. If the player’s team gains an advantage, a scrum is formed with the opposing team throwing in the ball.

Did it stop a LI player preventing the try - if not play on .

 

[chopper15]

Did it stop a LI player preventing the try - if not play on .

Thanks for the info. Yep, shielded the defence from a tackle/grounding. Perhaps the TMO gave Tigers the benefit of doubt. Is that OK if uncertain?

 

[dave_clark]

depends on what the referee asked.

 

[Davet]

Or perhaps the TMO's opinion on the player in front disadvantaging the opposition was different to yours?

 

[FKlopper]

Here's the clip of the try I think you mean.

Question was "Is there any reason I cannot award a try?"

 

[Ricardowensleydale]

Was that Stuart Barnes saying it was "preposterous" to award a try. If I stick with my usual rule of thumb that Barmes is wrong about everything he ever says it must be a try. I also doubt if the defence could have prevented the grounding even if the man hadn't been there.

 

[OB..]

I have no problems with the try. Frame-by-frame I agree with the AR that the ball was knocked out of Croft's hand by the London Irish player. It was not a knock-on because it did not go forward from Croft.

The ball then bounced around with both sides trying to get a handle on it. Agulla succeeded.

 

[Davet]

So LI playing the ball put Aguilla onside?

Works for me.

 

[Waspsfan]

For me - try - right decision. No knock on by Croft, knocked out of his hands by LI player's knee.

 

[Casey Bee]

How can those commentating muppets be watching the same clip over and over and KEEP insisting that it was a knock on, there was 'loss of control' etc etc? It is absolutely clear that as Croft reaches out it hits a knee. They seem to think by repeating something ad nauseum they'll make it true?? Completely nuts that they keep saying something contrary to the clear evidence!

 

[Robert Burns]

And as the act of knocking it out of his hand was in the act of (trying to) score, I have no issues with the TMO looking t it or ruling on it.

Stuart Barnes go back to being a pundit because you're a crap commentator.

 

[Ian_Cook]

There's some pinball for sure, but at no time did the ball go forward off an attacking players hands.

Fair try

 

[chopper15]

You are all passing judgement on the initial ping-pong passage of play strengthened by your intense dislike of SB, who incidentally is a very good commentator particularly on the subtleties and technicalities of play, and your understandable support of the referees' decision.

If you look carefully at the slo-mo the decision was made not on possible knock-ons, which the ref appeared to be OK with, but on the consideration of a possible obstruction with the offside team-mate.

Did he prevent the immediate opponent from stopping the grounding?

 

[Simon Thomas]

No - try.

 

[Donal1988]

No Knock On
No Obstruction
Commentators are Wrong
Try!!

 

[Davet]

No obstruction. Player in front did not interfere with defenders' time and space.

I understand the critique, but in my view it is is false.

 

[Ricardowensleydale]

And as the act of knocking it out of his hand was in the act of (trying to) score, I have no issues with the TMO looking t it or ruling on it.

Stuart Barnes go back to being a pundit because you're a crap commentator.

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you......Barnes should not go back to being a pundit although he should certainly give up commentating! Several of the controversies that I read on these forum and hear in the pub are caused by pundits and commentators voicing their opinions as fact. I didn't realise until I joined this site just how limited the knowledge of the laws of ex-internationals and professional commentators was. I was watching some NFL coverage and they had the ex-commisioner of referees in the studio to give an opinion. Perhaps if RU started doing that we would rid ourselves of some of this controversy by educating both professional and the public.

 

[chopper15]

No - try.

. . . . and what about my query, Simon? The off-side team-mate preventing the defefender from stopping the grounding.:hap: