TMO Decision: Chiefs vs Crusaders

[Iron_Lung]

Watching the game between the Crusaders and Chiefs and the commendators have spent a lot of time talking about a decision by Steve Walsh (ref) and Bryce Lawrence (TMO)

Situation as follows: Red player dives for the line and is stopped short and held by a black player. 1st arriving player is a red forward in support who simply drives the ball carrier and tackler accross the line and into the in goal. The ball carrier is still in possession of the ball, having never released it, when it crosses the line.

Steve Walsh goes to the TMO who awards the try. Comentators are very confused and believe that it's a "double movement" (yes I know :norc:, not in this sport lads, and the world is listening :chin. I was thinking that it should be a penalty for not releasing as the ball carrier never exercised his options once he was brought to ground and held. He was also then off his feet when he took the ball and grounded it in goal.

Would be a very harsh penalty to give, but I'm not sure what the laws say about this one?

Comments?

 

[Davet]

Red player dives for the line and is stopped short and held by a black player

Sounds like we have a tackle and that the ball carrier came to a stiop, so momentum is not relevant.

If so then I think he should have released the ball, which is exactly the same criteria as the "double movement" offence, and should be penalised for not doing so.

No try - penalty against.

But I suspect the TMO cannot rule on things before the goal line is reached. Which is starting to get silly.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

Some TMO cannot rule on things before the goal line is reached.

:biggrin:

 

[OB..]

How much time did the scorer have to release, and how close to the line was he?

If he had time to release etc, then he should have done so.
If he was too far from the line, then he was not entitled to hold onto the ball while being pushed.

If he was close enough to reach out to score but was pre-empted by the push, I see no grounds for penalising him.

 

[damo]

Sounds like we have a tackle and that the ball carrier came to a stiop, so momentum is not relevant.

If so then I think he should have released the ball, which is exactly the same criteria as the "double movement" offence, and should be penalised for not doing so.

No try - penalty against.

But I suspect the TMO cannot rule on things before the goal line is reached. Which is starting to get silly.

I was thinking that it should be a penalty for not releasing as the ball carrier never exercised his options once he was brought to ground and held.

I can't agree with either of you here. The penalty should have been against the Chiefs tackler for not releasing the ball carrier. In fact I would say that an argument could be made that this failure to release the ball carrier prevented a probable try.

Penalty try to the Crusaders?

 

[Simon Thomas]

Walsh and Lawrence as TMO - what a surprise there is yet more controversy ! What question did Walsh ask ? Sounds like Walsh got it wrong prior to the TMO stage.

Ian I am with you - tackled player was stationary surely he needs to choose and execute his options - PK against red for holding on.

 

[Davet]

Damo - didn't see it so can't comment - Based on the description the "held" by the black player could simply be a completion of a tackle, or it could be failing to release the tackled player. I dunno. If it was the latter then you may have a point.

As OB says, in reality it depends on the precise circumstances, the times involved etc.

although:

If he was close enough to reach out to score but was pre-empted by the push, I see no grounds for penalising him.

Time is important, distance is not the issue. If he was close enough to reach out -IMMEDIATELY - but didn't then that's his problem - I note you say pre-empted by the push, but that would really have had to be virtually simultaneous with the ball carrier being tackled to be relevant in the way you describe.

I think we need to see it to judge, otherwise it's just theoretical pin the tail on the donkey.

 

[Iron_Lung]

I can't agree with either of you here. The penalty should have been against the Chiefs tackler for not releasing the ball carrier. In fact I would say that an argument could be made that this failure to release the ball carrier prevented a probable try.

Penalty try to the Crusaders?

I don't think the Chief's tackler was preventing the Crusader from exercising his options, but it's 50-50 so I can see why you'd think that. However, that wasn't my question. The Chief's player stopped him inches short of the line, as proved by the fact that he was then driven over by the arriving player. However in this case I think there was a clear point at which the tackle was complete before the drive of the arriving player carries the ball carrier over the line. So my question is whether that counts as a try, or if (forgetting about if he was released or not) a ball carrier driven across the line following the completion of a tackle counts as a try?

The second part to this is then if the referee says try or no try, then what the hell is TMO supposed to do. He can answer that the ball was grounded beyond the line, but that isn't what the ref asked! Here is where I got really confused and needed to have a cup of tea and a sit down. Taking it to the extreme, if a player picks up the ball in an offside position and then grounds it over the line, if the Ref asks "try or no try" then what is the TMO supposed to say? That the call was grounded over the line and nothing else?

Me thinks there is room for clarification here :chin:

 

[damo]

The Chief's player stopped him inches short of the line, as proved by the fact that he was then driven over by the arriving player. However in this case I think there was a clear point at which the tackle was complete before the drive of the arriving player carries the ball carrier over the line. So my question is whether that counts as a try, or if (forgetting about if he was released or not) a ball carrier driven across the line following the completion of a tackle counts as a try?

You make a good point. At the time I wasn't too perturbed by the decision because all the momentum for the forward movement after the tackle was made came from the arriving player and certainly not the ball carrier. Unless we rule a penalty for tackler or ball carrier for not releasing then it has to be a try.

 

[Davet]

Unless we rule a penalty for tackler or ball carrier for not releasing then it has to be a try.

That makes sense - but the question is then should it be a penalty; which is beyond the TMO's remit.

 

[OB..]

I suggest the TMO could say: "The tackled player was holding the ball as he was pushed over the goal line, and the grounding was valid. It is your decision as to whether there was any offence before then."

I've done my theory bit. I'll now wait until it appears on rugbydump or youtube or wherever, to see the actual incident.

 

[FKlopper]

What question did Walsh ask ? Sounds like Walsh got it wrong prior to the TMO stage.

Walsh asked the first question, "Try: Yes or No?"

 

[damo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcFPU7vnJS0

The action starts at about 0:50 for those who cannot sit through the whole thing :hap:

 

[Phil E]

From the description, tackler didn't release....(possible advantage, or possible see what happens next)....driven over line.......TMO to check grounding....Try.

Sounds fine to me.

NB: Just watched it. Black player clearly holding on when ball is still in field of play, other black player lying all over the ball carrier. So I stick to my statement above. "Sounds fine to me".

 

[Rushforth]

However, the drive over the line at 1:11 by red 5 putting the impact in from his right shoulder to the head of the black player is clearly dangerous.

It wasn't a ruck, so 16.2 (a) doesn't apply. If anything, 15.7 (e) does: "Danger may arise if a tackled player fails to release the ball or move away from it immediately, or if that player is prevented from so doing. If either of these happens the referee awards a penalty kick immediately. Sanction: Penalty kick".

Given that it would be almost impossible to whistle in time to stop that charge, in a perfect world I'd be tempted to give a penalty for the first infringement (against the defenders, for preventing release), but warn (tell) the attackers that they are to stay on their feet.

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

Black preventing red from exersising options possible penalty try before Red goes off his feet to drive committing another penalty offence but hey this is showbiz rugby!!

 

[Simon Thomas]

Having now seen the incident in full, I revise my decision.

Try correctly awarded - equitable decision.

Red tackled and short of line, black defender is half in half out of in goal, ball is out of in-goal. First offence is Black as tackle laws apply and black tackler not releasing. Play advantage or PT - try scored anyway !

 

[Blackberry]

Also isnt the player who dived down to drive his colleague over the line guilty of going to ground near a tackle?

 

[OB..]

Part of this I have discussed at length (with Davet in particular). The defenders are preventing the red player from reaching out to score. I think that it is unreasonable to expect them to commit suicide, so I do not object.

The supporting Red player cannot get the ball so he does the next best thing - push everyone over the line.

Lots of grey all over the place but overall I would allow the try. Nothing dangerous. No important quibbles.

 

[Davet]

Part of this I have discussed at length (with Davet in particular). The defenders are preventing the red player from reaching out to score. I think that it is unreasonable to expect them to commit suicide, so I do not object.

Whereas my view wold be that if it is penalisable as "failing to release the tackled player", on the half way line, or the 22 line or the 5m line then it penalisable under exactly the same criteria when it is 25cm out from the goal-line.