Try, or no try

[Womble]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-g-vFoxk0ds Is the ball stripped in this clip? and if so should the try have been awarded? Your the TMO, try or no try? Can we have your answers as a TMO live on tv please as we are all happy to slate TMO's for using the wrong words !

 

[TheBFG]

I watched this a little while ago and did wonder why it wasn't referred? :chin:

I would have said, ball knocked out of attacking hand by defender, ball was then grounded so try.

But that was with he help of a replay :wink: and on a Saturday on my own I'd have gone with the 5m defending scrum.

 

[crossref]

On a saturday afternoon, when I am on my own -- lost foward over the line, 5m defending scrum, and I would be astonished if anyone raised a murmer.

As a TMO : defender is not attempting a tackle, but intentionally goes for the ball and knocks it out of the the ball carrier's hands onto ground. Ball on the ground is then touched down by japan. so try.

 

[Toby Warren]

Is this one where the lawmakers have gone against the expectation of the players?

That's a scrum 5 in the weeds - any other call will be a hard sell to say the least.

Based on the current ruling via TMO it's prob a try but that feels wrong to me

 

[Browner]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-g-vFoxk0ds Is the ball stripped in this clip? and if so should the try have been awarded? Your the TMO, try or no try? Can we have your answers as a TMO live on tv please as we are all happy to slate TMO's for using the wrong words !

I didnt see the ball travel C&O toward the defending DBL, so my TMO answer is "the ball is knocked out of reds possession by white , then Grounded by Red, you may award the try"

I suspect others will consider that Red lost possession backwards in a tackle!

Looked like a deliberate (desperation) knocking of the ball out of reds hand to me, shame it didn't go backwards off white, would've been a interesting decision to hear.

How similar was it to this one? http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=L--gsidb7rU. At least two hands of the defender were involved in the the Japan clip.

 

[SimonSmith]

I called try watching it live.
Still think so as TMO

 

[ddjamo]

"yes womble...you may award the try"

 

[4eyesbetter]

Not played at by the defender. For me, contact with the ball seems entirely incidental to the defender taking a grasp on the attacker with both hands to get him over the dead-ball line; so we're left with loose carry, knock-on (and in my world, 20 restart).

What actions are people looking at to say he's gone after the ball?

 

[The Fat]

Not played at by the defender. For me, contact with the ball seems entirely incidental to the defender taking a grasp on the attacker with both hands to get him over the dead-ball line; so we're left with loose carry, knock-on (and in my world, 20 restart).

What actions are people looking at to say he's gone after the ball?

Agree it was a loose carry and lost in the tackle but I need to see it on something bigger than my phone to see if it has gone forward or back so I can answer Womble's OP.
In any case, a knock on in in-goal is a scrum restart and not a 22 DO

 

[talbazar]

Tackle attempted (*).
So knock-on.
5m scrum defending team put it.

(*)As per the May 2014 Law clarification.

Pierre

 

[TNT88]

We had this in the super15 a few months ago. The bearer of truth, Lyndon Bray gave this directive:

http://www.sanzarrugby.com/superrugby/news/referee-update-lyndon-bray/

Lyndon Bray: "Lions #13 is carrying the ball and about to attempt to score a try. Blues #11 effects a tackle and Lions #13 loses possession as a result. While the Blues player does jolt the ball out of his possession, he is not trying to deliberately 'rip the ball' out of the player's possession. The onus is on the ball carrier to maintain possession while being tackled. Therefore, this should have been ruled as a knock on and subsequently, no try."

With this in my mind I said No Try.

 

[The Fat]

OK. Have had a chance to view on reasonable size screen so here goes.

TMO:
"Womble, the ball has been lost forward by red. White 5m scrum".

 

[Browner]

Watched it again, on a bigger screen with slow mo. , now agree it as a "tackle attempt" rather than a deliberate ball strike. So 1\2014 is not applicable.

Knock on red, grounded by red, 5m scrum white put in.

 

[The Fat]

I didnt see the ball travel C&O toward the defending DBL, so my TMO answer is "the ball is knocked out of reds possession by white , then Grounded by Red, you may award the try"

I suspect others will consider that Red lost possession backwards in a tackle!

Looked like a deliberate (desperation) knocking of the ball out of reds hand to me, shame it didn't go backwards off white, would've been a interesting decision to hear.

How similar was it to this one? http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=L--gsidb7rU. At least two hands of the defender were involved in the the Japan clip.

Don't the two statements in bold equal the same result by your reasoning?

I'm a little confused here. You seem to be saying that the ball was deliberately knocked out of red's possession by the white defender. I am therefore assuming that, to you, it doesn't matter which direction the ball then travels, it's not a knock-on. If so, why the need for
"I didnt see the ball travel C&O toward the defending DBL, so my TMO answer is....." ?
You, as TMO, say you would award the try.
Your next statement, "I suspect others will consider that Red lost possession backwards in a tackle!" would also result in a try.

Am I missing your meaning here, am I just thick, or is it a little from Column A and a little from Column B ???

 

[The Fat]

Watched it again, on a bigger screen with slow mo. , now agree it as a "tackle attempt" rather than a deliberate ball strike. So 1\2014 is not applicable.

Knock on red, grounded by red, 5m scrum white put in.

In that case, disregard my previous question/post.

 

[Taff]

We had this in the super15 a few months ago. The bearer of truth, Lyndon Bray gave [a] directive ... With this in my mind I said No Try.

So just for me to be clear, the ball must be deliberately or intentionally knocked out of the BCs possession for it to be play on?

Ie an accidental dislodge (like the one in the OP in my opinion) doesn't help the BC. Correct?

 

[TNT88]

Yes. Lyndon has told SH refs that responsibility lies with the ball carrier to secure possession, if the ball is dislodged in a tackle, and goes forward, that is treated as a knock on. If the defender plays at the ball and it comes lose (so yes, intentionally) then it is play on.

 

[Dixie]

Yes. Lyndon has told SH refs that responsibility lies with the ball carrier to secure possession, if the ball is dislodged in a tackle, and goes forward, that is treated as a knock on. If the defender plays at the ball and it comes lose (so yes, intentionally) then it is play on.

Which is exactly what clarification 1/14 says.

 

[TNT88]

Sorry didn't realize it become an official stance. This incident happened in March, SA refs weren't too happy with Bray from what I remember so they requested clarification. Didn't realize it happened in such a timely manner.

 

[crossref]

Yes. Lyndon has told SH refs that responsibility lies with the ball carrier to secure possession, if the ball is dislodged in a tackle, and goes forward, that is treated as a knock on. If the defender plays at the ball and it comes lose (so yes, intentionally) then it is play on.

indeed. the question in the OP isn't a question of Law it's a question of fact, a judgement call, was the defender trying to make a tackle, out of which the ball popped out? or did he try - and succeed - to knock the ball out of the defender's grasp?

I thought the latter - he had a pop at the ball.