Thought that Falateu reached into the scrum tonight to get the ball and wrestle it out to make the try for Webb. Have I missed something? Surely that should be penalty England?
It looked wrong, and I've been thinking about what Eddie Butler mentioned - ie how far into the scrum can he go, before it's classed as "handling in the scrum"?Thought that Falateu reached into the scrum tonight to get the ball and wrestle it out to make the try for Webb. Have I missed something? Surely that should be penalty England?
I presume that is tongue in cheek? You obviously know that the law requires the ball to be at his feet when he unbinds. (a) He unbound early; (b) he reached into the scrum to retrieve the ball.Number 8 unbound and picked it up. Isnt that what we want?? play on!!
Exactly. I bet they'll watch the replay and think "How the hell did we get away with that?"Welsh scrum going backwards fast and breaking up. They couldn't heel the ball to the back fast enough and we're going to lose it. The ball wasn't even in the second row. The 8 then resorted to illegally handling the ball to save the day. It should have been a penalty to England for any number of offences.
I don't think where the ball is was C&O for the ref so play on seems right. From the TV angle in Browner's clip, it looks barely out of the front row. That's the benefit of TV. Should he have gone "upstairs"? Not if it appeared OK from his side (unless, of course, the AR saw something).
Were we reffing it, with the ref's view, I bet most of us would not have pingged the incident. So one of those things.
[LAWS]20.10 ENDING THE SCRUM
(c) Hindmost player unbinds. The hindmost player in a scrum is the player whose feet are
nearest the team’s own goal line. If the hindmost player unbinds from the scrum with the
ball at that player’s feet and picks up the ball, the scrum ends.[/LAWS]
The only question for me is, was the ball at Falatau's feet when he unbound?
- If it wasn't, the he has infringed under 20.3 (f)
- If it was, then he has unbound legally, the scrum is over, and he can reach in as far as he likes to get the ball.
So that suggests that, from his point of view it was not clear and obvious that the ball was not "playable". It also suggests the same for the AR's view point.
I'm not saying that they are correct but that I can, as Ian suggets, understand why no whistle was heard.