[Law] Wayne Barnes Ire V Sco 2018 6 Nations

[Rich_NL]

I disagree.

If it's unclear who has won the ball, the advantage goes to the team going forward, not the team that would have won the scrum if it had been clear.

Otherwise you're denying one team an opportunity for contest.

 

[Last_20]

The inconsistency I observe between international referees is their treatment of the tackler. Often it is the tacklers presence (having not rolled away quickly enough) that prevent the attacking side clearing out the opposition player who is attempting a turnover - I would say that Barnes and Peyper (is it a N/S Hemisphere thing?) refereed that differently at the weekend - no inconsistency in their own games.
As a relatively new referee I was taught that the sequence is
Tackler release and move away then
Tackled player play/place the ball...
International standard players have an ability to tackle and end up on the floor on the attacking side - deliberately slowing the ball down and improving the odds of their turnover - I would penalise that more often.

 

[Pinky]

I thought WB had a pretty good game - he was clear with most of his explanations and seemed to ref the breakdown equally - he rightly pinged Denton for repeatedly rolling into the 9's way.

As for the third try, you need to remember that this was the act of scoring a try, so you don't look at it as you would if it had happened in the field of play. Undoubtedly there the ball would have been lost forward, but in goal as soon as it touched the ground the try is scored and as long as he has not lost contact with it before the grounding (and I don't think he had) then the try is good.

A couple of issues though about decisions - both against Scotland, but that is not a complaint as they have only themselves or Ireland to blame for the result.

Fourth try, was green 16 off his feet before he dived over the line? Its in the highlinghts

And knock on by Scotland as Gilchrist(I think) reached for the line and the ball was grabbed by Irish defender - two things was the defender off his feet? If so ? PK to Scotland, and if not did he not take it in goal and ground it so Scrum 5 to Scotland - I don't think there was a KO.

 

[ChuckieB]

I thought WB had a pretty good game - he was clear with most of his explanations and seemed to ref the breakdown equally - he rightly pinged Denton for repeatedly rolling into the 9's way.

As for the third try, you need to remember that this was the act of scoring a try, so you don't look at it as you would if it had happened in the field of play. Undoubtedly there the ball would have been lost forward, but in goal as soon as it touched the ground the try is scored and as long as he has not lost contact with it before the grounding (and I don't think he had) then the try is good.

A couple of issues though about decisions - both against Scotland, but that is not a complaint as they have only themselves or Ireland to blame for the result.

Fourth try, was green 16 off his feet before he dived over the line? Its in the highlinghts

And knock on by Scotland as Gilchrist(I think) reached for the line and the ball was grabbed by Irish defender - two things was the defender off his feet? If so ? PK to Scotland, and if not did he not take it in goal and ground it so Scrum 5 to Scotland - I don't think there was a KO.

I do agree that 16 was off his feet and effectively propelled himself to the line without regaining his feet. It wasn't momentum. No argument from any?

In a game last season NO allowed CM's try (remember that thread?) as he propelled himself forward because he said the ball had passed the plane of goal before he did so.

I could have easily seen myself disallowing it.

 

[davidlandy]

42:14 to 42:34

ITV coverage here: https://www.itv.com/hub/six-nations-championship/2a4295a0020

Probably geo-fenced to UK. Needs a log in and forces you to 'watch' adverts before you can start watching.

Thanks for the link. (Lots of ads before you can get to it!)

So... green kick ahead in open play, two players (one green, one blue) catch the ball at the same time, and are wrestling for it as they go to ground. Ball becomes unplayable. Decision: attacking scrum. Correct decision?

If you listen to the chat on ref-mic as the teams are getting ready for the scrum, blue (defending) says "but I called a mark", to which WB says "you can't call a mark if you're both holding on to it" or words to that effect!

 

[Richard smith]

Fourth try, was green 16 off his feet before he dived over the line? Its in the highlinghts

.

Having watched the 4th Irish try, in SLO-MO, several times this would appear to be the case.

 

[DocY]

Having watched the 4th Irish try, in SLO-MO, several times this would appear to be the case.

He was certainly off his feet. To my mind the question was whether he'd been tackled and held. And if so, was the tackle legal.

But if you're having to check something in slow mo to see an infringement, it's hardly clear and obvious.

 

[Phil E]

So... green kick ahead in open play, two players (one green, one blue) catch the ball at the same time, and are wrestling for it as they go to ground. Ball becomes unplayable. Decision: attacking scrum. Correct decision?

Yes correct. Law says:

[LAWS]The team last moving forward. If neither team was moving forward, the attacking team.
[/LAWS]

[LAWS]Definitions: Attacking team: The opposition to the team in whose half play is taking place.
[/LAWS]

If you listen to the chat on ref-mic as the teams are getting ready for the scrum, blue (defending) says "but I called a mark", to which WB says "you can't call a mark if you're both holding on to it" or words to that effect!

To call the mark it must be a clean catch. If they both catch it together it isn't clean.

 

[Camquin]

Good point, though that does create an interesting corner case.

If you can determine who caught it first, no matter which team catches it -it becomes a Blue ball.
If you cannot determine who caught it, for example because you were unsighted, it is attacking ball - in this case Green.

So the outcome depends on the observer - how quantum.


BTW I think I have found a mistake in the laws
In the table at law 19

An unplayable maul after kick in open play. | In the scrum zone at the point nearest to place of maul. | The team in possession at the start of the maul.

But in law 21 it states this applies only after an opponents kick.

On the question of a clean catch, had Blue got their hands on the ball first, and then Green contested I think I would count it as a clean catch - but I am not sure how close the contest could be before I would not.

 

[davidlandy]

If you can determine who caught it first, no matter which team catches it -it becomes a Blue ball.

Camquin, I'm loving your quantum idea...

But, it does matter which team catches it the kick, because an unplayable maul after a kick in open play results in a scrum to the team in possession at the start of the maul, ie the side which caught the ball. (Thanks Phil E.)

(Interestingly, as an aside, I notice that it doesn't matter whether the opponents manage to wrestle the ball from their grasp during the maul.)

It's also possible that in this case WB decided there was no maul formed, and it was simply an unplayable tackle or ruck, or "a scrum for any other reason", in either case the put-in would go to the side going forward (none in this case) or the attacking team (green), which is what he awarded.

http://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=19&language=EN

I really hope this doesn't scupper your quantum theory as it's such a lovely idea. :hap:

 

[Camquin]

Yes if you only look at law 19 scrum.
But look at law 21 maul (and the 2017 law book) - it only applies to an opponents kick.

So if you know who caught it - it is a blue scrum, but if you don't it is a green scrum.

As ever the problem is squarely with the IRB law committee.

 

[davidlandy]

Yes if you only look at law 19 scrum.
But look at law 21 maul (and the 2017 law book) - it only applies to an opponents kick.

So if you know who caught it - it is a blue scrum, but if you don't it is a green scrum.

As ever the problem is squarely with the IRB law committee.

Well yes, they don't exactly cover themselves in glory, do they?!?

I'm assuming you mean 16 Maul in the 2018 rule book? I don't have the 2017 book (and why would it be relevant?)

I can't see how are 16.18 and 19.1 contradictory:

[LAWS]16.18 If a maul is formed immediately after a player has directly caught an opponent’s kick in open play, a scrum that is awarded for any of the above reasons will be to the team of the ball catcher.[/LAWS]

[LAWS]19.1 Infringement / stoppage: An unplayable maul after kick in open play. Who throws in: The team in possession at the start of the maul.[/LAWS]

"Ball catcher" = "team in possession at the start of the maul", no?

Two scenarios:

1. If green kick ahead and blue catch it, and a maul is formed immediately and the ball becomes unplayable, it's blue's put in, under both laws: blue is the team of the ball catcher (and it was an opponent's kick), and blue is the team in possession at the start of the maul.

2. If green kick ahead and catch their own kick, and a maul is formed immediately and the ball becomes unplayable, it's green's put in under 19.1 as they are the team in possession at the start of the maul. Law 16.18 doesn't apply because it's not an opponent's kick.

Please help me out if you can spot the flaw in my logic!

[Edited to remove reference in the two examples to kicking ahead into opponents' half. This is only relevant if no side clearly has possession, in which case it's attacking ball.]

[Edited again to add refs to the two laws in the two examples]

 

[chbg]

Ok, possibly not strictly contradictory (if you are a pedant), but certainly not complementary.

Either 16.18 is only partially correct, by addressing only an opponent's kick.

Or 19.1 is wrong by including all kicks. And since LOTG 2018 was not supposed to change anything from LOTG 2017 ...

(And I now know why my Assessor didn't mention it an error last w/e, when I followed 19.1 ...)

 

[Phil E]

I'm assuming you mean 16 Maul in the 2018 rule book? I don't have the 2017 book (and why would it be relevant?)

Because we have been told that there are no law changes between books and both books are valid. So we have a book with short explanations and a book with long explanations that might differ, but are both correct......yes I know :wow:

 

[crossref]

Its one of these cases where the two Law books are consistent (I think?) but where the 2017 Law Book wasn't clear, but 2018 Law Book is even LESS clear than the 2017 !

The inconsistency is in mauls from a restart kick , I think isn't it?
Green kick off, Blue catch , maul formed and fails
2017 .. Green scrum
2018 .. Blue scrum

Or have I confused myself

 

[ChuckieB]

Its one of these cases where the two Law books are consistent (I think?) but where the 2017 Law Book wasn't clear, but 2018 Law Book is even LESS clear than the 2017 !

The inconsistency is in mauls from a restart kick , I think isn't it?
Green kick off, Blue catch , maul formed and fails
2017 .. Green scrum
2018 .. Blue scrum

Or have I confused myself

Given the maul laws now refer to a ball caught in open play and there is now a definition of Open Play as:

"the period after a kick off, restart kick, free-kick, penalty or set pieces or before the next phase, or the period between phases of play, excluding when the ball is dead",

no I don't think you are confusing yourself!