[In-goal] What would you give (without TMO)

Paule23


Referees in Scotland
Joined
Oct 29, 2014
Messages
394
Post Likes
153
Current Referee grade:
Level 7
Can I just check the interpretation here?

If he throws the ball back when he has one foot on the ground in play, but the ball is over the DBL - This is OK (the key being he would need to release the ball whilst his foot is still grounded in the playing area?)

If he throws the ball back when he grabbed the ball as above, but is now airborne with him and the ball over the DBL - ????

In answer to the question, my first instinct in real time was it looked all wrong and not to award a try. From reading this thread, regardless of the law interpretation I think I was wrong in that assessment, as the view it there should be a C&O reason to award the try, where I was looking for something C&O that he was not in touch. A very useful thread for me to change my thinking in these areas.
 

menace


Referees in Australia
Joined
Nov 20, 2009
Messages
3,657
Post Likes
633
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Ill stick my neck out here - expecting to be smacked - but for me it is more C & O out than it ever was C & O a try. For me he and ball were way past dbl and feet were not planted c & o on the ground. But thats just how i see it?
 

The Fat


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
4,204
Post Likes
496
Ill stick my neck out here - expecting to be smacked - but for me it is more C & O out than it ever was C & O a try. For me he and ball were way past dbl and feet were not planted c & o on the ground. But thats just how i see it?

No need to fear a smacking menace. If that's how you saw it, that's how you rule. In this case, you would have made a correct decision.

Watching the video at full speed, I tend to agree with you. However, putting myself in the referee's shoes and estimating where I probably would have been positioned with no TMO, I would probably have awarded the try (i.e. I would have been looking from a different angle and height to the video in the OP).

My earlier point re C & O was to point out that when making a decision, it is play on UNLESS there is a C & O infringement. I think that is the bit that Paule23 is commenting on.

You would have ruled on what you observed and that is exactly what we are expected to do. You were looking at all four elements, ball location, player's body, player's feet and point of ball release. Others may have only been looking at two elements i.e. player's feet and point of ball release.
 
Top