[Law] What's the sanction for a double movement in trying to score a try ?

[CrouchTPEngage]

I had a case where an attacker was tackled about 1 metre from the goal-line. To me, clear and obvious he was held on the ground and tackle completed. Whilst lying there, he shuffled his knees and feet one more time so that he could reach out and push the ball onto the white of the try-line.
I said "No try". There was no issue in that decision.
I awarded a penalty to the defending team and against that attacker for holding on in the tackle.
The coach was not happy and told me that this should have been a scrum for an unintentional knock-forward.
I didnt agree but , given his conviction, I started to wonder if there is a divided opinion out there about how to sanction such action ?

Any views ?

 

[crossref]

You were right, it's a PK for not releasing the ball after being tackled

 

[beckett50]

Spot on decision.

Coach was wrong.

 

[Taff]

I had a case where an attacker was tackled about 1 metre from the goal-line. To me, clear and obvious he was held on the ground and tackle completed. Whilst lying there, he shuffled his knees and feet one more time so that he could reach out and push the ball onto the white of the try-line. I said "No try". There was no issue in that decision.

PK for not releasing BUT be aware that the mark for the PK is 5m out and not where the offence took place.

 

[Jolly Roger]

I guess he did not quote a law reference :biggrin:
Perhaps he was thinking about questionable grounding....:chin:

Infringement by attaching team or try? If not try, then penalty against.

 

[Flish]

The answers here all agree with my understanding, but there was one the other day (Scarlets possibly?) where after consulting the TMO a try was disallowed for double movement and it then went back for a 5m attacking scrum, which I just couldn't fathom or work out how it was justified, any takers?

 

[irishref]

PK for not releasing BUT be aware that the mark for the PK is 5m out and not where the offence took place.

My understanding is that a defending PK does not have to be on the 5m line, only an attacking PK.

 

[ChuckieB]

My understanding is that a defending PK does not have to be on the 5m line, only an attacking PK.

from 2018 laws table re penalty and free-kicks:

Any infringement in in-goal or within five metres of a goal line.

In the field of play, five metres from the goal line, in line with the place of infringement.

 

[Phil E]

My understanding is that a defending PK does not have to be on the 5m line, only an attacking PK.

That was changed a couple of years ago.


CTP you were right, coach is worng....shock/horror!.
PK for not releasing the ball, or playing the ball on the floor.

It's the same infringement as when a ball carrier is tackled and then gets back to his feet and carries on playing without releasing the ball.

 

[TheBFG]

Spot on decision.

Coach was wrong.

:wow:

 

[didds]

The answers here all agree with my understanding, but there was one the other day (Scarlets possibly?) where after consulting the TMO a try was disallowed for double movement and it then went back for a 5m attacking scrum, which I just couldn't fathom or work out how it was justified, any takers?

I can think of one scenario where it would happen but I divvy of that was the case in this match.

Eg. Defenders knock on 5m out, attacker gathers, go forward, tackled and DM.

 

[ChuckieB]

I can think of one scenario where it would happen but I divvy of that was the case in this match.

Eg. Defenders knock on 5m out, attacker gathers, go forward, tackled and DM.

There may be some that see that as failure to convert the opportunity of a clear advantage situation. Advantage over.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

There may be some that see that as failure to convert the opportunity of a clear advantage situation. Advantage over.

Not in every case.