PDA

View Full Version : [Law] May in-goal hold back?



didds
11-02-19, 10:02
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUVUCTF5LUM

Ball is kicked in goal, May and French defender (FD) in a foot race for the ball. They both end up on tyhe ground and slide into in-goal after the ball. May's right arm hooks around FD's left arm and potentially holds him back/down, and Farrell follows through and scores.

When NO went to the TMO neither of them discussed this (though the commentary team did).

So... was it just that neither NO or TMO spotted it? Or cos NO never asked the TMO cannot comment?

My query is not so much whether it should have been a try or not, but more why wasn't it discussed (do we think).

didds

Phil E
11-02-19, 11:02
I am guessing that they didn't think the French defender on his belly would have got to the ball before Farrell, so it became immaterial?

didds
11-02-19, 11:02
That's my thought Phil - but then again it wasn't even discussed to be then discarded...

didds

TheBFG
11-02-19, 11:02
50:50 they were both pulling at each other "playing incident"

pedr
11-02-19, 11:02
The TMO seemed to be about to say something else after confirming the ball only touched a French arm, but was talked over by NO. I expect that if he’d been intending to discuss something which would rule out the try he would have persisted.

beckett50
11-02-19, 11:02
When NO went to the TMPO he said (IIRC and to paraphrase) that the '....on field decision was that the try was scored...' but that they wanted to check whether there was a knock-on. Based upon that brief from NO I'm guessing that the TMO was only looking for the potential knock-on.

Was the hold back C&O? Yes, IMO
Would it have stopped Farrell scoring? I doubt it.

Arabcheif
11-02-19, 11:02
I'm not sure how the French player was was holding May TBH. Plus the French player was on his knees when he got pulled back down. I think hat this was definitely material, given the ball was literally 1m a head of him. But I'm surprised there was no YC for the High Tackle.

beckett50
11-02-19, 12:02
I'm not sure how the French player was was holding May TBH. Plus the French player was on his knees when he got pulled back down. I think hat this was definitely material, given the ball was literally 1m a head of him. But I'm surprised there was no YC for the High Tackle.

May was holding back the French player, by hooking his right arm around the left one of the French player.

CrouchTPEngage
11-02-19, 12:02
I thought May was making a legal tackle on the French player. He is allowed ( now ) to tackle the player as the defender is attempting to gain possession ( the French player's hand tried to control the ball ). The defender makes himself liable to a tackle as soon as he touches the ball with his hand. This is similar to how Jack Nowell tackled Jacob Stockdale who was juggling the ball in the in-goal last week.
Or am I stretching it ?

Taff
11-02-19, 13:02
I am guessing that they didn't think the French defender on his belly would have got to the ball before Farrell, so it became immaterial?
Exactly what I was thinking.

The French player was on the floor and I can't see any way he could have scrambled to the ball before Farrell, even if his left arm hadn't been hooked.

Balones
11-02-19, 13:02
Exactly what I was thinking.

The French player was on the floor and I can't see any way he could have scrambled to the ball before Farrell, even if his left arm hadn't been hooked.

Isn’t foul play, foul play regardless of materiality? The French player wasn’t allowed to make an attempt to get to the ball. He probably wouldn’t have made it but it is not up to May to decide.

Arabcheif
11-02-19, 13:02
Watch the video. They slid in-goal, the French player was on his knee and was just about to lunge forward. May hooked his arm and dragged him back down. If it was the opposite way around you'd have a PT and a YC. Of course it's material. He was denied (unfairly) the chance to play the ball (touch it down), for a 22 DO.

didds
11-02-19, 13:02
There's no doubt it happened - that's not in question. Hence my actual question - why do we think NO+TMO ignored it?

they didn't see it?
they saw it but considered it totally immaterial?
or... ?

didds

Arabcheif
11-02-19, 14:02
I hope that it's just a case that they were focusing on the who touched the ball to see if it was a knock on off white. I'd suggest that if they saw it and they didn't think it was material, then that's a very poor judgement call.

OB..
11-02-19, 14:02
The French player is initially behind May and tries to get an arm across in front of him when going for the ball. That traps May's arm. Rugby incident.

Arabcheif
11-02-19, 16:02
The French player is initially behind May and tries to get an arm across in front of him when going for the ball. That traps May's arm. Rugby incident.

Respectfully, are you watching the same incident. I would give you slide in with legs slightly closer to May. But is arm were no where near May until May grabbed one of them. The French player just dived for the ball and thats how he got in front of May. Never a hint of an arm from the french bloke.

Taff
11-02-19, 21:02
Isn’t foul play, foul play regardless of materiality? The French player wasn’t allowed to make an attempt to get to the ball. He probably wouldn’t have made it but it is not up to May to decide.
Yes, it's Foul Play, but there are different levels of Foul Play, ranging from technical offences up to the worst.

I haven't read the "simplified" lawbook but I'm sure there was a section in the previous book that said an offence by the scoring side could effectively be ignored if the try would probably have been scored anyway.

crossref
11-02-19, 21:02
I haven't read the "simplified" lawbook .

Seriously ?

You know that SINCE the rewrite there have been a number of regular Law changes ...

ctrainor
11-02-19, 22:02
I think that May held the Frenchman illegally. Now, France clearly put the ball in goal before play was stopped.
The offence took place in goal so where is the penalty, 5M out?

Zebra1922
11-02-19, 22:02
I think May clearly held the French player. To the original question I suggest it was not discussed by NO/TMO as it was not material. Without the contact from May there was no possibility of the defender reaching the ball prior to the try being scored.

If this happened the other way round, defender holding back the attacker, same result (there is an offence, it is not material, defender touches down in goal).

Balones
11-02-19, 23:02
Yes, it's Foul Play, but there are different levels of Foul Play, ranging from technical offences up to the worst.

I haven't read the "simplified" lawbook but I'm sure there was a section in the previous book that said an offence by the scoring side could effectively be ignored if the try would probably have been scored anyway.

This was not a technical offence. It was tackling or obstructing a player without the ball. What do you usually do in such circumstances in open play? Simply ignore it?

OB..
12-02-19, 00:02
I thought May was making a legal tackle on the French player. He is allowed ( now ) to tackle the player as the defender is attempting to gain possession ( the French player's hand tried to control the ball ). The defender makes himself liable to a tackle as soon as he touches the ball with his hand. This is similar to how Jack Nowell tackled Jacob Stockdale who was juggling the ball in the in-goal last week.
Or am I stretching it ?
The two players are going for a loose ball. It has always been the case that shoulder to shoulder contact is OK under such circumstances. In this case the French player put his arm across in front of May to try and reach the ball as he slid; May was also trying to reach out for it. The arms tangled well short of the ball. I don't see that the Frenchman was prevented from reaching the ball. I remain of the view that it was just a rugby incident. I think the officials are likely to have taken the same line.

Not Kurt Weaver
12-02-19, 00:02
In 1978 John Conlee released a song called "Rose Colored Glasses", I was in 8th grade. I didn't hear the song till this thread sent me on a google search.

When all is said and done. A try was awarded.

PMWOB

menace
12-02-19, 01:02
I cant see the video (some area blocking thingo)...but as described 2 players werent on their feet...so Im more surprised someone (yes you Crossref :biggrin::wink:) hasnt wanted to penalise one or both of them for being off their feet and playing the ball!!


Ill get me coat....:redface::tongue:

Dickie E
12-02-19, 06:02
I cant see the video (some area blocking thingo)...but as described 2 players werent on their feet...so Im more surprised someone (yes you Crossref :biggrin::wink:) hasnt wanted to penalise one or both of them for being off their feet and playing the ball!!

Ill get me coat....:redface::tongue:

have a look from 2:50 youtube time. It follows on from a quick tap taken before the whistle :wtf:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sy4HfmFqboo

crossref
12-02-19, 06:02
I cant see the video (some area blocking thingo)...but as described 2 players werent on their feet...so Im more surprised someone (yes you Crossref :biggrin::wink:) hasnt wanted to penalise one or both of them for being off their feet and playing the ball!!


Ill get me coat....:redface::tongue:

They go to ground to play the ball .. which is ok 13.1

As opposed to being on the ground, and playing the ball when it comes near which is not ok 13.3

crossref
12-02-19, 06:02
have a look from 2:50 youtube time. It follows on from a quick tap taken before the whistle :wtf:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sy4HfmFqboo

Watching the video Youngs takes the tap before the PK is awarded, and when he taps it NO obliges by blowing the whistle for him..

Not Kurt Weaver
12-02-19, 07:02
Watching the video Youngs takes the tap before the PK is awarded, and when he taps it NO obliges by blowing the whistle for him..

deep down inside, everyone despises the French, I don't know why, even the French don't really like the French, NOone really likes to admit it, it just is

Taff
12-02-19, 10:02
This was not a technical offence. It was tackling or obstructing a player without the ball. What do you usually do in such circumstances in open play? Simply ignore it?
But was it "material"?

Imagine a 5m scrum. The attacking SH runs blindside with the ball and the attacking openside Flanker barges the opposing openside Flanker. Yes, technically there has been an infringement (playing the man with the ball / obstruction etc - take your pick) but did it really prevent a probable try? No, because there wasn't a chance in hell the openside Flanker could have done anything about it. I'm pretty sure the lawbook says that's OK.

Balones
12-02-19, 10:02
But was it "material"?

Imagine a 5m scrum. The attacking SH runs blindside with the ball and the attacking openside Flanker barges the opposing openside Flanker. Yes, technically there has been an infringement (playing the man with the ball / obstruction etc - take your pick) but did it really prevent a probable try? No, because there wasn't a chance in hell the openside Flanker could have done anything about it. I'm pretty sure the lawbook says that's OK.

Your scenario outlines a situation away from the actual action. The May incident was directly involved in the action.
How your scenario is handled would depend on the force of the barge. ‘Assault’? ARs frequently stop play if there is foul play with the attacking side in possession at the level I observe, and the referee is following the ball. Depending of course on the severity of the foul play. (Barge)

menace
12-02-19, 11:02
They go to ground to play the ball .. which is ok 13.1

As opposed to being on the ground, and playing the ball when it comes near which is not ok 13.3
(Ive since seen the footage)
Yes I know....very much tongue in cheek.
But they both did try to crawl after the ball after going to ground....as such lucky neither of them caught up to otherwise the debate may be different. :wink:

Taff
12-02-19, 11:02
Your scenario outlines a situation away from the actual action. The May incident was directly involved in the action.
He was. But given that the French player was on the floor and scrambling after a ball bouncing away from him, I still think the England player on his feet would probably have got to the ball first. I assume that's what NO and the TMO saw too.

DocY
12-02-19, 11:02
I think we're missing the wood for the trees.

The interesting point is why they didn't even discuss it.

It's pretty obvious that it was at least questionable, whatever your thoughts on whether it should be penalised, and we've seen incidents in the past when the ref and TMO have taken a careful look at something before declaring it immaterial, so why didn't they do that here?

I'd expect one or the other of them to state that they'd seen it at least, even if they went on to say they thought it immaterial.

We've seen a lot of TMO incidents this Six Nations go back a long way to pick up an infringement, so it was particularly strange.

OB..
12-02-19, 14:02
Watching the video Youngs takes the tap before the PK is awarded, and when he taps it NO obliges by blowing the whistle for him..NO has shouted "Advantage" and is signalling for a PK.

crossref
12-02-19, 14:02
NO has shouted "Advantage" and is signalling for a PK.

I agree , but BY takes the PK before the whistle goes
And when NO sees him taking it, he helpfully blows the whistle

The sequence should be
Advantage
Whistle (no advantage gained)
Tap

Not
Advantage
Tap
Whistle (let him go)

OB..
12-02-19, 19:02
I agree , but BY takes the PK before the whistle goes
And when NO sees him taking it, he helpfully blows the whistle

The sequence should be
Advantage
Whistle (no advantage gained)
Tap

Not
Advantage
Tap
Whistle (let him go)
If the referee shouts "Advantage" you do not wait to him to blow the whistle because that usually means the advantage is cancelled. Youngs did not really need to tap the ball because he was not actually taking a penalty (but it was perfectly legitimate), and NO probably should not have blown the whistle unless he had decided there was no advantage gained. I think both instinctive actions effectively cancelled each other out and did not in practice disadvantage France.

Marc Wakeham
12-02-19, 20:02
But was it "material"?

Imagine a 5m scrum. The attacking SH runs blindside with the ball and the attacking openside Flanker barges the opposing openside Flanker. Yes, technically there has been an infringement (playing the man with the ball / obstruction etc - take your pick) but did it really prevent a probable try? No, because there wasn't a chance in hell the openside Flanker could have done anything about it. I'm pretty sure the lawbook says that's OK.

Have you a supporting law for that?

In my book, "foul play" is always material. I am prepared to change my stance on that if you can support your view in law.

Did Nigel see the incident? I doubt it in rel time and from his angle. The TMO would have seen it as wouldd Nigel on the stadium screen. I can only assume that both took OB's, reasonable, position that the was two players getting tangled "nothing to see here, move along".

Marc Wakeham
12-02-19, 20:02
deep down inside, everyone despises the French, I don't know why, even the French don't really like the French, NOone really likes to admit it, it just is

I always thought it was the Yanks no one likes. The French bring so much to the party Wine food style etc I like them. One of the reasons I cringe watching the french of recent (non) vintage. It is so sad to see their colapse as a rugby nation on the international stage.

As an aside, what is lso worrying is just how poor Wales' display was a week ago. Now that the England side has put some perspective on it.

crossref
12-02-19, 21:02
NO probably should not have blown the whistle unless he had decided there was no advantage gained. I well



.

Well, definitely he shouldn't..

Dickie E
12-02-19, 22:02
If the referee shouts "Advantage" you do not wait to him to blow the whistle because that usually means the advantage is cancelled. Youngs did not really need to tap the ball because he was not actually taking a penalty (but it was perfectly legitimate), and NO probably should not have blown the whistle unless he had decided there was no advantage gained. I think both instinctive actions effectively cancelled each other out and did not in practice disadvantage France.

Let me get this straight. You're seriously suggesting that NO blowing the whistle after the tap was a play-on situation?

Taff
12-02-19, 22:02
Have you a supporting law for that?
I could have sworn I'd read it in a pre 2018 lawbook, but I've had a look on the online version and I can't find it.


... In my book, "foul play" is always material. I am prepared to change my stance on that if you can support your view in law. ... I can only assume that both took OB's, reasonable, position that the was two players getting tangled "nothing to see here, move along".
Foul Play is either "always material" or we decide it's immaterial and play on. It can't be both surely.

Personally, I'm in the "If it's immaterial, we play on" camp, but


it would depend on the offence - eg a headbutt would be treated differently to a sly shirt tug 20m back from play and
I would feel happier if I could find reference to it in the online lawbook.

Not Kurt Weaver
13-02-19, 00:02
But was it "material"?

Imagine a 5m scrum. The attacking SH runs blindside with the ball and the attacking openside Flanker barges the opposing openside Flanker. Yes, technically there has been an infringement (playing the man with the ball / obstruction etc - take your pick) but did it really prevent a probable try? No, because there wasn't a chance in hell the openside Flanker could have done anything about it. I'm pretty sure the lawbook says that's OK.

Red by NKW
I thought you were just kidding, until


I could have sworn I'd read it in a pre 2018 lawbook, but I've had a look on the online version and I can't find it.


Foul Play is either "always material" or we decide it's immaterial and play on. It can't be both surely.

Personally, I'm in the "If it's immaterial, we play on" camp, but


it would depend on the offence - eg a headbutt would be treated differently to a sly shirt tug 20m back from play and
I would feel happier if I could find reference to it in the online lawbook.


I'm not sure if you are serious, or this is some 5th column tactic. Either way, it is fascinating

Marc Wakeham
13-02-19, 13:02
I could have sworn I'd read it in a pre 2018 lawbook, but I've had a look on the online version and I can't find it.


Foul Play is either "always material" or we decide it's immaterial and play on. It can't be both surely.

Personally, I'm in the "If it's immaterial, we play on" camp, but


it would depend on the offence - eg a headbutt would be treated differently to a sly shirt tug 20m back from play and
I would feel happier if I could find reference to it in the online lawbook.



Perhaps you'd be better off if you stop digging until you find your law reference? I can send you a pre 2018 book if you'd like!

Marc Wakeham
13-02-19, 13:02
Well, definitely he shouldn't..

Agreed it was an error but I can understand why it happened and why it did not become a real issue. But he'd have been better of not doing it.

Taff
13-02-19, 13:02
Red by NKW
.... I'm not sure if you are serious, or this is some 5th column tactic. Either way, it is fascinating

Perhaps you'd be better off if you stop digging until you find your law reference? I can send you a pre 2018 book if you'd like!
Why would I want to undermine anyone? :chin:

Genuine question. If there was a 5m scrum and the attacking SH got the ball and went say blindside to score but the attacking openside Flanker pulled back the opposing Flanker (who for the sake or argument we will assume didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of stopping the Try because it was at the other side of the scrum) what would either of you give?

Would you award the Try or give a PK against the offending Flanker?

Arabcheif
13-02-19, 13:02
Looking at the video (just refreshed there). May hooks his arm around the French lads arm and pulls it back. These guys can get up at an astonishing speed and he was on at leasts one knee when his arm was dragged back. I concede that Nig wouldn't have seen it from his angle in real time.

I believe this unfairly impeded the French lad. He may not have been able to get to the ball to touch it down (for a scrum - white). But for me there he was denied the opportunity.

Marc Wakeham
13-02-19, 14:02
Why would I want to undermine anyone? :chin:

Genuine question. If there was a 5m scrum and the attacking SH got the ball and went say blindside to score but the attacking openside Flanker pulled back the opposing Flanker (who for the sake or argument we will assume didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of stopping the Try because it was at the other side of the scrum) what would either of you give?

Would you award the Try or give a PK against the offending Flanker?

Did I mention "undermine"? You are digging a hole for yourself.


To answer your question from a 5m scrum who is to say that the flanker could not have got back to support a tackler / defend a ruck of maul situation. So yes if I saw it PK.

Now about that law reference?

didds
13-02-19, 14:02
so my question remains - its not whether May did it or not, but why NO+TMO didn't even discuss it.

didds

Taff
13-02-19, 14:02
Did I mention "undermine"? You are digging a hole for yourself.
You didn't, but NKW did. I had to look it up ..

DEFINITION: A fifth columnist is a person who undermines a larger group from within, usually in favour of an enemy group or nation.


... To answer your question from a 5m scrum who is to say that the flanker could not have got back to support a tackler / defend a ruck of maul situation. So yes if I saw it PK.
So any Foul Play gets penalised regardless of how minor or how material. Forget getting back to support anyone - the assumption in the question was the defending Flanker had no chance of supporting anyone.


.. Now about that law reference?
I can't find it even in a 2015 book. OB may know if it ever existed, but until last night I would have put £100 on it.


So my question remains - its not whether May did it or not, but why NO+TMO didn't even discuss it.
My best guess is either


Both NO and the TMO missed it or
Both NO and the TMO saw it but thought it obviously wasn't material and not even worth querying.

OB..
13-02-19, 17:02
Now about that law reference?


I can't find it even in a 2015 book. OB may know if it ever existed, but until last night I would have put £100 on it.
I believe the original claim was that foul play should always be penalised? If so, what about the Advantage law?

crossref
13-02-19, 17:02
I think the origin of this is the - useful - rule of thumb that in age grade rugby you shouldn't play advantage after an act of dangerous play .

Also good advice at adult levels .. but at adult levels there is more flexibility as circumstances direct

Arabcheif
13-02-19, 17:02
I believe the original claim was that foul play should always be penalised? If so, what about the Advantage law?



But in this case the "non-offending" team didn't have an advantage. I believe the foul play to be punished would mean issuing either stern words/YC/RC to the offending player once play goes dead after advantage or no advantage - brought back for penalty. So play the advantage and then deal with the foul play.

Balones
13-02-19, 18:02
One thing is certain. We won’t know if he could have got to the ball because he was held back.

thepercy
13-02-19, 18:02
Watching the video Youngs takes the tap before the PK is awarded, and when he taps it NO obliges by blowing the whistle for him..

I disagree, the timing is perfect. At 2:41 in video NO hand in air, whistle at mouth, ball yet to be tapped. I tried to screen shot this, but it turns out I don't have the technical acumen to make that happen.

Arabcheif
13-02-19, 18:02
TBF this is one of the only aspects of this I don't have an issue with. Pen awarded an tap taken quickly in front of the ref (as close to the mark as poss, as the players were still down). Tap is good, run is good, pass is good. May, I felt was marginally in front of the kicker. Then there was the pull back leading to the try.

thepercy
13-02-19, 18:02
Where in the Law of the Game does it discuss Material Effect? Is this just something referees get from training documents and society meetings?

crossref
13-02-19, 19:02
I disagree, the timing is perfect. At 2:41 in video NO hand in air, whistle at mouth, ball yet to be tapped. I tried to screen shot this, but it turns out I don't have the technical acumen to make that happen.

He may have had the whistle in his mouth , but he hadnt exhaled :)

crossref
13-02-19, 19:02
Where in the Law of the Game does it discuss Material Effect? Is this just something referees get from training documents and society meetings?

it's not in the Laws, but it is embedded in official places - eg
https://officiating.worldrugby.org/index.php?module=1&section=19&subsection=89&page=2147&language=en

Taff
13-02-19, 21:02
Where in the Law of the Game does it discuss Material Effect? Is this just something referees get from training documents and society meetings?
If every Ref penalised every single offence they saw (regardless of whether it was serious, immaterial etc) the game would be reduced to just endless penalty kicks. Where's the fun in that?

OB..
13-02-19, 22:02
One thing is certain. We won’t know if he could have got to the ball because he was held back.
Go back a few frames from the shot of May's arm entangled with Dupont's. You will find that Dupont puts his arm across in front of May first. They are both trying to reach for the ball but it has rolled away too far, so they need to regain their feet. They both try to do this using their arms, hence the entanglement. I see no sign that May prevented Dupont from reaching the ball.

They were never going to get to the ball before Farrell anyway, so I don't think it was of interest to the officials.

Marc Wakeham
13-02-19, 23:02
Where in the Law of the Game does it discuss Material Effect? Is this just something referees get from training documents and society meetings?

Page 1 of the 2019 book states

APPLICATION
There is an over-riding obligation on the players to observe the laws and to respect the
principles of fair play. The laws must be applied in such a way as to ensure that the game is
played according to the principles of play. The match officials can achieve this through
fairness, consistency, sensitivity and, when appropriate, management. In return, it is the
responsibility of coaches, captains and players to respect the authority of the match officials.

I take that to include using the principles of Material effect.

Arabcheif
14-02-19, 11:02
OB.... I've just looked at the video again and specifically looked for what you've said. Nope I think your interpretation was incorrect. I saw the French lad with both hands on the ground (underneath himself) trying to get up. Then May hooked the French lads arm. Other than OB, does anyone else disagree with how I viewed it?

OB..
14-02-19, 11:02
OB.... I've just looked at the video again and specifically looked for what you've said. Nope I think your interpretation was incorrect. I saw the French lad with both hands on the ground (underneath himself) trying to get up. Then May hooked the French lads arm. Other than OB, does anyone else disagree with how I viewed it?
Do you agree that the first arm contact was Dupont putting his arm across in front of May?

Arabcheif
14-02-19, 11:02
No, the first was May putting his arm across Dupont. He reached forward (in my opinion the camera angle makes it look like it is cross May. Even if it was this is the rugby incident that you were talking about. Both players going for the ball, so yeah if May had scored the try, or Dupont got the ball down. All good. It's what happened after that. Dupont has both hands on the ground and is past (just) halfway back to his feet when May hooks his right arm round Dupont's left arm.

Now I get that Farrell may well have still scored, but Dupont was unfairly impeded and there's a 40/60 chance in my view that had he not been pulled back down he'd have stopped the try. To me this is not immaterial. if it was 10/90 or maybe even 20/80, then I'd have a different view. So everything was fine till May hooked Dupont's arm, then Pen France at that point.

Balones
14-02-19, 12:02
Do you agree that the first arm contact was Dupont putting his arm across in front of May?

I have reviewed the video several times and in slo-mo. The only reason that Dupont has his arm in front if May is because he was in front of May and actually got to the ball first. There is no change of running action or movement towards the ball. Unlike May who does a deliberate action to pull back.

collybs
14-02-19, 13:02
But Dupont was the ground and out of the game. Under law 13.3a he must allow a player (Farrell) on his feet to play the ball.

Law 13
A player on the ground without the ball is out of the game and must:
a) Allow opponents who are not on the ground to play or gain possession of the ball.
b) Not play the ball.
c) Not tackle or attempt to tackle an opponent.
Sanction: Penalty.

Thunderhorse1986
14-02-19, 13:02
I have reviewed the video several times and in slo-mo. The only reason that Dupont has his arm in front if May is because he was in front of May and actually got to the ball first. There is no change of running action or movement towards the ball. Unlike May who does a deliberate action to pull back.

Viewing the video *in slow motion and several times* before coming to a conclusion suggests the offence is a long way from "clear and obvious" and it is very hard to definitively conclucethat this was not just a rugby incident. Play on.

OB..
14-02-19, 14:02
I don't see that either Dupont or May had a realistic chance of getting to the ball before Farrell. Their slide was beaten by the bounce of the ball.

Taff
14-02-19, 14:02
I don't see that either Dupont or May had a realistic chance of getting to the ball before Farrell. Their slide was beaten by the bounce of the ball.
And even if the French player managed to scramble back to his feet, does anyone honestly reckon he would have beaten Farrell to the ball?

Arabcheif
14-02-19, 14:02
Collybs -Except a player can ground the ball while not on their feet while in-goal.

And

OB - The ball was literally just over a meter away when he was pulled down. While I concede that it is unlikely he would've got to the ball before Farrell, I contend that there was a non-slim chance he may have, had he not been impeded. I've seen crossing over given (or obstruction) to a player who was not making an attempt to tackle as he was approx 2m away (from the "screen") and not in a position to make a tackle. This was far more material.

Arabcheif
14-02-19, 14:02
And even if the French player managed to scramble back to his feet, does anyone honestly reckon he would have beaten Farrell to the ball?


Most likely not, but the point is he was denied the opportunity. If it ws the other way round I suspect there would be a pen try and card.

Phil E
14-02-19, 15:02
Most likely not, but the point is he was denied the opportunity. If it ws the other way round I suspect there would be a pen try and card.

So now your suggesting the referee was biased to England and cheated?
Totally out of order and untrue.

Marc Wakeham
14-02-19, 15:02
Most likely not, but the point is he was denied the opportunity. If it ws the other way round I suspect there would be a pen try and card.



If so that would be against the laws of the game.

- - - Updated - - -


OB.... I've just looked at the video again and specifically looked for what you've said. Nope I think your interpretation was incorrect. I saw the French lad with both hands on the ground (underneath himself) trying to get up. Then May hooked the French lads arm. Other than OB, does anyone else disagree with how I viewed it?

I disagree with you.

Arabcheif
14-02-19, 15:02
Phil E - I've not once suggested that NO was bias towards England. I'll thank you not to a) make assumptions - and b) make wild baseless accusations toward me (and anyone else for that matter).

I've said previously that NO wouldn't have seen that from his angle and that I believe that they didn't look at that, they just reviewed whether it was a knock on against England (which it wasn't). Errors can be made without being bias, I'm suggesting that the referee team made an error in this case.

I understand that your from England and that you may be seeing these things as suggested by a previous poster though "Rose Tinted Glasses" but again stick to the facts in my statements. By all means ask i I am suggesting something. Don't make a statement that I am suggesting something, when I'm in actual fact not.

Marc - Fair enough, can you please describe what you saw? I've went through still frames and can hopefully at some points share them if I can figure out how to lol.

And I'm not sure which part is against the Laws of the game. Are you agreeing that there would be a penalty try and a card or disagreeing?

Phil E
14-02-19, 16:02
Phil E - I've not once suggested that NO was bias towards England. I'll thank you not to a) make assumptions - and b) make wild baseless accusations toward me (and anyone else for that matter).

I've said previously that NO wouldn't have seen that from his angle and that I believe that they didn't look at that, they just reviewed whether it was a knock on against England (which it wasn't). Errors can be made without being bias, I'm suggesting that the referee team made an error in this case.

I understand that your from England and that you may be seeing these things as suggested by a previous poster though "Rose Tinted Glasses" but again stick to the facts in my statements. By all means ask i I am suggesting something. Don't make a statement that I am suggesting something, when I'm in actual fact not.



No glasses as I haven't commented one way or the other on the decision.

You stated that if it was the other way round (Blue player hooking White arm) it would have been a penalty try and a card. That means you suggested the referee would penalise Blue but not White. How else are we meant to read that?

Arabcheif
14-02-19, 16:02
I'm guessing you disagree with this. Would you be happy if this happened the other way around and a try wasn't scored as a result? You can read that an error was made. If blue had held white back, I'd FULLY expect a PT to be awarded after a review, unless the same error was made and that he focus was on who's hand touch ed the ball over the line.

You have commented, you made the first comment. You stated that you thought that the action may have been deemed immaterial. Therefore you agree with the decision to award the try. Therefore you agree that there was no infringement/foul play. Please advise me if I'm wrong, this is just my observation from your comments thus far.

Phil E
14-02-19, 17:02
You have commented, you made the first comment. You stated that you thought that the action may have been deemed immaterial. Therefore you agree with the decision to award the try. Therefore you agree that there was no infringement/foul play. Please advise me if I'm wrong, this is just my observation from your comments thus far.

You are wrong.
I made no comment on whether the decision was right or wrong, just answered a question on why the referee might not have discussed it.
Do not put words into my mouth.

Question asked:
My query is not so much whether it should have been a try or not, but more why wasn't it discussed (do we think).
didds

My response to that specific question was:
I am guessing that they didn't think the French defender on his belly would have got to the ball before Farrell, so it became immaterial?

crossref
14-02-19, 17:02
I actually suspect they were focusing so hard on whether there was a knock on, they didn't even notice the arm tangle

Admittedly this suspicion is based on the fact that .. on the day .. when I watched the replays, I was focused so hard on the possibility of a knock on, I didn't notice the arm tangle

I would evidently be a rubbish TMO

Taff
14-02-19, 18:02
I actually suspect they were focusing so hard on whether there was a knock on, they didn't even notice the arm tangle.
I assume the TMO is in a soundproof bubble and doesn't even see the general TV coverage.

In this case it may have helped because it was one of the first things the commentators picked up on.

Arabcheif
14-02-19, 18:02
Phil E - Respectfully - The comment made strongly suggested agreement to the on-field and subsequent TMO decision. This has been reinforced to me with our own interactions here. My comment was an assertion based on our back and forth. Apologies if I've misinterpreted your responses which seem to be supporting the premise that as a player, I can grab a fellow player, not in possession of the ball. Again apologies if that is me getting it wrong - again.

I conclude for the day that, it was you sir, that was putting words in my mouth by inferring I was calling NO a cheat. Personally I think he's a fine ref. But in this instance he's made an error.


For the record - again - I do think that they were focusing on the knock-on and didn't review the rest of the action, so didn't see the hook of the arm.

crossref
14-02-19, 19:02
I assume the TMO is in a soundproof bubble and doesn't even see the general TV coverage.

In this case it may have helped because it was one of the first things the commentators picked up on.

I would think the TMO can hear the crowd noise in general
I wound be astonished if he is fed the TV commentary

tewdric
14-02-19, 19:02
I'm having dinner with NO in a couple of weeks - I'll ask him. :)

thepercy
14-02-19, 20:02
Page 1 of the 2019 book states

APPLICATION
There is an over-riding obligation on the players to observe the laws and to respect the
principles of fair play. The laws must be applied in such a way as to ensure that the game is
played according to the principles of play. The match officials can achieve this through
fairness, consistency, sensitivity and, when appropriate, management. In return, it is the
responsibility of coaches, captains and players to respect the authority of the match officials.

I take that to include using the principles of Material effect.

I am all for the use of material effect in making refereeing decisions. I wanted to know where it was laid out, so I could read the guidance, and if there was any mention of special treatment for foul play as had been mention further down thread. But it isn't in the LotG, only alluded to on the WR web page and in the forward to the book.

Anyone have any other guidance on the use of ME?

thepercy
14-02-19, 20:02
So now your suggesting the referee was biased to England and cheated?
Totally out of order and untrue.

I didn't read this as a bias to one team or the other. More so, that if this same action was done by a defending player to an attacking player, preventing a possible try (even if the colors were reversed) then it would have been scrutinized and potentially sanctioned.

Is there a bias in favor of attaching teams? I'd suggest, yes.

crossref
14-02-19, 21:02
[QUOTE=thepercy;355260]I am all for the use of material effect in making refereeing decisions. I wanted to know where it was laid out, so I could read the guidance, and if there was any mention of special treatment for foul play as had been mention further down thread. But it isn't in the LotG, only alluded to on the WR web page and in the forward to the book.

Anyone have any other guidance on the use of ME?

Not Kurt Weaver
14-02-19, 21:02
I always thought it was the Yanks no one likes. The French bring so much to the party Wine food style etc I like them. One of the reasons I cringe watching the french of recent (non) vintage. It is so sad to see their colapse as a rugby nation on the international stage.

As an aside, what is lso worrying is just how poor Wales' display was a week ago. Now that the England side has put some perspective on it.

I don't like the Yanks nor the Mets.

Balones
14-02-19, 23:02
Viewing the video *in slow motion and several times* before coming to a conclusion suggests the offence is a long way from "clear and obvious" and it is very hard to definitively conclucethat this was not just a rugby incident. Play on.

Sorry for not being clear. I was reviewing the part of the incident that OB.. was referring to. The actual holding back is clear and obvious. What I am not saying is that it is certain that Dupont would have got to the ball. He was held back and we will never know. Just as those that say that he definitely would not have got to the ball. That is not certain either. He might have been able to put his body between the ball and Farrell and made it more difficult for Farrell?

Like Phil E, I have not said the decision was right or wrong. I was just trying to state some facts as I saw them.

crossref
15-02-19, 00:02
Good point.. if Dupont was able to compete Farrell might have fumbled

didds
15-02-19, 09:02
Good point.. if Dupont was able to compete Farrell might have fumbled

... yesss... but if my aunt had a willy shed be my uncle.

If Dupont was able to compete Farrell might have shoved him out of the way and received a yellow card... or Dupont might have elbowed farrell in the face and got a red card... etc

didds

Balones
15-02-19, 09:02
... yesss... but if my aunt had a willy shed be my uncle.

If Dupont was able to compete Farrell might have shoved him out of the way and received a yellow card... or Dupont might have elbowed farrell in the face and got a red card... etc

didds

So you are saying it could have been material?��

Then we have the old question of whether you penalise the offence or the outcome or the potential outcome.

Arabcheif
15-02-19, 11:02
I believe that the decision to award the try was wrong personally I feel the the holding was material as it's in the tick of the action (the ball was not 5 meters or more away). But it didn't affect the overall outcome of the match, so no real harm done.