PDA

View Full Version : Double Movement



Davet
08-03-04, 13:03
Following the Video refs decision in the England Ireland game:

If a player is tackled just short of the goal-line and then, immediately, streches his body and stretches his arms, and places the ball over the goal-line, then surely in Law he should be awarded the try?

The fact that the ball has touched the ground is surely irrelevant?

The fact that his body moved is surely irrelevant?

Why would a referee penalise, based on his hand signal, specifically for double movement?

If the player was guilty of holding on, i.e. he did not play it immediately, - then OK, but then surely the signal would be holding on? Not a double movement gesture.

Robert Burns
08-03-04, 16:03
It was only a while ago deeps told me this:



3. There is no such thing as a 'double movement' commonly thrown at you by several of your 30 on field advisors. See Law 22.4 and specifically (e). This allows a player tackled near the goal line to reach out and score but if he cannot reach then he must abide by the tackle law and quickly too.
Does this mean that double movement is back?

Also i beleive the reason was that he didn't use his bodies momentum to take the ball over the line, he used a 'new' momentum to take the ball over the line.

So the big question is was Deeps talking rubbish :D (don't take offence just joking) or is the double movement law still applicable?

Maybe I should copy this into the ask the panel forum as well to see what they may say.

I also have our referees meeting tomorrow, I shall raise this point and see what my peers come up with!

Deeps
09-03-04, 10:03
It was only a while ago deeps told me this:



Does this mean that double movement is back?

Also i beleive the reason was that he didn't use his bodies momentum to take the ball over the line, he used a 'new' momentum to take the ball over the line.

So the big question is was Deeps talking rubbish :D (don't take offence just joking) or is the double movement law still applicable?

Maybe I should copy this into the ask the panel forum as well to see what they may say.

I also have our referees meeting tomorrow, I shall raise this point and see what my peers come up with!

I saw nothing wrong in the play which meets all that I can find in Law and would have given the try. Is this another betes noire to send us back to the dark ages again? I have yet to check the tape though thought the referee then awarded a 22m drop out? A penalty kick to Ireland would have been appropriate if the play was illegal surely?

Red Munster
09-03-04, 11:03
I can't remember what the ref gave, but I've been told that he gave a penalty to Ireland for not releasing.

I know that Cohen should have released the ball when he was tackled and he didn't.

And there is no such thing as "double movement". It is not mentioned in the laws of the game.

All players must play the game on their feet. When Cohen was tackled he lifted himself up to his hands and knees and placed the ball over the line.

What he shoud have done was to stay on the ground and place the ball over the line.

Account Deleted
10-05-04, 13:05
I did not see it but Red Munster seems to have it. By rising to his knees Cohen did not place the ball over the line immediately. Therefore no try and a penalty.

The double Movement myth is really an attempt to explain the fact that Cohen's grounding of the ball was not immediate. He made two movements the first to, partially, get up (though note that if still on his knees he was still on the ground and not on his feet anyway!) He then placed the ball. The placing was not the "immediate" action. Any 2nd movement or action must be illegal by definition as it can not be immediate.

So maybe the ref was indicating that the placement was the second and not the immediate act.

Davet
12-05-04, 12:05
All the time Ref says: "So maybe the ref was indicating that the placement was the second and not the immediate act."

Perhaps, but the offence was specifically failing to release the ball. So the signal should have been the signal for that offence, rather than simply making up stuff on the spot. iRB guidelines, for good reason, encourage refs to talk (and sign) in terms of law - if the ref here had signalled holding on then ther woud have been no doubt about his decision. As it is, it seems that he was in some form of time warp.

As to the momentum being "new momentum" then I don't see the relevance. The player is allowed to play the ball - with no restriction on whether he twists, lunges etc as he is doing so - it simply has to be immediate. For me Cohens move was immediate - others say it was too slow. So maybe we could correctly describe the timing as marginal, but the suggestion that it was illegal since his body moved as well as his arms baffles me.

Robert Burns
12-05-04, 22:05
I believe also though that once it goes to the TMO then it is them that decides what the play is, not the referee in the middle.

Davet
13-05-04, 13:05
I believe also though that once it goes to the TMO then it is them that decides what the play is, not the referee in the middle.
And if the TMO says "No Try - double movement" would we not think that the ref should question why the try is disallowed for something which is NOT and offence? In much the same way that we would expect a reaction if the TMO said "No Try - left bootlace is undone"

Robert Burns
13-05-04, 14:05
I can't see it being advantagous for the referee to be arguing about it with the TMO though, not a good thing to do in public.

Bearing in mind that he has a replay to look at and you don't if you over ruled the TMo and got it wrong you would probably be starting on the road down the ladder instead of up.

didds
14-05-04, 12:05
presumably in this case the referee would say sometyhing like

"Sorry Kev - didn't quite catch that one mate. was that "NO try - not releasing?"

If TMO comes back with "No try - double movement" just continue the "debate".

"Is that not playing the ball immediately, Kev?"

If TMO continues to be thick about oit, just eventually say

"Its a poor connection kev - not releasing it is then!"

;-)

Then Kev gets sent "doen the road" henceforth after the next Big Boy Ref Club Meeting.

didds

OB..
13-10-04, 01:10
Law 22.4 (e) says:

"If a player is tackled near to the opponents' goal-line so that this player can immediately reach out and ground the ball on or over the goal-line, a try is scored. "

To me, "reach out" implies arms only. That is the way our National Panel refs have explained it, so if that is what they do ....


(Have just arrived on here, and am catching up with the past. I promise not to revive too may dead threads.)

Pablo
13-10-04, 09:10
Welcome OB! Glad to see I've borrowed you away from the LRL.com forums!

Anyway, my take on this was that Cohen's movement was too slow because there were Irish defenders present. The term "immediate" is an elastic one and in this instance there were defenders at the tackle zone who legitimately wanted to play the ball, which Cohen's slow action prevented them from doing. (Though initially, I thought the ref had pinged him for standing up after being held in the tackle, which as we all know is not a legal option for the tackled ball-carrier.)

If no such defenders had been present, I think the try would have been awarded, because his action wouldn't have affected the ability of anybody on their feet to play the ball. Hence an identical action without nearby defenders would have been quick enough to consititute "immediate".

In short, I think you could have called Cohen's action "immediate"... but by the ref's interpretation on the day, it wasn't immediate enough!

Davet
13-10-04, 15:10
I think we get too hung up on the minutiae of what a word means - the idea that one can reach out with arms only but if one moves any other part of the body then that is not reaching but is something else is far to picky for me.

The principle is simple and given in law, a tackled player may play the ball - so long as he does it immediately.

I accept that Cohen may have taken too long, but my real gripe is with the double movement call - which simply creates problems on the park every Saturday. We still get folks talking about double movement, and that the ball had touched the floor before it was placed over the line in - SO WHAT!?

Pablo
13-10-04, 20:10
I can see where Dave is coming from - I avoid using the term double movement and tell people that I penalise that they cannot stand up with the ball after being tackled and held. However, I can understand the attraction of the term to the average Joe on a Saturday, because it provides a simple catch-all explanation for a common offense without resorting to the language of the Law book...

SimonSmith
13-10-04, 20:10
I accept that Cohen may have taken too long, but my real gripe is with the double movement call - which simply creates problems on the park every Saturday. We still get folks talking about double movement, and that the ball had touched the floor before it was placed over the line in - SO WHAT!?

I see your point, but can offer a slight explanation about calling it a double movement.
The theory would be that once you hit the ground as a tackeld player, you have to act immediately. If that ISN'T to release the ball, the you get one movement - roll and release, or place over the goal line. If you go for the SECOND movement (which could also be known as the double movement) then you didn't act IMMEDIATELY. Make sense?

Cropped up in the Currie Cup this weekend. Unfortunately I don't speak Afrikaans, but I'd bet my bottom dollar that's what Andre was discussing with the TMO - certainly it was what his arm and hand gestures indicated.

Deeps
13-10-04, 23:10
Guys,

The term 'Double Movement' is vestigial (if indeed that is the right word?), a hang over (?), probably better described as obsolete as a term from a time that was not so long ago when the law did not allow you to reach out and place the ball over the line. Unfortunately the greater playing and watching public that has never seen a law book is not up to date with the fact that you can now place the ball over the goal line.

The issue with Cohen is that he wriggled snake like, if memory serves, so that more parts of his body were involved then just his hands and arms. Mind you and with the benefit of the instant replay I think he was a little unlucky but praise the decision as having been a tough call made professionally by a top referee.

I think it would be wrong to reintroduce the term for a normal breach of tackle law because players/spectators would think it to be a different or special offence relating to attempts to score a try. The irk of the whole thing is that on a Saturday afternoon the cry of 'Double movement ref!!!' is insisted upon from a position of complete ignorance of current law.

Davet
14-10-04, 10:10
......I can understand the attraction of the term to the average Joe on a Saturday, because it provides a simple catch-all explanation for a common offense without resorting to the language of the Law book...
But it is only by using the langiage of the law book that we communicate the Laws effectivley. A fact recognised by the iRB whose instructions to refs are that they should talk in terms of law, rather than use phraseswhich don't appear.

In this case the call should have been "Holding on!"; and the explanation if required after the ball is dead would be simple - "You can't crawl and wriggle after a tackle until you release the ball." That way everybody understands the point and the Law is made clear.

Calling "Double Movement" as a shorthand simply confusese the issue.

Anyway - I guess my view is now clear.

Personally I thought he was OK to do a whole body stretch....but that's a different matter. My issue with OB's comment about reaching only involving the arms is that when i reach for something on a high shelf I will almost certainly stretch out fully and rise on tip toes - don't tell me that I am not reaching.

OB..
14-10-04, 18:10
It was 1983 when the law first allowed a player to place the ball in any direction after a tackle (previously he was required to release it). This implied you could score a try, and in 1988 that was made specific.

I object strongly to the term "double movement" because it is inaccurate. The question is not whether or not the player made a sceond movment, but whether or not his FIRST movement after the tackle was legal. Making a second, separate movement would of course be illegal, because it would not be immediate - but that is rarely the point.

My recollection of the Cohen incident is that he came down with his back to the line, used one arm to lift himself up and twist his body round so that with the other arm he could place the ball over the line.

I felt it was illegal because there was too much body movement, but a highly qualified South African colleague felt it was acceptable. It was certainly moot.

My comment on "reaching" reflected what has been said at our Society meetings. I think it is a good rule of thumb. If I see a player reaching by pushing with his toes, as Davet would for a high shelf, I take him to be moving his body along the ground. Illegally.

Pablo
14-10-04, 19:10
Calling "Double Movement" as a shorthand simply confusese the issue.

I said I do not use the term myself. I did not say that I condoned its use - I merely said that I caould understand why Old scumbags 3rd xV still use it.


If I see a player reaching by pushing with his toes, as Davet would for a high shelf, I take him to be moving his body along the ground. Illegally.

Now that you've explained this more clearly, I agree that this is, indeed, a good rule of thumb.

Mat 04
29-03-05, 23:03
Im pretty sure it was Ben Cohen. As I was lead to believe "Double movement" only occurs if you move anything other than your arms (torso or legs etc). Ben Cohen moved forwards on his knees. The Ref was spot on in my opinion. Id love to see the video agan.