St Nigel's funny five minutes

[Dixie]

About 9 minutes in, a wrestling pack goes to ground and Imanol Harinodoquy is first there to act as jackler. He gets both hands to the ball and stays on his feet. St Nige calls Ruck, then penalises IH for not releasing. Where is the new interpretation of the jackler's rights in this? Scotland kicked the resulting PK - a Critical Incident?

A few minutes later (no more than three), the French #11 is almost away down the left wing. An excellent Scottish tap tackle brings him down 2m short of the line, and Scottish #14 then dives on the man on the ground 1m from the line. The pair of them roll over the line, where Scottish #14 manages to prevent the grounding. Attacking scrum 5 after checking with the TMO, asking Try: yes or no?. Where was Law 14 in this? If we'd beamed up the Scottish 14 fractionally before he went to ground on the untackled player, there would have been a clear score. PT for me - a second Critical Incident inside three minutes?

As an aside, I believe the TMO correctly decided he had no jurisdiction to decide that it should have been a PT due to the offence infield. Assuming that an offence had indeed been committed 1m infield and a try would have been scored but for it, shouldn't a TMO be able to say that a try HAD been scored, albeit a PT?

[OB..]

may say the TMO cannot rule on foul play as such, even in in-goal.

The official may be consulted if the referee is unsure when making a decision in in-goal with regard to the scoring of a try or touchdown when foul play may be involved.

There is a case for extending the remit of the TMO but the tricky question is "How far"? They experimented in SA with allowing him to go back to the previous breakdown IIRC, but it quickly proved excessive.

[Dixie]

One other point: Jonathan Davies has some interesting things to say about the game, and I love his lilting and lyrical Welsh accent, but if he's to take the BBC's lucre, shouldn't he do enough research to be able to pronounce the key players' names? Harinordoquy has been around for years now. Why does JD call him HarryDonnerKey? As for Fulgence Ouedraogo .... best not top go there.

[chopper15]

Originally Posted by Dixie

One other point: Jonathan Davies has some interesting things to say about the game, and I love his lilting and lyrical Welsh accent, but if he's to take the BBC's lucre, shouldn't he do enough research to be able to pronounce the key players' names? Harinordoquy has been around for years now. Why does JD call him HarryDonnerKey? As for Fulgence Ouedraogo .... best not top go there.

. . . should learn to go beyond dix too.

[ACUSmember]

Originally Posted by Dixie

About 9 minutes in, a wrestling pack goes to ground and Imanol Harinodoquy is first there to act as jackler. He gets both hands to the ball and stays on his feet. St Nige calls Ruck, then penalises IH for not releasing. Where is the new interpretation of the jackler's rights in this? Scotland kicked the resulting PK - a Critical Incident?

A few minutes later (no more than three), the French #11 is almost away down the left wing. An excellent Scottish tap tackle brings him down 2m short of the line, and Scottish #14 then dives on the man on the ground 1m from the line. The pair of them roll over the line, where Scottish #14 manages to prevent the grounding. Attacking scrum 5 after checking with the TMO, asking Try: yes or no?. Where was Law 14 in this? If we'd beamed up the Scottish 14 fractionally before he went to ground on the untackled player, there would have been a clear score. PT for me - a second Critical Incident inside three minutes?

As an aside, I believe the TMO correctly decided he had no jurisdiction to decide that it should have been a PT due to the offence infield. Assuming that an offence had indeed been committed 1m infield and a try would have been scored but for it, shouldn't a TMO be able to say that a try HAD been scored, albeit a PT?

I'm no referee (as I suspect will become abundantly obvious), but as to the incidents you mention:-

Incident (i): I think White #1 had regained his feet and was competing for the ball before Harinordoquy had his hands on the ball, and Blue #12 was bound onto Harinordoquy - i.e. a new ruck had formed before Harinordoquy had the ball (ok, it doesn't look anything like the rucks I used to be involved in during my days as World's Worst 2nd Row in my school 3rd XV, but they never do in international matches).

Regardless, Owen clearly shouts "number 8 - no! Ruck", gives him a moment to react and penalises him when he doesn't.

A close call, I grant you, but I don't think it was wrong.

Incident (ii) - Thom Evans never really falls onto the man on the floor - he goes down beside him, and uses his upper body strength to prevent him grounding the ball - an excellent piece of defensive work in my view; not sure I understand why anyone would want to penalise him.

[Dixie]

Originally Posted by ACUSmember

I'm no referee (as I suspect will become abundantly obvious)

We'll be gentle with you! Thanks for getting your general excuse in first!

Originally Posted by ACUSmember

Incident (i): I think White #1 had regained his feet and was competing for the ball before Harinordoquy had his hands on the ball, and Blue #12 was bound onto Harinordoquy - i.e. a new ruck had formed before Harinordoquy had the ball (ok, it doesn't look anything like the rucks I used to be involved in during my days as World's Worst 2nd Row in my school 3rd XV, but they never do in international matches).

Regardless, Owen clearly shouts "number 8 - no! Ruck", gives him a moment to react and penalises him when he doesn't.

No white player was there first. Blue #8 was first to the ball when the wrestling players fell to ground - his arrival was, as near as dammit, immediate. IN such a case, new law 16.4b applies

(b) Players must not handle the ball in a ruck except after a tackle if they are on their feet and have their hands on the ball before the ruck is formed.
Sanction: Penalty kick

Originally Posted by ACUSmember

Incident (ii) - Thom Evans never really falls onto the man on the floor - he goes down beside him, and uses his upper body strength to prevent him grounding the ball - an excellent piece of defensive work in my view; not sure I understand why anyone would want to penalise him.

Law 14.2(a): Falling over the player on the ground with the ball. A player must not intentionally fall on or over a player with the ball who is lying on the ground.
Sanction: Penalty kick

If Evans made contact with the Blue winger while either of them was on the floor, then PK = penalty try in the circumstances

[scrumpox2]

Originally Posted by Dixie

One other point: Jonathan Davies has some interesting things to say about the game, and I love his lilting and lyrical Welsh accent, but if he's to take the BBC's lucre, shouldn't he do enough research to be able to pronounce the key players' names? Harinordoquy has been around for years now. Why does JD call him HarryDonnerKey? As for Fulgence Ouedraogo .... best not top go there.

Think you're being a bit picky, Dixie, that's all part of JD's charm. I'll wager he's practised that for a few minutes, had a good laugh about it and decided it's close enough ... as a Welshman and Welsh speaker he'll have developed a tolerance of mispronunciations ... around here, most people are still visiting the myjetski stadium!

[TheBFG]

While we're picking on the french

was it just me or did anyone else think it a little funny that N O let IH get away with playing the ball off his feet

I didn't see any of the 1st half but twice watched in amazement in the 2nd half when IH knelt (on 1 knee) at the back of the ruck for at least 7-8 secs the 1st time and then passed the ball?

firstly, illegal? On the ground, out of the game?

secondly WHY?????????????

[ACUSmember]

Originally Posted by Dixie

We'll be gentle with you! Thanks for getting your general excuse in first!

This must be one of the few sites where words to the effect of "I know virtually nothing about this but..." are treated so nicely!

That said:

16.4 (b): Players must not handle the ball in a ruck except after a tackle if they are on their feet and
have their hands on the ball before the ruck is formed.
Sanction: Penalty kick

Blue #8 is first on the scene, yes. But Nigel Owen's view was clearly that White #1 had formed a ruck with Blue #8 before Blue #8 got his hands on the ball - and (primarily due to the bodies in the way), I can see nothing on the replay that shows definitely Owens was wrong - indeed, Blue #8 does appear to have to shift a body off the ball before he comes up with it, which is what gives White #1 the chance to form the ruck.

I can see your argument, and it it extremely tight in terms of timings as to which happened first between hands on the ball and the ruck being formed; I just don't think you can conclude from the TV feed Owens was incorrect.


As to the no-penalty-try decision, out of interest, if you conclude 14.2 (b) prevents Thom Evans from doing what he did to prevent the try, what exactly could he do within the laws of the game in that scenario?

[Dixie]

Originally Posted by ACUSmember

As to the no-penalty-try decision, out of interest, if you conclude 14.2 (b) prevents Thom Evans from doing what he did to prevent the try, what exactly could he do within the laws of the game in that scenario?

That's a very good question. Law 14 deals with the ball carrier on the ground where no tackle has taken place. He has to do one of three things "immediately": a) release the ball; b) get to his feet; c) pass. If he fails to do any pone of those in good time, he's liable to penalty.

Other players are constrained only in that they cannot go off their feet. ( A slight oversimplification; they can go off their feet as long as they don't then impinge on the ball carrier. If, having gone off their feet, they then get involved in the game in any way, they are liable to penalty as is every player. "The game is to be played by players on their feet").

So let's assume that Vincent Clerc could slide over the line within less time than "immediately". In such a situation, Evans is technically limited to preventing him from doing so by staying on his feet. He can stand between Clerc and the goal line; he can push or shove Clerc to slow him down. But he can't dive on him.

This, howev er, was not my reading of the situation. Clerc would ahve needed to get to his feet to make the additional ground required. Evans could then have wrapped him, pushed him, tackled him etc. Evans instead chose to dive on the man on the ground, for which he should have been penalised, IMO.

The normally garrulous members of this forum have been surprisingly quiet on this point. I wonder if it is because they suspect that my analysis is both technically correct and practically unfair/unworkable? If we start saying that stuff that happens in the Red Zone is too important to get hung up on the technicalities of the LoTG, that's a very difficult position to maintain. If anything, we refs tend to be rather stricter in the Red Zone than elsewhere.