• Please bear with us. We have moved to a new provider, and some images and icons are not working correctly. We are working hard to fix this

charge down

Dickie E

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
From the NZ v Arg game.

Blue attempt a drop goal. A Black defender attempts to charge down, getting a finger tip to the ball, deflects the ball so that it misses posts but goes over DBL.

What is the correct restart?

A clue: has Black "taken" the ball into in-goal by intentionally attempting a charge down?
 
I would give a 5m attacking scrum, ie to blue, as black was last to play the ball

What was actually given ?
 
On the grounds that if a ball was touched in flight following a kick and then goes into touch I would give the throw to the kicking side I would give the 5m attacking scrum here. The touch by Black was intentional, and they would expect to gain if the charge down had been successful and so it seems a risk and reward scenario. Having not seen the footage I bet the ref awarded a 22m drop out though.
 
Ive just watched the footage and AG gave the 22. It seems to me though that they gave it because the deflection wasn't C&O which is fair enough.
 
Dickie E said:
From the NZ v Arg game.

Blue attempt a drop goal. A Black defender attempts to charge down, getting a finger tip to the ball, deflects the ball so that it misses posts but goes over DBL.

What is the correct restart?

A clue: has Black "taken" the ball into in-goal by intentionally attempting a charge down?
Click to expand...



Havent we been here before - about a million times?

Some will argue its a scrum 5m as last person to touch the ball was a defender
Some will argue its a 22m drop out as the wording is "played the ball" which insinuates a deliberate action, and they will claim whilst its a deliberate attempt to play the ball it was not a deliberate attempt to put the ball in goal.
Some will just lose the will to live as the debate goes around and around in circles with nobody changing their position, for several weeks until something else gets repeated as attention moves to that instead.


My 2p? 5m attaching scrum and sell it.

NEXT!

didds
 
didds said:
Havent we been here before - about a million times?

Some will argue its a scrum 5m as last person to touch the ball was a defender
Some will argue its a 22m drop out as the wording is "played the ball" which insinuates a deliberate action, and they will claim whilst its a deliberate attempt to play the ball it was not a deliberate attempt to put the ball in goal.
Some will just lose the will to live as the debate goes around and around in circles with nobody changing their position, for several weeks until something else gets repeated as attention moves to that instead.


My 2p? 5m attaching scrum and sell it.

NEXT!

didds
Click to expand...

Gee. Iso stress?
 
Jz558 said:
Ive just watched the footage and AG gave the 22. It seems to me though that they gave it because the deflection wasn't C&O which is fair enough.
Click to expand...

that's what I thought - seems to me they weren't sure it was touched, and if they had been sure they would have given a scrum.

I think that was fair - in theory I guess they could have TMOd it, but that would have taken ages, and I agree better to go with an onfield decision .
 
They did TO4 it I thought? And it was very quickly answered?

"has anyone got anything different?"

didds
 
I suspect that the confusion from this neck of the woods is down to the TV commentators saying definitively that there had been a touch, and that AG was applying a (made up) law about the intent behind the would-be charge down.

To my memory, they made no mention of the ball not having been touched.
 
so we're all in furious agreement?

If it had been touched, 5m scrum

If it hadn't been touched, 22 drop out

(mutters under breath: sometimes it's like herding cats)
 
Dickie E said:
iso stress is when the isolation from lock down leads to uncharacteristic belligerence. I was wondering if you were suffering from it.
Click to expand...

How dare you say that. How insulting .

etc etc etc ad nauseum ;-)

I'm a prop forward. Cut me in half and it says belije... bellygyrre... stroppy


didds

- - - Updated - - -

SimonSmith said:
I suspect that the confusion from this neck of the woods is down to the TV commentators saying definitively that there had been a touch, and that AG was applying a (made up) law about the intent behind the would-be charge down.

To my memory, they made no mention of the ball not having been touched.
Click to expand...

That's basically the first thing they said once the replay ran?



didds
 
didds said:
How dare you say that. How insulting .

etc etc etc ad nauseum ;-)

I'm a prop forward. Cut me in half and it says belije... bellygyrre... stroppy


didds

- - - Updated - - -



That's basically the first thing they said once the replay ran?



didds
Click to expand...

As I remember it, yes. I could stand to be corrected if I'm wrong, but they were talking a lot, and overtalking the ref's explanation. (I think we had the NZ feed, and one or two exceptions, the commentators were ****ing idiots)
 
It does seem reasonable to conclude though that if the team of officals had thought that the ball was touched in flight they would have awarded a 5m scrum on the premise that if the touch was irrelevant then there would be no point in discussing it at all?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top