[
PLEASE LOGIN TO POST TO THE FORUM
]
|
|
|
B52 REF
|
Sun, 27 April 08 13:25 GMT
|
DOUBLE MOVEMENT/ MOMENTUM- intrepretation can be awful tricky.
E.g. was coaching refs at Hong Kong 7's. Attacking player "tackled" just shy of line dug in both elbows to provide "extra?" momentum to get close enough to reach and ground ball on tryline. Ref asked in goal tj (who happened to be young female local and the defending side were indeed hongkong themselves.) if "try was good" . She advised that though the ball was grounded on the line it had been preceded by illegal double movement and he should award a penalty to the defending side. I advised her that it was the correct decision under LOTG.
HOWEVER her local coach later opined that decision was wrong as local intrepretation re 6.f "players momentum carries the player into the in goal"
allowed for the "continuance of momentum" by jacknifing /bodysurfing etc. but not the restart of movement by such means. (They tend to follow NZ intrepretations/terminology there.).
She had bravely opted not to watch the repeated slo-mo playing on the big screen right behind her whilst giving her advice, but relied on waht she had observed realtime. The slo-mo showed that had the player not dug in his elbows he would have been stopped and obliged to play the ball short of the line - i/e/ his action had provided new momentum not mere continuance therefore her advice was still correct.
Problem is another person observing his action might deem it continuing and as most refs don't have degrees in physics i reckon we should stick to calling it as we see/feel it - if his momentum looks stopped it is so- any overt action by him to extend it is probably good evidence that he is stopped.
|
|
|
balones
|
Sat, 08 March 08 12:32 GMT
|
Sorry. Forgot to return to the thread and say what the ref did. No try. Movement deemed 'gradual' - even if quick- and not immediate. Especially as he pushed it through the opposition's legs.
|
|
|
Oldmanmartin
|
Fri, 29 February 08 15:13 GMT
|
Whatever the pedantics of the terminology, surely Bowe was illegal in that he propelled himself (crawled?)forward using his feet and knees after being held in the tackle. I saw nothing illegal in the 'reach'.
Reffing is a thankless task, as a (junior club) player I never resented decisions unless they were blatantly biased (very rare). The rules are a minefield, even for the very best exponents!
|
|
|
the whistleblower
|
Thu, 28 February 08 16:53 GMT
|
Law 15.5(d) regarding the tackle: (d) A tackled player may release the ball by pushing it along the ground in any direction except forward, provided this is done immediately.
Penalty: Penalty Kick
I suggest that the ability to reach and ground the ball does not over-ride this provision. The reach will be necessary because a tackle has taken place. at the tackle, the push forward is prohibited. Hence, the reach must involve an airborne effort.
|
-------------------------
Whistleblower |
|
|
ob
|
Thu, 28 February 08 14:53 GMT
|
pg - that means we are working to different guidelines. Locally it seems to be accepted that reaching applies basically to arms only.
It would be nice to have something official.
|
|
|
pauldg
|
Thu, 28 February 08 14:03 GMT
|
>A slight aside. Should a try be allowed if the 'immediate' movement to ground the ball for a try involves pushing the ball along the ground?
In Rugby Union? As long as the grounding rules are ultimately met, Yes.
In Rugby League? No. Placing the ball forward once it has touched the ground is specifically a penalty.
|
-------------------------
--
PaulDG |
|
|
balones
|
Thu, 28 February 08 13:11 GMT
|
A slight aside. Should a try be allowed if the 'immediate' movement to ground the ball for a try involves pushing the ball along the ground? Something i observed in a match very recently. (I'll not say what the ref concerned did at this stage.)
|
|
|
pg
|
Wed, 27 February 08 21:54 GMT
|
Interesting thread!
I saw the Irish winger's 'try' on Saturday. I saw an issue coming with his being able to reach the goal line or not so watched intently to see what decision I would have made instinctively. My instictive reaction was give the try - very marginal but give the player the benefit of the doubt - this was on the basis that there was 'just'... only just ... one 'flowing movement' from the player hitting the ground to the ball being grounded correctly.
I have seen the notes above about the jacknife and they are valid but the LoG's don't mention jacknife or similar, just 'immediately reach out etc' which IHMO he near enough did. I always interpret this area as one unbroken movement of any sort from hitting the ground to grounding on the try line.
|
|
|
ob
|
Wed, 27 February 08 15:25 GMT
|
I have finally had a chance to look at the incident.
I think the TJ told the referee he thought it was a try (but it is hard to hear the officials when the commentators keep talking over them). The question to the TMO certainly started with the statement that the grounding was OK, but the next bit was garbled and may have ended with "forward". The TMO decision merely said it was a try.
IMHO Bowe made a deliberate effort to get to his knees so that he could reach the line. If he had not done that, he could not have reached. It was not momentum. That is not my understanding of what the law allows: "this player can immediately reach out and ground the ball".
Should the tackler have released earlier? Perhaps, but even so, Bowe also had to release and get to his feet before playing on.
Given video replay, I think the try should have been disallowed, but the TMO is not allowed to comment, and the ref had only a split second to judge (if indeed he had a clear view). He was obviously uncertain, or he would not have referred it upstairs.
|
|
|
pauldg
|
Wed, 27 February 08 13:22 GMT
|
>Yes, Bowe was held but propelled himself forward with his feet. If that's not a double movement I don't know what is.
Look it up in the Laws Of the Game.
Does the phrase "Double Movement" appear anywhere?
|
-------------------------
--
PaulDG |
|
|
Oldmanmartin
|
Wed, 27 February 08 12:53 GMT
|
Yes, Bowe was held but propelled himself forward with his feet. If that's not a double movement I don't know what is.
|
|
|
zackly
|
Tue, 26 February 08 18:44 GMT
|
OB. Of course !! You described the TMO's limits not long ago.
So . . . . . . . was the referee wrong ? - if he saw it.
I suppose my fundamental question is - Did the Irish wing make a double movement ? Or is that "jack-knife" body crawling movement allowed before stretching out to ground the ball (for the first time) over / on the goal-line ?
This message edited on Tue, 26 February 08 by zackly
|
|
|
ob
|
Mon, 25 February 08 18:07 GMT
|
zackly - the TMO is not allowed to comment on anything that happens in the field of play other than touch in the act of scoring. Crawling forward along the ground (if that is what happened) is outside his remit.
|
|
|
zackly
|
Mon, 25 February 08 15:04 GMT
|
The Italian prop scored a classic try from near the goal-line on Sat. 23rd. : driving forward on his feet until held & grounded short of the line. With ball carried in non-grounding arm he was able to reach out "forward" - as Law 15.5(g) allows - and ground the ball beyond the goal-line. Try !
The Irish wing was held & grounded well short of the line, with the ball in his grounded arm - but the ball NOT visibly touching the ground. He then made a small jack-knife movement of his body, allowing him to use feet & knees to propel himself forward before reaching out with the ball to ground it beyond the goal-line. I thought the TMO was WRONG to award a try - there certainly was no "momentum" as required by Law 15.5(f).
The Irishman was well held & grounded short of the line - too far short to reach out & ground the ball In Goal as L.15.5(g) permits - and should have released the ball then, not make a body movement - illegal because he was held & grounded = PK to defence.
Or am I being too finicky ? Perhaps the TMO was too intent on checking that the ball had not touched the ground - and missed - or chose to disregard - the body movement. He certainly had plenty of time to ponder his decision before announcing it !
|
|
|
|
|
|
