Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Ireland v Scotland -Aviva Stadium - Saturday 10th March 5pm

Options
1…272829303133»

Comments

  • Options
    #962
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    The funny thing about the Bowe situation is that there are many many ways to view it but the only thing you can't really possibly justify is a penalty to Scotland!


  • Options
    #963
    Quint2010
    Registered Users Posts: 5,178 ✭✭✭Quint2010


    rrpc wrote: »
    Where is this double movement rule you speak of young skywalker?

    Well I remember when we beat England in 2004 in Twickers Ben Cohen had a try disallowed for a double movement. He was tackled and placed the ball on the floor while still holding onto it and then placed it in the in goal area. It was deemed a double movement as he didn't let go of the ball once tackled. Same deal last saturday-Bowe should have let go of the ball once tackled.


  • Options
    #964
    totallegend
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,234 ✭✭✭totallegend


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    The funny thing about the Bowe situation is that there are many many ways to view it but the only thing you can't really possibly justify is a penalty to Scotland!

    Eh? Double movement is a penalty offence.


  • Options
    #965
    rrpc
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,244 ✭✭✭rrpc


    totallegend wrote: »
    Eh? Double movement is a penalty offence.
    Yet nobody can quote the law that says so...


  • Options
    #966
    marco_polo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,076 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    Quint2010 wrote: »
    rrpc wrote: »
    Where is this double movement rule you speak of young skywalker?

    Well I remember when we beat England in 2004 in Twickers Ben Cohen had a try disallowed for a double movement. He was tackled and placed the ball on the floor while still holding onto it and then placed it in the in goal area. It was deemed a double movement as he didn't let go of the ball once tackled. Same deal last saturday-Bowe should have let go of the ball once tackled.

    He was held up so it is Either scrum blue if on the field of play, similar to a choke tackle, or scrum green if in goal.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #967
    totallegend
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,234 ✭✭✭totallegend


    rrpc wrote: »
    Yet nobody can quote the law that says so...

    It's law 15.5 (b) and (c)

    "A tackled player must immediately pass the ball or release it. That player must also get up or move away from it at once"

    "A tackled player may release the ball by putting it on the ground in any direction, provided this is done immediately."

    So, if you think Bowe placed the ball immediately, then it is a try, if not, then it's a penalty to Scotland. I'd go for the latter but it's totally subjective.


  • Options
    #968
    marco_polo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,076 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    totallegend wrote: »
    rrpc wrote: »
    Yet nobody can quote the law that says so...

    It's law 15.5 (b) and (c)

    "A tackled player must immediately pass the ball or release it. That player must also get up or move away from it at once"

    "A tackled player may release the ball by putting it on the ground in any direction, provided this is done immediately."

    So, if you think Bowe placed the ball immediately, then it is a try, if not, then it's a penalty to Scotland. I'd go for the latter but it's totally subjective.

    And yet the tackling player is allowed to wrestle for the ball on the ground?


  • Options
    #969
    rrpc
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,244 ✭✭✭rrpc


    totallegend wrote: »
    It's law 15.5 (b) and (c)

    "A tackled player must immediately pass the ball or release it. That player must also get up or move away from it at once"

    "A tackled player may release the ball by putting it on the ground in any direction, provided this is done immediately."

    So, if you think Bowe placed the ball immediately, then it is a try, if not, then it's a penalty to Scotland. I'd go for the latter but it's totally subjective.
    Ah! Interpretation of a law that makes no mention of the 'double movement' phrase.

    So wouldn't this also mean that law 15.4(a) should be observed?:

    "When a player tackles an opponent and they both go to ground, the tackler must immediately release the tackled player"


  • Options
    #970
    MungBean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,915 ✭✭✭MungBean


    totallegend wrote: »
    It's law 15.5 (b) and (c)

    "A tackled player must immediately pass the ball or release it. That player must also get up or move away from it at once"

    "A tackled player may release the ball by putting it on the ground in any direction, provided this is done immediately."

    So, if you think Bowe placed the ball immediately, then it is a try, if not, then it's a penalty to Scotland. I'd go for the latter but it's totally subjective.

    That is only relevant if Bowe was short of the line which he wasnt.

    And if he was.
    15.4 (a)
    When a player tackles an opponent and they both go to ground, the tackler must immediately release the tackled player.

    Sanction: Penalty kick

    But Bowe was not short, momentum had carried him into the in goal area. So none of that is relevant.


  • Options
    #971
    totallegend
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,234 ✭✭✭totallegend


    marco_polo wrote: »
    And yet the tackling player is allowed to wrestle for the ball on the ground?

    No, he has to allow the tackled player to release the ball so that it can be played by another player. He is not obliged to release the tackled player so that he can touch it down for a try.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #972
    totallegend
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,234 ✭✭✭totallegend


    MungBean wrote: »
    That is only relevant if Bowe was short of the line which he wasnt.

    And if he was.



    But Bowe was not short, momentum had carried him into the in goal area. So none of that is relevant.

    You seem to be arguing the rights and wrongs of the TMO's decision with me but I have no interest in that, I'm just explaining the rules that the TMO applied and why he gave Scotland a penalty.

    There are lads talking about Bowe being held up and such, which might be their opinion but the rule the TMO applied was the double movement law.


  • Options
    #973
    durkadurka
    Registered Users Posts: 6,207 ✭✭✭durkadurka


    Excellent debate folks. Would like to hear opinions of some refs if you're out there.


  • Options
    #974
    marco_polo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,076 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    totallegend wrote: »
    No, he has to allow the tackled player to release the ball so that it can be played by another player. He is not obliged to release the tackled player so that he can touch it down for a try.

    So if Part A never occurs how do we get from there to a penalty for not releasing the ball? Which is what the double movement offense actually is.


  • Options
    #975
    rrpc
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,244 ✭✭✭rrpc


    totallegend wrote: »
    No, he has to allow the tackled player to release the ball so that it can be played by another player. He is not obliged to release the tackled player so that he can touch it down for a try.
    He is obliged and that's very clearly stated above, unless they are in-goal where he can hold the player to prevent a try being scored. Once that's established, law 15.5 doesn't apply either.

    If other players had arrived before Bowe got the bal down, it may have been different as a ruck could have formed.

    There is a possibility that the ball could have been deemed to have been in the field of play until Bowe got it down but with most of his body in-goal, I'm not sure that's the case here.


  • Options
    #976
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    totallegend wrote: »
    No, he has to allow the tackled player to release the ball so that it can be played by another player. He is not obliged to release the tackled player so that he can touch it down for a try.

    He is obliged to release the tackled player should it be in open play. In that case it would have been a penalty to Ireland for not allowing the player to release the ball. So possible outcomes in play are penalty to Ireland or penalty try to Ireland.

    If it was in the goal area "double movement" (IE holding) does not apply. You could say (quite easilly in this case IMO) that it was held up. Either way the only results here are try or scrum 5.


    There is no circumstance where Tommy Bowe could have committed a penalisable offence without Morrison first committing one. Either he is in goal and legally allowed to keep attempting to place the ball until it is rules held up or he is in open play and Morrison is done for holding him. So possible outcomes are Try Ireland, Penalty Ireland, Penalty Try Ireland, Scrum 5. I would have gone for Scrum 5 because Morrison did seem to keep it up long enough to me (I suppose it gets subjective there though).


  • Options
    #977
    totallegend
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,234 ✭✭✭totallegend


    marco_polo wrote: »
    So if Part A never occurs how do we get from there to a penalty for not releasing the ball? Which is what the double movement offense actually is.

    Stupid as it might sound, by the letter of the law both should happen simultaneously and immediately, i.e. if the tackle is "completed" and Morrison is obliged to release Bowe, then Bowe no longer has the right to place the ball.


  • Options
    #978
    MungBean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,915 ✭✭✭MungBean


    I thought the video ref couldnt comment on anything outside the in goal anyway which is supposedly where Bowe used his double move in reaching the line. Have things changed since the world cup ?


  • Options
    #979
    rrpc
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,244 ✭✭✭rrpc


    MungBean wrote: »
    I thought the video ref couldnt comment on anything outside the in goal anyway which is supposedly where Bowe used his double move in reaching the line. Have things changed since the world cup ?
    It's in-goal. He was asked was it a try and said no, then went outside his brief by saying it was a penalty for Scotland.

    On that basis alone, you'd have to doubt anything else he said.


Advertisement