Bizzare Ospreys Try

Sundy

New today on rugby dump..

http://www.rugbydump.com/2013/04/3138/midweek-madness-ben-john-scores-a-bizarre-ospreys-try#allcomments

So mush wrong with the try. The refereeing is atrocious and TJ, Ref and TMO should be in trouble.

1)Quick throw taken from incorrect place.
2)player in touch when he got the ball

errlloyd

That's the Welsh for you.

Dravokivich

Sundy wrote: »

2)player in touch when he got the ball

Surely that has to be the determining factor? It's the first action before the try. You don't need to go back much further.

awec

Not even just slightly in touch either, his whole foot is inches over the line :pac:

Sundy

Yeah not exactly the best week for irish officiating, Dudley Phillips got this one badly wrong.
He should have known the lineout was incorrectly taken without doing the opt out and making he touch judge say he was happy with the lineout.

molloyjh

Yeah I saw that over the weekend. Absolutely horrific decision to throw the quick line-out followed by another horrific decision to allow the try when the player was clearly in touch.

who_me

I can understand the ref & linesman being caught out (have a lot of sympathy for match officials), but for the TMO to miss the foot in touch is very, very poor.

sydthebeat

Sundy wrote: »

New today on rugby dump..

http://www.rugbydump.com/2013/04/3138/midweek-madness-ben-john-scores-a-bizarre-ospreys-try#allcomments

So mush wrong with the try. The refereeing is atrocious and TJ, Ref and TMO should be in trouble.

1)Quick throw taken from incorrect place.
2)player in touch when he got the ball

Can a quick throw be taken from inside your own try area?

I know that you can take a quick throw from off the mark as long as youve not gained any field advantage.

Podge_irl

How on earth did the TMO not see the foot in touch? He obviously wasn't looking for it. Very poor.

Tox56

What are the rules on TMO's exactly, aren't they still not allowed to rule outside the in-goal area in the Pro12? Surely he couldn't have just missed that

P_1

The foot in touch was a glaring miss. Having said that perhaps Treviso deserved it for the sheer stupidity of going for the quick line out in goal

ScrubsfanChris

I think you are allowed to take a quick lineout from the in-goal area, so that part was ok.
But the missed "foot in touch" is the glaring problem here.

The ref should have blown the whistle and asked Treviso to retake the lineout, something that happens in many games when it comes to quick lineouts.


Edit: Actually the throw in was illegal as well:
Law - 19.2(b) For a quick throw-in, the player may be anywhere outside the field of play between the place where the ball went into touch and the player’s goal line.

duckysauce

ScrubsfanChris wrote: »

I think you are allowed to take a quick lineout from the in-goal area, so that part was ok.
But the missed "foot in touch" is the glaring problem here.

The ref should have blown the whistle and asked Treviso to retake the lineout, something that happens in many games when it comes to quick lineouts.

Taken from Rugbydump

LAW 19.2 -- QUICK THROW-IN -- (b) For a quick throw-in, the player may be anywhere outside the field of play between the place where the ball went into touch and the player’s GOAL LINE.
<< Quick throw was taken between the goal line and the dead ball line, so not a valid lineout throw. Should be whistled, and then either make Treviso take a proper, set lineout, or ping them under 19.7 (Incorrect throw in), and give Ospreys choice of scrum or lineout>>

davidpfitz

sydthebeat wrote: »

Can a quick throw be taken from inside your own try area?

No, it can't. A throw in must be from the field of play. The goal area isn't in the field of play.

Tomtom364

I believe for the quick throw, the thrower must be between where the ball went out and his own goalline, but the receiver can be behind the goalline, so in this case its an illegal quick line out.

LeinsterDub

ScrubsfanChris wrote: »

Edit: Actually the throw in was illegal as well:
Law - 19.2(b) For a quick throw-in, the player may be anywhere outside the field of play between the place where the ball went into touch and the player’s goal line.

Ignoring the foot in touch can the TMO consider advantage? So while the line out was illegal the opposition gained an advantage?

Sundy

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Ignoring the foot in touch can the TMO consider advantage? So while the line out was illegal the opposition gained an advantage?

No there is no sanction for taking the throw from the wrong place.

LeinsterDub

Sundy wrote: »

No there is no sanction for taking the throw from the wrong place.

Are you saying that if the throw is taken from the wrong place it not a penalty but instead they retake it from the place it should have been taken and as such there can't be an advantage from taking the throw from the wrong place?

Sundy

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Are you saying that if the throw is taken from the wrong place it not a penalty but instead they retake it from the place it should have been taken and as such there can't be an advantage from taking the throw from the wrong place?

Yes. If a quick throw in is taken from the wrong place then it goes back for a proper lineout

Losty Dublin

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Ignoring the foot in touch can the TMO consider advantage? So while the line out was illegal the opposition gained an advantage?

The input of the TMO in this case was "Try, yes or no". In this case, he is limited to making a call on the grounding of the ball. He can't call a player on how he got to have the ball in the first place unless his gaining possession happened in In Goal. If this was the issue then the question asked of him then has to be "Is there any reason why I can not award a try?"; this covers infringements as well as inconclusive grounding.

There is no questioning that the player was in touch when he got the ball but he was not in touch when he grounded the ball so that end of it was fine. The line out was obviously incorrect in where it took place but the error here is on the referee and the assistant referee, both of whom were happy with it's legality.

Podge_irl

Losty Dublin wrote: »

The input of the TMO in this case was "Try, yes or no". In this case, he is limited to making a call on the grounding of the ball. He can't call a player on how he got to have the ball in the first place unless his gaining possession happened in In Goal. If this was the issue then the question asked of him then has to be "Is there any reason why I can not award a try?"; this covers infringements as well as inconclusive grounding.

I don't understand this. I thought "try, yes or no" simply required a higher burden of proof to award a try then "is there any reason why I can not ...". The remit of the TMO is the exact same with either question.

In my view he is in touch while in the act of scoring, even if he is not in touch while physically touching down.

locum-motion

Losty Dublin wrote: »

The input of the TMO in this case was "Try, yes or no"...

A question to which the answer is "No".
Or if he wanted to explain further "No, because the player in possession of the ball was in touch before he grounded it."
No matter what question the TMO was asked, the answer is no try. And that's without even looking at the throw in.
Three officials (ref, TJ and TMO) all made glaringly bad decisions here.

sydthebeat

the question "try yes or no" is often answered with "no try, players foot was in touch"... so its not just the grounding of the ball that the TMO is allowed adjudicate upon.

Losty Dublin

Podge_irl wrote: »

I don't understand this. I thought "try, yes or no" simply required a higher burden of proof to award a try then "is there any reason why I can not ...". The remit of the TMO is the exact same with either question.

In my view he is in touch while in the act of scoring, even if he is not in touch while physically touching down.

The requirements of the TMO in the RABO Pro are as follows...

8.1. A TMO shall be appointed for any match in the RaboDirect PRO12 that is being broadcast live.

8.2. The referee may consult with a TMO when the referee is unsure, when making decisions relating to:

• the scoring of points through try, conversion, penalty goal or dropped goal;
• correct grounding of the ball for a try;
• penalty try as a result of foul play that occurs only in the in-goal area prior to or during the act of grounding the ball;
• touch / touch in goal / dead ball during the act of grounding the ball.

A referee asking "Try, Yes or No" effectively covers the legal grounding of the ball (ie, is it down, by whom and were they in play at the time of grounding). "Is there...." allows a little bit more scope in making a call such as an infringement. The referee only asks the relevant question he needs assistance with at the time of asking; the TMO can then only give his answer based on what he is asked.

As we saw, both he and the assistant referee decided they were happy with the line out and how the player came to have the ball so the TMO was only going to be asked "Yes or No" so he was right in his call as the player was in play when he grounded down. That said, the referee and assistant referee should not have let it come that far to begin with.

sydthebeat

Losty Dublin wrote: »

.........
• touch / touch in goal / dead ball during the act of grounding the ball.

............so the TMO was only going to be asked "Yes or No" so he was right in his call as the player was in play when he grounded down. .

sorry but, no.

the TMO has the power to call a foul if the player was in touch IN THE ACT OF grounding the ball.

This player was in touch IN THE ACT OF grounding the ball as he simply caught it and dropped.

This is no different from a players foot touching the line as he drops to score.

Bad call simply.

locum-motion

sydthebeat wrote: »

sorry but, no.

the TMO has the power to call a foul if the player was in touch IN THE ACT OF grounding the ball.

This player was in touch IN THE ACT OF grounding the ball as he simply caught it and dropped.

This is no different from a players foot touching the line as he drops to score.

Bad call simply.

Do you know what?

I was about to post this almost word for word, but I then went back and looked at the footage on the Rugbydump post again. Look at it and pause it from 2:47 to 2:49 and you can see the following:

• When the ball was coming towards him and he caught it, his left foot was indubitably out.
• After catching it, he dropped to his knees. Both of his knees were in. You cannot see whether his feet were in or out, or whether they were touching the ground or not.
• He then grounded the ball.

There is no evidence (on that section of the tape, and from that angle) that the GROUNDING of the ball was illegal.

SO, if it is correct that the TMO's jurisdiction is the grounding and only the grounding, then on the evidence visible from 2:47 to 2:49 on THAT video, then the TMO's decision was correct. I didn't closely examine other angles, but I assume the TMO did.

The TJ, however, did fcuk up badly.

Twice actually.

1. He should have kept his flag raised in his right hand and continued to signal a green lineout (at 0:30 you can see him drop it) and stood still on the 5m line to signify to the referee that the ball was still out of play (it had not been legally put back into play, therefore it was still out).

2. If he did feel that the referee was overruling him and allowing it to continue, then when Ben John caught the ball he should have either:
a: re-raised the flag in his left hand, or
b: switched it from right to left hand
(depending on whether he'd dropped it in the meantime) and signalled a black* lineout.

*Green kicked and it was caught by a black player with one foot in touch = green kicked it out.

sydthebeat

i suppose its a question of when the act of grounding begins... i would argue it begins the moment he gets his hands on the ball.
Catch the ball in the goal area, your only reaction is to drop and score. He makes no attempt to carry out any other action.
Its the act of grounding thats illegal, not just the grounding.


However, if you are trying to say that the TMO DID realise he was out BUT determined he couldn't call it because HIS interpretation of grounding the ball was comparable to yours... them id say thats stretching it a bit.

we'll agree to disagree in ths one?

locum-motion

sydthebeat wrote: »

i suppose its a question of when the act of grounding begins... i would argue it begins the moment he gets his hands on the ball.
Catch the ball in the goal area, ...

But that's part of the point; he didn't catch it in the in goal area. When he caught it, he had one foot in the field of play and one in touch. He only crossed the line when he went to his knees.

Take this hypothetical: Suppose that Botes' kick had been a better one, and had travelled >75m. Suppose the black 15 had been standing just outside his own 22 with one foot in the field of play and the other one in touch. Suppose he had caught the ball, set off running up the field untouched until he reached the line, then knelt down and grounded the ball.

What would the correct decision be? A black lineout near their own 22 is the answer.

Now suppose that in this hypothetical, the TJ had missed that foot in touch, and the TMO was asked to rule on the grounding.

IN THIS SITUATION, would you say that the TMO should say "the grounding was fine, but he had a foot in touch 75 metres ago"?

No, you wouldn't.

If the TMO's jurisdiction is only the grounding, then there is no difference between the two scenarios. If the foot was only in touch when he caught the ball and not when he grounded the ball, then it makes no difference to the TMO whether he's run 75m+ or not in between the two things happening.

So, it was the TJ's fault, not TMO's. Oh, and the ref's too, of course.

I realise that this is different to what I said in post #22, but I have re-viewed the evidence in the meantime and that is why I have changed my mind.

sydthebeat

i completely agree that the ref and TJs had a howler as there was so much wrong.

however i dont agree that the TMO HAD TO award the try because "grounding" was legal.
In my opinion, the act of ground started when he caught the ball, and at that stage one foot was in touch.

The example you gave above is not comparable in my opinion for the reason above also.

Think of it like this, when a defender catches the ball from a long kick with one foot over the dead ball line .... its a scrum back where the kick occurred because the foot being out AND the catch is considered as part of the action that deems the ball to be dead...... similarly in this case the foot being out is also part of the action of grounding the ball... and thus illegal IMHO

Podge_irl

It depends on what you view as the "act of scoring" I guess.

I'd take it that as soon as he starts diving down to place the ball he is in the act of scoring and thus out of play during it.

(though I'll admit that any of ye who ref would know more than me).

.ak

I always thought that the TMO had jurisdiction from one phase before the try is scored?

Losty Dublin

.ak wrote: »

I always thought that the TMO had jurisdiction from one phase before the try is scored?

Not in the Rabo they don't. The Aviva League has it as a trial law.

It depends on what you view as the "act of scoring" I guess.

Podge_irl wrote:

I'd take it that as soon as he starts diving down to place the ball he is in the act of scoring and thus out of play during it.

(though I'll admit that any of ye who ref would know more than me).

I am a referee, Podge The act of scoring as far as a referee is concerned will be in the grounding, subject to not breaching the Laws

Swiwi

I think these mistakes will become history. SANZAR is delighted with the extra powers of the TMO so far in the SXV, and I would be pretty confident the IRB will extend this to all high level rugby. Then the TMO could have simply ruled that both the lineout was illegal and the player was in touch. Instead, he could only rule on the actual grounding, which was of course fine, hence the try awarded. Bit of a balls-up all round, though.

Podge_irl

Losty Dublin wrote: »

I am a referee, Podge The act of scoring as far as a referee is concerned will be in the grounding, subject to not breaching the Laws

I thought you were alright. I was more just putting my ignorance in writing so I could be disabused of my notions then attempting to correct you!

Sundy

Podge_irl wrote: »

(though I'll admit that any of ye who ref would know more than me).

Dont be so sure of this, you still get refs who give penalties for 'not letting the man up'


I think the TMO judged what he saw within his remit. The act of scoring the try was the player falling to his knees and placing the ball over the line. Anything previous to this is for the TJ and the Ref.

I really hope there is a review process where these guys have to sit down with an assessor and be asked to explain how the screwed up so badly.

locum-motion

sydthebeat wrote: »

...
In my opinion, the act of ground started when he caught the ball...

Again, "the catch" and "the grounding" were two different things. (Ask any of the referees here.)

That's why I suggested the hypothetical situation where the two were separated by more than 3 microseconds.

sydthebeat wrote: »

...
Think of it like this, when a defender catches the ball from a long kick with one foot over the dead ball line .... its a scrum back where the kick occurred because the foot being out AND the catch is considered as part of the action that deems the ball to be dead...... similarly in this case the foot being out is also part of the action of grounding the ball... and thus illegal IMHO

The defender in this scenario doesn't even have to catch the ball.
If Devin Toner took the idea into his head to lie down on the ground in the dead ball area with the tips of his toes touching the dead ball line, and then a kicked ball rolls/bounces 50m before rolling into Devin's outstretched hands, then the ball is considered to have been kicked dead directly, even if it never actually reached within 17 feet 3 inches* of the dead ball line.

However, that still doesn't mean that the catch and the grounding were the same thing. They weren't.

* Disclaimer: Might be slightly exaggerated.