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…2728293032

Comments

  • Options
    #932
    prospect
    Registered Users Posts: 4,791 ✭✭✭prospect


    I think the penalty was awarded against Bowe for holding onto the ball for too long.


  • Options
    #933
    MungBean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,915 ✭✭✭MungBean


    prospect wrote: »
    I think the penalty was awarded against Bowe for holding onto the ball for too long.

    No law against holding onto the ball in the in goal area though I dont think. Even if he was in the field of play he can take his time turning to present the ball when nobody is on their feet trying to claim it. If that was a ruck Bowe wouldnt have been done for holding on or a double move. And as other have said a double move isnt defined in terms of arm movements its body movements and there was no second body movement to get to the line as he was already over it.

    I think the video ref messed up on this actually.


  • Options
    #934
    rrpc
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,244 ✭✭✭rrpc


    prospect wrote: »
    I think the penalty was awarded against Bowe for holding onto the ball for too long.
    That's not the signal the ref made though. He seemed to make the signal for a player getting up from a tackle.


  • Options
    #935
    .ak
    Registered Users Posts: 30,308 Mod ✭✭✭✭.ak


    You'd think the TMO would have a PDF open on a lappy with the ability to just CTRL+F the rules if he wasn't sure... Real pity as that's come off a couple of times for Sexton before, great to see him using his noggin.


  • Options
    #936
    prospect
    Registered Users Posts: 4,791 ✭✭✭prospect


    Yeah, RTE Sport report it as 'Holding onto the ball for too long' in one section, and in the match timeline they post this:
    RTE wrote:
    50 mins Heaslip takes a crash up the middle. Scotland make the tackle on the number 8, but fail to roll away. Penalty Ireland. The Scots fall asleep, assuming that Ireland will kick for goal. Sexton sees this and cross-field kicks to Bowe, wide right. Bowe claims it and dives over for the try. But Morrison holds him up and prevents him from touching down. Bowe eventually manages to get the ball down, but the TMO rules that the ball was moved in two movements. Penalty Scotland for failing to release the ball.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #937
    rrpc
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,244 ✭✭✭rrpc


    prospect wrote: »
    Yeah, RTE Sport report it as 'Holding onto the ball for too long' in one section, and in the match timeline they post this:
    50 mins Heaslip takes a crash up the middle. Scotland make the tackle on the number 8, but fail to roll away. Penalty Ireland. The Scots fall asleep, assuming that Ireland will kick for goal. Sexton sees this and cross-field kicks to Bowe, wide right. Bowe claims it and dives over for the try. But Morrison holds him up and prevents him from touching down. Bowe eventually manages to get the ball down, but the TMO rules that the ball was moved in two movements. Penalty Scotland for failing to release the ball.

    All pretty nonsensical. If Bowe can be penalised for holding on, surely Morrison can equally be penalised for not releasing.

    I'm convinced there's an element of Rugby League creeping in here. Search through the law book and see if you can find a penalty for "double movement" or "holding on too long in the in-goal" :rolleyes:

    I certainly can't.


  • Options
    #938
    leftleg
    Registered Users Posts: 1,165 ✭✭✭leftleg


    heres more "sensical" info for anyone interested

    http://dementedmole.com/2012/03/12/match-reaction-2-tommy-nooooooooooooooo/#more-2267


  • Options
    #939
    GerM
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,592 ✭✭✭GerM


    Pretty sure it was the correct call. Bowe is allowed place the ball immediately. What he did constituted a double movement. He did not do it immediately nor was it due to momentum as he went one way then the other. If he had done nothing, it would have counted as being held up and a 5m scrum to Ireland would have been awarded. A defending player is entitled to hold up an attacking player in the in goal area which is what Morrison did.

    No issue with the call. For a big fella, Bowe actually isn't very powerful. That's not the first time he has been held up over the line. Italy back when he was first coming on the scene comes to mind. Think it was 2006 and the try was awarded in a very similar situation.


  • Options
    #940
    molloyjh
    Registered Users Posts: 24,745 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    Tackle was completed in the scoring area. Or rather wasn't completed in the field of play.

    So effectively Morrison was in the right to cling onto Bowe. However if he was in the right to cling onto Bowe then Bowe was in the right to ground the ball, which makes it a try in my opinion.


    It matters a great deal to Bowe breaking the try scoring record unfortunately.

    Looking at the laws today:
    IRB Law 22.4(e) wrote:
    Tackled near the goal line. If a player is tackled near to the opponents' goal line so that this player can immediately reach out and ground the ball on or over the line, a try is scored.

    Bowe was tackled near the goal line and momentum carried himself and Morrisson over. He then wasn't able to ground it immediately. So the question becomes whether Morrisson preventing him from doing so was legal. We know he was in-goal at the time but I'm having a really hard time finding out what that means in terms of the tackle and whether he should release the tackled player. Anyone else having any joy? He wasn't challenging for the ball he was just lying all over Bowe and preventing the grounding. I don't see anything covering that in the laws....


  • Options
    #941
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    GerM wrote: »
    Pretty sure it was the correct call. Bowe is allowed place the ball immediately. What he did constituted a double movement. He did not do it immediately nor was it due to momentum as he went one way then the other. If he had done nothing, it would have counted as being held up and a 5m scrum to Ireland would have been awarded. A defending player is entitled to hold up an attacking player in the in goal area which is what Morrison did.

    No issue with the call. For a big fella, Bowe actually isn't very powerful. That's not the first time he has been held up over the line. Italy back when he was first coming on the scene comes to mind. Think it was 2006 and the try was awarded in a very similar situation.
    Except there cannot be a double movement in goal...

    As has been said, either you apply the tackle as being completed in goal and its a try or you apply it as being in the field of play and its a penalty to Ireland for tackler holding.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #942
    MungBean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,915 ✭✭✭MungBean


    GerM wrote: »
    Pretty sure it was the correct call. Bowe is allowed place the ball immediately. What he did constituted a double movement. He did not do it immediately nor was it due to momentum as he went one way then the other. If he had done nothing, it would have counted as being held up and a 5m scrum to Ireland would have been awarded. A defending player is entitled to hold up an attacking player in the in goal area which is what Morrison did.

    Why is the defending player entitled to hold onto the player to hold up the ball but the attacking player not allowed to try and ground the ball ? A double movement is gaining ground while held in a tackle not an attempt to rotate your body which is what Bowe did in his attempt the ground the ball.


  • Options
    #943
    molloyjh
    Registered Users Posts: 24,745 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    MungBean wrote: »
    Why is the defending player entitled to hold onto the player to hold up the ball but the attacking player not allowed to try and ground the ball ? A double movement is gaining ground while held in a tackle not an attempt to rotate your body which is what Bowe did in his attempt the ground the ball.

    The problem is the law doesn't define a double movement. It says if tackled Bowe could place the ball immediately. He didn't. The confusion seems to be more around whether Morrisson was legally entitled to hold on to the attacking player the way he did.


  • Options
    #944
    Tox56
    Registered Users Posts: 11,636 ✭✭✭✭Tox56


    A lot of debate about a try that doesn't mean anything.

    Maybe the record is important I guess, but in terms of the match it had no bearing on the result.


  • Options
    #945
    bleg
    Registered Users Posts: 5,848 ✭✭✭bleg


    I thought he was held up to be honest.


  • Options
    #946
    MungBean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,915 ✭✭✭MungBean


    molloyjh wrote: »
    The problem is the law doesn't define a double movement. It says if tackled Bowe could place the ball immediately. He didn't. The confusion seems to be more around whether Morrisson was legally entitled to hold on to the attacking player the way he did.

    I think the video ref is more so going on Bowes leg movements than the amount of time it took for him to ground the ball. Bowe used his legs to try and twist into a position to ground the ball. I think thats what the double movement is about. But momentum had carried him over before he did that so its not a double movement. For the defending player to hold it up he has to stop Bowe grounding it which he didnt do.

    The "tackled near the line" rule is meant for a tackle short of the line where the attacking player can immediately try to ground the ball so he cannot be done for not releasing. In the "momentum try" rule does theres no mention of immediately grounding it only grounding it. Depends on which way you see it, tackled short or carried over.

    The touch judge ruled that he was short of the line and used a second move while held in the tackle to ground the ball. Which is wrong im my opinion because he was in the goal area when he did that. Momentum had already carried him over the line.


  • Options
    #947
    Jimoslimos
    Registered Users Posts: 4,930 ✭✭✭Jimoslimos


    Tox56 wrote: »
    A lot of debate about a try that doesn't mean anything.
    Maybe, but better debate and clarification now when the result wasn't in question than ambiguity in a much closer/important match.


  • Options
    #948
    DeDoc
    Registered Users Posts: 414 ✭✭DeDoc


    The laws are pretty clear in some respects IMO.

    Law 15.5 (f) and (g) are the relevant ones.

    15.5 deals with the tackled player

    (f) If a tackled player’s momentum carries the player into the in-goal, the player can score a try or make a touch down.
    (g) If a player is tackled near the goal line, that player may immediately reach out and ground the ball on or over the goal line to score a try or make a touch down.

    On that basis, I think it is pretty clear that momentum brought Bowe over the line, so the relevant clause is (f) rather than (g) - implying that Bowe does not have to place the ball immediately (the requirement otherwise).
    Where the laws aren't clear (or at least the general application isn't clear) is in relation to the tackler. By the letter of the law a player making the tackle has to release as soon as he hits the ground. However, by this (strict) interpretation, a defender could never hold up a player over the line, or get under the ball etc.

    My own feeling was that neither player did anything wrong. It then comes down to a situation of whether the ball had become unplayable. If yes, then a 5m scrum for Ireland. If no, then try Ireland. My instinct was that it had become unplayable, i.e. Morisson legitimately prevented Bowe from grounding it for long enough.

    Definitely not a penalty for Scotland though, by my reading of the laws - particularly as the TMO asked the ref, when called up, whether it was 'first or second grounding'. I think the TMO just read this wrong and/or didn't know the laws.


  • Options
    #949
    MungBean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,915 ✭✭✭MungBean


    DeDoc wrote: »
    My own feeling was that neither player did anything wrong. It then comes down to a situation of whether the ball had become unplayable. If yes, then a 5m scrum for Ireland. If no, then try Ireland. My instinct was that it had become unplayable, i.e. Morisson legitimately prevented Bowe from grounding it for long enough.

    Definitely not a penalty for Scotland though, by my reading of the laws - particularly as the TMO asked the ref, when called up, whether it was 'first or second grounding'. I think the TMO just read this wrong and/or didn't know the laws.

    For it to be unplayable in the in goal area though it has to be held up, Morisson never had his hands on the ball so was never going to hold it up. Bowe had possession and was attempting to ground it after momentum carried him over the line which he did and wouldnt have been able to do if the ball was unplayable.


  • Options
    #950
    DeDoc
    Registered Users Posts: 414 ✭✭DeDoc


    I don't think it is just about holding up the ball - I think it is also often interpreted as the player being held up. I don't have a problem with what Morrison did - and my gut instinct was that Bowe took too long to place it. Worst case though, I think it should have been a scrum 5.


  • Options
    #951
    MungBean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,915 ✭✭✭MungBean


    DeDoc wrote: »
    I don't think it is just about holding up the ball - I think it is also often interpreted as the player being held up. I don't have a problem with what Morrison did - and my gut instinct was that Bowe took too long to place it. Worst case though, I think it should have been a scrum 5.

    I've no problem with what Morisson did either but there is no mention in the laws of a player having a specified amount of time in which to ground the ball. The "immediately" distinction in part (g) above merely specifies a player must either release or attempt to ground. In part (f) its not specified, Bowe had clear possession and was clearly attempting to ground and did so. It was a try to me as Morisson didnt hold the player up (stop him from grounding the ball) and there was no double movement.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #952
    rrpc
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,244 ✭✭✭rrpc


    MungBean wrote: »
    I've no problem with what Morisson did either but there is no mention in the laws of a player having a specified amount of time in which to ground the ball. The "immediately" distinction in part (g) above merely specifies a player must either release or attempt to ground. In part (f) its not specified, Bowe had clear possession and was clearly attempting to ground and did so. It was a try to me as Morisson didnt hold the player up (stop him from grounding the ball) and there was no double movement.
    This is my reading too. We've seen occasions where the ball is carried over the line in a maul or in the tight, partially held up and then grounded and the ref has allowed the time for that to happen.


  • Options
    #953
    DeDoc
    Registered Users Posts: 414 ✭✭DeDoc


    of course, but equally there has to be some length of time after which the ball is deemed to be held up.
    My gut instinct was that this had passed, but it is obviously a subjective judgement.
    I think we can both agree that the TMO got it wrong and it shouldn't have been a penalty!


  • Options
    #954
    danthefan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,770 ✭✭✭danthefan


    This might have been pointed out but if Bowe had just held onto the ball and made no attempt to ground it it almost certainly would have been a scrum 5. The more I think about it the more I think the wrong decision was made.


  • Options
    #955
    vetinari
    Registered Users Posts: 1,025 ✭✭✭vetinari


    It's a try for me. The reason it felt "weird" to people was that there was only Bowe and the defender involved. Double movement does not apply in terms of grounding the ball. My view would be that the defender has to hold the attacker up until the ball is unplayable. The ball clearly was playable as Bowe grounded it. Clearly a try in my book.


  • Options
    #956
    totallegend
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,234 ✭✭✭totallegend


    vetinari wrote: »
    It's a try for me. The reason it felt "weird" to people was that there was only Bowe and the defender involved. Double movement does not apply in terms of grounding the ball. My view would be that the defender has to hold the attacker up until the ball is unplayable. The ball clearly was playable as Bowe grounded it. Clearly a try in my book.

    Double movement absolutely applies in grounding the ball.

    If you are tackled short of the line, you can only touch down if your momentum carried you over or if you can reach out immediately and place it. Neither of those happened, so no try.


  • Options
    #957
    MungBean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,915 ✭✭✭MungBean


    totallegend wrote: »
    Double movement absolutely applies in grounding the ball.

    If you are tackled short of the line, you can only touch down if your momentum carried you over or if you can reach out immediately and place it. Neither of those happened, so no try.

    Momentum had carried him over the line, the reason he couldnt place it immediately was because the defender was attempting to hold him up proving he was indeed over the line or it was a penalty try for not releasing.

    There was no second movement to get him over the line, his entire body was over the line. The only movement he made was to twist his body which he is entitled to do to ground the ball.


  • Options
    #958
    Sandwlch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,066 ✭✭✭Sandwlch


    Bowe's body was not fully in the ingoal area. He was on the line, with his upper body, including the ball in his hands, outside the goal line. So he is 'down', with the ball short of the line and does not release. He then pulls it forward onto the line. Double movement.


  • Options
    #959
    razorblunt
    Registered Users Posts: 17,300 ✭✭✭✭razorblunt


    On a sidenote, Jones was on the flight I took back to Edinburgh today, good to see him doing well.


  • Options
    #960
    Quint2010
    Registered Users Posts: 5,178 ✭✭✭Quint2010


    I didn't think it was a try either. The double movement rule has been blurred somewhat in recent years. He held onto it too long for me.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #961
    rrpc
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,244 ✭✭✭rrpc


    Quint2010 wrote: »
    I didn't think it was a try either. The double movement rule has been blurred somewhat in recent years. He held onto it too long for me.
    Where is this double movement rule you speak of young skywalker?


Advertisement