Law Discussion: in or out at Twickenham

by **Biltong** Mon 04 Nov 2013, 9:53 am

Not sure how many of you have ever visited the SA Referees website, they often have discussions regarding laws and use match situations as the point of reference to the laws. Here is a full breakdown by them in regards to the Brown touch line incident, I am trying to find one with the "potential obstruction".

SA Referees Website wrote:Rugby football is a game of consequences.CB

After Quade Cooper of Australia misses a penalty goal, England drop out. Ben Mowen of Australia catches the ball and is tackled by Marland Yarde and Chris Robshaw but Dan Coles of England enters the tackle from the side and is penalised about four metres inside the Australian half.

Matt Toomua of Australia takes the penalty and aims for touch as close to the Australian goal-line as possible, The ball is going into touch about five metres from the line when Mike Brown of England knocks the ball back infield. He starts a counterattack, which, after Michael Hooper has been penalised, ends when Adam Ashley-Cooper tackles Yarde out five metres from the Australian line for a line-out for Australia.

The line-out is long in happening because Scott Fardy is taken from the field on a mobile stretcher, replaced by Ben McCalman, and Ashley-Cooper is bleeding and his place is taken by Bernard Foley.

Australia shorten their line-out and Stephen Moore throws in to James Horwill. Courtney Lawes of England contests the throw and Australia are under pressure to get the ball back. They do and Will Genia kicks. His kick is charged down by tall Tom Wood and skids along the line-out where it strikes McCalman's lower leg. Robshaw gathers it brilliantly and plunges over for the try that makes the score 13-all.

There are replays of what Brown did when the ball was flying towards touch.

He stood there with his toes on the touchline waiting for the ball. When the ball arrived he knocked it back into the field of play without catching it.

In or out?

With his feet on the touchline, Brown was in touch. But that did not stop him from playing the ball legally. A player in touch my play the ball in the field of play provided that he does not hold it. Brown did not hold it.

But that is not the whole story.

Law 19 DEFINITIONS
The ball is in touch when it is not being carried by a player and it touches the touchline or anything or anyone on or beyond the touchline.
If the ball-crosses the touchline or touch-in-goal-line, and is caught by a player who has both feet in the playing area, the ball is not in touch or touch-in-goal. Such a player may knock the ball into the playing area.
If a player jumps and catches the ball, both feet must land in the playing area otherwise the ball is in touch or touch-in-goal.
A player in touch may kick or knock the ball, but not hold it, provided it has not crossed the plane of the touchline. The plane of the touchline is the vertical space rising immediately above the touchline.

This is the whole story. Look at the clause in the last definition which says provided it has not crossed the plane of the touchline.

In fact the ball was over the plane of the touch line when Brown, who was in touch, played it. In that case the first definition kicks in.

That means that it should have been a line-out to Australia five metres from the England line.

Instead it became a line-out five metres from their own line and a try to England. In addition two of their players had gone off injured.

It is a game of consequences.

I think this example makes touch line issues clear for all. Will see if I can find obstruction on their website.

by fa0019 Mon 04 Nov 2013, 10:05 am

His foot was on the line when he touched the ball, it should have been an AUS lineout but these things happen.

AUS weren't beaten by this, it didn't cause a try for England. AUS had their own lineout which they secured but failed to kick and England pounced on it.

It was AUS' failure to put markers up at their ruck which caused the charge down.

Losers always look to things like a single referees decision rather than their own poor performance. Had they put up a blocker then Genia's kick wouldn't have been charged down.

by butterfingers Mon 04 Nov 2013, 10:09 am

Thats a very good post Bil, and makes a lot of sense.
What I get from it is that the game at international level is about such fine margins that such a small detail deep in Englands half turned indirectly into England points.

It is a game of consequences, if the touch judge had given Aus an attacking lineout it may have changed the direction of the game, but by the same argument had Tomua hit his touch finder better, had Aus chased better, had a tackler snagged Brown when they should have, had AAC hit Yarde with better technique, had Genia had the pace to push Yarde into touch, had Aus managed to win their own lineout, had Genia been capable of clearing effectively, and had there been better fringe block for him England wouldn't have scored either.

In rugby we are told to be effective we take away as much responsibility of the ref as possible, I see it as 1 touch judge mistake to 7/8 Australia mistakes that led to the try, how Clancy is getting any blame for that 7 points is beyond me, and why Aus are allowed to make 7 mistakes to the touch judges 1 and call daylight robbery is laughable

by fa0019 Mon 04 Nov 2013, 10:12 am

Thinking that that one decision caused Robshaws try is nonsense. It caused England to gain possession in their own 22 against defending... thats it. How England went from their own 22 to the AUS 22 was due to AUS on defensive issues... not that sole kick.

by dummy_half Mon 04 Nov 2013, 10:16 am

And the touch judge was trying to judge this from quite some distance away - not easy to tell if Brown's toes were just inside the line or touching by a couple of centimetres. No doubt the touch judge got it wrong (as proven by the tv pictures), but I have no problem with understanding how it happened as an honest mistake.

Australia had plenty of opportunity to prevent Engalnd's try happening in the subsequent sequence of play - firstly, by not missing about 3 or 4 chances to tackle Brown as he returned the kick.

by butterfingers Mon 04 Nov 2013, 10:19 am

We're all adults, most England fans have acknowledged we had the rub and probably got away with a few more decisions than Aus did, neither team looked good if we're honest, they both looked like a group of strangers who were inexperienced at this level, and with so many issues and restructuring that is understandable.

Had Aus been the dominant team I would feel sorry for them, but they weren't and as the game went on we looked the better team, by the end I think we just nicked the performance , and probably deserved to nick the game.

Did 7 points flatter us slightly, maybe, but I think most posters agree on my points above, with the exception of 1 or 2 who like to grease the debate wheels a bit more than they need to.

by **Biltong** Mon 04 Nov 2013, 10:19 am

Fa, I am not blaming the English try on the mistake, I thought it would be prudent to get the SA referees site to provide a clear explanation.

I have requested that they do the same on the Farrell try.

It would be good to clarify what "not enough obstruction" means.

I hope they do it.

by butterfingers Mon 04 Nov 2013, 10:27 am

I think a lot of emphasis has been put on that phrase, but when reffing in the heat of the battle certain things leave your mouth without you thinking them through.

We're all agreed it was a marginal call, but there are numerous examples of similar tries with the exact same calls as this one, I eluded to BOD's line in front of JOC for the lions, he certainly did obstruct JOC as his body at one point was between he and the ball carrier, but was it penalisable? Not to a different ref or 4th official. Similarly I remember Norths debut try v SA, Shanklin ran the line that clearly obstructed a defender, but the try was rewatched and given then too.

From what I know of the refereeing system (I am not a good ref) players bodies obstruct the opposition team on numerous occasions throughout the game, the question you have to ask yourself is was the obstruction done deliberately/needlessly, and did it allow for sufficient disadvantage of the opposing team?

In all 3 example similar case I mention the reffing teams watched, re evalued and decided all was fair.

by fa0019 Mon 04 Nov 2013, 10:30 am

I agree BB, wasn't a retort to your reply but I don't think there is an Englishman out there who actually thinks the Brown touchsaver wasn't fortuitous shall we say.

In terms of the obstruction... it was mild but the SH chaps shouldn't go on about it... they created it in the early 00s.
These days most holes appear due to dummy runners taking out tacklers... see Alex Cuthberts try in the 1st Lions test for example... That was more of an obstruction then Farrell's.

Ben Smith has been lauded for his runs this year... half of them have been due to similar holes created. Part and parcel of the game.

by dummy_half Mon 04 Nov 2013, 10:30 am

And the Aussies haven't spent the last decade exploring the outer edges of the obstruction laws. No team in the world runs as many plays in behind dummy runners.

by Exiledinborders Mon 04 Nov 2013, 10:34 am

fa0019 wrote:Thinking that that one decision caused Robshaws try is nonsense. It caused England to gain possession in their own 22 against defending... thats it. How England went from their own 22 to the AUS 22 was due to AUS on defensive issues... not that sole kick.

I agree. The advantage gained by England was the difference between Australia having a line out on the five yard line and Folau having possession about ten yards inside his own half. Folau's decision to run, Folau being tackled, Australia giving a penalty at the ruck, England running from the penalty, Yarde making thirty yards down the touchline, Ashley-Cooper making a superb tackle, Australia taking the line-out, Genia making a poor kick, England making the charge down and Robshaw being quickest to the ball had nothing to do with the referee.

If we accept this sort of thinking any score can be traced back to the last refereeing error however distant.

by **Biltong** Mon 04 Nov 2013, 10:37 am

I agree, many instances of possible obstruction has gone through unchecked in the past years, and I fully agree creative running often causes obstruction.

I think it is worth understanding it better for all of our sakes though.

by fa0019 Mon 04 Nov 2013, 10:39 am

BB - personally I don't like it. The dummy running where the players literally take out opposition defenders is a American Football block for me.. its not rugby. But if its in the rule book as legal then it is a good weapon and should be used.

by TJ Mon 04 Nov 2013, 10:39 am

Anyone who doesn't think that incident had a huge effect on the game is deluded I am afraid. England should have been defending an attacking lineout on their own line.

Enjoy your luck but don't try to pretend that one incident did not have a huge bearing on the game and the result.

Edited for clarity

by No 7&1/2 Mon 04 Nov 2013, 10:42 am

TJ wrote:Anyone who doesn't think that incident had a huge effect on the game is deluded I am afraid. England should have been defending an attacking lineout on their own line.

Enjoy your luck but don't try to pretend that one incident had a huge bearing on the game and tghe result.

We'll never know will we? We don't know that England wouldn't have won the lineout 5 metres from their line and done the exact same thing do we? Let's acknowledge the mistake but admit we have know way of telling what would have happened afterwards.

by fa0019 Mon 04 Nov 2013, 10:46 am

TJ wrote:Anyone who doesn't think that incident had a huge effect on the game is deluded I am afraid. England should have been defending an attacking lineout on their own line.

Enjoy your luck but don't try to pretend that one incident had a huge bearing on the game and tghe result.

What decision doesn't have a huge effect on the game?

The only effect it caused was AUS have possession at 5metres out to having it with Folau 20 seconds later around halfway.

It was fortuitous as AUS could have scored but no way certain (How many times do teams get into the 22 and score a try???? 1 in 7 if I recall (from kicks to corner stats rather than pot at goal)... so at best they had 14% chance of scoring a try... 14% is not certain is it)

But it didn't cause England's try, it didn't cause Folau to give possession away. Which is the only point being made here.

It changed the game sure but its no way certain AUS would have scored, in fact it was more likely 86% that England would have cleared their lines.

by Barney McGrew did it Mon 04 Nov 2013, 10:47 am

It's a moderately interesting point of discussion. But personally, in the context of the game, I couldn’t care less – mistakes happen. Much like the ref seemed to forget he’d warned the Aussie pack several times about continual infringements and hence failed to YC. Aus had plenty of opportunity to affect the play immediately after Toe-gate. They lost because frankly they were very poor, even poorer than England. That’s the real talking point.

by **Biltong** Mon 04 Nov 2013, 10:47 am

FA, the way I have always understood obstruction is that you cannot make contact with an opposition defender in front of the ball carrier. In other words if you are anywhere in front of the ball carrier you are offside and there not allowed to make contact, unless of course it happens far away from the ball.

I also understand that when you have a support runner running alongside you, and even though he is effectively blocking the running position of a cross defender, that is not obstruction as you are not in an offside position as a support runner.

The move the Crusaders and All Blacks often employ is to flood the midfield with three or four forwards, now even though they may not physically block a defender from getting to the ball carrier as they stop before they make contact, they are blocking line of sight, which in my view should still be called obstruction.

Having four blokes measuring 110+ kilos, wide as oxen can effectively block more than enough that the cross runner, or the skip pass not be picked up.

It is a fine line, but I don't like it either.

by **Biltong** Mon 04 Nov 2013, 10:49 am

TJ wrote:Anyone who doesn't think that incident had a huge effect on the game is deluded I am afraid. England should have been defending an attacking lineout on their own line.

Enjoy your luck but don't try to pretend that one incident did not have a huge bearing on the game and the result.

Edited for clarity

OF course it had an effect, we won't know how much, but when you consider that team rarely spend more than a few minutes on attack in the red zone, any error of this nature has a significant impact in one way or another.

by Cyril Mon 04 Nov 2013, 10:55 am

Does anyone enjoy rugby anymore or is it all about analysing the game ad nauseum and trying to work out what could have happened in theoretical circumstances?

Smile

by TJ Mon 04 Nov 2013, 10:56 am

Mistakes such as this detract from the game - a small error had such a significant effect that it spoilt the game. anyway the game was so poor it didn't give us much else to talk about Whistle

by Cyril Mon 04 Nov 2013, 11:02 am

TJ wrote:Mistakes such as this detract from the game - a small error had such a significant effect that it spoilt the game. anyway the game was so poor it didn't give us much else to talk about

Aye, it wasn't a patch on some of those Scotland/England games at Murrayfield in the middle of Feb Wink

I'm happy to take a pretty low quality win over the Aussies. As a Scot I'm sure you feel the same Smile

by fa0019 Mon 04 Nov 2013, 11:03 am

What is worse is AUS trying to paper over the cracks by saying they lost only because of Brown's foot. Thats one reason why they may struggle to win a game this tour.

Can Italy beat them??? well they've beaten Ireland and France this year... and those 2 you'd bet would beat AUS.

by **Biltong** Mon 04 Nov 2013, 11:10 am

The mere fact that you guys bring up other games that were influenced by refereeing errors prove how much it is hurting the game.

the point is it doesn't matter which team is affected or by how much, it is happening all too often.

Rugby is a game of inches, every mistake made by a player or an official has a knock on effect, the difference is, a mistake, especially a blatant one stacks the deck against you, where as your own mistakes are self inflicted.

by lostinwales Mon 04 Nov 2013, 11:11 am

TJ wrote:Mistakes such as this detract from the game - a small error had such a significant effect that it spoilt the game. anyway the game was so poor it didn't give us much else to talk about

So Seeing Brown going on that run and breaking tackles at will, followed by Yarde's burst up the touchline spoilt the game, where as a line out followed by a stale maul, a likely handling error and a clearing kick would have been so much better....

It is a detail. It is an important detail but the game isnt 'perfect' - and the imperfections often lead to some of the best moments (like pearls). If you go through every scoring move the chances are there are multiple opportunities to blow the whistle which are missed, and most of the time it doesnt matter at all.

England didnt win against the run of play. The stats (for what they are worth) show an even game where England, over 80 minutes, were slightly superior, although Australia shaded the first half. And GE's earlier attempt to claim that Australia were somehow deflated by having a couple of decisions is laughable. This is Australia after all...

It wasnt a great game. England on the attack were generally not great. Neither were Australia but that had a lot to do with England defense and breakdown work.

by TJ Mon 04 Nov 2013, 11:11 am

Cyril wrote:
TJ wrote:Mistakes such as this detract from the game - a small error had such a significant effect that it spoilt the game. anyway the game was so poor it didn't give us much else to talk about
Aye, it wasn't a patch on some of those Scotland/England games at Murrayfield in the middle of Feb

I'm happy to take a pretty low quality win over the Aussies. As a Scot I'm sure you feel the same

Low quality? Shocked

- we trounced them with a high kwality display of open rugby. Whistle

by TJ Mon 04 Nov 2013, 11:13 am

lostinwales wrote:. And GE's earlier attempt to claim that Australia were somehow deflated by having a couple of decisions is laughable. This is Australia after all...

.

Errmmm- you could see that they lost the game mentally after that - heads went down. Yes they shouldn't have done but up till then aus were clearly on top.

by Cyril Mon 04 Nov 2013, 11:13 am

Biltong wrote:The mere fact that you guys bring up other games that were influenced by refereeing errors prove how much it is hurting the game.

the point is it doesn't matter which team is affected or by how much, it is happening all too often.

Rugby is a game of inches, every mistake made by a player or an official has a knock on effect, the difference is, a mistake, especially a blatant one stacks the deck against you, where as your own mistakes are self inflicted.

I think being on here too often makes things seem a LOT worse than they are to be honest Smile

by **Biltong** Mon 04 Nov 2013, 11:16 am

Cyril wrote:
Biltong wrote:The mere fact that you guys bring up other games that were influenced by refereeing errors prove how much it is hurting the game.

the point is it doesn't matter which team is affected or by how much, it is happening all too often.

Rugby is a game of inches, every mistake made by a player or an official has a knock on effect, the difference is, a mistake, especially a blatant one stacks the deck against you, where as your own mistakes are self inflicted.

I think being on here too often makes things seem a LOT worse than they are to be honest

You would think that, but then I have not been as regular on here as in the past. Wink

by Cyril Mon 04 Nov 2013, 11:16 am

TJ wrote:
lostinwales wrote:. And GE's earlier attempt to claim that Australia were somehow deflated by having a couple of decisions is laughable. This is Australia after all...

.
Errmmm- you could see that they lost the game mentally after that - heads went down. Yes they shouldn't have done but up till then aus were clearly on top.

If your heads drop and you become so demoralised that you end up getting beat because of an incorrect touch ruling I'm not sure you're quite tough enough for international rugby. Yes, incidents can motivate or affect sides adversely but I think we read more into this than the players/coaches sometimes. They just get on with the game if they've got any sense.

by englandglory4ever Mon 04 Nov 2013, 11:16 am

At the end of the day the best team won. England deserved to win after their second 40 in particular. Had they kicked their goals it would have been all over in the first half.It would have been a sporting tragedy had Aus won.

by Cyril Mon 04 Nov 2013, 11:17 am

Biltong wrote:
Cyril wrote:
Biltong wrote:The mere fact that you guys bring up other games that were influenced by refereeing errors prove how much it is hurting the game.

the point is it doesn't matter which team is affected or by how much, it is happening all too often.

Rugby is a game of inches, every mistake made by a player or an official has a knock on effect, the difference is, a mistake, especially a blatant one stacks the deck against you, where as your own mistakes are self inflicted.

I think being on here too often makes things seem a LOT worse than they are to be honest
You would think that, but then I have not been as regular on here as in the past.

A wise man zen

by TJ Mon 04 Nov 2013, 11:17 am

Reffing errors hapen all the time. You can only hope they even out over a game and don't have a huge effect.

I have long said that 5 officials would help greatly. either two goal line officials or 4 touch judges. this would allow incidents to be seen from more angles - in the Brown incident you would have had an official each side to see the incident. More importantly tho it would allow offside to be policed much better which is often a bone of contention.

by lostinwales Mon 04 Nov 2013, 11:19 am

TJ wrote:
lostinwales wrote:. And GE's earlier attempt to claim that Australia were somehow deflated by having a couple of decisions is laughable. This is Australia after all...

.
Errmmm- you could see that they lost the game mentally after that - heads went down. Yes they shouldn't have done but up till then aus were clearly on top.

This is Australia we are talking about. Do you think they would feel the slightest bit of remorse or guilt had positions been reversed? If their heads dropped its not just England's or the referee's fault its a failure in their leadership and coaching. I am saying this because I have the utmost respect for Australian mental toughness and intelligence, qualities which always seem to keep them competitive across so many sports regardless of their other problems.

by TJ Mon 04 Nov 2013, 11:21 am

I agree lost in Wales - it was their fault they lost the game mentally after that. That does not mean it did not happen tho - and I bet many of the players did not even realise the injustice that had been done

by Cyril Mon 04 Nov 2013, 11:24 am

Words like 'injustice' are a bit OTT are they not?

Yes, I agree that some of the players probably weren't aware. It all happened pretty quickly (Brown's bit of magic Wink

).

by fa0019 Mon 04 Nov 2013, 11:26 am

Injustice is too strong a word IMO.

How many times do we see a scrum penalty go one way when it should have gone to the other? How many times has ruck interpretation of the referee been the definer?

It was a match incident and there are many throughout the game.

Why didn't Clancy give AUS a yellow card for repeatedly collapsing/wheeling/ early engagement at the scrum??? They were very lucky here, not so lucky at the Brown incident.

by lostinwales Mon 04 Nov 2013, 11:34 am

Errors will happen. You just have to hope they balance out. I have only seen the highlights and don't have the time to watch the full thing yet/not enough of an expert but it didnt seem like Clancy was consistently awful to either side.

Did Australia deserve to win? I just dont see that. I did see a very tough England side, even if it was a little toothless

by TJ Mon 04 Nov 2013, 11:40 am

I don't think injustice is too strong a word. You don't get many good attacking positions in a game and that was a great one for Aus. Its very hard to defend a lineout on the 5 m line

Yes other errors were made - but that one is a huge one and changed the game

by No 7&1/2 Mon 04 Nov 2013, 11:46 am

Changed the game in respect of if you change 1 thing everything after obviously changes as well but we don't know if it changed the result. England shaded the stats in the end so it was always going to be close. Aus will be kicking themselves that they didn't get their act together after the missed touch and will be kicking themselves in not putting it in the stands.

by fa0019 Mon 04 Nov 2013, 11:51 am

To be honest Toouma should hold his hand up as well. Pushed it too much, Borwn was out but only just. They were 7 up and didn't need those extra 5 metres. Get it safe.

I'd rather I have a lineout 10 metres out 10/10 then a lineout 5 eetres out 7/10 with a 30% chance of the opposition regaining possession off a missed touchfinder.

by butterfingers Mon 04 Nov 2013, 11:57 am

Changed the game? Why so hysterical, it changed 1 phase of play, Brown run the ball back instead of Aus having an attacking lineout, anything beyond that is conjecture at best.

When Mike Phillips received an illegal lineout to score v Ireland, thats a game losing mistake by a touchjudge who assured the ref it was the same ball, that for me is the level of mistake that effects games, and off the top of my head can only think of 2 reffing performances that have lost games in the last few seasons, Bryce handing the game to Aus at the world cup, Joubert handing NZ the final, and then a number of individual errors like Phillips try, Du Plessis sending off, and Warburton red card.

I don't like all this ref bashing, we seem to accept one team or the other can make double figure mistakes during 80 minutes, but if the reffing team makes 2/3 marginal calls we need to rehash the whole rulebook? These guys work as hard as pro players, know more about the game than anyone, and have the most difficult job on the planet, they turn up at U14's wet icy cold highland mornings to be screamed at by touchline warriors, they sweat under the pressure of keeping up with supremem athletes at U18's and they never get positive words for their efforts, if certain nations pride themselves on respect for players, the game why can't anyone allow the same amount of respect for these guys who without we would not have a game to watch.

I have witnessed 1 positive thread about a reffing performance on here in months, not good enough.

by Cyril Mon 04 Nov 2013, 12:06 pm

TJ wrote:I don't think injustice is too strong a word. You don't get many good attacking positions in a game and that was a great one for Aus. Its very hard to defend a lineout on the 5 m line

Yes other errors were made - but that one is a huge one and changed the game

It would be the same error/'injustice' regardless of where it happened on the field.

by ultra Mon 04 Nov 2013, 12:17 pm

I'm more interested in the obstruction call. Any luck on that one BB? Watching it real time I didn't think it was (Harltey was ambling back, not looking at the guy who initally appeared to run into him). After the replays I still believed it not to be obstruction. Some of my English pals watching thought it was!

Who'd be a ref Smile

by Luckless Pedestrian Mon 04 Nov 2013, 12:26 pm

In terms of the officiating, it was a fairly tough one for the linesman to spot, given he wasn't that close to Mike Brown when it happened. The bigger issue for me is why none of the officials spotted (or called) Chris Ashton's forward pass from the tap panalty a minute or so later, and I could have sworn there was a knock-on after that too.

by GloriousEmpire Mon 04 Nov 2013, 12:28 pm

fa0019 wrote:His foot was on the line when he touched the ball, it should have been an AUS lineout but these things happen.

AUS weren't beaten by this, it didn't cause a try for England. AUS had their own lineout which they secured but failed to kick and England pounced on it.

It was AUS' failure to put markers up at their ruck which caused the charge down.

Losers always look to things like a single referees decision rather than their own poor performance. Had they put up a blocker then Genia's kick wouldn't have been charged down.

Fa pull your head in! If the referees stuff up and turn an attacking 5 meter into a defending 5 meter then if course that influences the game. Especially if the intervening 95 meters contained half a dozen knock ons that the referees also let go.

Don't try to and pretend England were too good for a poor Australia. Fact is the refs handed England their two tries with two shoddy pieces of adjudication.

Thump your tub all you want, but that's a fact.

by TJ Mon 04 Nov 2013, 12:30 pm

by Luckless Pedestrian Mon 04 Nov 2013, 12:31 pm

Law Discussion: in or out at Twickenham 3513163098

Law Discussion: in or out at Twickenham 3845856932

Law Discussion: in or out at Twickenham 4278589029

by GloriousEmpire Mon 04 Nov 2013, 12:31 pm

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:In terms of the officiating, it was a fairly tough one for the linesman to spot, given he wasn't that close to Mike Brown when it happened. The bigger issue for me is why none of the officials spotted (or called) Chris Ashton's forward pass from the tap panalty a minute or so later, and I could have sworn there was a knock-on after that too.

Question is, given the kick was for the corner. WHY was the lineman in the wrong position? And if he was out of position...why not check? It was obviously a close one.

by lostinwales Mon 04 Nov 2013, 12:32 pm

ultra wrote:I'm more interested in the obstruction call. Any luck on that one BB? Watching it real time I didn't think it was (Harltey was ambling back, not looking at the guy who initally appeared to run into him). After the replays I still believed it not to be obstruction. Some of my English pals watching thought it was!

Who'd be a ref

Well it was a mismatch, although Farrell is hardly the sharpest of runners, but Moore will probably do his best to blame Hartley rather than his own positioning. He certainly seemed to start his complaining early. When I watched it on the TV I didnt think Moore was unsighted. He certainly could see Farrell well enough although its possible Hartley stopped him from seeing the ball come to Farrell in the first place. I dont think Hartley was actually physically in his way at all, and was moving away from him to the left also.

You could go into more detail on what happened before, if camera angles are available, but it would have been a huge call to disallow the try.

by Sponsored content