Law Discussion: in or out at Twickenham

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.

Exiledinborders wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:English victories are like wine made in any other country. Better with the age.

Unfortunately English wine is rank too.

  

GloriousEmpire wrote:English victories are like wine made in any other country. Better with the age.

Unfortunately English wine is rank too.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

Exiledinborders wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:English victories are like wine made in any other country. Better with the age.

Unfortunately English wine is rank too.

  

Has he mentioned wine before?

blackcanelion wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYas0aXtRzU

Thought might be of interest.

lostinwales wrote:

blackcanelion wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYas0aXtRzU

Thought might be of interest.

Scrum time probably more than any other is not about what is right but what you can get away with. Like Adam Jones vs England if Mako was getting away with murder all the time then that is the referee's problem not Englands.

And given the general performance of Australian scrums I dont know how much I would trust an Australian analyst

Biltong wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

blackcanelion wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYas0aXtRzU

Thought might be of interest.

Scrum time probably more than any other is not about what is right but what you can get away with. Like Adam Jones vs England if Mako was getting away with murder all the time then that is the referee's problem not Englands.

And given the general performance of Australian scrums I dont know how much I would trust an Australian analyst

i can tell you that his analysis is very objective, and if you take the time to watch it you will find that his comments and summary is in favour of England.

You should not judge a man before you have given him a chance.

blackcanelion wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYas0aXtRzU

Thought might be of interest.

quinsforever wrote:biltong, did your SA referees site look at the obstruction call yet?

GloriousEmpire wrote:They're probably still busy re watching Clancy's performance and laughing.

Barney McGrew did it wrote:Tubby Moore couldn't catch a cold, he had more chance of being part of a world class front row than catching a back. Aus are just embarrassed that the slowest back on the pitch strolled passed their fat boys.

TJ wrote:

Barney McGrew did it wrote:Tubby Moore couldn't catch a cold, he had more chance of being part of a world class front row than catching a back. Aus are just embarrassed that the slowest back on the pitch strolled passed their fat boys.

Saucer of cream?

dummy_half wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:They're probably still busy re watching Clancy's performance and laughing.

I'm going to ignore the sensible DNFTT advice and make a point here in defence of Clancy (who I think we all accept is not the best ref in international rugby).

1 - The error regarding Mike Brown was the TJs, not Clancy's. It happened so many phases of play before the England try as to be of little relevance. Hell, the Aussies had possession of the ball twice in the sequence of play between then and the try. Did he miss a knock on (or two) in the sequence leading up to Yarde's break? Not sure - both drops were pretty much lateral. Could have been given but weren't

2 - He quite sensibly asked the TMO to review the Farrell try with regard to obstruction of the defence. The TMO (rightly in my opinion) considered it insufficient to disallow the try. For me, the problem came with Moore being slow up in defence (hell, Hartley was only walking back and overtook him) and the defender outside (no 8?) getting about 5 yards ahead, dog-legging the defence even before Moore got close to Hartley. Farrell went for the gap well before Hartley became any sort of factor in the play.

GloriousEmpire wrote:

dummy_half wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:They're probably still busy re watching Clancy's performance and laughing.

I'm going to ignore the sensible DNFTT advice and make a point here in defence of Clancy (who I think we all accept is not the best ref in international rugby).

1 - The error regarding Mike Brown was the TJs, not Clancy's. It happened so many phases of play before the England try as to be of little relevance. Hell, the Aussies had possession of the ball twice in the sequence of play between then and the try. Did he miss a knock on (or two) in the sequence leading up to Yarde's break? Not sure - both drops were pretty much lateral. Could have been given but weren't

2 - He quite sensibly asked the TMO to review the Farrell try with regard to obstruction of the defence. The TMO (rightly in my opinion) considered it insufficient to disallow the try. For me, the problem came with Moore being slow up in defence (hell, Hartley was only walking back and overtook him) and the defender outside (no 8?) getting about 5 yards ahead, dog-legging the defence even before Moore got close to Hartley. Farrell went for the gap well before Hartley became any sort of factor in the play.

You see; where you've gone wrong there is to propose a "defense" that goes like this: did he make mistakes? Yes. Possibly a lot. But I don't care because my team won. Just. And the other team might have won anyway. So you can't blame him.

Yes. Congratulations for constructing an argument totally devoid of an actual argument. Or logic. Or reason. Or even coherence.