Law Discussion: in or out at Twickenham

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

First topic message reminder :

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 butterfingers Mon 04 Nov 2013, 12:34 pm

by **Biltong** Mon 04 Nov 2013, 12:37 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

I sent an email to them, hopefully they will do it, I am also very interested in how they review that.

by Luckless Pedestrian Mon 04 Nov 2013, 12:48 pm

GloriousEmpire wrote:
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.

Both fair questions.

by fa0019 Mon 04 Nov 2013, 12:56 pm

was he out of position??? Toouma was inside his own half, The assistant was between the 22 and the 10m line.

by No 7&1/2 Mon 04 Nov 2013, 12:59 pm

Do you think Moore milked the obstruction slightly and that was taken into account? I felt he was looking for the contact with Hartley, his line just seemed a bit unnatural.

by TJ Mon 04 Nov 2013, 1:02 pm

I think moor should have made the obstruction more obvious - he tried to run around the blocker - he should have pushed him over

by TJ Mon 04 Nov 2013, 1:03 pm

fa0019 wrote:was he out of position??? Toouma was inside his own half, The assistant was between the 22 and the 10m line.

this is why I think we need 5 officials - the extra one would have been right in the corner for this and would have had a better sight

by No 7&1/2 Mon 04 Nov 2013, 1:06 pm

And I'm still to get a reply for Wood being held in the ruck for the Aus first try. Should have been a penalty to England technically shouldn't it?

by GloriousEmpire Mon 04 Nov 2013, 1:40 pm

fa0019 wrote:was he out of position??? Toouma was inside his own half, The assistant was between the 22 and the 10m line.

If he found himself out of position and couldn't tell what happened, why didn't he refer it?

Why did he then go on to miss at least two knock ons/ forward passes that we agree on and three more that I alone hysterically insist occurred?

Was this man always out of position? Or does he have an eyesight problem?

Fact is it was the same guy who also didn't spot Yarde's late tackle was also a shoulder charge and should have been an instant yellow.

Not great, is it?

by TJ Mon 04 Nov 2013, 1:41 pm

by GloriousEmpire Mon 04 Nov 2013, 1:47 pm

Can we get an ostrich with its head in the sand icon please?

These exact same posters will be here moaning about a ref next week and claiming a decision changed the course of a game...

by No 7&1/2 Mon 04 Nov 2013, 1:48 pm

by Cyril Mon 04 Nov 2013, 1:49 pm

+

=

by quinsforever Mon 04 Nov 2013, 1:52 pm

GloriousEmpire wrote:
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.

you've actually said something i agree with, holy moly! i also cant understand why the linesman wasnt right there.

re TMO, i thought that can only be used for a try or anything leading up to it?

by quinsforever Mon 04 Nov 2013, 1:54 pm

GloriousEmpire wrote:Can we get an ostrich with its head in the sand icon please?

These exact same posters will be here moaning about a ref next week and claiming a decision changed the course of a game...

GE, you'd better hope that the ABs dont win as a result of a shocking refereeing decision in two weeks.

and i'm hoping that Eng beat the ABs as a result of another refereeing howler. that will carry me through til xmas with a smile on my face Smile

by funnyExiledScot Mon 04 Nov 2013, 1:54 pm

Australia were clearly hard done by with the lineout decision. It was poor judgement and in the context of the game a significant moment.

Regarding the obstruction I felt the ref and TV official actually showed some common sense, something I've long asked for from rugby officials. There was an element of obstruction, no question, but I agree that it wasn't sufficient to rule out the try. Probably one of those decisions that had it happened to Scotland rather than Australia, I'd feel differently, but I reckon I'm pretty neutral on this one and thought the officials handled it in the right way.

by Luckless Pedestrian Mon 04 Nov 2013, 2:02 pm

The obstruction didn't prevent Moore from being able to attempt to tackle Farrell. The question is whether without that obstruction, he'd have been able to succeed in tackling Farrell.

by lostinwales Mon 04 Nov 2013, 2:04 pm

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:The obstruction didn't prevent Moore from being able to attempt to tackle Farrell. The question is whether without that obstruction, he'd have been able to succeed in tackling Farrell.

Much better question. I'd say he had already left too much of a gap -and Hartley may have had a role here but that was probably too far in advance of Farrell's run.

by No 7&1/2 Mon 04 Nov 2013, 2:06 pm

I still think it was Moores attempt to get the ref to give a pen for obstruction rather than going straight for Farrell that cost him in the tackle. And still for a turning point will someone at least acknowledge Wood was being held in the ruck! Had at least as much bearing on scores as the foot in touch 90m from a try line.

by Luckless Pedestrian Mon 04 Nov 2013, 2:21 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:I still think it was Moores attempt to get the ref to give a pen for obstruction rather than going straight for Farrell that cost him in the tackle.

Either that or he didn't go far enough. If he'd pushed Hartley over, held up his hands and not attempted the tackle, the try might well have been ruled out. But it goes against your instincts not to try to tackle someone if you possibly can.

by lostinwales Mon 04 Nov 2013, 2:24 pm

There did seem to be a big attempt to save face from Moore starting as soon as he realised he didnt have a chance of making the tackle

by No 7&1/2 Mon 04 Nov 2013, 2:25 pm

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:I still think it was Moores attempt to get the ref to give a pen for obstruction rather than going straight for Farrell that cost him in the tackle.
Either that or he didn't go far enough. If he'd pushed Hartley over, held up his hands and not attempted the tackle, the try might well have been ruled out. But it goes against your instincts not to try to tackle someone if you possibly can.

Getting more into the realms of football aren't we where because a player is touched he has the right to go down and get a free kick.

by englandglory4ever Mon 04 Nov 2013, 2:29 pm

Yes Brown was in touch. But 8 minutes later after Aus gave a penalty away, play was stopped to remove Fardy. Ashley Jones was subb'd for blood after tackling Yarde in to touch Robshaw scores a great try from a lineout that came from England applying extreme pressure. Pressure the Aussies couldn't deal with. Great English play deserved it's just reward. It was fantastic. Can't wait to watch the argy game.

by Luckless Pedestrian Mon 04 Nov 2013, 2:29 pm

lostinwales wrote:There did seem to be a big attempt to save face from Moore starting as soon as he realised he didnt have a chance of making the tackle

You're rewriting history there. It was the other way round: he half-appealed about the obstruction, then attempted the tackle.

by GloriousEmpire Mon 04 Nov 2013, 2:30 pm

Point is he was directly in front of the runner interfering with the defensive line. As BT is about to confirm with one of his genius posts quoting an official of official ness, that makes him penalisable.

Question again is why on earth would he be ahead of the ball carrier by quite so much anyway? He must've run laterally across the field in front of the gain line to get there.

What was he trying to do other than obstruct?

by No 7&1/2 Mon 04 Nov 2013, 2:36 pm

by englandglory4ever Mon 04 Nov 2013, 2:40 pm

GloriousEmpire wrote:Point is he was directly in front of the runner interfering with the defensive line. As BT is about to confirm with one of his genius posts quoting an official of official ness, that makes him penalisable.

Question again is why on earth would he be ahead of the ball carrier by quite so much anyway? He must've run laterally across the field in front of the gain line to get there.

What was he trying to do other than obstruct?

Now the bloke is really showing his lack of knowledge. He doesn't know that forwards involved in a previous breakdown almost always end up in front of the ball as it's got away by the scrum half. I don't think GE has ever played the game at all.

by GloriousEmpire Mon 04 Nov 2013, 2:41 pm

englandglory4ever wrote:Yes Brown was in touch. But 8 minutes later after Aus gave a penalty away, play was stopped to remove Fardy. Ashley Jones was subb'd for blood after tackling Yarde in to touch Robshaw scores a great try from a lineout that came from England applying extreme pressure. Pressure the Aussies couldn't deal with. Great English play deserved it's just reward. It was fantastic. Can't wait to watch the argy game.

The penalty wasn't 8 minutes later. The minutes passed waiting for the line out while Fardy was removed. Stop rewriting history.

by GloriousEmpire Mon 04 Nov 2013, 2:46 pm

englandglory4ever wrote:
GloriousEmpire wrote:Point is he was directly in front of the runner interfering with the defensive line. As BT is about to confirm with one of his genius posts quoting an official of official ness, that makes him penalisable.

Question again is why on earth would he be ahead of the ball carrier by quite so much anyway? He must've run laterally across the field in front of the gain line to get there.

What was he trying to do other than obstruct?
Now the bloke is really showing his lack of knowledge. He doesn't know that forwards involved in a previous breakdown almost always end up in front of the ball as it's got away by the scrum half. I don't think GE has ever played the game at all.

The previous ruck was behind Farrell's position. Watch the replay.

by No 7&1/2 Mon 04 Nov 2013, 2:49 pm

A previous and the previous are different. You do struggle with words

by englandglory4ever Mon 04 Nov 2013, 2:49 pm

8 minutes elapsed overall while all those things took place. That's more than enough time for Aus to have scored themselves. As it happened England scored a magnificent try after applying the blowtorch. Aus were simply blown away.

by GloriousEmpire Mon 04 Nov 2013, 4:10 pm

englandglory4ever wrote:8 minutes elapsed overall while all those things took place. That's more than enough time for Aus to have scored themselves. As it happened England scored a magnificent try after applying the blowtorch. Aus were simply blown away.

8 minutes broken down as:
5 seconds while the linesman missed browns foot in touch.
5 seconds to award a penalty to England
5 seconds to miss a forward pass and two knock ons
5 seconds whilst Yarde ran laterally into touch
7 minutes while Injured player removed
5 seconds to miss Lawe's knock on
3 seconds for Robshaw to fall on ball
32 seconds with tmo review

The only blow going on was the smack the referees must've taken to make such a mess of their jobs.

The only torch is the lonely light of justice in the dark ok twickenham's corruption

by butterfingers Mon 04 Nov 2013, 4:39 pm

Last seasons mauling hit you hard didn't it GE, you havn't been the same since that game.

Tell me about how you felt that day at twickers, you washed pans all year to afford the ticket to see a record defeat of your team...

by GloriousEmpire Mon 04 Nov 2013, 5:22 pm

I actually missed it whilst flying home for my fathers funeral. Didn't give much of a toss about the result. I hear NZ were under the weather but England played well and deserved to win.

by englandglory4ever Mon 04 Nov 2013, 6:00 pm

I see you are still making things up on the hoof GE. Aus were poor. England blew them off the park in the second half. You need to see it how it was or watch the next game without drinking yourself to oblivion.

by nganboy Tue 05 Nov 2013, 12:23 am

I know you're trying to have a go at GE but really...blew them off the park?

by GloriousEmpire Tue 05 Nov 2013, 7:23 am

englandglory4ever wrote:I see you are still making things up on the hoof GE. Aus were poor. England blew them off the park in the second half. You need to see it how it was or watch the next game without drinking yourself to oblivion.

No no no englandsorry4ever! I see where you are confused now!

The guy that blew australia off the park with his whistle, was supposed to be neutral. He wasn't supposed to be part of the England team. He's what we call a "referee" normally they make rulings during the game rather than following the ball around giving it back to England when they lose it.

Man. Glad we cleared that up.

by englandglory4ever Tue 05 Nov 2013, 8:30 am

Fantastic win by a fabulous England team thrown together a few days before. A bunch of England new boys give one of the great 'big' 3 a good hiding. That's what the record books say for years to come. In fact forever.

by **Biltong** Tue 05 Nov 2013, 8:34 am

englandglory4ever wrote:A bunch of England new boys give one of the great 'big' 3 a good hiding

Is that what constitutes as a hiding up north?

by Luckless Pedestrian Tue 05 Nov 2013, 8:35 am

A good hiding? Really?

by englandglory4ever Tue 05 Nov 2013, 8:39 am

That Aus side could play England for eternity and still come nowhere near them and that's with all the refs in the world. They were solidly downed. Farrell missed 9 points that was most uncharacteristic. Game could have been all over by half time. 7 to 1ppenalties in the first half show Aus was struggling big time.

by Cyril Tue 05 Nov 2013, 8:46 am

Biltong wrote:
englandglory4ever wrote:A bunch of England new boys give one of the great 'big' 3 a good hiding

Is that what constitutes as a hiding up north?

Not quite 53-3 admittedly.

by Luckless Pedestrian Tue 05 Nov 2013, 8:51 am

englandglory4ever wrote:That Aus side could play England for eternity and still come nowhere near them and that's with all the refs in the world. They were solidly downed. Farrell missed 9 points that was most uncharacteristic. Game could have been all over by half time. 7 to 1ppenalties in the first half show Aus was struggling big time.

Are you sure you want to go down the 'could have' route?

by englandglory4ever Tue 05 Nov 2013, 8:55 am

Cyril wrote:
Biltong wrote:
englandglory4ever wrote:A bunch of England new boys give one of the great 'big' 3 a good hiding

Is that what constitutes as a hiding up north?
Not quite 53-3 admittedly.

That's when Tichman and his band of thugs misunderstood what the coach meant when he said go out there and give em a hiding. They won the fight but got absolutely hammered in the match.

by englandglory4ever Tue 05 Nov 2013, 8:57 am

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:
englandglory4ever wrote:That Aus side could play England for eternity and still come nowhere near them and that's with all the refs in the world. They were solidly downed. Farrell missed 9 points that was most uncharacteristic. Game could have been all over by half time. 7 to 1ppenalties in the first half show Aus was struggling big time.
Are you sure you want to go down the 'could have' route?

No not really but GE lives down that road.

by **Biltong** Tue 05 Nov 2013, 9:09 am

Cyril wrote:
Biltong wrote:
englandglory4ever wrote:A bunch of England new boys give one of the great 'big' 3 a good hiding

Is that what constitutes as a hiding up north?
Not quite 53-3 admittedly.

Not even close, eh?

by **Biltong** Tue 05 Nov 2013, 9:11 am

englandglory4ever wrote:
Luckless Pedestrian wrote:
englandglory4ever wrote:That Aus side could play England for eternity and still come nowhere near them and that's with all the refs in the world. They were solidly downed. Farrell missed 9 points that was most uncharacteristic. Game could have been all over by half time. 7 to 1ppenalties in the first half show Aus was struggling big time.
Are you sure you want to go down the 'could have' route?
No not really but GE lives down that road.

Oh, I thought he lives down "everyone but England" road?

by GloriousEmpire Tue 05 Nov 2013, 9:12 am

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

Unfortunately English wine is rank too.

by Exiledinborders Tue 05 Nov 2013, 9:27 am

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

Unfortunately English wine is rank too.

by No 7&1/2 Tue 05 Nov 2013, 9:28 am

'as for england well we took up were we left off against the kiwis and any englishmans heart will be bursting with pride to see the team looking so creative and fluent and with such a composed fly half running the show as young farrell. the front unit seem to have the potential to build into a force not seen since england of 2003. im chosing england now for grandslam glory as we seemed "never in doubt" to win that one even when maitland scored early on. we seem able to take apart any opposition at the moment and stuart lancaster and his team should be congratulated for such fine work in such a short space of time. 2015 england "here we come". all just optimism there though! still france to come.

looking forward now to settling back on the sofa after digesting my lunch and enjoying the spectacle of france and italy with a steady handle or two. "bring on next week"'

When did you move from such a sunny disposition to someone with so much bitterness GE? Maybe you should start supporting England again as you seemed much happier!

by Sponsored content