Saracens

Before awarding Quins' first try Mr. Pearce, asked Rosey (*) to check two thing:

'Had the ball crossed the try line before being gathered?'

And 'was the scorer onside?'

I understand the latter.

Can anyone explain the relevance of the former criterion?

(*) An unusual choice of TMO. He's not exactly well versed in the laws (of the land)

---

£721.05 (*) donated to the Saracens Foundation due to visits to the Sarries frontpage [www.rugbynetwork.net]

Please read and submit articles for publication. (*) As at October 31, 2018.

I took it as him meaning it hadn't crossed the deadball line, as this would have meant the ball was out of play, and a try couldn't therefore have been scored...

I think Rubz has it right. My only other thought is that it was so unusual that Pearce wanted to buy some time to run things through in his mind - for example it is not permissible to be seen to do this deliberately (as nominating a kick for goal can not be changed).

I thought he had a good game - as always plenty I could disagree with, but his control of a niggly game was excellent. It's a tough job, made ridiculously so by so many Laws relying on interpretation.

I understand the sympathy for the ref. However he asked about where the ball was caught, which was nowhere near the Dead Ball Line, it was near the try line. I am at a loss to know what relevance his question could possibly have had!

---

£721.05 (*) donated to the Saracens Foundation due to visits to the Sarries frontpage [www.rugbynetwork.net]

Please read and submit articles for publication. (*) As at October 31, 2018.

The other one that the pundits caught the ref out on was the Quins restart kick, caught by Sarries, maul not put to ground, scrum to Quins.... wrong, Sarries scrum as from kick off!

But all in all he had a decent game.

LAW 17.6 UNSUCCESSFUL END TO A MAUL
(c) Scrum following maul. The ball is thrown in by the team not in possession when the maul
began. If the referee cannot decide which team had possession, the team moving forward
before the maul stopped throws in the ball. If neither team was moving forward, the
attacking team throws in the ball.

(h) Scrum after a maul when catcher is held. If a player catches the ball direct from an
opponent’s kick, except from a kick-off or a drop-out, and the player is immediately held by
an opponent, a maul may form. Then if the maul remains stationary, stops moving forward
for longer than 5 seconds, or if the ball becomes unplayable, and a scrum is ordered, the
team of the ball catcher throws in the ball.
‘Direct from an opponent’s kick’ means the ball did not touch another player or the ground
before the player caught it.

---

SUPPORT Help for Heroes:
Help for Heroes

Quote:

1876-Fez

(h) Scrum after a maul when catcher is held. If a player catches the ball direct from an opponent’s kick, except from a kick-off or a drop-out, and the player is immediately held by an opponent, a maul may form. Then if the maul remains stationary, stops moving forward for longer than 5 seconds, or if the ball becomes unplayable, and a scrum is ordered, the team of the ball catcher throws in the ball.

‘Direct from an opponent’s kick’ means the ball did not touch another player or the ground before the player caught it.

Sorry, but Pearce got this right 1876. Since it was direct from a restart the "team of the ball catcher" clause does not apply. Scrum to Quins is correct.

I think there was one where we caught our own kick and appealed for the put-in after the maul halted but Pearce correctly explained it was not from an opponent's kick.

What really impressed me was near the end when Quins got a penalty for a high tackle. Wiggy sprints back and then dashed forward to tackle Care before he can get away. Brilliant quick thinking from him, and well done to the officials for spotting that he’d got back 10 before pouncing.

My understanding is that if you go for the posts the ball is dead as soon as it crosses the try line, the only way it can be in play is if it falls short, or comes back off the post.

One of the reason that I think that rugby struggles to grow a larger following is that there are too many laws. If is regular fans don’t know them all, what chance do new fans have!

Quote:

Huxley
My understanding is that if you go for the posts the ball is dead as soon as it crosses the try line, the only way it can be in play is if it falls short, or comes back off the post.
One of the reason that I think that rugby struggles to grow a larger following is that there are too many laws. If is regular fans don’t know them all, what chance do new fans have!

That's an interesting supposition. I can't remember seeing it written down. Do you have a reference?

---

£721.05 (*) donated to the Saracens Foundation due to visits to the Sarries frontpage [www.rugbynetwork.net]

Please read and submit articles for publication. (*) As at October 31, 2018.

Quote:

TonyTaff

Quote:

Huxley
My understanding is that if you go for the posts the ball is dead as soon as it crosses the try line, the only way it can be in play is if it falls short, or comes back off the post.
One of the reason that I think that rugby struggles to grow a larger following is that there are too many laws. If is regular fans don’t know them all, what chance do new fans have!

That's an interesting supposition. I can't remember seeing it written down. Do you have a reference?

Yes, Tony. In support of Huxley, Laws 8.4-8.6 say the following (note particularly 8.6):

Law 8.4 - For any goal to be successful, the ball must be kicked over the crossbar and between the goal posts without first touching a team-mate or the ground.

Law 8.5 - If the ball goes over the crossbar and over the height of the goal posts, the kick is successful if it is deemed that the ball would have gone between the goal posts had they been taller.

Law 8.6 - If the ball has crossed the crossbar and the wind blows it back into the field of play, the score stands.

I assume from that, that the ball is dead from the point where it crosses the tryline, and a goal is scored if that is between the post or line of the posts. (You would not expect for example the Quins try to have been allowable if it had passed between the posts but had been gathered and touched down by a Quins player before landing.)

Supposition takes over slightly as Saturday's precise case is not covered (or at least I haven't found it) but I think it is clear that the ball was not yet dead as it hadn't crossed the tryline. By contrast it would have been dead if it had crossed the tryline - even if it had been blown back into play before being gathered by Quins, which could very well have been the case given the conditions.

I was impressed by the way Luke Pearce handled that as he said to the TMO something to the effect that as this was a very unusual circumstance they had to be careful in the review. Good example of TCUP, I thought.

---

I was 17 miles from Graybridge before I was caught by the school leopard

To me that only says it's dead if it crosses the tryline over the posts. It can't be dead when it goes over the tryline elsewhere as this would mean the defensive team wouldn't have to touch it down for a 22, or have the ability to run it back if they wanted, which they can...

Sorry Alan/Huxley, but no, the ball is not dead when it crosses the try line, only when it crosses the dead ball line or touch line or is touched down (otherwise why the need to touch down?).

Watching and listening to Ch5 last night, Pearce quickly realised his question regarding "crossing the line" was probably irrelevant, concentrated on the onside from the kick but left the other one there just in case. I think my earlier suggestion of buying thinking time has credence.

Quote:

Rubz
To me that only says it's dead if it crosses the tryline over the posts. It can't be dead when it goes over the tryline elsewhere as this would mean the defensive team wouldn't have to touch it down for a 22, or have the ability to run it back if they wanted, which they can...

Rubz you are correct. They are mutually exclusive events; if a penalty kick passes above the crossbar and between the posts as described then the penalty is completed and a restart follows. In all other cases the ball is in play until something happens, usually ball crosses dead ball line or is grounded by defending team etc. In this case it was grounded by a very astute and on the ball Harlequins player. B@gger.

[/quote]Sorry, but Pearce got this right 1876. Since it was direct from a restart the "team of the ball catcher" clause does not apply. Scrum to Quins is correct.

I think there was one where we caught our own kick and appealed for the put-in after the maul halted but Pearce correctly explained it was not from an opponent's kick.[/quote]

Well, every day's a school day! This is the complete opposite of my (previous) understanding. I always thought that if it was from a re-start the the ball went to the catching team and all other occurrences of a collapsing maul went to the defending team.

Splendid! We seem to have cleared up two points of law.

I might make this a regular feature of the board, and might even put it on the front page. You guys, even the ones who were initially wrong, know more then the average co-commentator!

BTW, the phrase 'know the laws' was a regular in the rugby programme of my youth - Cardiff RFC! I am returning to my old stamping ground - we have two seats in the South Stand; unfortunately, I couldn't get seats on the half-way line, as I would have needed my father's season ticket, and he passed away 3 months ago.

---

£721.05 (*) donated to the Saracens Foundation due to visits to the Sarries frontpage [www.rugbynetwork.net]

Please read and submit articles for publication. (*) As at October 31, 2018.

Yeah, the ball can't be dead from a missed kick otherwise you wouldn't have to dot it down to get the 22 drop out. This is the one time I'm sad that Sky don't have any premiership coverage this year so we don't have Will Greenwood available to remind us about that particular law...

(See England vs South Africa in the 2003 world cup pool stages, younger fans)

Quote:

nedrichards
Yeah, the ball can't be dead from a missed kick otherwise you wouldn't have to dot it down to get the 22 drop out. This is the one time I'm sad that Sky don't have any premiership coverage this year so we don't have Will Greenwood available to remind us about that particular law...
(See England vs South Africa in the 2003 world cup pool stages, younger fans)

Tee Hee!

We do have Ben Kay and Austin Healey, however. They were the co-commentators, recently, when someone knocked the ball on with the line beckoning, inches away.

Why Healey didn't say "Ben take is through that, from your position of experience" is beyond me!

---

£721.05 (*) donated to the Saracens Foundation due to visits to the Sarries frontpage [www.rugbynetwork.net]

Please read and submit articles for publication. (*) As at October 31, 2018.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/10/2018 05:58 by TonyTaff.

Ben is considerably bigger and stronger than Healey, and, nice, gentlemanly and mild mannered as Ben is, Healey would have been speaking for the rest of the match with a rather higher voice ...

---

Successful hills are here to stay
Everything must be this way
Gentle streets where people play
Welcome to the Soft Parade

Quote:

nedrichards
Yeah, the ball can't be dead from a missed kick otherwise you wouldn't have to dot it down to get the 22 drop out. This is the one time I'm sad that Sky don't have any premiership coverage this year so we don't have Will Greenwood available to remind us about that particular law...
(See England vs South Africa in the 2003 world cup pool stages, younger fans)

...and the subsequent heroics from the England pack and Prince Kyran, without which we'd have probably never made it through to the final for JBW to do his thing.