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
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Ireland v Scotland -Aviva Stadium - Saturday 10th March 5pm

1…141516171820»

Comments

  • #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.


  • #953
    DeDoc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 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!


  • #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.


  • #955
    vetinari
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,029 ✭✭✭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.


  • #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.


  • #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.


  • #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.


  • #959
    razorblunt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,300 ✭✭✭✭razorblunt


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


  • #960
    Quint2010
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 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
  • #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?


  • #962
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    The funny thing about the Bowe situation is that there are many many ways to view it but the only thing you can't really possibly justify is a penalty to Scotland!


  • #963
    Quint2010
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,178 ✭✭✭Quint2010


    rrpc wrote: »
    Where is this double movement rule you speak of young skywalker?

    Well I remember when we beat England in 2004 in Twickers Ben Cohen had a try disallowed for a double movement. He was tackled and placed the ball on the floor while still holding onto it and then placed it in the in goal area. It was deemed a double movement as he didn't let go of the ball once tackled. Same deal last saturday-Bowe should have let go of the ball once tackled.


  • #964
    totallegend
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,234 ✭✭✭totallegend


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    The funny thing about the Bowe situation is that there are many many ways to view it but the only thing you can't really possibly justify is a penalty to Scotland!

    Eh? Double movement is a penalty offence.


  • #965
    rrpc
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,244 ✭✭✭rrpc


    totallegend wrote: »
    Eh? Double movement is a penalty offence.
    Yet nobody can quote the law that says so...


  • #966
    marco_polo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    Quint2010 wrote: »
    rrpc wrote: »
    Where is this double movement rule you speak of young skywalker?

    Well I remember when we beat England in 2004 in Twickers Ben Cohen had a try disallowed for a double movement. He was tackled and placed the ball on the floor while still holding onto it and then placed it in the in goal area. It was deemed a double movement as he didn't let go of the ball once tackled. Same deal last saturday-Bowe should have let go of the ball once tackled.

    He was held up so it is Either scrum blue if on the field of play, similar to a choke tackle, or scrum green if in goal.


  • Advertisement
  • #967
    totallegend
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,234 ✭✭✭totallegend


    rrpc wrote: »
    Yet nobody can quote the law that says so...

    It's law 15.5 (b) and (c)

    "A tackled player must immediately pass the ball or release it. That player must also get up or move away from it at once"

    "A tackled player may release the ball by putting it on the ground in any direction, provided this is done immediately."

    So, if you think Bowe placed the ball immediately, then it is a try, if not, then it's a penalty to Scotland. I'd go for the latter but it's totally subjective.


  • #968
    marco_polo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    totallegend wrote: »
    rrpc wrote: »
    Yet nobody can quote the law that says so...

    It's law 15.5 (b) and (c)

    "A tackled player must immediately pass the ball or release it. That player must also get up or move away from it at once"

    "A tackled player may release the ball by putting it on the ground in any direction, provided this is done immediately."

    So, if you think Bowe placed the ball immediately, then it is a try, if not, then it's a penalty to Scotland. I'd go for the latter but it's totally subjective.

    And yet the tackling player is allowed to wrestle for the ball on the ground?


  • #969
    rrpc
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,244 ✭✭✭rrpc


    totallegend wrote: »
    It's law 15.5 (b) and (c)

    "A tackled player must immediately pass the ball or release it. That player must also get up or move away from it at once"

    "A tackled player may release the ball by putting it on the ground in any direction, provided this is done immediately."

    So, if you think Bowe placed the ball immediately, then it is a try, if not, then it's a penalty to Scotland. I'd go for the latter but it's totally subjective.
    Ah! Interpretation of a law that makes no mention of the 'double movement' phrase.

    So wouldn't this also mean that law 15.4(a) should be observed?:

    "When a player tackles an opponent and they both go to ground, the tackler must immediately release the tackled player"


  • #970
    MungBean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,915 ✭✭✭MungBean


    totallegend wrote: »
    It's law 15.5 (b) and (c)

    "A tackled player must immediately pass the ball or release it. That player must also get up or move away from it at once"

    "A tackled player may release the ball by putting it on the ground in any direction, provided this is done immediately."

    So, if you think Bowe placed the ball immediately, then it is a try, if not, then it's a penalty to Scotland. I'd go for the latter but it's totally subjective.

    That is only relevant if Bowe was short of the line which he wasnt.

    And if he was.
    15.4 (a)
    When a player tackles an opponent and they both go to ground, the tackler must immediately release the tackled player.

    Sanction: Penalty kick

    But Bowe was not short, momentum had carried him into the in goal area. So none of that is relevant.


  • #971
    totallegend
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,234 ✭✭✭totallegend


    marco_polo wrote: »
    And yet the tackling player is allowed to wrestle for the ball on the ground?

    No, he has to allow the tackled player to release the ball so that it can be played by another player. He is not obliged to release the tackled player so that he can touch it down for a try.


  • Advertisement
  • #972
    totallegend
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,234 ✭✭✭totallegend


    MungBean wrote: »
    That is only relevant if Bowe was short of the line which he wasnt.

    And if he was.



    But Bowe was not short, momentum had carried him into the in goal area. So none of that is relevant.

    You seem to be arguing the rights and wrongs of the TMO's decision with me but I have no interest in that, I'm just explaining the rules that the TMO applied and why he gave Scotland a penalty.

    There are lads talking about Bowe being held up and such, which might be their opinion but the rule the TMO applied was the double movement law.


  • #973
    durkadurka
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,207 ✭✭✭durkadurka


    Excellent debate folks. Would like to hear opinions of some refs if you're out there.


  • #974
    marco_polo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    totallegend wrote: »
    No, he has to allow the tackled player to release the ball so that it can be played by another player. He is not obliged to release the tackled player so that he can touch it down for a try.

    So if Part A never occurs how do we get from there to a penalty for not releasing the ball? Which is what the double movement offense actually is.


  • #975
    rrpc
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,244 ✭✭✭rrpc


    totallegend wrote: »
    No, he has to allow the tackled player to release the ball so that it can be played by another player. He is not obliged to release the tackled player so that he can touch it down for a try.
    He is obliged and that's very clearly stated above, unless they are in-goal where he can hold the player to prevent a try being scored. Once that's established, law 15.5 doesn't apply either.

    If other players had arrived before Bowe got the bal down, it may have been different as a ruck could have formed.

    There is a possibility that the ball could have been deemed to have been in the field of play until Bowe got it down but with most of his body in-goal, I'm not sure that's the case here.


  • #976
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    totallegend wrote: »
    No, he has to allow the tackled player to release the ball so that it can be played by another player. He is not obliged to release the tackled player so that he can touch it down for a try.

    He is obliged to release the tackled player should it be in open play. In that case it would have been a penalty to Ireland for not allowing the player to release the ball. So possible outcomes in play are penalty to Ireland or penalty try to Ireland.

    If it was in the goal area "double movement" (IE holding) does not apply. You could say (quite easilly in this case IMO) that it was held up. Either way the only results here are try or scrum 5.


    There is no circumstance where Tommy Bowe could have committed a penalisable offence without Morrison first committing one. Either he is in goal and legally allowed to keep attempting to place the ball until it is rules held up or he is in open play and Morrison is done for holding him. So possible outcomes are Try Ireland, Penalty Ireland, Penalty Try Ireland, Scrum 5. I would have gone for Scrum 5 because Morrison did seem to keep it up long enough to me (I suppose it gets subjective there though).


  • #977
    totallegend
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,234 ✭✭✭totallegend


    marco_polo wrote: »
    So if Part A never occurs how do we get from there to a penalty for not releasing the ball? Which is what the double movement offense actually is.

    Stupid as it might sound, by the letter of the law both should happen simultaneously and immediately, i.e. if the tackle is "completed" and Morrison is obliged to release Bowe, then Bowe no longer has the right to place the ball.


  • #978
    MungBean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,915 ✭✭✭MungBean


    I thought the video ref couldnt comment on anything outside the in goal anyway which is supposedly where Bowe used his double move in reaching the line. Have things changed since the world cup ?


  • #979
    rrpc
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,244 ✭✭✭rrpc


    MungBean wrote: »
    I thought the video ref couldnt comment on anything outside the in goal anyway which is supposedly where Bowe used his double move in reaching the line. Have things changed since the world cup ?
    It's in-goal. He was asked was it a try and said no, then went outside his brief by saying it was a penalty for Scotland.

    On that basis alone, you'd have to doubt anything else he said.


Advertisement