Munster vs Scarlets, Sat 24th March 5:30pm, Sky Sports

PetKing

The offiating tonight was an absolute disgrace. That said, I'm not a referee so I'm sure it was all fine so carry on. Stunned to get that win, better econd half.

prawnsambo

For everyone frothing, you really shouldn't be listening to commentators on the laws iof the game. Double movement is actually a rugby league offence, the actual offence in rugby union is 'not releasing'. You are entitled to reach out and place the ball, but pushing it along the ground is actually a deliberate knock-on.

15.5 The tackled Player
(c) A tackled player may release the ball by putting it on the ground in any direction, provided this is done immediately.
Sanction: Penalty kick

(d) A tackled player may release the ball by pushing it along the ground in any direction except forward, provided this is done immediately.
Sanction: Penalty kick

A commando crawl, even a truncated one is not allowed.

BBDBB

prawnsambo wrote: »

For everyone frothing, you really shouldn't be listening to commentators on the laws iof the game. Double movement is actually a rugby league offence, the actual offence in rugby union is 'not releasing'. You are entitled to reach out and place the ball, but pushing it along the ground is actually a knock-on.



A commando crawl, even a truncated one is not allowed.

I thought his arm movement immediately after the tackle was an over arm motion precisely to avoid rolling it along the ground

Don't forget

22.4(e)

If a player is tackled near to the opponents’ goal line so that this player can immediately reach out and ground the ball on or over the goal line, a try is scored.

Players are generally allowed to get away with one additional body movement after forward momentum has stopped but that is unequivocally against the rules.
The player in this case (who was it?) had stopped his forward momentum and then used his body to move forward a second time while reaching out.

The try absolutely should have been given, but it is also absolutely technically not a try.

prawnsambo

Deleted User wrote: »

Don't forget


Players are allowed to get away with one additional body movement after forward momentum has stopped but that is unequivcally against the rules.

The try absolutely should have been given, but it is also absolutely technically not a try.

No they are not. They can only reach out, they can't move their body. You actually quoted it.

Jack Kanoff

prawnsambo wrote: »

For everyone frothing, you really shouldn't be listening to commentators on the laws iof the game. Double movement is actually a rugby league offence, the actual offence in rugby union is 'not releasing'. You are entitled to reach out and place the ball, but pushing it along the ground is actually a deliberate knock-on.

I'm sure I speak for every Munster fan here when I say . stop talking shïte

A commando crawl, even a truncated one is not allowed.

m sure I speak for every Munster fan here when I say . stop talking shïte

prawnsambo

BBDBB wrote: »

I thought his arm movement immediately after the tackle was an over arm motion precisely to avoid rolling it along the ground

If he hadn't moved the rest of his body, it would have been fine.

And I'm listening to Ieuan Evans on about it again. Who I called out earlier in the match for another clanger.

Clegg

To throw the cat amongst the pigeons Munsters final try probably shouldn't have been allowed. The passer started in a stationary position so the ball never could've went backward before going forward

prawnsambo

prawnsambo wrote: »

No they are not. They can only reach out, they can't move their body. You actually quoted it.

Perhaps you should read my post before replying.

DDC1990

prawnsambo wrote:

For everyone frothing, you really shouldn't be listening to commentators on the laws iof the game. Double movement is actually a rugby league offence, the actual offence in rugby union is 'not releasing'. You are entitled to reach out and place the ball, but pushing it along the ground is actually a deliberate knock-on.

And the rule you have quoted has absolutely nothing to do with what happened. He placed the ball immediately on/beyond the try line.

He didn't roll the ball whatsoever.

BBDBB

If that’s the law and that’s the interpretation of the law then fair enough

However, we all know that any similar action hasn’t been interpreted that way before (in my memory) and I’d place serious money that it won’t be again

It was a poor decision, sadly not the only one tonight

eigrod

BBDBB wrote: »

I thought his arm movement immediately after the tackle was an over arm motion precisely to avoid rolling it along the ground

It was. The poster you quoted mustn’t have seen it if he’s talking about pushing it along the ground.

Elvisjuice

as i said planks will be on saying ref is right

Jack Kanoff

Clegg wrote: »

To throw the cat amongst the pigeons Munsters final try probably shouldn't have been allowed. The passer started in a stationary position so the ball never could've went backward before going forward

Incorrect...as usual?

thomond2006

I didn't see the game but that is a fantastic result.

BBDBB

Clegg wrote: »

To throw the cat amongst the pigeons Munsters final try probably shouldn't have been allowed. The passer started in a stationary position so the ball never could've went backward before going forward

BURN THE HERETIC

;-)

prawnsambo

Deleted User wrote: »

Perhaps you should read my post before replying.

I read it. And it's wrong. You said 'body movement' while quoting the law which says "reach out".

You are tackled. You must release the ball when tackled, but can place it. At the try line, you can place if over the line. What's so hard to understand?

Jack Kanoff

thomond2006 wrote: »

I didn't see the game but that is a fantastic result.

"Quotes"

Jack Kanoff

prawnsambo wrote: »

I read it. And it's wrong. You said 'body movement' while quoting the law which says "reach out".

You are tackled. You must release the ball when tackled, but can place it. At the try line, you can place if over the line. What's so hard to understand?

Well.. you're wrong.. what is so hard to understand?.

prawnsambo

Jack Kanoff wrote: »

Well.. you're wrong.. what is so hard to understand?.

When you actually quote the law and apply it, I'll be all ears. But one-liners are about as useful as tits on a bull.

Not that I'd expect anything else tbh.

eagle eye

Watched the game, worst refereeing performance I've seen in my life and I'm not a young man.

Jack Kanoff

prawnsambo wrote: »

When you actually quote the law and apply it, I'll be all ears. But one-liners are about as useful as tits on a bull.

Not that I'd expect anything else tbh.

You're still wrong , perhaps you should try and rejoice in your own teams victorys instead of trying to knock others.. for a change

eigrod

prawnsambo wrote: »

When you actually quote the law and apply it, I'll be all ears. But one-liners are about as useful as tits on a bull.

Not that I'd expect anything else tbh.

You quoted a law that didn’t apply to what happened - something about pushing the ball along the ground. If you’re going to quote a law to us, at least be it one that applied to what happened.

prawnsambo

prawnsambo wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

Perhaps you should read my post before replying.

I read it. And it's wrong. You said 'body movement' while quoting the law which says "reach out".

You are tackled. You must release the ball when tackled, but can place it. At the try line, you can place if over the line. What's so hard to understand?

The part where I said it wasn't technically a try but in general referees allow it anyway ¿

For you that seems impossible to understand because even after I suggested you read my post you still can't understand it.

Technically, the TMO made the right call. I've never seen a try disallowed for this kind of movement before. Do you understand yet or will you yet again mischaracterise what I argued?

Schorpio

For me, the difference between 15.5(c) [i.e. player placing the ball after being tackled] and 22.4(e) is in the reaching out bit which is permitted in 22.4, but not 15.5.

I've always presumed that this act of reaching out would allow things like torso rotation, but not the use of the legs for forward propulsion (basically as long as you don't 'step' forward with your legs knees, then it's likely fine). This has always been backed up by the precedent that we have seen over the past few years.

Either way, I would have awarded the try. And I think the vast majority of refs would have too.

....luckily it doesn't really matter now in the long run.

prawnsambo

Jack Kanoff wrote: »

You're still wrong , perhaps you should try and rejoice in your own teams victorys instead of trying to knock others.. for a change

What a strange way you peer at the world. There seems to be no possibility that anyone could post in a neutral manner.

Is it really your belief that I'm against Munster because I agree with the ref who didn't award a try to them? Is that actually your thought porocess?

How revealing.

prawnsambo

Deleted User wrote: »

The part where I said it wasn't technically a try but in general referees allow it anyway ¿

For you that seems impossible to understand because even after I suggested you read my post you still can't understand it.

Technically, the TMO made the right call. I've never seen a try disallowed for this kind of movement before. Do you understand yet or will you yet again mischaracterise what I argued?

Tbh, when people say generally refs allow this or I've seen that, I ignore it. No offence, but I'd like to see those examples rather than hearing about them.

My point in posting about this was that (yet again in the same match) we had commentators misquoting the laws and getting outraged about it. Which then gets the fans outraged and suddenly a good ref is the worst ref ever born. It's as tiresome as it's predictable.

Jack Kanoff

prawnsambo wrote: »

What a strange way you peer at the world. There seems to be no possibility that anyone could post in a neutral manner.

Is it really your belief that I'm against Munster because I agree with the ref who didn't award a try to them? Is that actually your thought porocess?

How revealing.

No, you're against Munster because you're wrong...as usual ..
But please continue... you're giving us a laugh.

BBDBB

Fair enough, can you provide another example where similar movement has resulted in a no try decision? Cos I can’t

Every other similar action I’ve seen has been un challenged and resulted in a try

@prawnsamboI

@prawnsamboI've never seen a try disallowed for a small second movement forward that involved reaching out.

Can you provide some examples rather than insisting others prove you wrong?

@Schorpio he used his knees or elbow to move his body forwards about 6" while stretching out. Against the rules but always allowed. The ref had a great view of it, I think it might be a case of when the tmo drew his attention to a technically illegal movement forward he had no choice but to go along with the TMO.

Jack Kanoff

BBDBB wrote: »

Fair enough, can you provide another example where similar movement has resulted in a no try decision? Cos I can’t

Every other similar action I’ve seen has been un challenged and resulted in a try

Ah he can't...and unless it's reported.. nothing happens.. coz all the mods are out like

Jack Kanoff

Jack Kanoff wrote: »

BBDBB wrote: »

Fair enough, can you provide another example where similar movement has resulted in a no try decision? Cos I can’t

Every other similar action I’ve seen has been un challenged and resulted in a try

Ah he can't...and unless it's reported.. nothing happens.. coz all the mods are out like

All you've done is repeatedly tell him he's wrong in a snide manner. You haven't tried to engage with him, you've just been smug. You can disagree with someone and dislike their opinions without being childish.

prawnsambo

Jack Kanoff wrote: »

No, you're against Munster because you're wrong...as usual ..
But please continue... you're giving us a laugh.

I think you're mistaking who's getting the laugh, and at whom.

Defunkd

[Deleted User] wrote: »

@Schorpio he used his knees or elbow to move his body forwards about 6" while stretching out. Against the rules but always allowed. The ref had a great view of it, I think it might be a case of when the tmo drew his attention to a technically illegal movement forward he had no choice but to go along with the TMO.

did he use his left knee to propel himself along the ground? No. His knee moved but since it was not in contact with another surface, it did not propel him.
It was yet another poor decision by Marius.

prawnsambo

BBDBB wrote: »

Fair enough, can you provide another example where similar movement has resulted in a no try decision? Cos I can’t

Every other similar action I’ve seen has been un challenged and resulted in a try

Why do I have to do this?

For the sake of argument, let's say there is such an example. Is that the correct application of the law? And does that make Mitrea wrong? And from memory, I can recall one where it was penalised because the placement came too long after the tackle.

In today's example, he propelled himself forward with his left knee and elbow before placing the ball. It was a small enough movement, but it was visible.

BBDBB

prawnsambo wrote: »

Why do I have to do this?

For the sake of argument, let's say there is such an example. Is that the correct application of the law? And does that make Mitrea wrong? And from memory, I can recall one where it was penalised because the placement came too long after the tackle.

In today's example, he propelled himself forward with his left knee and elbow before placing the ball. It was a small enough movement, but it was visible.

I was simply applying the direction you applied to those who opposed you, to you

Same criteria seems a reasonable approach to me, if it doesn’t to you, then no one is forcing you to do anything.

If you are correct, then there should be other similar examples. My contention is that I can’t recall another similar movement that ended with a similar outcome. I doubt I will see another one again

eigrod

prawnsambo wrote: »

In today's example, he propelled himself forward with his left knee and elbow before placing the ball. It was a small enough movement, but it was visible.

You’ve now changed your mind. Earlier you said it was disallowed because he pushed the ball along the ground. You’re making it up as you go along

Defunkd

Defunkd wrote: »

did he use his left knee to propel himself along the ground? No. His knee moved but since it was not in contact with another surface, it did not propel him.
It was yet another poor decision by Marius.

You're not allowed move anything other than the arm with the ball in hand according to the laws. He used his knees or elbow to shift his entire body forward (and it wasn't momentum, he came to a stop after being tackled). That's inarguable to anyone who actually watches the replay.

The argument is whether the law should have been applied in such a literal sense, particularly given it doesn't seem to be in general. It was initially awarded even though the referee had a clear unobstructed view of the movement. It was unfair to disallow it and if it had cost Munster the game I would have been raging even as someone who doesn't enjoy Munster.

Segueing into pretending that he didn't perform an additional body movement is just silly.

I watched the Battle of Nantes last night with a friend and it was shocking to see the instant release when tackled. We've come a long way from then!

prawnsambo

eigrod wrote: »

You’ve now changed your mind. Earlier you said it was disallowed because he pushed the ball along the ground. You’re making it up as you go along

No I didn't. You're quoting me incorrectly there. I was paraphrasing the law, not describing what happened.

PhlegmyMoses

Sobering game for a few if these lads.

Akrasia

The 2nd disallowed try should have been allowed. The last try was a forward pass. Karma balanced in the end. Should definitely have been a card for that trip on Arnold. Munster overall put in a really spirited performance and deserved the result they got. I'm delighted with that given their injury profile and last weeks capitulation

CoDy1

Just in from the game, I thought we were in for a long night after the first 5 mins, but Munster got their act together and pushed up in defense and squeezed them out wide for the rest of the game. Pack did their job, scrum was immense, Nash and Arnold were impressive. Hart needs to learn how to box kick. Surely Copeland starts week?

Elvisjuice

prawnsambo wrote: »

I think you're mistaking who's getting the laugh, and at whom.

i don't think he is

kuang1

Elvisjuice wrote: »

i don't think he is

I do.

.ak

Jack Kanoff wrote: »

No, you're against Munster because you're wrong...as usual ..
But please continue... you're giving us a laugh.

Jack Kanoff wrote: »

Ah he can't...and unless it's reported.. nothing happens.. coz all the mods are out like

"You're against Munster because you're wrong"? I'd expect a higher calibre of debate than that tbh. Enough of the bickering, please.

prawnsambo wrote: »

I think you're mistaking who's getting the laugh, and at whom.

Attack the post, not the poster.

Flincher

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XU2n7FHoDg

Full match there with the Cronin incident at 1:50. I can't make up my mind if its a try or not. There's movement of the lower body, but I'm not convinced he propels himself forward. I think the try should probably stand because I don't think it meets the "clear and obvious" requirement to be disallowed.

Elvisjuice

kuang1 wrote: »

I do.

good for you

prawnsambo

Flincher wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XU2n7FHoDg

Full match there with the Cronin incident at 1:50. I can't make up my mind if its a try or not. There's movement of the lower body, but I'm not convinced he propels himself forward. I think the try should probably stand because I don't think it meets the "clear and obvious" requirement to be disallowed.

Well at least you can see that the ref and TMO had something to base their decision on. Which is a far cry from the absolute hysteria on here when it was disallowed.

My main issue is with the commentators. Whatever about the average fan, these guys are ex-pros and should know the laws. Yet today, we had at least three incidents where they were flat wrong and got outraged about it. And there was one in the Leinster match too when Barry Daly scored and that's even carried over to The 42.

Some of the posters here are far more knowledgable than these guys.

The Lost Sheep

prawnsambo wrote: »

Well at least you can see that the ref and TMO had something to base their decision on. Which is a far cry from the absolute hysteria on here when it was disallowed.

My main issue is with the commentators. Whatever about the average fan, these guys are ex-pros and should know the laws. Yet today, we had at least three incidents where they were flat wrong and got outraged about it. And there was one in the Leinster match too when Barry Daly scored and that's even carried over to The 42.

Some of the posters here are far more knowledgable than these guys.

Commentators should be more knowledgeable but just because they played pro doesnt mean they should know the laws. Many dont have a clue.

prawnsambo

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Commentators should be more knowledgeable but just because they played pro doesnt mean they should know the laws. Many dont have a clue.

Yeah. But that's the fallacy they earn their corn from.

Edit: They also watch a lot of matches for a living, you'd think they'd pick some stuff up along the way.