5 Questions on Wales' try

[Ragey Erasmus]

As far as I'm aware, it shouldn't have been allowed. I think the main issue though is that that one was allowed past without any second look and yet Attwood's try was disallowed. The TMO is there to prevent such inconsistency. England won so ultimately this isn't too big an issue but had we lost on the back of a try being allowed that shouldn't and a try being disallowed for us, well that's 14 points difference right there.

 

[Mumbles119]

Do we have enough 'authoritative' information now to definitely answer this and say it was an illegal move?
Could any of our resident Ref posters add to this? @smartcooky?

I remember feeling something was wrong as I watched it happen, it didn't look right. But just put the feeling down to the opposition scoring against my team.

Bigger picture, I feel it is just one of those things. Things get missed or highlighted more easily due to visibility or the home crowd helping. Just the way of the game.

But discussions like these are why I love this forum. I want to know and learn more about our game, so am interested in the official answer, regardless of the what if's.

 

[TRF_Cymro]

Do we have enough 'authoritative' information now to definitely answer this and say it was an illegal move?
Could any of our resident Ref posters add to this? (Sorry don't know how to tag someone in, could someone else help please?)

I remember feeling something was wrong as I watched it happen, it didn't look right. But just put the feeling down to the opposition scoring against my team.

Bigger picture, I feel it is just one of those things. Things get missed or highlighted more easily due to visibility or the home crowd helping. Just the way of the game.

But discussions like these are why I love this forum. I want to know and learn more about our game, so am interested in the official answer, regardless of the what if's.

Use the '@' button and then the users name. Like this @Mumbles119

 

[Mumbles119]

Cheers @TRF_Hulkster

 

[Thingimubob]

As far as I'm aware, it shouldn't have been allowed. I think the main issue though is that that one was allowed past without any second look and yet Attwood's try was disallowed. The TMO is there to prevent such inconsistency. England won so ultimately this isn't too big an issue but had we lost on the back of a try being allowed that shouldn't and a try being disallowed for us, well that's 14 points difference right there.

I think Attwoods was picked up by a touch judge wasn't it?
I definitely picked it up straight away and was effin and blinding about it even before Attwood crashed over!

Regarding the scrum, we were lucky - if the ball hadn't have got out of there when it did it was surely a penalty - another ref might have blown up already too. That said, I didn't realise there was any rule against the way Faletau picked the ball out either (from what I've read on here from the English, apparently there is).

Either way, my point is, definitely a lot more subtlety to whatever infringement Faletau made, compared to the crossing before Attwood went over. Maybe that's why they didn't look at it again?

 

[smartcooky]

1. Was Faletau's pick up from the scrum legal?

[TEXTAREA]20.10 ENDING THE SCRUM
(c) Hindmost player unbinds. The hindmost player in a scrum is the player whose feet are
nearest the team's own goal line. If the hindmost player unbinds from the scrum with the
ball at that player's feet and picks up the ball, the scrum ends.[/TEXTAREA]

Was the ball at Falatau's feet when he unbound?

- If it wasn't, then he has infringed under 20.3 (f)

[TEXTAREA](f) Binding by all other players. All players in a scrum, other than front-row players, must
bind on a lock's body with at least one arm prior to the scrum engagement. The locks must
bind with the props in front of them. No other player other than a prop may hold an
opponent.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/TEXTAREA]

- If it was, then he has unbound legally, the scrum is over, and he can reach in as far as the likes to get the ball (because its not a scrum any more)

IMO, the ball was nowhere near his feet. Should have been a penalty against Red 8 for unbinding before the scrum was over.

 

[andyharris]

Not only "not at his feet" - the ball was actually in front of *every* Welsh foot. Also, Faletau is still bound to the scrum with his other arm. Basically he falls foul of either 20.9(b) or 20.10(c) - there's simply no way it works out otherwise. I snapped a picture from my TV screen but the "upload" button doesn't appear for me - possibly because I just registered on this forum. I'll be honest that I was searching for comment on this incident since it seemed so blatant to me at the time and the fact that folks are discussing it here prompted me to register.

 

[The Jones Boy]

The question over Faletau is a very difficult issue for any referee.
They have to be on the right angle to see one knee drop to the ground for a split second.
Then suddenly the ball is out and play is underway.
Crowds want to see the rugby not a dull procession of penalties and that is what speeding the game up is all about.
If we could turn back the clock and see how many times a half back, George Gregan, reached into the Aussie scrum from behind his number 8, after having put the ball in under the second row, we may never have seen so much glorious running rugby.
I'm not saying its right but it happens very quickly and I would much rather have this momentary aberration occur and see the game flow on than have the game brought back time and again for another dull scrum re-set.
We want audiences to grow, not dwindle. Endless scrum re-sets are truly boring. They are an ugly slow spectacle.
There are a hundred other harmless infractions (by that I mean where no players are physically hurt by the outcome) that a referee could blow up for if he saw them and what sort of game would we have then?
This was not a blatant forward pass, or a head high tackle or something that must be brought to task with a another whistle stop, it was done in a fraction of a second in a place difficult for the official to see clearly. One knee down for a heart beat and then... action.

On another note... I saw England get some slightly harsh decisions against them in that match and I can't help but feel that this was attributable to Wales having the 'home' advantage.
This is not to say Wales didn't play well for long periods.
This is in no way a slight against Wales at all.
I'm talking about the 'Home' advantage' in internationals.
It is to say that Home teams always seem to garner an extra % of the decisions because they have a very vocal following.
It's a global 'condition' that affects every home team positively and the reverse is assuredly the case for the visitors.
Was Faletau's minimal indiscretion unseen because the ref is more interested in seeing the ball in play than worrying about one of many split second infractions that occur, like a back being half a body width in front of the kicker when they are chasing through etc
Like a forward dropping a shoulder slightly to hamper a chasing winger or fullback, not much, only slightly, but just enough to give his defence a fraction of a second extra to gather for safety.
It occurs to me that every 'home' team gets an advantage in their % of decisions from pretty much any referee (with the possible exception of Steve Walsh) in a 'Home' situation that they do not receive when they travel.

 

[valley commando]

Your answer proved my point you are ignorant, using language like that you should be sent to Coventry

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

England weren't that brilliant but none of the teams looked really good in their opening games. The scoreline did not reflect the fact that Wales were outplayed in every aspect of the game.

 

[goodNumber10]

England weren't that brilliant but none of the teams looked really good in their opening games. The scoreline did not reflect the fact that Wales were outplayed in every aspect of the game.

It's quite incredible, I've run through that game two or three times looking to analyse the English defence pattern but there is such little of it is almost pointless.....

The domination was quite complete.

 

[thechosenfamily]

I would not be a referee for all the tea in China. It's a thankless task and incredibly difficult.

However, this particular decision\non decision was wrong.

Also, on a separate point why did both the referee and line judges allow Hibbard, on almost every lineout to take a step\half step towards his own side. They mark the point where the ball leaves the field but they allowed illegal movement on his part to aid his chances of a successful throw.

I am more than willing to accept this is ok if somebody can point to the relevant rule.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

I would not be a referee for all the tea in China. It's a thankless task and incredibly difficult.

However, this particular decision\non decision was wrong.

Also, on a separate point why did both the referee and line judges allow Hibbard, on almost every lineout to take a step\half step towards his own side. They mark the point where the ball leaves the field but they allowed illegal movement on his part to aid his chances of a successful throw.

I am more than willing to accept this is ok if somebody can point to the relevant rule.

Even then he didn't throw straight ever but got away with it...

 

[thechosenfamily]

Even then he didn't throw straight ever but got away with it...

I meant to say that as well.

 

[andyharris]

I can't agree that Faletau's indiscretion was "minimal". He deliberately broke 2 or 3 laws, the result of which should have been a penalty, rather than a scrum reset. We all want the scrum to be a "fair contest for the ball" but if players can get away with this then we can kiss that notion goodbye.

 

[LiRFCMatt]

As far as I'm aware, it shouldn't have been allowed. I think the main issue though is that that one was allowed past without any second look and yet Attwood's try was disallowed. The TMO is there to prevent such inconsistency. England won so ultimately this isn't too big an issue but had we lost on the back of a try being allowed that shouldn't and a try being disallowed for us, well that's 14 points difference right there.

I have to agree, I know everyone is a bit fed up of me posting about my blog, but here is an excerpt of one about to come over the next day or so about how dominant England were:

What Faletau did in order to set up the Rhys Webb try was brilliant, which is why he was in my team of the week, found here. But should the try have stood? Faletau goes diving in at the feet of the hooker to collect the ball, his knee clearly hits the floor as he steals the ball away from the middle of the scrum. It is absolutely illegal and bizarre that it wasn't referred, Chris Robshaw definitely should have had a word, especially when you see the effect that players and management can have on the decision of a try, which is what happened with Dave Attwood's disallowed one.

I did find an image of Faletau diving at Hibbard's feet, but it won't seem to upload onto here.

 

[andyharris]

Here's a pic from slightly earlier in the play (snapped from my TV) which shows Faletau reaching into the tunnel to retrieve the ball, so that's 20.9(f) as well as 20.9(b) and 20.1(e).

 

[Boring Ian]

Great pic.

All this talk of Samson Lee being a rock and Marler has him on toast there.

Two years ago Hartley would have been stood upright in the middle of that lot. His scrummaging has really improved.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

Robshaw probably couldnt see Faletau do that, else I suspect he would have complained. The touch judge on the other hand...

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Is Ben Youngs offside there?
(Genuine question - I don't really know the offside rules for scrummies)