Louw "try" deemed a try

• Jean to skipper BaaBaas
• Boks narrow gap to All Blacks
• Mallett, Meyer neck and neck

Cape Town - Referees and TMOs were once again in the spotlight this past weekend - and none more so than in the France v Springboks Test in Paris.


According to the SA Rugby Referees website, South Africa came close to scoring tries on two occasions, but on each occasion the TMO advised the referee not to award the try. 


In the first instance the TMO detected a knock-on when flyhalf Morné Steyn tried to catch a high, floating pass and so centre Jaque Fourie was denied a try. 


The second one is of interest in this discussion.

South Africa go right from a tackle/ruck. Fullback Willie le Roux grubbers ahead. Falling back Yoann Huget foots the ball back into the French in-goal. Huget and Francois Louw of South Africa go for the ball, Huget with right arm extended.

If Huget grounds the ball first it will not be a try.
If Louw grounds the ball first, it will be a try.

The TMO's advice to the referee is that a Blue Player (Huget) had taken the ball back and had grounded the ball. So it would be a five-metre scrum to South Africa.

But did he ground it?

The law in this regard is most specific. There is a difference between the way a player carrying the ball is required to ground the ball and what a player is required to do if he is not carrying the ball.

Law 22.1 GROUNDING THE BALL
There are two ways a player can ground the ball:
(a) Player touches the ground with the ball. A player grounds the ball by holding the ball and touching the ground with it, in in-goal. ‘Holding’ means holding in the hand or hands, or in the arm or arms. No downward pressure is required.
(b) Player presses down on the ball. A player grounds the ball when it is on the ground in the in-goal and the player presses down on it with a hand or hands, arm or arms, or the front of the player’s body from waist to neck inclusive.

A player holding the ball is not required to put downward pressure on the ball.
A player not holding the ball is required to put downward pressure on the ball.

Huget is certainly not carrying the ball, and so (b) above tells us what he has to do.

Huget's hand touched the side of the ball. There is no sign of downward pressure at all. The one who puts downward pressure on the ball is Louw. who puts both hands and his torso on the ball, certainly exerting downward pressure.

The try should have been awarded.

Win a Smart TV worth R17000Win a Smart TV worth R17000

Mozart

With respect - in the case of both "tries" there really was not quick decisions.  The TMO - especially in the case of the Louw try -  asked for and got a number of replays from different angles and finally decided not to award the try.  The Fourie "try" was a quicker decision - because it was much clearer that the ball was knocked on by Morne.  It really is academic to discuss the issue - since it was not really that tries were scored.  

Saying that - I believe that referees and TMO's should be very careful about tries.  In the case of the French test there were some doubts about whether the tries should have been awarded - in the Welsh test a try was awarded despite the fact that Fourie was clearly off-side.    Even though we "lost" in the case of the French test, we "won" in the case of the Welsh test. 

I noticed that this article was done on what was on the SA Referees website and for once, I do not agree with their explanation. The have the end correct in that the try should have been awarded but I do not agree with the explanation.

I also thought that the TMO got it wrong. The ref had no choice but to make the ruling because of the what he asked of the TMO. Had he asked the TMO to put it up on the big screen, he could have made the decision but he didn't.

The TMO argued that Huguet carried the ball over which is why the recommendation was a five yard scrum for us. If he did indeed dot it down, it should have been a 22m drop-out. It is, however, of no importance because Huguet could not have carried the ball over. The ball was already in the in-goal area by the time he and Louw reached the ball. He, Huguet knocked the ball forward........... advantage from the knock on for SA............ and then Louw scores.

There could only be one of two decisions. Either a try for SA or a 22m drop-out. There is no way, IMO, how it could have been a five yard scrum. The five yard scrum was therefore also the wrong decision but that one was in our favour. However, we decided to fuck it up in any case. We had the put in in a five yard scrum and then made a balls-up of that scrum, IIRC. 

As far as the grounding of the ball is concerned, the commentators (and the refs, in cases like this) help to confuse the public. They choose to ignore one small part in the law. The law says:

Ceradyne

Another example of blatant rugby ignorance.  The French player - by accident or intent kicked the ball back over the goalline - so if no try - it represented a carry over of the ball and is a 5 yard scrum.  Please remember my advice - learn something about rugby before you show your ignorance on this site.

General comments

There is not necessarily corruption at work here.  Referees and TMO's are human beings and they like all humans make mistakes in life.   I do think that referees should make sure of facts before making decisions on anything.  The TMO's are the ay to go - but referees should use it before awarding dubious tries or issuing of cards.  Normally it cuts both ways and it hurt both sides.

It is childish to moan about it on a one-sided basis.  All the cries now are about the French test - yet the Welsh have even greater reason to moan about the Fourie Du Preez try.   In that case the transgression of Fourie was so obvious - one  wonders how the ref actually missed it.

However, be it as it may - referees are human and with the best will in the world, there always will be errors and that is a fact we must live by - even th ough we do not like specific decisions.      

Sun Tzu

I know there were cases were referees in the past were advised to get the Springboks and that was circulated amongst the NZ and Aussie referees - Paddy O'Brian was a key roll player in that.    I assume that is what you were referring to in this case.

I am sorry I used a word which you take exception to - it was not intended as such.  What I refer to is merely that referees and TMO's will make mistakes - like all human beings - and that it normally cuts both ways.  However, some referees have been found out - either they have been incompetent or dishonest and both fell off the wagon as a result.   Incompetence may end up being overcome by a few referees - crookedness never is.    I am sure that we will have referees and TMO's that will make errors in future and we have to live with it. 

Carried over does not include kicking the ball into the in-goal area. That is why I said that the ball was already in-goal by the time of the incident under review by the TMO. The ball was never carried over.

22.11 BALL DEAD IN IN-GOAL

(b) When a player carrying the ball touches the touch-in-goal line, the dead ball line, or touches the ground beyond those lines, the ball becomes dead. If the ball was carried into in-goal by the attacking team, a drop-out shall be awarded to the defending team. If the ball was carried into in-goal by the defending team, a 5-metre scrum shall be awarded and the attacking team throws in the ball.

That is why I said that there were only two possible outcomes of that incident.

1. If it was a touchdown by Huget, it should have been a 22m drop-out. It was not. He did not comply with any of the two elements for the ball to have been deemed as grounded by him.
2. If it was not a touchdown, then the only other possible outcome was a try by Louw.

 polyboy

The problem came to light about a decade ago - when there was a written message circulated by O'Brian bout reffing matches involving SA teams and the term getting the Yarpies was in fact in that message - which somehow ended up in the public domain.   At the time there was a huge stink about it - since it was circulated between the NZ and Australian refs on the IRB panel - as well as the refs from the Super Rugby series.

Paddy was behind the programme  - so there was really bad blood involved in that case.  Some people do not forget about it and sun Tzu in fact raise it again.   I is better that that issue not be raised at present - so I am trying to look rather at the present scenario.

Sasue

It may not have caused a stir in New Zealand and Australia - but it did cause mayhem in SA.   There obviously was a cover up by the IRB by Lawrnce - Bryc Lawrence father - who was then heading the Referee Component of the IRB.

I can remember reading the message then - and I think a lot of older members would be more precise - but the important issue was the message resulted ultimately in the appointment of neutral referees - since there were evidence that biased referees made too many "errors" .    

 Ceradyne, Mike and the SA Refs are right I'm afraid. I haven't seen the incident but if Huget definitely did kick the ball back over his own goal line then it's a 5m scrum if he is deemed to have touched it down.

Refer to Law 22.7 (d):

"If a defending player threw or took the ball into the in-goal, and a defending player grounded it and there is no infringement, play is restarted by a 5m scrum".

Think about it....when a ball is slowly rolling towards the goal line, with your interpretation all the defending player would have to do is toe it back over his own line and touch down for a 22m drop-out! This doesn't happen.....If a defender is the last one to touch the ball before it goes over his own goal line then it's always a 5m scrum if he touches it down.

 Ceradyne, yeah, the only thing I saw on our news was a slow-mo of Huget touching the ball but it definitely looked like a push as opposed to downward pressure. So, definitely no try but I've seen a few TMOs give similar decisions!

If you saw the first Irish try vs the ABs, IMO (unbiased!) the Irish player clearly dropped the ball as he was crashing over but the TMO gave that one as well!

 Ceradyne

Are you paid to be ignorant - or does it come naturally to you?   I suppose the latter.   Has it ever got to your dumb mind what is meant by the word "carry" in that case?  It means if a player passes the ball over the goal line and the recipient touches down it is a 5 meter scrum.   If the player touched the ball before the goal line and it goes over the goal line after the touch - it is a 5 meter scrum.  If the player kick the ball over the goal line and it is ten dotted own - it is a five meter scrum.

How many times have you watch rugby in your life and how many times did the referees not awarded 5 meter scrums for the above?   I know you do not understand what is meant by the interpretation of laws - but this one is really the dumbest interpretation I have ever seen.    It even beats the interpretation that only the June and November test series are recognised by the IRB as official test series of the IRB.  

Please - if you do not understand something - please ask a question - don't make a statement - because you are invariably wrong.  

22.11 BALL DEAD IN IN-GOAL

(b) When a player carrying the ball touches the touch-in-goal line, the dead ball line, or touches the ground beyond those lines, the ball becomes dead. If the ball was carried into in-goal by the attacking team, a drop-out shall be awarded to the defending team. If the ball was carried into in-goal by the defending team, a 5-metre scrum shall be awarded and the attacking team throws in the ball.

Ceradyne 

You are trying again to discover your own laws, making out that the refs do not know the law.   The ref, the line judge and the TMO agree it was a carry over by the French player.  Don't be eternally stupid - if a scrummie gets a poor ball and instead of tryng to pass it,  kicks it backwards over the goal line and the full back dots it down - do you really think it would be regarded as a dead ball and a 25 meter kick in is to follow?   Now don't be dumb - it is a carry over and a five meter scrum is inevitable.

By quoting laws which you fail to understand does not help at all.   Any action by a defending side in the field of play resulting in the ball ending up behind the goal line and being dotted down results in a five meter scrum - irrespective of whether it is touching the ball - knocking it back - kicking it back - carry it over by hand - passing it back - the interpretation remains the same.    If not - you would find all kinds of tricks by the defenders to get the ball over the goal line and touch it down - hoping to get a 22 meter kick in.

I know you are braindead - but carrying this discussion on is like flogging a dead horse.   If you are so simple-minded that you believe you are right - write to the IRB on the issue.   They will probably not bother to answer you - because they would not believe such idiocy exists.

Just one other thing - have you never seen one incident where the attacking team kicks the ball - it touches  the leg of a defender - roll over the goal line and a defending player touch it down?   Five meter scrum follows even in that event.   I have seen it many times in watching rugby.   However, your contributions to this site indicates you miss 90% of games - through failure to understand the game at all - so I would indeed not be surprised if you have not seen it before. 

Ceradyne 

You are trying again to discover your own laws, making out that the refs do not know the law.   The ref, the line judge and the TMO agree it was a carry over by the French player.  Don't be eternally stupid - if a scrummie gets a poor ball and instead of tryng to pass it,  kicks it backwards over the goal line and the full back dots it down - do you really think it would be regarded as a dead ball and a 25 meter kick in is to follow?   Now don't be dumb - it is a carry over and a five meter scrum is inevitable.

By quoting laws which you fail to understand does not help at all.   Any action by a defending side in the field of play resulting in the ball ending up behind the goal line and being dotted down results in a five meter scrum - irrespective of whether it is touching the ball - knocking it back - kicking it back - carry it over by hand - passing it back - the interpretation remains the same.    If not - you would find all kinds of tricks by the defenders to get the ball over the goal line and touch it down - hoping to get a 22 meter kick in.

I know you are braindead - but carrying this discussion on is like flogging a dead horse.   If you are so simple-minded that you believe you are right - write to the IRB on the issue.   They will probably not bother to answer you - because they would not believe such idiocy exists.

Just one other thing - have you never seen one incident where the attacking team kicks the ball - it touches  the leg of a defender - roll over the goal line and a defending player touch it down?   Five meter scrum follows even in that event.   I have seen it many times in watching rugby.   However, your contributions to this site indicates you miss 90% of games - through failure to understand the game at all - so I would indeed not be surprised if you have not seen it before. 

Ceradyne

A couple of questions:

1.   You ask so many idiotic questions - which penalty question are you referring to?

2    Why should I teach you about interpretation of laws as is evident - why don't you get clarity from the IRB as suggested?

Morne Steyn carrying the ball hundreds of meters last year?  That is lost on me.  If he carries the ball 5 meters per game - other than when he falls back to assist the full back with ball recovery - it would be a hell of a lot.  The bugger never attacks the gain line - so how come he carries the ball as you implied.   It is not programmed in the Morne Steyn robot - so you are dumb if you believe him to be of any value as a pivot.   The sooner that one is gone and forgotten - the better it would be for SA rugby.

Ceradyne

A couple of questions:

1.   You ask so many idiotic questions - which penalty question are you referring to?

2    Why should I teach you about interpretation of laws as is evident - why don't you get clarity from the IRB as suggested?

Morne Steyn carrying the ball hundreds of meters last year?  That is lost on me.  If he carries the ball 5 meters per game - other than when he falls back to assist the full back with ball recovery - it would be a hell of a lot.  The bugger never attacks the gain line - so how come he carries the ball as you implied.   It is not programmed in the Morne Steyn robot - so you are dumb if you believe him to be of any value as a pivot.   The sooner that one is gone and forgotten - the better it would be for SA rugby.

Ceradyne

Balls - there is a difference kicking a ball over your own tryline and kicking it over the opposition's tryline.   Get that into your thick skull.  

Sure I do not  admire Morne's kicking - especially when he missed the touchline when taking penalty kicks - one I can clearly remember is his kicking the ball from hand over the dead ball line.   Scrum from where he was taking the penalty.  It is a regular with him - against the All Blacks twice - against the French twice and once against the Aussies.   Otherwise 90% of his kicks are aimless and totally ineffective - too far to e followed up effectively.

The question asked is stupid - there are cases where actions unrelated to the game can lead to penalties and cards - but that rarely happens.   So of what use is that in any discussion?