• Please bear with us. We have moved to a new provider, and some images and icons are not working correctly. We are working hard to fix this

England v Italy - when is a sack not a sack.

didds

didds

Resident Club Coach
Needing you fellows' guidance here.

Around the 26 minute mark of EvI, England have a 5m lineout. They catch and transfer the ball to a supporter. Italy defender appears to be offside and drags the now ball carrier down, potentially collapsing the maul in a probably try scoring position.

But it is ruled a tackle on the ball carrier after transfer.


The full game is here - but may be geographically constrained etc
game time circa 25:30 minutes onwards

I appreciate stills are somewhat iffy in such circumstances but here is the pertinent moment (see image)


So its is one of

a) ball carrier is part of a maul and blue defender is offside/in at the side - Eng PK, It YC and probably a PT to Eng
OR
b) ball carrier has detached from the ball catcher and supporters, it is not a maul and now England are obstructing - PK Italy (or at least a scrum)


But its called a fair tackle on a ball carrier post transfer (whatever that actually means)


Help! :-)

PS I could add that that blue defender doesn't move an inch while England with the ball with the catcher and supporters advance a step of two - ie blue D is now not behind the line of the ball/rear feet (depending on whether the lineout is over etc) and contact has definitely been made with Italian defenders immediately behind the catcher.
 

Attachments

  • 11.png
    11.png
    677.9 KB · Views: 14
Last edited:
To my mind Ben Kaye and Flats got it correct Blue 1 in the side

To my mind they were offside as they crept up the side before the ball was transferred so that was a clear transgression that was observed by the Ref's Assistant and the TMO but for some reason the referee decided otherwise 🤷🏼‍♂️ He appears to consider only the sacking of White 5 not the action of Blue 1.

However, I refer to my pet hate of leaving the line before the ball is thrown White 1 clearly on the peel before the ball is thrown with the intent to hit the catcher:

20250310_113609.jpeg
So I would say Italy got the wrong end of the decision and a Penalty/PT and Yellow card to Italy would have been incorrect.

But happy to consider how much leeway others might allow on 18.17 and 18.18.
 
cant disagree with any of that, but I would say wrt the pre peeling before the throw thats now endemic and id even go as far to say throughout the game at all levels. QED its just a law that is universally ignored. that's not necessarily correct procedure of course, but to have pulled THAT out of the bag at THAT stage wold have been a major "Gotcha" moment by the ref.

certainly if i was cleaning on #4 from #1 my #2 would stamp his foot to signal when to move as my back was to the thrower... I couldn't swear 100% that i never peeled before the ball left the thrower's hands and I never ever got pinged for it. And I haven't played for over 15 years and no higher than level 7
 
Just more Law drift supported by the excuse of materiality. If it's in the Law book apply it?

To counter any thoughts about materiality, if Genge hasn't peeled in order to hit the maul and move it forward England do not progress easily or as swiftly from the LOT. Ball might still get transferred to White 7 but with it being stationary the offside of Blue 1 becomes much more obvious, also a stationary sack is much easier to define and differentiate from a collapse. So life becomes more difficult if things are allowed to slide.

If I recall correctly Mr Brace did ping England for encroaching within the 10m in the second half, he warned and then pinged, he also made a point of telling them he warned and they ignored. But I wouldn't say it is picked up regularly which supports your piece about things becoming endemic as they are not called up.
 
Given what the referee looked at and commented on, is it likely that he considered the collapse forward at the front of the maul was the material aspect of the maul stopping, and as he decided that was legal it then wasn’t relevant or material that Blue 1 was offside?

I’m not sure that would be correct, necessarily, but he didn’t seem at all concerned with what happened at the back.
 
accepted. then i have absolutely no idea what he was commenting on at all cos the sack at the front was not on a ball carrier but it prevented englands maul from advancing,
 
It's worth noting that Ben Whitehouse restarted (rather than penalised) a lineout for this a few weeks ago - but that stood out precisely for being the exception rather than the norm.

I also remember hearing in (I think) the France vs England match the ref shouting at one point "Who's the receiver?".
In the moment I thought it was because there were too many players out of line - but there were a number of lineouts later in the match that they actually appeared not not have a receiver at all.
I'd need to rewatch to be sure, and I'm not sure how that squares with the the laws.
 
jeremy said:
It's worth noting that Ben Whitehouse restarted (rather than penalised) a lineout for this a few weeks ago - but that stood out precisely for being the exception rather than the norm.

I also remember hearing in (I think) the France vs England match the ref shouting at one point "Who's the receiver?".
In the moment I thought it was because there were too many players out of line - but there were a number of lineouts later in the match that they actually appeared not not have a receiver at all.
I'd need to rewatch to be sure, and I'm not sure how that squares with the the laws.
Click to expand...
Having no receiver is fine...Having more than one is not.
 
I agree that it looked like Blue 1 collapsed the maul, what confused me was the TMO clip didn’t even show the actions of Blue 1 (just Blue 2 from memory who was ok) so no wonder it didn’t get picked up 🤷‍♂️
 
Dickie E said:
I wonder if there's some truth in that. Things happen so quickly in today's game, can a referee's eyes & brain process it all accurately & quickly?
Click to expand...
isn't that the whole point of stopped clocks and To4 discussions in a calm and measured fashion?

Im not dfisagreeing with you per se, cos that is certainly the case to marginal forward passes/not, marginal offsides etc.

but when To4 are in a conflab with ground view videos etc etc that is no longer the case
 
Dickie E said:
I wonder if there's some truth in that. Things happen so quickly in today's game, can a referee's eyes & brain process it all accurately & quickly?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure they do. They are without doubt quic ker than most of us. But I do wonder if they referee to pictures in their head - they have pictures of what is legal and illegal, and use that to guide their decision making.

A lot of referees process linearly - tackler, ball carrier, jackler, other players, strictly in that order. The better ones can parallel process multiple things at the same time. Some look at a picture, tell you it's wrong, and then have to work backwards to tell you why.
 
I think that's absolutely how they work, it's the same in any profession that requires quick judgements collating lots of information. Experienced firemen can tell you when you need to leave a building and then work backwards from knowing to reasoning, for example - and they make the best calls. Not infallible, but less prone to errors than a rational thought process at speed.
 
SimonSmith said:
I'm not sure they do. They are without doubt quic ker than most of us. But I do wonder if they referee to pictures in their head - they have pictures of what is legal and illegal, and use that to guide their decision making.

A lot of referees process linearly - tackler, ball carrier, jackler, other players, strictly in that order. The better ones can parallel process multiple things at the same time. Some look at a picture, tell you it's wrong, and then have to work backwards to tell you why.
Click to expand...
yes. and its still not the case once the clock is stopped and the To4 are in a conflab. there are no split second decisions being made at that juncture.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top