The Tommy Bowe "try"

[rocky]

I though it should have been given, at least in part because of the similarity to the Joe Bearmen try for the Ospreys that was given against Ulster a few weeks ago. The man in front thought it shouldn't because he thought it was a double movement by Tommy.
Interested to know what anyone else thought.

[Neil F]

The Scottish player didn't release in the tackle. If he had released, there would have been no double movement. Ergo, it should have been a penalty try. I don't think the "try", itself, should have been given, however; Bowe was definitely guilty of a lot of movement on the ground and I'd hate to see a precedent set by which double movement laws are interpreted only if a player is moving up or down the pitch. Bowe also didn't release the ball on the ground. Thought the appropriate outcome should have been an Irish penalty try.

[darkside lightside]

I heard Brian Moore saying that apparently the law stating that you have to release the tackled player doesn't apply in-goal...

[Neil F]

I'm not exactly clear on this; is it the players or the ball (or either) that indicate being "in-goal"? You're right - you don't have to release in-goal but then a separate set of rules apply and it shouldn't have been a Scottish penalty, as, technically, Bowe was held up. I watched the game in a noisy pub so couldn't hear the referees' conversations regarding the incident but had presumed from the resulting Scottish penalty that it was deemed to have taken place "out-goal". If the incident had taken place "in-goal", then the outcome should have been a five metre scrum to Ireland.

[mid ulster maestro]

DSLS stated "I heard Brian Moore saying that apparently the law stating that you have to release the tackled player doesn't apply in-goal..."
Surely therefore the double movement shouldn't apply either.
Mum

[Samstew]

DSLS stated "I heard Brian Moore saying that apparently the law stating that you have to release the tackled player doesn't apply in-goal..."
Surely therefore the double movement shouldn't apply either.
Mum

Spot on.
Player held up in goal, no try, 5m scrum, attacking side put in.

[Neil F]

MUM; if the incident took place in-goal then by proper interpretation of the rules of the game, Bowe was held up. It's not, precisely, a double movement but you can't wriggle about, indefinitely, over the line until you get the ball down. The result, if the incident took place in-goal is a five metre scrum to Ireland, in line with the held up rules.

If the incident took place out-goal then the Scottish defender was guilty of not releasing the tackled player AND Bowe was guilty of not releasing the ball / double-movement. I think, given the IRB's directives in recent times, the defender would be penalised for not releasing first, thus not giving the attacking player the chance to appropriately place the ball. On account of this, a deliberate act of foul play (Scottish defender not releasing the tackled man) prevented a certain try. Ruling; penalty try.

The trouble with such a situation is that if the Scottish defender releases Bowe, Bowe is free to get up and score. If Bowe releases the ball, the Scottish defender can go for it as no ruck had formed. It's a bit chicken and egg but by my own interpretation of the laws and the way they've been refereed in recent times, advantage tends to lie with the attacking player.

The penalty, either way, was a bizarre decision.

[brianc]

Pretty much exactly what I thought at the time Neil . Plenty of interpretations came to mind, such as, 1. try to Ireland, 2. penalty try to Ireland, 3. held up, 5m scrum to Ireland. I honestly dont know which one would have been correct but very difficult to see how penalty to Scotland could have been correct?

Was interesting to hear touch judge asking ref to go upstairs, & ref saying he wasn't allowed. Does that suggest that in the ref's view the incident did not take place in the in-goal area??? Either way the circumstances where video can be used need to be looked at, quite silly at the moment.

[mikerob]

Was interesting to hear touch judge asking ref to go upstairs, & ref saying he wasn't allowed. Does that suggest that in the ref's view the incident did not take place in the in-goal area??? Either way the circumstances where video can be used need to be looked at, quite silly at the moment.

The TMO did rule on the Bowe grounding.

Was it not when Earls was tacked without the ball that the AR asked the ref if they could go to the TMO to rule on a penalty try and the ref said they couldn't do that? With that one, the AR said it was a penalty, but didn't want to say it was a penalty try.

[fuzzylogic]

As much as I would have liked to have seen it given,, going by the laws of the game. The officials made the correct decision.

The tackler has no obligation to release the tackled player in the in goal area.

The tackled player has the right to place the ball in any direction he likes as soon as he is tackled. Unfortunately with all the wrestling with the ball on his chest Tommy wasted his chance.

[BaggyTrousers]

Interesting one, the decision indicates it was decided that the offence was not in goal and it brings a couple of things about the tackle law into question. The tackler must release the tackled player whilst the tackled player must release the ball. Neither happened.

Assuming it was not in goal then to my mind the tacklers grip on the tackled prevented release of the ball. If in goal I too am at a loss as to how a penalty to Scotland was valid.

Said it before, hardest job on the pitch is adjudication

[Snipe Watson]

The TMO took a liberty and asked a question rather than answering the question the ref asked. The TMO question was a leading one as it suggested there was a problem and caused the referee to rethink. Whether the decision was right or wrong is a moot point as the protocol was not observed.
There are too many high profile issues with TMO errors and it should be a simple process.

[brianc]

The TMO did rule on the Bowe grounding.

Was it not when Earls was tacked without the ball that the AR asked the ref if they could go to the TMO to rule on a penalty try and the ref said they couldn't do that? With that one, the AR said it was a penalty, but didn't want to say it was a penalty try.

Yes, you are right, was obviously remembering things through the old guinness goggles

[Snipe Watson]

The TMO took a liberty and asked a question rather than answering the question the ref asked. The TMO question was a leading one as it suggested there was a problem and caused the referee to rethink. Whether the decision was right or wrong is a moot point as the protocol was not observed.
There are too many high profile issues with TMO errors and it should be a simple process.

Watch Superleague on Sky some Friday night Snipe. TMO can so back to previous play the ball - allows him to do onside/offside at kicks through, crossing, obstruction, acts of foul play. Limiting TMO to act of scoring is nuts in the modern age.

Oh aye, I agree. The protcol is complete nonsense. needs to be opened out to include anything in the last phase of play

[Neil F]

As much as I would have liked to have seen it given,, going by the laws of the game. The officials made the correct decision.

The tackler has no obligation to release the tackled player in the in goal area.

The tackled player has the right to place the ball in any direction he likes as soon as he is tackled. Unfortunately with all the wrestling with the ball on his chest Tommy wasted his chance.

Yes and no; going by the laws of the game, either their decision not to award the (a penalty) try was incorrect, or the method of restarting the game was incorrect. This is not "the officials [making] the correct decision." It's a case of the officials making the wrong decision with the "wrong" aspect being a degree of magnitude.

See my posts above; the decision was only correct, insofar as the incident didn't take place in-goal. If it took place in-goal, Bowe was held up (given the amount of wriggling around, I have no problem with it being considered that he was held up) and the game should have been restarted with a five metre scrum, with an Irish put in. If it didn't take place in goal, then for a Scotland penalty to be the called, the fact that the Scottish player didn't release the tackled player, which is basically the first thing a referee now looks for in the sequence of events in the tackle situation, has to be ignored.

No matter what way we look at this, the officials got 'something' wrong. What they got wrong, we can debate but they got something wrong and it's the latest in a very worrying trend of referees right at the top of the sport getting things wrong. This wasn't a crucial mistake but it's still a noticeable one.