Here’s a scenario we saw in Saturday’s England v Scotland match in the 2019 Six Nations. You may recall a late/no arms tackle by England’s Owen Farrell on Scotland winger, Darcy Graham – 67 minutes in as the scores [unbelievably!] stood at 31-31.
As we discuss in the video, whether you see it as a late tackle or a dangerous charge has a big implication on what happens next in terms of where you restart. We also show that what did happen next at Twickenham wasn’t quite right, and could have been a crucial decision/error by Paul Williams the referee, and his AR team of Federico Anselmi and Jerome Garces, and TMO Ben Skeen.
Law to have to hand: Law 20.1: Location of a Penalty or Free kick
What we don’t want to really get into here is the level of sanction on Farrell here. If you believe this is foul play, you could probably justify the sanction outcome of Penalty v Yellow (or even red if you really want) however you see it. This clip is about what happens next and the law implications.
If you spot any other incidents you think would make a good law talking point, then drop us a line at ref@rugbyreferee.net
Hi Keith, we never discussed if there was really any penalty at all here? Firstly in full speed it looks as if both players are committed to the play they had decided on, tackle and kick. In a slower version it looks as if both players are aware they can not get out of the situation they are in immediately after the kick takes place and by misfortune they turn towards each other rather than away from each other. Both are split second actions. Only at really slow motion does it look like a dangerous tackle has taken place, rather than both players looking to protect themselves. If we go back to the maxim that things have to be ‘clear and obvious’ in the first instant, this would appear not to be the case here. Consequently no penalty, the referee was correct to play on. One might argue this was over zealousness on the part of the TMO, not that he shouldn’t check the incident, but apply some common sense to the event. It might be argued that this is where slow motion replays are starting to spoil the game. Incidentally I wasn’t the only one to think this, we were never given the chance to discuss it.
It’s a good discussion Tony. I think you have to look at what the White player is allowed to, or should be doing in that phase of play. That, to us,would be a charge down. You just can’t charge a ball down with your arms pointing to the ground, so while the collision isn’t avoidable, the charging player has to assume responsibility for the collision. So I think it does then fall into foul play law. It didn’t appear to be a TMO-led referral – rather a pretty standard case of the TV (& therefore stadium screen) replaying it, which then led to Paul formally looking at it. Another seperate debate!!
Proposed law changes ..a stop clock sounds unnecessarily complicated..just stop the watch when scrum is awarded and restart when ball goes in.If you suggest 50-22 kick from RL then this makes sense too.Often up to 15/17 minutes wasted on resets etc.
Also consider changes to law on rucks..defenders ”empty rucks”.. often leaving 3/4 players(in possession at ruck) out of the game and 15 defenders lined up..resulting in yet another ruck and yet more boring rugby.
Let’s see what gets worked through. Long way to go in the cycle
Let’s leave that for another day, but perhaps looking at what the R&A and US has done regarding golf replays have ruled needs to be considered? If we follow that both players did make an attempt to avoid each other, but both turned the wrong way by accident, it would be difficult to have a civilised conversation in that split second to sgree which way to go. Therefore should we really be penalising unavoidable accidents? I know I may be reading too much into the issue, but perhaps such discussions should be undertaken at a higher level? Of course at our level it would be irrelevant if not seen, or in reality a judgement in real time.
Keith not wanting to be a pedent but… late tackle and dangerous tackle are both covered under law 9 .13.
Was this a late tackle? Or was it that Farrell ‘intentionally charged or obstructed a player who has just kicked the ball’. (9.25)
My take on the onfield decision is that Farrell’s perceived ‘previous’ in ‘dangerous tackle technique’ has caused the officials to look at 9.13 which refers to the tackle?
If they had deemed him to have intentionally charged or obstructed the player after the ball has been kicked then a penalty on the 15 metre line infield from where the ball landed would have given a kickable penalty as opposed to the penalty at place of offence which was 40 meters back! (Of course the ref may have given Scotland the choice and they made a poor decision? )
Isn’t the whole point of the video?
Yes but is it caused by the language we use? Late charge obstruction by Farrell referred to as a late tackle leads to reference of wrong law?
Sorry if just repeating what you said but haven’t listened to video only read the words. (Hence my present comment above)
Regardless of whether this is a late tackle or obstruction, no way could it be a PK up where the ball landed. Either a PK back where the contact occurred, or a PK up where the ball landed but 15m in.
That’s what we said…
Is this not a case that Farell has got away with this before and knows that he does get away with it so continues to do so
Hope ref of Sarries v Glasgow Warriors watches for it !!!