Print Page | Close Window

Offside at quick throw-in

Printed From: Scarlet Fever Llanelli Rugby Sport Wales Tickets
Category: RUGBY
Forum Name: ARE YOU BLIND REF.... OR ARE WE WRONG ???
Forum Description: Refereeing points of law questions and answers
URL: https://www.scarletfever.org/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=41686
Printed Date: 30 November 2022 at 9:46pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Offside at quick throw-in
Posted By: Abbey
Subject: Offside at quick throw-in
Date Posted: 18 October 2015 at 5:26pm
At the Australia v Scotland game, the Aussie full back caught a long Scottish kick just in front of his try line and kicked it straight back over the touch line at the opposing 10 metre line. The Scots took a quick throw in but one of the Aussie forwards carried on running towards the ball carrier and tackled him (he was on the halfway line when the kick was taken on his own try-line)

Now, listening to Nigel Owens on the ref-link at Parc y Scarlets, he often tells attackers who are offside that they cannot continue to advance just because the ball is dead.

Surely the offside line isn't re-set during a quick throw-in?




Replies:
Posted By: scarletman
Date Posted: 19 October 2015 at 9:02am
Originally posted by Abbey Abbey wrote:

At the Australia v Scotland game, the Aussie full back caught a long Scottish kick just in front of his try line and kicked it straight back over the touch line at the opposing 10 metre line. The Scots took a quick throw in but one of the Aussie forwards carried on running towards the ball carrier and tackled him (he was on the halfway line when the kick was taken on his own try-line)

Now, listening to Nigel Owens on the ref-link at Parc y Scarlets, he often tells attackers who are offside that they cannot continue to advance just because the ball is dead.

Surely the offside line isn't re-set during a quick throw-in?


Massive grey area this one .... 

Yes he was offside in front of the kicker but, the ball went dead, and the Scots decided to take the throw in option. As a line of touch has been drawn(by the Scot's option to take a quick throw in) , the Aussie is allowed to be in position to contest the lineout as if there was a set restart (i.e. keeping the gap, and not encroaching the 5m line) as there is only a receiver, and the ball has to travel at least 5m to be a valid throw in, as soon as the receiver receives the ball he is fair game.

However, a lot of Referees (myself included) follow the "first offence" option which in this case I would have awarded a penalty to Scotland for the Aussie not retreating !




-------------
Herman Tours ... Still the best way to travel !


Posted By: KID A
Date Posted: 19 October 2015 at 11:28am
Originally posted by scarletman scarletman wrote:

Originally posted by Abbey Abbey wrote:

At the Australia v Scotland game, the Aussie full back caught a long Scottish kick just in front of his try line and kicked it straight back over the touch line at the opposing 10 metre line. The Scots took a quick throw in but one of the Aussie forwards carried on running towards the ball carrier and tackled him (he was on the halfway line when the kick was taken on his own try-line)

Now, listening to Nigel Owens on the ref-link at Parc y Scarlets, he often tells attackers who are offside that they cannot continue to advance just because the ball is dead.

Surely the offside line isn't re-set during a quick throw-in?


Massive grey area this one .... 

Yes he was offside in front of the kicker but, the ball went dead, and the Scots decided to take the throw in option. As a line of touch has been drawn(by the Scot's option to take a quick throw in) , the Aussie is allowed to be in position to contest the lineout as if there was a set restart (i.e. keeping the gap, and not encroaching the 5m line) as there is only a receiver, and the ball has to travel at least 5m to be a valid throw in, as soon as the receiver receives the ball he is fair game.

However, a lot of Referees (myself included) follow the "first offence" option which in this case I would have awarded a penalty to Scotland for the Aussie not retreating !




Now for a more important question - Have you ever ran off the pitch at the end because you were busting for a Thora?


Posted By: scarletman
Date Posted: 19 October 2015 at 12:29pm
Originally posted by KID A KID A wrote:

Originally posted by scarletman scarletman wrote:

Originally posted by Abbey Abbey wrote:

At the Australia v Scotland game, the Aussie full back caught a long Scottish kick just in front of his try line and kicked it straight back over the touch line at the opposing 10 metre line. The Scots took a quick throw in but one of the Aussie forwards carried on running towards the ball carrier and tackled him (he was on the halfway line when the kick was taken on his own try-line)

Now, listening to Nigel Owens on the ref-link at Parc y Scarlets, he often tells attackers who are offside that they cannot continue to advance just because the ball is dead.

Surely the offside line isn't re-set during a quick throw-in?


Massive grey area this one .... 

Yes he was offside in front of the kicker but, the ball went dead, and the Scots decided to take the throw in option. As a line of touch has been drawn(by the Scot's option to take a quick throw in) , the Aussie is allowed to be in position to contest the lineout as if there was a set restart (i.e. keeping the gap, and not encroaching the 5m line) as there is only a receiver, and the ball has to travel at least 5m to be a valid throw in, as soon as the receiver receives the ball he is fair game.

However, a lot of Referees (myself included) follow the "first offence" option which in this case I would have awarded a penalty to Scotland for the Aussie not retreating !




Now for a more important question - Have you ever ran off the pitch at the end because you were busting for a Thora?

M6 MAYBE ! Wink


-------------
Herman Tours ... Still the best way to travel !


Posted By: Abbey
Date Posted: 19 October 2015 at 6:29pm
Originally posted by scarletman scarletman wrote:

Originally posted by Abbey Abbey wrote:

At the Australia v Scotland game, the Aussie full back caught a long Scottish kick just in front of his try line and kicked it straight back over the touch line at the opposing 10 metre line. The Scots took a quick throw in but one of the Aussie forwards carried on running towards the ball carrier and tackled him (he was on the halfway line when the kick was taken on his own try-line)

Now, listening to Nigel Owens on the ref-link at Parc y Scarlets, he often tells attackers who are offside that they cannot continue to advance just because the ball is dead.

Surely the offside line isn't re-set during a quick throw-in?


Massive grey area this one .... 

Yes he was offside in front of the kicker but, the ball went dead, and the Scots decided to take the throw in option. As a line of touch has been drawn(by the Scot's option to take a quick throw in) , the Aussie is allowed to be in position to contest the lineout as if there was a set restart (i.e. keeping the gap, and not encroaching the 5m line) as there is only a receiver, and the ball has to travel at least 5m to be a valid throw in, as soon as the receiver receives the ball he is fair game.

However, a lot of Referees (myself included) follow the "first offence" option which in this case I would have awarded a penalty to Scotland for the Aussie not retreating !




Cheers for that.

I also learned another rule on Sunday. I didn't realise that the ball merely hitting an opposing player plays him onside. He has to make an attempt to play it and not by accident.



Posted By: dr_martinov
Date Posted: 19 October 2015 at 6:50pm
Originally posted by Abbey Abbey wrote:

Originally posted by scarletman scarletman wrote:

Originally posted by Abbey Abbey wrote:

At the Australia v Scotland game, the Aussie full back caught a long Scottish kick just in front of his try line and kicked it straight back over the touch line at the opposing 10 metre line. The Scots took a quick throw in but one of the Aussie forwards carried on running towards the ball carrier and tackled him (he was on the halfway line when the kick was taken on his own try-line)

Now, listening to Nigel Owens on the ref-link at Parc y Scarlets, he often tells attackers who are offside that they cannot continue to advance just because the ball is dead.

Surely the offside line isn't re-set during a quick throw-in?


Massive grey area this one .... 

Yes he was offside in front of the kicker but, the ball went dead, and the Scots decided to take the throw in option. As a line of touch has been drawn(by the Scot's option to take a quick throw in) , the Aussie is allowed to be in position to contest the lineout as if there was a set restart (i.e. keeping the gap, and not encroaching the 5m line) as there is only a receiver, and the ball has to travel at least 5m to be a valid throw in, as soon as the receiver receives the ball he is fair game.

However, a lot of Referees (myself included) follow the "first offence" option which in this case I would have awarded a penalty to Scotland for the Aussie not retreating !




Cheers for that.

I also learned another rule on Sunday. I didn't realise that the ball merely hitting an opposing player plays him onside. He has to make an attempt to play it and not by accident.


I assume you are referring to the Australia game? The scrum half certainly does make an attempt to play it: he tries to catch it!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPzNfuPrZDs" rel="nofollow - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPzNfuPrZDs

This plays the Scotland player onside so knock-on against Scotland.


Posted By: scarlet_rob
Date Posted: 19 October 2015 at 9:07pm
Originally posted by dr_martinov dr_martinov wrote:

Originally posted by Abbey Abbey wrote:

Originally posted by scarletman scarletman wrote:

Originally posted by Abbey Abbey wrote:

At the Australia v Scotland game, the Aussie full back caught a long Scottish kick just in front of his try line and kicked it straight back over the touch line at the opposing 10 metre line. The Scots took a quick throw in but one of the Aussie forwards carried on running towards the ball carrier and tackled him (he was on the halfway line when the kick was taken on his own try-line)

Now, listening to Nigel Owens on the ref-link at Parc y Scarlets, he often tells attackers who are offside that they cannot continue to advance just because the ball is dead.

Surely the offside line isn't re-set during a quick throw-in?


Massive grey area this one .... 

Yes he was offside in front of the kicker but, the ball went dead, and the Scots decided to take the throw in option. As a line of touch has been drawn(by the Scot's option to take a quick throw in) , the Aussie is allowed to be in position to contest the lineout as if there was a set restart (i.e. keeping the gap, and not encroaching the 5m line) as there is only a receiver, and the ball has to travel at least 5m to be a valid throw in, as soon as the receiver receives the ball he is fair game.

However, a lot of Referees (myself included) follow the "first offence" option which in this case I would have awarded a penalty to Scotland for the Aussie not retreating !




Cheers for that.

I also learned another rule on Sunday. I didn't realise that the ball merely hitting an opposing player plays him onside. He has to make an attempt to play it and not by accident.


I assume you are referring to the Australia game? The scrum half certainly does make an attempt to play it: he tries to catch it!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPzNfuPrZDs" rel="nofollow - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPzNfuPrZDs

This plays the Scotland player onside so knock-on against Scotland.

The more I watch it though I can't rule out that Strauss didn't give it a knock with his shoulder.


Posted By: Abbey
Date Posted: 19 October 2015 at 11:28pm
Originally posted by dr_martinov dr_martinov wrote:

Originally posted by Abbey Abbey wrote:

Originally posted by scarletman scarletman wrote:

Originally posted by Abbey Abbey wrote:

At the Australia v Scotland game, the Aussie full back caught a long Scottish kick just in front of his try line and kicked it straight back over the touch line at the opposing 10 metre line. The Scots took a quick throw in but one of the Aussie forwards carried on running towards the ball carrier and tackled him (he was on the halfway line when the kick was taken on his own try-line)

Now, listening to Nigel Owens on the ref-link at Parc y Scarlets, he often tells attackers who are offside that they cannot continue to advance just because the ball is dead.

Surely the offside line isn't re-set during a quick throw-in?


Massive grey area this one .... 

Yes he was offside in front of the kicker but, the ball went dead, and the Scots decided to take the throw in option. As a line of touch has been drawn(by the Scot's option to take a quick throw in) , the Aussie is allowed to be in position to contest the lineout as if there was a set restart (i.e. keeping the gap, and not encroaching the 5m line) as there is only a receiver, and the ball has to travel at least 5m to be a valid throw in, as soon as the receiver receives the ball he is fair game.

However, a lot of Referees (myself included) follow the "first offence" option which in this case I would have awarded a penalty to Scotland for the Aussie not retreating !




Cheers for that.

I also learned another rule on Sunday. I didn't realise that the ball merely hitting an opposing player plays him onside. He has to make an attempt to play it and not by accident.



I assume you are referring to the Australia game? The scrum half certainly does make an attempt to play it: he tries to catch it!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPzNfuPrZDs" rel="nofollow - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPzNfuPrZDs

<span style="line-height: 1.4;">This plays the Scotland player onside so knock-on against Scotland.</span>


Yes, the Aussie game. The Times was pointing out that it was onside as the Aussie attempted to play it. I'd always assumed any contact was fair game.

So, if a player's kick accidentally hits the body of an opponent, does that not play any team-mates in front of the kicker onside?



Posted By: Abbey
Date Posted: 20 October 2015 at 8:15am
Good piece in today's Times by Owen Slot (Chief Rugby Correspondent).

He argues that if the letter of the law states that Joubert couldn't go to the TMO, he could if you use the wording of law 10.2(a) literally (yes, new to me as well).
It is the law which states that you can use the TMO for intentional offending (e.g. Mainland's "deliberate" knock-on). Logic dictates that if Welsh was penalised for a non-accidental offside, it was therefore deliberate and law 10.2(a) comes into effect. At least that's what Owen Slot's lawyer friends insist. The professional referees he's consulted say "no" which, he goes on to argue, is what is wrong with rugby as it is largely down to individual referees' interpretation. How, for instance, do you categorically judge a borderline case such as Maitland's intentions as deliberate? It's all down to the opinion (and, I suppose, professional judgement) of the referee and, if consulted, the TMO.

Perhaps we should have lawyers instead of assistant referees?



Posted By: dr_martinov
Date Posted: 20 October 2015 at 9:17am
Originally posted by Abbey Abbey wrote:

 

Yes, the Aussie game. The Times was pointing out that it was onside as the Aussie attempted to play it. I'd always assumed any contact was fair game.

So, if a player's kick accidentally hits the body of an opponent, does that not play any team-mates in front of the kicker onside?


Yes, as had I - but it does state "an attempt to play the ball". I think if the Scottish player just bashed it forward and it bounced off an Aussie head then it would have still been offside.

The kick example I believe is slightly different as it would count as a charge down.

I think the issue is this "accidental offside" refs are calling: this definitely implies there's two levels of offside and two levels of punishment, which isn't what the rules say.

But god knows. A mate and I were being very complimentary over the refereeing at this WC saying it's good that it hasn't yet been an issue or decided a game but there was always bound to be one.....


Posted By: scarletman
Date Posted: 21 October 2015 at 11:17am
11.3 Being put onside by opponents

In general play, there are three ways by which an offside player can be put onside by an action of the opposing team. These three ways do not apply to a player who is offside under the 10-Metre Law.

(a)
Runs 5 metres with ball. When an opponent carrying the ball runs 5 metres, the offside player is put onside.
(b)
Kicks or passes. When an opponent kicks or passes the ball, the offside player is put onside.
(c)
Intentionally touches ball. When an opponent intentionally touches the ball but does not catch it, the offside player is put onside.


-------------
Herman Tours ... Still the best way to travel !


Posted By: aber-fan
Date Posted: 21 October 2015 at 2:35pm
Originally posted by scarletman scarletman wrote:

11.3 Being put onside by opponents

In general play, there are three ways by which an offside player can be put onside by an action of the opposing team. These three ways do not apply to a player who is offside under the 10-Metre Law.

(a)
Runs 5 metres with ball. When an opponent carrying the ball runs 5 metres, the offside player is put onside.
(b)
Kicks or passes. When an opponent kicks or passes the ball, the offside player is put onside.
(c)
Intentionally touches ball. When an opponent intentionally touches the ball but does not catch it, the offside player is put onside.

I must say that the offside law is one of the most baffling - possibly THE most baffling - to us non-refs out there.

Can you further clarify what actions the player is permitted to take while the 'defender' is carrying out a, b or c?

Is a player offside if he CONTINUES TO ADVANCE towards the player fielding the kick ahead, without getting to within 10m?

Is a player offside if he STANDS STILL and makes no attempt to retreat - whilst being in front of the kicker form his own team?

Thanks for any help on this!


-------------
“You cannot reason a man out of what he never reasoned himself into.” (Jonathan Swift)


Posted By: aber-fan
Date Posted: 15 January 2016 at 7:24pm
Originally posted by scarletman scarletman wrote:

Originally posted by Abbey Abbey wrote:

At the Australia v Scotland game, the Aussie full back caught a long Scottish kick just in front of his try line and kicked it straight back over the touch line at the opposing 10 metre line. The Scots took a quick throw in but one of the Aussie forwards carried on running towards the ball carrier and tackled him (he was on the halfway line when the kick was taken on his own try-line)

Now, listening to Nigel Owens on the ref-link at Parc y Scarlets, he often tells attackers who are offside that they cannot continue to advance just because the ball is dead.

Surely the offside line isn't re-set during a quick throw-in?


Massive grey area this one .... 

Yes he was offside in front of the kicker but, the ball went dead, and the Scots decided to take the throw in option. As a line of touch has been drawn(by the Scot's option to take a quick throw in) , the Aussie is allowed to be in position to contest the lineout as if there was a set restart (i.e. keeping the gap, and not encroaching the 5m line) as there is only a receiver, and the ball has to travel at least 5m to be a valid throw in, as soon as the receiver receives the ball he is fair game.

However, a lot of Referees (myself included) follow the "first offence" option which in this case I would have awarded a penalty to Scotland for the Aussie not retreating !



What did you make of an incident in the recent Connacht game, when one of their players during a period of aerial ping-pong banged the ball into touch 50 yards downfield. The ball was caught by a Scarlet (DTH, maybe?) who clearly thought about taking a quick throw in, but he couldn't because a Connacht player - fully 50 yards in front of the kicker - was standing in front of him.

Would you have penalised the Connacht player for not retreating, even though the throw in was not taken? I'm pretty certain it would have been but for his presence?

(it seemed to me that Connacht regularly left a player high up the field for this purpose, though the example I mention was the most blatant.)


-------------
“You cannot reason a man out of what he never reasoned himself into.” (Jonathan Swift)


Posted By: scarletman
Date Posted: 15 January 2016 at 8:50pm
Originally posted by aber-fan aber-fan wrote:

Originally posted by scarletman scarletman wrote:

Originally posted by Abbey Abbey wrote:

At the Australia v Scotland game, the Aussie full back caught a long Scottish kick just in front of his try line and kicked it straight back over the touch line at the opposing 10 metre line. The Scots took a quick throw in but one of the Aussie forwards carried on running towards the ball carrier and tackled him (he was on the halfway line when the kick was taken on his own try-line)

Now, listening to Nigel Owens on the ref-link at Parc y Scarlets, he often tells attackers who are offside that they cannot continue to advance just because the ball is dead.

Surely the offside line isn't re-set during a quick throw-in?


Massive grey area this one .... 

Yes he was offside in front of the kicker but, the ball went dead, and the Scots decided to take the throw in option. As a line of touch has been drawn(by the Scot's option to take a quick throw in) , the Aussie is allowed to be in position to contest the lineout as if there was a set restart (i.e. keeping the gap, and not encroaching the 5m line) as there is only a receiver, and the ball has to travel at least 5m to be a valid throw in, as soon as the receiver receives the ball he is fair game.

However, a lot of Referees (myself included) follow the "first offence" option which in this case I would have awarded a penalty to Scotland for the Aussie not retreating !




What did you make of an incident in the recent Connacht game, when one of their players during a period of aerial ping-pong banged the ball into touch 50 yards downfield. The ball was caught by a Scarlet (DTH, maybe?) who clearly thought about taking a quick throw in, but he couldn't because a Connacht player - fully 50 yards in front of the kicker - was standing in front of him.

Would you have penalised the Connacht player for not retreating, even though the throw in was not taken? I'm pretty certain it would have been but for his presence?

(it seemed to me that Connacht regularly left a player high up the field for this purpose, though the example I mention was the most blatant.)


Hi Aber,

Technically as the ball has gone into touch, it is not live until it has been played, so would I have penalised him, no, Had we taken the quick throw in the I and every referee on the planet would have penalised him in a heartbeat!

-------------
Herman Tours ... Still the best way to travel !


Posted By: aber-fan
Date Posted: 16 January 2016 at 6:26pm
Originally posted by scarletman scarletman wrote:

Originally posted by aber-fan aber-fan wrote:

Originally posted by scarletman scarletman wrote:

Originally posted by Abbey Abbey wrote:

At the Australia v Scotland game, the Aussie full back caught a long Scottish kick just in front of his try line and kicked it straight back over the touch line at the opposing 10 metre line. The Scots took a quick throw in but one of the Aussie forwards carried on running towards the ball carrier and tackled him (he was on the halfway line when the kick was taken on his own try-line)

Now, listening to Nigel Owens on the ref-link at Parc y Scarlets, he often tells attackers who are offside that they cannot continue to advance just because the ball is dead.

Surely the offside line isn't re-set during a quick throw-in?


Massive grey area this one .... 

Yes he was offside in front of the kicker but, the ball went dead, and the Scots decided to take the throw in option. As a line of touch has been drawn(by the Scot's option to take a quick throw in) , the Aussie is allowed to be in position to contest the lineout as if there was a set restart (i.e. keeping the gap, and not encroaching the 5m line) as there is only a receiver, and the ball has to travel at least 5m to be a valid throw in, as soon as the receiver receives the ball he is fair game.

However, a lot of Referees (myself included) follow the "first offence" option which in this case I would have awarded a penalty to Scotland for the Aussie not retreating !




What did you make of an incident in the recent Connacht game, when one of their players during a period of aerial ping-pong banged the ball into touch 50 yards downfield. The ball was caught by a Scarlet (DTH, maybe?) who clearly thought about taking a quick throw in, but he couldn't because a Connacht player - fully 50 yards in front of the kicker - was standing in front of him.

Would you have penalised the Connacht player for not retreating, even though the throw in was not taken? I'm pretty certain it would have been but for his presence?

(it seemed to me that Connacht regularly left a player high up the field for this purpose, though the example I mention was the most blatant.)


Hi Aber,

Technically as the ball has gone into touch, it is not live until it has been played, so would I have penalised him, no, Had we taken the quick throw in the I and every referee on the planet would have penalised him in a heartbeat!

Thanks, Scarletman.

This sort of thing happens far too often, IMO - the Scarlets coaches should tell the players to take the throw in in order to win the penalty - this would allow the Scarlets to gain touch in opposition territory AND throw in.


-------------
“You cannot reason a man out of what he never reasoned himself into.” (Jonathan Swift)


Posted By: solihullscarlet
Date Posted: 16 January 2016 at 11:15pm
The problem with that is that we'd do it and the ejits we get reffing us wouldn't give it.

-------------
#UniteAndFight against the crooked Pro12


Posted By: aber-fan
Date Posted: 17 January 2016 at 1:23pm
Originally posted by solihullscarlet solihullscarlet wrote:

The problem with that is that we'd do it and the ejits we get reffing us wouldn't give it.

That's the worry, isn't it - and may be the reason DTH didn't risk it.


-------------
“You cannot reason a man out of what he never reasoned himself into.” (Jonathan Swift)


Posted By: scarletman
Date Posted: 18 January 2016 at 1:10pm
Originally posted by aber-fan aber-fan wrote:

Originally posted by scarletman scarletman wrote:

Originally posted by aber-fan aber-fan wrote:

Originally posted by scarletman scarletman wrote:

Originally posted by Abbey Abbey wrote:

At the Australia v Scotland game, the Aussie full back caught a long Scottish kick just in front of his try line and kicked it straight back over the touch line at the opposing 10 metre line. The Scots took a quick throw in but one of the Aussie forwards carried on running towards the ball carrier and tackled him (he was on the halfway line when the kick was taken on his own try-line)

Now, listening to Nigel Owens on the ref-link at Parc y Scarlets, he often tells attackers who are offside that they cannot continue to advance just because the ball is dead.

Surely the offside line isn't re-set during a quick throw-in?


Massive grey area this one .... 

Yes he was offside in front of the kicker but, the ball went dead, and the Scots decided to take the throw in option. As a line of touch has been drawn(by the Scot's option to take a quick throw in) , the Aussie is allowed to be in position to contest the lineout as if there was a set restart (i.e. keeping the gap, and not encroaching the 5m line) as there is only a receiver, and the ball has to travel at least 5m to be a valid throw in, as soon as the receiver receives the ball he is fair game.

However, a lot of Referees (myself included) follow the "first offence" option which in this case I would have awarded a penalty to Scotland for the Aussie not retreating !




What did you make of an incident in the recent Connacht game, when one of their players during a period of aerial ping-pong banged the ball into touch 50 yards downfield. The ball was caught by a Scarlet (DTH, maybe?) who clearly thought about taking a quick throw in, but he couldn't because a Connacht player - fully 50 yards in front of the kicker - was standing in front of him.

Would you have penalised the Connacht player for not retreating, even though the throw in was not taken? I'm pretty certain it would have been but for his presence?

(it seemed to me that Connacht regularly left a player high up the field for this purpose, though the example I mention was the most blatant.)


Hi Aber,

Technically as the ball has gone into touch, it is not live until it has been played, so would I have penalised him, no, Had we taken the quick throw in the I and every referee on the planet would have penalised him in a heartbeat!

Thanks, Scarletman.

This sort of thing happens far too often, IMO - the Scarlets coaches should tell the players to take the throw in in order to win the penalty - this would allow the Scarlets to gain touch in opposition territory AND throw in.

Providing the officials see it ! Wink


-------------
Herman Tours ... Still the best way to travel !



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2021 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net