Collision leads to try...
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://scarletfever.org/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=42861
Printed Date: 27 March 2026 at 4:47am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Collision leads to try...
Posted By: aber-fan
Subject: Collision leads to try...
Date Posted: 06 December 2016 at 2:04pm
|
I wonder what our resident experts thought of the incident in Ospreys v Edinburgh, where Dan Evans was waiting to field an up-and-under - the Edinburgh player following up clattered into him, and another Scot picked up the loose ball and scooted over for a try (awarded)? The ref and assistant considered that the collision was accidental with both players focusing on the ball (as far as that goes, I agree with them) - the TV commentators were incensed, claiming that as Dan had stopped moving whereas the Edinburgh player ran into him, it should have been disallowed for obstruction. What do the laws tell us about this situation? Who was right? ------------- “You cannot reason a man out of what he never reasoned himself into.” (Jonathan Swift) |
Replies:
Posted By: GPR - Rochester
Date Posted: 06 December 2016 at 2:11pm
| I am no ref but Dan was effectively tackled without the ball - penalty. If Dan had had his feet off the ground would probably been penalty & yellow card. |
Posted By: Sosban89
Date Posted: 06 December 2016 at 2:23pm
| Without knowing the laws inside out I saw no issue with it. Both challenging for the ball, eyes on the ball. No issues. |
Posted By: KID A
Date Posted: 06 December 2016 at 2:59pm
I understand that some collisions are accidental, but if you run in a line to where the ball is going to land in opposition territory, what do you think is going to happen? Incident is here: . 
|
Posted By: ScarletSpiderman
Date Posted: 06 December 2016 at 3:18pm
|
At the risk of being in the minority, I am not too sure what was wrong with that. The Edinburgh winger was positioning himself to jump up for ball, as was Dan. The winger had slightly over ran, but if he was going to jump and turn in the air so his back was towards the Ospreys line, then he was more or less in the right position. And he has as much of a right to be there as Dan did. If this had not lead to a try it would probably have been nothing other than a grumble from fans, but becasue it did lead to a try it has been blown up into a huge issue.
|
Posted By: ScarletSpiderman
Date Posted: 06 December 2016 at 3:20pm
| Also looking at it again, the Ospreys winger took a line that forced the Edinburgh lad to run around him, which would possible explain the Edinburgh lad over-running the ball. |
Posted By: scarletman
Date Posted: 06 December 2016 at 3:45pm
|
Accidental collision, both players had eyes on the ball. No offence committed. You can only penalise foul play or technical infringements, this was neither in my opinion. ------------- |
Posted By: KID A
Date Posted: 06 December 2016 at 3:53pm
What about 'accidental offside?' |
scarletman wrote:Posted By: scarletman
Date Posted: 06 December 2016 at 4:15pm
Who was the ball carrier ?? ------------- |
Posted By: 157cb
Date Posted: 06 December 2016 at 4:22pm
I agree 100% John both players had there eyes on the ball,how the hell could'nt Holley and the pundits see that,Tandy's comments laughable .
|
Posted By: KID A
Date Posted: 06 December 2016 at 5:40pm
? Not sure why it matters. The team in purple. Is accidental offside classed as foul play or a technical infringement? |
Posted By: Eastern outpost
Date Posted: 06 December 2016 at 6:32pm
|
It is good to see that in the cold light of day that the weight of support is fully behind Dudley being 100% correct. Personally, if those are the laws as they are writ, they need to be re-writ. The law in its current form has failed a common sense test. Much like the intent of the Leinster 9 to elbow, not just punch, but elbow Hadleigh in the face. That kind of thinking needs the strongest possible deterrent/sanction. The game is about what to do with the ball, not cheap shots or attempts at violence. I'd be interested in the thoughts from folk much more attuned in the laws and spirit of the game. ------------- In a world where you can be anything – Be Kind. |
Posted By: ladram
Date Posted: 06 December 2016 at 7:07pm
| had that been sanjay taken out this thread would be 20 pages long and calls for the offender to be banned. |
Posted By: Nikostratos
Date Posted: 06 December 2016 at 7:12pm
It matters because accidental offside is when the ball carrier makes contact with a team mate who is in front of them [or hands the ball to one]. No ball carrier, no accidental offside. The only offside possible there would be if a chaser was in front of the kicker and it would be a full offside, not accidental. http://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=11.6" rel="nofollow - http://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=11.6 I think all offside is technical rather than foul play [ http://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=10" rel="nofollow - http://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=10 ], unless it is seen as intentional; very grey area IMO. |
Posted By: aber-fan
Date Posted: 06 December 2016 at 7:18pm
I agree. At the time, it was pretty clear that BOTH players had their eyes on the ball - no intent. I was interested in a 'real ref's view', in case there was some law under which the Edinburgh player could have been penalised - Scarletman makes it clear that there was no offence, so the try was good. I did laugh, rather, at the ranting from the commentators - though as Ladram says, I'd have probably been pretty annoyed myself if I'd been in the stands and Sanjay took one like that. At least, TV allows us to review what happened in a somewhat cooler state of mind. ------------- “You cannot reason a man out of what he never reasoned himself into.” (Jonathan Swift) |
Posted By: Why
Date Posted: 06 December 2016 at 7:26pm
What a load of tosh we all would gave accepted it in good grace  I think it's outrageous that Dan Evans hasn't been citied for deliberately taking the Edinburgh player out of the game he was lucky it wasn't red in my view. Had it been Nige reffing it probably would have been red card Edinburgh because they were playing in red and he would have thought it was us , and a penalty try to the Ospreys with another penalty on to them the half way line to restart the game.  ------------- She asks why i still can't answer. I guess its in the blood. |
Posted By: Eastern outpost
Date Posted: 06 December 2016 at 7:47pm
|
I've an inkling Sanjay would've seen the oppo coming and jumped, or side stepped, to,avoid collision. Then he'd have swerved and side-stepped his way through what passed for Edinburgh's defence and dotted down under the posts. ------------- In a world where you can be anything – Be Kind. |
Posted By: gnasher1975
Date Posted: 07 December 2016 at 7:59am
|
A couple of things for me, daffydd Howells changed direction to run across Edinburgh players line - penalty offence if I am correct. People bang on about the fact he has run into a stationary man and overrun the ball. This being the case, Dan Eva s was in the wrong position to catch the ball anyway. Holley bleating about knowing he has his eyes on the ball but you can't just run into people is ludicrous, well his eyes are on the ball see butt. Cant believe such a fuss has been made over a try that had no bearing on the match whatsoever.
|
Posted By: GPR - Rochester
Date Posted: 07 December 2016 at 8:32am
|
The "fuss" appears to me to be a genuine discussion on an interesting topic. The fact that it had no bearing on the final result has absolutely nothing to do with it. If that was the criteria for all topics this would be a pretty lonely & dull forum. I have to say at the time I thought the ref had made a mistake. However the better informed on here have pointed me in the right direction. Hopefully Holley, Tandy & co have also been suitably corrected.
|
Posted By: gnasher1975
Date Posted: 07 December 2016 at 8:45am
| fair point, at that point in the game it could have swung momentum the other way. |
Posted By: reesytheexile
Date Posted: 07 December 2016 at 8:56am
Well I have learned something -thanks to the rule book techos for your comments 
|
Posted By: KID A
Date Posted: 07 December 2016 at 11:19am
|
In light of this, If I was a coach, I'd be coaching my players to be sticking the ball up in the air and instructing them to be "looking at the ball" while crashing in to the opposition full back. It could cause carnage if this is a legitimate tactic. |
Posted By: Sosban89
Date Posted: 07 December 2016 at 11:26am
This wouldn't technically work as almost all people receiving the ball under pressure jump, so it'd be a yellow/red card offense.
|
Posted By: Dai38
Date Posted: 07 December 2016 at 11:32am
|
I think it was a penalty, the wing knew what he was doing and did it well. If that happened in a Scarlets game, supporters would be shouting or cheering dependant what side the full back was on. ------------- Be careful when you pick up the stick.........IT MAY BE THE WRONG END!!!!!!!!!! |
Posted By: KID A
Date Posted: 07 December 2016 at 11:57am
Why would it be a yellow / red card offence just because 1 of the players jumps? |
Posted By: Sosban89
Date Posted: 07 December 2016 at 12:23pm
If Dan Evans had jumped, then the opposing player would have taken him out in the air.
|
Posted By: scarletman
Date Posted: 07 December 2016 at 1:15pm
Which would have resulted in a Penalty as his eyes were on the ball, Unless he landed on his back/shoulder then it would have been a Yellow Card... Unless he landed on his head then he would have had a Red Card and a transfer to Leicester !------------- |
Posted By: KID A
Date Posted: 07 December 2016 at 1:17pm
So through no fault of his own, the Edinburgh player's actions go from play on - to red card? And all Dan Evans has to do to get the opposition down to 14 men is jump? |
Posted By: Sosban89
Date Posted: 07 December 2016 at 1:22pm
I believe so yes. It was clumsy, but I don't think any foul was committed. Who's to say he wouldn't have caught the ball if Dan wasn't in the way?
|
Posted By: KID A
Date Posted: 07 December 2016 at 2:25pm
The ball landed about 2 metres behind him! |
Posted By: John
Date Posted: 07 December 2016 at 2:48pm
And more than a second after he collided with Dan. (Which is why Dan hadn't jumped-yet). Lets coach our wingers to do exactly this. A better way to score a try than a rolling maul...... |
Posted By: aber-fan
Date Posted: 07 December 2016 at 4:05pm
Yes - I thought so, which is why I posted the topic. Now, if the law was applied correctly (I believe it was, and accept Scarletman's verdict on that), then if people are not happy, then they should ask the legislators to consider an adjustment to the law, along the lines of: "If an accidental collision leads to a significant advantage to either team (such as a try), then play should be brought back and a scrum awarded to the team which did not gain an advantage". That would prevent any cunning 'accidental-on-purpose' collisions, but the inclusion of the word 'significant' prevents this becoming a major part of the game. Of course, such incidents are pretty rare, so my guess is the law-makers will leave well alone. (FWIW, I do not think the Edinburgh player deliberately ran into Dan - it really looked as if he had his eye on the ball the whole time.) ------------- “You cannot reason a man out of what he never reasoned himself into.” (Jonathan Swift) |
Posted By: scarletman
Date Posted: 07 December 2016 at 4:36pm
A potentially huge can of worms being unleashed here. This puts more interpretation pressure on officials in an environment where instant decisions have to be made in an ever shrinking time frame. The law for penalising "accidentally on purpose" collisions is already available for officials to manage out of the game (10.4.m) "Acts contrary to good sportsmanship. A player must not do anything that is against the spirit of good sportsmanship in the playing enclosure." ------------- |
Posted By: aber-fan
Date Posted: 07 December 2016 at 7:27pm
Fair enough - I accept that it's very difficult to judge intent. It was interesting in a recent TV programme that a former Wales player (Kingsley Jones, maybe?) said apropos an ambiguous situation - which I think was a player attempting a charge-down, catching the kicker slightly late - that he (KJ?) always knew what he was doing in those situations in his playing day - implying that so did the player concerned. The ref chose to believe that the late contact was accidental, and didn't wave a YC. On that occasion, I was with the former player - the guy could definitely have pulled out. But it's all a matter of opinion! ------------- “You cannot reason a man out of what he never reasoned himself into.” (Jonathan Swift) |