Ken Catchpole (46)
Just to be absolutely clear - I did not bring this 22 call into the discussion and it was not something I am using as a reference to my original point. I am responding to it, but it's separate to my original post.
The ball crossed the plane of the 22 before he landed.
His feet and body went over the 22 when he landed.
Whether it was carried back or not wasn't the point I was making when I brought it up. We should've seen a replay, maybe the TMO saw it who knows but even from a non-refereeing perspective the viewers deserves to know the outcome too.
The viewers surely knew the outcome qwerty, by the fact the ref ruled the ball was not carried back surely. Why do you need more than that? And I haven't looked at it, and not being rude, but as I keep saying supposedly the ref is the soul arbitrator (though I say supposedly because of tMO), and I don't really think there is anything to be gained by replaying it, as gel says Peyper calls it ruck inside, so there not much point replaying it.Whether it was carried back or not wasn't the point I was making when I brought it up. We should've seen a replay, maybe the TMO saw it who knows but even from a non-refereeing perspective the viewers deserves to know the outcome too.
His feet were over the line at all times throughout the tackle process. Just so I am very clear on the definition I am using for "throughout": that means - When he lands after the jump and before the tackle, as he is grabbed by an australian player but still upright, as he is brought to the ground (i.e. is tackled), and as he is placing the ball. I.E. he has carried the ball back over the line because he has been tackled over the line.
His legs are over the 22 the whole time - therefore he is over the 22 line. Exactly the same as when a player is near the sideline and gets tackled and his foot goes into touch as he is trying to release the ball back to his halfback during the ruck (i.e. they are classed as over the line).
I don't like that occurs, but isn't that just part of the home ground advantage?If there was no TMO, the host broadcaster would have had no issue replaying that (and other decisions) because the decision had been made by the referee.
That's my issue with having a TMO. It absolutely brings the broadcaster into play and power. There's no question that they have their own feed, but they choose when and how to use that feed. Broadcasters influence that choice by what they elect to show or not show.
If that had been an Australian ruck and kick for touch, the broadcaster would have replayed it until the TMO paused the match to review every fucking angle to determine if the grass had grown 0.1 or 0.2 of a millimetre and found some obscure law to justify their own existence in the game.
At the moment, If there is no reason to review something and the referee is controlling the match, TMOs just can't help injecting themselves in where it's just not wanted and fucking up the match. They just find something so they are relevant
I can't reply to this.This doesn't matter. Likewise if you are kicking out you can have part of your plant foot outside the 22 as long as part of it is on the line.
The sideline law is different.
I am disagreeing with your understanding of the law, not what took place on the field. I completely agree that the ball carriers legs were outside the 22 and I'm saying that per the laws, that doesn't matter. When the tackle was completed his body and the ball was inside the 22. The fact that part of his body (his legs) were still outside the 22 isn't relevant.
I'm really enjoying the Munster v SA game on in the background at work. Pedantic question, if you are off your feet, can you play at the ball at all?
The Saffa player is on the ground and bats it away at roughly the 33:40 minute mark.