Is this a Penalty to the Brumbies for not releasing the player

[sandgroperrugby]

After a wonderful chase and a good tackle (gee that Robbie Fruean can move out for a big bloke) should this have been a penalty for the Brumbies? For at no stage did Fruean roll away or let go of the tackled player. Even though Adam Ashley-Cooper placed the ball on the ground so that he could then pick it up again? Don’t think this would have had a major impact on the game, just a question to see where people sit in their own law interpretation.



Some Stats of Fruean

Player Stats
Height 1.90m
Weight 104kg
Date Born 13.07.88
Province Canterbury
Provincial Caps 25 (13 Canterbury, 12 Wellington)
Provincial Debut 2007 v Auckland (Wellington)
Super Caps 17 (16 Crusaders, 1 Hurricanes)
Super Points 10 (2t)
Super Debut 2009 v Blues (Hurricanes)
Test Caps 0
Current Season Games 3
Place Of Birth Wellington
Total Crusader Games 16

[palitu]

interesting point... you are correct that he didn't release the player and AAC did put it down then knock it on...

hmm... technically yes i think it is a penalty, but i am just as happy that it wasn't given, if AAc had have tried to get up, and was hed with out the ball, would have been worth a penalty, but he picked it up almost imediatly after putting it down...

tough call either way, and the ref may not have seen it get put down...

[blueandblack]

Didn't look like a knock on to me. From my viewing the ball went backwards.

Whilst Fruean certainly didn't roll away (and along with another player was holding onto any bit of AAC they could grab), his body position (ie upside down rolled into a ball almost) makes it a bit hard to call a normal "not rolling away".

[brokendown gunfighter]

AAC didn't get to his feet before attempting to play the ball after he released it
I would have penalised the bugger

[Burgs]

Yup, I'm with Gunny.
Crusaders Penalty.

[GIGS20]

I agree, whichever way you view that, Knock on is a pretty pissweak call from the ref. It's either playing the ball off your feet (Penalty Saders) or Not releasing the tackled player (Penalty Brumbies)

Which way you jump will probably be an interpretation call on whether AAC was impeded in regaining his feet by Freuan holding onto his jersey......my call? It didn't look like he was even trying to stand up. I'd say it's a fine line, but Penalty Saders.

[palitu]

when we think of the order players are meant to do things, first is tackler release, then release the ball, surely in a pedantic world it should be penalty to AAC.

Either way im happy with the call of knock on... the ref was probably miles behind..

[Ecky]

.........speaking of pedantic, hi everyone!

To answer the question, no it was not a penalty; it was a scrum for a knock-on.

Whether it should have been a penalty is the thing, isn't it?

As palitu points out, the order of things is:
1) Tackler release and roll away (or get to his feet)
2) Ball carrier play the ball then roll away or get to his feet
3) Arriving players

1) Not complied with = 1st offence. Should have been penalised
2) Not complied with. Although this is the 2nd offence, you all know how many times the refs picks up the 2nd offence and not the first...... Should have been penalised if the 1st offence was missed
3) Not applicable, so what happens next? Oh look - he rolled it forward = knock on = scrum. That'll do.

Also as palitu points out, the ref was probably way behind because of the incidents beforehand - a breakout one way then the breakout the other way. The skilful ref will position himself to get the best angle of the tackle, which means not simply running behind the breakout runner but off to the side. This means he will be even later to physically get to the tackle area but should be able to see the offenses as they occur. Obviously the ref was not in shot (as Usain Bolt does not ref such games) so we can only speculate.

[brokendown gunfighter]

I would hate to speculate Anly

[Ecky]

Well I tried it and didn't like it, so I changed it.

Thanks heaps Gunny